REDESIGNING INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Transcription

1 REDESIGNING INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Prof Charlie Zammit Land Use Study Centre University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba Discussion paper prepared for the Queensland Murray Darling Committee June 2002

2 Summary...3 Background and key issues...4 Current and emerging arrangements...4 Policy initiatives...4 Legislation...5 Industry initiatives...6 Co-ordination and co-management...7 Implications for the Queensland Murray Darling Basin...9 Institutional players...10 Implementing nationally integrated environment and resource management programs...11 Designing healthy institutional arrangements...12 Some design principles...12 Identifying constraints to healthy arrangements...13 Mechanisms...18 Building capacity...19 Providing scientific and technical advice and information support...19 Consolidating communication networks...20 Tackling government...21 Arrangements for managing outcomes...21 Conclusions & next steps...22 Appendix 1: NHT framework

3 SUMMARY Traditional approaches to natural resource management are being challenged and transformed by the scale, impact and complexity of environment issues. Evidence of loss of productive lands due to increasing erosion, growing salinity risk, declining soil health, loss of habitats and ecological functions, declining water quality and quantity have all highlighted the need for new, more integrated approaches. These environmental issues have direct and indirect impacts on regional economies and on the long-term wellbeing of rural and urban communities. Recent policy responses to this from government and industry have a number of common features. All support a greater role for communities in natural resources management. The ongoing need for reliable and up-to-date scientific information for decision-making and the need to develop credible targets, indicators and monitoring and reporting systems is a central theme, as is the recognition for strengthening the community s capacity to use and interpret information. The themes of strategic planning and integrated catchment management and the establishment of partnerships are a feature of new initiatives and it is anticipated that alliances will occur flexibly in response to regional and other influences. However, there are ongoing concerns about the capacity and suitability of existing institutional arrangements to deliver sustainable resource management outcomes. In spite of a decade of success at increasing community capacity to be more directly involved in natural resources decision-making, many government policies and arrangements appear to constrain the kinds of advances required to address the scale and severity of resource management issues. New arrangements are called for. Here we review the key institutional constraints and identify a suite of administrative and coordination impediments associated with government s role and responsibilities, and a more substantial suite of constraints associated with the legal and broader policy framework. These include ongoing issues associated with property rights, duty of care, cost-sharing, structural adjustment, land tenure and the scale of resource management planning. We identify four principles for designing healthy institutional arrangements: building flexibility and adaptability; ensuring robustness; being publicly defendable and encouraging variability. Using these principles, four mechanisms for redesigning existing arrangements to better accommodate the transitions to sustainable natural resources management are discussed:? building capacity? providing scientific and technical advice and information support? consolidating communication networks? tackling government There are two broad areas of activity that require equal attention. The first are the administrative aspects surrounding the establishment of new regional arrangements, including regional bodies and strategic partnerships. The major issues include:? formalising legal and procedural arrangements within and between regional bodies? establishing communication network(s) within and between interested parties? developing frameworks for information support, capacity building and training? developing frameworks for science support and research and development planning? Developing a road-map of how current NRM programs and statutory requirements interact with NAP and NHT objectives in the Basin. This provides the basis for (1) increased community understanding and (2) analysis of the limits and capacities of existing approaches (policies, legislation, research, training etc) Second are the more substantial institutional impediments to progressing sustainable resource management, such poorly defined property rights, cost-sharing arrangements and structural adjustment issues and the capacity of existing legislation to deliver expected outcomes. These matters will need to be addressed as a priority. 3

