Exploring the Usefulness of Structural-Functional Approaches To

Home , Qualitative research, Structural functionalism

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 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

2 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.

3 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.

QUT Verified Signature

Date 26/3/15

4 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

5 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

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 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.

10 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.

11 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

12 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

13 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 structures in the Wet Tropics ...... 171

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 structures in the Wet Tropics ...... 188

Table 7.6: Summary of structural and functional scores for natural resource management planning governance in the Wet Tropics ...... 192

14 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

15 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

16 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

17 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

18 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;

19 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;

20 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.

21 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.

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

23 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.

24 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

25 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

26 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.

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

28 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.

29 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).

30 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).

31 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

32 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 Identify key themes through a Literature review in Chapter What is the analysis review of planning, policy, 3 and theoretical framework relationship structural-functionalism and in Chapter 4. between governance literature. governance system Increase understanding of structures, existing conceptualisations of functions, and NRM and approaches to evaluating planning outcomes? complex systems and policy making Develop a framework to GSA framework in Chapter Why use structural- analyse multi-scalar 4. functionalism to governance systems based on evaluate complex, the sociological theory of multi-scalar structural-functionalism, governance Contextualise NRM planning Case study context in systems? in Australia and case study Chapter 5 and some of the regions content in the GSA framework tables in Chapter 6 and 7. Unstructured Gather data to populate the Field notes, pamphlets, How can structural- conversations GSA framework and assess notices, annual reports, functionalism be Participant the governance arrangements promotional materials, etc. used to evaluate observation in case study regions. to draw on in the complex, multi- assessment of governance in scalar governance the case study regions. systems? Populated GSA framework tables in Chapter 6 and 7. Semi- Fill remaining gaps in the GSA 45 Interview transcripts (15 structured framework table, clarify interviewees who were interviews points of contention, and interviewed three times).

33 Method Used to Outputs Research Questions validate the accuracy of the Amendments to evidence, assessment’s conclusions. conclusions and initial Applied iteratively using the scores in GSA framework Delphi technique. 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).

34 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

35 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

36 ‘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.

37 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;

38  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.

39 Table 2.2: Governance Systems Analysis Framework scoring system

Indicative Description score 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

40 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

41 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 Government sector 4 sectors were able to comment on both case study regions. 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.

42 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.

43 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

44 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

45 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

46 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.

47 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. 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.

49 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

50 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).

51 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.

52 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

53 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

54 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,

55 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)

56  ‘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

57 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).

58 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

59 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,

60 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

61 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.

62 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

63 (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.

64 Table 3.1: Overview of evaluative frameworks for analysing complex governance systems

Approach Underlying Data collection Type of data Approx. time Richness of Tested Case study Scope/scale theory/ies methods collected period data/ in location/s information practice Evaluative frameworks for complex governance systems Large system action Systems Desktop analysis Qualitative Long High Yes Welsh Local- research-based thinking, Case studies Quantitative (2 years) Assembly Regional evaluation Action research Exploratory Communities (Burns, 2006) interviews First Stakeholder Program conferences Cardiff, Household surveys England Inquiry groups at different scales Multiple governance Polycentric Unclear methods Qualitative Unclear Unclear Yes (1)National Multiple framework governance Case studies Health scales of a (Hill & Hupe, 2006) Service, hierarchy England, (2) Management of schooling in England Evaluative frameworks for NRM governance systems Institutional Analysis Policy science Case studies Qualitative Unclear High Yes Multiple Multiple and Development Statistical analyses Quantitative international scales of a Framework Document analysis case studies hierarchy (Ostrom, 2005) Multiple ecological by multiple and social data researchers points Management and Sustainability Case studies Unclear Unclear Unclear No - Local- Transition Adaptive Unclear methods Regional Framework (Pahl- management Wostl et al., 2010) Social learning

65 Approach Underlying Data collection Type of data Approx. time Richness of Tested Case study Scope/scale theory/ies methods collected period data/ in location/s information practice (triple loop learning) and regime transitions Polycentric approach Polycentric Desktop analysis Qualitative Moderate High Yes (1) Bolivia, Multiple for analysing multi- governance Case studies Quantitative (2) scales of a scale governance In-depth personal Guatemala, hierarchy (Andersson & interviews (3) Peru Ostrom, 2008) Census data analysis Surveys Governance and Adaptive Standardised Qualitative Unclear Moderate Yes 26 local case Unclear Ecosystem Management questionnaires (80- Quantitative studies Management for the 85 ecological, social 8 Conservation of and economic international Biodiversity datapoints) case studies Framework Case studies (specific (Kenward et al., locations not 2011) described)

66 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).

67 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)

68 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 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ X X out principles of sustainable human and regional development Graham et al. (2003a) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ X X describe principles of good governance Thomas (2010) defines X ✓ ✓ X X X X World Bank indicators of worldwide good governance CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OECD (2004) discusses ✓ ✓ X X X X X the principles of corporate governance Barrett (2003) defines X ✓ X ✓ X X X principles for public sector governance in Australia NRM GOVERNANCE Zafrin and Rosier ✓ ✓ ✓ X X X X (2011) describe indicators of successful governance of Integrated Coastal Zone Management Lockwood et al. (2010) ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ X X outlines principles for regional NRM governance in Australia Gruber (2010) ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ X X undertook a meta- study of NRM initiatives/ programs and identifies traits of successful initiatives. ✓ Principle matches or matches in part X Principle is not considered

69 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

70 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

71 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.

72 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.

73 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

74 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

75 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

76 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);

77  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

78 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

79 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

80 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

81 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.

82 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

83 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

84 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

85 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

86 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.

87 Table 4.1: Typical descriptors of key structural characteristics of planning governance systems

Key structural Typical descriptors of structural characteristics Typical structural outputs characteristics Vision and  Are there single or multiple institutions/individuals involved in system vision and objective High level vision and objective objective setting? statements for the system that set setting  Which other institutions and individuals in the system need to be involved and what are their the scene for strategy visions and objectives for the system? development and implementation  What are the policy and legal frameworks underpinning vision and objective setting? Analysis  Is research and development linked to the operation of the system?  Strategic research programs well (research and  Are there single or multiple institutions and individuals involved and what are their research engaged across the system assessment) and assessment priorities?  Strategic link between research  Which other organisations and institutions need to be involved in research and development? programs and system monitoring  What are the policy and legal frameworks underpinning analysis? Strategy  Are there single or multiple institutions and individuals involved in strategy development and High level strategic plans that development what are their priorities? drive cohesive program  Which other organisations and individuals need to be involved? development and implementation  What are the policy and legal frameworks underpinning strategy development  A balanced mix of strategic  What is the solutions mix? Is it developed to achieve high level visions and objectives (i.e. the solutions that inform balance between regulatory, suasive, market-based, education and capacity building or implementation programs collaborative approaches)? Implementation  Are there single or multiple institutions involved in a strategic spread of implementation Strategic implementation of programs and projects and what are their priorities? programs/projects  Which other organisations and individuals need to be involved in implementation?  An appropriate solutions mix of  What are the policy and legal frameworks underpinning implementation? regulatory, voluntary, suasive and market-based arrangements Monitoring,  Are there single or multiple institutions involved in system monitoring, evaluation and review Regularized state of the system’s evaluation and and what are their monitoring/evaluation/review priorities for the system? monitoring and reporting review  Which other organisations and individuals need to be involved in monitoring and evaluation? frameworks  What are the policy and legal frameworks underpinning monitoring, evaluation and review Strategic/periodic evaluations of within the system? key parts of the system

88 Table 4.2: Typical descriptors of key functional characteristics of structures in planning governance systems

Key functional Typical descriptors of functional characteristics characteristics Participant  Understanding of system issues of relevance amongst all system participants (organisations and key individuals) decision-  The strength and genuine nature of the motivations of key participants to engage well in the governance system making  Access to relevant system information across all system participants capacity  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

89 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

90 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.

91 Table 4.3: Governance Systems Analysis Framework

Decision-making Capacity Connectivity Knowledge-Use Vision and  Do capacities exist to set higher  Are relevant stakeholders actively  Are all forms of social, Objective level aspirational or condition connected to decision-making? economic and environmental Setting targets?  Are visions and objectives aligned to information available for  Do the relevant stakeholders have higher and lower scale visions and vision and objective setting? the knowledge, financial, human objectives?  Are traditional and historical and infrastructure resources  Are collaborative frameworks for setting knowledge sets being applied? required? visions and objectives well designed?  Are appropriate decision-  Do key institutions involved have  Are there structured frameworks for support tools in place to strong corporate bargaining and negotiation over setting support scenario analysis? governance/continuous visions and objectives? improvement systems? Research and  Are there strong research and  Are there strong collaborative linkages  Are there systems in place for Assessment analysis capacities in place to between different research institutions? long-term research synthesis inform other structural  Are there effective brokerage and and knowledge retention? components of the system? communication arrangements between  Are there broad research  Are there strong environmental, research provider and end user priority setting exercises that economic, and social research and stakeholders? need to be refined? analysis capacities in the system?  Are collaborative arrangements in place  Are all forms of social, to integrate social, economic and economic and environmental physical research? information available for systems decision-making? Strategy  Do capacities exist to set clear  Are all relevant stakeholders connected  Is there social, economic and Development strategic targets? to strategy decision-making? environmental knowledge  Do the relevant stakeholders have  Are strategies aligned to visions and relating to the assessment of the knowledge, financial, human objectives? the efficacy of key strategies? and infrastructure resources  Are strategies aligned to higher/lower  Are decision support tools available to make the decisions scale strategy development available to scenario test required?  Are collaborative frameworks for setting alternative strategies?

92 Decision-making Capacity Connectivity Knowledge-Use  Do the key institutions involved objectives well designed? have strong corporate governance  Do strategies integrate an appropriate and improvement systems? solutions mix? Implementation  Are there capacities to implement a  Are there effective partnership and  Are there research efforts to broad mix of strategic solutions? integration arrangements between inform continuous  Do the implementation players policy and delivery systems? improvement in have the financial, human and  Do different components of the solution implementation? infrastructure resources to mix collaboration?  Are local and traditional implement?  Are there effective research brokerage knowledge sets informing  Do the key institutions involved arrangements to support implementation? have strong corporate governance implementation?  Are effective data sets and improvement systems? concerning implementation being managed and retained?

Monitoring,  Are there effective monitoring and  Are there integration arrangements  Are social, economic and Evaluation and evaluation capacities in the system? between objective setting and environmental outcomes from Review  Are there collective monitoring monitoring systems? the system being monitored? alliances in place?  Are evaluative and review mechanisms  Are monitoring and evaluation  Are there defined and independent linked to long-term monitoring? data being retained in the evaluation capacities in the system?  Are monitoring and reporting strategic long-term?  Are there reporting capacities to processes able to influence strategic enable high levels of processes and the allocation of accountability? resources?

93 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.

94 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.

95 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 96 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.

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

98 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.

99 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 100 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.

101 •The relationships • The skills, between education, and individuals, social knowledge of norms, beliefs and individuals values, and trust between individuals Social Human Capital Capital

Financial Physical

•The income, credit, Capital Capital •Infrastructure and savings and assets equipment such as available to offices, vehicles, support an telephones individual or institution

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

102 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.

103 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.

104 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

105 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

106 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 107 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).

108 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 109 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).

110

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

111 (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 112 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

113 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

114 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

115 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 $AU 429 million Provides funding for research into new Futures technologies and innovative practices, on farm action grants, tax offsets for conservation tillage equipment, and farm extension activities. Carbon Farming $AU 250 million Provides funding to purchase CFI credits Initiative Non-Kyoto that are not Kyoto-eligible and cannot be Carbon Fund used by liable entities under the carbon pricing mechanism. Regional Planning for $AU 43.9million Provides funding to support regional Natural Resource NRM groups to update regional NRM Management Climate plans based on climate change adaptation Change Fund and mitigation. Consists of two funding streams. Indigenous Carbon $AU 22 million Provides funding to support Indigenous Farming Fund communities to establish or participate in carbon farming projects. 116 Program Value ($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 117 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

118 (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 119 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).

120 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. 121 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

122 ‘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

123 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.

124 Table 5.2: An overview of land use and natural resource management planning in Cape York Peninsula 1989-2014

Planning Planning Emphasis Intention of the Process/Plan Outcomes Attempt Process

1 Cape York Land use To establish a stronger land use planning- Resulted in Interim Guidelines for Resource Utilisation and a checklist of Economic framework for the Cape York Peninsula in key considerations to be explored during major project assessment. Development response to a number of land use pressures- Recommended development of a regional conservation plan, regional Strategy emerging in the region in the 1980s. accessibility plan, and clearer policy and development directions for pastoral and tourism industries 1989 - Addressed the lack of planning in the region, and established a policy agenda for regional land use and conservation planning

2 Cape York To provide scientific data to inform planning- A significant number of research projects focused on the region (43) Peninsula and decision-making processes in the Cape- Establishment of a large GIS database of environmental, social and Land Use York Peninsula that until that point had been economic data Strategy lacking - Public participation enabled public input into the process (Stage One) - Land use strategy consultancy released - Addressed the lack of information available to support planning in the

Early 1990s region, building the region’s capacity to undertake a planning process.

