integrated resource management and the hunter valley conservation trust, nsw, australia

Applied Geography (1989), 9,196 - 2 I 1

Integrated resource management and the Hunter Valley Conservation Trust, NSW, Australia

Bruce Mitchell

Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada

and John J. Pigram

Department of Geography and Planning and Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England, Armidale, NS W 2351, Australia

Abstract

In Australia, integrated resource or catchment management involves the co- ordinated use and management of land, water, vegetation and other natural resources in the context of a river basin. During 1987, the New South Wales government introduced integrated catchment management as State policy. The Hunter Valley Conservation Trust had been established in 1950 to address problems of flooding and land degradation in the Hunter Valley. Its activities and performance are evaluated relative to integrated resource management, focusing upon context, legitimation, functions, structures, processes and mechanisms, as well as organizational culture and participant attitudes.

The Hunter Valley Conservation Trust has been successful in reducing flood damage and ameliorating land degradation. However, it has not effectively integrated water and land management in the context of the drainage basin. It is recommended that the Trust be restructured and given the status of a lead agency through legislation with regard to catchment management, while local government should be responsible for urban drainage and maintenance of existing flood mitigation and stream management works. The Trust should continue to levy catchment management charges on the ratepayers in the valley via local government. Middle-level management should become the key area in which integration of interests and programmes among various agencies, organizations and individuals is pursued.

Introduction

The concept of coordinating land and water management in the context of drainage basins has been applied in the United States (Jenkins 1976; Callahan 1980), Canada (Richardson 1974; Carlyle 1983), England and Wales (Okun 1977; Kinnersley 1988), and New Zealand (Howard 1988). In Australia, the idea of integrated catchment management has long been advocated by individuals and community organizations, but with a few exceptions it has only recently been implemented by State governments (Sewell et al. 1985). One exception is the Hunter Valley Conservation Trust (HVCT) which was established in 1950. The purpose here is to examine both the opportunities for and the obstacles against implementing integrated catchment management in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales.

During 1987, the government of New South Wales released a State policy regarding ‘total catchment management’ in which the concept was defined as the ‘co-ordinated

0143-6228/89/030197-16 $03.00 0 1989 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd

Integrated resource management in the Hunter Valley, NS W, Australia 197

use and management of land, water, vegetation and other natural resources on a catchment basis’ (NSW Soil Conservation Service 1987). This action formalized an undertaking made during the 1984 State election by the Premier, who had promised that the concept of total catchment management would be comprehensively implemented in each of the major river valleys of the State to protect the land, improve stream flow, and control erosion. The 1987 initiative represented a significant shift in policy and was intended to reduce the problems which emerge from shared jurisdiction by many agencies regarding natural resources. By examining what has been accomplished in the Hunter Valley since 1950, better understanding may be realized of the conditions necessary to facilitate integrated catchment management.

The terms ‘total catchment management’, ‘integrated catchment management’, and ‘integrated resource management’ tend to be used interchangeably in Australia. Although definitions vary, at a national workshop in Melbourne during May 1988 it was agreed that ‘integrated catchment management is a process or tool which allows consideration of the natural linkages among natural resources, as well as consideration of diverse interests and values’ (Australian Water Resources Council 1988: xii). Integrated resource management is well suited to application in the context of catchments or river basins, but other spatial units can be used. Integrated catchment management ‘is desirable [within areas1 wherever there are conflicting or competing land and water uses and/or multiple institutional responsibilities’ (Australian Water Resources Council 1988: xiii).

The reality of boundary problems

Integrated management of land and water resources is usually supported for several reasons. First, water problems often have their origins on the land or from other social and economic activities, while many land-based problems are triggered from too much or too little water. Secondly, public management agencies have shared and fragmented responsibilities, either from one level of government to another (local, state, federal) or among agencies at the same level of government (water, agriculture, forestry, wildlife, minerals, environment). As a result of these considerations, it is often accepted that integration will lead to cooperation and coordination which in turn will lead to improved effectiveness.

However, many jurisdictions and interests ‘are the reality and the problem is our poor skills in handling the interactions they necessitate’ (Dorcey 1987: 2). Shared and fragmented responsibilities become both a barrier to and a rationale for integration. As Eddison (1985: 148-9) has remarked:

. . . the major problems always occur at the boundaries-between states, between levels of government, between departments of state, between agencies, between divisions within departments. Good managers can manage what is theirs but falter when it comes to boundaries.

As far as boundaries are concerned the debate is endless since several different but plausible bases exist for establishing the pattern . . . The interrelationships are many and varied. The only conclusion is that boundaries will invariably be wrong from one view or another. Our interventions therefore need to cater for this inaccuracy, to compensate for it. We need processes of administration which can assist us in this task.

