Factors Impeding and Facilitating Natural Resource Management by

Local Government

by Fiona Haslam McKenzie and Barbara Pini

October 2007

RIRDC Publication No 07/069 RIRDC Project No CUT-8A

ii

© 2007 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 1 74151 466 5 ISSN 1440-6845 Factors Impeding and Facilitating Natural Resource Management by Local Government Publication No. 07/069 Project No CUT-8A The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.

While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.

The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors..

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.

This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

Researcher Contact Details Professor Fiona M Haslam McKenzie Director, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (Western Australia) Curtin University of Technology GPO Box U1987 Perth Western Australia Phone: (61 8) 9266 1087 Fax: (61 8) 9266 3658 Email: f.mckenzie@curtin.edu.au

Associate Professor Barbara Pini, Queensland University of Technology GPO Box 2434 Brisbane, QLD 4000 Phone (61 8):9266 3721 Fax: (61 8) 9266 3658 Email: b.pini@curtin.edu.au

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form. RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au. Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published in October 2007 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

iii

Foreword Local government is the tier of government most accessible to all Australians. Over the past decade, local government in Australia has experienced a period of significant reform that has increased its responsibility for natural resource management. This report examines the barriers to, and facilitators of, rural local government engagement in natural resource management as well as stakeholder perspectives on rural local government’s management of the environment. The study focused on local governments facing particular environmental concerns but not necessarily engaged in natural resource management in contrast to studies that have focused only on shires demonstrating best practice natural resource management. This report will be of particular interest to the rural local government sector and to those who work with and manage the environment. The researchers reported that: • Local government responsibility for natural resource management (NRM) varied both between

states, and at a local level. Generally local government in NRM was limited. • Successful local government NRM programs included the whole community, with measurable

economic and social benefits for the community • Lack of resources was regularly cited as an inhibitor of local government involvement in NRM

however dissonance between local government and the community was also an issue. • Poor NRM frameworks, overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of responsibilities across the

three spheres of government time lead to time consuming negotiations with various agencies and NRM stakeholders.

• Inconsistent natural resource management funding from state and federal agencies contributed to ‘stop-start’ projects and the potential undermining of local government NRM initiatives.

• There was a general consensus that local government efforts for the environment are not valued or properly supported.

• There are five distinct stakeholder perspectives in terms of local government and NRM. Local government is seen as either being unwilling to engage, as redundant, as having the potential to contribute but facing some challenges, as a vehicle for selective interests, or as a partner in NRM.

The report recommends development of processes to ensure a clear understanding of the role of local government in NRM by all levels of government, effective sharing of resources between the three levels of government, realignment of boundaries for NRM jurisdictions so that they are common, and valuing and developing knowledge and skills for community engagement by all levels of government. This project was funded from RIRDC Core Funds which are provided by the Australian Government. This report, an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1600 research publications, forms part of our Rural People and Learning Systems R&D program, which aims to investigate rural social issues and issues relating to rural communities both in towns and on farms so as to enhance human capital and facilitate innovation in rural industries and communities. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: • downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html • purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop Peter O’Brien Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iv

Acknowledgments Without the cooperation and participation of the case study local government authorities in four States, this research would not have been possible. We are grateful to both the employees of those councils and the elected councillors who gave their time and views regarding local government and natural resource management. We also appreciate the time and contributions made by numerous environmental groups, environmental agencies, producer organisations, rural research and extension institutions, community environmental groups, natural resource management community groups, rural women’s networks, government agencies and policy makers at regional, State and Federal levels for speaking with us while undertaking this research project. We are also grateful to the State peak local government organisations who took the time to speak with us and send us important information. We are especially appreciative of the expertise given to us by Josephine Previte who provided critical guidance in the preparation, implementation and analysis of the Q-methodology study. Ms Joyce Johnston, Dr Helen Singleton, Ms Colette Roos and Mr Scott Mullins worked as research assistants on the project and their contributions were much appreciated. All of the interview transcriptions were accurately undertaken by Ms Lorraine Watts and we are particularly indebted to her for her attention to detail, patience and timeliness. Finally, the support and encouragement of numerous staff from both Curtin University of Technology and Queensland University of Technology was critical in us having this report ready on time.

Abbreviations ACC Avon Catchment Council CEO Chief Executive Officer CMA Catchment Management Authority EO Environmental Officer ESD Ecologically sustainable development ERA Environmental Relevant Activities LA21 Local Agenda 21 LCDC Landcare Conservation District Committee LG Local government LEP Local environmental plan NAP National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality NHT Natural Heritage Trust NRM Natural resource management QEPA Queensland Environmental Protection Act VROC Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils

v

Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................. iv Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables..................................................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................... ix Chapter One: Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Overview................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Research Project Collaboration ........................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Local Government .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.5 Natural Resource Management......................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Local Agenda 21 (LA21)................................................................................................................... 5 1.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Chapter Two: Literature Review................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Natural Resource Management and Sustainable Development ................................................... 7 2.2 Ecological Footprint ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Natural Resource Management and Governance ........................................................................... 9 2.4 Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) ........................................................................................................ 11 2.5 National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) ..................................................... 12 2.6 Local Government in Australia ...................................................................................................... 13 2.7 Diversity between Australian Local Governments ...................................................................... 15 2.8 Landcare............................................................................................................................................. 16 2.9 State of the Environment Reporting............................................................................................... 17

2.9.1 State of the Environment Reporting: A National Perspective ........................................... 17 2.9.2 State of the Environment Reporting: State Perspectives ................................................... 18 2.9.3 State of the Environment Reporting: Local Government Perspectives ............................. 19

2.10 Local Agenda 21 (LA21)................................................................................................................. 19 2.11 Evaluation of policy ......................................................................................................................... 21 2.12 Research Questions .......................................................................................................................... 21

Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................................ 23 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Rationale for case studies ................................................................................................................ 23 3.3 Rationale for case study selection .................................................................................................. 23 3.4 Rationale for data collection methods within case studies ......................................................... 25 3.5 Rationale for Q-Methodology......................................................................................................... 26 3.6 Design of Q-Methodology............................................................................................................... 26 3.7 Data analysis...................................................................................................................................... 29 3.8 Five factor solution........................................................................................................................... 29 3.9 Methodological Limitations and Validity ..................................................................................... 32 3.10 Ethical concerns ................................................................................................................................ 32 3.11 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 32

Chapter Four: New South Wales Case Studies......................................................................................... 33 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 33 4.2 Case Study NSW1 ............................................................................................................................ 34 4.3 Case Study NSW2 ............................................................................................................................ 37 4.4 Case Study NSW3 ............................................................................................................................ 39 4.5 Case Study NSW4 ............................................................................................................................ 40 4.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 42

vi

Chapter Five: Queensland Case Studies .................................................................................................... 43 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 43 5.2 Case Study QLD1 ............................................................................................................................. 44 5.3 Case Study QLD2 ............................................................................................................................. 46 5.4 Case Study QLD3 ............................................................................................................................. 48 5.5 Case Study QLD4 ............................................................................................................................. 51 5.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 53

