building co-management as a process: problem solving through partnerships in aboriginal country,...

Building Co-Management as a Process: Problem Solving ThroughPartnerships in Aboriginal Country, Australia

Melanie Zurba • Helen Ross • Arturo Izurieta •

Philip Rist • Ellie Bock • Fikret Berkes

Received: 16 May 2011 / Accepted: 7 March 2012 / Published online: 4 April 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract Collaborative problem solving has increasingly

become important in the face of the complexities in the

management of resources, including protected areas. The

strategy undertaken by Girringun Aboriginal Corporation

in north tropical Queensland, Australia, for developing co-

management demonstrates the potential for a problem

solving approach involving sequential initiatives, as an

alternative to the more familiar negotiated agreements for

co-management. Our longitudinal case study focuses on the

development of indigenous ranger units as a strategic

mechanism for the involvement of traditional owners in

managing their country in collaboration with government

and other interested parties. This was followed by Aus-

tralia’s first traditional use of marine resources agreement,

and development of a multi-jurisdictional, land to sea,

indigenous protected area. In using a relationship building

approach to develop regional scale co-management,

Girringun has been strengthening its capabilities as col-

laborator and regional service provider, thus, bringing

customary decision-making structures into play to ‘care for

country’. From this evolving process we have identified the

key components of a relationship building strategy, ‘the

pillars of co-management’. This approach includes learn-

ing-by-doing, the building of respect and rapport, sorting

out responsibilities, practical engagement, and capacity-

building.

Keywords Co-management � Partnerships � Capacity-

building � Social learning � Indigenous lands � Protected

areas � Institutions � Organizational development � Australia

Introduction

Many resources, including protected areas, are too complex

to be governed by a single agency and require collaborative

action by multiple partners. However, collaborative man-

agement is not easy to implement in situations in which

there is a mix of resource users, appropriateness of man-

agement mechanisms are perceived differently by main-

stream and indigenous cultures, and there exist multiple

centers of authority (Andersson and Ostrom 2008). Thus,

sharing management responsibility often requires a period

of development involving various partners and collabora-

tive problem solving (Ross and Innes 2005; Berkes 2007).

This may involve a number of steps, such as the negotia-

tion of a common management objective and vision, the

evolution of trust and mutual respect among the parties,

and capacity-building (Berkes 2010). These steps are not

linear but often involve feedback loops of social learning

(Colfer 2005; Armitage and others 2007; Berkes 2009).

M. Zurba (&) � F. Berkes

Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba,

303-70 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2M6, Canada

e-mail: [email protected]

H. Ross

School of Integrative Systems, University of Queensland,

Brisbane, QLD, Australia

A. Izurieta

School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University,

Darwin, NT, Australia

P. Rist

Girringun Aboriginal Corporation, Cardwell, QLD, Australia

E. Bock

Regional Advisory and Innovation Network (RAIN) Pty Ltd,

Mena Creek, QLD, Australia

123

Environmental Management (2012) 49:1130–1142

DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9845-2

However, little is known about the dynamics of such pro-

cesses in forming and sustaining collaborative management

arrangements. There is a need to investigate these systems

in more detail, to identify the particular elements of part-

nerships, which may act as the ‘pillars of co-management’.

Co-management, cooperative or collaborative manage-

ment, refers to the joint management of common pool

resources, and involves multiple actors with distinct interests

(Borrini-Feyerabend and others 2004). Co-management deals

not only with the administration of natural resources but also of

social relationships (Berkes 2009). There is no single univer-

sally accepted definition and no prescriptive format (Armitage

and others 2007). The term refers to a range of arrangements,

with different degrees of power sharing, for joint decision-

making by the state and communities (or user-groups) about a

set of resources or an area (Borrini-Feyerabend and others

2004). More specifically, co-management may be defined as

the sharing of power and responsibility between the govern-

ment and local resource users (McCay and Jentoft 1996, p 239)

who argue that partnerships that are not equal should not be

deemed as co-management. By contrast, George and others

(2004) suggest ‘equitable’ as a more useful concept than

‘equal’, since partners could well have unequal power and yet

contribute in different ways.

Several scholars have developed co-management

typologies (Borrini-Feyerabend and others 2004; Ross and

others 2002; Carlsson and Berkes 2005). One relatively

simple typology posits that there may be four alternative

arrangements between public and private actors (e.g., the

state and a local community):

(1) Co-management as an exchange system describes co-

management as some kind of relation between the

two spheres, including for example the exchange of

information, goods and services, but falling short of

sharing of power (McCay and Jentoft 1996).

(2) In co-management as joint organization, the state and

groups of users might form joint management bodies

or cooperative units to participate in joint decision-

making. However, each sector keeps its authority and

its relative autonomy, using co-management as a

formalized arena for cooperation.

(3) Co-management as a state-nested system character-

izes a situation in which the state might be the de

facto holder of all the legal rights in a certain area or

resource, and the private actors might be entrusted

with the right to manage or appropriate resources.

(4) Co-management as a community-nested system has

the opposite structure. Here, the resource users might

exercise all legal rights over an area or resource

owned by individuals or groups. The state operates

within the realm of a ‘non-public’ sphere and may put

restrictions on use (Carlsson and Berkes 2005).

However, all typologies have limited use, and commons

theorists working on community-based management strate-

gies are now more than ever calling for analyzes of part-

nerships beyond structurally descriptive classifications

(Ostrom 2005). One way to do this is to emphasize collab-

orative problem solving, thus, focusing on the function rather

than the formal structure of the co-management arrange-

ment. Seen as a continuous problem solving process rather

than a fixed state, co-management involves extensive

deliberation, negotiation, and joint learning (Carlsson and

Berkes 2005). Long-term cases indicate that co-management

may evolve adaptively as a result of collaborative problem

solving. To emphasize the learning-by-doing aspect of co-

management (Robinson and others 2006), the term ‘adaptive

co-management’ may be used (Armitage and others 2007).

Co-management of protected areas is fairly recent; it did

not become widespread until the 1990s (Borrini-Feyerabend

and others 2004). Probably the earliest examples of pro-

tected area co-management in the world come from Aus-

tralia, with the Gurig Gunak Barlu then Kakadu National

Parks, much of which are formally under Aboriginal

ownership and collaborative management since the mid-

1970s (Ross and others 2009). Protected area co-manage-

ment in Australia has been historically tied to indigenous

land rights and the settlement of land claims. As such,

it has followed the classic ‘written agreement’ model

whereby formal provisions are negotiated and recorded for

joint management.

