Collaborative Governance and Adaptive Management: (Mis)applications to Groundwater, Salinity and Run-off

Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 37-69

  Cameron, Holley ^a,b   Darren, Sinclair ^c  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865391740     PISSN: 13205323     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (259)

1. Aside from agricultural practices, other key threats to natural resources include population growth and climate change: National Land Water Resource Audit (NLWRA), Australia's Natural Resources: 1997-2002 and Beyond (NLWRA, 2002).
2. Marcus Lane, Bruce Taylor and Cathy Robinson, 'Introduction: Contested Country - Regional Natural Resource Management in Australia' in Marcus Lane, Cathy Robinson and Bruce Taylor (eds), Contested Country (CSIRO, 2009) 1.
3. In a number of cases, past government assistance and regulation of agricultural in fact encouraged practices (eg clearing land) that are now considered antithetical to the good management of natural resources. Neil Gunningham and Darren Sinclair, Environmental Partnerships: Combining Sustainability and Commercial Advantage in the Agricultural Sector (Project No. ACL1A Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), 2002)
4. David Farrier, 'Conserving Biodiversity on Private Land: Incentives for Management or Compensation for Lost Expectations?' (1995) 19 Harvard Environmental Law Review 303.
5. For more on other approaches to managing natural resource problems, see, eg, Douglas E Fisher and Noeleen McNamara (eds), Integrated Water and Land Management: Essays on Comparative Approaches to the Integration of Water and Land Management (Queensland Institute of Technology, 2000)
6. Stephen Dovers and Su Wild River (eds), Managing Australia's Environment (Federation Press, 2003); Alex Gardner et al, Water Resources Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2009)
7. Chris McGrath, 'Editorial Comment - End of Broadscale Clearing in Queensland' (2007) 24 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 5.
8. rd ed, 1971)
9. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future - The Report to the World Commission on Environment and Development (Oxford University Press, 1987) (often referred to as the 'Brundtland Report' after the Chair of the Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland)
10. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Earth Summit, Agenda 21 United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992 (UN, 1992)
11. Council of Australian Governments (COAG), Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (Australian Government, 1992)
12. David Farrier, 'Factoring Biodiversity Conservation into DecisionMaking Processes: The Role of the Precautionary Principle' in Ronnie Harding and Elizabeth Fisher (eds), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Federation Press, 1999) 99.
13. For additional driving forces, see Cameron Holley, 'Public Participation, Environmental Law and New Governance: Lessons for Designing Inclusive and Representative Participatory Processes' (2010) 27 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 360, 365.
14. This approach is also commonly referred to as 'new governance'. See, eg, Cameron Holley, 'Removing the Thorn from New Governance's Side: Examining the Emergence of Collaboration in Practice and the Roles for Law, Nested Institutions, and Trust' (2010) 40(7) Environmental Law Reporter 10 656
15. Michael Lockwood et al, 'Governance Principles for Natural Resource Management' (2010) 23(10) Society and Natural Resources 986. Gráinne De Búrca, 'New Governance and Experimentalism: An Introduction' (2010) Wisconson Law Review 227.
16. These trends are evident in other parts of the world, see, eg, Cameron Holley and Neil Gunningham, 'Natural Resources, New Governance and Legal Regulation: When Does Collaboration Work?' (2011) 24 New Zealand Universities Law Review 309.
17. Further CEG has also been observed in other environmental contexts, including point source pollution and urban diffuse pollution. Brian Head, 'From Government to Governance: Explaining and Assessing New Approaches to NRM' in Marcus Lane, Cathy Robinson and Bruce Taylor (eds), Contested Country (CSIRO, 2009) 15, 19-20
18. Cameron Holley and Neil Gunningham 'Environment Improvement Plans: Facilitative Regulation in Practice' (2006) 23 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 448
19. Neil Gunningham, Cameron Holley and Clifford Shearing 'Neighbourhood Environment Improvement Plans: Community Empowerment, Voluntary Collaboration and Legislative Design' (2007) 24(2) Environmental and Planning Law Journal 125, 143.
20. J B Ruhl, 'Regulation by Adaptive Management - Is It Possible?' (2005) 7 Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 21.
21. For more on learning frameworks, see, eg, Eric W Orts, 'Reflexive Environmental Law' (1995) 89 Northwestern University Law Review 1227, 1238.
22. Head, 'From Government to Governance', above n 7, 20
23. Charles Sabel, Archon Fung and Bradley Karkkainen, 'Beyond Backyard Environmentalism' (1999) October/November Boston Review 1, 3.