Chapter Six: Western Australian Case Studies ........................................................................................ 54 6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 54 6.2 Western Australian Case Study WA1............................................................................................ 56 6.3 Western Australian Case Study WA2............................................................................................ 58 6.4 Western Australian Case Study WA3............................................................................................ 60 6.5 Western Australian Case Study WA4............................................................................................ 61 6.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 63

Chapter Seven: Victorian Case Studies...................................................................................................... 64 7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 64 7.2 Case Study VIC1 .............................................................................................................................. 65 7.3 Case Study VIC2 .............................................................................................................................. 67 7.4 Case Study VIC3 .............................................................................................................................. 69 7.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 70

Chapter Eight: Q-Method Study.................................................................................................................. 71 8.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 71 8.2 Profile A: Local government as unwilling to be involved in natural resource management . 71 8.3 Profile B: Local government as redundant in natural resource management........................... 72 8.4 Profile C: Local government as having potential to manage natural resources, but facing challenges........................................................................................................................................................ 73 8.5 Profile D: Local government as representing selective interests in natural resource management.................................................................................................................................................... 74 8.6 Profile E: Local government as a partner in natural resource management ............................. 75 8.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 76

Chapter Nine: Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 78 9.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 78 9.2 Barriers/drivers to rural local government engagement in natural resource management ..... 79 9.3 Community ........................................................................................................................................ 79 9.4 Capacity ............................................................................................................................................. 80 9.5 Coordination ...................................................................................................................................... 85 9.6 Commitment ...................................................................................................................................... 86

References .......................................................................................................................................................... 89 Appendices....................................................................................................................................................... 101

Appendix 1: Focus Group and Interview Guide for Councils.............................................................. 102 Appendix 2: Interview Guide Local Government Association and State Government Agencies... 103 Appendix 3: Interviews undertaken within Local Government Case Study Sites............................. 104 Appendix 4: Statement Set ........................................................................................................................ 105 Appendix 5: Q-Method Results ................................................................................................................ 109 Appendix 6: RIRDC Research Project .................................................................................................... 113

vii

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Natural Resource Management Issues by Local Government Area ........................ 24 Figure 3.2: Q-sort distribution.................................................................................................... 28 Figure 4.1: New South Wales Local Government Areas ........................................................... 33 Figure 5.1: Queensland Local Government Areas ..................................................................... 43 Figure 6.1: Local Government Areas in Southern Western Australia........................................ 55 Figure 6.2: The Avon River Basin.............................................................................................. 56 Figure 7.1: Local Government Areas of Victoria....................................................................... 64

List of Tables

Table 3:1 Structure Sample Justification ................................................................................. 27 Table 3.2: P–Set Structure of Structure of Stakeholder Groups............................................... 28 Table 3.3: Significant Q-sorters ................................................................................................ 31 Table 3.4: Consensus Statement ............................................................................................... 31 Table 8.1: Statements differentiating Profile A ........................................................................ 72 Table 8.2: Statements differentiating Profile B......................................................................... 73 Table 8.3: Statements differentiating Profile C......................................................................... 74 Table 8.4: Statements differentiating Profile D ........................................................................ 75 Table 8.5: Statements differentiating Profile E......................................................................... 76 Table 9.1: Summary of barriers and potential strategies for addressing barriers ...................... 81

viii

ix

Executive Summary What the report is about This report examines the barriers to, and facilitators of, rural local government engagement in natural resource management as well as stakeholder perspectives on rural local government’s management of the environment. It builds on previous knowledge about local government and natural resource management but unlike some other research, the data crosses state boundaries therefore allowing important contrasts and comparisons to be made about local government involvement in natural resource management. The study focused on local governments that are facing particular environmental concerns and yet are not necessarily engaged in natural resource management. This contrasts with other studies that have focused only on shires which demonstrate best practice in relation to natural resource management. The findings contribute to the relatively limited knowledge about rural local government engagement with stakeholders and natural resource management. This is an important contribution because the literature is predominantly biased toward urban case studies and tends to ignore the unique natural resource management conditions of a rural setting. Who is the report targeted at? This report will be of interest to the local government sector, particularly those in rural locations. It will also be of interest to those stakeholders who work with and manage the environment. This will include people and representatives from a diverse range of interests including the Commonwealth and state government environmental agencies, policymakers, Landcare and community groups, farmers and corporate landowners. Background Local government is created by legislation in each of the eight States and Territories and therefore differs by degrees across State and Territory borders. Despite local government not being formally recognized as a tier of government, its role in the Australian community is both important and complex. Further, local government is the form of government closest to the people and this proximity to the people and community makes the practice of local government all the more complex. Over the past decade, local government in Australia has experienced a period of significant reform. One of the outcomes of this has been the transformation of local government roles as it has moved away from a sole focus on the traditional agenda of ‘roads, rates and rubbish’. Part of this new agenda has been an increased responsibility for natural resource management. Aims and Objectives of the Research Project The objectives of the project were to: • obtain an understanding of the perceptions held by rural local government authorities regarding

their responsibility for natural resource management • identify the contribution rural local government is making to natural resource management • clarify the role and potential contribution of stakeholders to natural resource management through

rural local government • examine stakeholder perceptions of rural local government management of natural resources • determine the facilitators and impediments for rural local government authorities in developing,

implementing and monitoring the environment and natural resource management; and • identify natural resource management strategies and initiatives already initiated by rural local

governments and assess their efficacy.

x

Methodology The project involved two separate studies. Study One involved fifteen case studies from across four states, Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. The purpose of these case studies was to assess how local governments in a variety of rural locations perceive their obligations to natural resource management. The case studies involved interviews with council staff and elected members as well as document analysis of council materials relating to the environment. Study Two focused on stakeholder perceptions of rural local government management of natural resources. To address this issue a Q-methodology study was utilized. This method focuses on people’s own perspectives, meanings and opinions and in this research Q-methodology assessed people’s views concerning local government and its management of natural resources. The Results and Key Findings Analysis of the case studies in Study One was undertaken in two phases. The first phase involved examining the individual rural local government cases studies on a state by state basis. The second phase of the case study analysis involved examining the case studies across state lines. Local government responsibility to natural resource management was varied both within the four states studied and across the states. Some individual local government authorities have made natural resource management and environmental issues a priority, but it would appear that this is by virtue of personal direction by key leaders in the community and/or local government sector rather than integrated government policies across the three spheres of government. In local government authorities where natural resource management is a priority, there was evidence to show that the most successful programs were those that were inclusive of the whole community including children, townspeople and landowners. Education programs have also been initiated that demonstrated that managing the environment responsibly was likely to have long term economic and social benefits for the whole of the community. However, the case studies revealed that there is very limited community involvement in natural resource management at the local government level. While limited resources was regularly cited as an inhibitor to broad community engagement with natural resource management, it would appear that there is considerable dissonance between those involved in local government and the constituents of local government. It was generally felt that local government efforts for the environment are not valued or properly supported. It was understood by the case study interviewees that a co-ordinated management of land and water at a regional level was a potential role for local government but this study found that active cooperation and collaboration by the local governments at the regional and catchment management scale was variable. This variability undermined stakeholders’ perception of the overall capacity, commitment and co-ordination to sustainable natural resource management by local government as a sector. Inconsistent funding from state and federal agencies which contributed to ‘stop-start’ projects undermined stakeholders’ confidence in local government’s role in natural resource management. The case studies reported in this project emphasised that issues of resourcing are necessarily magnified for rural and remote shires. These local government authorities have limited capacity for revenue-raising but they are increasingly being asked to undertake new roles and responsibilities which place significant demand on council budgets.

xi

For those local government authorities which have made natural resource management and environmental stewardship a priority, there were common challenges reported regarding the development, implementation and monitoring of the environmental programs. These included: • Considerable frustration with a variety of natural resource management jurisdictions all working

in common areas but few of which had identical boundaries. • Overlaps and time consuming negotiations with a variety of agencies and natural resource

management stakeholders due to poor natural resource management frameworks and duplication of responsibilities across the three spheres of government.