If boundary problems represent a key consideration, then it is essential to examine the institutional arrangements involved in designing a strategy to achieve integration.

Institutional arrangements have been defined in a variety of ways (Craine 1971; Mitchell 1975; Ingram et al. 1984; Fernie and Pitkethly 1985). In this study, institutional arrangements are defined (after Mitchell 1989: 245) as the combination of:

1, legislation and regulations 2. policies and guidelines 3. administrative structures 4. economic and financial arrangements 5. political structures and processes 6. historical and traditional customs and values 7. key participants or actors

The purpose of an institutional analysis is to identify and assess the leverage points at which it is possible to improve resource management. In that regard, the framework shown in Fig. 1 is designed to be opportunistic in the sense that it helps to pinpoint where action may be taken to facilitate integrated management (Mitchell 1987). The ordering of these leverage points is less important than the recognition that usually a mix of them is required to realize integrated resource m~agement . The framework reminds the analyst or manager that we should simultaneously consider a number of leverage or opportunity points to enhance effectiveness.

The framework focuses attention upon the following with regard to the Hunter Valley Conservation Trust (HVCT):

Context. How significant have changing conditions in the natural environment, ideologies, economic development and legal, administrative and financial arrangements been in the establishment and operation of the HVCT? How have changing conditions affected the operations of the HVCT over time?

~eg~~i~~~~on. To what extent have goals and objectives, power and authority, and procedures for resolving conflicts or stalemates been identified and clarified by political commitment, statute, and administrative policy?

Functions. Which generic and substantive management functions have been allocated to the HVCT? How do its management functions relate to functions under the control of other organizations at various government levels?

Figure 1. Key aspects for integration of land and water.

200 Bruce Mitchell and John J. Pigram

Structures. Which organizational structures are used to ensure that the viewpoints of elected officials, technical analysts, landowners and other resource users are brought together? How accountable and flexible are these structures?

Processes and mechanisms. Which processes at the political and administrative levels are used to ensure that various values and interests are identified and assessed? What mix of interdepartmental committees, task forces, review procedures and lead agencies is used? What informal mechanisms are used to foster coordination? How are regional planning, cost-benefit analysis, environmental impact assessment and public participation used to bring together various concerns?

Organizational culture andparticipant attitudes. Which incentives and disincentives exist regarding coordination and integration? How can incentives be built into the ‘organizational culture’ to counter the disincentives for integration created by vertically and horizontally fragmented responsibilities? Since bargaining and negotiation are central to integration, what can be done to encourage participants to view compromise as a positive exercise, and to become skilful and sensitive in bargaining?

Data collection

A number of data sources have been used in this study. Published material has been consulted, including statutes, annual reports, policy statements, and studies published in books or journals. An important source of information was interviews with key people associated with the Trust, with the New South Wales Department of Water Resources and the Soil Conservation Service, with municipalities, and with other agencies and organizations having expertise in catchment management. Much of the interview information was provided in confidence or on an ‘off the record’ basis, so that specific sources are not identified in this respect. Ideas and information are presented only when the authors believe that they were widely enough shared or accepted by the interviewees to indicate that they were credible and valid. A conscious effort was made to obtain the views both of people close to the Trust in the belief that they would have been directly exposed to problems and opportunities, and of people more removed from the Trust who, although not having direct access, could provide an ‘arm’s length’ perspective. By considering these various perspec- tives, the intention was to obtain a cross-section of assessments.

The Hunter Valley

The Hunter River and its tributaries is one of the largest river systems on the east coast of Australia (Fig. 2). The drainage basin covers 22000km2, and extends inland from the port city of Newcastle for over 400 km. It is a diverse and productive region, embracing a range of economic activities. Primary production is based on intensive agriculture along the floodplain plus dairying, viticulture, pastoral enter- prises including horse studs and poultry raising, and forestry. Heavy industry is concentrated near Newcastle, but mining and other industrial developments are expanding further inland around the towns of Singleton and Muswellbrook.

Despite increasing water demands associated with electricity generation, urbaniza- tion and coal extraction, irrigation remains the largest water use in the Upper Hunter. The 25 OOOha under irrigation are mainly found on the floodplains of streams above


the influence of tides. In the past 15 years there has been a gradual increase in the area authorized for irrigation.

Whereas in terms of potential water availability the Hunter River basin seems to have sufficient capacity to satisfy predicted needs in the immediate future, both the demand for and the supply of water may change in response to a range of interrelated factors. These include the certainty of recurrent drought, possible deterioration in water quality, variations in the prospects for resource-based industries, and changes in water policy, including higher charges for water and alterations in the priorities for storage construction (Pigram 1986). Apart from concern over the availability of water to meet projected demands, parts of the catchment are subject to serious soil erosion, while saline intrusion and severe flooding are recurring problems in the lower river. As a result, the Hunter Valley presents a timely opportunity to assess past experience in coordinating land and water management, and to consider how to implement effectively the new State policy of integrated catchment management.