4 BACKGROUND AND KEY ISSUES Over the past decade there has been a growing appreciation of the need to better integrate society s economic, social and environmental goals under the general idea of ecologically sustainable development (ESD). This recognition comes from evidence that many natural environments are under pressure from unsustainable activities, and that community wellbeing and economic prosperity are intimately linked to the state of the environment. As a consequence all levels of government, the community and the private sector have acknowledged the need for new approaches to natural resources management. These approaches build on and combine scientific, socio-economic and institutional aspects and are all underpinned by the expectation that landowners and community groups will have a more enduring and direct role in the planning, decision-making and implementation of natural resources policies and programs. This will require effective and enduring institutional arrangements. What are institutional arrangements? Institutional arrangements for sustainable resource management are the mix of formal and informal procedures and structures found in the public and private sector that enable the effective delivery of public policy and the operation of the market. Procedures include the range of policies and strategies, laws, codes of conduct and administrative rules that inform and guide institutional and personal activities. Structures comprise the assortment of public and private sector committees, groups, forums, bodies, workshops and other ways in which people organise themselves. The institutional procedures and structures considered here range from those formally established under law or through administrative precedent to those established informally and on an ad hoc basis by a group of individuals with a common interest. In general institutional arrangements are characterised by a level of stability and persistence over time, although this is not a core requirement and there is debate about the extent to which arrangements need to be flexible and responsive to changing conditions. In this paper we outline recent developments in institutional arrangements for natural resources management and consider implications for the Queensland Murray Darling Basin. We then identify the elements of healthy arrangements that better meet changing government expectations and community involvement in NRM and sketch out some options for developing more adaptive and enduring structures and processes that will better align with new priorities. The key issues to be addressed by redesigning institutional arrangements are:? Implications of devolution of NRM responsibilities to local communities? Changing state and local government roles for NRM- who is responsible?? Coordination mechanisms overlaps and gaps? Role of the private sector in NRM drivers for innovation and best practice? Relationships between property rights, structural adjustment and land tenure systems? Private and public benefit sharing costs and benefits? Planning and management scales and boundaries biophysical, administrative, statistical? Supporting communities building capacity and ensuring viability CURRENT AND EMERGING ARRANGEMENTS Policy initiatives Traditional approaches to natural resource management are being challenged and transformed by the scale, impact and complexity of environment issues. Evidence of loss of productive lands due to increasing erosion, growing salinity risk, declining soil health, loss of habitats and ecological functions, declining water quality and quantity and associated risks to catchment and 4

5 river systems, have all highlighted the need for new, more integrated approaches. These environmental issues also have direct and indirect impacts on regional economies and on the long-term wellbeing of rural and urban communities. Traditional approaches are also being challenged by new technological innovations such as biotechnology and computer technologies, and by the changing face of agricultural industries and trade arrangements. In particular the ongoing deregulation of many community markets, along with new consumer demands from overseas markets and changing export opportunities, has started to transform agricultural and other natural resource dependent industries. In recent times the Murray Darling Basin Commission, the Commonwealth, State and local governments have initiated a variety of new policy initiatives that aim to address these growing problems. One cornerstone to these initiatives is a commitment to integrated catchment management, and most state governments initiated some form of integrated (or total) catchment management during the 1990 s. Recently the principles for ICM have been outlined in Integrated Catchment Management in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDBMC 2001). There are a large number of other policy initiatives that will influence approaches to natural resources management. A sample of the major initiatives are summarised at Box 1. Box 1: NRM policy initiatives Council of Australian Government Water Reform Agenda (1994) National Competition Policy (1995) Natural Heritage Trust (1996) The National Greenhouse Strategy (1998) National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (1999) National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia s Native Vegetation (1999) Great Artesian Basin Strategic Management Plan (2000) State Policy for Vegetation Management on Freehold Lands (Qld 2000) Draft Water Allocation and Management Plan (Condamine-Balonne Basin) (Qld 2000) Water Allocation and Management Plan (Border Rivers) (Qld 2000) National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation (2001) Basin Salinity Management Strategy (2001) Broadscale Tree Clearing Policy for State lands (Qld 2001) State Guidelines for Land and Water Management Plans (Qld 2001) These policies and strategies have a number of features in common. All acknowledge and support a greater role for communities in natural resources management, and several suggest mechanisms to support more enduring and substantial participation by communities. The ongoing need for reliable and up-to-date scientific information is a cental ingredient for implementing these initiatives. And this in turn raises other common issues associated with the community s capacity to use and interpret scientific information, the availability of appropriate information for decision-making and the need to develop credible targets, indicators and monitoring and reporting systems. The themes of integrated planning and the establishment of strategic partnerships and alliances are feature of many of these initiatives and it is anticipated that integration and alliances will occur in a variety of ways in response to regional and other influences. Legislation Legislation provides a framework for outlining roles and responsibilities for using and managing the environment and natural resources and is one of the tools governments use to encourage or discourage particular sorts of behaviour by individuals or groups. There are many different kinds of Commonwealth and Queensland legislation that either directly or indirectly try to manage environmental and resource uses. However, in the past few years several new pieces of 5