• Inconsistent natural resource management funding from state and federal agencies which contributed to ‘stop-start’ projects and the potential undermining of local government natural resource management initiatives.

• A general consensus that local government efforts for the environment are not valued or properly supported.

Q-methodology Findings Data analysis revealed that there are five distinct stakeholder perspectives in terms of local government and natural resource management. These are that rural local government: • is unwilling to engage in natural resource management • is redundant in terms of natural resource management • has potential to contribute to natural resource management, but faces some challenges • is a vehicle for selective interests in natural resource management • is a partner in natural resource management. The concluding chapter of this report documents why community, capacity, commitment and co-ordination operate as barriers to local government management and suggests possible strategies by which rural local governments and state and federal governments could address these barriers. Implications for Stakeholders Local government is the sphere of government closest to the people and therefore has enormous potential to undertake natural resource management strategies at the grass roots level. However, while there is variable respect for local government efforts and a lack of clarity regarding the core responsibilities of local government for natural resource management and ongoing funding sources for natural resource management, it is unlikely that natural resource management will be of essential importance to local government. Environmental rehabilitation and conservation projects are inevitably long term and usually entail considerable capital and human resources. As local government has limited ability to generate sufficient resources and there is either a paucity of funding from the other two tiers of government to undertake this work, or inconsistent funding for local government to undertake natural resource management projects, it is highly likely that natural resource management will continue to be secondary to more overt economic and social issues in the community. The Q-methodology findings reveal that rural local governments need to engage stakeholders in natural resource management more effectively. It is clear that some groups of stakeholders have negative attitudes towards rural local government capacity in terms of environmental management. There are, however, other groups of stakeholders who recognise the potential of local government as an environmental manager and recognise the challenges it faces in this regard. It is critical that rural local governments harness the skills and knowledge of these stakeholders to assist them in developing and implementing an environmental agenda.

xii

Recommendations For natural resource management through local government to be effective, there needs to be a greater commitment to building of trust between the three spheres of government and the development of a clear understanding of environmental roles and responsibilities across the three spheres. The report makes five specific recommendations: • A process needs to be developed and implemented to ensure all stakeholders at both the highest

and local levels of the community understand the role of local government regarding natural resource management. This includes a thorough understanding of the resources required to undertake long term and comprehensive natural resource management across catchments. The development of environmental knowledge and the provision of up-to-date data sets that enable rural local governments to undertake community consultation, engage in training about community consultation and disseminate good practice examples of community consultation are essential if this is to be achieved.

• A process should be developed for the effective sharing of resources and information between local government and the other spheres of government and natural resource management jurisdictions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of natural resource management strategies.

• Boundaries between natural resource management jurisdictions need to be consistent to ensure local government and catchment council/authority boundaries efforts are synchronised and outcomes maximised. Greater consistency of boundaries will contribute to improved efficiencies and effective use of human and capital resources. The lack of integration undermines the effectiveness of land-use planning and natural resource management programs at the local and regional levels.

• Greater consistency in natural resource management funding cycles is necessary to enhance strategic environmental planning and the continuity of projects and environmental officer roles for improved long term outcomes.

• It is essential that skills in community engagement are developed and valued to broaden the capacity and knowledge of all stakeholders regarding natural resource management and its long term benefits for the entire community. It is important that policies be embedded at all levels of government to ensure that natural resource management is not viewed as a potential threat to future development but rather, an opportunity to improve development outcomes in a holistic way. The achievement of these outcomes requires an ongoing educative process and consistent in-service training across all three spheres of government in collaboration with a diversity of stakeholders at the local level.

1

Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Background Over the past decade, local government in Australia has experienced a period of significant social, economic and environmental reform (See for example Aulich 1999; Baker 2003; Byrnes & Dollery 2002b; Dollery & Johnson 2004). One of the outcomes of this has been the transformation of the roles undertaken by local government as it has moved from what Worthington and Dollery (2000, p 359) characterise as ‘property-related to community-related functions’. Included in this latter category is the increased responsibility for environment and natural resource management (Crowley 1998), the focus of this research report. Local government provides the on-the-ground interface where most government policies are implemented (Worboys, Lockwood & De Lacy 2001). The potential contribution that local government has to make to natural resource management has been well documented. Doyle and Kellow (1995, p. 50) for example describe local authorities as “the sleeping giant of the Australian environmental policy arena”, given that they are typically more flexible than other tiers of government and are by nature, closer to their constituents and the community. International literature echoes this sentiment, (Janicke & Weidner 1997; Selman & Parker 1999; Welch 1997; Yanarella & Levine 1992). Other have argued, as well, that natural resource management is a logical extension of land-use planning, a core function of local government in Australia (Berwick & Thorman 1999). Unfortunately however, there is evidence (Municipal Association of Victoria 2002; Sproats & Kelly 1998) that the capacity local government has to make a contribution to natural resource management has not been fully realised. Australian critiques (Crowley 1998; Keen, Mercer & Woodfull 1994; Whittaker 1997; Wild River 2003) have suggested that there are a range of factors that may explain why this is the case. These include a lack of finance, the dominance of more conservative and pro-development values in the sector and the limited legislative power of some authorities to support environmental action. This research project aimed to contribute to this literature by identifying the factors both impeding and facilitating prescient and effective natural resource management by rural local government so as to encourage a greater appreciation of, and commitment to, ecological sustainability and ecosystem health at the grass roots level of Australian society. This meant examining the gaps between the potential of rural local government to take a lead role in natural resource management (NRM) and its limited contribution to date, focusing on four states (Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria). An important focus of this study has also been on stakeholder perceptions of rural local governments’ management of natural resources.

This research project is different from, and adds to, previous earlier work in three distinct ways:

• firstly, its focus is particularly on local government authorities in rural and regional areas. Its concern is with the issues of developing, implementing and monitoring environmental goals at a local rural and regional level

• secondly, it gave particular emphasis to the role stakeholders play in rural areas in terms of the local government approach to the environment. Again, given the rural focus, attention was placed on the role of groups such as producer organisations, rural research and extension institutions and rural women’s networks etc

• thirdly, it aimed to move beyond critique and highlight the factors that can facilitate and support local government taking a lead role in natural resource management.

