Chapter

Can Community-Based NRM Work at the Scale of Large Regions? Exploring the Roles of Nesting and Subsidiarity

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

This chapter began with the complex challenge faced by regional bodies in making community-based NRM work at the scale of large and populous regions,– as required under Australia’s regional delivery model. Observing that the ‘nesting principle’ had been proposed from international research as a possible foundation for addressing challenges of this kind, we proceeded to examine the potential for application of this principle (by both governments and regional bodies) to help community-based NRM in this context deliver more of the voluntary on-ground cooperation that originally justified this approach’s adoption. Given the pivotal place of subsidiarity in translating the nesting principle to the design of community-based NRM, this examination involved tracing the degree to which governmental policy steps towards the regional delivery model had been consistent with subsidiarity.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... Recent years have seen rapid expansion in the critique of arrangements for the governance of natural resources and the environment in Australia (Curtis et al. 2002;Lane et al. 2004;Marshall 2008Marshall , 2009a, where governance involves the 'formation and stewardship of the formal and informal rules that regulate the public realm, the arena in which the state as well as economic and societal actors interact to make decisions' (Hyden et al. 2004, p. 16). Concurrently, there has been a growing assertion internationally that drylands may share features around the world that warrant a specific conceptualisation of how to manage them (Reynolds et al. 2007;Stafford Smith 2008a). ...
... The principle of subsidiarity has been proposed by institutional researchers as an appropriate starting point for designing polycentric systems of environmental governance in Australia (e.g. Reeve et al. 2002;Reeve 2003;Lane et al. 2004;Marshall 2008Marshall , 2009aRobins 2008;Moran and Elvin 2009). Associated most often with European governance where various authors (e.g. ...
... From a polycentric perspective, the subsidiarity principle applies equally when assigning responsibilities and rights for deciding whether and how higher-level governance organisations should be established when responsibilities exceed lower-level capacities to fulfil. That is; organisations at any level should participate as far as their capacities allow in deciding whether higher-level governance structures are required and in designing them (Marshall 2008(Marshall , 2009aStafford Smith and Cribb 2009). Wagner (2005) observed how this polycentric perspective differs from that of economists working in the field of fiscal federalism (e.g. ...
Article
We respond in this article to scholars having identified a theory-practice gap commonly afflicting applications of integrated water resources management (IWRM) internationally, and thus a need for the concept to be recast according to evidence of how integration of fragmented water management efforts actually occurs. The Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) is employed as a longitudinal case study for this purpose, focusing particularly on its cross-border integration challenges. We frame IWRM as the pursuit of coherent collective action by the multiple enterprises (public, private, civic and hybrid) typically constituting the polycentric public industry involved in managing water resources. We look beyond approaches involving overt coordination to other approaches with potential to contribute towards such coherence. We find that Australian governments are no longer able to overtly coordinate the suite of interdependent enterprises relevant to the success of water management efforts in the Basin. Their success in strengthening coherence or integration in these efforts has come to depend increasingly on their ability to devise governance arrangements capable of catalysing (e.g., by fostering conditions supportive of fruitful competitive rivalry or informal collaborations) the kinds of dynamics through which more of the required integration of management efforts emerges on a self-organised basis.
... Recent years have seen rapid expansion in the critique of arrangements for the governance of natural resources and the environment in Australia (Curtis et al. 2002;Lane et al. 2004;Marshall 2008Marshall , 2009a, where governance involves the 'formation and stewardship of the formal and informal rules that regulate the public realm, the arena in which the state as well as economic and societal actors interact to make decisions' (Hyden et al. 2004, p. 16). Concurrently, there has been a growing assertion internationally that drylands may share features around the world that warrant a specific conceptualisation of how to manage them (Reynolds et al. 2007;Stafford Smith 2008a). ...
... The principle of subsidiarity has been proposed by institutional researchers as an appropriate starting point for designing polycentric systems of environmental governance in Australia (e.g. Reeve et al. 2002;Reeve 2003;Lane et al. 2004;Marshall 2008Marshall , 2009aRobins 2008;Moran and Elvin 2009). Associated most often with European governance where various authors (e.g. ...