6 legislation have been introduced that will have a significant long-term influence on environment and resource uses. The Commonwealth government s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) has combined five separate pieces of Commonwealth law into a single statute. This legislation is structured into three parts: Environmental Assessment and Approvals; Biodiversity Conservation; and Enforcement and Administration. There are a number of important features to the Act that are relevant to how natural resources management is implemented at the regional scale. It is also likely that some features of the Basin, for example the presence of rare and threatened species and ecosystems and Ramsar Wetlands, and the potential development of large scale agricultural and minerals opportunities could trigger the Act. Within Queensland there are many types of legislation that potentially influence natural resources management. In recent years a number of new statutes have been introduced that explicitly address issues of integration and sustainable development, including:? The Land Act (1994)? Integrated Planning Act (1997)? Environmental Protection Act (1994)? Environment Protection (Water) Policy (1997)? Vegetation Management Act (1999)? Water Act (2000)? Forestry and Land Title Amendment Act (2001) While each of these statutes provides a commitment to furthering sustainable development in an integrated fashion, as well as requiring, to various degrees, the direct role of communities in their implementation, a number of problems persist. First, and most critically, is the apparent lack of coordination among government agencies responsible for developing and implementing legislation. Each of the legislation noted above, and others not mentioned, typically has an overarching impact on the environment or on resource use that is spread between different parts of government.. Consider, for example the Environment Protection Agency & the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service administers 21 Acts and about 33 other regulations, policies and by-laws that cover beach and coastal protection, marine parks, nature conservation and recreation, waste noise and pollution. The Department of Natural Resources and Mines administers more than 43 Acts and about the same number of other regulations, policies and by-laws. The Department of Primary Industries covers about 30 Acts and over 70 other regulations, polices and by-laws that deal with agricultural chemicals, animal welfare, commercial forestry and fisheries, plant and animal diseases, primary industries regulation, research and development and rural communities. It is not surprising that many of these statutes have overlapping or poorly defined boundaries of responsibility, and pressure for greater integration and efficiency continues. However, the departments responsible for their administration seem to be incapable of accommodating the necessary integration across natural resource management issues due to inappropriate and often outmoded administrative structures and arrangements. Furthermore, it is unclear how well communities and local government councils understand the requirements of these statutes, or their ability to further regional strategic planning goals for natural resources management. Industry initiatives Alongside the policy initiatives from government has been the parallel development, largely by the private sector, of Environmental Management Systems for natural resource use generally, and for particular agricultural sectors. Environmental management systems (EMS) are defined as methodological approaches to organising the planning, implementation and review of an 6

7 organisation s or business s attempts to manage its impacts on the environment 1. They aim to achieve continuous improvement using an adaptive environmental management cycle, namely; plan, act, monitor and review. An EMS can be externally audited, may be certified to an international standard (eg ISO see below) and is important for public accountability, accreditation and marketing. In December 2001 the Commonwealth government released a draft Discussion Paper, Towards a National Framework for Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture, the overall aim of which is to better link on-farm environment management with the range of policy and legal initiatives for managing natural resources at a range of scales. In particular, the draft paper notes, Targets being set through regional and catchment planning processes will inform the setting of on-farm targets. Conversely, there is enormous potential to harness the EMS as a tool to help landowners achieve landscape outcomes, contributing to meeting natural resource management targets set at catchment and regional level through agreed processes. While the application of EMS is still in its infancy, it appears to provide significant scope to strengthen the voluntary arrangements between landowners and industry sectors and government approaches to a range of new policy and management programs. Process standards exist for implementing EMS in a wide range of industries. The most widely used of these are the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) 9000 series of international quality standards and the series of environmental standards. These standards enable companies or organisations to implement recognised management actions to improve corporate and environmental performance. The ISO series of standards are process-focussed but can adopt performance measures (e.g. targets) based on standards as requirements of the process. There is a growing body of agreed Best Management Practice principles, guidelines and codes of practice across a range of industry sectors, including for example, Cattlecare, Graincare, Cotton Industry Codes of Practice and organic industry certification standards. There are also specific national and state-level guidelines that apply to point and diffuse nutrient inputs to Australian water bodies, such as beef cattle feedlots, dairy shed wastes and fertiliser application. These voluntary arrangements aim to contribute to environment and natural resources management. Institutional arrangements for sustainable resource management will need to better utilize existing industry mechanisms and work to encourage their greater integration into strategic planning and target setting. Policies, Co-ordination and co-management The long-term success of the policies, programs and legislation outlined above is critically dependent on the capacity of government to ensure implementation. However, a number of recent government reviews and audits have concluded that current institutional approaches and capacities to develop policies and deliver programs centred around sustainable resource management are often ineffective and inefficient. Key findings are summarised in Table 1. There are many reasons for this, but current inadequacies can be grouped into two types. First are failures in the capacity and extent of co-ordination and consultation by governments (and others). These might include the distribution and composition of committee structures, advisory groups and other cross-agency forums and other co-ordination mechanisms. A casual glance at any large bureaucracy leaves one in no doubt that they are organisationally complex, with many levels of responsibilities spread over many subject areas, often with significant overlaps. So inhouse coordination is a challenge. In addition to this, many natural resource management issues span the responsibilities of several departments, all equally complex. It is realistic to conclude that most large bureaucracies are poorly equipped to deal with the kinds of co-ordination and communication required for delivering integrated and sustainable program outcomes. However, failure of coordination and communication is not confined to program management but is equally applicable at the strategic and policy development level. All too often we find examples 1 See Alexandra