It was anticipated that this research project would: • lead to a clearer understanding of the perceptions held by local government authorities regarding

their responsibility for natural resource management • identify the contribution local government is making to natural resource management

2

• clarify the role and potential contribution of stakeholders to local government approach to the environment

• identify the facilitators and impediments for local government authorities in developing, implementing and monitoring the environment and natural resource management

• identify the strategies and initiatives already initiated in various states and an assessment of their efficacy.

1.2 Report Overview This chapter will provide a contextual background to the study, with particular focus on the recent changing roles of local government in Australia and the policy responses to such international initiatives as Local Agenda 21. Chapter 2 will describe the methodologies adopted for this research project. Following this, the case studies are presented. These case studies detail the extent to which fifteen different rural local governments throughout Australia are engaged in natural resource management. Also canvassed are the factors that are both facilitating and hindering the development of an environmental agenda at the local level in these respective rural shires. A further perspective on the question of rural local government and environmental management is provided in the next chapter of the report which details the results from a Q-methodology study. This study focused on stakeholder experiences of natural resource management by rural local governments. The final chapter of the report draws the data from the case studies and Q-methodology study together in order to summarise the key findings and make recommendations. 1.3 Research Project Collaboration Simultaneous to this project being conducted, another research project focusing on natural resource management issues and local government was being undertaken by Dr Su Wild River from the Australian National University. Wild River’s project entitled ‘Extending Audit outcomes to enhance rural local government environmental capacity’ (ANU43) was funded by Land and Water Australia. This project drew on the findings from the National Land and Water Resources Audit which identified local areas with serious natural resource management problems, and those where problems were worsening quickly. Wild River worked closely with four local governments from each state, all of which faced serious or worsening natural resource management problems, two of which had been involved in state and/or federal natural resource management programs and two of which had not. Wild River’s work viewed the problems from a local perspective, and developed better ways for state and federal governments to define and promote their natural resource management programs and initiatives so as to improve local government participation and take-up. Subsequently, Wild River was sponsored by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) to identify strategies to maximise benefits from local government natural resource management projects. The work and findings from these two projects clearly had benefits for this project. Wild River’s work emphasised the interface between local, state and federal government. This project is more focused at the local and regional levels. RIRDC suggested that we discuss our project with Dr Wild River and where possible, collaborate so as to maximise the outcomes of the two projects and minimise duplication. To that end, the researchers have continued to collaborate throughout the life of this project. Wild River’s work from the Land and Water project facilitated the selection of local governments as case study areas for this project. In particular, maps of natural resource management issues and the synthesis of information regarding natural resource management from such sources as the National Land and Water Resources Audit, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and the Australia State of the Environment Committee undertaken by Wild River fast tracked local government choices for this project. It was agreed that wherever possible, the local government case study selection would complement those selected by Wild River. The development and use of common survey questions, consistent data collection, data sharing and collaboration on data analysis and resulting reports was also agreed.

3

1.4 Local Government Local government is a fundamental sphere of Australia’s government but does not have independent constitutional status. Despite local government not being formally recognized as a tier of government, its role in the Australian community is both important and complex. Local government is created by legislation in each of the eight states and territories and therefore differs by degrees across state and territory borders. It is therefore subservient to each state’s legislation, meaning that the federal government has no direct powers over it. Further, local government is the form of government closest to the people and, as noted by Bishop (2000), this proximity to the people and community makes the practice of local government all the more complex and often a source of conflict. The Australian non-metropolitan population is dispersed over huge distances in 579 local government authorities. Historically, those small local government authorities were established to provide a range of roles and services which are multi-functional and created to service local needs. These include public works, community services, community development, emergency services, recreation, some cultural facilities and low level public order and safety, health and welfare services. As noted by Wild River (2003), Australian local government functions are internationally distinctive in what they do not cover, such as police, school and hospital services traditionally provided by the state. Until reforms were instituted over the last fifteen years, local government tended to be kept in check by out-of-date, prescriptive state government Acts and were service directed rather than strategic and managerial in orientation (Aulich 1999). Local government authorities in Australia are varied in their size, constituent base, geographic and demographic features, their funding sources and range of functions. The chronic resource shortages facing most local governments, and especially the smaller ones, have been exacerbated by a growing concern that the Federal government is using the local government sector to bypass the often recalcitrant state governments. In part, this reflects both the problems of vertical fiscal inequality and the peculiar policy and program ambiguities generated by Australia’s model of federalism. The Federal government is perhaps the only tier of government with sufficient resources to address the problems of uneven development between regions. These issues were canvassed by the Australian Local Government Association in a 2002 submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration inquiry into cost-shifting by state governments to local government:

The roles and responsibilities of local government have significantly increased over recent decades. Demands upon local government include: the provision of core local government services; significantly increased liability for the maintenance and renewal of ageing infrastructure; as well as a range of new services. It is important to note that, even without the additional burden of 'cost-shifting' to local government, the current quantum of financial assistance grants is insufficient to meet the increased demands on local government. Accordingly, there is an urgent need to increase local government's resource base, in particular through a significant increase in Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs).

Some of the new roles, functions and powers have occurred as a result of policy choice and increased community expectations. This is consistent with local government's legislative responsibilities under State/Territory local government Acts that are based upon the general principle of local government competencies. Accordingly, it is appropriate that local government own-source revenues and Commonwealth General Purpose Grants under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 be used for 'general local government competency' related purposes - services that local government itself appropriately chooses to deliver to local communities (Parliament of Australia 2002).