Cape York Strategic planning to build local consensus and- The State and Australian Governments responded with a $40 million Peninsula create a framework for centralised and response package that included land purchase, protected area Land Use regional decision-making surrounding the use infrastructure and property management Strategy Land use and management of land in Cape York- The process was driven under the stewardship of a community-based (Stage Two) and NRM Peninsula (CYPLUS, 1995; Holmes, 2011a). advisory group, which led to high levels of community engagement and Identifying specific project priorities rather participation in the planning for Cape York Peninsula Late 1990s than a definitive land use plan - 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 Born out of the second stage of CYPLUS, the- Signed by the Cape York Land Council, the Peninsula Regional Council of Heads of Cape York Heads of Agreement constituted ATSIC, the Cattlemen’s Union, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Agreement consensus amongst regional stakeholders that the Wilderness Society (Hart & Whatman, 1998). the region had significant environmental,- Recognition that the State and Australian Governments had some 1996 historical and cultural features that should be responsibility in the long-term conservation of the region’s resources. protected (Holmes, 2012). - 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

125 Planning Planning Emphasis Intention of the Process/Plan Outcomes Attempt Process

3 Natural NRM Securing community agreement on clear- The plan failed to garner tripartisan support from the Commonwealth, and Heritage aspirational, resource condition, and State Governments, and communities in the Peninsula and was Trust Phase management action targets for NRM in Cape subsequently not ratified Two NRM York Peninsula. Developed by an external- Cape York did not have a regional NRM body at the time (NRM activities Plan consultancy that was subcontracted by the were coordinated by a Canberra-based Regional Liaison officer), leading to regional organisation contracted to develop highly fragmented NRM in the region. 2005 the plan. - The plan was never implemented and thus never addressed any of the region’s core issues such as land tenure resolution.

4 ‘Next NRM To establish a decision-making framework and- Process underway Generation’ community-owned NRM investment strategy- The process is focused on building the capacity of the region to undertake NRM to guide management of Cape York Peninsula’s NRM and land use planning, with a particular focus on engaging the various Planning for natural resources communities in the region regarding their aspirations for their land, Cape York community and region. Peninsula - Processes, frameworks, alliances and partnerships are evolving within the region to support the planning process. 2014 - 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 Land use To provide strategic direction for land use- Process underway Regional Plan planning in Cape York Peninsula, and balance- The process is being driven by State Government agencies external to the economic development with environmental region (based in Brisbane), however a regional advisory committee 2014 conservation, through the use of zoning consisting of key institutions in the region has provided feedback and (DSDIP, 2012). 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.

126 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

127 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

128 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).

129 Table 5.4: Types of land tenure in Cape York Peninsula

Type of Tenure Year Title Introduced Definition to Cape York Peninsula

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 1886 Crown lands reserved for Aborigines but under the Reserve 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 1984 A system of community-level land trust established in Trust Land Queensland to administer former reserves and missions

Freehold 1991 Owner has exclusive rights to the land for an indefinite Land/Aboriginal period of time. Freehold Land

Native Title 1992 Legal recognition of Traditional Ownership of land and Claim Land 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

130 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).

131 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).

132

Figure 5.3: Wet Tropics NRM region and bioregion boundaries (FNQNRM, 2004)

133 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

134 (DSDIP, 2014b). Table 5.5 describes the evolution of NRM planning in the Wet Tropics.

135 Table 5.5: An overview of land use and natural resource management planning in the Wet Tropics 1994-2014

Planning Planning Process Emphasis Intention of the Process/Outcomes Attempt Process/Plan 1 Great Barrier Reef: NRM of the To provide a systemic- A joint planning initiative funded by the State and Australian Government, and led by the Keeping it Great - A Great Barrier management framework for Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA). 25 Year Strategic Reef World the multiple users and- Involved numerous workshops and an extensive consultation period. Plan for the Great Heritage Area managers of the Great- Complementary to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, which gives GBRMPA Barrier Reef World Barrier Reef Marine Park regulatory powers in the GBR Marine Park. Heritage Area and reduce ‘competing with- Includes a number of objectives relevant to both terrestrial catchment-based activities and 1994-2019 or duplicating each other's GBR WHA oriented activities. activities’(GBRMPA, 1994, p. 4). 2 Wet Tropics NRM of the To fulfill international- Funded by the State and Australian Government, and led by the Wet Tropics Management Management Plan Wet Tropics obligations under the World Authority 1998 World Heritage Convention and- Aims ‘to ensure the protection, conservation, presentation, rehabilitation, and (Amended in Heritage Area describe prohibited and transmission to future generations, of the natural heritage values of the Area’ (Maclean & 2009) allowed activities within the Chappell, 2013) World Heritage Area and- Subsidiary to the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993. clearly articulate zoning- Identifies prohibited activities and management zones in the Wet Tropics WHA. regulations (Maclean & Chappell, 2013). 3 Sustaining the Wet NRM To guide the management of- Funded jointly by the Local , State and Australian Governments (RCRC, 2006) Tropics: A Regional natural resources in the- Involved extensive consultation with working groups, reference groups and expert panels Plan for Natural region with the intention of- Met the Australian Government’s requirements under NHT2 for regional NRM bodies to Resource ‘adding value to existing have accredited regional NRM plans (FNQNRM, 2004). Management planning and information- Drew on the work of the Natural Resource Management Board Inc (pre-FNQ NRM/Terrain 2004-2008 networks…[while] NRM) and the North Queensland Afforestation Association (NQAA) in the early 2000s on conforming to new Federal regional NRM planning (RCRC, 2006). and State Government- Sets out a clear vision and numerous objectives for NRM in the Wet Tropics region. requirements for accreditation and regional investment’(McDonald & Weston, 2004, p. 1).

136 Planning Planning Process Emphasis Intention of the Process/Outcomes Attempt Process/Plan 4 Caring for Country NRM and To articulate traditional- The first formal articulation of indigenous interests in the region’s natural resources and and Culture: The Traditional owner’s aspirations for NRM their management (RCRC & FNQNRM, 2005) Wet Tropics owners in the region and develop - a Resulted out of traditional-owner dissatisfaction with the process of engagement for Aboriginal Cultural NRM plan that considers traditional owners under the Sustaining the Wet Tropics Regional NRM Plan. and Natural Indigenous values and- Led to greater discussion among traditional owner groups regarding management Resource traditions. activities and aspirations. Management Plan - Involved significant consultation of the region’s Traditional Owner groups. 2005 - Clearly articulates visions and objectives for NRM based on Indigenous values, and aspirations.

5 Far North Land use To provide a framework to- Funded by the Queensland State Government. Queensland guide growth and- Driven by the then Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP). Regional Plan development in 5 local- The Far North Queensland Regional Coordination Committee provide the DIP with region- 2009-2031 government areas in FNQ specific and community-based guidance in the planning process (DIP, 2009). - The State Planning Regulatory Provision for the FNQ Regional Plan was repealed in 2012, removing its previous statutory power.

6 ‘Next Generation’ NRM To update and modify the- Funded by the Australian Government’s 2012 CEF Stream 1 funding. NRM Plan for the 2004 regional NRM plan to- Process is currently underway (2014). Wet Tropics make it more adaptive and- Process is drawing on the strengths of the 2004 NRM plan, while addressing the 2014 responsive to climate weaknesses of the previous approach. change. - 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.

137 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 Conserving and managing the Wet Tropics World Australia Heritage Area Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Conserving and managing the Great Barrier Reef Authority Marine Park Far North Queensland Regional Coordinating action between councils within Far Organisation of Councils 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,

138  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.

139 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).

140 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

141 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 Final rating rating (1-5) (1-5) Capacity: Capacity  Although there are numerous institutions capable of setting higher level to set higher level aspirational/ condition targets, there is currently a discord between these 2 2 targets, availability institutions leading to multiple and at times conflicting targets for the region of financial,  Despite this, the regional capacity to set higher-level visions and objectives is knowledge, human developing and improving and infrastructure  There is a high degree of connectivity between broad regional interests and resources to higher-level RDA and cross regional strategic interests. decision-makers  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 Connectivity:  The State and Federal Government are currently not actively linked to decision- Connectivity of making for NRM planning in the region. 2 2 stakeholders to  Externally driven planning and policy-making is generally poorly linked to decision-making, lower/regional levels of visioning/objective setting alignment of  Discord amongst key institutions limits the alignment of higher and lower scale visions and visions and objectives. objectives to  Collaboration frameworks are weak, despite a foundation of common interests higher and lower  There is a moderate alignment between the visions and objectives set by Cape scale visions and York NRM and DSDIP, following recent (2014) changes to the land use planning objectives, agenda. collaborative  There is high degree of alignment between local aspirations and the visions and frameworks for objectives set out by regional institutions. setting visions and  The lack of alignment between key institutions is currently preventing objectives, bargaining/negotiation frameworks from producing more effective outcomes structured  There are currently no existing frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over frameworks for setting visions and objectives for NRM. bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives

Knowledge:  There is very little baseline or current and comprehensive data sets on the social, Availability of all economic or environmental conditions of some areas of the Cape. 2 2 forms of social,  There is a bias towards biophysical data availability. economic and  Traditional knowledge is applied by institutions in the region to support environmental vision/objective setting information for  Cape York NRM currently lack sufficient scenario analysis decision-support tools vision and to support and vision/objective setting. objective setting, application of traditional and historical

142 Indicators Conclusions Initial Final rating rating (1-5) (1-5) knowledge sets, availability of decision-support tools to support scenario analysis

6.2.1.1 Decision-making capacity 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).

143 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

144 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.

6.2.1.2 Connectivity 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).

145 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,

146 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

147 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 Final rating rating (1-5) (1-5) Capacity: Research  Research and analysis capacity is growing in the region, but remains and analysis somewhat limited. 2 2 capacities, capacity  Due to poor connectivity and lack of knowledge management systems in the to inform other region Research is only able to support/ inform other structural components of structural the system in a limited way, components,  Research and analysis capacity is strongly biased towards diversified physical/environmental research, however there are signs of increasing research and proficiency in socio-political and socio-economic research and analysis analysis capacities Connectivity:  There are generally weak collaborative linkages between the various research Collaborative institutions and research institutions and end user stakeholders in the region. 2 2 linkages between  Academic research is often poorly brokered in the region due to poor different research brokerage arrangements and conflicting priorities between end users and institutions, academic researchers (e.g. projects vs. publishing). brokerage and  Information sharing between institutions in Cape York is also poor. communication  Research brokering between research providers and end user stakeholders in arrangements the region is generally poor. between research  Research on the region is biased towards biophysical data collection, and fails provider and end to integrate the social, economic, cultural and biophysical aspects of the user stakeholders, region. collaborative arrangements that integrate social, economic and physical research Knowledge: Long-  Knowledge management systems are weak and unable to effectively support term research planning activities, but they are developing and frameworks are emerging 2 2 synthesis and  CYNRM has emerging capacity to retain and synthesise information/data in knowledge the long-term retention systems,  It is unclear how other institutions will contribute data to the Cape York NRM refinement of Atlas broad research  Data availability (cultural, social, economic, and environmental) in the region priority setting is poor, and biophysical data is more available than other forms of data exercises,  The ongoing research agenda for the biophysical aspects in the region is availability of all relatively strong, forms of social,  The research agenda and data availability is weak when it comes to social, economic and economic, and cultural research. environmental

148 Indicators Conclusions Initial Final rating rating (1-5) (1-5) information for systems decision- making

6.2.2.1 Decision-making capacity 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.

6.2.2.2 Connectivity 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

149 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.

6.2.2.3 Knowledge use 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,

150 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 further discussion in the subsections below.

151 Table 6.3: Summary of conclusions regarding strategy development structures in Cape York Peninsula

Indicators Conclusions Initial Final rating rating (1-5) (1-5) Capacity: Capacity to  General strategic capacity of key institutions to set clear strategic targets set clear strategic remains chronically limited by available resources and ongoing political 2 2 targets, decision- and institutional tensions. makers’ access to  The capacity to set strategic targets for the region is growing as knowledge, financial, relationships between institutions develop. human and  Financial and human resourcing is a limitation in strategy development infrastructure for most institutions. resources, corporate  There is also a lack of long-term financial security for NRM governance and  Indigenous capacity is progressively increasing in the region, but there improvement systems remain many social and economic barriers to overcome. Connectivity:  Most of the key regional institutions and relevant stakeholder groups are Connectivity of consulted during the planning process, however the State and Federal 2.5 2.5 stakeholders to Government tend to be relatively disengaged with the regional NRM strategy-making, planning process. alignment of  Levels of stakeholder engagement in the decision-making process are strategies with visions varied across the region and objectives,  There is some alignment between higher level strategies and regional alignment of institution’s strategies in part due to the current funding arrangements strategies with  There are a limited number of collaborative frameworks to connect higher/lower scales of monitoring of key priority areas strategy development,  A wide range of suasive instruments are used in the region by design of institutions, and there is an opportunity to develop market-based collaborative instruments in the future. frameworks for setting objectives, integration of solutions mix in strategies Knowledge:  There is currently very poor knowledge/data collected to support an

Availability of social, assessment of the efficacy of key strategies in the region. 1.5 1.5 economic and  Resources and institutional support for scenario testing in the region is environmental limited knowledge relating to the assessment of the efficacy of key strategies, availability of decision support tools to scenario test alternative strategies

6.2.3.1 Decision-making capacity 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

152 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

153 funding cycles. Low levels of human and financial resources chronically limit the strategic capacity of local stakeholder groups and local government in the region.