8 of policies developed in isolation from other key institutional players both inside and outside of government. The second way in which government organisations have be ineffective is in strategic policy development. That is to say, new policy options are proposed whose effectiveness is constrained by other features of the broader policy fabric of government. These constraints might be structural, for example, a conflicting or contradictory law or regulation. Or the constraint may be derived from ambiguity, for example in defining property rights and the duty of care of leaseholders in the context of sustainable resource management. Or there may simply be a missing ingredient where one is needed to effect the anticipated changes, for example the appropriate legal or market incentive to encourage changed behaviour might be absent. Table 1: Reviews and audits of government arrangements, issues and capacity Identified issues? Lack of comprehensive needs assessment? Compatibility of national, state, regional and local programs? Balance between public private benefits? Input-oriented focus in program administration? Poor performance information and a lack of identified outcomes? Inadequate financial accountability? Poor policy responses, including through regulation, information, market-based measures, environmental programs and other policies? Implementation problems? Institutional weaknesses, including through local and regional institutions and poor coordination of responsibilities? Regulatory capture by special interests? Inadequate analytical tools? Policy inertia? Poor coordination by governments? Absence of well designed performance information, including core indicators? Absence of baseline or trend information in economic, social and environmental condition (science gaps)? Absence of integrated national database for management? Compliance with legislation? Ongoing performance validation for continuous improvements? Uncertain constitutional powers for Commonwealth? Vulnerable to political considerations? Lack of comprehensive understanding of problems? Property rights issues? Poor access to information and skills? Cost-shifting? Reactive, not proactive? No coordinated national approach? Un-supportive administrative arrangements? Failure to specify goals, targets and outcomes? Distinction between public and private goods? Unclear property rights? Definition and limits of duty of care? Cost-sharing principles? Use of incentives for conservation and land management Source Commonwealth Natural Resource Management and Environment Programs. Australian National Audit Office, Audit Report No A Full Repairing Lease: Inquiry into Ecologically Sustainable Land Management. Industry Commission, January Implementation of Ecologically Sustainable Development by Commonwealth Departments and Agencies. Productivity Commission, February Performance Information for Commonwealth Financial Assistance under the Natural Heritage Trust Australian National Audit Office, Audit Report No Co-ordinating Catchment Management. Report of the Inquiry into Catchment Management. December House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment & Heritage Public good conservation: our challenge for the 21 st century. September House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment & Heritage 8