The Hunter Valley Conservation Trust (1950-1988)

Con text

A combination of contextual aspects led to the creation of the HVCT in 1950. Serious land degradation through soil erosion, combined with frequent and damaging floods in the lower part of the Hunter Valley, drew attention to the need to achieve greater control over the natural system, as well as modification of human activity.

The ideology of the State Premier at the time was a positive contributory factor-he was committed to the concept of conservation as it had been developed during the 1930s. Emphasis had been placed upon control of river systems as well as planting of trees and other vegetation to reduce land degradation, and following the second world war, a general optimism prevailed regarding the prospects for economic development, with the government believing that it had a central role in providing infrastructure and other support for the private sector. Indeed, as Cunningham (1986) has stated, Australians historically have accepted central government inter- vention in regional development and have expected it to provide a large portion of basic infrastructure.

The Hunter Valley Conservation Trust was established in an era when government agencies were given a specific mandate and expected to get on with their task. During the 198Os, however, public values and expectations of government shifted con- siderably, with more emphasis being placed on accountability, cost-effectiveness and capability for being proactive or anticipatory. Thus, a key issue to explore is the extent to which the Trust was able to adjust its style of operation to remain in harmony with evolving contextual conditions.

Legitimation

The HVCT is a statutory authority, legitimated through legislation. The 1950 Hunter Valley Conservation Trust Act makes

. . . provisions for and in relation to flood mitigation and conservation of natural resources in the Hunter Valley; . . . and to provide for the declaration of certain lands within the district of the Trust as areas of erosion danger and areas of erosion risk . . . to enable restrictions to be imposed upon the use of lands within the district of the Trust; to levy a conservation rate upon lands within the district of the Trust.


In terms of power or authority, the Trust was authorized to make recommendations to its minister regarding the

nature, location, form and extent of any work or proposed work for the purpose of soil conservation, afforestation, reforestation, flood mitigation, water conservation, irrigation or river improvement within the Trust District.

The combination of objectives and powers makes it clear that the HVCT was expected to have a much broader role than the flood mitigation authorities which were introduced into New South Wales later in the 1950s. It has a statutory base to conduct much of what today is being called integrated catchment m~agement in Australia. However, as Day (1986: 259) and others have noted, ‘the Trust . . . has not used its full powers in relation to land use and water resources over the basin and seems unlikely to do so in the future’. This assessment suggests that legitimation through statute is not a sufficient condition by itself to trigger the implementation of integrated resource management.

Serious flooding in the Hunter Valley during 1955 led to the 1956 Hunter Valley Flood Mitigation Act, which was intended

to provide for the carrying out of works of flood prevention and mitigation within the Hunter Valley and to make provision otherwise for and in respect of such flood prevention and mitigation; to provide for payments to be made by the Hunter Valley Conserva- tion Trust and by councils in respect of such works. . . .

Under this legislation, the Department of Public Works was to be the constructing authority for flood mitigation works in the lower (tidal) reaches of the Hunter Valley and the Water Resources Commission (changed to the Department of Water Resources in January 1987) was to be the constructing authority in the Upper Hunter. These two authorities were empowered to plan and undertake schemes for the prevention and mitigation of flooding and to construct, operate and maintain such works. Under that Act, the contribution by the Trust towards such works was to be 25 per cent of the cost of both construction and maintenance (HVCT Annual Report 1985: 13).

The magnitude of damage caused by the 1955 flood, together with the passage of the 1956 Act and the identification of the Public Works and Water Resources Commission as key organizations, understandably emphasized flood mitigation in the Hunter Valley. As a result, it is possible to appreciate why these conditions, in combination with limited Trust funds, were sufficient to lead the HVCT to pursue a narrow interpretation of the broad mandate given to it by law.

Functions

The Trust’s primary functions relate to the mitigation of flood damage (although it has no authority for constructing or maintaining capital works for flood prevention) as well as to the conservation of natural resources, particularly soils, water and forests. Its most prominent function has been the provision of funds to other agencies, councils and individuals for a variety of conservation, river improvement and flood mitigation works. The single source of the Trust’s income has been the conservation rate levied on local governments in the Hunter Valley. From 1951 to 1984 the Trust collected just under A$12*4 million, and by the end of 1986 had collected a total of some A$14*4 million through these rates.

Flood mitigation and river management works have been the central component of the Trust’s functions, virtually all of which have been funded under the authority of

Integrated remme ~a~age~~nt in the Hmter Valley, NSW, Australia 203

the Hunter Valley Flood Mitigation Act, 1956. In the lower or tidal reaches of the Hunter, some 200km of levees, I I I km of flood drains, 180 floodgate structures and 15 km of bank stabilization works had been built by 1985. In the upper valley, emphasis has been given to bank stabilization and about 840km of stream banks have been treated to reduce erosion.