... From a polycentric perspective, the subsidiarity principle applies equally when assigning responsibilities and rights for deciding whether and how higher-level governance organisations should be established when responsibilities exceed lower-level capacities to fulfil. That is; organisations at any level should participate as far as their capacities allow in deciding whether higher-level governance structures are required and in designing them (Marshall 2008(Marshall , 2009aStafford Smith and Cribb 2009). Wagner (2005) observed how this polycentric perspective differs from that of economists working in the field of fiscal federalism (e.g. ...
Article
Critiques of governance arrangements for natural resource management in Australia have expanded rapidly in recent years. Meanwhile, arguments have strengthened internationally that drylands share characteristics that justify a specific ‘drylands syndrome’ understanding of their management. These issues converge in the drylands of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB). We explore in this article the insights that this convergence offers for designing governance arrangements for the natural resources of the MDB. We argue that the characteristics of the MDB drylands justify transformation of these arrangements to those of adaptive governance; and more specifically that this model of governance should be founded on the related concepts of polycentricity and subsidiarity. We explain how three aspects of polycentric governance contribute to the robustness of social-ecological systems and identify the particular relevance of each to the MDB drylands. Even so, transformation to polycentric governance would face formidable obstacles from vested interests and mental models that have adapted to the status quo. Acknowledging the reality that hurdling such obstacles requires strategic preparation to exploit windows of opportunity, we propose a number of pragmatic steps to be followed in strategically pre-adapting the MDB drylands for this transformation. Although transforming to adaptive governance is not without risk, we argue that the risks of inaction for the MDB drylands are greater.
... There is considerable evidence that this has occurred in Australia. Marshall (2009) concluded that regional bodies have been allowed limited freedom to adopt modes of governance that suit their context and this has inhibited their capacity to engage stakeholders and build relationships based on trust. The changes associated with CfoC further reduced the autonomy of regional bodies and undermined their capacity to respond to the needs of their stakeholders (Robins & Kanowski 2011). ...
... The barriers to adoption of conservation practices typically extend beyond the domain of rural extension (Pannell et al. 2006). Moreover, the kinds of voluntary actions required to bring the costs of NRM implementation within the fiscal capacities of governments include exerting peer pressure on neighbours to cooperate, supporting third-party sanctioning of uncooperative landholders (Marshall 2005), complying with conditions attached to financial incentives (Marshall 2009), and complying with environmental laws and regulations (Bartel & Barclay 2011). There are important roles for CBNRM in motivating increased cooperation within all these areas. ...
Article
Since the 1980s, natural resource management (NRM) in Australia and New Zealand has been an ambitious experiment with community engagement. Underpinned by theory about public participation, adult education and agricultural extension, but also influenced by neoliberalism's calls for ‘smaller government’, governments embraced engagement as a cost-effective approach to effecting change. Critiques of community engagement are often misguided as they are frequently based on inauthentic or poor engagement practices. Moreover, these critiques have often failed to grasp the nature of the problems being addressed, acknowledge the contributions of engagement or understand the importance of building adaptive capacity to respond to an increasingly complex and uncertain future. The foundations for this commissioned article emerged at a workshop where we reflected and deliberated on our experience as NRM researchers and practitioners over the past 20 years. We begin by identifying the key theories underpinning community engagement and community-based NRM (CBNRM). We then reflect on the experience with community engagement in NRM over the past 20 years and identify key lessons for practitioners and policy makers. Drawing on these insights, and the developing theory around new governance and resilience thinking, we identify opportunities for community engagement under a range of possible futures.
... Debating which policy approach is best is not constructive. Successful NRM requires aligned governance from the local to the national scales (Ostrom 1990) ensuring both subsidiarityenabling decisions at the most local scale appropriateand polycentric governance (Marshall 2009;Marshall and Stafford Smith 2010). Community capacity and commitment is an important, but not sufficient condition to progress sustainable agriculture and resource management at a landscape or continental scale. ...
