A Study of Governance Arrangements for Land Use and Natural Resource Management Planning in Cape York Peninsula.

Ruth Potts*1, Karen Vella1, Allan Dale2, Neil Sipe3

1 Queensland University of Technology, 2 The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, 3 University of Queensland

*Contact author details

Postal Address: QUT Science and Engineering Faculty GPO Box 2434

Brisbane Qld, 4001

Email: rm.potts@hdr.qut.edu.au

Phone #: 0400131725

Key words: Land use planning, natural resource planning, Cape York Peninsula, governance, evaluative principles, best practice

Abstract Complex intersecting social, economic and environmental dilemmas in Australia’s Cape York Peninsula present a number of challenges for planners seeking to develop and implement land use and natural resource management (NRM) plans. There have been five different attempts at land use and NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula over the last 20 years. These processes have (to greater or lesser extents) failed to deliver community-owned and government-supported plans to guide development and/or the management of the region’s natural resources. The region is remote, sparsely populated, and home to a significant Indigenous population. Much of the contestation within the region surrounds the access, use and ownership of the region’s internationally valuable natural resources. This paper reviews the relevancy and applicability of criteria for best practice planning and governance from the literature. A range of identified best practice governance and planning principles are applied to assess the governance arrangements for planning in the Peninsula. The paper finds that decision-making arrangements for land use and NRM planning in the Peninsula are still in their infancy and are inadequate to support effective outcomes. The paper concludes that broader attention to best practice principles in governance for planning is needed to improve planning outcomes.

1

1.0 Introduction In this paper, we view planning as a form of policy-making that occurs in the context of a broader governance system that involves numerous interests, agendas, stakeholders and other influencing factors (Friedmann, 1987). The quality of planning processes and outcomes are influenced by the quality of governance arrangements that surround and support them (Healey, 2006). To improve planning processes and outcomes, it is necessary to first analyse the governance arrangements that support and influence them. Such analysis allows planners to identify where decision-making systems are working well, where they are failing to deliver desired outcomes, and to identify areas needing reform. Best practice principles or principles of ‘good’ governance are widely extolled by theorists and planning practitioners as critical considerations to support institutions within governance systems to deliver their desired outcomes (Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004; Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003b; Lockwood, 2010; Nanda, 2006; OECD, 1995; UNDP, 1997).

Planning in Cape York Peninsula, like many regions across Australia is highly contested and socially complex. Despite significant investment in land use and NRM planning over the last 20 years, the region is yet to have a community-owned land use and NRM plans (CYPLUS, 1995; Holmes, 2011a, 2011b; NHT, 2005). However, while past planning processes have been documented, there has been little discussion of the governance arrangements surrounding NRM and land use planning in the region and their contribution to system failure of planning activities. This paper begins with a review of potential criteria that could be used for best practice governance for planning from the literature. Next, a Cape York Peninsula case study is described and the challenges facing planning for land use and natural resources in the Peninsula identified. Finally, best practice principles drawn from the literature are applied to assess the governance or decision-making arrangements for planning in the Peninsula, leading to recommendations for future planning in the region.

2.0 Case study overviewCape York Peninsula is located at the northern most point of Queensland, and has a population of approximately 15,000 people (approximately 60% Indigenous). It covers an area twice the size of the entire Australian state of Tasmania (Figure 1)(OESR, 2012; Phillpot, 2005). The region has an abundance of internationally and nationally important natural resources, including remnant rainforests, rich mineral reserves (bauxite, gold, kaolin, silica sand), several rivers that are of high ecological significance, high biodiversity, and a strong Indigenous culture (NHT, 2005). Issues surrounding Aboriginal rights to own, access, and make decisions about the use and management of these natural resources are at the heart of the contention in the region for the past 140 years (Holmes, 2011a). The contention is largely driven by the conflicting and competing visions for the future of the region amongst the Cape’s key power groups (miners, pastoralists, Indigenous communities, conservation groups and developers). In fact, within and between these power groups there are multiple binaries and nuances that add to the complexity of undertaking regional NRM planning and addressing NRM problems (Nursey-Bray, 2009; Pickerill, 2008).

These contests over the planning space are ‘characterised by fluxing alliances and schisms between and among Indigenous, development and conservation interests

2

(Holmes, 2011a, p. 54). Among other things, this contention has, until this point prevented agreed land use and a regional NRM plan from being formally recognised and implemented in the region. The region’s social and political complexity implores the use of best practice governance principles. Such principles have emerged in the literature to guide decision-making approaches in situations characterised by highly complex resource use and management problems like those faced in the Peninsula. We argue that unlike many who suggest that Cape York Peninsula is unique and thus requires special treatment, given the history of failed planning approaches, broader attention to generic best practice principles in governance and planning would do much to improve planning outcomes in the region. This is arguably one solution to overcome the historic and contemporary challenges that have led to the Peninsula having a highly contested regional land use plan and being one of the only NRM regions1 in Australia without an accredited or community-owned regional NRM plan.

3.0 MethodsThe methods applied for this paper are as follows: Firstly a detailed literature review was undertaken, drawing on reports of past planning in the region and past plans where available. This provided context for the discussion of the NRM planning processes for Cape York Peninsula. The dynamics of governance for land use and NRM planning in the region, and the challenges faced by planners and NRM institutions were explored during an 18-month period of intermittent observation of and unstructured conversations with the planning processes, stakeholders and decision-makers in the region between 2012 and 2014. The governance arrangements in the region during this period are the focus of the results of this paper.

Based on the observations and conversations, a description of the governance system’s key structural and functional components was developed using the Governance Systems Analysis (GSA) Framework outlined in Dale, Vella, and Potts (2013a). A number of frameworks exist to analyse individual plans, policies and institutional dynamics (Conley & Moote, 2003; Hoggarth & Comfort, 2010; Hsu & Sandford, 2007; McDavid & Hawthorn, 2006; Owen, 2006; Patton, 1982). However, the GSA framework was used in this study because it takes a more systemic and holistic approach to conceptualising and analysing complex and multiscalar governance arrangements than existing frameworks (Dale et al., 2013a; Dale et al., 2013b; Potts, Vella, Dale, & Sipe, 2014).