4

Local government has a number of statutory obligations but very few of these relate to the environment. Generally, local government has powers and responsibilities with respect to environmental management but few are bound by statutory rulings. As explained by Bates (1995), local government derives most of its powers through state legislation and it is therefore the state within which the majority of powers reside. Through its planning role, local government is expected to integrate environmental objectives into the planning processes. Wild River (2003, p. 349) points out, local government often finds itself in an invidious position as both a regulator and operator of environmental management activities. Functions such as water supply, sewage treatment and waste management are the responsibility of local government in most jurisdictions. As an example, in Queensland, the Sewage and Water Supply Act 1949 states specifically that it is to be administered by local government. Wild River (2003) goes on to point out that in meetings its sewage treatment responsibilities, local government must comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1994and the associated licence conditions linked with the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 1996. As well, local government does have significant power under local government and environment protection legislation to control environmental nuisances caused by, for example, smokes and fumes, prevent land degradation, destruction of native vegetation and cultural heritage and assist in state environmental programs such as the eradication and control of feral animals and weeds (Bates, 1995). The efficacy of local government to meet these responsibilities is often limited by its infrastructure obligations and limited human and financial resources. Local government in Australia is orientated towards ‘services to property’ (Worthington & Dollery 2000) which includes natural resource management. As noted by Wild River (2003, p. 338), ‘all natural resource environment management issues have a local manifestation, even when those issues impact on many local government areas within a region’. However, Wild River (2003a) and others (Baker 2003; Conacher & Conacher 2000; Crowley 1998; Kiss 1999; Tonts 2005) are concerned that the ‘professionalisation’ of local government has been undermined by fundamental resource shortages. 1.5 Natural Resource Management There are no direct environmental powers in the Australian Constitution. Until the latter decades of the twentieth century, environmental matters were the preserve of the states. Since the 1970s environmental policy and responsibilities have see-sawed between the states and the Commonwealth, and there is now a ‘complex intergovernmental web of bodies that govern the environment’ (Crowley 2004, p. 391). With no direct environmental powers in the Constitution, the Commonwealth has intervened using indirect powers such as the external affairs powers, its corporations, taxation, trade and commerce, fisheries and coastal powers. The Commonwealth has also resorted to the High Court to justify its intervention as a reasonable interpretation of its constitutional responsibilities. A major policy shift in the last decade has been the integration of environmental care into socio-economic planning across government and the ‘bipartisan devolutionary refocusing of responsibility and policy away from the national level and back to the states’ (Crowley 2004, p. 391) that was implicit in the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (Walker & Crowley 1999). The Commonwealth has declared issues it regards as being of Commonwealth concern in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It has left all other matters to the states to manage on its behalf by accrediting well-managed state processes. Local government was once limited to land-use planning functions, public nuisances and health and building controls, but now that sphere of government has a broad environmental agenda. This includes local conservation, coastal management, integrated catchment management, flora and fauna protection, waste minimisation and management, energy management, environmental impact assessment, urban and rural regeneration, traffic calming, weed and pest management, monitoring of air pollution and environmental education. Wild River (2003a) explains that environmental planning is now recognised as an essential role of local government because it determines long-term land uses and hence, defines local environmental values, commitment to budgetary spending and outlines roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders. Local governments undertake this role through various state government Planning Acts. These acts have been substantially revised over recent decades, and now

5

include prescribed processes for consultation and stakeholder contribution to policy decision making (Conacher & Conacher 2000). Wild River (2003) has outlined the essential elements of Australian planning regimes: • a strategic plan establishing patterns for development and retention of desired values • a planning scheme, including a record of actual land uses, indicating land ownership and activities

that may or may not be carried out on specific land parcels, and conditions governing such activities

• processes for referring development applications to interested agencies • development control mechanisms that restrict certain activities, in order to protect other desired

values • systems for affecting land use changes, which recognise strategic planning goals and provide for

review, appeal and enforcement of decisions • public input to the planning process, including consultation on strategic plans, public access to

information on planning schemes and opportunities to object to land use changes. At an operational level, the planning process is managed through day to day activities of local government. Wild River (2003) summarises these as including biodiversity and native ecosystem conservation, parks and open space, weed and feral animal control, fire, flood and other disaster risks, transport and service corridors, energy and water supply, environmental and visual amenities, physical and natural resources, venues for community involvement, and environmental legislation and policy. 1.6 Local Agenda 21 (LA21) The publication of Our Common Future (Brundtland 1987), the report of the World Commission on the Environment and Development, encouraged increased international interest in sustainable development. This prompted the Commonwealth of Australia to develop a National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development which incorporated key principles from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in 1992. This included Agenda 21, detailing comprehensive action to integrate environmental, social and economic objectives across all tiers of government. The aim of this strategic program was to achieve sustainable development, starting at the local level, and consequently, it prescribed specific roles for local government and local communities. That is, as Black (2005, p. 32) explains, ‘it proposed that each local authority should enter into dialogue with its citizens, community organisations and private enterprises in order to achieve consensus on a plan of action – a Local Agenda 21’. Local Agenda 21(LA21) recognised the pivotal role local government can have in implementing policies that protect the environment (Worboys, et al. 2001). A LA21 plan emphasises the nurturing of strong local partnerships, commitment to local sustainability education and planning strategies, ongoing local involvement in target setting for the resolution of sustainability issues and continuing review of local sustainability issues (Cotter & Hannan 1999). The commitment by local government to natural resource management gained momentum after 1992, but widespread planning and implementation of LA21 plans at the local government level have been slow, despite a manual (prepared by Environs Australia and published by the Commonwealth Government), to assist in the preparation of such a plan. In part, this may be a problem of resourcing. The UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (1999) suggested that the Commonwealth collects and holds all the money, the states hold all the power and local government is left with all the problems. Commenting further on this issue, Mercer and Jotkowitz (2000, p. 163) stated ‘if Australia is serious in its commitment to the principles of Agenda 21, as well as to the World Charter for Local Self-government, we should be seeing far better resourcing and constitutional recognition of local government than is currently the case’.

6

1.7 Conclusion Over the last two decades, concerns about sustainability have become prominent policy issues at every level of government. However, while local government’s potential to have an important role in natural resource management has expanded, it is evident that the role of local government in the Australian system of governance is not understood, or appreciated. Further, little is known about the factors which may facilitate local government’s engagement in natural resource management. Wild River (2005a) contends that local government plays a central role in natural resource management in Australia, undertaking a large range of environmental planning, management and protection work. However, local commitment, capacity, knowledge and integration of the various natural resource management agencies is highly variable. The lack of integration between the different agencies and approaches and the patchy collaboration at the community level undermines the ‘truly holistic implementation of catchment plans’ (Paton, Woods, Curtis & McDonald 2004, p. 259) and hence the effectiveness of environmental and land-use planning and programs at the grassroots level. This research project aimed to identify the factors both impeding and facilitating prescient and effective natural resource management by local government so as to encourage a greater appreciation of, and commitment to, ecological sustainability and ecosystem health at the grass roots level of Australian society.