Regarding soil erosion, financial contributions from the Trust have been concentrated upon structural works such as earth embankments in gullies, earth banks to control and distribute runoff, waterways, contour ripping and fencing. The soil conservation activities have been conducted in cooperation with the Soil Conserva- tion Service and are normally undertaken by landowners and locai organizations. The Trust has also contributed 50 per cent of the cost of structural works in cooperative projects initiated by the Soil Conservation Service with agreed land- holder participation in property improvement. Since 1945 the Trust has contributed tawards Forestry measures, especially the

creation of windbreaks and woodiots by l~downers in rural areas and in cooperation with the Forestry Commission. Farm water conservation projects have also received financial assistance when these are undertaken to conserve surface water.

Information and education have been important functions and a range of written material has been prepared to provide information to institutions, school groups and individuals. The Trust also directs inquiries to other appropriate government agencies when it does not have the technical expertise or information to respond to questions.

This account of the Trust’s functions indicates that primary attention has been given to flood mitigation and to associated soil erosion on lands generally and on stream banks. The perspective has not been catchment orientated, nor has it integrated water and land-based elements, Nevertheless, the Trust has done most useful work as an in-stream, flood damage reduction agency in the lower reaches of the Hunter River Valley where wooding has been serious. Furthermore~ it has shown that it can effectively coordinate the efforts of a number of agencies and has been able to work cooperatively with the Soil Conservation Service, the Department of Water Resources, the Forestry Commission, the Public Works Department, and others.

If each of the projects to which the Trust has provided financial support were to be examined in isolation, it would be rare to find one which had not generated real benefits. However, in an era of accountabiIity, cost-effectiveness, and proactive planning, it is difficult to determine whether the total package of functions and activities has realized the best return for the investment. The Trust has tended to identify projects related to each of its functions on a case-by-case basis. Little or no attempt has been made to establish an explicit and systematic rationale for t.he type and sequencing of projects.

Strucfure

The Trust is a New South Wales statutory authority, consisting of a corporate body of 18 persons (trustees). The Chairman is nominated by the Minister of Water Resources for a term up to seven years. Five trustees represent State departments, with one each nominated by Public Works, ~riculture, Water Resources, the Forestry Commission and the Soil Conservation Service, with terms of up to seven years. Seven trustees are elected by local government councils for three-year terms and a further five are nominate by the Minister of Water Resources following nominations from groups recognized as representing rural landowners in the valley.


These appointments are for three years. Perhaps because 12 of the 18 trustees are appointed from either local government councils or rural landowner interests, citizen advisory committees have not been utilized. Nevertheless, citizen groups, independent of the Trust, approach it with proposals, questions, concerns and suggestions.

The Trust has operated with an extremely limited staff. As a result, it has neces- sarily relied substantially on its five ‘departmental’ trustees for technical advice, judgements on matters which are administratively sensitive or concerned with government policy or mooted legislation. Given such a modest staff, its accomplish- ments are impressive.

Given its mandate, functions and limited human resources, the HVCT’s primary concern has been the distribution of the financial contributions in the most effective manner and the balancing of individual or community needs with regional needs. In structural terms, the key issues now centre upon the appropriate number of trustees, how they are selected, what relationship they have with the public at large, and how the Trust relates with other agencies having responsibilities for natural resource conservation.

Processes and mechanisms

The purpose underlying the establishment of the HVCT was to enable locat and governmental forces to work together with the Trust towards effective conservation measures in the Hunter Valley (HVCT 1985). The composition of the Trust in part reflects this purpose, ensuring as it does representation from public agencies, local government, and rural landowners.

The membership structure of the Trust since 1968 has been such that rural land interests were potentially dominant. There are five representatives of rural Iand- holders, two of the departmental representatives are in rurally orientated occupa- tions, and more than two of the elected trustees have been involved in rural pursuits. As a result, attitudes and priorities have tended to be directed more towards the problems of people on the land than to the problems of the /and itself.

This orientation served the Trust well until the late 1970s and the 198Os, when there was a rush to mine coal and to establish aluminium smelters, followed by the establishment of the Environmenta Planning and Assessment Act, competition for water supplies, and the development of a conservation movement within the community. With hindsight, given these developments, perhaps the membership of the Trust should have been broadened to better reflect the mix of values and interests in the valley. However, at the time it seemed to the Trust that, on the whole, the government agencies were coping adequately, and as a result, it was reluctant to interfere or criticize.