Following the GSA method, a number of regionally-based decision-makers and ‘experts’ of the region were engaged in semi-structured interviews to provide comments and validate the accuracy of the evidence and conclusions of the functionality of the governance system (Dale et al., 2013a). Interviewees were selected based on their extensive (5 years or more) experience in Cape York Peninsula and represented regional non-government organisations (NGOs), research organisations, and government agencies (included any department or agency subsidiary to the Australian, State, or Local Governments).Based on the interviews,

1 NRM in Australia is operationalised at the regional scale and there are 56 NRM regions across the country (Shown in Figure 1). The 56 NRM regions were formalised through a bilateral agreement between the Federal and State Governments as part of the National Heritage Trust Program in 2003 (Abrahams, 2005). Regional groups were formed and were designated as responsible for the planning and management of natural resources in each of the 56 NRM regions.

3

the description of the governance system was modified for accuracy and updated based on changes to institutional arrangements over time. The diversity of data sources and groundtruthing with multiple regional participants of NRM used to assess the governance arrangements in the region, enabled triangulation of the evidence and conclusions of this research. This reduced bias in the final assessment and increased the reliability and validity of the data. The content contained in the results section of this paper are the conclusions of the application of the GSA Framework to study land use and NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula. Quotes in the results section are italicized and identified by institutional sector, including regional non-government organisation, government agency, and research sector.

4.0 Principles for evaluating governance arrangements for land use and natural resource management planning

The numerous and common principles of ‘good’ governance drawn from the literature present an excellent starting point for an analysis of governance arrangements. We now explore known evaluative criteria, drawn from the literature, in a NRM planning context and identify additional relevant evaluative principles where existing evaluative principles fall short of adequately addressing NRM planning challenges.

4.1 Evaluative criteriaThere is a high degree of congruency of ‘good’ governance principles promoted and defined in the literature. Governance best practice principles are espoused by theorists from a number of contexts, including global development (OECD, 1995; UNDP, 1997; UNESCAP, 2012), corporate responsibility (OECD, 2004; Strenger, 2004; Zattoni & Cuomo, 2008), public sector (Barrett, 2003), and natural resource management (Griffith, Davidson, & Lockwood, 2009; Gruber, 2010; Lockwood, 2010). Dale and Bellamy (1998) recognised the high degree of congruency amongst the principles across disciplines and identified a synthesised and ubiquitous set of seven principles of ‘good’ governance systems. The seven evaluative principles, applicable to the evaluation of governance for planning, include: 1) equity; 2) accountability; 3) effectiveness; 4) efficiency; and 5) adaptability, 6) sustainability, and 7) adequacy. Table 2 demonstrates the process used by Dale and Bellamy (1998) to synthesise a number of frameworks and their principles of ‘good’ governance.

Table 1: Comparison of principles for 'good' governance

4

Criteria Equity Accountability

Effectiveness

Efficiency Adaptability Sustainability Adequacy

GOVERNANCE

UNESCAP (2012) sets out principles of

sustainable human and regional development

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ X X

Graham, Amos, and Plumptre (2003a)

describe principles of good governance

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ X X

Thomas (2010) defines World Bank indicators

of worldwide good governance

X ✓ ✓ X X X X

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

OECD (2004) discusses the principles of

corporate governance

✓ ✓ X X X X X

Barrett (2003) defines principles for public sector governance in

Australia

X ✓ X ✓ X X X

NRM GOVERNANCE

Zafrin and Rosier (2011)

describe indicators of successful governance of Integrated Coastal

Zone Management

✓ ✓ ✓ X X X X

Lockwood, Davidson, Curtis, Stratford, and

Griffith (2010) outlines principles for regional

NRM governance in Australia

✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ X X

Gruber (2010) undertook a meta-

study of NRM initiatives/ programs and identifies traits of successful initiatives.

✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ X X

✓ Principle matches or matches in part

X Principle is not considered

5

Of the frameworks analysed, six have been applied to real world case studies, where they were tested for their relevancy and appropriateness in an effort to analyse the quality of the governance arrangements, and consequent planning. Although two of the aforementioned sets of principles have been tested in Australian NRM case studies (Queensland coastal governance (Zafrin & Rosier, 2011), and 13 Australian NRM regions [not including Cape York Peninsula] (Lockwood et al., 2010)), they have yet to be applied specifically in the Cape York Peninsula context. Table 3 defines the seven evaluative principles of best practice governance and planning identified by Dale and Bellamy (1998) that are adopted in this paper.

6

Table 2: Evaluative principles for natural resource management planning in Cape York Peninsula

Principle Description of Principle

Sustainability Governance and institutional arrangements can be maintained while outcomes are being pursued

Equity The fairness of decision-making in the system

Accountability The answerability of decision-makers to other system participants and broad interests

Adequacy Whether enough is being done to ensure activities within a system are working

Effectiveness Governance activities result in meaningful outcomes

Efficiency Use of resources and capital to achieve outcomes through activities

Adaptability Ability of systems to strategically and operationally evolve and change as the context of the governance system changes

7

4.1.1 EquityStakeholders who perceive decision-making and planning processes to be fair and thus equitable are more likely to fully participate or engage in both planning and its implementation (Innes & Booher, 2003; O'Faircheallaigh, 2010). Long-term planning outcomes are likely to be poor and unviable in situations where equity issues are not addressed because they are able to re-emerge and create further conflict in the region (Dale & Bellamy, 1998). Equitable governance and planning arrangements are inclusive and enable all organisations, communities and individuals, who are interested and willing, to be involved in the process (Innes & Booher, 2003; Perkins, 2011). In the context of a region scarred by the impacts of white paternalism, for example, equity is a crucial principle in present-day governance, ensuring all voices can be heard and considered in the planning process (Angman, 2013; Perkins, 2011).