9 ? Inequitable policies 9

10 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE QUEENSLAND MURRAY DARLING BASIN Institutional players Natural resource management in the Queensland Murray Darling Basin (QMDB) is shared between the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, the Department of Primary Industries and the Environment Protection Agency, with additional involvement in some matters from the Department of State Development and the Department of Local Government and Planning. The region contains 27 local governments each of which have statutory and administrative responsibilities for land use planning and zoning, water management and some aspects of natural resources management. Moreover, there are several local government groupings that provide strategic support across shires for natural resources management. The most active of these is the Eastern Downs Regional Organisation of Councils (EDROC), which has initiated a number of environment and natural resources management projects on behalf of its councils. The Commonwealth has an indirect but significant role in natural resources management in the region through three overlapping responsibilities. First it administers national environment, world heritage and national estate legislation. Second it is the driver of national policy initiatives and through them provides substantial funding for regional programs. Third it has responsibility for meeting Australia s obligations under international treaties, which can have growing regional implications. A number of influential non-government organisations (NGOs) represent different community and industry interests in the region, including regional economic development groups (for example the Eastern Downs Turn Around Group, DDVision 2000, Growzone), agricultural sector groups (for example, AgForce, Graingrowers Association, Cotton Growers Association) and conservation groups (for example Toowoomba and Region Environment Council, World Wildlife Fund, Greening Australia). The scientific research community in the region is represented by specific elements and programs within Queensland government departments (for example the Leslie Research Institute and the Queensland Centre for Climate Applications), by the University of Southern Queensland in Toowoomba (for example the Land Use Study Centre, the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture) and by several Co-operative Research Centres (for example the Cotton CRC, the CRC for Catchment Hydrology) with activities in the region. Private sector consultants within the region and beyond continue to provide scientific and technical support for particular regional environment and resource management projects. The region also has a well established system of community-based environment and natural resource planning and management bodies that range from local or sub-catchment-based Landcare groups (for example the Cambooya Landcare group, Chinchilla District Landcare Group), through to larger catchment groups (for example the Maranoa-Balonne Catchment Management Association, Condamine Balonne Water Committee) to the Queensland Murray Darling Basin Committee that takes in the strategic interests of the entire Queensland portion of the Basin. Many of these groups arose from and have been supported through the Decade of Landcare Plan and thereafter the Natural Heritage Trust program. Table 2 summarises the spread of Landcare groups in the Queensland portion of the Basin. At present this mixture of institutional players interact on a needs basis around particular issues or programs. There are no durable arrangements that provide a framework for information sharing, professional networking, strategic planning or identifying collaborative partnerships or alliances, although the Queensland Murray Darling Committee and the catchment management associations in the Basin have been active in developing strategies and supporting arrangements. 10

11 Table 1 Landcare and sub-catchment groups in the Queensland Murray Darling Basin Sub-catchment area Number of groups North East Downs 18 Central Downs 9 Toowoomba 1 Condamine headwaters 13 Granite borders 3 Border rivers 7 Chinchilla 13 Western Downs 12 Maranoa 16 Balonne 7 Mitch ell & district 6 Brigalow Jimbour floodplains 3 Inglewood 2 Total 110 Implementing nationally integrated environment and resource management programs The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) has identified the Border Rivers Catchment and the Condamine-Maranoa-Balonne Catchment in the QMDB as two of four priority investment regions (PIR) for Queensland. The NAP establishes a number of new institutional arrangements for program delivery, including:? a Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth and all State governments the specifies the strategic goals and objectives of the plan? a seven year budget commitment of $1.4m divided between Commonwealth and State governments? a series of Bilateral Agreements between the Commonwealth and each State government that outlines the specific undertakings for each partnership? the establishment of one or more regional body for each PIR with specific characteristics and obligations under the Bilateral Agreement. Regional Bodies will be contractually obligated to government under Partnership Agreements.? program funding is conditional on a single accredited Regional Strategic Plan and an associated Business Plan for integrated natural resources management for each PIR? ongoing program funding is conditional on meeting (or credible progress towards meeting) agreed targets as determined by annual performance reviews The Natural Heritage Trust, foreshadowed for continuation in the Commonwealth government s budget and election commitments of 2001 is to recommence by July The revised framework for the Trust is summarised at Appendix 1. There is likely to be strong policy alignment between the NAP and NHT. In particular regional Strategic Plans and associated Business Plans required under the NAP will be used by NHT processes to identify and fund priority projects for particular regions. There is already evidence 11