6.2.3.2 Connectivity 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

154 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).

6.2.3.3 Knowledge use 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

155 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

Indicators Conclusions Initial Final rating rating (1-5) (1-5) Capacity: Capacity to  There is moderately high capacity to apply a broad range of tools/strategic implement a broad solutions to achieve positive outcomes in the region 2.5 2.5 mix of strategic  Education-based tools are broadly underutilised, while skills-based suasive solutions, instruments and financial support instruments are largely well used by implementers’ access numerous institutions to financial, human  Data availability on the condition of social systems and natural resources and infrastructure to support ongoing implementation of NRM in the region is poor. resources, corporate  The key institutions generally have moderately-strong corporate governance and governance and improvement systems improvement systems Connectivity:  Alliances between decision-makers and implementing institutions tend to Partnership and be based on funding rather than a shared agenda, however there is a 2 1.5 integration coalescence of regional institutions and their position on the region in arrangements higher-level policy-making discussions has recently emerged out of the between policy and current land use planning process. delivery systems, use  The collaborative culture between NRM institutions in Cape York is of collaboration in currently weak, but improving. implementation,  Research brokerage arrangements are generally poor in the region and are research brokerage poorly organised or designed to support implementation. arrangements to  Connectivity between research institutions/agendas and implementation support activities is poor implementation Knowledge: Research  Research is used inconsistently to inform continuous improvement in efforts to inform implementation across the region 2 2 continuous  Traditional knowledge is used widely across the region by institutions improvement in engaged in NRM implementation, use  Data has in the past and continues to be poorly retained in a broad regional of local and traditional context, however there is some capacity particularly in service delivery knowledge sets to institutions to develop data retention and management inform  Data management and retention are likely to improve. implementation, management and retention of data sets concerning effective implementation

156 6.2.4.1 Decision-making capacity 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

157 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.

6.2.4.2 Connectivity 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

158 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.

6.2.4.3 Knowledge use 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

159 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 further discussion in the subsections below.

Table 6.5: Summary of conclusions regarding implementation structures in Cape York Peninsula

Indicators Conclusions Initial Final rating rating (1-5) (1-5) Capacity: Monitoring  The capacity of institutions to monitor and evaluate NRM activities or and evaluation capacity, planning arrangements is low, largely because systemic monitoring, 2 2 collective monitoring evaluation and reporting mechanisms to benchmark such things do not exist alliances, evaluation within the region and a lack of sufficient resources to undertake or develop capacities in the system, such monitoring frameworks reporting capacities that  The silo mentality to managing issues in the region is a significant limitation enhance accountability 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. Connectivity:  The objective setting and monitoring systems for planning in Cape York are Integration disjointed, and Institutions are likely to continue to discuss visions and 2 2 arrangements between objectives, but struggle to move forward without greater integration of objective setting and objective setting and monitoring systems monitoring systems,  There is little connection between monitoring, strategic processes and connectivity between allocation of resources in the region at this stage. evaluative and review  The emerging Cape York NRM Atlas and Cape York NRM Regional mechanisms, and long- Investment Strategy have potential to influence strategic processes and term monitoring, allocation of resources in the region. capacity of monitoring and reporting strategic processes to influence strategic processes and the allocation of resources Knowledge: Monitoring  Monitoring of social and economic conditions is weak and unable to show of social, economic and short or long-term changes. 2 2 environmental  Environmental conditions are not well monitored outcomes from the  Despite previously poor retention of monitoring data, Cape York NRM and system, retention of Cape York Sustainable Futures are currently improving their data monitoring and management systems to retain monitoring and evaluation data over time. evaluation data in the long-term

160 6.2.5.1 Decision-making capacity 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.

161 6.2.5.2 Connectivity 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.

6.2.5.3 Knowledge use 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

162 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 Connectivity Knowledge Total capacity use (out of 15) Vision and objective 2 2 2 6 setting Research and 2 2 2 6 assessment Strategy development 2 2.5 1.5 6 Implementation 2.5 1.5 2 6 Monitoring, evaluation 2 2 2 6 and review Total 10.5 10 9.5 - Average score 2.1 2.0 1.9 6 Region’s cumulative 2.00 average score

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,

163 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.

164 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

165 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 Final Score Score (1-5) (1-5) Capacity: Capacity to set  There is significant capacity in the region to set both higher-level higher level targets, and regional aspirational/condition targets for the region, 3.5 4 availability of resources to particularly for the GBR and Wet Tropics WHAs decision-makers  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. Connectivity: Connectivity  Although all of the relevant stakeholders appear to be connected and of stakeholders to engaged in the vision and objective setting process, their level of 2.5 3 decision-making, engagement with the process through different institutions is alignment of visions and variable. objectives to higher and  There is a moderate level of alignment of visions and objectives for lower scale visions and the region across scales. objectives, collaborative  Collaborative frameworks for vision and objective setting are well frameworks for setting designed, but are currently weak, however these frameworks are visions and objectives, being further developed and strengthened as part of the new structured frameworks planning process. for bargaining and  Currently there are limited and specialised structured frameworks negotiation over setting for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives visions and objectives for the region. Frameworks explicit to NRM are expected to emerge out of the current planning process. Knowledge: Availability of  There is an abundance of research and data available for the region, all forms of social, however biophysical data is much more prevalent than social or 3 3.5 economic and economic data, preventing vision and objective setting from being as environmental informed by socio-economic factors as it is by biophysical data. information for vision and  Although there has been an increase in the use and application of objective setting, traditional and historic knowledge, there remains a significant application of traditional amount of traditional and historical knowledge that is yet to be and historical knowledge drawn on to support the planning process. sets, availability of  Although some institutions have spatial and scenario analysis tools decision-support tools to and skills, their application in NRM planning remains limited. support scenario analysis  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.

7.2.1.1 Decision-making capacity Regional participants suggest that the capacity to set visions and objectives for NRM in the Wet Tropics is particularly high, sustained by numerous

166 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.

7.2.1.2 Connectivity 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).

167 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

168 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.

7.2.1.3 Knowledge use 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.

169 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.

170 Table 7.2: Summary of conclusions regarding research and assessment structures in the Wet Tropics

Indicators Conclusions Initial Final Score Score (1-5) (1-5) Capacity: Research  The Wet Tropics has a strong research capacity and multiple public, and analysis private and government research institutions are based in the 3.5 3.5 capacities, capacity to region inform other  The connections between research institutions are somewhat structural fragmented and often based on interpersonal relationships. components,  Despite this fragmentation, the region’s research institutions are diversified research largely able to inform other structural components of the system and analysis capacities  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. Connectivity:  Despite the significant number of research institutions in the region, Collaborative linkages the linkages between them are piecemeal, variable, competitive, and 2.5 3 between different often driven by interpersonal relationships. research institutions,  Research currently being done on/in the region tends to be poorly brokerage and aligned to end-users and sometimes falls short servicing the needs communication of people on the ground. arrangements  Social data has been particularly poorly integrated with the region’s between research economic and physical research. provider and end user  Collaborative research arrangements in the region are increasing in stakeholders, strength, but are largely failing to integrate social, economic and collaborative physical research arrangements that  The silo mentality remains strong in the research sector, with few integrate social, incentives for researchers to collaborate. economic and physical research Knowledge: Long-term  There is currently no broadly used system to enable long-term research synthesis and research synthesis or knowledge retention in the Wet Tropics. 2.5 2.5 knowledge retention Several specialised data retention frameworks have been developed, systems, refinement of but have not been applied regionally for research synthesis or broad research knowledge retention. priority setting  Connectivity between research institutions in the region could be exercises, availability strengthened and greater focus on projects that incorporate social, of all forms of social, economic and environmental aspects of the region could be further economic and developed. environmental  Biophysical data availability is good, while social and economic data information for availability is limited. systems decision- making

7.2.2.1 Decision-making capacity 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

171 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

172 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).

7.2.2.2 Connectivity 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.

173 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).

7.2.2.3 Knowledge use 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

174 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 further discussion in the subsections below.

175 Table 7.3: Summary of conclusions regarding strategy development structures in the Wet Tropics

Indicators Conclusions Initial Final Score Score (1-5) (1-5) Capacity:  There is significant capacity in the region’s institutions to set strategic targets Capacity to set for the region, however institutional fragmentation limits their capacity to set 3.5 3.5 clear strategic clear strategic targets for the region collaboratively targets, decision-  Although there is a limited amount and diversity of socio-economic data and makers’ access to an abundance of biophysical data for the region, there is an adequate amount knowledge, of social, economic and environmental information to inform basic decision- financial, human making and strategy development for the region. and  Resourcing has been a significant limitation for strategy development, both in infrastructure the amount of money available, time frames for grants, the progressive resources, decrease in grant numbers, and shifting political funding priorities. corporate  Government funding is often project or outcome specific, meaning there are governance and not always enough funds available to develop and implement strategies improvement focused on regional priority areas. systems  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:  Some connectivity exists between institutions in the region, however these Connectivity of connections are fragmented and tend to be driven by convenience or mandates 2.5 2.5 stakeholders to for on-the-ground activities or reporting rather than strategic decision-making. strategy-making,  Despite consensus on the importance of the region’s resources, the alignment alignment of of strategies with visions and objectives in the region is varied and fragmented strategies with  Strategy alignment between regional institutions and local groups tend to visions and demonstrate greater alignment than the alignment between State and Federal objectives, Government strategies and priorities and regional institutions and their alignment of strategies. strategies with  Collaborative planning in the region has been limited in recent years, leading higher/lower to limited alignment of visions and objectives. scales of strategy  The solutions mix is varied on a project-by-project basis, while suasive development, instruments are the primary tool used by institutions in the region, despite integration of capacity and authority to use regulatory instruments existing in the region solutions mix in strategies Knowledge:  Data availability in the region is relatively high (particularly biophysical data), Availability of however, the information is yet to be applied to assess the efficacy of key 2.5 3 social, economic strategies in the region. and  There is capacity to scenario test strategies in the region, however the environmental application of available tools is limited in NRM. This is expected to change as knowledge a scenario-testing skills and tools are being developed as part of the current relating to the NRM planning process. assessment of the efficacy of key strategies, availability of decision support tools to scenario test alternative strategies

7.2.3.1 Decision-making capacity 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

176 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).

7.2.3.2 Connectivity 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

177 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

178 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.

7.2.3.3 Knowledge use 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.

179 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

Indicators Conclusions Initial Final Score Score (1-5) (1-5) Capacity: Capacity  There is capacity to apply a broad range of tools/strategic solutions to to implement a achieve positive outcomes in the region, however the diversity of tools 3 2.5 broad mix of used is currently limited. strategic solutions,  Market-based instruments are not widely used or well developed in the implementers’ region. access to financial,  Institutions in the region have demonstrated significant capacity to apply human and various suasive instruments. infrastructure  Resource availability for NRM implementation has become more resources, competitive and the number of grants available has decreased in recent corporate years. governance and  Past project successes indicate a high degree of capacity to develop and improvement implement strategies at the local scale in the region systems  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.

180 Indicators Conclusions Initial Final Score Score (1-5) (1-5) Connectivity:  There is a disconnect between the policy and delivery systems in the Wet Partnership and Tropics, with significant investment and engagement in the planning 2 3 integration process, but difficulty operationalising the strategies collaboratively or in arrangements an integrated way. between policy  There have been some local project successes that involved multiple and delivery solutions and institutions working collaboratively, however this is yet to systems, use of be carried out at a regional scale. collaboration in  Existing research brokerage arrangements are generally poor at implementation, supporting implementation activities, but are improving. research brokerage arrangements to support implementation Knowledge:  Generally there is limited research to inform improvement of Research efforts to implementation 1.5 2 inform continuous  Traditional and local knowledge sets are used in a limited way to inform improvement in implementation of strategies in the region. implementation,  The MERI system is currently unable to inform continuous improvement use of local and of implementation activities in the region. traditional  Due to limited monitoring of projects in the past, few data sets detailing knowledge sets to effective implementation have been retained in the region, however this inform is currently improving. implementation, management and retention of data sets concerning effective implementation

7.2.4.1 Decision-making capacity 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).

181 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

182 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.

7.2.4.2 Connectivity 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

183 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,

184 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.