4.1.2 AccountabilityAccountability is a critical trait of effective and functional governance arrangements in any region, evidenced in the answerability of decision-makers and the ability to enforce sanctions on decision-makers who violate their responsibilities (Innes & Booher, 2010; Schedler, Diamond, & Plattner, 1999). For decision-makers to be considered accountable they should inform stakeholders not only of the decision, but also the rationale for that decision. Public involvement in natural resource management and planning processes has been demonstrated to increase the accountability of decision-makers, increase the efficiency of the process, and the effectiveness of its outcomes (Ostrom, 1996; Parkins & Mitchell, 2005).

4.1.3 EffectivenessThe principle of effectiveness is focused on whether the policy-making process is delivering desired and meaningful outcomes. The effectiveness of a planning process is relative to the desired outcomes sought and may be observed in a number of on-ground or policy outcomes, such as improved stakeholder awareness, strengthening of relationships, reduced land degradation, published plans etc. (Innes & Booher, 2004; Lane, 2005). Effective planning systems and processes it is argued have high levels of participation and collaboration (Healey, 1997). If a planning governance system is not effective then it is unlikely to adequately deliver the outcomes sought by stakeholders or substantive improvements to environmental or social conditions (Innes & Booher, 2010; Rydin & Pennington, 2000).

4.1.4 EfficiencyThe efficiency of a system is complementary to the principle of effectiveness, as the outcomes of planning must be weighed up against their costs to determine whether the benefits delivered are worth the costs expended. The efficiency of planning can be quantified into a dollar amount or as an effort expenditure, which can then be compared against the outcomes achieved for that effort. Inefficient governance arrangements are often ‘characterized by a high degree of corruption, in transparent decision processes and dominance of established power structures’ (Pahl-Wostl, 2009, p. 356). Compatibility of the visions and objectives of institutions within a system is a significant factor in the efficiency of arrangements because the common goal provides a starting point for collaboration and shared investment in complementary strategies to achieve the common desired outcomes (Pahl-Wostl, 2009).

8

4.1.5 AdaptabilityLand use and NRM governance systems are generally complex and have inherently high levels of uncertainty embedded within them (Griffith et al., 2009). Adaptive governance systems for land use and NRM planning consist of highly integrated and collaborative institutions, policies and programs that devolve power and rights to enhance the participation of the different quasi-autonomous and self-organising components of the governance system (Lane & Robinson, 2009; Olsson et al., 2006). For a system to be considered adaptive, it must be able make strategic and operational changes in response to new information or contextual changes (Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005).

4.1.6 SustainabilityFollowing the publication of the Brundtland Report: Our Common Future in 1987 and ongoing worldwide environmental degradation, there has been a strong impetus to achieve more sustainable planning processes and outcomes (Bellamy, Ross, Ewing, & Meppem, 2002; Brundtland, 1987; Dovers, 2009). The durability of NRM governance and institutional arrangements is a significant determinant of the sustainability of resulting management outcomes (Agrawal, 2003). Sustainable governance arrangements are able to be self-sustaining and endure over time, rather than being short-lived and reliant on other mechanisms to survive.

4.1.7 AdequacyThe principle of adequacy seeks to identify whether the actions of planners, decision-makers, and implementers are sufficient to address the problem/s at hand. Wallington and Lawrence (2008) argue that the adequacy of institutional arrangements is best indicated by the responsiveness and capacity of institutions within a governance system to solve problems. The importance of providing adequate funding to support planning and management activities, for example, has been discussed widely (Head & Ryan, 2004; Morrison, McDonald, & Lane, 2004). Arguably, however, simply increasing the availability of resources to institutions for planning may produce some positive outcomes, but may still not be sufficient to cover the high transaction costs of planning in remote areas.

5.0 The Cape York Peninsula case study: Challenges facing land use and natural resource management planning

The natural resources of Cape York Peninsula have significant economic, social, ecological, cultural and natural heritage value. Conservative estimates suggest that 60% of the region’s population have Indigenous heritage and 86.6% of the population are in the ‘most disadvantaged’ financial and social quintile, yet the region is rich with economically valuable mineral natural resources (OESR, 2012) All of the region’s economic drivers are reliant on the quality and availability of natural resources (Carney, 2012; Klimenko & Evans, 2009; Smith, 2003a).

5.1 Regional challengesThe physical size, remoteness and monsoonal conditions of the region, the diverse range of stakeholders with interests in resource use outcomes as well as the social, economic and governance complexities that exist, continue to pose challenges for planning. Issues of social disadvantage, conflict over land rights, complex arrangements for land tenure and a history of planning and governance approaches in

9

Cape York Peninsula are examples of the challenges that need to be confronted through regional planning approaches.

Debates surrounding Aboriginal rights and questions about how to resolve Indigenous disadvantage have been ongoing in Cape York Peninsula for the last 140 years (Holmes, 2011a). The significant contention between the region’s Indigenous communities, and government agencies over land tenure and the rights and responsibilities of different groups to manage land continue to provide a challenge for governance and planning arrangements today. Holmes (2011a) argues that two dominant paradigms pervade decision-making in Cape York Peninsula and suggests that institutions and stakeholders in the region tend to fall somewhere on a spectrum between the traditionalism/localism and developmentalism/modernism. Traditionalists/localists generally are supportive of the conservation agenda and economic development in the region using a customary or hybrid economy. Alternately, developmentalists/modernists argue that to achieve greater self-determination, Indigenous people and others in the region must engage with the ‘real economy’ of conventional industry (particularly mining)(Holmes, 2011a).