However, there is a diversity of arrangements in Aus-

tralia, ranging from this model of shared management to a

system of indigenous protected areas (IPAs) which are run

by indigenous groups themselves, recognized and sup-

ported as part of the national protected area system. In the

IPAs, the indigenous owners of the land may or may not

choose to declare a protected area over their land and

accept government support to manage it, while remaining

in control (Ross and others 2002; Smyth 2006). Joint

management has been considered for the Great Barrier

Reef world heritage area (GBRWHA), a contested land and

sea territory with a complex set of jurisdictions and user-

groups (George and others 2004; Ross and Innes 2005;

Nursey-Bray and Rist 2009).

The case we investigate here, Girringun Aboriginal

corporation’s building of co-management of the traditional

‘country’ of its member groups with a set of partners,

involves multiple jurisdictions and centers of authority,

including the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics World

Heritage Areas and their administrations. This polycen-

tricity (Andersson and Ostrom 2008) makes it a particu-

larly interesting case to investigate. The case is unusual

also for the degree of leadership and ingenuity of the

Aboriginal party, in the absence of clear and strong statu-

Environmental Management (2012) 49:1130–1142 1131

123

tory rights and formal opportunities. Elsewhere in Australia

some traditional owners (TOs) enjoy strong legal rights to

land and resources that enable the negotiation of joint

management of protected areas and declaration of IPAs on

indigenous-held lands (Ross 1999). Here, we contribute to

the understanding of co-management as a process through

collaborative problem solving, and the identification of

elements of partnerships and relationship building which

may act as the pillars of co-management.

We describe and analyze the series of processes used by

an Aboriginal organization, the Girringun Aboriginal cor-

poration (henceforth Girringun) to develop co-management

as a strategy to gain standing and influence in managing

their member groups’ ‘country’ (the Girringun region) in

the absence of strong statutory rights that might have

enabled the more familiar negotiated approach. That is,

most member groups do not formally own any land;

opportunities through native title claims offer limited

leverage to effectively negotiate co-management; and case

law on harvesting of species provides limited help. Given

these circumstances, Girringun has strategically built on

behalf of its member groups a series of co-management

arrangements at regional scale, with different partners,

seeking to expand in the long-term and join up these

arrangements into a mosaic of partnerships, resulting in co-

management of a complex land and seascape. The case

study provides an example for other indigenous organiza-

tions worldwide where opportunities for co-management

(or more autonomous management) may initially appear

unpromising.

Following background on the case study area and study

approach, the paper explains Girringun’s sequence of co-

management initiatives, from establishment of a jointly

managed indigenous ranger unit with a protected area

management agency (the ‘shifting spanner’ intended to

enable on-ground management in each subsequent step), to

a marine co-management initiative involving key species,

to the planned joining-up stage, linking of all the co-

management arrangements into an innovative form of

collaboratively management land and sea IPA. In this paper

we adopt Australian usage of referring to indigenous peo-

ple where either Aboriginal or Torres Strait islander peo-

ples could be intended, and Aboriginal where Aboriginal

peoples are intended specifically. We use capitals in

accordance with Australian styles, including for TOs.

Case Study Area and Approach

Girringun Aboriginal corporation is an Aboriginal organi-

zation formed by nine TO groups to provide themselves

with collective decision-making and voice, and practical

capacity to fulfill their holistic environmental and social

development goals of ‘caring for country’. Their customary

lands, waters and sea country, in the coastal region between

Townsville and Cairns, include significant areas of the

Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics World Heritage Areas,

and state protected areas and forests (Fig. 1). These cus-

tomary lands also include freehold and leased farmlands,

generally owned by non-indigenous people, and some

small towns.

The terrestrial area of Girringun members’ country is

part of an eco-region primarily dominated by sclerophyll

forests containing a high level of biodiversity especially in

the areas of the rainforest which are at a higher altitude

(Williams and others 1996). The Great Barrier Reef is

Fig. 1 Study area showing the

management zones in respect to

and surrounding Girringun

country in Queensland,

Australia

1132 Environmental Management (2012) 49:1130–1142

123

known to be one of the world’s most diverse, productive

and complex ecosystems and is home to a number of rare,

threatened and endemic species (Zann 2000; Almany and

others 2009). The central Great Barrier Reef, where Gir-

ringun members’ traditional seas lie, is characterized by

several islands with an absence of well defined reefs and

coral cays, and relatively shallow and turbid waters due

to sediments from erosion caused by seasonal flooding

(Larcombe and Woolfe 1999). Threatened species such as

green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and dugong (Dugong dugon)

are present along coastal waters (Dobbs 2007). Substantial

anthropogenic pressures in this ecosystem include prawn

and reef fisheries, tourism, and eutrophication and sedi-

mentation due to terrestrial runoff (Zann 2000).

Girringun consists of six ‘saltwater’ (coastal) groups, the

Bandjin, Djiru, Gulnay, Girramay, Warrgamay and Nywai-

gi; and three inland groups, the Jirrbal, Warungnu and Gugu

Badhun (Fig. 1). The coastal groups’ estates include land

and sea. Most groups’ country is characterized by at least one

large river system. Each TO group has a complex system of

customary laws and kinship which together determine sub-

sistence practices such as hunting and gathering, and

important life events such as marriage. Prior to colonization

these groups traded, intermarried, and gathered for cere-

monies. Movement around country was governed through

negotiations between groups, with inland groups being able

to access marine resources upon the permission of the TO

group governing a given coastal area, and vice versa. Many

TOs were subsequently gathered at a government settlement

in the traditional country of the Djiru people, until it was

destroyed by a cyclone in 1918. The same area was severely

damaged in early 2011, at the center of cyclone Yasi.

The TO groups of the region continue to self identify as

being saltwater (coastal) or freshwater (inland) peoples,

and continue to maintain ties to traditional livelihoods.