7.2.4.3 Knowledge use 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

185 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

186 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

187 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

Indicators Conclusions Initial Final Score Score (1-5) (1-5) Capacity: Monitoring  Although there is capacity in the system to do monitoring and and evaluation evaluation, capacities have been traditionally limited in the system 3 2.5 capacity, collective because it has generally been inadequately funded and consequently monitoring alliances, poorly mobilised in the region. evaluation capacities  Collective monitoring alliances in the region exist, but tend to be on a in the system, project-by-project basis rather than widespread throughout the reporting capacities region. The exception to this is Reef Rescue, which has demonstrated that enhance significant success in bringing together multiple institutions to accountability 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. Connectivity:  Visions and objectives in the region are currently poorly informed by Integration monitoring data of resource management conditions/outcomes 1.5 2 arrangements following management between objective  Limited impetus to monitor the processes and outcomes in the region, setting and monitoring to inform evaluations of strategies and to inform future strategic systems, connectivity decision-making. between evaluative  MER frameworks continue to develop as institutional arrangements and review for planning evolve in the region. mechanisms, and long- term monitoring, capacity of monitoring and reporting strategic processes to influence strategic processes and the allocation of resources Knowledge:  Integration of social, environmental and economic data has been Monitoring of social, limited in monitoring/evaluation/ reporting 1.5 2 economic and  Retention of monitoring and evaluation data has and continues to be environmental generally poor in the Wet Tropics, however there is a strong impetus outcomes from the to improve monitoring in the new planning process. system, retention of  Retention of monitoring data in the region is improving at an monitoring and institutional and project level, but is yet to occur in all institutions or

188 Indicators Conclusions Initial Final Score Score (1-5) (1-5) evaluation data in the projects in the region. long-term

7.2.5.1 Decision-making capacity 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

189 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).

7.2.5.2 Connectivity 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.

7.2.5.3 Knowledge use 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

190 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

191 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- Connectivity Knowledge Total making Use (out of Capacity 15) Vision and Objective 4 3 3.5 10.5 Setting Research and 3.5 3 2.5 9 Assessment Strategy 3.5 2.5 3 9 Development Implementation 2.5 3 2 7.5 Monitoring, 2.5 2 2 6.5 Evaluation and Review Total 16 13.5 13 - Average Score 3.2 2.7 2.6 8.5 Region’s 2.83 Cumulative Average Score

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

192 capacity to deliver its desired decision-making outcomes. The results contained within this chapter and Chapter 6 will be discussed in Chapter 8.

193 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

194 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

195 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

196 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

197 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,

198 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.

199 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

200 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,

201 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

202 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-

203 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

204 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).

205 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.

206 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

207 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

208 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

209 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

210 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 subdomain 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

211 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

212 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

213 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

214 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

215 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:

216 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.

217 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).

218 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

219 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

220 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

221 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

222 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.

223 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.

224 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/4619.0.55.001Mai n+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=27 0 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.

225 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

226 http://www.balkanu.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic le&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=artic le&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.

227 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.

228 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.

229 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.

230 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.

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.

231 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

232 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.

233 Dale, A., & Bellamy, J. (1998). Regional Resource Use Planning in Rangelands: an Australian Review. Canberra: Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.

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.

234 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/

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.

235 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).

236 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.

237 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.

238 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.

239 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.

240 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.

241 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.

242 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.

243 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., & 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.

244 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.

245 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.

246 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.

247 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

248 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.

249 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 Doñana 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.

250 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.

251 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

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.

252 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.

253 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

254 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

255 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/govern ance.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., 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.

256 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.

257 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.

258 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/4619.0.55.001Mai n+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=27 0

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.

259

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/

260 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=artic le&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=artic le&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.

261 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.

262 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.

263 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.

264

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.

265 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://www.capeyorknrm.com.au/projects.html

266 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

Daily, C., Dalton, D., & Canella, A. (2003). Corporate Governance: Decades of Dialogue and Data. The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371-382.

267 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.

268 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 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.

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

269 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.

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 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.

270 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.

271

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.

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.

272 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.

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.

273 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.

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.

274 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.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1-23.

275 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

276 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

277 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.

278 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

279 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.

280 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.

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.

281 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

282

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.

283 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 Doñana Social-Ecological System in Southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 1-23.

284 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.

285 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.

286 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 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/

287 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 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.

288 Smith, S., & Hamon, R. (2012). Exploring Family Theories (3rd ed.): Oxford University Press.

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 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.

289 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 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/govern ance.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

290 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.

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.

291 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 http://www.wettropics.gov.au/management-partners

292

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. 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.

293 Chapter 10: Appendices The following appendices provide greater detail to support the content of this thesis.

294 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 Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) Vision and Capacity: Do capacities exist across the system to set higher level aspirational or condition Although there are numerous Objective Setting Capacity to set targets for the region? institutions capable of setting 2 2 higher level Regional Development Australia FNQTS set 6 key objectives and 12 key priorities in the Cape higher level aspirational/ targets, in the FNQTS Regional Roadmap (A meta-strategy for the whole of Far North Queensland) condition targets, there is availability of and covers social, economic and environmental issues (Alexander, 1998; Alexander & currently a discord between these financial, Colomy, 1990; Almond & Powell, 1966; Giddens, 1979). These strategies are not NRM institutions leading to multiple knowledge, specific, but set a higher-level aspirational vision for the region and its planning priorities and at times conflicting targets human and State and Federal Government departments are disjointed, leading to multiple and at times for the region infrastructure conflicting visions for the region. Although individually they have the capacity to set higher Despite this, the regional resources to level targets for Cape York, together they lack the capacity to identify and agree on an capacity to set higher-level decision- overarching vision or targets for the region. visions and objectives is makers  Conflict between institutions in the region has been a significant limitation on their capacity developing and improving to set higher level aspirational targets, however recent reductions in available funding, in There is a high degree of combination with the government-driven Statutory regional land use planning process (and connectivity between broad its engagement processes), have led to increased discussions between and coalescence of the regional interests and higher- region’s institutions and their vision for the future of Cape York Peninsula and the way in level RDA and cross regional which it is planned for and managed. strategic interests. Do the relevant stakeholders in the system have the knowledge, financial, human and The Queensland Government has infrastructure resources required to set visions and objectives for the region? a significant capacity to set  Access to resources in the region has historically been poor and continues to be an ongoing aspirational/condition targets, challenge for institutions in the region. however their aspirations are  All NRM funding is currently sourced from outside of the region, primarily from Queensland not always in line with the and Federal Government funds/grants/funding programs. These funds are generally interests of regional competitive, non-discretionary, specific to a project, issue or time frame, and usually not stakeholders targeted at planning activities.  Sufficient financial, and  One quarter of all NRM funding for the region is distributed through CYNRM (RDAFNQTS, infrastructure resources available 2012). The remainder is distributed to other institutions and their projects, including various to identify visions and objectives ranger groups, Balkanu, Landcare, South Cape York Catchments, various Land Trusts, Wik for Cape York Projects, and others (Chester & Driml, 2012). In 2012 84% of CYNRM’s funding was Some gaps in knowledge to delivered through partnerships/other institutions. support vision and objective  Until 2012 there was limited investment in building the capacity of institutions in Cape York setting to undertake regional planning. As part of the CEF, the Federal Government used  a Insufficient human resources

295 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) competitive tender process that enabled institutions to apply for funding to create, or review available existing plans to be more climate change ready (Chester & Driml, 2012).  Conflict amongst institutions  CYNRM was allocated approximately $952,000 towards planning for NRM in Cape York in limits their capacity to work 2012 as part of the Stream 1 funding (more than any other NRM group in Australia) together in establishing a shared (DIICCSRTE, 2012b). By June 30th 2014, any unspent money must now be returned to the vision or objectives for NRM in Federal Government. Cape York, however there are  Data availability is patchy and strongly biased towards the biophysical conditions of the signs that this is slowly region – accurate social and economic data availability and reliability is poor. improving and capacity  There is a strong divide amongst institutions in their views for the future of the region, which subsequently increasing. limits their ability to work together and agree on set goals and objectives for the future Cape There is limited regional York (SEWPaC, 2013). planning capacity in the  There are varied relationships between institutions involved in NRM in Cape York some individuals employed by relationships are particularly unstable while others are strong and collaborative. institutions in Cape York  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. Connectivity: Are relevant stakeholders actively connected to decision-making?  The State and Federal Connectivity of Planning in Cape York involves many different stakeholders with diverse perspectives, Government are currently not 2 2 stakeholders to agendas, and varied qualities of relationships with one another. actively linked to decision- decision-  Although CYNRM are the region’s NRM body, DSDIP remain the primary decision-maker for making for NRM planning in the making, planning in the region and are much more engaged in and focused on economic strategy region. alignment of development and land use planning rather than NRM planning in Cape York.  Externally driven planning and visions and The region’s communities and other stakeholders (industry groups, NGOs, government, etc.) policy-making is generally objectives to are currently being iteratively consulted by CYNRM about their visions and objectives to poorly linked to higher and contribute towards their iterative NRM planning process. lower/regional levels of lower scale Although, the State and Federal Governments are providing funding for NRM planning in the visioning/objective setting visions and CEF Stream 1 funding, they are largely disconnected from the regional NRM planning Discord amongst key institutions objectives, process, however the Queensland Government commenced a statutory planning process for limits the alignment of higher and collaborative the region external to the region. lower scale visions and frameworks for Cape York’s councils have been poorly linked to NRM planning in the past, however there are objectives. setting visions signs of improvement of this in the current processes.  Collaboration frameworks are and objectives, The capacity of communities to participate in vision/objective setting or strategy weak and despite a foundation of

296 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) structured development is varied. Many of the Indigenous communities (e.g. Aurukun, Lockhart River, common interests frameworks for Napranum) are facing significant social issues such as widespread health problems, There is a moderate alignment bargaining and substance abuse/addiction, poverty, and domestic violence, which may be prioritized over between the visions and negotiation NRM projects. However, despite the prevalent social and health problems, Indigenous ranger objectives set by CYNRM and over setting groups have become strong in some of these communities. DSDIP, following recent (2014) visions and Accessibility is a significant barrier to stakeholder participation in decision-making in Cape changes to the land use planning objectives York –the size of the region in combination with its dispersed population makes it difficult agenda. and costly to actively engage communities, industries and other interest groups in decision - There is high degree of making. alignment between local  There are more than 100 Traditional Owner clan groups located in 17 Indigenous aspirations and the visions and communities in Cape York, and Indigenous culture dictates that groups can only speak for objectives set out by regional their traditional lands (Carney, 2012; Holmes, 2011b, 2012; Winer et al., 2012). This means institutions. that the engagement process can be time consuming and it is difficult to actively engage all The lack of alignment between 100 groups in the region in the planning process. CYNRM are supporting IRGs as a means of key institutions is currently capacity building and engagement for NRM. preventing  Fire planning in the region is undertaken using a participatory process whereby bargaining/negotiation communities are engaged from the start of the process to set the visions and objectives frameworks from producing relevant to them. more effective outcomes  CYNRM are using multiple mechanisms to engage different stakeholders groups (Traditional There are currently no existing Owners, mining sector, grazing sector, communities, conservation sector and others) in frameworks for bargaining and decision-making for NRM and planning for Cape York, including surveys (paper and ipad negotiation over setting visions based), community events/meetings, workshops, round tables, photo competitions, and objectives for NRM. 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

297 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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

298 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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 Are all forms of social, economic and environmental information available for vision There is very little baseline or use: and objective setting for the region? current and comprehensive 2 2 Availability of Institutions in the region tend to rely on a select number of the region’s residents to ‘get a data sets on the social, economic all forms of feel’ for the social and economic conditions of the region (e.g. the declining viability of the or environmental conditions of social, cattle industry, landscape changes observed by Indigenous rangers, etc.), rather than relying some areas of the Cape. economic and on systematically monitored locations, or robust data.  There is a bias towards environmental There is a broad lack of data surrounding the baseline of many of the landscapes of Cape biophysical data availability. information for York, leading to uncertainty in setting objectives for their management. Uncertainty is not Traditional knowledge is vision and unusual in NRM planning. applied by institutions in the objective  There are areas with higher concentrations of environmental research and data collection region to support setting, with links to external funding/institutions (e.g. Steve Irwin Reserve), or areas that have vision/objective setting application of gained attention through WHA nomination processes or mining leases (e.g. Wenlock River). CYNRM currently lack sufficient traditional and Institutions may have greater or less access to different data sets depending on their scenario analysis decision- historical relationships with government agencies, other regional or research institutions, or support tools to support and knowledge individuals with access. However, in 2013 the Queensland Government made all of its data vision/objective setting. sets, sets publicly available through their website, increasing the accessibility of such data to