7

Chapter Two: Literature Review 2.1 Natural Resource Management and Sustainable Development One of Australia's greatest challenges is the way we manage our natural resources - our soil, water, plants and animals. Ensuring the ecologically sustainable management of Australia's natural resources is a critical issue if we are to maintain the health of our environment, conserve our land and biodiversity, and continue to be a major agricultural producer and exporter (Department of Environment and Heritage 2005, p. 264). The ecological impacts of agricultural, forestry and mining practices, combined with changing environmental awareness, have caused environmental issues to contribute to vigorous social, political and economic debates. Locally, the effects of salinity, soil acidification, over-grazing, native vegetation clearance, potable water contamination are a potential threat to Australia’s economic and social sustainability and globally, the slow build-up of greenhouse gases and the growing incidence of extreme climatic events will also have serious repercussions for Australia. It would seem however, that public awareness of environmental issues and concern for long term sustainable development are relatively recent. Dryzek (1997) observed that the ‘environment’ was not part of political discourse in Australia until the 1960s and Mercer (2000) notes that waste management has only recently been recognised in Australia as ‘significant’ and this ‘recognition’ is linked with one of the emerging central policy questions, the assessment and management of ‘risk’. The lack of understanding of the unique Australian environmental conditions has been costly. Despite its effect on the environment and its destruction of entire Indigenous modes of production and consumption, pastoral expansion was heralded as the key to continued prosperity. For more than 150 years, the more the Australian landscape was tamed and fashioned to look like the green and rolling hills of Britain the more ‘progress’ was deemed to have been made (see Lawrence, Vanclay & Furze 1992). The limited knowledge of the landscape and its biophysical potential and vulnerability resulted in severe soil erosion, ‘scalded’ plains and the replacement of suitable pasture species with woody weeds and less palatable grasses, particularly in the semi-arid wool growing regions. The continued quest for farming regions for export income necessitated the destruction of native vegetation land. Ringbarking was the favoured means of tree removal and the new streams and creeks that occurred as a consequence of tree clearing, are now recognised as the source of severe gully erosion and salinisation. Other problems such as the introduction of rabbits and exotic plants such as the prickly pear were recognised in the early twentieth century as the potential for enormous environmental damage. Nonetheless, as noted by Gray and Lawrence (2001), the demand for Australian primary produce was high and instead of dealing with the ‘problems’ of agriculture by abandoning certain practices, intensive cropping and pastoralism were continued and new problems were introduced carrying the authority of ‘modern science’. By the 1930s, the Depression and the graphic recognition of drought conditions caused agricultural industries to be unviable. Furthermore, farming practices were acknowledged as unsustainable. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (now the CSIRO) was established to work through the problems of land management. Unfortunately, this did little to address the underlying problems of unsustainable agricultural practices. What did emerge was the still current conflict between private need (increased output from privately-held property) versus public benefit (the conservation of natural resources on those properties and the more general preservation of the environment). After World War II, the pronounced and accumulated problems of environmental degradation were viewed as a national concern but the markets had their way again as the British and its empire struggled to recover from the decimation of their economies. From 1950 to the mid-1970s, agriculture prospered. It was a period of economic expansion and the creation of considerable wealth, albeit under the mantle of state protection and subsidisation. Britain demanded food and fibre and later Japan emerged as a major importer of Australian agricultural production. At home, our own population soared from both immigration and natural increase.

8

Since European settlement, approximately 70% of Australia’s native vegetation has been cleared or thinned, much of this in the past 50 years with the aid of modern technology (National Farmer's Federation and Australian Conservation Federation (NFF/ACF, 2000a). It is estimated that 2.5 million hectares of Australian land is affected by salinity and this will increase to 15.5 million hectares if current land clearing practices continue (NFF/ACF, 2000). Australia is the world’s driest continent with seven tenths of its landmass classified as arid or semi-arid. Only 10% is classed as arable. On present estimates, Australia accounts for about 20% of soil loss worldwide (Lowe 1998). Currently, farming and grazing occupies 60% of the country’s landmass and consume 72% of the nation’s water (Gray & Lawrence, 2001). The net value of agriculture to the nation is approximately $3.9 billion annually (National Farmers’ Federation, 2000a). The mining sector accounts for more than a third of the value of goods and services exported, and their activities are not as land-greedy as agricultural pursuits; occupying a small proportion of land in comparison to pastoralism, agriculture and forestry. Overall, land degradation is estimated to cost the nation approximately $3.5 billion annually and it is estimated that over $6 billion will be needed each year for at least ten years to combat environmental degradation (National Farmer's Federation and Australian Conservation Federation (NFF/ACF) 2000b). Conacher and Conacher (2000) summarized the problems and risks to the environment which include: • irrevocable vegetation disturbance or clearance • the loss of bio-diversity • pollution of air, soil and water • mismanaged gases and toxic wastes • other disturbances such as increased flooding, noise, subsidence, erosion • damage to aesthetic, cultural and social values. As a consequence of the recognition of the inter-relatedness of environmental, socio-cultural and economic issues in society generally, it is claimed that to ignore or under-estimate the validity of one facet is to the detriment of the whole of society (see McManus 1996; McManus & Albrecht 2000; McManus & Pritchard 2001; Mercer 2000). An integrative approach to environmental issues is now receiving considerable attention at national, state and local levels (Conacher & Conacher 2000) While sustainable development initiatives are being implemented across Australia, Dore et al (2003) note that there is considerable differences in their approach, organizational structures, powers and resources. Sustainability in development terms refers to issues which are indirectly influenced by natural resource management, such as quality of life, poverty and power issues (Parker & Selman 1999). This broader notion of sustainability is now common in the literature. For example, Marshall and Sproats (2000) and Glass (2002) contend that social and political problems, rather than scientific problems, prevent the solving of environmental issues, and that quality of life is inextricably linked to traditional environmental issues, and the social and economic concerns of a community. The implications that sustainability is a long-term, holistic approach to environmental management that transcends boundaries is a difficult concept for policy makers used to traditional boundaries and values (Buckingham-Hatfield & Percy 1999). From a natural resource management perspective, the notion of sustainable development for this project is based on the original concept of eco-sustainability developed by the Brundtland Report, whereby the present generation is expected to meets its needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). In 1987, the United Nations called for an international vision or framework for sustainability that every country should meet (Brundtland 1987). The 1996 State of the Environment Report (Commonwealth of Australia 1996) identified three components of sustainable development. First is biodiversity or the variety of species in an area; second, ecological integrity, which refers to the health and resilience of natural systems, and last, natural capital, including soil, water, and air. Dunphy and Beneveniste (2000) make an important

9

addition, suggesting that sustainability results from activities that enhance society’s ability to solve its major problems. To achieve sustainability each of these components must be considered (Commonwealth of Australia 1996). In order to achieve sustainability, Barton and Bruder (1995) argued for a movement from traditional environmental perspectives to new environmental perspectives. These may include: moving from waste collection and disposal to waste management; waste reduction and recycling; moving to a sustainable development perspective of broader plans of pollution and waste avoidance, and more efficient use of resources for multiple purposes. For example, engaging in land use control, encouraging traditional heritage conservation, and developing strategic planning are all ways to move to a new environmental perspective. Barton and Bruder’s (1995) new paradigm envisions land use planning, and the reduction of environmental impact, before moving to sustainable development of unreachable environmental constraints, within a systems view of the environmental-economy-society relationship. 2.2 Ecological Footprint Wackernagel & Rees (1995) define the ‘ecological footprint’ as ‘the percentage of all the worlds’ resources in hectares; it takes to support a nation’s consumption’ (Wackernagel & Rees 1995). The Australian Bureau of Statistics based on research undertaken by Simpson, Petroeschevshy & Lowe (2000) has estimated each Australian’s ‘footprint’ to be 8.1 hectares, which makes Australia fourth in consumption after Iceland, New Zealand and the USA. This is also over three times the world average of 2.3 hectares per person. Many environmental issues are local, even though they have indirect impacts at a much wider environmental level (Farthing 1997). For example, spatially restricted issues, such as development, built environment, and water courses from landfills can all have impacts outside their immediate areas. Issues related to transport include, greenhouse gases, noise, and road safety, most of which are not considered by the average driver when purchasing a car. Local policy can have an effect on each of these areas, which in turn has a cumulative effect on larger environmental issues on a national or even an international scale. This international level of thinking joins regional, national, and international levels together to implement sustainability (Glass 2002). The ‘Earth Charter’ is an ethical framework for sustainability. It identifies value definitions and principles to follow which include a change in lifestyle of developed world, a new sense of responsibility and cooperation between the developed and developing world (Glass 2002). This is another line of thinking similar to the LA21 initiatives, where the United Nations encourages every community to ‘Think Locally, Act Globally’, when considering environmental impact of policy. 2.3 Natural Resource Management and Governance Governance is the process by which we collectively solve public domain problems and meet the issues and needs of society. The different spheres of government are the instruments by which these goals are achieved (Bridgman & Davis 2000; Davis & Keating 2000; Davis & Weller 2001). The Australian system of government is based upon consensus democracy, which is characterised by sharing, dispersing, and limiting power rather than concentrating power. Although the Australian Constitution outlines the terms under which the states agreed to Federation and the distribution of powers between the states and the Commonwealth, there are, in fact, seven constitutions; that is, each state jurisdiction has its own constitution, in addition to the Australian (Commonwealth) Constitution. Delineation of regions and the provision of administrative arrangements for regional affairs are not covered directly under either jurisdictional constitution. Rather, the establishment and operation of regional organisations and the delineation of regional boundaries to cover specific governmental activities (e.g., the delivery of services or the operation of a department or agency) lies wholly within the arrangements of a particular jurisdiction. Thus, we see regional delineation and operational arrangements for both Commonwealth and state bodies.