This dichotomy in approaches is evident within and throughout government, non-government and community institutions’ agendas and policies throughout the region. The tension between the two approaches has been particularly evident in the last two decades as exemplified by debates about the proposed World Heritage Area listing, the protection of ‘Wild Rivers’, natural resource planning and management, and Indigenous disadvantage. Government decision-makers responsible for setting policy agendas for Cape York Peninsula and who are based in cities located south of the region (predominantly in Brisbane and Canberra) have at times supported both paradigms. In the past, external policy-makers intent on protecting the natural values of the region have also relied on regulatory mechanisms to protect landscapes, without recognising the significant constraints such regulations have on economic development in the region (Dale, 2013). Political developments in 2013 saw the Queensland State Government repeal ‘green tape’ legislation and, in support of the developmentalist/modernist agenda declared the region ‘open for business’ (Kim & Nancarrow, 2013).

Land tenure in Cape York Peninsula is also highly complex and frequently contested by governments, politicians, Indigenous and industry leaders, communities, and Indigenous institutions (Balkanu, 2010; Barrett, 2012; Carney, 2012; Holmes, 2011b; Pearson, 2005; Smith, 2003b, 2005). While tenures are relatively stable throughout much of Australia, in Cape York Peninsula they have continued to evolve and land uses continue to be transferred between tenure types (Holmes, 2011b). This is in part due to the regionally inspired Cape York Tenure Resolution process that began in 2004 and has been highly successful in returning high conservation value lands to traditional owners as national parks or Aboriginal Freehold land with conservation agreements (Holmes, 2011b).

Contested land tenure issues in Cape York Peninsula are also exacerbated by problems of social dysfunction. Cape York Peninsula’s Indigenous population has high rates of substance and spousal abuse, mental health issues, and welfare dependency (CYI, 2007; OESR, 2012). While there is growing interest in addressing social issues through planning and decision-making approaches that enable Indigenous self-

10

determination and economic participation, such approaches have largely failed to address power imbalances within the region or resolve underlying land rights issues. There are also a number of significant, but not insurmountable challenges, in engaging the region’s largely remote Indigenous communities in planning processes. These challenges stem from the obvious differences in culture between Aboriginal communities and dominant decision-makers, inequality of power in decision-making processes, and the often limited political and administrative experience of regional communities (Sutton, 1990, 2009).

The failure of past approaches to address power imbalances in the region is largely because external, rather than internal, institutions have driven regional planning processes in the past. High levels of social and economic disadvantage in addition to the region’s concentration of natural resources have been cited by the State and Commonwealth Governments as justification for treating Cape York Peninsula as unique and requiring special management. This approach has historically disempowered local (and particularly Indigenous) interests and perpetuated a paternalistic view of the region’s uniqueness as needing to be ‘looked after’ or protected by external decision-makers. As such, early attempts at planning in the region were seen as further‘outside incursion and domination’ of the region’s communities because of their limited consideration of the priorities of the Cape’s communities and institutions. The externally mediated planning processes were also in conflict with regional aspirations for Indigenous autonomy, Aboriginal decision-making, and value structures (Sutton, 1990, p. 2). As a result of this history, there is a significant lack of trust between local communities and government planning agencies (Smith, 2005).

5.2 Arrangements for planningUnlike many other regions in Australia, land use planning and natural resource planning and management have been both closely intertwined and poorly integrated at different times historically in Cape York Peninsula. They have also been largely driven by Government agencies external to the region although a notable exception was the Cape York Heads of Agreement, which was internally driven.

Overall there have been five attempts to develop regional land use or NRM plans for Cape York Peninsula in the past twenty years. Land use planning for Cape York Peninsula was first attempted in 1989 as part of the Cape York Economic Development Strategy. A year later, NRM planning was also attempted in the region in 1990s through the Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy (Stage One and Stage Two) (CYPLUS), which considered both land use and NRM issues. The third attempt at regional planning for Cape York Peninsula occurred in the 2000s under the Natural Heritage Trust Phase Two (NHT2) and focussed largely on NRM issues. Regional NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula was funded for a fourth time in 2013-2014 (SEWPaC, 2013). Concurrent to the NRM planning process, a statutory regional land use planning process has been underway, with a land use plan published by the Queensland Government mid 2014. This history is summarised in Table 4 below.

11

Table 4: An overview of land use and natural resource management planning in Cape York Peninsula 1989-2014

Planning Attempt

Planning Process

Emphasis Focus Planning Outcomes

1 Cape York Economic

Development Strategy

1989

Land use Establishing a stronger land use planning framework for the Cape York Peninsula in response to a number of land use pressures emerging in the region in the 1980s.

1.0 Resulted in Interim Guidelines for Resource Use and a checklist of key considerations to be explored during major project assessment.

2.0 Recommended development of a regional conservation plan, regional accessibility plan, and clearer policy and development directions for pastoral and tourism industries

3.0 Addressed the lack of planning in the region, and established a policy agenda for regional land use and conservation planning

2 Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy

(Stage One)

Early 1990s

Land use and NRM

Providing scientific data to inform planning and decision-making processes in the Cape York Peninsula that until that point had been lacking (CYPLUS, 1995)

4.0 A significant number of research projects focused on the region (43)5.0 Establishment of a large GIS database of environmental, social and economic data6.0 Public participation enabled public input into the process7.0 Land use strategy consultancy released8.0 Addressed the lack of information available to support planning in the region,

building the region’s capacity to undertake a planning process.

Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy

(Stage Two)

Late 1990s

Strategic planning to build local consensus and create a framework for centralised and regional decision-making surrounding the use and management of land in Cape York Peninsula (CYPLUS, 1995; Holmes, 2011a). Identifying specific project priorities rather than a definitive land use plan

9.0 The State and Federal Governments responded with a $40 million response package that included land purchase, protected area infrastructure and property managementThe process was driven under the stewardship of a community-based advisory group, which led to high levels of community engagement and participation in the planning for Cape York PeninsulaBegan addressing land tenure and land rights issues in the region, which lead to the creation of the Cape York Heads of Agreement.