24. Melinda Harm Benson and Ahjond S Garmestani, 'Embracing Panarchy, Building Resilience and Integrating Adaptive Management through a Rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act' (2011) 92 Journal of Environmental Management 1420, 1421.
25. For some recent exceptions, see Catherine Allan and Allan Curtis, 'Nipped in the Bud: Why Regional Scale Adaptive Management Is Not Blooming' (2005) 36(3) Environmental Management 414
26. Cathy Robinson, Bruce Taylor and Richard Margerum, 'On a Learning Journey to Nowhere? The Practice and Politics of Evaluating Outcomes of Natural Resource Management in Northern Queensland Regions' in Marcus Lane, Cathy Robinson and Bruce Taylor (eds), Contested Country (CSIRO, 2009) 201
27. Catherine Allan 'Reviewing Adaptive Management through a Wicked Lens' in Marcus Lane, Cathy Robinson and Bruce Taylor (eds), Contested Country (CSIRO, 2009), 215
28. Michael Lockwood et al, 'Multilevel Environmental Governance: Lessons from Australian Natural Resource Management' (2009) 40(2) Australian Geographer 169, 180-1
29. Sandy Paton et al, 'Regional Natural Management: Is it Sustainable?' (2004) 11 Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 259, 262.
30. See Marcus Lane et al, 'Will Regionalisation Achieve Integrated Natural Resource Management? Insights from Recent South Australian Experience' in Marcus Lane, Cathy Robinson and Bruce Taylor (eds), Contested Country (CSIRO, 2009) 59, 62.
31. Robinson, Taylor and Margerum, above n 10
32. Susan Sturm, 'Gender Equity Regimes and the Architecture of Learning' in Gráinne De Búrca and Joanne Scott (eds), Law and New Governance in the EU and the US (Hart Publishing, 2006) 323, 327-8
33. Craig Thomas 'Habitat Conservation Planning' in Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright (eds), Deepening Democracy (Verso, 2003) 144, 154.
34. Cathy Robinson, Marcus Lane and Bruce Taylor, 'The Changing and Contested governance of Australia's Environmental Heritage' in Marcus Lane, Cathy Robinson and Bruce Taylor (eds), Contested Country (CSIRO, 2009) 243, 245
35. Alejandro E Camacho 'Adapting Governance to Climate Change: Managing Uncertainty through a Learning Infrastructure' (2009) 59 Emory Law Journal 1, 76, 77
36. Daniel Schramm and Akiva Fishman, 'Legal Frameworks for Adaptive Natural Resource Management in a Changing Climate' 2010 22 Georgetown International Environmenta. Law Review 491, 519-20
37. Collaborative Democracy Network, 'A Call to Scholars and Teachers of Public Administration, Public Policy, Planning, Political Science and Related Fields' (2006) 66 Public Administration Review 168, 169
38. Sturm, above n 12, 333
39. Thomas, above n 12, 156
40. Brian Head, 'Participation or CoGovernance? Challenges for Regional Natural Resource Management' in Robyn Eversole and John Martin (eds), Participation and Governance in Regional Development (Ashgate,2005) 137, 146
41. Sarah Ewing, 'Catchment Management Arrangements' in Stephen Dovers and Su Wild River (eds), Managing Australia's Environment (Federation Press, 2003) 393, 408.
42. See, eg, Jody Freeman and Daniel A Farber, 'Modular Environmental Regulation' (2005) 54 Duke Law Journal 795, 883-888;
43. Orly Lobel, 'The Renew Deal: The Fall of Regulation and the Rise of Governance in Contemporary Legal Thought' (2004) 89 Minnesota Law Review 342, 395-399.
44. Daniel J Fiorino, 'Rethinking Environmental Regulation: Perspectives on Law and Governance' (1999) 23 Harvard Environmental Law Review 441; Orts, above n 8.
45. Note that the adaptive management concept shares close similarities with another prominent rationale of learning in CEG, namely pragmatism. See John Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy (Beacon Press, 1920/1948) 113-114
46. Bradley C Karkkainen, 'Adaptive Ecosystem Management and Regulatory Penalty Defaults: Toward a Bounded Pragmatism' (2003) 87 Minnesota Law Review 943, 956-960.
