Multi-level Environmental Governance: lessons from Australian natural resource management

Abstract

The region has become a significant scale of governance for the implementation of public policy, including natural resource management (NRM). A community-based regional NRM governance model has been adopted by the Australian government in partnership with Australian state and territory governments. There have been persuasive advocates of this approach both within community organisations and government. Proponents point to advantages such as the capacity to integrate across social, environmental and economic issues; improved investment efficiency; ability to establish appropriate power-sharing and partnership arrangements; better conversion of planning products into on-ground outcomes; and community learning and capacity building. However, concerns have also been raised in the academic literature regarding insufficient devolution of power, lack of downward accountability, exclusion of some stakeholders from decision making, and inadequate vertical and horizontal integration. We interviewed representatives from each of the governance levels (national, state, regional) to examine these concerns, and in doing so identify the strengths and challenges of the Australian experiment with devolved NRM governance. We synthesise the interview data with insights from the literature and make observations on the current state of Australian NRM governance. From this analysis, we identify lessons from the Australian experience to inform the development of multi-level environmental governance systems.

Water: Drought, Crisis and Governance in Australia and Brazil

“…For water allocation, many watershed level stakeholder committees are disbanded once the water allocation plan is completed, as water is then distributed by the department according to the plan. Often, catchment management or Regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) groups have had and continue to have a long term role in planning and implementing integrated land-water management but in most Australian states they do not have a legislative basis and little guarantee of on-going funding (for further information see [28][29][30].…”

Working across scales in integrated catchment management: lessons learned for adaptive water governance from regional experiences

“…In particular, most "trusted intermediaries", in particular the river trusts in the UK and the Landcare groups in Australia, had limited financial capacity to maintain a level of independence from individual funders in particular national (environmental) agencies (see also e.g. Barwick 2008;Lockwood et al 2009 for a review of Landcare groups in Australia). Careful attention is to be given to financial arrangements for ICM activities in order to maintain a balance between thematic issues of importance to different stakeholders during implementation.…”

Community Involvement in Geoconservation: A Conceptual Approach Based on the Geoheritage of South Angola

“…According to this community-based model, communication efficiency, able to generate confidence among all of the actors [74,75] and to establish networks with non-local entities, institutional or non-institutional, is of major importance [76][77][78]. Geoconservation processes aiming at the conservation of a site should take place in two sequential phases: knowledge generation and management actions.…”