Cape York Heads of

Agreement

1996

Born out of the second stage of CYPLUS, the Cape York Heads of Agreement constituted consensus amongst regional stakeholders that the region had significant environmental, pastoral, historical and cultural features that should be protected (Holmes, 2012).

Signed by the Cape York Land Council, the Peninsula Regional Council of ATSIC, the Cattlemen’s Union, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society (Hart & Whatman, 1998).Recognition that the State and Federal Governments had some responsibility in the long-term conservation of the region’s resources.Addressed land tenure conflicts in the region through the establishment of the Cape York Tenure Resolution processGood land use outcomes for communities, landholders, and traditional owners

3 Natural NRM Securing community agreement on clear The plan failed to garner tri-lateral support from the Commonwealth, and State

12

Planning Attempt

Planning Process

Emphasis Focus Planning Outcomes

Heritage Trust Phase Two NRM

Plan

2005

aspirational, resource condition, and management action targets for NRM in Cape York Peninsula. Developed by an external consultancy that was subcontracted by the regional organisation contracted to develop the plan (NHT, 2005).

Governments, and communities in the Peninsula and was subsequently not ratifiedCape York did not have a regional NRM body at the time (NRM activities were coordinated by a Canberra-based Regional Liaison officer), leading to highly fragmented NRM in the region.The plan was never implemented and thus never addressed any of the region’s core issues such as land tenure resolution.

4 ‘Next Generation’

NRM Plan for Cape York

2014

NRM To establish a decision-making framework and community-owned NRM plan to guide investment and management of Cape York Peninsula’s natural resources.

Process underway at the time of submitting this article.The process is focused on building the capacity of the region to undertake NRM and land use planning, with a particular focus on engaging the various communities in the region in developing a plan that is based on their aspirations for their land, community and region.Alliances and partnerships are evolving within the region to support the planning process.

5 Cape York Regional Plan

2014

Land use To provide strategic direction for land use planning in Cape York Peninsula, and balance economic development with environmental conservation, through the use of zoning (DSDIP, 2012).

Published in August of 2014, outcomes yet to be observed.The process was driven by State Government agencies external to the region (based in Brisbane), however a regional advisory committee consisting of key institutions in the region has provided feedback and advice to the State Government.Consultation was undertaken through a regional planning committee consisting of key regional institutions.

13

6.0 Application of best practice principles to evaluate natural resource management planning governance in Cape York Peninsula

There has been some discussion about the core substantive issues in Cape York Peninsula and their effect on past decision-making for land use and NRM planning in the region (Holmes, 2011a, 2011b; Smith, 2005; Winer, Murphy, & Ludwick, 2012). However, there has been very little analysis of the broad governance arrangements and their impact on planning outcomes in the region. The following sections analyse the governance arrangements for NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula and their adherence to best practice principles.

6.1 Equity The governance arrangements for land use and NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula having historically been and remain somewhat inequitable, perhaps with the exception of the Heads of Agreement and some aspects of CYPLUS. The NRM planning arrangements are focussed on engaging with local communities, landholders, and local management groups. However, most processes have tended to not equitably involve the region’s broader regional institutions, which despite their varied mandates, are also equally interested in land use and NRM activities across Cape York Peninsula. Engagement of local scale institutions and stakeholders is subregion-specific, with most regional institutions demonstrating strong relationships in several communities in Cape York Peninsula. This means that engagement in the planning process is not regionally consistent, with some local groups and regional institutions choosing not to engage with specific regional scale institutions in the development of strategies, despite common interests. This fragmentation is attributable to low levels of trust between institutions, and perceived inequity, and exclusion in regional decision-making processes.

6.2 Accountability Accountability among and within institutions in the region varies over time and those arrangements continue to evolve. While most institutions are accountable to national funding bodies regarding where money has been allocated to projects, their accountability to their constituents and each other remains under-resourced, fragmented and is, in many cases, poor. The accountability of externally driven planning institutions (e.g State Government) have tended to be low, as they have tended to be unable to effectively manage significant political tensions that exist between regional institutions regarding the allocation of resources, and ownership or control over specific policy and management areas. Consequently, there has generally been a failure to establish clear and durable mechanisms that bring together the appropriate regional institutions in Cape York Peninsula to discuss, formulate, coordinate or negotiate land use or NRM issues and strategies. Although regional institutions are somewhat accountable to their immediate constituents, they are often poorly informed about the activities of other institutions also engaged in developing land use and NRM priorities and strategies in the region. This is due to low levels of inter-institutional trust (although this is gradually improving) and a degree of territoriality of issue areas by institutions in the region.

14

6.3 Effectiveness The governance arrangements for land use and NRM planning are relatively ineffective due to issues of fragmentation and lack of alignment across scales and issues. Despite significant common interests among the key regional institutions, institutional and strategic fragmentation persists because ‘it’s a competition for funding… The competition has been set up by the funding programs, and it works against effective outcomes’ (Regional NGO). This cross regional competition has often led to significant duplication of programs, without coordination of activities or the negotiation of an overarching objective. For example, two of the region’s NRM institutions are heavily engaged in fire management in different subregions in the Peninsula. Despite this, they do not have a common fire plan, or coordinated strategy for their approaches. This has led to their activities being highly fragmented and ineffective at reducing the spread of weeds or feral animals through fire management at the landscape scale.

Historically, the lack of a community-owned, regionally supported land use and NRM plan, adequate frameworks, or tools to support decision-making further reduces the capacity of institutions in the region to address regional issues effectively over time. The project-oriented approach to NRM is also ineffective and inefficient in addressing regional scale issues. One interviewee suggested that institutions in Cape York Peninsula ‘are just scattering resources at things that sound like good ideas. Then the chance that we’ll reach our objectives, particularly if we haven’t identified that objective, is small’ (Research Sector). While one institution’s recent development of a regional investment strategy for allocating NRM funding is a good starting point, it does not articulate regionally agreed objectives for NRM in the region. The investment strategy is also not used to guide wider strategy development or implementation activities of any other institution in the region. Simply put,

‘there are too many organisations running different paths and all coming up with different outcomes, when some of us are doing similar things and working against each other instead of working together to come up with a common solution to the issues we are all dealing with’ (Regional NGO).