299 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) availability of inform planning in Cape York Peninsula. decision- Are traditional and historical knowledge sets being applied across the system to support tools inform vision and objective setting for the region? to support There has been significant investment in traditional knowledge in Cape York in the last scenario decade as practitioners and researchers recognised its value, particularly in tackling NRM analysis 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. Research and Capacity: Are there strong research and analysis capacities in place to inform other structural Research and analysis capacity Assessment Research and components of the system? is growing in the region, but 2 2 analysis  There is a moderately strong research capacity in FNQ with multiple short and long-term remains somewhat limited. capacities, research projects being undertaken by researchers from institutions including the CSIRO, Due to poor connectivity and capacity to RIRDC, James Cook University, University of Queensland, Charles Darwin University, lack of knowledge management inform other NAILSMA, Australian National University, and Griffith University. These groups have systems in the region research is structural demonstrated their capacity to support NRM in both the Wet Tropics and Cape York regions. only able to support/ inform components,  Several research consultancies also operate out of the Wet Tropics and are contracted by other structural components of diversified institutions to provide additional data or research support the system in a limited way, research and The connections between research institutions and other structural components in the Research and analysis capacity is analysis system involved in NRM planning vary in their quality. strongly biased towards

300 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) capacities  The Stream 2 funding program allocated $8 million to research institutions across 9 physical/environmental aggregated regional areas to support more informed and evidence-based NRM planning. research, however there are Cape York is part of the Wet Tropics Knowledge Cluster that is supported by a research signs of increasing proficiency partnership between James Cook University (leader) and the CSIRO (CYNRM, 2011; CYSF, in socio-political and socio- 2013a, 2013b; DEHP, 2012; SEWPaC, 2008a). economic research and  Knowledge management in Cape York is currently poor, however there is an emerging analysis 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). Connectivity: Are there strong collaborative linkages between different research institutions There are generally weak Collaborative engaged with the region? collaborative linkages between 2 2 linkages  Linkages between the research institutions working in the region are piecemeal and variable. the various research institutions between  Relationships are known to exist between GU and JCU, CSIRO and JCU, GU and RIRDC. and research institutions and end different  Many of the existing linkages exist because of interpersonal relationships between people user stakeholders in the region. research who are employed at research institutions, but have worked in other NRM-related Academic research is often poorly institutions, institutions in the regions previously. brokered in the region due to brokerage and Are there effective brokerage and communication arrangements between research poor brokerage arrangements communication provider and end user stakeholders in the system? and conflicting priorities arrangements There is no formal system or mechanism through which research relevant to the region can between end users and between be disseminated. academic researchers (e.g.

301 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) research  Research on the region is not always written in a way that can be easily understood by the projects vs. publishing). provider and community and may never in fact reach the community.  Information sharing between end user Research results are often only distributed to those who contributed information/time institutions in Cape York is also stakeholders, towards the research, and may be disseminated in the region through personal networks in poor. collaborative the region  Research brokering between arrangements Long time lag between research being completed and publication in academic journals, research providers and end that integrate combined with reluctance on researcher’s behalves to share or distribute research before it user stakeholders in the region social, has gone through a peer-review process or has been published, are problematic for is generally poor. economic and practitioners who would benefit from accessing information as soon as it is available so that Research on the region is biased physical it support decision-making. towards biophysical data research  The knowledge broker position was created as part of the CEF Wet Tropics Knowledge collection, and fails to integrate cluster (which Cape York Peninsula is a part of) to improve the transference of knowledge the social, economic, cultural and from research institutions to groups involved in NRM (CYI, 2007; WikProjects, 2010; Winer biophysical aspects of the region. 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. Knowledge Are there systems in place for long-term research synthesis and knowledge retention Knowledge management use: Long-term across the region? systems are weak and unable to 2 2 research  Knowledge has generally been poorly managed in Cape York. effectively support planning synthesis and CYNRM are in the process of establishing a dynamic Atlas for storing and retaining activities, but they are knowledge knowledge over time based on the Living Atlas created by the Burdekin region to support developing and frameworks retention their planning activities (the CEO of CYNRM was previously the CEO of the Burdekin Dry are emerging systems, Tropics NRM).  CYNRM has emerging capacity refinement of The purpose of the Atlas is to retain information such as the data collected during CYPLUS to retain and synthesise

302 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) broad research and current monitoring data of resource conditions, to inform future planning. The Atlas still information/data in the long- priority setting in development. term exercises, Are there broad research priority setting exercises that need to be refined?  It is unclear whether other availability of At current there has been significant discussion amongst stakeholders regarding economic, institutions will contribute data all forms of social and cultural priority areas, but very limited actual assessment or integration of such to the CYNRM Atlas social, priorities into long-term regional programs, largely due to the lack of overarching priority Data availability (cultural, social, economic and setting and negotiation mechanisms. economic, and environmental) in environmental Although the region’s institutions have identified priorities, it is difficult to garner research the region is poor, and information for investment – funding agencies tend to favour more action-oriented projects rather than biophysical data is more available systems research to support planning/implementation activities. than other forms of data decision-  There is significant research and priority setting capacity in the region, however there is a The ongoing research agenda for making problem with the connectivity between key institutions, research investment, and limited the biophysical aspects in the integration of social/economic/environmental issues/data in the research agenda. This is region is relatively strong, largely due to the poor connectivity between NRM and research institutions.  The research agenda and data Are all forms of social, economic and environmental information available for systems availability is weak when it decision-making? comes to social, economic, and  Access to data is generally very poor in Cape York cultural research.  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.

303 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) Strategy Capacity: Do capacities exist to set clear strategic targets for the region?  General strategic capacity of key Development Capacity to set There is significant tension in Cape York over the roles of different institutions. There are institutions to set clear strategic 2 2 clear strategic currently multiple institutions involved in strategizing and undertaking NRM activities targets remains chronically targets, across the region, some of which are operating within individual silos and focused on limited by available resources decision- different agendas. This is also in part caused by the lack of clarity surrounding the and ongoing political and makers’ access institutional roles and mandates in the region. institutional tensions. to knowledge, The primary NRM institutions in the region including have the capacity to set strategic The capacity to set strategic financial, targets, but tend to do so individually rather than collaboratively. Some institutions do this in targets for the region is human and an attempt to protect what they see as their role in Cape York. growing as relationships infrastructure This is also linked to funding limitations as well as the Indigenous worldview, where the between institutions develop. resources, environment and social problems are linked, which means that institutions are often tackling Financial and human corporate multiple social, environmental and economic problems, rather than having a single issue area resourcing is a limitation in governance to focus on. strategy development for most and  This leads to duplication in objectives, plans and programs. For example, CYSF (funded by institutions. improvement CYNRM) and Balkanu are both working on fire management but there is very little There is also a lack of long-term systems coordination or collaboration to set clear strategic targets for fire management across the financial security for NRM region.  Indigenous capacity is  Balkanu write Indigenous conservation plans, while CYNRM is currently working on a progressively increasing in the regional NRM plan, and CYSF undertake fire strategy planning (a region wide strategy is yet region, but there remain many to be delivered, but strategies have been developed for a limited to a handful of properties in social and economic barriers to the region) and developed the Cape York Regional Economic and Infrastructure Framework. overcome.  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

304 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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

305 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) priorities and opportunities such as welfare reform, economic development, and addressing the significant health and substance abuse problems in the region.

Connectivity: Are all relevant stakeholders connected to strategy decision-making?  Most of local level institutions Connectivity of The State and Federal Governments are generally disconnected from NRM strategy decision- and relevant stakeholder groups 2.5 2.5 stakeholders to making at the regional scale. are consulted during the planning strategy-  Most of the region’s NRM institutions engage with the region’s stakeholders and use their process, while at the regional making, comments/ideas to develop NRM strategies and direct decision-making scale it is more fragmented, with alignment of Aborigines have a clan-based culture in which representation is important – Indigenous some institutions engaged and strategies with people can only speak for the land from which their clan is from. In NRM and Cape York others disengaged with each visions and particularly this creates a unique challenge when addressing landscape-wide issues such as other. objectives, weeds, feral animals, biodiversity, or fire management. The IRGS supported by CYNRM are a The State and Federal alignment of significant positive step forward in coordinating NRM projects across landscapes with Government tend to be relatively strategies with multiple Indigenous clan estates. disengaged with the regional higher/lower  There has been contention in the region surrounding the various Indigenous communities NRM planning process. scales of and other stakeholders in the region and which institutions represent their interests in the Levels of stakeholder strategy political arena engagement in the decision- development,  There have been issues in Cape York in the past where Indigenous people have spoken for making process are varied design of land that they did not have the right to speak for. This extends to the region as whole – no across the region collaborative one group can represent the region – which is why some Indigenous public figures are There is some alignment frameworks for contentious in the region (e.g. Noel Pearson). between higher level strategies setting  CYNRM are providing funding for the mapping of the region’s Indigenous family groups and and regional institution’s objectives, the land that they speak for, to ensure the right people are being consulted about NRM strategies in part due to the integration of projects across the region. current funding arrangements solutions mix As part of this, Indigenous Reference Groups (IRGs) are being expanded beyond the areas in There are a limited number of in strategies which they were originally established for the Wild Rivers consultation, such as Coen and collaborative frameworks to Lockhart River. The IRGs provide a culturally appropriate form of representation and voice connect monitoring of key for Indigenous people in decision-making. priority areas  IRGs exist in a number of communities in Cape York, have been used to support decision - A wide range of suasive making (e.g. in Chuulangan World Heritage consultation process). Although they do not instruments are used in the capture all of the region’s population (e.g. non-indigenous stakeholders), they have region by institutions, and there demonstrated a high degree of efficacy engaging with Indigenous communities on planning is an opportunity to develop issues. market-based instruments in

306 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5)  CYSF use geographic and catchment boundaries to decided who is involved/engaged in the future. 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.

307 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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 Is there social, economic and environmental knowledge relating to the assessment of There is currently very poor use: the efficacy of key strategies in the region? knowledge/data collected to 1.5 1.5 Availability of Due to resourcing constraints and programmatic reporting requirements, monitoring data in support an assessment of the

308 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) social, Cape York tends to be largely anecdotal or numerical (X hectares of weeds managed) and efficacy of key strategies in the economic and often only relating to the biophysical condition of the resource (E.g. MERI). region. environmental There is a need for greater social and economic data to support the assessment of the efficacy Resources and institutional knowledge of key strategies in Cape York. support for scenario testing in relating to the The MERI framework does not sufficiently assess the efficacy of NRM strategies on-the- the region is limited assessment of ground. the efficacy of Are decision support tools available to scenario test alternative strategies in the key strategies, region? availability of Resource limitations can be a significant determinant of strategy choice for some institutions. decision  There is limited institutional support to undertake in-depth scenario testing. support tools to scenario test alternative strategies Implementation Capacity: Are there capacities to implement a broad mix of strategic solutions in the region?  There is moderately high Capacity to Although there is some capacity to implement a broad mix of strategies and strategic capacity to apply a broad range 2.5 2.5 implement a solutions, there is a degree of territoriality surrounding who should be leading the planning of tools/strategic solutions to broad mix of and implementation of certain activities and who should be funded to implement them. achieve positive outcomes in the strategic  There is a broad range of financial and suasive tools currently used by NRM institutions in region solutions, the region to increase community/stakeholder awareness and capacity to participate in NRM Education-based tools are implementers’ planning and implementation activities and achieve specific social and environmental broadly underutilized, while access to outcomes. skills-based suasive instruments financial,  Devolved grants and fee-for-service payments are used widely by institutions in the region to and financial support instruments human and support stakeholders undertake NRM activities and build their capacity to participate in are largely well used by infrastructure NRM. numerous institutions resources,  The training/skills focused suasive tools have been applied both by single institutions and Data availability on the corporate more collaboratively in the region. E.g. CYNRM, CYSF, and Balkanu coordinating to organise a condition of social systems and governance feral pig/turtle workshop on the West coast, and a fire workshop for traditional owners, natural resources to support and landholders, land managers and scientists in the region. ongoing implementation of NRM improvement  All of the NRM institutions in the region provide stakeholders with various training in the region is poor. systems opportunities in weed management, crocodile and feral pig trapping, and technology (e.g. the The key institutions generally iTracker) training to better enable them to implement NRM projects. have moderately-strong  The region’s NRM institutions regularly attend and/or organise various community events to corporate governance and increase community awareness of NRM issues (e.g. Clean up Australia Day, Laura Dance improvement systems Festival, rotary field days, etc.).