Traditional foods include fruits, tubers and other edible

plants, freshwater and saltwater fish as well as other marine

animals such as crocodile, dugong and turtle, and terrestrial

animals such as wallaby. Traditional tools for harvesting

food also rely on rainforest materials such as lawyer cane

(Calamus sp.), used to make baskets for carrying and

processing foods, and eel traps. TO access to country for

the harvest of such materials, however, has been limited

historically by colonization and economic development of

resources such agriculture and the commercialization of

local fisheries. This, however, does not negate the vital

connection to ‘country’ that TOs maintain, and is the very

reason behind the passionate involvement of TOs in

resource management. They consider that visiting country

regularly and harvesting foods and materials is essential to

keeping culture alive and transmitting knowledge to the

young. They believe this is instrumental in the ‘healing’ of

indigenous peoples.

The Girringun Aboriginal corporation was originally

formed in 1996 (named the Girringun Elders reference

group until 2002). Girringun is led by a board of TOs, with

equal representation from each of the nine member groups

and one of their number elected as chair. The board meets

regularly (approximately once a month) to guide and

review the organization’s activities according to culturally

appropriate decision-making norms. These norms are

shaped in an on-going and adaptive manner by the board,

which creates the culture of the organization and makes

decisions on Girringun activities through consensus.

The chairperson and executive officer work closely

together, sharing responsibility for representing the TOs to

the external world, and for working with the broader

community in activities affecting the Girringun region and

member TO groups. The staff, mainly funded on short-term

projects, are responsible for running the core activities and

maintaining the overall functionality of the organization.

The board’s oversight and discussions ensure the organi-

zation follows an adaptive management strategy, with

direct and regular feedback cycles as they work continually

through planning, implementation and improvement pro-

cesses. Information provided to the board by action

research projects carried out with Girringun (e.g., Izurieta

2007; Zurba 2010) strengthened Girringun’s strategy to

adapt decisions according to new learning experiences

without compromising the co-management arrangements.

Girringun’s challenges in working towards its repre-

sentational and management goals include supporting and

maintaining the confidence and strong engagement of its

nine member groups, each of which has distinct sets of

values and aspirations. The organization aims to provide

consistent, credible, and accountable services for TOs.

Leadership, good governance and accountability within the

organization—all defined and conducted according to cul-

turally appropriate mechanisms—set the foundation and

bring forth the inspiration and effort required to work

through a variety of sometimes lengthy and challenging

processes. Thus, Girringun’s nine member groups have

evolved a culturally workable coordination arrangement

enabling their pursuit of collective action (Ostrom 2005).

Girringun’s adaptive approach, involving rigorous con-

sultation across the membership, direction and regular

discussion by the board, and constant reflection on the

successes of strategies and activities, maintains consistency

and credibility within the organization. Girringun mean-

while plays an important communicative role between TOs

and outside interests such as government agencies, building

possibilities for shared outcomes, maintaining communi-

cation between agencies and the organization and mem-

bers, and reducing the potential for participation fatigue

from the member groups and individuals being involved in

too many processes.


123

Girringun has developed its own particular solution to

providing collective governance to meet a contemporary

set of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal requirements in a

way that is consistent with customary decision-making

structures and processes. In the absence of strong legal

rights to land and natural resources Girringun has adopted

strategies to achieve a vision of managing ‘country’ and

improving opportunities for its people relying on relation-

ships and collaboration. The remainder of this paper ana-

lyzes its strategies and the elements making them

successful.

Girringun’s key co-management partners are the Great

Barrier Reef marine park authority (GBRMPA), a federal

statutory authority responsible for managing the

GBRWHA; the Queensland parks and wildlife service

(QPWS), a division of the state Department of Environ-

ment and Resource Management (DERM) which manages

the state’s protected areas and provides the day-to-day

management for the GBRWHA; and fisheries Queensland,

formerly part of the Department of Primary Industries now

incorporated within the Queensland Department of

Employment, Economic Development and Innovation

(DEEDI). Since 2009, the federal Department of Sustain-

ability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

has also provided significant funding, towards Aboriginal

rangers. These agencies of state and federal government,

dealing with different natural resources, represent multiple

centers of authority within the community of resource users

(Carlsson and Berkes 2005). These partners’ responsibili-

ties and interests are summarized in Table 1. Their priority

issues (column 3) express the problems the parties are

seeking to solve in engaging in co-management.

In addition to these co-management partners, Girringun

has a continually evolving set of relationships and

partnerships with a number of other organizations such as

the wet tropics management agency, the Department of

Main Roads, some local industry partners and a school.

These are both valuable towards specific mutual goals, and

potential parts of Girringun’s long-term co-management

strategy.

This paper presents a longitudinal case study built on a

linked series of studies conducted by Girringun Aboriginal

corporation in partnership with the academic researchers

from 2001 to 2010. These are:

1. Two co-management research projects from 2001 to

2006, in which Girringun, other Aboriginal organiza-

tions from the Great Barrier Reef coast, and the

GBRMPA collaborators under a ‘co-managed

research’ approach (George and others 2004, Ross

and others 2005, Robinson and others 2006). The

partners representatives formed a team which devel-

oped, conducted and interpreted all stages of the

project, using this decision-making process in the

relatively uncontentious arena of research as a practice

zone for anticipated future co-management of natural

resources or areas. Within these projects, Girringun

personnel conducted case studies using assigned

research project funds. These used consultation and

workshops with TOs, discussions with relevant gov-

ernment agency personnel, and analysis of secondary

sources to compile and document Girringun’s aspira-

tions towards co-management, the issues its members

considered significant, and present an evidence base to

underpin planning for future collaborative action on

some of the issues. These case studies (Nursey-Bray

and others 2005; Ross and others 2005; Bock and

Girringun Aboriginal Corporation 2006) document the

Table 1 Management responsibilities and priority issues for the main parties involved in the management of Girringun land and sea country

Parties Key responsibilities Priority issues

Girringun Aboriginal

corporation

Holistic management land and sea country for people and

environment

Gaining standing to manage country, developing roles,

and achieving improvements for environment and

society, achieving harmonious relationships with non-

indigenous society

Great Barrier Reef

marine park authority

Responsible for the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area

managed as a multiple use space

Conservation of key marine species (green turtle and

dugong).

Department of

environment and

resource

management

Managing state protected areas, marine areas that are not

part of the GRBWHA, providing day-to-day management

services for the GBRWHA

Effective protected area management including tourism

and recreation impacts

Department of

environment,

heritage, water and

the arts

National responsibility for environment—federal

government

Enabling indigenous natural resources management.