10

Federal government intervention in regional development has been quite sporadic and, until recently, less focused on particular regions. This reflects the division of powers in the Australian Constitution between the Commonwealth and the state governments, with Commonwealth powers covering national interest responsibilities and the states having residual responsibility for powers not specifically assigned to the Commonwealth under the Constitution. (These include such major policy areas as health, housing, education, land management and law and order within state boundaries). Through taxation and other general revenue raising powers, the Commonwealth has influenced national and regional level policy objectives through the use of financial assistance in the form of tied or general purpose grants to the states and territories under Section 96 of the Constitution. From regional and local perspectives, governance could be considered to have four broad components. Each raises a number of implications with regard to institutional arrangements (political and social) that have the potential to cut across the key issues that need to be assessed when looking at how sustainable regions can be established and governed. These include: • international governance: the commitments and obligations to international treaties and

conventions are translated to national, state, regional and local conditions. (For example, The Rio de Janeiro Conference, 1992. The basic principles set down at this conference directly influenced world nations in relation to sustainable development and environment protection policies and actions. Also known as the Earth Summit, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development saw ecologically sustainable development formally acknowledged by more than 100 nations, including Australia. Commitments were given to adopt ecologically sustainable development into all levels of government. These agreements were to be supported by two important agreements, the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. The Rio Declaration (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex) contained twenty seven principles to govern economic and environmental behaviour of nations (Conacher, 2002). Such agreements encompass international relationships and situations with regard to commerce and trade, environmental protection and nature conservation

• public sector governance: constitutional power is exercised by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. This encompasses the constitutional sharing of power between the federal and state/territory levels and the mechanisms used to resolve issues relating to residual powers. (For example, the use of the High Court to resolve matters in relation to the powers of the states with regard to Aboriginal people and World Heritage Areas). In addition, it covers the way in which the Commonwealth and the state governments view the role of local government (as an arm of state government) for the implementation of policy and programs aimed at regional and economic development and the delivery of services

• private sector governance: the corporate power of companies is applied to commercial operations from global to local scales. This raises questions in relation to the location of headquarters and the decision-making base of multi-national resource development companies operating in the regions. Additionally, it raises questions about the level of access available to bodies such as Regional Development Commissions, local government authorities etc to the decision-making structures of these private sector bodies

• institutional corporate governance: an organisation governs itself. That is, the organisation and control structures and operational systems used irrespective of it being a public or private sector entity.

It is unlikely that each component identified here is discreet; there are inevitably overlaps. This is compounded by the diversity and complexity of the administrative arrangements of Commonwealth, state, local and private sector organisations. This is further amplified by the political, social and cultural focus, which operate at the different government or private levels. As explained by Wild River (2005b) Australia’s six state governments retain the fundamental statutory power for natural resource management in Australia, since environmental issues were not mentioned in the constitution. Delineation of regions and the provision of administrative arrangements for regional affairs are not covered directly under either jurisdictional constitution.

11

Rather, the establishment and operation of regional organisations and the delineation of regional boundaries to cover specific governmental activities (e.g., the delivery of services or the operation of a department or agency) lies wholly within the arrangements of a particular jurisdiction. Thus, we see regional delineation and operational arrangements for both Commonwealth and state bodies. Australia’s 56 regional natural resource management agencies are an important component of the nation’s current sustainability efforts. Wild River (2005b) suggests that these agencies are like a fourth sphere of government in making strategic investment decisions about public funds and coordinating actions in the public interest. However they have weak statutory authority, and are not guaranteed longevity (see Paton et al. 2004). As Wild River (2005b, p. 3) has written; The regional natural resource management agencies were established under Bilateral Agreements between the Australian Government and each state government. Like local government, these regional natural resource management agencies vary considerably in size, role and age. Some have existed for over a decade as Catchment Management Authorities or agricultural extension agencies of various sorts, but the majority were formally established during the last six years. Regional agencies do not cross state boundaries, but many are linked to catchments and few are aligned with local government boundaries or the historical regional associations of local governments. The regional natural resource management agencies recognise local government as a key stakeholder but rarely involve them in leadership roles. Managing Australia’s important biodiversity and ecologically sustainable development clearly requires an integrated policy agenda that is wider and deeper than the local and state areas of jurisdiction. Consequently, over the last decade the Commonwealth has taken increasing responsibility for the integration of environmental care into socio-economic planning across the whole of government. Two key strategies have been Natural Heritage Trust and National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality in Australia. 2.4 Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) The Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), launched in May 1997 from the proceeds of the partial sale of Telstra, was directed at environmental groups throughout Australia. Crowley (2001, p. 255) described NHT as a “quasi-institutional environmental funding and investment mechanism based upon individual partnership agreements between the national government and the six Australian states and two territories”. Fenna (2004, p. 410) outlines the purpose of the NHT as being ‘to stimulate investment in the conservation, sustainable use and repair of Australia’s environmental, agricultural and natural resource in partnership with the states’ with the goal of directing expenditure to ‘on-the-ground’ projects wherever possible. Crowley (2001) calculates that between 40% and 60% of NHT funds have bypassed state and local governments to directly fund community-based projects. The Trust had three overarching objectives:

• biodiversity conservation - the conservation of Australia’s biodiversity through the protection and restoration of terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine and marine ecosystems and habitat for native plants and animals.

• sustainable use of natural resources - the sustainable use and management of Australia’s land, water and marine resources to maintain and improve the productivity and profitability of resource based industries.

• community capacity building and institutional change - support for individuals, landholders, industry and communities with skills, knowledge, information and institutional frameworks to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use and management.