309 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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

310 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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: Are there effective partnership and integration arrangements between policy and Alliances between decision- Partnership delivery systems in the region? makers and implementing 2 1.5 and integration Changes to funding arrangements or quantities influence the shape and quality of institutions tend to be based on arrangements relationships between some institutions as money is redistributed in different ways, funding rather than a shared between policy reducing the need for ‘middlemen’. agenda, however there is a

311 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) and delivery Coordinated action between institutions engaging in NRM is currently limited. This is coalescence of regional systems, use of partially because some institutions do not want to concede the power (i.e. funding) they institutions and their position on collaboration currently have and thus continue to work within their silo. the region in higher-level in  CYNRM, Balkanu and CYSF have and continue to build collaborative relationships with policy-making discussions has implementatio communities in the region through the planning and implementation of NRM projects. E.g. recently emerged out of the n, research fire management workshops and fire management regimes – engaging with Indigenous current land use planning brokerage communities. process. arrangements Do different components of the solution mix collaboration?  The collaborative culture to support Collaboration between institutions, and stakeholders can occur at different scales and stages between NRM institutions in implementatio of the project’s completion (e.g. CYNRM might provide funding, CYSF might manage Cape York is currently weak, but n implementation and monitoring, ranger groups may do on-the-ground implementation and improving. monitoring work).  Research brokerage  Interpersonal relationships are a significant driver of collaboration between some arrangements are generally poor institutions, or communities involved in implementing NRM projects. in the region and are poorly  CYNRM and CYSF have collaborated in a limited capacity on various projects in recent years, organised or designed to support particularly fire and feral pig management (traditionally it has been a purchaser-provider implementation. relationship).  Connectivity between research  Funding limitations have led to some institutions being economically forced to collaborate institutions/agendas and with other institutions doing NRM to ensure their ongoing access to funding and thus implementation activities is poor 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. Knowledge Are there research efforts to inform continuous improvement in implementation Research is used inconsistently use: Research across the region? to inform continuous 2 2 efforts to There are some attempts in the region to connect research efforts with improving improvement in inform implementation of NRM activities/strategies in the region, however region-wide it is patchy implementation across the

312 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) continuous at best. region improvement  Funded by CYNRM, CYSF use research and long-term monitoring data of fire management in Traditional knowledge is used in the region to support their fire management in the region. widely across the region by implementatio Are local and traditional knowledge sets informing implementation in the region? institutions engaged in NRM n, use of local Indigenous communities are increasingly being involved in planning for and implementing Data has in the past and and traditional NRM activities. This has increased the influence and use of traditional knowledge on NRM continues to be poorly retained knowledge sets practices. However, communities are wary of being used and sharing their knowledge in a broad regional context, to inform without gaining any benefit from their participation. however there is some capacity implementatio Traditional knowledge is used to support the implementation of NRM projects by most (if not particularly in service delivery n, management all) institutions in the region (Balkanu, 2013; CYI, 2013; CYNRM, 2013a; CYSF, 2010). institutions to develop data and retention CYNRM, Balkanu and CYSF draw on traditional knowledge to inform their NRM projects – retention and management of data sets knowledge on fire management, land management, feral pig and weed management, weather Data management and concerning patterns, endemic flora and fauna interactions (Balkanu, 2010b; CYNRM, 2013b; CYSF, 2012, retention are likely to improve. effective 2013a, 2013c). implementatio Indigenous ranger groups are frequently involved in on-the-ground implementation and n 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. Monitoring, Capacity: Are there effective monitoring and evaluation capacities in the system?  The capacity of institutions to Evaluation and Monitoring and The broad governance and institutional arrangements for NRM planning are currently not monitor and evaluate NRM 2 2 Review evaluation monitored or evaluated in Cape York, due in part to a lack of resourcing. activities or planning capacity,  There has been very little strategic monitoring of priority social, environmental, economic arrangements is low, largely collective and cultural indicators in the region because of a lack of mandate, resources and because systemic monitoring,

313 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) monitoring fragmentation of regional approaches to planning and implementation of NRM projects. evaluation and reporting alliances,  NRM planning has largely been unsuccessful in the region in the past, because of this CYNRM mechanisms to benchmark such evaluation are monitoring their NRM processes and activities as they occur to be efficient with things do not exist within the capacities in resources and to ensure that their strategies and activities are flexible to the needs and region and a lack of sufficient the system, wants of the region’s communities and stakeholders. resources to undertake or reporting  No mechanism exists for the key institutions to monitor or evaluate the planning governance develop such monitoring capacities that systems in Cape York. frameworks enhance  Individual institutions currently undertake a degree of monitoring of their NRM projects and The silo mentality to managing accountability on-ground activities (SOE and MERI), however such frameworks tend to focus on outputs issues in the region is a (e.g.number of trees planted) rather than outcomes (e.g. improved ecosystem connectivity significant limitation to the and community awareness) and generally do not extrapolate whether the actions actually region’s institutional capacity to made a difference to the issue being addressed (this is also difficult due to a broad lack of effectively monitor and evaluate baseline data for resources in the region).. planning processes and  CYNRM monitor and evaluate their organizational governance arrangements using Vogel’s outcomes. Performance Excellence framework (Balkanu, 2010b; CYNRM, 2013b; CYSF, 2012, 2013a , Collective monitoring alliances 2013c). are piecemeal and fragmented. Are there collective monitoring alliances in place?  Evaluation capacity in the Cape  CYRNM currently funds CYSF to manage the Queensland component of the North Australian York Peninsula is neither Fire Information website (NAFI) that monitors the locations of current and recent fires, defined nor independent history of fire locations, lightning strike locations, etc. based on data drawn from satellite Reporting capacity is low due to data. Although it is hosted by Charles Darwin University, institutions and communities across low levels of monitoring data or northern Australia use this information to inform fire land management practices. frameworks.  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

314 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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. Connectivity: Are there integration arrangements between objective setting and monitoring systems The objective setting and Integration for the region? monitoring systems for 2 2 arrangements Objectives are currently poorly informed by monitoring data of resource management planning in Cape York are between conditions/outcomes following management disjointed, and Institutions are objective  Research institutions are currently poorly engaged in the process of linking objective setting likely to continue to discuss setting and with monitoring systems, despite capacity existing. visions and objectives, but monitoring Are evaluative and review mechanisms linked to long-term monitoring of processes struggle to move forward systems, and outcomes in the region? without greater integration of connectivity  There is an emerging push towards long-term monitoring and data retention of project objective setting and monitoring between outcomes in the region, however this is yet to carry over to broader monitoring of the systems evaluative and planning system  There is little connection review  Evaluation and review mechanisms for the systems as a whole are poorly developed and only between monitoring, strategic mechanisms, somewhat linked to long-term monitoring frameworks. processes and allocation of and long-term Are monitoring and reporting strategic processes able to influence strategic processes resources in the region at this monitoring, and the allocation of resources in the region? stage. capacity of Monitoring of NRM planning and activities in the region has generally been poor, and there The emerging CYNRM Atlas and monitoring and has been little data on which to base further strategic decisions or resource allocation in the CYNRM Regional Investment reporting region. Strategy have potential to strategic  In the past, funding has been a significant driver of the types of NRM activities (it is often influence strategic processes processes to provided for a specific action/issue) rather than activities being driven by local/regional and allocation of resources in influence priorities and funding sought to support such priorities. However, CYNRM’s recently the region. strategic developed Regional Investment Strategy and the data that will be stored in the CYNRM Atlas processes and will provide them with a greater platform on which to advocate for resources based on the allocation regional aspirations and priorities. of resources Knowledge Are social, economic and environmental outcomes from the system being monitored? Monitoring of social and use:  Environmental outcomes in the systems are generally not monitored, in part due to lack of economic conditions is weak 2 2

315 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) Monitoring of appropriate resources (particularly money and time), however there is also a broad lack of and unable to show short or long- social, monitoring infrastructure for the region. For example, although the region contains several term changes. economic and internationally recognised waterways, there is only one water quality monitoring station in Environmental conditions are environmental the region located on the Normanby River. not well monitored outcomes from Basic social and economic conditions are benchmarked in the Australian census every  5 Despite previously poor retention the system, years. of monitoring data, CYNRM and retention of Integration of social and economic data has been limited in monitoring/evaluation/ CYSF are currently improving monitoring and reporting their data management systems evaluation data The environmental outcomes of the system are regularly reported through the Australian to retain monitoring and in the long- Government’s MERI framework as part of institutional requirements/responsibilities under evaluation data over time. term 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. Total 30.5 30

316 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) Average Score 2.04 2.00

317 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 Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) Vision and Capacity: Do capacities exist across the system to set higher level aspirational or condition There is significant capacity in Objective Capacity to set targets for the region? the region to set both higher- 3.5 4 Setting higher level There is a strong institutional capacity for vision and objective setting for NRM in the Wet level and regional targets, Tropics, this is demonstrated by past and current NRM and WHA management planning aspirational/condition targets availability of processes, addressing invasive species –weeds and feral animals (particularly in local for the region, particularly for the resources to government, WTMA, and Terrain NRM), and region-wide biodiversity and conservation GBR and Wet Tropics WHAs decision-makers projects.  Although in the past funding has  The GBRMPA represent the Federal Government’s interests in managing the GBR, while been a limitation to NRM WTMA represent both the Federal and Queensland Government’s interests in managing the planning for the region, the CEF Wet Tropics WHA. Stream 1 funding has provided  The WTMA and GBRMPA’s vision and objective setting for the region are not entirely ample funding to support the limited to the WHA that they have jurisdiction over, however their on-ground management current NRM planning process activities largely occur within the WHAs. in the Wet Tropics  The Queensland Government articulate their vision and set broad high level  Institutions in the region have aspirational/condition targets for the region and its natural resources in the Far North sufficient human and Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, however the goals contained within the plan are infrastructure resources relatively vague and difficult to measure success against (CYSF, 2013a, 2013c). Moreover, available to support vision and the Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 lost its statutory power in 2012 when objective setting. the relevant State Planning Regulatory Provision was repealed.  There is significant  Regional Development Australia FNQTS set 6 key objectives and 12 key priorities in the knowledge/data available to Wet Tropics support vision and objective  in the FNQTS Regional Roadmap (A meta-strategy for the whole of Far North Queensland) setting in the region, however and covers social, economic and environmental issues (DIP, 2009). These strategies are not available data is strongly biased NRM specific, but set a higher-level aspirational vision for the region and its planning towards the biophysical priorities. conditions of the region. Do the relevant stakeholders in the system have the knowledge, financial, human There is an emerging capacity to and infrastructure resources required to set visions and objectives for the region? reduce the data bias through the  All regional NRM funding is currently sourced from outside of the region, primarily from CEF Stream 2 funding and Queensland and Federal Government funds/grants/funding programs. These funds are knowledge broker position. generally competitive and specific to a project, issue or time frame, and usually not

318 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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: Are relevant stakeholders actively connected to decision-making?  Although all of the relevant

Connectivity of The State and Federal Governments are generally not connected to strategy decision- stakeholders appear to be 2.5 3 stakeholders to making at the regional scale, and the responsibility has been ceded from the State to the connected and engaged in the decision-making, regional body. vision and objective setting alignment of Terrain NRM consult with various indigenous, industry, stakeholder and community process, their level of engagement visions and groups in their planning process to varying degrees. Institutions that are interested in with the process through objectives to being involved generally are engaged, while those that are not interested tend to not be different institutions is variable. higher and lower involved in the planning process.  There is moderate level of scale visions and WTMA and GBRMPA are involved in vision and objective setting for the WHAs. WTMA have alignment of visions and

319 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) objectives, been somewhat engaged in vision and objective setting for the new NRM plan, while objectives for the region across collaborative GBRMPA have been less engaged in the process. scales. frameworks for FNQROC provides a means through which local government can participate in the NRM  Collaborative frameworks for setting visions agenda setting and strategy development. There is a strong emphasis on partnerships and vision and objective setting are and objectives, building cross-institutional relationships to encourage and support collaboration on well designed, but are structured regional issues. currently weak, however these frameworks for There is a degree of consultation fatigue amongst traditional owners in the region, leading frameworks are being further bargaining and to less inclination towards participating in decision-making for the new planning process. developed and strengthened as negotiation over Rather, indigenous groups have argued that they would like to see how well they have part of the new planning process. setting visions achieved the visions and objectives of the 2004 plan before revising it or creating a new  Currently there are limited and and objectives NRM plan. specialised structured  Community groups have become wary of consultation and being engaged in vision and frameworks for bargaining and objective setting following years of being consulted and included in government processes, negotiation over setting visions without seeing sufficient outcomes for the efforts expended. and objectives for the region.  Although some service-delivery and government institutions may be interested in being Frameworks explicit to NRM are involved or consulted on vision and objective setting, they may not be actively engaged in expected to emerge out of the the decision-making process.. Catchment groups have not always been actively connected current planning process. 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?