12 that some institutional arrangements set in place for the NAP will be adopted by NHT 2. Box 2 summarises common elements and arrangements we can anticipate for both the NAP and NHT. Box 2: Common elements between NAP and NHT the community will have a strengthened and more enduring contribution to regional strategic planning and ongoing implementation strategically focussed and integrated projects that tackle high priority issues will be encouraged multi-year partnerships and alliances, especially those that include local government and industry financial support and active involvement, will be encouraged there will be an ongoing need for access to credible scientific and technical information and professional advice, and some capacity to support the creation and communication of new approaches and information there will be an ongoing need for reliable and responsive information networks and capacity building and training opportunities one primary mechanism for delivering program objectives will be through private landowners strategies and projects will be required to identify targets and measures and establish monitoring and reporting mechanisms financial accountability requirements will be more professional and may include third party audits ongoing funding will be conditional on reasonable progress against agreed commitments DESIGNING HEALTHY INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS The primary institutional arrangements for natural resources management are already established by the set of existing policy, legal, market and administrative frameworks. As noted above, these arrangements can often also be a significant obstacle to establishing a healthy set of arrangements. We use the term healthy as shorthand to describe the mix of people skills, systems and institutional structures that? comprise the foundation for community-based planning and management which meets government requirements and community aspirations? are adequately resourced and supported by necessary infrastructure, training and information needs over the long-term? foster and reward ongoing community involvement in natural resources planning and management. It will be necessary to carefully examine the suitability of existing arrangements to met the substantial policy needs of government and the broader needs of all interested parties, and to redesign them whenever appropriate. Some design principles It is worthwhile to start with some design principles 3 when considering how healthy institutional arrangements for integrated resource management might be developed. Building flexibility and adaptability. We know that humans are fallible and that society changes its priorities and values, so there is merit in designing arrangements that are able to be reviewed and revised in this light. The important principle here is the recognition that arrangements can 2 See Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes and Targets for Natural Resource Management. Discussion Paper prepared by the Standards and Targets Working Group of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, 27 March These have been adapted from R. E Goodin (1996) The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge University Press. 12

13 and should be altered if and when they fail to perform their specified role. Moreover, designs must include mechanisms for regular review and a capacity to respond to changing circumstance. Ensuring robustness. However, we also want arrangements that are not vulnerable to continuous or ad hoc change, especially by circumstances that have no direct bearing on the purposes of the arrangements. Changes to institutional arrangements need to be a measured response to changes in the fundamental circumstances in which the arrangements operate. Being publicly defendable. We recognise that in any set of institutional arrangements there are complex motivations among participants for which the arrangements need to be sensitive. Inevitably these motivations range from being self-serving to strong commitments to the common good. Because individual moral codes vary there is merit in advocating a principle for the public defence for all arrangements. Transparency and pubic accountability provide a strong incentive for arrangements to be credible. Encouraging variability. The history of institutional arrangements for natural resources management often reflects inflexible administrative structures, a rigid dependence on legislation and consequently little capacity to respond to differences across regions or as situations change. By establishing arrangements that are more open to variability there is increased capacity to learn from the experiences of others, and to encourage a degree of experimentation and innovation. IDENTIFYING CONSTRAINTS TO HEALTHY ARRANGEMENTS The set of common features outlined in Box 2 permits a more careful assessment of what the major constraints and problems might be in setting up healthy institutional arrangements for the NAP and NHT. This in turn allows for the identification of mechanisms to resolve them as part of the ongoing implementation processes that might be developed. Below we address constraints to each feature in turn. The local community will have a strengthened and more enduring contribution to regional strategic planning and ongoing implementation The expectation for enhanced and more substantial community involvement in natural resources management is consistent with the government view that individuals and communities need to take on more direct ownership of and responsibility for identifying and addressing regional priorities for natural resources management. However this presents substantial challenges on several fronts. First it is unclear who or what the community is and once defined, who might represent its interests. Community interests are often thought to be adequately represented by the interests of stakeholders, NGOs and/or local government. While this might be a reasonable assumption in the short-run, over longer time periods and with the prospect of more significant and enduring responsibilities falling to these interests there is no guarantee that as decisions are made and actions taken by representatives, that their decisions and actions will be supported by those not present. Accordingly, the challenge will be to design locally-based institutional structures and processes that are more broadly representative, that foster trust, shared responsibility and active participation. Second is the question of which community interests to represent and how many of each might be acceptable. The debate needs equally to focus on representing the full citizenry alongside particular stakeholder groups. It is unlikely that all community interest groups can be represented, so some consideration needs to be given to which ones will have a representative function and for how long. A particular deficiency in current arrangements is the superficial consideration and poor integration of indigenous peoples interests in natural resources management issues and programs. Third is the question of the role of local government. The introduction of the Integrated planning Act (1997) has increased both the capacity and the responsibility of local government in relation to environment and resource management. There is a growing expectation that significant features of the NAP agenda can be delivered locally through IPA arrangements, however it remains unclear to what extent the yet to be defined objectives of specific NAP programs will be implemented through this legislative framework. There is a clear need for a careful assessment of the capacity of existing legislation, including IPA, to deliver NAP outcomes. In addition local 13