National responsibilities in endangered species

legislation

Department of primary

industries and

fisheries

Fisheries management Fisheries industry development and sustainable

commercial fisheries


123

early stages of Girringun’s development of co-man-

agement through partnerships.

2. A three and a half-year PhD project from 2004 to 2007

assisting Girringun and its government partner in the

first co-management initiative, an Aboriginal ranger

unit, to develop a monitoring and evaluation system to

assist continual improvement of that arrangement

(Izurieta 2007). This participatory action research

project was conducted with the members of the ranger

unit and its steering committee. It included over a year

of participant observation, document analysis, semi-

structured interviews, workshops to design and test

evaluation criteria and indicators, with ancillary facil-

itation of communication and information sharing

between the parties, as well as return visits for

verification.

3. A Masters project in 2009 and subsequent fieldwork to

explore existing and developing co-management

arrangements between Girringun and government

agencies (Zurba 2010). 3 months of fieldwork and

two return visits involved participant observation,

document analysis, semi-structured interviews starting

with the broader and moving to the more specific

aspects of partnerships, and participatory artwork to

elicit TO values regarding their ‘country’.

This series of studies, all conducted collaboratively with

Girringun (and some with their co-management partners),

has enabled documentation of the process to date of Gir-

ringun’s movement towards co-managing traditional lands,

waters and seas of its TO member groups.

Beginnings: The Cardwell Indigenous Ranger Unit

Girringun’s member groups’ aspirations towards manage-

ment of their land and sea country are ‘to establish ongoing

and collaborative whole of government management

approaches to ensure effective and holistic management of

the Girringun community of land, sea and people’ (Robinson

and others 2006, p 29). The first of these collaborative

arrangements was the creation of the Cardwell indigenous

ranger unit (CIRU) in 2003. The CIRU co-management

initiative originated from a sequence of discussions between

Girringun, the GBRMPA, QPWS and the Department of

Primary Industry and Fisheries (DPI&F). We use the names

current at the relevant times. QPWS and DPI&F have since

been incorporated within larger departments, where they

continue to function as divisions.

In the mid 1990s Girringun and DPI&F wished to

establish a mechanism to control dugong hunting in the

Hinchinbrook channel by indigenous people who did not

belong to any of the Girringun sea country TO groups (and

so lacked customary rights to hunt there), leading to the

idea of having indigenous rangers on sea country. Mean-

while an alliance of 32 TO groups along much of the Great

Barrier Reef coast, the southern Great Barrier Reef sea

forum, was developing a proposal for co-management of

that section of the Great Barrier Reef. This proposal ulti-

mately failed, but the federal minister indicated willingness

to negotiate smaller-scale arrangements instead (George

and others 2004).

Girringun took this political opportunity to develop a

‘saltwater unit co-management proposal’ (Girringun

Aboriginal Corporation and Nursey-Bray 2002). The CEO

negotiated the proposal with relevant government agencies:

the GBRMPA, QPWS and DPI&F. While the GBRMPA

ministerial council provided pivotal endorsement, the dis-

cussions led to the formation of an indigenous ranger unit

within the operational management organization for marine

areas, the QPWS. This met government concerns about

delegating enforcement powers to a non-government

agency or external body (Girringun) and the impossibility

at that time of securing independent and long-term funding

for an independent separate unit.

The CIRU co-management initiative started officially in

2003 with the first meeting of the CIRU Steering Com-

mittee on 14th August, and the first three Aboriginal

rangers started work on 1st September. It was financed

under the state-commonwealth ‘day-to-day management’

program for the Great Barrier Reef marine park (whereby

QPWS provides GBRMPA with management services for

the world heritage area), and by QPWS itself. Soon after-

wards the area was expanded southwards to the town of

Ingham, bringing in two indigenous rangers already

financed and employed by QPWS.

The CIRU is managed jointly under a steering com-

mittee comprised of one QPWS representative, one DPI&F

representative and three Girringun representatives. Girrin-

gun provides the chair. The rangers’ roles include land and

marine duties, and are similar to those of other government

rangers (conservation duties, surveillance of tourism and

fishing, provision and maintenance of facilities), though

with the strong inclusion of cultural heritage roles.

In starting with a ranger unit, Girringun’s vision was to

build its capacity for effective co-management through

practical contribution. Having on the ground capacity to

manage country through paid and respected rangers makes

each co-management arrangement tangible, more than a set

of boardroom strategies and decisions. It also makes co-

management ‘real’ to the community, and provides an

avenue for young people to aspire to and hold desirable

jobs that translate customary responsibilities into action.

Girringun aimed to build its capacity through training and

operational experience, and then gradually assume more


123

responsibility until it might ultimately form a separate unit

to provide ranger services to the QPWS.

From the outset the CIRU was established on principles

of autonomy, credibility, enforcement, appropriateness,

and accountability (Girringun Aboriginal Corporation and

Nursey-Bray 2002). A flexible, learning, approach was

intended. Becoming autonomous required capacity-build-

ing within Girringun and within the ranger unit itself,

towards having skilful and knowledgeable rangers to plan

and carry out multiple tasks with limited supervision.

There have been two major expansions to the original

arrangement since 2009, both allowing progression towards

Girringun’s goals of increasing responsibility and geo-

graphical coverage. Using a combination of new federal and

state funding, 11 Aboriginal rangers and a coordinator have

been introduced. These additional, exclusively Girringun-

owned positions are underpinned by new agreements with

the sponsoring departments. Whereas Girringun could have

made these the new ranger positions much more indepen-

dent, it has chosen to continue sharing decision-making with

its partners using an expanded steering committee. Because

of the large number of Aboriginal rangers under Girringun

administration (in addition to the five CIRU rangers who

remain government employees), Girringun has been able to

increase its power and capabilities and gain greater respect

from the government partners at the decision-making table.

A number of the original CIRU rangers have been given

mentorship roles for the new rangers in both Aboriginal and

western management practices but particularly in cultural

management, which is of great significance to the TOs.

The ranger initiative has been a learning-by-doing

experience, whereby Girringun and government agencies

have shown flexibility in adapting new collaboration

approaches as they learn through time (Robinson and

others 2006). During 2004–2007 the CIRU collaborators

designed and undertook an annual self-assessment process,

according to criteria and indicators selected by the parties

through a collaborative process (Izurieta 2007). This par-

ticipatory process provided an opportunity to evaluate the

way the governance of CIRU was functioning s as well as

the way decisions were being implemented on the ground.