320 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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: Are all forms of social, economic and environmental information available for vision There is an abundance of Availability of all and objective setting for the region? research and data available for 3 3.5 forms of social, There are significant biophysical data for the Wet Tropics that describes, benchmarks and the region, however biophysical economic and monitors the condition and ecosystem functionality of the region’s natural resources. data is much more prevalent environmental  The availability and diversity of social and economic data for the Wet Tropics tends to be than social or economic data, information for weak and is only capable of supporting vision and objective setting in the region in a preventing vision and objective vision and perfunctory way. setting from being as informed by objective setting, Although research on the region is relatively abundant compared with other NRM regions socio-economic factors as it is by application of due to the numerous research institutions based there, the research is not always well biophysical data. traditional and aligned to end-users and may not answer appropriate questions to make the research  Although there has been an historical relevant to regional institutions. increase in the use and

321 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) knowledge sets, Although social, economic, and environmental information for the region is available (from application of traditional and availability of sources such as Advance Cairns, RDA, and research institutions), it is not always used to historic knowledge, there decision-support inform NRM decision-making, because decision-makers may be unaware of the information remains a significant amount of tools to support or unable to access it. traditional and historical scenario analysis Are traditional and historical knowledge sets being applied across the system to knowledge that is yet to be inform vision and objective setting for the region? drawn on to support the  There has been significant investment in traditional knowledge in the Wet Tropics in the planning process. last decade as practitioners recognised its value, particularly in tackling NRM problems,  Although some institutions however application of traditional knowledge remains limited. have spatial and scenario  In 2002 the region’s traditional owners voiced their dissatisfaction with the indigenous analysis tools and skills, their engagement in the NRM planning process for the region under NHT1 and in partnership application in NRM planning created the Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan 2005 remains limited. which was based on traditional owner aspirations and values (DIICCSRTE, 2012a). Because There is emerging capacity to of the indigenous plan, traditional knowledge was not used significantly in the 2004 NRM do scenario analysis for the plan. planning process as a scenario  The Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan 2005 exists analysis tool is currently being congruent to Sustaining the Wet Tropics: A Regional Plan for Natural Resource developed collaboratively in the Management 2004-2008, and recognises indigenous interests and visions for the region’s region. 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

322 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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. Research and Capacity: Are there strong research and analysis capacities in place to inform other structural The Wet Tropics has a strong Assessment Research and components of the system? research capacity and multiple 3.5 3.5 analysis  There is a strong research capacity in FNQ with multiple research institutions and public, private and government capacities, coordinators based in and out of the region undertaking short and long-term research research institutions are based in capacity to projects, including the CSIRO, RIRDC, James Cook University, University of Queensland, the region inform other Charles Darwin University, Griffith University, Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, and  The region’s research structural the NERP Tropical Ecosystems Hub. institutions are largely able to components,  Several research consultancies also operate out of the Wet Tropics and are contracted by inform other structural diversified institutions to provide additional data or research support –e.g. Bill Cummings, Dermot components of the system research and Smyth  The environmental research analysis  The Wet Tropics NRM region is part of the Wet Tropics Cluster that is supported by a and analysis capacity of the capacities research partnership between James Cook University (leader) and the CSIRO (Pert, 2013). system is particularly strong  There is emerging capacity for research and analysis for planning in the region through the with many research institutions Wet Tropics Cluster knowledge broker (JCU). almost entirely focused on  Some of the region’s management institutions also undertake research themselves, studying and monitoring the including WTMA and GBRMPA. biophysical conditions of the Are there strong environmental, economic, and social research and analysis region capacities in the system?  The social and economic  Researchers are exploring multiple aspects of the Wet Tropics – scientific/environment research capacity is (JCU, UQ, GU, CSIRO, CDU, MTSRF, NERP, RRRC), social resilience (GU, JCU), and developing, but remains less governance/planning (RIRDC, GU, JCU). developed than  The region has a particularly strong environmental research and analysis capacity due to environmental/biophysical

323 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) the location and diversity of research institutions located in the region. research capacity 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). Connectivity: Are there strong collaborative linkages between different research institutions Despite the significant number of Collaborative engaged with the region? research institutions in the 2.5 3 linkages between Collaborative linkages are varied between research institutions, with relationships more region, the linkages between different research prevalent between researchers working in the region, compared with those based outside them are piecemeal, variable, institutions, of the region. competitive, and often driven brokerage and Many of the region’s experts wear several hats and may work/associate with several by interpersonal relationships. communication institutions, leading to numerous informal and formal connections between research  Research currently being done arrangements institutions and other organisations in the region on/in the region tends to be between research Many of the existing linkages exist because of interpersonal relationships between people poorly aligned to end-users and provider and end who are employed at research institutions, but have worked in other NRM-related sometimes falls short servicing user institutions in the regions previously. the needs of people on the stakeholders,  Strong relationships are known to exist between QUT and JCU, GU and CSIRO, CSIRO and ground. collaborative JCU, QUT and RIRDC.  Social data has been arrangements  The National Environmental Research Program – Tropical Ecosystems Hub is based in the particularly poorly integrated that integrate Wet Tropics. with the region’s economic and social, economic There are few incentives for researchers to collaborate at current, and subsequently physical research. and physical interpersonal relationships between researchers across institutions tend to result in more Collaborative research research collaborative research projects, than institutional relationships deliver. arrangements in the region are

Are there effective brokerage and communication arrangements between research increasing in strength, but are

provider and end user stakeholders in the system? largely failing to integrate

 There is no formal system or mechanism through which research on the region can be social, economic and physical

324 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) disseminated to end-users. research  Research results are often only distributed to those who contributed information/time  The silo mentality remains strong towards the research, and may be disseminated in the region through personal networks in in the research sector, with few the region incentives for researchers to  There are several applied researchers in the region who have particularly strong collaborate. 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. Knowledge use: Are there systems in place for long-term research synthesis and knowledge There is currently no broadly 2.5 2.5 Long-term retention across the region? used system to enable long- research  Terrain NRM and Landcare/catchment groups in the Wet Tropics have generally been poor term research synthesis or synthesis and at retaining or synthesizing knowledge over time. There is currently no framework, data knowledge management system or mechanism/s through which research or data can be retained or knowledge retention in the Wet retention distributed across the region. WTMA, GBRMPA and CSIRO have all introduced long-term Tropics. Several specialised data systems, monitoring and data retention programs for specific areas or projects. retention frameworks have refinement of  Individual institutions vary in their retention of knowledge and synthesis capacity been developed, but have not broad research  Research institutions and NRM institutions tend to be poorly linked, but could provide been applied regionally for priority setting support to such institutions to better retain and synthesis data/knowledge. research synthesis or knowledge exercises,  There is sufficient capacity within the system to create such synthesis and knowledge availability of all retention systems, however these systems are yet to be realized retention. forms of social, Are there broad research priority setting exercises that need to be refined?  Connectivity between research

325 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) economic and  As part of the stream 2 funding Terrain NRM have worked both internally and with the institutions in the region could environmental research institutions involved in the Wet Tropics cluster to identify research priorities for be strengthened and greater information for the region and key gaps in existing knowledge (focused particularly on the lack of focus on projects that systems decision- biophysical data) incorporate social, economic making  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 and environmental aspects of support planning/implementation activities. the region could be further  There is significant research and priority setting capacity in the region, however there is a developed. problem with the connectivity between key institutions, research investment, and limited  Biophysical data availability is integration of social/economic/environmental issues/data in the research agenda. good, while social and Are all forms of social, economic and environmental information available for economic data availability is systems decision-making? limited.  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). Strategy Capacity: Do capacities exist to set clear strategic targets for the region?  There is significant capacity in Development Capacity to set Terrain NRM, WTMA and GBRMPA have more than 40 years experience between them in the region’s institutions to set 3.5 3.5 clear strategic planning, managing and monitoring the region’s natural resources. Each of these strategic targets for the region, targets, decision- institutions has a plan for a specific resource or the NRM region as a whole, containing however institutional makers’ access to mostly clear strategic targets or objectives. fragmentation limits their knowledge,  There are multiple institutions involved in strategizing and undertaking NRM activities capacity to set clear strategic financial, human across the region, however most of operate within individual silos and focused on different targets for the region and agendas or limit in their strategizing to a specific resources (e.g. the GBR). collaboratively infrastructure  The NRM plan for the region contains a long list of strategies for the region that are  Although there is a limited resources, supported by evidence, however there is a lack of prioritization of the strategies and there amount and diversity of socio- corporate was inadequate funding for implementation of all of the strategies in the plan. economic data and an abundance governance and The NRM plan was also static, meaning the strategic targets could not updated over time, of biophysical data for the region, improvement reducing their relevance over time. there is an adequate amount of systems  The development of the new NRM plan indicates an increasing capacity for the plan to be social, economic and updated and evolve based on new information or changes to resource conditions. environmental information to

326 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5)  Decision-making for strategy development is frequently based on experiential knowledge inform basic decision-making and experience rather than evidence or science, and has led to some institutions using a and strategy development for ‘trial and error’ approach to strategies. the region. Do the relevant stakeholders have the knowledge, financial, human and Resourcing has been a infrastructure resources available to make the decisions required for the region? significant limitation for  Under CfoC there was a decline in the alignment of the Queensland and Federal strategy development, both in Governments policy and investment priorities, leading to a 40% reduction in NRM body the amount of money available, funding and a greater emphasis on competitive funding for projects that address key time frames for grants, the priority areas/problems. progressive decrease in grant  Research institutions in the regions generate and disseminate significant quantities of numbers, and shifting political resource condition data to support NRM planning and activities. Application of such funding priorities. research is varied, and is limited by issues of accessibility, availability, dissemination, and  Government funding is often focus. project or outcome specific,  Funding for NRM in the region tends to be implementation-heavy and planning/strategy meaning there are not always development light and shifts in the state and federal political climates are particularly enough funds available to influential on which issues/agendas receive funding, how much money is allocated, and the develop and implement funding time frames. Funding time frames varying in length. strategies focused on regional  Because of this NRM institutions are constantly applying for more funding to undertake priority areas. more NRM projects and priority is given to on-ground actions that can be undertaken in  Spatial tools such as GIS are the allocated time frame, rather than strategic planning and strategy development, which widely available and several of can be time and resource consuming. the region’s institutions have  Funding under CfoC is also tied to specific Federal Government identified ‘priority areas’ employees trained in their use. and consequently projects that do not fall under those areas are unlikely to be allocated However, the capacity to do funding. The broad priority areas under CfoC are not aligned to Terrain NRM’s regionally higher-level analysis using such specific priorities and therefore limits the capacity of the NRM group to undertake NRM tools remains limited. 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.

Connectivity: Are all relevant stakeholders connected to strategy decision-making?  Some connectivity exists

Connectivity of Relationships between individuals within and across the region’s institutions are critical to between institutions in the 2.5 2.5 stakeholders to strategy development in the Wet Tropics. Where there are strong interpersonal region, however these strategy-making, relationships between employees of different institutions (or within them), there tends to connections are fragmented and alignment of be greater collaboration and communication of ideas. However, there has been a relatively tend to be driven by strategies with high turnover rate of employees at some institutions in the region in recent years. convenience or mandates for

327 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) visions and As individuals in the region shift positions or institutions then the dynamics also change, on-the-ground activities or objectives, which can both increase and decrease the capacity of institutions to ‘get things done’. reporting rather than strategic alignment of However, where people are passionate about specific issues or strategies then decision-making. strategies with collaboration and strategies are more likely to develop.  Despite consensus on the higher/lower  The relationship between some relevant stakeholders is somewhat fragmented and importance of the region’s scales of strategy institutions such as Terrain NRM, GBRMPA and WTMA tend to work within individual silos resources, the alignment of development, (and collaborate only where convenient, necessary or mandated – and more so on-the- strategies with visions and integration of ground rather than strategically). objectives in the region is varied solutions mix  in The State and Federal Government tend to be poorly connected to region-based NRM and fragmented strategies strategy development.  Strategy alignment between  This fragmentation limits collaboration on strategy development and decision-making for regional institutions and local the region’s resources, vision and objective setting and implementation. groups tend to demonstrate  Terrain NRM consults with community and industry representative groups in the planning greater alignment than the process, however there is an opportunity for this to be expanded and built on as the alignment between State and current planning process occurs. Federal Government strategies  The region’s indigenous population has their own NRM plan that emphasises indigenous and priorities and regional aspirations for country and its management. The 2005 indigenous plan exists congruently institutions and their strategies. to the 2004 Wet Tropics NRM plan. Due to the lack of monitoring of both plans, there is no Collaborative planning in the way to know how many and to what degree the strategies or objectives have been region has been limited in achieved. The region’s indigenous groups have suggested that they would like to know recent years, leading to limited what they have achieved against the last plan before they commence a new planning alignment of visions and process as has been commenced by Terrain NRM to create a new NRM plan for the region. objectives. Are strategies aligned to visions and objectives for the region?  The solutions mix is varied on a  Visions for the region tend to consist of broad and relatively vague motherhood statements project-by-project basis, while for the region, making it easy to make any NRM action or strategy appear linked to the suasive instruments are the visions despite no previous intention to align them. primary tool used by  However, there is broad agreement amongst the region’s institutions that the Wet Tropics institutions in the region, contains internationally significant natural resources that need to be appropriately despite capacity and authority to managed to ensure access to future generations (DIICCSRTE, 2012a). use both regulatory instruments

 The alignment of strategies with visions and objectives for the region is varied. For existing in the region 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?