47. Jennifer A Bellamy, 'Adaptive Governance: The Challenge for Regional Natural Resource Management' in A J Brown and Jennifer A Bellamy (eds), Federalism and Regionalism in Australia: New Approaches, New Institutions? (ANU EPress, 2007) 95, 108-109
48. Ruhl, 'Regulation by Adaptive Management' above n 8; Bradley C Karkkainen, 'Collaborative Ecosystem Governance: Scale, Complexity, and Dynamism' (2002) 21 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 189.
49. C S Holling (ed), Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (Wiley, 1978). Holling has since extended the concept in later works, including: Lance H Gunderson and C S Holling (eds), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Island Press, 2001. See also Kai N Lee, Compass and Gyroscope (Island Press, 1993)
50. C J Walters, Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources (McMillan, 1986).
51. Stephen Dovers, 'Processes and Institutions for Resource and Environmental Management: Why and How to Analyse?' in Stephen Dovers and Su Wild River (eds), Managing Australia's Environment (Federation Press, 2003)3, 4-6; Allan, above n 10, 218.
52. Dovers, 'Processes and Institutions', above n 18, 4; Bradley C Karkkainen, 'Panarchy and Adaptive Change: Around the Loop and Back Again' (2005) 7 Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 59, 73-77.
53. J B Ruhl, 'The PardyRuhl Dialogue on Ecosystem Management, Part IV: Narrowing and Sharpening the Questions' (2007) 24 Pace Environmental Law Review 25, 29 n 17
54. Schramm and Fishman, above n 13, 499
55. Karkkainen, 'Panarchy and Adaptive Change', above n 19.
56. See generally references in above nn 11, 12, 13. See also Stephen Dovers, 'Reflecting on Three Decades: A Synthesis' in Stephen Dovers and Su Wild River (eds), Managing Australia's Environment (Federation Press, 2003) 515, 522-3.
57. For Habitat Conservation Plans see, eg, Alejandro E Camacho, 'Can Regulation Evolve? Lessons from a Study in Maladaptive Management' (2007/2008) 55 University of California Law Review 293; Thomas, above n 12, 153-156. For Catchment Management see, eg, Ewing, above n 13, 407-408.
58. Allan and Curtis, above n 10; Lockwood et al, 'Multilevel Environmental Governance', above n 10, 181.
59. Freeman and Farber, above n 14, 888-9; Thomas, above n 12, 167, 169; DeWitt John, 'Civic Environmentalism' in Robert F Durant, Daniel J Fiorino and Rosemary O'Leary (eds), Environmental Governance Reconsidered (MIT, 2004) 219, 239; Karkkainen, 'Adaptive Ecosystem Management', above n 15, 978, 981; Schramm and Fishman, above n 13.
60. Head, 'Participation or CoGovernance', above n 13, p 145.
61. Sturm, above n 12Error! Bookmark not defined., 331-4; Bradley C Karkkainen, 'Information - Forcing Regulation and Environmental Governance' in Gráinne De Búrca and Joanne Scott (eds), Law and New Governance in the EU and the US (Hart Publishing, 2006) 293, 310-14
62. Rena I Steinzor, 'The Corruption of Civic Environmentalism' (2000) 30 Environmental Law Reporter 10 909, 10 915-918
63. Ewing, above n 13, 408; Gerald Nanson, 'Queensland floods: How quickly is Australia being washed away?'
64. Cameron Holley 'Aging Gracefully? Examining the Conditions for Sustaining Successful Collaboration in Environmental Law and Governance' (2009) 26 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 457, 473
65. Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright, 'Thinking about Empowered Participatory Governance' in Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright (eds), Deepening Democracy (Verso, 2003) 3, 31-32
66. Sanford E Gaines, 'Reflexive Law as a Legal Paradigm for Sustainable Development' (2002/2003) 10 Buffalo Environmental Law Journal 1, 15-16; Sturm, above n 12, 333.
67. ThomasM Koontz and Craig W Thomas 'What Do We Know and Need to Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management' (2006) 66 Public Administration Review 111, 113-114.
68. Cameron Holley, 'Facilitating Monitoring, Subverting SelfInterest and Limiting Discretion: Learning from "New" Forms of Accountability in Practice' (2010) 35 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 127
69. Steinzor, above n 26, 10917. Tabatha Wallington, Geoffrey Lawrence and Barton Loechel, 'Reflections on the Legitimacy of Regional Environmental Governance: Lessons from Australia's Experiment in Natural Resource Management' (2008) 10(1) Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 1
70. Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Regional Delivery Model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (Cwth of Australia, 2008) 22-4
71. Head, 'Participation of CoGovernance', above n 13, 146.
72. Robinson, Lane and Taylor, above n 13, 245; Lockwood et al, 'Multilevel Environmental Governance', above n 10, 184.
73. Allan Curtis, 'The Landcare Experience' in Stephen Dovers and Su Wild River (eds), Managing Australia's Environment (Federation Press, 2003) 442.