The way the ranger initiative has operated has increased

trust, communication and cooperation between the part-

ners. This is demonstrated through a wider delegation of

management and conservation responsibilities by QPWS

over time to Girringun (e.g., management of cultural her-

itage sites, weed control, sea patrolling), and enhanced

sharing of operational coordination. The indigenous rang-

ers also provide a communication link between QPWS

non-indigenous rangers and TOs. The sharing of traditional

knowledge on species has increased over time, as has the

agency interest and support to protect sites of cultural

significance on land and sea.

Expansion: The Girringun Traditional Use of Marine

Resources Agreement

The second major co-management initiative, building on

the relationships established through long-term liaison with

GBRMPA and the capacities established through Girrin-

gun’s ranger initiatives, is Queensland and Australia’s first

traditional use of marine resources agreement (TUMRA).

GBRMPA’s idea of offering all Queensland coastal TOs

the opportunity to negotiate and implement TUMRAs was

an offshoot of a non-adopted sea forum design for regional

co-management of the GBRWHA (George and others

2004). It was inspired by ideas raised in the consultations

that preceded and followed the sea forum initiative. In

contrast to more typical co-management arrangements,

where the parties share decision-making and roles equally,

a TUMRA can be viewed as a layered arrangement in

which GBRMPA acknowledges TO customary authority to

manage their sea country according to their own rules, and

(after accreditation of a TUMRA under GBRMPA and

state regulations) confers its statutory power on groups of

TOs to give them the benefit of combined customary and

statutory powers in managing the harvest of key marine

species (Robinson and others 2006).

TO groups develop an implementation plan including

the definition of the area to be covered by the TUMRA, and

the number of marine hunting permits (if any) they wish to

issue. The GBRMPA then negotiates aspects of the plan as

necessary to gain full agency accreditation. Thus, the

TUMRA represents a permitting system for hunting of

marine species, designed by the TOs to accord with cus-

tomary law, and backed by both customary law and

GBRMPA’s delegated statutory powers. TOs can decide

whether permits will be issued only to TOs from their own

group, or also to neighboring TO group(s), and other

indigenous people including so-called ‘historical people’,

relocated by past governments from elsewhere in

Queensland. In order to receive a permit, hunters must

agree to report back to the TOs who issued their permit,

who in turn report the data to the GBRMPA for monitoring

purposes.

Girringun’s saltwater members were the first TOs to

adopt the TUMRA option and negotiate an accredited

agreement with GBRMPA and the state. After 2 years of

initial consideration, TOs agreed to accept certain com-

promises in order to have the inaugural TUMRA negoti-

ated successfully, looking to improve the arrangement in

subsequent versions. The first TUMRA for the Girringun

region was established in late 2005, for an intended initial

3-year lifecycle. It provided for a region-wide TO initiated

freeze moratorium on dugong hunting, and a limited take

of green turtle. It was renewed on a year-by-year basis so

that the terms of reference for the subsequent TUMRA


123

could be considered by the six saltwater TO groups. The

new 5-year TUMRA (2010–2015) allows for some increase

in the hunting quotas of green turtle, and one TO group to

hunt one adult dugong without calf per year for cultural

purposes. However, after cyclone Yasi, the TOs voluntarily

decided to freeze the dugong and green turtle take until

there is evidence of recuperation.

The Girringun region TUMRA is implemented under

the guidance of a steering committee, which includes

senior representation from all saltwater TO groups and

other statutory parties involved in the initiative. GBRMPA

provides funds for a Girringun coordinator, and TO par-

ticipation in steering committee meetings. Meanwhile the

indigenous rangers, funded by several government orga-

nizations, contribute significantly to the TUMRA imple-

mentation. The Aboriginal rangers work with non-

Aboriginal QPWS rangers on the enforcement and moni-

toring of harvesting within the Girringun region TUMRA

area. The information acquired by the rangers is then

passed back to the Girringun region TUMRA steering

committee for review.

While GBRMPA sees the TUMRA primarily as an

arrangement for managing key marine species, to Girrin-

gun it represents an opportunity to gain and expand co-

management of its member groups’ sea country. The

TUMRA is less than ideal for Girringun as it only pertains

to the management of two species that have been deemed

a priority for GBRMPA. Girringun, however, views the

arrangement as part of its strategic planning, and hopes to

expand the arrangement to bring in other issues and parties

including recreational and commercial fisheries and tour-

ism. Thus, private sector organizations, and fisheries

Queensland, could in future be drawn into an expanded

marine co-management arrangement.

Integration: The Plans for the Girringun Regional IPA

Australia’s IPA program was established in 1997, follow-

ing a bioregional survey by the Australian government,

which showed that some of the bioregions that were

underrepresented in the national reserve system happened

to coincide with indigenous-owned land (Smyth 2006).

This provided an opportunity to establish protected areas

representative of all bioregions, through cooperation

between indigenous people and government. The program

was designed through extensive consultation with indige-

nous people. The IPA program became both a device for

bioregional conservation and a tool for indigenous land

management. TOs may choose to designate their lands as

an IPA, and receive federal government support to develop

their management strategy, declare, implement and moni-

tor their plan (Smyth 2006).

An important feature of the IPA program is that indig-

enous people initiate the process. The management plan

needs to meet the IUCN guidelines for protected area

management categories, in accordance with the require-

ments of Australia’s national reserve system (Smyth 2006).

Formal declaration of an IPA is made by the TOs. The

federal government provides financial and in-kind support

(i.e., training and staff time) in order to implement the

management plan and build the capacity for TOs to manage

country.

In 2009, Girringun began negotiations with the QPWS,

GBRMPA and other key stakeholders that work within

Girringun country towards the creation of a Girringun

region indigenous protected area (GRIPA). The GRIPA

will include land and sea country, stretching the current

Australian practice in that Girringun does not hold legal

title to the land in question. Girringun is using the IPA

concept to take a whole-of-landscape approach to co-

managing country, incorporating land and sea areas, which

are under a range of different jurisdictions. The GRIPA is

envisioned as a collaborative governance arrangement

covering a mosaic of different land tenures and potentially

involving all parties.