Article
Full-text available
The past four decades have seen a transformative process in Australian agriculture - the gradual incorporation of conservation practices such as ecological restoration, revegetation and agroforestry as a response to land degradation. Although actions have been impressive they remain fragmented, are confined to particular districts or properties and run the risk of not being built upon in the future. This paper traces the history of this movement and draws out lessons and implications for future policy development and research. Landscape-scale restoration and the integration of conservation into farming landscapes have been recognised as a global imperative for decades, for which Australia has generated many innovations - in the technical, social and policy domains. Scanning the 'big picture', we identify many pixels of best practice in policy, incentives, planning, regulation and on-ground practice. We wonder why we have not pulled these together, to work in concert over time. If we had, Australia would have a world's best natural resource management framework. However, we have neither integrated these elements at multiple scales nor sustained them. Unfortunately, although we are excellent at innovating, we have been equally good at forgetting. Progress remains partial, patchy and slow. Too often, we have made gains then gone backwards, reflecting a tendency towards policy adhockery and amnesia. With Australia's continuing depreciation of institutional memory, we risk losing critical capabilities for making sound policy decisions. Australian expertise in revegetation, restoration and regeneration of landscapes remains formidable however, with an enormous amount to offer the world. We are still learning to live and farm more sustainably, but we have made big strides over the last four decades. The challenge will be to maintain the momentum and provide adequate succession so future generations continue the work.
... Adaptive governance scholarship builds on Ostrom's seminal work examining collective action challenges in common property resource systems (Ostrom, 1990(Ostrom, , 2005. Ostrom found that collective action problems faced by large groups become more manageable when tackled by smaller subgroups nested in a broader governance system (Ostrom, 1999;Marshall, 2008Marshall, , 2009. Complex multi-scaled problems require governance that transcends local to regional to global scales (Ostrom, 2010). ...
Article
Adaptive governance aspires to support learning and experimentation through polycentric and collaborative approaches. Collaborative decision-making focused around a particular problem or region, the ideal suggests, enables actors to have greater flexibility to experiment, learn and respond to the particularities of their landscape. This paper examines the theoretical promise of adaptive governance through an in-depth case study of a connectivity conservation initiative in Australia. Habitat 141° is a network of public, private and civil society actors seeking to align conservation actions dispersed across large spatial scales. In addition to well-established challenges to collaborative practice, sustaining the complex governance arrangements intended to connect local-to-regional scales undermined Habitat 141°’s capacity to provide vertical and horizontal connections between scales of decision-making. Without these linkages, Habitat 141°’s envisaged governance structure was unable to support the necessary functions of coordination and self-organization critical to polycentric governance. This paper highlights challenges to collective action in spatially distributed networks, providing critical empirical insight into the practical challenges of adaptive governance in nested, collaborative, polycentric networks. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
... Successive Australian governments have sought to devolve natural resource management powers to local communities (e.g. Landcare), but many questions surround the legitimacy of devolution and whether it is just an alternate form of centralised intervention (Lane et al. 2009;Marshall 2009). Nevertheless, adequate devolution of responsibility and decision-making powers is essential if vulnerable species and habitats are to be adequately conserved. ...
Article
Full-text available
Australia’s vast continent is dominated by semi-arid and arid landscapes that have been modified to support the development of an extensive livestock grazing industry. Historically, this development has come at great environmental cost, with wide-scale landscape degradation and loss of biodiversity, including small macropods. With the growing appreciation of environmental values and ecological services provided by grazing landscapes, the engagement of pastoral landholders is now central to contemporary conservation efforts. In this paper we explore the spluttering recovery of Australia’s critically endangered bridled nailtail wallaby Onychogalea fraenata, once presumed extinct but now subject to a limited rehabilitation program in Queensland. We explore the ‘fit’ between management units and the scale of conservation challenges for the bridled nailtail wallaby, and then use this to frame the role of the private grazing industry in the governance of conservation actions. A centralised state conservation program has largely failed to stop the decline of the species, which remains critically endangered. We argue that non-state (privately) managed grazing properties working within a multi-level governance system that includes the state have a greater chance of conservation success because their actions can more appropriately match the scale of the problem at the implementation level. If the species recovers, the balance of management focus will need to shift towards broader scale actions such that localised disconnected sub-populations can successfully interbreed. By analysing the institutional failures that surround the bridled nailtail wallaby, we provide recommendations on how public institutions or policies can successfully catalyse private sector action at regional scales. These include avoiding economic incentives that may crowd out local stewardship, avoiding overly-authoritative state control (i.e. mono-centricity), and developing a multilevel governance structure that can strategically adapt its focus to the scale of various and shifting targets.