74. Ewing, above n 13.
75. Natural Heritage Trust Act 1997 (Cth); Kate Crowley, 'Effective Environmental Federalism? Australia's Natural Heritage Trust' (2001) 3 Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 255.
76. ANAO, Commonwealth Natural Resource Management and Environment Programs (Australian Government, Audit Report No 36, 1996-97);
77. ANAO, Performance Information for Commonwealth Financial Assistance under the Natural Heritage Trust (Australian Government, Audit Report No 43, 2000-01).
78. National Natural Resource Management Taskforce (NNRMTF), Managing Natural Resources in Australia for a Sustainable Future ((Cth) Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 1999).
79. Commonwealth of Australia, Our Vital Resources: A National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (COAG, 2000). Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC), Framework for the Extension of the Natural Heritage Trust (NRMMC, 2002).
80. Investment under the Natural Heritage Trust also occurred at national/state and local levels. NRMMC, Framework for Extension, above n 36.
81. Ibid; Cwth, NSW, Vic, Qld, WA, SA, Tas, NT, and ACT, Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (Australian Government, 2001) cl 5.
82. Lane, Taylor and Robinson, above n 2, 6; L Robins and S Dovers, 'Communitybased NRM Boards of Management: Are They up to the Task?' (2007) 14 Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 111, 113.
83. ANAO, Regional Delivery Model, above 29, 14, 19.
84. ANAO, The Administration of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (Australian Government, Audit Report No 17, 2004-05). For national evaluations see Commonwealth Government, Publications and Resources .
85. For a recent overview of Caring for Our Country, see Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, The Senate, Natural Resource Management and Conservation Challenges (Australian Government, 2009).
86. Commonwealth of Australia, Caring for our Country Outcomes 2008-13 (Australian Government, 2010).
87. Commonwealth of Australia, Caring for our Country Business Plan 2010-11 (Australian Government, 2010) 12-16.
88. Regional bodies will receive 60% of the average annual allocation under NHT2 and NAP initially, but this will be reduced over the life of the program.
89. The regions were also assisted with transitional and ongoing funding to assist regional organisations in adjusting to the new arrangements. Commonwealth of Australia, Caring for our Country: Regional Delivery (Australian Government, 2008).
90. Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland, Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland to Deliver the Natural Heritage Trust (2004) ('Queensland NHT2 Bilateral') cls 67, 68(b)
91. Commonwealth of Australia and State of Queensland, An Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland for the Implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (2001) ('Queensland NAP Bilateral') cl 7.1.
92. Queensland NHT2 Bilateral, above n 47, cl 69;
93. Queensland NAP Bilateral, above n 47, cls 7, 8, 12.
94. Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH), National Natural Resource Management Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, 2003)
95. DEH, National Framework for Natural Resource Management Standards and Targets (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, 2003).
96. Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland (Qld), Transitional Arrangement and Financial Agreement between the Australian Government and the State of Queensland for Implementation of Caring for Our Country (Australian Government, 2008) ('Transitional Arrangement and Financial Agreement') cls 7.1, 7.4.
97. Queensland Government, Q2 Coasts and Country .
98. Commonwealth and Queensland, Transitional Arrangement and Financial Agreement, above n 50, cl 8.
99. Queensland Government, Who Does What .
100. For arrangements prior to 2003, see Catchment Management Act 1989 (NSW); Ewing, above n 13, 397-398.
101. Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 (NSW) ss 8, 14, 15.
102. See also Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NSW).
103. Natural Resources Commission Act 2003 (NSW) s 13.
104. Natural Resources Commission Act 2003 (NSW) s 13
105. Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 (NSW) s 5.
106. See Natural Resources Commission (NRC), The Standard and Targets .
107. Natural Resources Commission Act 2003 (NSW) s 13(b)
108. Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 (Qld) ss 20, 23.
109. New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government, Interim Bilateral Agreement between the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government for Caring for Our Country (Australian Government, Canberra, 2008/2009) ('Interim Bilateral NSW/Cth Caring for Country Agreement') paras D, G-I.