6.4 Efficiency The governance arrangements for land use and NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula are not efficient. Low availability of social, economic, cultural and biophysical information, in combination with fragmented institutions and limited financial resources to support planning in the relatively large region perpetuate the inefficiency of existing arrangements. The political tensions between institutions and ‘the competitive nature of funding prevents the sharing of information or collaboration’ (Government Agency). This has led to duplication of strategies and fragmented implementation across the region in many cases. Weed management and fire management activities are primary examples of this. Funding is also awarded

‘based on who can write the best application and not where the most need is or what would be the most effective way of delivering what needs to be addressed, whatever those issues are. Funding doesn’t get allocated because of an identified need or priority in the region’ (Government Agency).

15

6.5 Adaptability While the corporate governance arrangements of individual institutions involved in NRM in Cape York Peninsula are moderately adaptive, the broader governance arrangements for NRM planning across the region are not. Low levels of connectivity among institutions at the regional scale in combination with low levels of alignment between the priorities of national funding bodies and regional institutions limit the adaptiveness of planning arrangements. If there

‘was that cohesion, we would have more of a protective bubble or an agreed strategy about how we are going to deal with things. Then we can go “yep, go for these three things and lets try to avoid these other things”. When there’s no cohesion, how do you buffer NRM, people and the whole community from … politics’ (Government Agency).

The lack of discretionary funding in the existing funding model also limits the capacity of institutions involved in land management or NRM to respond or restructure their organisation or activities based on emerging threats or issues with any sense of immediacy. Rather, the project-oriented funding model limits institutions from undertaking any strategy development or implementation activities that they are not contractually obliged to, limiting their ability to adapt their strategies and activities.

6.6 Sustainability Governance arrangements for NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula are yet to develop to the point of being sustainable, largely due to a combination of shifting political mandates, inadequate funding, short-term funding cycles, and a degree of territoriality and competition amongst regional institutions. All institutions involved in land use and NRM in Cape York Peninsula are directly or indirectly reliant on government funding to support their core activities. NRM funding cycles and government election cycles are relatively short (between 1 and 5 years), requiring institutions to constantly apply for new pots of money to ensure their ongoing survival. Government priorities are also quick to change based on these cycles, limiting the sustainability of strategies in the region. In Cape York Peninsula

‘everything is too short term. There is no long-term perspective given to anything and we just start to get a roll on something and [the government] take [funding] away and it is stopped. We just start building capacity and then suddenly it’s all lost’ (Regional NGO).

Although the highly fragmented connections between institutions in the region are certainly not improving the sustainability, they are not significantly impeding it either. The small number of coordinated and collaborative projects in the region demonstrates that institutions are capable of coming together to support and progress a common agenda. While these relationships are piecemeal, a small investment in them would improve the functionality of governance in the region for land use and NRM planning significantly. Rather, funding security is the primary barrier to the sustainability of planning governance arrangements because

‘momentum gets up in one project and people will come together around an idea and then it just falls in a heap. There’s a continual sense of loss and excessive use of energy to start something up, only for it all to go to shit and then start back up

16

again. The energy is just dissipated. You get major fatigue in the community being involved in stuff in the future’ (Government Agency).

6.7 AdequacyCape York Peninsula is described by some as ‘the basket case in the Queensland NRM world’ (Government Agency). Past planning processes were allocated adequate amounts of resources and time by Government funding agencies, however these resources were used ineffectively and failed to resolve the competing aspirations of stakeholders in the region. This ultimately led to their failure. These past approaches were largely based on the prevailing perception that Cape York Peninsula was ‘unique’ (Regional NGO) and needed protection ‘to avoid the environmental degradation that development has caused in southern parts of Australia’ (Government Agency). The Cape York Heads of Agreement was an exception to this, and was driven by regional priorities and aspirations, illustrating that effective outcomes can be achieved with relatively limited resources.

Land use and NRM planning processes in the region have largely been instigated in isolation from other policy interventions and strategic processes. Such an approach has proven to be problematic in a region where social, economic, cultural and environmental issues are highly integrated and interdependent. Planning

‘in the Cape, more than any other area, really has to be embedded within a broader policy approach. The key is taking a whole of Cape, coordinated approach, otherwise there’s no point in investing in it. You could put $10 million into NRM or $50 million into the Cape with coordinated effort and get better results. NRM should form just one part of a broader policy agenda in the region’ (Government Agency).

The lack of integration of strategic solutions and the fragmentation of institutions addressing the myriad of social, economic, cultural, and environmental issues in Cape York Peninsula, has also perpetuated inter-institutional tensions that limit the equity, efficiency, efficacy, and sustainability of governance arrangements for NRM planning.

7.0 Discussion and recommendationsThis research has found evidence that local and regional institutions that play a role in the governance of land use and NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula are increasingly demanding that governments adhere to the best practice governance principles discussed above. Historically, however, there has been little adherence to such approaches, particularly when planning is driven by State or Commonwealth agencies without real ownership from regional players. As the emerging new NRM planning governance system in Cape York Peninsula is relatively young, the frameworks and connectivity that should reinforce accountability, equity, efficacy, and efficiency are yet to be fully developed. The lack of monitoring and evaluation of NRM planning activities and outcomes in the region has also been missing, further inhibiting the adaptability of decision-making processes that have been established and regularly reinvented. While financial support for the governance arrangements has been adequate to support land use and NRM planning, overall it has failed because of inadequate adherence to other principles. Broadly, governance arrangements across domains have led to continuing conflict and further degradation of the regional

17

landscape more than otherwise would have occurred under a more robust governance system.