14 government in Queensland has substantial responsibilities for water resources management, which will need to be carefully assessed in the legislative context of water reforms that propose new property rights and pricing arrangements. Finally it is likely that the community s capacity for effective involvement in integrated natural resource management will in part be determined by their access to credible scientific and other information and advice and by their capacity to use and understand it. Strategically focussed and integrated projects that tackle high priority issues will be encouraged Governments are looking to use public funds in a more strategically targeted fashion for high priority issues. There has been significant effort in the QMDB over the past five or so years to develop strategic approaches to natural resources management, and consequently the major catchment associations and some industry groups have already developed strategic plans. However, the challenges of integrated planning are enormous. Our capacity to meet them is improved by recognising that integrated planning occurs at many levels for a variety of purposes. First it occurs spatially, with consistent approaches being considered for property, subcatchment, catchment and regional levels of planning over time. Second integration encourages the bringing together of the environmental, economic and social aspects of a resource management issue, so that the development of appropriate actions clearly recognises both positive and negative implications across these aspects. Thirdly, integrated planning aims to better coordinate all of the interested parties in natural resources management, so governments, the private sector and the wider community establish more effective working relationships and alliances to address issues and meet policy goals. There are a variety of new approaches and tools to support greater integration, some of which are more-or-less straightforward while others require substantial professional and technical support. The institutional arrangements needed for effective integrated planning range from legal requirements and policy directives, through to technical and strategic advice and information, to well-established community and industry networks that serve to draw together interested groups around common goals and issues. The core challenge for these formal and informal arrangements is to clearly recognise that integrated planning is a tool to help communities streamline and coordinate program development and implementation around strategic themes. It is not an end it itself, so the level and scale of integration should be set in the context of clearly defined strategic goals and existing resource conditions. Multi-year partnerships and alliances, especially those that include local government and industry financial support and active involvement, will be encouraged Almost every new government policy initiative is underpinned by the need to create and foster strategic partnerships and alliances. And the reasons are simple. They provide much needed financial and institutional support to many pressing problems, they provide an opportunity for the private sector and other levels of government to be good corporate citizens and they spread responsibility for dealing with difficult issues more broadly. In developing arrangements for partnerships the question of how to determine equitable financial contributions among partners will be important as will be deciding on how contributions are calculated (in-kind versus cash being the two options). Second is clarifying what precisely is meant by active involvement, resolving for how long the partnership might last and determining the form and distribution of benefits. It likely that business planning principles and approaches will be useful to clarify these issues. There will be an ongoing need for access to credible scientific and technical information and professional advice, and some capacity to support the creation and communication of new approaches and information There is no doubt that more and more scientific information will become available over time. The community will therefore need to be able to access and interpret a wide range of complex scientific and other information used for natural resources management. This will not be easy because science does not have a reputation for being particularly user-friendly, and nor does it 14

15 have a reputation for asking the right kinds of questions from the community s perspective, so sometimes the relevance of the information will be challenged. In addition to building community capacity to access and interpret scientific and technical information, the community will need to be in a position where over time they can also ask new kinds of scientific questions and thereby shape the direction of future research. Institutional arrangements for integrated resource management will need to accommodate systems for accessing and interpreting scientific information, obtaining scientific and technical advice and being able to influence the direction of future research programs. There will be an ongoing need for reliable and responsive information networks and capacity building and training opportunities Society is becoming increasingly information rich. However our capacity to access, share and use this information effectively is often inadequate even thought we re supported by sophisticated communications technologies. There are several reasons for this. The technological revolution is not shared equally, with those in some regional and remote areas suffering most. Information management is often lacking which means that quality control is poor, and users either get too much irrelevant information or they can t find what they want. Thirdly, information networks do not always cater to a wide range of user needs and capacities, so users often need to have some scientific or other technical training or knowledge to use available information effectively. Fourth, up-to-date information at the local or regional scale useful to most people is the most difficult to find because it is usually the most expensive to collect and maintain. For the reasons outlined above it is worthwhile reminding ourselves why access to reliable information networks is important. Knowledge is power, and as governments anticipate individuals and communities assuming more responsibilities for natural resources management there will be an inevitable transfer of some power currently vested in government to communities. This comes with a price, which is increased community responsibility and accountability for their decisions and actions. Moreover, establishing reliable information networks is not the only constraint. As noted above, information comes in different forms with varying levels of complexity, so there will be an ongoing need for training and capacity building opportunities. Two related matters need to be addressed, neither of which are new. The first is the diversity of existing levels of knowledge and understanding found within the community and the second is the variety of delivery mechanism though which capacity building programs might be implemented. Building capacity is not just an issue for communities and nor is it restricted to scientific and technical matters. It is likely that all interested parties from government, industry and the community will benefit from further opportunities to enhance professional and personal skills and knowledge across a variety of subject areas. One primary mechanism for delivering program objectives will be through private landowners The focus on landowners is inferred from government policy for natural resource management that has for some time noted that individual landowners need to address pressing environment and resource use issues. The implication is that effective resource management is not just a matter for public lands but equally for private tenures. As noted in Table 1, there are substantial issues associated with how governments approach property rights, public versus private benefits for sustainable resource management, approaches to cost-sharing and structural adjustments arrangements, all of which have a direct and immediate bearing on landowners receptivity to new programs. In the Queensland Murray Darling Basin, most land is either freehold (40%) or leasehold (50%) tenure, with most freehold land in the eastern portion of the Basin and most leasehold land in the western areas. A relatively small fraction (10%) of the Basin is in public land tenures and therefore the day-to-day responsibility of government. 15