110. This builds on a history of governments and communities pursuing collaborative governance experiments grounded on underlying assumptions of change, adaptation and learning. See for example: Bellamy, above n 16, 106.
111. DEH, National Natural Resource Management Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (NRMMC, 2003) ('National NRM M&E Framework') para 11.
112. DEH, National Framework for Natural Resource Management Standards and Targets (NRMMC, 2003) (National Framework for NRM Standards and Targets) paras 23, 27. NNRMTF, above n 35, 33
113. Queensland NHT2 Bilateral, above n 47, cls 106, 137(e), Attachment E; DEH, National NRM M&E Framework, above n 63
114. Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales (NSW), Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales to Deliver the Natural Heritage Trust (2003) ('NSW NHT2 Bilateral') cls 21.5, 21.6.
115. DEH, National NRM M&E Framework, above n 63; DEH, National Framework for NRM Standards and Targets, above n 64; NNRMTF, above n 35, 33.
116. Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government Natural Resource Management Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement Framework (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009) (Australian Government NRM MERI Framework)
117. Commonwealth and Queensland, Transitional Arrangement and Financial Agreement, above n 50, cl 10
118. New South Wales and Commonwealth, Interim Bilateral NSW/Cth Caring for Country Agreement, above n 61, cl 10.
119. Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government NRM MERI Framework, above n 66, 9.
120. See, eg, Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland, Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation Plan for the National (Australian and State) Programs (State of Queensland, 2004) ('MEI Plan for National Programs')
121. Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 (NSW) ss 17, 26; NRC, Standard for Quality Natural Resource Management (NRC, D05/5274, 2005) paras 1.3.2, 3.6.2; Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) s 389A.
122. These must be consistent with RNRM guidelines and as well as other policy and legislation. Namoi Catchment Management Authority (CMA), Namoi Catchment Action Plan 2007: Part B, Natural Resource Management Plan (Namoi CMA, 2006) 3
123. Commonwealth of Australia, Caring for Our Country Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting an Improvement Strategy (Australian Government, 2010) ('Caring for Country: MERI Strategy') 27-8, 45, 60. For further on target setting under NHT2/NAP see Holley, 'Facilitating Monitoring', above n 29, 184-201.
124. Queensland NHT2 Bilateral, above n 47, Attachment E. Commonwealth of Australia, Caring for Country: MERI Strategy, above n 69, 27-9
125. Note that the MERI Strategy is only relevant for projects over AUD 80,000. NSW NHT2 Bilateral, above n 64, Attachment 3; Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government NRM MERI Framework, above n 66, 19-20.
126. Note that pursuant to transitional CFOC arrangements, NHT2/NAP regional planning documents are still used to determine investments. Commonwealth and Queensland, Transitional Arrangement and Financial Agreement, above n 50, cl 7.3
127. NSW and Commonwealth, Interim Bilateral NSW/Cth Caring for Country Agreement, above n 61, cl 7.3
128. Queensland NHT2 Bilateral, above n 47, Attachment E
129. Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 (NSW) ss 17, 26.
130. Queensland NHT2 Bilateral, above n 47, Attachment E
131. NSW NHT2 Bilateral, above n 64, Attachment 3.
132. Namoi CMA, above n 69, 37
133. NSW Natural Resources and Environment CEO Cluster Group, NSW Natural Resources Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Strategy (NSW Government, 2006) 1, 3-4
134. NRC, Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting: A Comparative Review of Three Institutional Models (NRC, D07/2006, 2007) 24
135. Commonwealth of Australia, Caring for Country: MERI Strategy, above n 69, 3-4
136. Commonwealth and Queensland, MEI Plan for National Programs, above n 68, 14-15
137. Queensland NHT2 Bilateral, above n 47, Attachment C. This may also involve data such as the National Land and Water Resources Audit, and State of Environment Reporting, .
138. This included 'foundational' funding for planning and data collection during initial stages of development, as well as additional Commonwealth and/or state funding. Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland, Interim Financial Agreement to Deliver the Natural Heritage Trust Extension in Queensland (Australian Government, 2003) cl 51; NSW NHT2 Bilateral, above n 64, cl 13.
139. NSW and Commonwealth, Interim Bilateral NSW/Cth Caring for Country Agreement, above n 61, cl 10
140. Commonwealth and Queensland, Transitional Arrangement and Financial Agreement, above n 50, cl 10.
141. Commonwealth of Australia, Caring for Country: MERI Strategy, above 69, 30.
142. Commonwealth of Australia, Caring for Country: MERI Strategy, above 69, 44.
143. Holley, 'Facilitating Monitoring', above n 29, 188.
144. Commonwealth and Queensland, MEI Plan for National Programs, above n 68, 14-18
145. Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 (NSW) ss 17, 26; NSW NHT2 Bilateral, above n 64, cl 9.3, Attachment 4.