In practice, the composition of the Trust works well for those interests which are represented. However, other agencies and groups with no direct links to the HVCT have less opportunity to collaborate sympathetically with its aims and initiatives. Whether as a cause or effect, there has not generally been a widespread desire of these interests to work together. There appear to be few mechanisms to ensure regular consultation among government departments, or between them and other interest groups outside the HVCT infrastructure. What consultation does take piace is ad hoc and directed toward specific situations and projects. This mode of operation carries with it the risk that certain conservation measures, such as stream rehabilitation, may be undertaken in such a way as to conflict with the otherwise complementary activities of other agencies.


Moreover, in addressing its responsibilities, the Trust has tended to adopt a reactive stance, preferring to respond to perceived tasks in the area of conservation. Undoubtedly, in its formative years it had a daunting array of urgent problems to react to, so that the need and the opportunity to develop an explicit set of goals and objectives did not arise. Nor was the necessity obvious for some evaluative mechanism to justify projects and monitor their performance: conservation measures were unchallenged as being worthwhile in their own right. It was acceptable to derive priorities from experience and intuition rather than some systematic plan.

The rural orientation of many trustees also meant that, in the past, the HVCT has operated on the understanding that its primary function was reactive and supportive rather than forceful. It was prepared mainly to suggest actions, offer technical advice and provide financial assistance. Ultimately, the trustees were usually motivated by respect for the right of individuals to make decisions in regard to their own land and were not inclined to impose controls on the rural community. Furthermore, forceful controls over land management practices by landholders were perceived as being counterproductive.

This is not to say that HVCT conservation initiatives have been ineffective. Indeed, by ensuring that its recommendations were logical and based on broad government policies, the Trust made it difficult for landholders to ignore its comments. However, it is probably true to say that, in many cases, resources and funds were directed more towards those landholders willing and able to cooperate in implementing conservation programmes, and not always to those areas where problems have been most severe.

Despite its successes in the task of flood damage reduction, the HVCT has presented a low profile relative to its broader charter of land use control. Yet its record of nearly 40 years as the organization most clearly identified with resource conservation in the Hunter Valley makes it well placed to adopt a more aggressive stance in promoting integrated catchment management. The challenge is for it to become the lead agency in orchestrating a cohesive conservation programme which reflects an appreciation of the natural and human forces influencing resource use in the region.

Organizational culture and participant attitudes

Too often, the ‘organizational culture’ generates an environment in which rewards accrue to those who can specify and defend their own areas of interest (Mitchell 1987). The ideal of a valley-wide perspective is not easily realized by a group comprising representatives of disparate interests. Moreover, conflicts over resource conservation and catchment management commonly embrace a diverse array of loosely associated viewpoints. However, as Fisher and Ury (1981) and Delli Priscoli (1988: 76) suggest, groups with apparently divergent public positions often share common interests. The task then becomes one of identifying and isolating those aspects on which participants are in agreement and focusing energies on rationalizing points of difference so that all parties perceive real gains.

Disputes arise in which a body such as the HVCT finds itself unable to reach a workable solution in regard to integration of resource management. This may not always be the product of tunnel vision or bloody-mindedness. Some government agencies may consider themselves bound by statute or political considerations and thereby have little scope for compromise. In such circumstances, it becomes important to make provision for a mediation or arbitration process to break the deadlock.

206 Bruce ~~tche~~ nnd John J. Pigram

Given the general goodwill which has typified the Trust’s operations to date, it seems likely that the human dimension will remain conducive to the mutual settle- ment of conflicts which might arise. However, the organizational culture-the ‘atmosphere for decision-making’-and the resilience and vision of participants will be fundamental to the HVCT’s success in a strategy of integrated catchment management.

Integrated catchment management and the Hunter Valley Conservation Trust

Although the Trust has achieved significant success with flood damage reduction, river management and soil conservation, it has seemed unable or unwilling to address effectively those aspects of its mandate which relate to integrated management of resources on a catchment basis. Furthermore, having completed nearly all the structural measures for flood mitigation and soil conservation, emphasis has now shifted to the maintenance of such works. In a very real sense, the Trust needs to develop a new role and thereby justify its continued existence.

Since 1984 there has been increased questioning of the Trust and its relevance to resource conservation in a valley-wide context. Dissatisfaction with the rate levy and perceived inequities in the distribution of its benefits, together with concern over the Trust’s performance, contributed to the Minister of Natural Resources in 1984 asking the New South Wales Public Service Board to conduct a review of the Trust. Although never made public, this report is understood to have recommended that the Trust be restructured with a revised mandate specifically directed toward implementation of what was termed ‘total catchment management’. At about the same time, an unpublished State-wide review of water administration in New South Wales, which addressed the pervasive problem of overlapping government agencies, is understood to have included in its recommendations the elimination of the HVCT.