In order to improve the equity, accountability, efficiency, efficacy, and adaptability of governance arrangements in Cape York Peninsula, there needs to be greater bipartisan and cross governmental commitment to the development of core frameworks to support decision-making that are missing or underdeveloped. Stronger frameworks for agreed vision and objective setting, strategy development, monitoring, evaluation and review, and bargaining and negotiation such as a stable regional roundtable or panel could significantly improve the functionality of governance arrangements.

8.0 ConclusionsWe reviewed the relevancy and applicability of criteria for best practice planning and governance from the literature. From this a synthesised set of seven best practice governance and planning principles were used to assess the governance arrangements for planning in Cape York Peninsula. This analysis revealed that decision-making arrangements for NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula are highly fragmented, and regionally inconsistent in adherence to best practice governance and planning principles. Low levels of intra-regional institution accountability significantly undermine the equity, efficacy, and adequacy of land use and NRM planning governance arrangements. Limited and uncertain funding cycles, in addition to broader shifting political mandates are also problematic for the sustainability, adaptiveness, and efficacy of the governance system. However, despite these challenges, regional institutions’ adherence to best practice governance principles is weak, but improving. Broader attention and greater investment in best practice principles in governance for planning are needed to improve the outcomes of land use and NRM planning processes in Cape York Peninsula.

9.0 ReferencesAbrahams, Harry. (2005). Devolution Enhances Integration. Australasian Journal of

Environmental Management, 12, 57-61. Agrawal, Arun. (2003). Sustainable Governance of Common-Pool Resources: Context,

Methods, and Politics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32(243-262). Aguilera, Ruth, & Cuervo-Cazurra, Alvaro. (2004). Codes of Good Governance

Worldwide: What is the Trigger? Organization STudies, 25(3), 415-443. Angman, E. (2013). Was this just for show? Discoursive Opening and Closure in a

Public Participatory Process'. Environmental Communication, 7(3), 409-426. Balkanu. (2010). Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation: Cape York Agenda.

6/7/12, from http://www.balkanu.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=16

Barrett, P. (2003). Better practice public sector governance. Canberra: ANAO.Barrett, Rosanne. (2012, 1/8/12). LNP promises to develop Cape York as wild rivers

laws buried, The Australian. Bellamy, Jennifer, Ross, H, Ewing, Sarah, & Meppem, Tony. (2002). Integrated

Catchment Management: Learning from the Australian Experience for the Murray-Darling Basin. Canberra: CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

18

Brundtland, Gro Harlem. (1987). Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development.

Carney, Matthew (Writer) & M. Colvin (Director). (2012). Environmentalists and miners debate future of Cape York, PM. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Conley, Alexander, & Moote, Margaret. (2003). Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 371-386.

CYI. (2007). From Hand Out to Hand Up: Cape York Reform Project - Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale, Mossman Gorge Design Recommendations. Cairns: Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership.

CYPLUS. (1995). Stage 1 Overview Reports - Thematic Report 1 of 3 Natural Resources and Ecology. In E. S. a. Services (Ed.), Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy (CYPLUS). Brisbane: Department of the Premier, Economic and Trade Development, and Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories.

Dale, Allan. (2013). Governance Challenges for Northern Australia. Cairns: The Cairns Institute.

Dale, Allan, & Bellamy, Jennifer. (1998). Regional Resource Use Planning in Rangelands: an Australian Review. Canberra: Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.

Dale, Allan, Vella, Karen, & Potts, Ruth. (2013a). Governance Systems Analysis: A Framework for Reforming Governance Systems. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 3(3), 162-187.

Dale, Allan, Vella, Karen, Pressey, Robert, Brodie, Jon, Yorkston, Hugh, & Potts, Ruth. (2013b). A method for risk analysis across governance systems: a Great Barrier Reef case study. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 1-16.

Dovers, S. (2009). Implementing Sustainable Development: Long term policy and institutional challenges. Malaysia: Kebangsaan University

DSDIP. (2012). Regional planning in Cape York. Brisbane: Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

Folke, Carl, Hahn, Thomas, Olsson, Per, & Norberg, Jon. (2005). Adaptive Governance for Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 441-473.

Friedmann, John. (1987). Planning in the political domain: from knowledge to action. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Graham, J, Amos, B, & Plumptre, T. (2003a). Governance Principles for Protected Areas in the 21st Century. Ottawa: Institute on Governance.

Graham, J, Amos, B, & Plumptre, T. (2003b). Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century Policy Brief No. 15. Ottawa, Canada: Institute on Governance.

Griffith, Rod, Davidson, Julie, & Lockwood, Michael. (2009). NRM Governance for change: Revisiting 'good' governance through an adaptive lens. Canberra: Land and Water Australia.

Gruber, James. (2010). Key Principles of Community-Based Natural Resource Management: A Synthesis and Interpretation of Identified Approaches for Managing the Commons. Environmental Management, 45, 52-66.

Hart, Victor, & Whatman, Susan. (1998). Decolonising the concept of knowledge. Paper presented at the HERDSA: Annual International Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.

19

Head, Brian, & Ryan, Neal. (2004). Can Co-governance Work? Regional Natural Resource Management in Queensland, Australia. Society and Economy, 26(2-3), 361-382.

Healey, Patsy. (1997). Collaborative Planning; Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Healey, Patsy. (2006). Transforming Governance: Challenges of Institutional Adaptation and New Politics of Space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299-320.

Hoggarth, Liz, & Comfort, Hilary. (2010). A Practical Guide to Outcome Evaluation. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Holmes, John. (2011a). Contesting the Future of Cape York Peninsula. Australian Geographer, 42(1), 53-68.

Holmes, John. (2011b). Land Tenures as Policy Instruments: Transitions on Cape York Peninsula. Geographical Research, 49(2), 217-233.

Holmes, John. (2012). Cape York Peninsula, Australia: A frontier region undergoing a multifunctional transition with indigenous engagement. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 252-265.

Hsu, Chia-Chien, & Sandford, Brian. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12(10), 1-8.