146. Commonwealth and Queensland, MEI Plan for National Programs, above n 68, 12-13
147. Queensland NHT2 Bilateral, above n 47, cl 146
148. Queensland NAP Bilateral, above n 47, cl 17.6
149. NSW NHT2 Bilateral, above n 64, cl 9.3.
150. Annual reports are required, as well as regular review and audits. Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 (NSW) ss 17, 26.
151. NSW and Commonwealth, Interim Bilateral NSW/Cth Caring for Country Agreement, above n 61, cl 10
152. Commonwealth and Queensland, Transitional Arrangement and Financial Agreement, above n 50, cl 10.
153. Commonwealth of Australia, Caring for Country: MERI Strategy, above n 69, 5, 8, 27-29.
154. Head, 'Participation or CoGovernance', above n 13, 146
155. Wallington, Lawrence and Loechel, above n 29.
156. Interviewees were selected to capture some of the main forms of diversity across the types of stakeholders involved in the programs, including regional body, farmers, federal, state and local governments and nongovernment bodies. Specific interviewee numbers in Queensland were as follows: 30 for Case Study 1, 27 for Case Study 2. In our ongoing study in Case Study 3 from NSW, 12 interviews have been conducted.
157. Sturm, above n 12, 327.
158. This earlier regional NRM case study was conducted as a part of a broader empirical based research project concerned with exploring collaborative approaches to environmental governance. The project was conducted between 2004 and 2008. It asked the question: 'Under what conditions can we achieve "good" collaborative governance?'. To answer this question, it examined a range of defining characteristics of 'collaborative environmental governance', including collaboration, participation, deliberation, accountability and learning and adaption. This article reinterrogates the data collected on the 'learning and adaption approach of the Regional NRM case study in light of the more recent case study data we collected in 2009 and 2010. For more, see Cameron Holley, Neil Gunningham and Clifford Shearing, New Environmental Governance (Earthscan, forthcoming, November 2011).
159. As one state government officer confirmed, 'We assist by providing actual information or data, we provide science support or undertake science projects on their behalf': Interview with 1211, State Government Agency (Queensland, July 2005). The government funding had been used in part to form a 'technical advisory panel', comprising biophysical and socioeconomic scientists, which provided useful scientific advice on targets: Burdekin Dry Tropics NRM (BDTNRM), Burdekin Dry Tropics Natural Resource Management Plan 2005-2010 (BDTNRM, 2005) 32.
160. See, eg, BDTNRM, above n 88, 14, 46, 69, 83, 115. For further, see Holley, 'Facilitating Monitoring', above n 29, 195.
161. Interview with 341, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, July 2005). Others raised concerns about links made between management action targets and resource conditions outcomes, and there have been general concerns raised regarding science underpinning of targets in M Corey Watts, Getting on Track. Australia's Progress Towards the Ecologically Sustainable Management of our Rural Landscapes. A Discussion Paper with Recommendations (Australian Conservation Foundation, Carlton, 2004) 36-37;
162. Holley, 'Facilitating Monitoring', above n 29, 195-196.
163. Interview with 117, Peak Industry Body (Queensland, October 2005). See also Kim Keogh, Doug Chant and Bob Frazer, Review of Arrangements for Regional Delivery of Natural Resource Management Programmes (Australian Government, 2006) 78.
164. Interview with 115, Peak Industry Body (Queensland, July 2005).
165. Interview with 231, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, May 2009).
166. Interview with 232, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, May 2009).
167. Interview with 233, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, May 2009).
168. BDTNRM, above n 88, 81-2. Similar findings have been made in a range of national evaluations of RNRM. See, eg, RM Consulting Group with URS, Rural Directions, Griffin NRM and Mark Gardner and Associates, Evaluation of Sustainable Agriculture Outcomes from Regional Investment (NAP and NHT) (Australian Government, 2006) 15-17
169. Keogh, Chant and Frazer, above n 91, 7. Note that there have been reports of limited success with target setting on issues that had more 'local buyin', see Robinson, Taylor and Margerum, above n 10, 210.
