University of Queensland
Community-based natural resource management institutions and
their governance: Case study lessons and insights for informing
institutional design and policy development
Introduction | Community-based NRM in Queensland | Research aim | Approach and methods | Preliminary findings |
References |
Supervisors
|
The past 30 years have evidenced a consistent broadening of
scale and focus in the delivery of NRM programs in Australia . From
the small-scale localised Landcare activities of the 1980s and
1990s, to the integrated catchment (watershed) management
approaches of the late 1990s, and finally the current regional
delivery of NRM through the Commonwealth and State and Territory
governments’ National Action Plan for Salinity and Water
Quality (NAP) and the Commonwealth Government’s Natural
Heritage Trust Extension (NHT2) program.
The NAP is an eight-year $1.4 billion program initiated in 2000
to focus on the amelioration of dry-land salinity and the
improvement of water quality by regional communities in 21
designated priority catchments (AFFA 2001).
The NHT2 program is a seven-year $1.8 billion program initiated
in 2001 to fund the development and implementation of accredited
regional NRM plans and investment strategies in Australia ’s
56 designated NRM regions. The NHT2 program also funds projects of
a national, multi-scale and broadscale nature that satisfy its
three primary objectives of:
- Biodiversity conservation through the protection and
restoration of ecosystems and habitats;
- The sustainable use of natural resources to maintain and
improve the productivity and profitability of resource-based
industries; and
- Community capacity building and institutional change to support
stakeholders with the skills, knowledge, information and
institutional frameworks necessary to implement the above two
objectives (CoA 2004).
Together the NAP and NHT2 programs represent a $3.2 billion
social experiment that places central and critical importance on
the role of Australia ’s 56 regional NRM bodies and their
regional communities for achieving the programs’ multiple
objectives. The two programs are currently being implemented
through the accredited regional NRM plans and regional investment
strategies developed by the 56 regional bodies, in consultation
with all relevant NRM stakeholders in their regions.
In Queensland, the regional NRM bodies are tasked with
preparing, implementing, monitoring, evaluating and reviewing
regional NRM plans in collaboration with the Commonwealth and State
governments (DNR&M 2002). The NAP Intergovernmental Agreement
and the NHT2 Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth
Government and the Queensland Government require that each of the
state’s 15 regional bodies ensures that it:
“has a majority community membership, balancing production
and conservation interests, and seeks effective participation and
representation by relevant stakeholders including Indigenous
interests, and local government, ...”(p.10, CoA 2002; p.17,
CoA 2004).
Regional bodies have responded to these requirements by forming
a range of community-based institutional and governance structures
that variously combine the interests of primary production,
community, conservation, Indigenous and local government. Through
these structures, the regional bodies are required to facilitate
the inclusion and participation by all parties with a stake in the
natural resources of a region in collaborative decision-making and
collective on-ground action that promotes sustainable NRM outcomes
for their region.
Given the diverse nature of the NAP and NHT2 objectives, this
thesis examines whether community-based NRM institutions and their
governance, as represented by Queensland ’s regional NRM
bodies and their Boards, are able to promote and achieve the
sustainable NRM outcomes expected of them by the two national
programs.
The research commenced with an extensive literature review to
develop a transdisciplinary conceptual framework called the CIVILS
framework (Pero 2005). The review considered the literature on
international practice and the literature related to select areas
of the following social science disciplines:
The acronym “CIVILS”, meaning “belonging to
citizens”, was derived from the first letter of the
framework’s six dimensions:
The CIVILS framework identifies, explains and discusses six
dimensions considered critical to understanding, improving and
generally facilitating the successful functioning of
community-based NRM decision-making. Pero (2005) describes the
approach used to develop the CIVILS framework and explains and
discusses it’s six dimensions in greater detail. While the
conceptual framework has both theoretical and practical
applicability, the research emphasises its practical diagnostic,
explanatory and predictive capabilities. It does this by examining
the functioning and decision-making of two Queensland
community-based regional NRM bodies and their governance through
the lenses of the six CIVILS dimensions.