328 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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: Is there social, economic and environmental knowledge relating to the assessment of Data availability in the region is Availability of the efficacy of key strategies in the region? relatively high (particularly 2.5 3 social, economic Although the appropriate information to assess the efficacy of some strategies in the region biophysical data), however, the and may exist, there has been little attempt to do such an assessment. This is in part due to lack information is yet to be applied environmental of funding and impetus. to assess the efficacy of key knowledge  In many instances, there isn’t enough social or economic data to support a holistic strategies in the region. relating to the assessment of the efficacy of the strategy/ies, while there may be sufficient biophysical  There is capacity to scenario assessment of the data in other projects (e.g. Reef Rescue). test strategies in the region,

329 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) efficacy of key Are decision support tools available to scenario test alternative strategies in the however the application of strategies, region? available tools is limited in NRM. availability of Currently, Terrain NRM are not able to test alternative NRM strategies, however there is This is expected to change as a decision support emerging capacity as Terrain NRM, FNQROC and CSIRO develop a program to enable them scenario-testing skills and tools tools to scenario to do scenario analysis of strategies for the region. are being developed as part of test alternative There is strong GIS capacity in some of the region’s institutions to undertake some scenario the current NRM planning strategies testing (FNQNRM, 2004), however the tool that is in development will enable institutions process. to undertake more complex scenario testing. Implementation Capacity: Are there capacities to implement a broad mix of strategic solutions across the There is capacity to apply a Capacity to region? broad range of tools/strategic 3 2.5 implement  a In order to achieve their objectives institutions in the Wet Tropics apply a combination of solutions to achieve positive broad mix of regulatory, and suasive instruments. outcomes in the region, however strategic  The Wet Tropics’ natural resources are managed according to and protected by both broad the diversity of tools used is solutions, and resource-specific State and Federal legislation. currently limited. implementers’  The GBR is managed by GBRMPA who are guided by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act Market-based instruments are access to 1975 (Cwth), while the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area is managed by the WTMA which not widely used or well financial, human was established under the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act developed in the region. and 1993 (Qld).  Institutions in the region have infrastructure  Both WTMA and GBRMPA have regulatory power to enforce the controls to achieve the demonstrated significant resources, goals set out by the Federal Government in the legislation corresponding to each of the capacity to apply various corporate WHAs. suasive instruments. governance and More broadly, the region’s developments and NRM activities must comply with the  Resource availability for NRM improvement conditions set out in the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 implementation has become systems (Cwth), the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), the Vegetation Management Act more competitive and the 1999 (Qld), etc. number of grants available has  Both WTMA and GBRMPA have statutory powers that enable them to enforce regulations decreased in recent years. in the WHAs, however, WTMA, GBRMPA and Terrain NRM (who do not have regulatory  Past project successes indicate a powers) rely primarily on suasive instruments. high degree of capacity to  Suasive instruments are widely used by the region’s Landcare groups, WTMA, GBRMPA develop and implement and Terrain NRM to achieve behavioural change in the region’s landholders, communities strategies at the local scale in and industries. the region  These instruments broker the scientific research undertaken by the region’s research  Although most regional scale institutions and translate it so that stakeholders can be more informed in their practices. institutions in the Wet Tropics

 Suasive instruments have been particularly important in programs such as Reef Rescue in largely have sufficient funds and

330 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) which many of the region’s institutions collaborated to improve the water quality entering other resources to do the job the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. The program is separate to Qld’s regulatory controls for the that they are contracted to do reef and involves multiple suasive instruments (Hill et al., 2010; Pert, 2013). by the government, they are  Institutions that are involved in Reef Rescue in the Wet Tropics include Terrain NRM, Cane unable to do any additional Growers GBRMPA, Queensland Dairy, Banana Growers, Landcare and catchment groups, work above and beyond their and numerous other local groups. contractual requirements due  Several of the region’s NRM institutions have collaborated on a limited number of projects to lack of resources. (such as the Mission Beach project) and used a combination of education and incentive  Many local scale NRM institutions grants to build community skills and achieve desired strategic outcomes. (including traditional owner  The capacity of Landcare and catchment groups is varied across the region, with some groups) have limited capacity to highly capable of undertaking water quality management projects, best management garner financial resources to practice testing, and habitat conservation projects. undertake NRM activities, Do the implementation players have the financial, human and infrastructure despite having significant resources to implement? implementation capacities.  Terrain NRM have partnership arrangements with many other institutions in the region  Corporate governance of NRM including GBRMPA, WTMA, Landcare Groups, traditional owner institutions (Girringun, institutions in the region is Jabalbina, Yalanji) FNQROC, RDAFNQTS, DEHP, DNRM, and numerous industry and generally strong, however community groups. improvement and review  At the same time as funding cuts were announced, Terrain NRM reduced the number of systems are highly variable staff members they employed in 2013 to increase the resources available to target regional across the region, with recent priority actions on the ground. Unfortunately, reduced funding for the institution has led to government changes decreasing less money available to invest in projects. the certainty and reliability of  In the past there were sufficient resources for Terrain NRM to plan for the management of existing government structures in natural resources in the region, but resources to actually implement such plans were the region. 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.

331 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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.

332 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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. Connectivity: Are there effective partnership and integration arrangements between policy and There is a disconnect between Partnership and delivery systems in the region? the policy and delivery systems 2 3 integration  The Wet Tropics is one of the most planned for regions in Australia, but despite this there in the Wet Tropics, with arrangements have been significant problems in the past with moving beyond the planning stage of the significant investment and between policy planning process and actually implementing the strategies and objectives contained within engagement in the planning and delivery the plans, indicating a poor connection between policy and delivery systems in the region. process, but difficulty systems, use  of The increased focus on competitive bidding for funding under CfoC was intended to operationalizing the strategies collaboration in encourage institutions to collaborate on projects, however the reality of this shift was that collaboratively or in an implementation, institutions have become more competitive with each other rather than more collaborative. integrated way. research  Although collaborative arrangements exist in the region they tend to be out of convenience There have been some local brokerage rather than with the intention of strengthening the delivery of NRM policies/programs. project successes that involved arrangements to There are currently no incentives for institutions to collaborate, which has led to relatively multiple solutions and support fragmented NRM implementation activities. institutions working implementation  Due to budgetary constraints, WTMA work in partnership with other institutions in order collaboratively, however this is to operationalise their objectives (they are not directly involved with on-the-ground yet to be carried out at a activities). WTMA work with Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, tourism industry regional scale. representatives (TTNQ, AMPTO, etc.), Biosecurity Queensland, local government, and the  Existing research brokerage Commonwealth Government. arrangements are generally  WTMA have a limited relationship with Terrain NRM and GBRMPA and generally poor at supporting collaborate in situations where the institutions share common interests. implementation activities, but  There is a strong relationship between FNQROC and Terrain NRM who share the cost of an are improving. 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

333 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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: Are there research efforts to inform continuous improvement in implementation Generally there is limited Research efforts across the region? research to inform 1.5 2 to inform It can be difficult to line up research and NRM priorities, leading to a mismatch in the improvement of continuous research being produced and end-user needs. implementation improvement in Some regional groups commission a research institution to do research that is needed, but Traditional and local implementation, funding limitations mean that this is rare and only where absolutely necessary. knowledge sets are used in a use of local and Moreover, research milestones are not always well aligned with regional institutions’ limited way to inform traditional milestones (e.g. Stream 2 funded research and the planning process), leading to implementation of strategies in knowledge sets to information being released too late to contribute towards decision-making or the region. inform implementation.  The MERI system is currently implementation, The Federal Government’s MERI system does not link actions to outcomes, but focuses on unable to inform continuous management and outputs – i.e. number of hectares of weeds sprayed, rather than whether the habitat is improvement of retention of data healthier following such actions. implementation activities in the sets concerning Are local and traditional knowledge sets informing implementation in the region? region. effective  There has been some attempts to include traditional owners in the planning process,  Due to limited monitoring of implementation however the use of traditional knowledge to support implementation is generally limited, projects in the past, few data sets with some institutions and projects taking greater efforts to incorporate traditional detailing effective

334 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) knowledge. implementation have been  Local and traditional knowledge sets tend to be kept orally rather than written down or retained in the region, however recorded, meaning that the knowledge tends to remain within specific institutions or this is currently improving. 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. Monitoring, Capacity: Are there effective monitoring and evaluation capacities in the system?  Although there is capacity in Evaluation and Monitoring and There is capacity in the system to undertake monitoring and evaluation of projects; the system to do monitoring 3 2.5 Review evaluation however the operationalization of monitoring strategies on the ground has been and evaluation, capacities have capacity, fragmented and variable. been traditionally limited in the collective  Areas that have demonstrated a degree of effective monitoring capacity include blue system because it has generally monitoring mapping (Reef Rescue), vegetation mapping, condition mapping following cyclones, been inadequately funded and alliances, wetland monitoring, local government monitoring of pests and weeds, and monitoring of consequently poorly mobilized evaluation threatened species. in the region. capacities in the Monitoring of NRM has traditionally been poor, despite requirements for ongoing  Collective monitoring alliances system, reporting reporting to appropriate funding bodies and government agencies. in the region exist, but tend to capacities that Funding has been a significant limitation on institution’s capacity to monitor system be on a project-by-project basis enhance processes and outcomes and institutions have tended to dedicate their funds towards more rather than widespread accountability on-the-ground activities rather than monitoring or evaluation. throughout the region. The  NRM activities and their outcomes in the region have generally not been systematically exception to this is Reef Rescue, monitored, preventing institutions from knowing what has been achieved and where their which has demonstrated actions have been successful or not. significant success in bringing  The broad governance and institutional arrangements for NRM planning are currently not together multiple institutions to monitored or evaluated in the Wet Tropics. monitor conditions.  No mechanism exists for the key institutions to monitor or evaluate the planning  Evaluation capacity in the Wet

335 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) governance systems. Tropics is neither defined nor  Individual institutions currently undertake monitoring of NRM projects and on-ground independent activities (SOE and MERI), and monitor and evaluate their organizational governance  Institutions in the region have a arrangements using Vogel’s Performance Excellence framework (Agforce, 2013; RRRC, high capacity to report on their 2011). activities, however the  However, in the past some regional institutions have provided exaggerated information information to support such surrounding the outcomes of projects or resource conditions in government reporting reports in generally anecdotal processes (e.g. MERI) because institutions that demonstrate success are generally allocated rather than systematically greater amounts of money than those that do not deliver as many successful outcomes. collected through monitoring,  There are a limited number of examples where regional institutions have successfully which decreases the strength and undertaken systematic monitoring processes in specific localities, however this is yet to be reliability of such reports. carried out across all projects or strategies.  Accountability is generally low  SOE reporting for the regions only began using regional data in the latest iteration and the due to the lack of monitoring in reports have generally drawn only from state collected data, leading to an inaccurate and the region. 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

336 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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: Are there integration arrangements between objective setting and monitoring Visions and objectives in the Integration systems for the region? region are currently poorly 1.5 2 arrangements  There are some instances where specific approaches to strategy implementation have been informed by monitoring data of between objective tested in a project and then monitored to observe its efficacy to feed back into future resource management setting and decision-making, however this is not widespread in the region. conditions/outcomes following monitoring  Research institutions are currently poorly engaged in the process of linking objective management systems, setting with monitoring systems, despite moderately high capacity existing.  Limited impetus to monitor the connectivity Are evaluative and review mechanisms linked to long-term monitoring of processes processes and outcomes in the between and outcomes in the region? region, to inform evaluations of

337 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (1-5) evaluative and There is an emerging push towards long-term monitoring and data retention of project strategies and to inform future review outcomes in the region, however this is yet to carry over to broader monitoring of the strategic decision-making. mechanisms, and planning system  MER frameworks continue to long-term  Evaluation and review mechanisms for the systems as a whole are poorly developed and develop as institutional monitoring, only somewhat linked to long-term monitoring frameworks. arrangements for planning evolve capacity of Capacity is emerging in the region to better link these two mechanisms through the stream in the region. monitoring and 2 funding. reporting Are monitoring and reporting strategic processes able to influence strategic strategic processes and the allocation of resources in the region? processes to The lack of monitoring data for the region prevents the closure of the feedback loop and influence consequently decisions surrounding future strategies and the allocation of funds/other strategic resources are not informed by data surrounding the efficacy of current strategies or ideas. processes and the allocation of resources Knowledge use: Are social, economic and environmental outcomes from the system being Integration of social, Monitoring of monitored? environmental and economic 1.5 2 social, economic The environmental management outputs of the system are regularly reported through the data has been limited in and Australian Government’s MERI framework as part of institutional monitoring/evaluation/ environmental requirements/responsibilities under CfoC. reporting outcomes from Many funding bodies (i.e. Government departments) require funded institutions to provide Retention of monitoring and the system, data showing the impact of the funded management activities. evaluation data has and retention  of As part of the State’s responsibility for SOE reporting, the Queensland Government uses a continues to be generally poor monitoring and DPSIP approach to evaluation and collects environmental and resource condition data. in the Wet Tropics, however there evaluation data There is a concentration of data collection in SEQ and its surrounding regions. is a strong impetus to improve in the long-term The condition of the natural resources in the Wet Tropics are documented in the SOE monitoring in the new planning report, with a significant focus on water quality, the GBR and flora/fauna biodiversity (Pert process. et al., 2010a).  Retention of monitoring data in  Social and economic data is collected through the national census every 5 years, and the region is improving at an provides insight into social and demographic change in the region over time. A small body institutional and project level, of research on the socio-economic status of the region is generated 6-12 monthly by but is yet to occur in all region-based research consultancies such as Cummings Economics. institutions or projects in the Are monitoring and evaluation data being retained in the long-term in the system? region.  There is currently no mechanism through which this information can be centrally stored or

338 Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Final Rating Rating (1-5) (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

339