170. Ewing, above n 13, 408.
171. BDTNRM, above n 88, p 146.
172. Interview with 134, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, July 2005); Holley, 'Facilitating Monitoring ', above n 29, 197.
173. Interview with 148, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, July 2005).
174. Interview with 114, Peak Industry Body (Queensland, July 2005).
175. It is worth noting that because the case study involved such a large region, the members of the regional body (and even their subregional groups' members) are unlikely to have the capacity to constantly bring all the necessary 'local' knowledge to the table regarding relevant environmental conditions. However, formal reviews of the plan every 5-7 years involving multiple regional stakeholders may go some way to filling this gap.
176. At the time of research, the regional body had also begun to develop a database to provide a central source of data.
177. In draft form at the time of research. See Holley K, 'Facilitating Monitoring, above n 29, 200.
178. Interview with 2314, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, November 2009).
179. Interview with 237, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, November 2009).
180. Interview with 234, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, May 2009).
181. See, eg, ANAO, Regional Delivery Model, above n 29;
182. Holley, 'Facilitating Monitoring', above n 29.
183. Interview with 113, Peak Industry Body (Queensland, July 2005).
184. Interview with 149, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, July 2005); Holley, 'Facilitating Monitoring', above n 29, 200.
185. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, above n 42, 56.
186. Interview with 221, Commonwealth Government Agency (Queensland, May 2009).
187. Interview with 232, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, May 2009) pointing out that 'in monitoring evaluation, you [are] supposed to put monitoring evaluation money in but it's rarely actually really funded... it's very hard to integrate it in if it's not resourced and it does take a lot of effort and money'.
188. Interview with 231, Regional Body Staff (Queensland, May 2009).
189. Numerous national and state bodies and policies acknowledge the need for an adaptive management approach to groundwater governance. For example, the National Water Initiative reforms aim to pursue an adaptive management approach to planning and implementation, as do related water sharing plans under NSW's water trading system. While we touch on monitoring and data sharing issues relevant to these processes, our emphasis is on the CMA and its Catchment Action Plan, rather than responsibilities and processes under water sharing plans. See, eg, Commonwealth of Australia and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative (Australian Government, 2006) cls 25(iv), 40
190. National Water Commission (NWC), Australian Water Reform 2009: Second Biennial Assessment of Progress in Implementation of the National Water Initiative (NWC, 2009) ('AWR 2009: Second Biennial Assessment') 31
191. Water Sharing Plan for the Upper Namoi and Lower Namoi Regulated River Water Sources 2003 (NSW) cls 12, 66
192. Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) ss 44, 389A;
193. Namoi CMA, above n 69, 18.
194. Namoi CMA, above n 69, 16.
195. Namoi CMA, above n 69, 2.
196. Namoi CMA, above n 69, 18.
197. Interview with 310, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, October 2010).
198. See ANAO K, Regional Delivery Model, above n 29, 22-24.
199. Interview with 310, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, October 2010).
200. See, eg, National Water Commission, Data Sources and Accuracy, ;
201. NSW Office of Water (NOW), Monitoring .
202. Note that this expectation is not necessarily replicated in legislation. As one respondent explained: 'It is traditional for the Department to provide information on water levels. But it is a tradition not an obligation, although there is a general obligation for monitoring water'. See Interview with 312, State Government Agency (New South Wales, December 2010).
203. The CMA was aware of these risks. Their CAP's risk assessment identified the following as the major risk for its groundwater targets: 'Reliance on current water quality monitoring by DNR is discontinued'. See Namoi CMA, above n 69, 35.
204. Interview 311, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, December 2010).
205. Interview with 310, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, October 2010).
206. Interview with 312, State Government Agency (New South Wales, December 2010).
207. Interview with 311, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, December 2010).
208. Interview with 313, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, December 2010).
209. Interview with 310, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, October 2010).
210. See, eg, NOW, Realtime data .
211. Interview with 307, Farmer (New South Wales, October 2010). In contrast to local farmers, 'professionals' such as local government staff reported that they regularly accessed NOW data online: Interview with 306, Local Government Staff (New South Wales, October 2010).
212. Note that our data suggested that NSW CMAs had received full budgets for MERI components of their projects unlike CMAs in the Queensland program.
213. Interview with 310, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, October 2010).
214. Certainly for all major CFOC projects, the Regional body confirmed they were seeking to complete baseline, trend and post project monitoring.