Innes, J, & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with Complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York: Routledge.

Innes, Judith, & Booher, D. (2003). Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Baltimore.

Innes, Judith, & Booher, D. (2004). Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), 419-436.

Kim, Sharnie, & Nancarrow, Kirsty. (2013). Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney has 'no interest' in World Heritage nomination for Cape York. 12/11/13, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/seeney-has-no-interest-in-world-heritage-nomination-cape-york/4965596

Klimenko, Veronica, & Evans, Robin. (2009). Bauxite mining operations at Weipa, Cape York: a case study Northern Australia Land and Water Science Review Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce and CSIRO.

Lane, Marcus. (2005). Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283-299.

Lane, Marcus, & Robinson, Catherine. (2009). Institutional complexity and environmental management: the challenge of integration and the promise of large-scale collaboration. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 16, 16-24.

Lockwood, Michael. (2010). Good governance for terrestial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 754-766.

Lockwood, Michael, Davidson, Julie, Curtis, Allan, Stratford, Elaine, & Griffith, Rod. (2010). Governance Principles for Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 23, 986-1001.

McDavid, James, & Hawthorn, Laura. (2006). Program Evaluation & Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

20

Morrison, Tiffany, McDonald, Geoff, & Lane, Marcus. (2004). Integrating Natural Resource Management for Better Environmental Outcomes. Australian Geographer, 35(3), 243-258.

Nanda, Ved. (2006). The "Good Governance" Concept Revisited. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 603, 269-283.

NHT. (2005). Cape York Natural Resource Management Plan: Final Draft. Cooktown: Cape York Peninsula Landcare.

Nursey-Bray, Melissa. (2009). A Guugu Yimmithir Bam Wii: Ngawiya and Girrbithi: Hunting, planning and management along the Great Barrier Reef Australia. Geoforum, 40, 442-453.

O'Faircheallaigh, Ciaran. (2010). Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(1), 19-27.

OECD. (1995). Participatory Development and Good Governance. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD. (2004). Principles of corporate governance. Paris: OECD.OESR. (2012). Queensland Regional Profiles: Cape York Region. Brisbane: Office of

Economic and Statistical Resarch.Olsson, Per, Gunderson, Lance, Carpenter, S, Ryan, P, Lebel, L, Folke, Carl, & Holling, C

S. (2006). Shooting the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1).

Ostrom, Elinor. (1996). Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073-1088.

Owen, John. (2006). Program Evaluation: Forms and Approaches (3rd ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Pahl-Wostl, Claudia. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19, 354-365.

Parkins, John, & Mitchell, Ross. (2005). Public Participation as Public Debate: A Deliberative Turn in Natural Resource Management. Society & Natural Resources, 18(6), 529-540.

Patton, Michael. (1982). Practical Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Pearson, Noel. (2005). The Cape York Agenda Viewpoint. Canberra: Cape York

Institute for Policy and Leadership.Perkins, Patricia. (2011). Public participation in watershed management:

International practices for inclusiveness. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 36(5-6), 204-212.

Phillpot, Robert. (2005). The 'Gammon Economy' of Cape York: Lessons for National Building in Pacific Island Communities. Paper presented at the Oceania Development Network Pacific Conference on Growth and Development, University of Papua New Guinea.

Pickerill, Jenny. (2008). Finding common ground? Spaces of dialogue and the negotiation of Indigenous interests in environmental campaigns in Australia. Geoforum, X(X), x-x.

Potts, Ruth, Vella, Karen, Dale, Allan, & Sipe, Neil. (2014). Exploring the usefulness of structural-functional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems. Planning Theory, 1-27. doi: 10.1177/1473095214553519

21

Rydin, Yvonne, & Pennington, Mark. (2000). Public Participation and Local Environmental Planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment, 5(2), 153-169.

Schedler, Andreas, Diamond, Larry, & Plattner, Marc. (1999). The Self-restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

SEWPaC. (2013). Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund (Stream 1). 18/9/13, from http://www.environment.gov.au/cleanenergyfuture/regional-fund/about.html

Smith, Ben. (2003a). A complex balance: Mediating sustainable development in Cape York Peninsula. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 4(2), 99-115.

Smith, Ben. (2003b). Whither 'certainty'? Coexistence, change and land rights in northern Queensland. Anthropological Forum, 13(1), 27-48.

Smith, Ben. (2005). 'We got our own management': local knowledge, government and development in Cape York Peninsula. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 4-15.

Strenger, Christian. (2004). The Corporate Governance Scorecard: a tool for the implementation of corporate governance. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Corporate Governance, Birmingham.

Sutton, P. (1990). Planning and decision-making in Cape York Peninsula: whose

principles, for whose benefits? Paper presented at the Remote Aboriginal Community

Futures conference, Cairns. Sutton, P. (2009). The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous Australia and the End of the

Liberal Consensus. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing.Thomas, Melanie. (2010). What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure?

European Journal of Development Research, 22(1), 31-54. UNDP. (1997). Good governance for sustainable human development. Retrieved

14/3/12, from http://magnet.undp.org/policy/chapter1.htmUNESCAP. (2012). What is Good Governance? , 16/10/12, from

http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp

Wallington, Tabatha, & Lawrence, Geoffrey. (2008). Making democracy matter: Responsibility and effective environmental governance in regional Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 277-290.

Winer, Michael, Murphy, Helen, & Ludwick, Harold. (2012). Ecological Conflicts in the Cape York Peninsula: The Complex Nature of the Black-Green Divide. Paper presented at the ISEE Conference 2012: Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Zafrin, Sabiha, & Rosier, Johanna. (2011). Queensland's Coastal Management: Indicators to Measure Coastal Governance Outcomes. Paper presented at the Queensland Coastal Conference, Cairns.

Zattoni, Alessandro, & Cuomo, Francesca. (2008). Why Adopt Codes of Good Governance? A Comparison of Institutional and Efficiency Perspectives. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(1), 1-15.

22

23