16 What are property rights? Property rights are a bundle of rights to own or use a particular resource or commodity conferred on individuals by law or custom. The specification of property rights is crucial prerequisite to the efficient exchange of a resource or commodity through markets. For markets to function effecgively, property rights need to be: Clearly defined Completely and exclusively allocated (that is, holders of rights should be guaranteed exclusive use) Secure Legally enforceable If property rights to not have these characteristics it will not be possible to develop effective markets. Without clear property rights, existing owners have little incentive to manage or use the resource in a way that maximises its longer-term value. Source: Productivity Commission (1998) A Full Repairing Lease The Queensland government is presently reviewing arrangements for state leasehold land 4 with a view to considering approaches that will best deliver sustainability objectives. The key challenges for lessees revolve around maintaining their economic viability, and environmental and social/cultural sustainability through reforming the traditional roles of state and local governments and landowners, and developing new partnerships for planning and program delivery. Another challenge for rural leaseholders is the growing interest by the community for access to leasehold sites of recreational, environmental or cultural value. Evidence indicates that larger freehold and leasehold properties tend to be more viable, partly because of economies of scale and partly because of greater use of formal business management approaches 5. However, there is also evidence of a trend towards rural sub-division and the creation of smaller properties, often on the edges of rural towns. In some cases this is likely to be a direct result of a shift in land use preferences from agricultural to hobby farms. While it is unlikely that these smaller holdings can provide a primary income stream from mainstream agriculture, they may create population growth in some areas, inject new professional and community skills and build local social and economic diversity. The decision about how much primary agricultural land to rezone to smaller allotments rests with local government, so public discussion will take place through consultations around shire planning schemes. One of the central questions in this discussion is counter-balancing the potential loss of highly fertile productive land to marginal agricultural activities with a potentially greater rate base and the prospects of injecting new kinds of economic activity into shires. What is duty of care? The notion of duty of care is based on the contention that with rights come responsibilities. In general terms it relates to the expectation that where a right has been conferred for a particular action or responsibility, then that right is tempered by a duty to minimise harm or other negative impacts. Typically duty of care concepts are applied through law of negligence as An obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing foreseeable harm to another person or their property. For example, those who have right to drive motor vehicles have a duty of care to drive safely and avoid accidents. Recently, the concept has been broaden to a environmental duty of care, through which the proposed duty would require everyone who influences the management of risks to the environment to take all reasonable and practical to prevent harm to the environment that could be reasonably foreseen. The exact translation of this broadening of the concept into the environmental arena has been contentious and complex. Some advocates propose extensions of the common law duty of care provisions, with the expectation that codification of this duty will establish that protecting the environment is a continuous legal and social responsibility (Source: Productivity Commission (1998) A Full Repairing Lease, pp ). Others have argued for a non-statutory approach, based around agreed benchmarks, standards and procedures for what constitutes sustainable resource management across interest groups. A non-statutory approach would include monitoring and evaluation of programs and behaviours consistent with the duty (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment & Heritage (2001). Public good conservation: our challenge for the 21 st century. pp 31-45) 4 See Managing State Rural Leasehold Land: a discussion paper. DNR&M. December See 2 above. 16