In 1984 the State government established an interdepartmental committee to develop a strategy for total catchment management in New South Wales. The committee concluded that existing legislation was adequate for the implementation of total catchment management and that the strategy should be introduced in stages following pilot programmes to determine the most appropriate mechanisms for local situations. Subsequently, the State government incorporated ‘TCM’ into its overall policy for management of natural resources.

Finally, in November 1986 the Minister of Water Resources established a working committee to consider the Trust’s future structure and functions and to make recommendations on a number of key issues in the Hunter region which could also involve the Trust. The working groups involved representatives from government departments, local government and the Trust itself. The terms of reference were:

To review the Trust’s future role with regard to Total Gatchment Management, urban drainage and drainage unions, as well as its traditional conservation of natural resources and flood mitigation roles.

To recommend on the appropriate size, composition and form of the Trust and its relationship with the new Department of Water Resources, in accordance with the provisions of the proposed Water Administration Act.

It was subsequently indicated that the HVCT was to be reconstituted and restructured to act as the coordinating and research body to ensure that the principles of total catchment management were applied to the Hunter Valley. The role of local government in the new Trust was to be continued and its specific expertise sought on a much broader range of issues.


However, in the March 1988 State election the New South Wales government changed from Labour to a Liberal-National Coalition. The new government commissioned a ‘water audit’ in which emphasis was to be given to a review of appropriate administrative structures for the management of water resources. In May 1988, a national workshop on integrated catchment management was held, one objective being to help each State or Territory to develop or refine a policy for integrated catchment management. Thus, it appears that the concept of integrated catchment management is now attracting considerable attention.

Given the interest in integrated catchment management, and in the role of the HVCT, it is appropriate to consider how the Trust could be made more effective in delivering integrated catchment management. The conceptual framework developed in this paper is used to present some suggestions for modifications to the Trust.

The existing legislation should be adequate, at least as a working model, to ensure that the HVCT retains its status as a statutory body reporting directly to the minister. However, to reinforce the perception that the Trust has been reconstituted, some amendment to its name might be appropriate. A designation such as the Hunter Valley Catchment Trust has the merit of retaining the acronym, HVCT, while emphasizing a commitment to catchment management. However, a more radical revision might be considered appropriate, making more explicit the power base and status of the new organizaton. Elaboration and clarification of the Trust’s responsibility in this area should confirm its legitimacy and acceptance as the lead agency for total catchment management in the Hunter region.

If a reorganized Trust were to be identified primarily as a coordinating authority with ancillary interests in conservation awareness programmes, it would run the risk of being viewed as an organization without real power. Its coordinating function must be given support through financial leverage and through acknowledged lead agency status. This is not to advocate promoting the Trust as some kind of super regulatory agency, but as one which is prepared to adopt a highly visible proactive stance. Furthermore, the Trust will need the power to enable issues to be addressed by the relevant agencies, to insist that efforts are made to find solutions to identifiable problems, and to facilitate the adoption of collaborative processes.

These functions assume that the new organization would continue to levy catchment management rates on the ratepayers in the Valley. However, these funds should not be used to support measures which intrude on the core activities or areas of responsibility of participant government agencies. The rate levied should be designated as ‘catchment management’ funds, to be supplemented by both specific- purpose government grants where necessary, and by funds from individuals, landowners and private companies, and applied to measures identified as facilitating conservation programmes of regional significance.

Thus, local government would assume responsibility for urban drainage and the maintenance of existing flood mitigation and stream management works, while other agencies would retain jurisdiction in their own particular areas of expertise. The Trust would respect the capabilities of individual departments and local government groups and would concentrate its coordination efforts on broader issues, common concerns and activities which overlap inter-agency mandates.


The primary functional role would not be with water alone, or with any other single resource. The Trust’s concern would be the integrated management of water with other elements of the resource base, once valley-wide priorities were established and the proper sequencing of projects agreed upon.

Structure

Some of the perceived weaknesses of the present Trust are its unwieldy size and structure, its modest professional staff and its lack of executive power. A reconstituted Trust should be of a more manageable size, perhaps half to two-thirds of the present trustees. Structurally, the authority would resemble a tight executive group or board of management reflecting the interests of State government through representatives of selected key government agencies (Water Resources, Land Resources, and Environment and Planning); the interests of local government through representatives of Newcastle City Council, lower Hunter councils, and upper Hunter councils; and the interests of the valley community through representatives drawn from major resource use interests such as agriculture, forestry, extractive industries, energy generation, recreation, and nature/heritage conservation.

The representatives of these three groups should be nominated by the responsible ministers, local government and valley organizations respectively. The members of the Trust should have a three-year term initially. A senior position of Executive Director should be created as a statutory appointment, requiring a person with administrative skills as well as expertise in research and policy development.