Commonwealth funds have been provided to support the

IPA consultation process. As of 2011, a management plan

is being developed under a steering committee. The com-

mittee includes state and national government departments,

the two world heritage authorities, the two regional NRM

bodies, and conservation agencies such as the World

Wildlife Fund (WWF). The GRIPA is intended initially to

include the commonwealth and state protected areas

existing over the traditional lands and seas of the nine TO

groups and the Girringun region TUMRA area (see Fig. 1).

While there are other multi-tenure IPAs in Australia, the

large area and intended inclusion of public and eventually

other land tenures make its design unique.

The GRIPA brings all parties to the table to discuss

regional land and sea management within a forum inclusive

of TO values and aspirations for caring for country. It, thus,

works towards the Girringun vision of providing ‘social,

cultural, spiritual, environmental and economic well-being

of TOs and community members of Girringun for the

benefit of the region’ (Girringun Aboriginal corporation

strategic plan 2009–2013). The GRIPA also contributes to

the potential for Girringun becoming a fee for service

provider to other organizations, shifting its degree of

responsibility within the co-management arrangements as

its capacity increases.

The establishment and development of the GRIPA

requires commitment from all partners to work within an

adaptive management framework, rather than in an

inflexible and exclusive protected areas structure. This also

means that the nine TO groups must work together


123

cooperatively because the commonwealth government

cannot support GRIPA’s development if there were native

title counter-claims amongst TO groups (interview with

commonwealth DEWHA senior manager 2010). Com-

monwealth support from the outset places Girringun on an

equal footing with its government partners (interview with

DEWHA senior manager 2010). The development process

for an IPA can have up to two to three stages, and may take

up to 3 years before implementation. Sustained support is

therefore crucial to the IPA development process.

In addition to the major co-management initiatives

described above, Girringun and its members are active

within the 18 rainforest TO groups which collaborate

with the wet tropics management agency in management

of the wet tropics world heritage area under a regional

agreement (Wet Tropics Management Authority 2005).

Girringun is also active in two of Australia’s 56 regional

bodies for natural resource management, the north

Queensland dry tropics, and terrain NRM (the regional

NRM body for the wet tropics). These are collaborations

in which multi-stakeholder boards plan for, fund and

implement improvements in natural resource priorities

using combinations of government and contributed funds

and effort.

Flexibility: Co-Management as Process

Girringun has clearly engaged in evolutionary co-man-

agement, in which opportunities are taken, expanded, and

improved upon continually. This contrasts with more

linear approaches that commence with reaching negotiated

agreements and then seek to implement them. The Gir-

ringun strategy relies on starting small and building

flexibly at a practical level.

The journey of co-management began with working

towards mutually useful practical arrangements through the

CIRU. Girringun was strategic in choosing to begin with a

ranger unit. This was an area in which its key people had

experience and relationships (several had been rangers),

and it represented a practical opportunity to become

involved in managing country while attracting young

people to a culturally valued career opportunity. The unit

provided capacity to implement every subsequent

arrangement. Girringun’s executive officer describes the

ranger initiative as a ‘shifting spanner’ that has enabled

practicality and flexibility in achieving the subsequent

collaborative management arrangements (Fig. 2). This tool

makes all of Girringun’s priorities for the region immedi-

ately ready for implementation. Like a spanner, it can be

adjusted as needed to accommodate each new relationship

and purpose.

The Girringun co-management process has since

unfolded through building a succession of activities and

expanding relationships towards its holistic management

goal in the regional collaborative management IPA. In this

journey the parties have needed to commit to the activities

and to the social dynamics that maintain integrity of rela-

tionships considered important for a co-management pro-

cess (Carlsson and Berkes 2005). This has brought

challenges. Responsibilities amongst partners, including

government agencies have not always been clear. Cultural

tensions have been noticeable within the relationships,

between the GAC and partnering agencies (Zurba 2010).

Building strong relationships, mutual respect, and sound

working relationships help overcome setbacks. Co-man-

agement has thus evolved as a set of problem solving ini-

tiatives (Carlsson and Berkes 2005), which Girringun has

started somewhat opportunistically and then sought to link

into its long-term vision for co-managing country. Both

Fig. 2 The Girringun

Indigenous Ranger Unit as a

‘‘shifting spanner’’, which is an

analogy of the concept of the

unit being adaptable to working

within different co-management

partnership at present and into

the future


123

Girringun members and government representatives see

mutual benefits:

Girringun is a great resource because they speak for

nine TO groups and when you are trying to manage

it’s fantastic for us. We have been trying to convince

our local ministers, and our local members and our

executive that there is a need to inject some funding

into keep that vehicle alive. Again we are subject to

the same constraints as all government at the moment

(DERM senior manager).

From the outset Girringun saw relationships, across its

membership and with its partners, as fundamental to

achieving its goals. Government agencies have recognized

these relationships as being crucial to the success of the co-

management initiatives.

There are very good relations on the ground.

Departments had thought of doing a national strategy

for how to manage IPAs but decided not to do that,

but to do it on a case-by-case basis. That means that

we are relying very heavily on relationships. Good

people on the ground equals success (Department of

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities senior manager).

I believe that they (Girringun) know where we are

coming from and that there is mutual understanding

and intent to go in the same direction. There has been

a good relationship for some time now (DERM senior

manager).

Nevertheless the relationships need maintenance and

improvement. Aboriginal rangers considered working

relationships to be fairly strong, but saw opportunities to

increase QPWS non-indigenous rangers’ understanding of

TO culture, through cultural training and trips out on

country together.

They are (non-Aboriginal rangers) out of our hands

because they are run by national parks (QPWS) and a

lot of the time they don’t understand the importance

of country and sacred sites, important sites and they

just overlook that and go ahead and do what they

have got to do you know: spray the grass and do

things like that. But with our rangers we do have an

input into it and we can ask questions. We can ask if

they can do this or that. That is the only way that we

can see us as TOs being satisfied of our country being

looked after (TO).

The relationships and agreed-upon norms of communi-

cation have been essential in enabling TOs to participate

effectively in committees and negotiations to share their

desires, visions and aspirations for involvement in man-

agement of country. The consensual nature of the steering

committees, with mutually agreed-upon rules of engage-

ment, has proved important for achieving understanding

between the parties and building towards successful out-

comes. This has meant abandoning rigid party positions.

One TO made the point that all parties, including TOs,

should be able to express themselves freely without being

hindered by the structures of existing arrangements.