... Participatory processes have been linked to governance systems where power is devolved from higher levels to local actors by applying the concept of subsidiarity. This is the principal of assigning a particular responsibility to the lowest level of governance with the capacity to discharge it effectively and where recommendations are effectively implemented and sustained (Marshall, 2009;Prager and Freese, 2009). Lockwood (2010) suggests devolution as a practical and moral response to the limitations of existing governance systems in light of continued declines to biodiversity, inattention to social justice and an increasingly informed citizenry as education standards have improved. ...
Article
Full-text available
There is increasing recognition in the field of natural resource management that transformative adaptation to climate and policy change requires cross industry learning and cooperation at the landscape scale. This can be supported by the development of systematic methodology on learning models for adaptive co-management between diverse and conflicting landscape managers. Our example of land-use change to hardwood plantation forestry in sub-tropical Australia illustrates an innovative implementation framework for a social learning process that helped build knowledge and community capacity for adaptive co-management of dynamic and shared landscapes. The action research methodology relied on deliberation over local knowledge, existing and emergent scientific findings, resulting in attitudinal change. Processes required facilitation and mediation by a bridging organisation, in this case a research institution, to support cross-scale communications. Reflections suggest that attention is required to manage risk and support stakeholder analysis, particularly in understanding contested values and overcoming power differentials between industry and self-interest groups. Resolving funding issues will require greater consideration by governments and industry groups of their social responsibilities to communities and the environment; particularly as this social learning model is posited for more broad-scale use in providing multi-level governance linkages and as a basis for targeting interventions to address policy gaps or failure.
Article
Full-text available
The Anthropocene imposes new challenges for governments, demanding capabilities for dealing with complexity and uncertainty. In this paper we examine how effective governing of social-biophysical dynamics is constrained by current processes and systems of government. Framing choices and structural determinants combine to create governance deficits in multiple domains, particularly in relation to the governing of complex larger-scale social–biophysical systems. Attempts to build capability for governing ‘wicked problems’ are relevant to sustainability science and Anthropocene governance, but these have mostly failed to become institutionalised. Two cases studies are reported to elucidate how the systemic dynamics of governing operate and fail in relation to espoused purpose. In the UK attempts to enact ‘joined-up’ government’ during the years of New Labour government reveal systemic flaws and consistent praxis failures. From Australia we report on water governance reforms with implications for a wide range of complex policy issues. We conclude that innovations are needed to build capacity for governing the unfolding surprises and inherent uncertainties of the Anthropocene. These include institutionalising, or structural incorporation, of cyber-systemic thinking/practices that can also enhance empowerment and creativity that underpins sustainability science. Graphical abstract
Article
An overview of the formal institutional arrangements for natural resource management (NRM) in the Lake Eyre Basin (LEB) and the role of these arrangements as an enabling environment for community engagement in NRM constitute our broad research focus. The appropriate scale of NRM management and the complexity and expense of effective community engagement are discussed. The research highlights challenges faced by NRM groups in remote regions and their need for proper support and sharing in significant decision making processes. Regional interface groups are presented as relatively recent experiments in ecological intervention within a rapidly changing policy environment. The study concludes with a summary of key challenges for NRM engagement in the LEB region and suggests that interface organisations require understanding, capacity and support to learn how to improve, adapt and meet the challenges of their operating environment.
Article
Full-text available
The Australian Government's ‘Caring for our Country’ program has undermined Australia's ‘regional model’ for natural resource management, and eroded gains made under the precursor Natural Heritage Trust and related programs, in eight significant ways. Contrary to expectations that Caring for our Country, established in 2008, would build on the foundations established by the Natural Heritage Trust, it has adopted a narrower agenda, increased central government control, and compromised buy-in by state and territory governments. In reaction to the difficulty of assessing the cost-effectiveness of natural resource management program investments, priority has been given to discrete projects capable of demonstrating short-term, measurable outputs. Implementation of Caring for our Country has failed to realise the aspirations of regional organisations for core funding, substantially increased transaction costs and diminished success rates under competitive funding arrangements, and prejudiced the goodwill of many in the natural resource management community. Commitment to local community natural resource management movements like Landcare has been inconsistent, and largely unsuccessful. Retracting investment in relevant research and development, notably the termination of Land and Water Australia in 2009, has severely limited knowledge creation and sharing to inform and strengthen the regional model. We contend that the Australian Government should revisit its strategy for enabling and sustaining natural resource management investment, and that there is a substantial body of evidence in favour of approaches based on the regional model.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.