The reconstituted Trust would require considerable support through an enlarged professional staff and provision would need to be made for participation by the local community and other government departments. This participation could be facilitated through ad hoc issue-orientated advisory groups linked to the Trust proper through a designated trustee and able to achieve effective liaison with agencies responsible for specific aspects of resource conservation.

Processes and mechanisms

Care will be needed to ensure that the Trust’s role is not seen merely as developing a manual or set of guidelines for participating agencies and resource managers. Of greater importance is having the proper procedures in place to enable working programmes to mesh ‘on the ground’. Integrated catchment management will only be achieved by the lead agency harnessing and coordinating technical input from various line agencies such as Soil Conservation and Water Resources and channelling this through to landholders and other resource users. Such a relationship is critical to the outcome, if the Trust is not to be perceived only as a regulatory organization intent upon threatening, compromising or superseding traditional areas of responsibility and accepted expertise.

For this to be realized, the preparation of a formal strategic plan can no longer be avoided. This should set out the rationale for an integrated approach to catchment management and indicate the roles of the various participants in the process. This leads naturally to the identification of goals and objectives for a plan specific to the Hunter region. Priorities for particular initiatives to be undertaken in parts of the drainage basin should follow, with contributions from respective agencies and resource managers to the programme, almost certainly on a subcatchment basis. The overall planning process should embrace both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches, incorporating established procedures for facilitating agency input and public scrutiny and response.

Integrated resource management in the Hunter Valley* NSW, A&r&a 209

Enthusiasm and support for the strategic plan will depend upon how the line agencies and the valley community perceive their relevance and effectiveness. It is important, therefore, that the initial priority measures emerge from consultation with regional groupings (formal and informal) and be seen to have more than local or parochial significance. As the lead agency, the Trust should focus its energy, at least in the first instance, on a limited number of issues which are highly visible, which are likely to be subregional in scope, and which call for an integrated approach. The rehabilitation of coal extraction sites suggests itself as one such issue.

Organizational culture and participant attitudes

A reorganized Trust with well-defined functions and highly refined processes and mechanisms for implementing a strategy of integrated catchment m~agement may still be less than successful if the ‘organizational culture’ is not conducive to cooperation and goodwill. At the same time, the human dimension, or the personalities and attitudes of participants, can negate the best-intentioned strategies for integrated resource management. In a region such as the Hunter Valley where interest groups have often been in conflict over resource allocation and use, the challenge of finding common ground and achieving a new mode of thinking towards resource issues is daunting.

There may be reason for optimism. Core areas of agency responsibility should not prove unduly troublesome. It is at the boundaries, where jurisdictions are seen to overlap, that the disincentives to integration are likely to be strongest. These peripheral zones should then become the focus for the attention of the Trust, given the task of rationalizing the inputs of disparate participants for the regional good.

The most productive sphere in which to engender effective cooperation could well be that of middle-level management. Field personnel and those working under direction have little scope for on-the-job initiative or negotiation. At the other end of the hierarchy, the role of divisional or departmental heads inevitably is, and perhaps should be, confined to more ‘abstract’ considerations, such as identifying and defending core areas of responsibility seen as central to their agency’s charter. Beyond attempting to relate these to some vague notions of common purpose and interest, it could be expected that the contribution of senior management to actual implementation of integration will remain essentially at this policy level.

Recognizing that there will be exceptions, the task of achieving meaningful cooperation appears to rest primarily with the middle-level ‘field commanders’. This is the group charged with making the policy of integrated catchment m~agement work ‘on the ground’. It is at this operational level that the boundary problems are likely to emerge. It is at this level also that attention can be concentrated on those selected variables and even individuals accounting for management problems. It is here where incentives to seek common ground are likely to be most effective and where strictures and even sanctions to counter disintegration may well be needed.

Middle-level management then becomes the ‘organizational culture’ in which the attitudes of participants are crucial to the successful outcome of a policy of integration and cooperation. This cultural medium offers scope for informal contacts between people outside their strict agency roles, in the interests of getting the job done. The most formidable task for the Trust in this process could well be convincing senior management to confine their role to determining those concerns or issues where claims intersect and where different agencies must find common ground in order for integration to become a reality. It is then up to middle-level m~agement to explore the capacity for collaborative problem-solving. It is in this realm that a


task force format may be helpful. The delegation of a specific area of difficulty to a task-orientated group with stipulated objectives and target dates for recording progress towards resolution can be a useful device for facilitating coordination and relaxing hitherto non-negotiable positions.

Such approaches are new in the Hunter region and represent a learning experience both for the Trust and for the participants. Pilot programmes, even training sessions in achieving coordination, will be necessary in which to practise appropriate cooperative management strategies and bargaining skills. There is likely to be an on- going need for a revitalized Trust to lead by example so as to convince participating agencies that compromise is a positive exercise and indeed the only effective approach to integrated catchment management.