We have to sit at that table and have an open mind

about it and weed out the pros and cons later on. Let

everybody have their say first without saying ‘no you

can’t’ to this or ‘no it’s already the law’. Just let

everyone speak their piece and then later on weed

out. To me you must have an open mind (GAC board

member).

Discussion: Pillars of Co-Management

The Girringun way of developing partnerships through

identifying mutual opportunity, relationship building, and

demonstration of capability for regional management

depends on a number of elements of partnerships and

relationship building. For instance the steering committees

enable decisions to be made without the constraints of

institutional hierarchies. The committees thus serve to

make institutional arrangements less top–down and more

inclusive of all partners. Having senior managers with

decision-making authority at the table also creates the

potential to affect the development of policies for IPAs and

other regional arrangements elsewhere.

Girringun’s co-management is consciously developed in

incremental stages, each initiative or expansion building

upon the previous steps. While such strategies are docu-

mented in the collective action and community develop-

ment literatures dealing with the ways in which commons

users or communities organize themselves (Ostrom 2005),

they are not well recognized as an alternate pathway to co-

management (Robinson and others 2006).

Girringun’s relationship building approach appears to

have been successful in terms of working with agencies

and the broader community, but we do not claim that the

process has always been smooth. There have been suc-

cesses as well as failures and setbacks affecting the

building of respect and rapport between partners but at the

same time providing learning experiences for stronger

foundations of later stages. Working in stages, relationship

building and learning have thus been the foundation for

management implementation. The main elements of Gir-

ringun’s relationship building approach to partnerships are

summarized in Fig. 3. Each stage in the expansion of co-

management increases mutual respect and rapport among

the parties, and sometimes brings new parties into play.


123

Building respect often requires the shifting of personal

worldviews and ethics of the individuals involved.

The centrality of respect and trust has led to innovative

ways of working together that rearrange and share

responsibilities. For instance the Girringun region TUMRA

allows TOs dual authority to manage marine hunting, while

providing GBRMPA and QPWS with a more workable

way than before for protecting key species, as well as

defining TO sea country more clearly.

Sorting out responsibilities for new and existing initia-

tives keeps the wider base of TOs engaged and involved in

co-management. This in turn leads to improving Girrin-

gun’s capacity and self-organization. Practical learning

experiences in working towards tangible outcomes (e.g.,

successful management of fire and weeds with inputs from

Elders) enables capacity-building and often requires moral,

logistical, financial and other support. A vital factor is

Girringun’s willingness to start initiatives with a modest

scope, building capacity with and from its partners towards

consolidating capability, expanding, and taking on more

responsibility (e.g., from having three rangers within

QPWS to 11 within Girringun and still coordinating work

with QPWS). Meanwhile it helps build its partners’

capacity to work with Aboriginal people.

The Girringun case exemplifies the notion of co-man-

agement as an on-going, problem solving process (Colfer

2005; Carlsson and Berkes 2005). Forums such as the

various steering committees create ‘shared spaces’ of

mutual understanding in which common purposes and

directions can be identified (Ross and Innes 2005). Within

such fora, perspectives, visions and aspirations for

management can be deliberated and multi-party decisions

reached through consensus.

The Carlsson and Berkes (2005) typology of co-man-

agement can be used to assess the Girringun experience.

Lacking formal status, Girringun’s co-management may be

expected to represent the first model in the typology, co-

management as an exchange system, involving the exchange

of information, goods and services. In fact, initially that is

actually the case. However, over time, the state and groups of

users form joint management bodies and participate in joint

decision-making, The indigenous ranger program and the

TUMRA have lead to such joint arrangements whereby both

the state and the user community contribute to the develop-

ment of IPA. This is closer to the second model in the

typology, co-management as joint organization.

With the user community starting to share power, the

previous top-down arrangement is replaced. And there is

effective devolution of management responsibilities (Berkes

2010) whereby the state is incrementally transferring

authority to Girringun, for example, through ranger services.

At this level, the Girringun case also takes on some of the

characteristics of the third model in the typology, co-man-

agement as a state-nested system, whereby the state, the de

facto holder of legal rights to area and resources, entrusts

TOs with the right to manage certain resources.

Conclusions

Many co-management arrangements work poorly or fail

due to the incompatibility of competing interests and to

Fig. 3 Conceptual model

of ‘‘pillars of

co-management’’ as an

on-going relationship building

process between local people

and outside agencies


123

power relationships among parties (Berkes 2009). At the

very least, implementation of effective joint management is

difficult because capacities and expectations among part-

ners differ (Izurieta and others 2011). Girringun, by con-

trast, is a success story in which co-management works,

and partners and TOs seem to function with integrity,

commitment and goodwill. These attributes will be needed

further for increasing the capacity of the nine TO groups to

maintain their custodial roles, requiring continued trans-

parency and the provision of appropriate channels and

resources for TO input into planning and policy develop-

ment (Zurba 2009). Future steps may include a participa-

tory monitoring and evaluation approach in which partners

agree on criteria and indicators to measure joint manage-

ment outcomes, with the aim of improving equitable par-

ticipation, decision-making and working relationships

(Izurieta and others 2011).

The journey towards fulfilling Girringun’s vision towards

management of land and sea country by establishing ‘on-

going and collaborative whole of government management

approaches to ensure effective and holistic management of

the Girringun community of land, sea and people’ (George

and others 2004, p 41) indicates a new model for developing

the foundations of co-management. In contrast to approaches

that begin with a negotiated agreement over a region or

protected area, Girringun’s arrangement emphasizes a pro-

cess of evolution from modest beginnings and strategic

opportunism. It demonstrates the agency of indigenous

organizations, using leadership and ingenuity to compensate

for the absence of clear and strong statutory indigenous

rights. The Girringun model is not a panacea, but it shows the

feasibility of setting the foundation for on-going co-man-

agement through problem solving partnerships in an evolu-

tionary, learning-by-doing approach, an approach in which

respect and relationships are built and reinforced, indigenous

people engaged, and skills and capabilities are built step by

step.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the TOs, Girringun

Aboriginal corporation staff, government staff, research colleagues

and all others who participated in the studies leading to this paper.

The contributing studies were funded by the Co-operative Research

Centre for Reef Research and Marine and Tropical Sciences Research

Facility (Ross and colleagues’ research); The University of Queens-

land and WWF (Izurieta research), Rigby and Endeavor foundations

(Zurba research). We thank Rod Neilson of Girringun Aboriginal

corporation for his assistance with mapping.