An extreme case selection strategy was used to select the two
Queensland regional NRM bodies. The strategy involved: (i) defining
regional body criteria of interest (including: geographical
location; physical area; regional population; funding allocations;
NRM issues; and institutional and governance structures); (ii)
arranging Queensland’s 15 regional bodies along a continuum
according to the criteria; and then (iii) selecting the groups
located at either end of the defined continuum. !
A 12-month longitudinal sampling strategy was initiated once the
research cases had been selected. The strategy used mixed methods
to develop an in-depth understanding of the functioning and
decision-making of the two regional bodies. Data collection
commenced with a questionnaire designed to establish a baseline
profile and characterisation of the two Boards. The questionnaire
was followed by three consecutive structured telephone interviews
with each Board member at four-monthly intervals. The interviews
sought to develop a better understanding of: the issues facing the
regional bodies; their functioning and decision-making; and the
Board members’ perceptions of their regional bodies, their
Boards, and themselves as community members of the regional
bodies.
The questionnaire and interviews constituted the primary data
from which the research findings were drawn. They were supported by
secondary data comprising personal observations made at all general
and Board meetings and during all Board teleconferences. A third
level of data comprised analysing select regional body
documentation including: Board and general meeting information
packs and minutes; and the constitutions and organisation
performance reviews of the two regional bodies.
The interviews were recorded and transcribed and the personal
observations were transcribed. All transcripts were analysed using
NVivo software (QSR International 2002) to identify and code the
attributes relevant to each of the six CIVILS dimensions for the
two cases. A data triangulation strategy was used to triangulate
the three levels of data and identify attribute congruence as a
means of verifying and validating the research findings.
Community-based natural resource governance is complex,
requiring unique structures and processes and a wide range of
transdisciplinary skills for achieving its desired outcomes.
The preliminary research findings suggest that community-based
regional bodies have been prevented from focusing exclusively on
achieving sustainable NRM outcomes by their regional contexts and
by their institutional and governance structures and processes
which, by their very nature, demanded the broader consideration of
regional social, economic, political and institutional influences.
These broader considerations frequently took precedence over
seeking improved ecological outcomes.
Notwithstanding their very different structures and approaches,
the two regional bodies displayed considerable innovation in the
enactment of their institutional and governance structures and
approaches. Their innovations variously related to:
-
being culturally sensitive towards Indigenous
representation.
-
promoting dialogue with local government.
-
partnering with scientific elites.
-
creating a regional identity.
-
showing institutional commitment to dialogue.
-
encouraging prosocial and transformational leadership
traits.
-
marketing their on-ground implementation successes; and
-
working through existing networks of trust.
Collectively, these innovations support the notion that
community-based natural resource governance has the potential to
influence the socio-economic trajectories of rural regions and, in
doing so, make a valuable contribution towards regional community
strengthening and resilience building.
The research suggests that regional collectives have a major
role to play in improving the effectiveness of community-based NRM
institutions and their governance. The potential contribution of
regional collectives includes facilitating the transfer of
innovations related to the many attributes underpinning natural
resource governance.
Finally, the research highlights the importance and necessity of
learning from the current community-based NRM regional
arrangements. It also provides justification and support for
examining how community-based NRM groups function and make
decisions in practice to be able to inform improved NRM
institutional design, regulation, devolution, and policy
development.
AFFA 2001, Our vital resources - a national action plan for
salinity and water quality in Australia , Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia, Canberra.
CoA 2002, Intergovernmental agreement on a national action
plan for salinity and water quality , Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.
---- 2004, Bilateral agreement to deliver the natural
heritage trust extension between the Commonwealth of Australia and
the state of Queensland , Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra.
DNR&M 2002, Guidelines for developing a regional natural
resource management plan in Queensland , Department of Natural
Resources & Mines, Queensland State Government, Brisbane.
Pero, LV 2005, 'From governance rhetoric to practical reality:
making community-based natural resource management decision-making
work', Griffith Journal of the Environment , vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 1-30.
QSR International 2002, NVivo: getting started in NVivo ,
QSR International Pty Ltd, Doncaster.
Dr. Tim Smith, CSIRO
Dr. Clive McAlpine, UQ
Prof. Geoff McDonald, UQ/CSIRO