Conclusions

The policy of integrated resource management has received wide endorsement at the conceptual level in Australia. Progress towards effective implementation, however, has been tentative and hesitant. The Hunter Valley offers both a need and an opportunity to demonstrate one possible approach to integrated management. A restructured Hunter Valley Conservation Trust would provide a useful vehicle for drawing together available expertise and latent enthusiasm among resource management agencies and the valley community.

The analytical framework used here suggests that there is no single method of implementing integrated management. Rather, there are a number of complementary leverage points. None alone is sufficient for the task. Thus, a mix of legitimation, functions, structures, processes and mechanisms, and organizational culture and participants’ attitudes must be considered together. Not all have to move forward together, as opportunities may present themselves for the manager to innovate with different elements at different time periods. Nevertheless, the likelihood of realizing success should increase when they are used together as leverage points to facilitate an integrated approach which attempts to resolve the boundary problems arising in the management of natural resources.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their appreciation to Tom Carlisle and the anonymous referees who provided suggestions regarding this paper. Most of this research was completed while Bruce Mitchell was a Visiting Research Fellow in the Department of Geography and Planning at the University of New England. Carto- graphy is by R. Boskovic and S. Clarke of the University of New England Carto- graphic Centre.

References

Australian Water Resources Council, Australian Environment Council and Australian Soil Conservation Council (1988) Proceedings of the National Workshop on Integrated Catchment Management. Melbourne: Victoria Department of Water Resources, Australian Water Resources Council Conference Series No. 16.

Callahan, N. (1980) A bridge over troubled waters: a history of the Tennessee Valley Authority. South Brunswick and New York: A. S. Barnes.

Carlyle, W. J. (1983) Agricultural drainage in Manitoba: the search for administrative boundaries. In River basin management: Canadian experiences (B. Mitchell and J. S.


Gardner, eds), pp. 279-295. Waterloo: University of Waterloo, Department of Geography Publication Series No. 20.

Craine, L. E. (1971) Institutions for managing lakes and bays. Natural Resources Journal II, 519-546.

Cunningham, G. M. (1986) The Australian development ethos: help or hindrance in regional planning. Paper to the Conference on Planning and Development on the North Coast, Valla Beach, 7-8 August.

Day, D. G. (1986) Water and coal: industry, environment and institutions in the Hunter Valley, NS W. Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Monograph 14.

Delli Priscoli, J. (1988) Conflict resolution in water resources: two 404 general permits. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 114 (l), 66-67.

Dorcey, A. H. J. (1987) Editorial: Managers-our scarcest resource. Canadian Water Resources Journal 12 (l), l-2.

Eddison, T. (1985) Managing an ecological system 5: reforming bureaucracy. Australian Quarterly 57, 148-153.

Fernie, J. and Pitkethly, A. S. (1985) Resources: environment andpolicy. London: Harper and Row.

Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1981) Getting to yes. London: Business Books. Howard, R. (1988) A New Zealand perspective on integrated catchment management. In

Working Papers for the National Workshop on Integrated Catchment Management, pp. 101-131. Melbourne: Australian Water Resources Council.

Hunter Valley Conservation Trust (1985) Annual report. Maitland: HVCT. Ingram, H. M., Mann, D. E., Weatherford, G. D. and Cortner, H. J. (1984) Guidelines for

improved institutional analysis in water resources planning. Water Resources Research 20, 323-334.

Jenkins, H. (1976) A valley renewed: the history of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

Kinnersley, D. (1988) Troubled water: rivers, politics andpollution. London: Hilary Shipman. Mitchell, B. (ed.) (1975) Institutional arrangements for water management: Canadian

experiences. Waterloo: University of Waterloo, Department of Geography, Publication Series No. 5.

Mitchell, B. (1987) A comprehensive-integrated approach for water and land management. Armidale: University of New England, Centre for Water Policy Research, Occasional Paper No. 1.

Mitchell, B. (1989) Geography and resource analysis (2nd ed.). London: Longman. New South Wales Soil Conservation Service (1987) Total catchment management: a state

policy. Sydney: Soil Conservation Service. Okun, D. A. (1977) Regionalization of water management: a revolution in England and Wales.

London: Applied Science Publishers. Pigram, J. J. (1986) Issues in the management of Australia’s water resources. Melbourne:

Longman Cheshire. Richardson, A. H. (1974) Conservation by the people: the history of the conservation

movement in Ontario to 1970. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Sewell, W. R. D., Handmer, J. W. and Smith, D. I. (eds) (1985) Waterplanning in Australia:

from myth to reality. Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies.

(Revised manuscript received 20 February 1989)

integrated resource management and the hunter valley conservation trust, nsw, australia

Documents