References

Almany GR, Connolly SR, Heath DD, Hogan JD, Jones GP, McCook

LJ, Mills M, Pressey RL, Williamson HD (2009) Connectivity,

biodiversity conservation and the design of marine reserve

networks for coral reefs. Coral Reefs 28:339–351

Andersson KP, Ostrom E (2008) Analysing decentralized resource

regimes from a polycentric perspective. Political Science 41:71–93

Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (eds) (2007) Adaptive co-

management. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver

Berkes F (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized

world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

United States of America 104:15188–15193

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge

generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of

Environmental Management 90:1692–1702

Berkes F (2010) Devolution and natural resources governance: trends

and future. Environmental Conservation 37:489–500

Bock E, Girringun Aboriginal Corporation (2006) Implementation of

emergent co-management practice in the Girringun area, appendix

1. In: Robinson CJ, Ross H, Hockings M (eds) Development of co-

operative management arrangements in the Great Barrier Reef: an

adaptive management approach. CRC Reef Research technical

report no. 55. CRC Reef Research, Townsville, p 79ff. http://www.

reef.crc.org.au/publications/techreport/pdf/CRC%20Reef%20Tech

%20Report%2055.pdf

Borrini-Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Farvar MT, Kothari A, Renard Y

(2004) Sharing power. Learning-by-doing in co-management of

natural resources throughout the world. IIED and IUCN/CEESP,

Cenesta

Carlsson L, Berkes F (2005) Co-management: concepts and method-

ological implications. Journal of Environmental Management

75:65–76

Colfer CJP (2005) The complex forest: communities, uncertainty, and

adaptive collaborative management. Resources for the Future/

CIFOR, Washington DC

Dobbs K (2007) A reef-wide framework for managing traditional use

of marine resources in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville

George M, Innes J, Ross H (2004) Managing sea country together:

key issues for developing co-operative management for the

GBRWHA. Technical report no. 50. CRC Reef Research Centre,

Townsville

Girringun Aboriginal Corporation, Nursey-Bray M (2002) Girringun

saltwater unit co-management proposal. Girringun Aboriginal

Corporation, Cardwell

Izurieta AI (2007) Evaluation framework for collaborative manage-

ment of protected areas: a cross-cultural case study in Queens-

land, Australia. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of

Philosophy, the University of Queensland, Australia

Izurieta A, Sithole B, Stacey N, Hunter-Xenie H, Campbell B,

Donohoe P, Brown J, Wilson L (2011) Developing indicators for

monitoring and evaluating joint management effectiveness in

protected areas in the northern territory, Australia. Ecology and

Society 16(3):9

Larcombe P, Woolfe JK (1999) Terrigenous sediments as influences

upon holocene nearshore coral reefs, central Great Barrier Reef,

Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 46(1):141–154

McCay BJ, Jentoft S (1996) From the bottom up: participatory issues

in fisheries management. Society and Natural Resources 9(3):

237–250

Nursey-Bray M, Rist P, Girringun Aboriginal Corporation (2005). Sea

country and tourism: Girringun Aboriginal corporation case

study. In: Ross H, Innes J, George M, Gorman K (eds)

Traditional owner aspirations towards co-operative management

of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area: community case

studies. Technical report no. 56. CRC Reef Research Centre,

Townsville

Nursey-Bray M, Rist P (2009) Co-management and protected area

management: achieving effective management of a contested

site, lessons from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

(GBRWHA). Marine Policy 33:118–127


123

http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/techreport/pdf/CRC%20Reef%20Tech%20Report%2055.pdf



Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton

University Press, Princeton

Robinson CJ, Ross H, Hockings M (2006) Development of co-

operative management arrangements in the Great Barrier Reef:

an adaptive management approach. CRC Reef Research techni-

cal report no. 55. CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville

Ross H (1999) New ethos, new solutions: lessons from Washington’s

co-operative environmental management agreements. Australian

Indigenous Law Reporter 4:1–28

Ross H, Innes J (2005) A framework for designing co-operative

management for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. In:

Merino L, Robson J (eds) Managing the commons: conservation

of biodiversity. Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (INE), Secretario

de medio ambiente y recursos naturales (SEMARNAT), the Ford

foundation, Christensen fund and the consejo civil Mexicano

para la silvicultura sostenible, A.C. (CCMSS), Mexico, pp 46–53

Ross H, Buchy M, Proctor W (2002) Laying down the ladder: a

typology of public participation in Australian natural resource

management. The Australian Journal of Environmental Man-

agement 9(4):2005–2217

Ross H, Innes J, George M, Gorman K (2005) Traditional owner

aspirations towards co-operative management of the Great

Barrier Reef world heritage area: community case studies.

Technical report no. 50. CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville

Ross H, Grant C, Robinson CJ, Izurieta A, Smyth D, Rist P (2009)

Co-management and indigenous protected areas in Australia:

achievements and ways forward. Australasian Journal of Environ-

mental Management 16(4):242–252

Smyth D (2006) Indigenous protected areas in Australia. Parks

16:14–20

Wet Tropics Management Authority (2005) Wet Tropics of Queensland

World Heritage Area regional agreement. Wet Tropics Manage-

ment Authority, Cairns. www.wettropics.gov.au/rah/rah_pdf/

regional_agreement.pdf

Williams SE, Pearson RG, Walsh PJ (1996) Distributions and

biodiversity of the terrestrial vertebrates of Australia’s wet

tropics: a review of current knowledge. Pacific Conservation

Biology 2:327–362

Zann LP (2000) The state of the marine environment report for

Australia: technical summary. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Authority, Townsville

Zurba M (2009) Bringing local synthesis into governance and

management systems: the Girringun TUMRA case in northern

Queensland, Australia. The Journal of the Royal Society of New

Zealand 39(4):179–182

Zurba M (2010) How well is co-management working? Perspectives,

partnerships and power sharing along the way to an indigenous

protected area on Girringun country. A thesis submitted for the

degree of Master of Natural Resource Management. The

University of Manitoba, Winnipeg


123

http://www.wettropics.gov.au/rah/rah_pdf/regional_agreement.pdf

http://www.wettropics.gov.au/rah/rah_pdf/regional_agreement.pdf

building co-management as a process: problem solving through partnerships in aboriginal country,...

Documents