215. Interview with 310, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, October 2010).
216. Interview 311, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, December 2010).
217. Interview with 310, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, October 2010).
218. Interview 311, Regional Body Staff (New South Wales, December 2010).
219. At the regional level, a review and update of the CAP is underway and new baseline data collection for resource issues (including groundwater) had just begun.
220. NRC, Progress ReportEffective Implementation of Catchment Action Plans (NRC, 2008) 6.
221. NWC, Australian Water Resources 2005 (Australian Government, 2006) xx;
222. NWC, AWR 2009 Second Biennial Assessment, above n 115, 31, 54. This has also included imparting various responsibilities to the Bureau of Meteorology with respect to water information, see Water Regulations 2008 (Cth) cls 7.01-7.18. Further, there have been recent steps taken to try and improve confidence in water data measurement via the development of a nationally consistent framework for water metering and measurement, see Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, National Framework for Nonurban Water Metering Policy Paper (Australian Government, 2009) .
223. Notably, the proposed Murray Darling Basin Plan will also likely involve the development of a new Monitoring and Evaluation Program, with implications for adaptive management processes and responsibilities within the Basin. Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan: overview (Murray-Darling Basin Authority, 2010) 187-192.
224. In particular, the findings offer only a snapshot of these evolving processes. Time is, in fact, a vital issue from the perspective of successful learning approaches as many of the impacts of governance efforts, and accordingly the opportunities to learn from them, are only experienced over the longer term: Ruhl, 'The PardyRuhl Dialogue on Ecosystem Management, Part IV', above n 20.
225. Sturm, above n 12, 326.
226. Sturm, above n 12, 327.
227. Head, 'From Government to Governance', above n 7, 21;
228. J B Ruhl, 'General Design Principles For Resilience and Adaptive Capacity In Legal Systems: Applications To Climate Change Adaptation Law' (2011) 89 North Carolina Law Review (forthcoming);
229. Camacho, 'Adapting Governance', above n 13;
230. Schramm and Fishman, above n 13;
231. Thomas, above n 12, 153-156
232. Ewing, above n 13, 407-408;
233. Sturm, above n 12, 327-328.
234. Thomas, above n 12, 153-154;
235. Sturm, above n 12, 327-328.
236. Dovers, 'Reflecting on Three Decades', above n 21, 521-522.
237. Bradley Karkkainen, 'Managing Transboundary Aquatic Ecosystems: Lessons from The Great Lakes' (2006) 19 Pacific McGeorge Global Business and Development Law Journal 209, 230-231.
238. Thomas, above n 12, 167-169;
239. Ewing, above n 13, 408;
240. Camacho, 'Adapting Governance', above n 13, 74.
241. Freeman and Farber, above n 14, 889;
242. Thomas, above n 12, 167-169.
243. Camacho, 'Can Regulation Evolve?', above n 22;
244. Benson and Garmestani, above n 10.
245. See, eg, Jessica Dart and Rick Davies, 'A Dialogical, StoryBased Evaluation Tool: The Most Significant Change Technique' (2003) 24 American Journal of Evaluation 137.
246. Robinson, Taylor and Margerum, above n 10, 210.
247. Certainly there is evidence that policymakers are at least aware of some of these problems. See, eg, ANAO, Regional Delivery Model, above n 29;
248. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, above n 42.
249. Alastair Iles 'Adaptive Management: Making Environmental Law and Policy More Dynamic, Experimentalist and Learning' (1996) August Environmental Planning and Law Journal 288, 305.
250. See discussion in Dovers, 'Reflecting on Three Decades'. above n 21.
251. See discussion in Dovers, 'Reflecting on Three Decades'. above n 21. 521-522;
252. Nanson, above n 26.
253. See, eg, Holly Doremus, 'Adaptive Management, the Endangered Species Act, and the Institutional Challenges of "New Age" Environmental Protection' (2001) 41 Washburn Law Journal 50, 52, 88.
254. Iles, above n 161, 303.
255. See, eg, Camacho, 'Can Regulation Evolve?', above n 22;
256. Lawrence Susskind, Alejandro E Camacho, and Todd Schenk, 'Collaborative Planning and Adaptive Management in Glen Canyon: A Cautionary Tale' (2010) 35(1) Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 1.
257. For a more detailed discussion on how to decide whether or not to use adaptive management in particular contexts see Holly Doremus et al, Making Good Use of Adaptive Management (Center for Progressive Reform, White Paper No 1104, 2011) .
258. Allan and Curtis, above n 10, 243.
259. Doremus, above n 164, 52, 88-89.