NHT incorporated a number of earlier environmental policy efforts including the 1983 National Soil Conservation Program, One Billion Trees and a range of the Decade of Landcare initiatives. Consequently, the range of activities attracting NHT funding has been diverse but the program has

12

been fraught with disagreement. Poor record keeping regarding expenditure, milestone achievements, performance indicators and evaluation procedures have dogged the initiatives (Bates 2003; Fenna 2004; Mercer 2000), and several reviews have not been particularly favourable regarding strategic outcomes or lasting environmental improvements. Typical of the criticism is the observation by Higgins and Lockie (2001) who point out the rhetoric of empowerment is underpinned by an agenda of economic rationalism. The NHT has been subject to considerable scrutiny from both within government as well as the private sector for its financial accountability as well as it ecological outcomes. Two reviews were undertaken by the Auditor General’s office and an independent mid-term review was commissioned by the Commonwealth to monitor and evaluate the program outcomes. Consequently there have been a number of incremental revisions and these facilitated refined guidelines, particularly emphasising accountability and transparency, for the future operation of the NHT. For a fuller description of the various reviews of the program, see Crowley, 2001). 2.5 National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) A Commonwealth government discussion paper highlighted the integrated approach of Landcare, involving partnerships between government and communities in the quest for environmental rehabilitation and protection. The document advocated the devolution of power and authority to regional and local institutions and organisations when dealing with local sustainability issues, based on the Landcare model (Tonts 2005). These suggestions were incorporated in the Commonwealth government’s National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality in Australia (NAP) with programs being delivered through catchment or regional bodies, (provided the programs have first been accredited). As noted by Ewing (2003, p. 406), ‘the success of NAP is highly contingent upon catchment management bodies having sufficient capacity and resources to satisfy the Commonwealth’s conditions’. The NAP aims to fund coordinated and targeted action which will prevent, stabilise, and reverse trends in salinity, particularly dryland salinity, affecting the sustainability of production, conservation of biological diversity and the viability of our infrastructure; and improve water quality and secure reliable allocations for human uses, industry and the environment. The State and Commonwealth governments are committed to capitalising on and, where appropriate, expanding on the state’s experience in programs for the:

• protection of high value public assets including water resources and biodiversity, including through recovery of natural diversity catchments and other target landscapes of high nature conservation value

• development of low recharge farming systems

• development of industries based on woody perennials (for example, tree farming, oil mallees, fodder shrubs)

• development of options for productive use of saline land and water

• definition of where drainage will be beneficial and where disposal of drained waters will not cause environmental harm

• protection of rural infrastructure

• provision of salinity management information to land managers

• recovery of special ecosystems and significant species including threatened ecological communities and species.

Funds can also be made available for four main activities. The first of these is capacity building activities and includes access to data and information, including resource assessment and interpretative skills, information management and support and communication; enhancing knowledge, skills and abilities including technical support and training; research and development,

13

including new sustainable production systems; and market-based approaches. The second funded activity is for the monitoring, evaluation and mapping of biophysical indicators which will detect a change in the condition of the natural resource base; monitoring of the implementation of management practices which, in the longer term, will result in more sustainable land and water management, and monitoring of socio-economic indicators. Also funded are research and development priorities, such as high water use farming systems, engineering options, commercial tree options; airborne geophysics and plant-based solutions to salinity. The final activity for which funded is provided under the NAP is for the purchase of land for the purpose of changing land use for biodiversity conservation and other appropriate uses as an adjustment provision (Council of Australian Governments 2002) 2.6 Local Government in Australia Parker and Selman (1999) and Conacher and Conacher (2000) suggest that to achieve sustainable development, community participation must increase. Moore (2005) and Binning et al. (1999) all agree that local government has a significant role to play by virtue of its closeness to the community and the environment on a day to day basis and it has “various constituencies that can in turn be represented at the regional level” (Moore, 2005, p. 131). There is a fundamental inadequacy of top-down command approaches to environmental management and there is new recognition of the importance of a bottom-up approach to identify and implement environmental policies. This bottom-up approach allows for a more active community involvement through local government than there has been in the past. However, Sproats and Kelly (1998) caution that local decision-making does not necessarily equate with effective local governance or local democracy. Local committee membership often reflects special interests and expertise rather than community-wide interest and expertise. The appointment of technical expertise as opposed to community representatives has the potential to emphasise the ‘culture of technical control that stresses information, not judgement’ (Sproats & Kelly 1998, p. 35) which does not necessarily reflect wider community opinion or values. Local governments are being identified more and more as the sphere of government most in touch with the important natural resource management issues for a particular area, especially in rural communities, where geography hinders the identification of issues at a state level. It would appear however, that this recognition is not practiced at the Commonwealth or state levels in Australia. Consequently, local government is continually expected to produce more in a wide variety of areas, including natural resource management, without adequate resources or support from the wealthier tiers of government (Municipal Association of Victoria 2002). Local governments in Australia have many political regulations imposed upon them at the state level (see Chapter 1). However, as seen with many local governments across the world, the closeness to their constituents and their ability to identify issues and needs at a community level help to maintain local government importance on the political agenda. Binning et al. (1999) outline 21 policy options that would facilitate local government’s contribution to the conservation and management of native vegetation in particular. It is evident that take-up of these options across Australia is very patchy. As Wild River (2002b) identifies, there is an antinomy1 within which local government exists in Australia, meaning that there is a paradox that constrains local and state government relationships involving conflicts between inside and outside perspectives. Specifically, Wild River explains how local governments think, act and work as creatures and servants of the local while state governments think, act and work as if local governments are creatures and servants of the state, hence, creating a dissonance in terms of process and outcomes (Wild River 2005b). As explained in Chapter 1, local government in Australia exists due to legislation in place at a state government level and could be disbanded if written out of the appropriate legislation. In addition, the state government helps to fund local government. Therefore, state legislators generally believe that local government has no greater powers than that which the state legislates for them. An apparent contradiction exists, however, in that, local government in Australia includes vital links with local areas which by geography may be difficult to tap into at a state level; the local governments in Australia appear to 1 Wild River (2002b) explains an antinomy is literally a ‘conflict of laws’, or a contradiction between a principle and its opposite, where there is a compelling case for accepting both.

14

act with authority which is greater than that which the state Government legislation suggests (Wild River 2002a). Two main perspectives are provided for the operationalisation of this antinomy. Inside-out perspectives suggest that local government is independent of state government (Jones & Stewart 2002; Martin & Simons 2002), while outside-in perspectives suggest that the state government controls local government (Brown, Jones & MacKay 1999; JD. Byrnes & Dollery 2002a; Wallis & Dollery 2002; Wild River 2002a 2005b). Past literature has downplayed the role of local government (Aitkin, Jinks & Warhurst 1980). Indeed the limited importance local government was given in the past can been seen in the way the state governments decreased the number of local governments from 826 to 623 between 1991 and 2000. These decreases were mostly through amalgamations which were not usually welcomed by the respective local governments (National Office of Local Government 2001). In fact, between 1994 and 1995 in Victoria, local governments were decreased from 210 to 79 active local government areas. It is this vulnerability to the whims of state government that, according to Mercer and Jotkowitz (2000), erode local democracy and weaken local government. They, and the more recent Municipal Association of Victoria (2002) report warn that this process has severely restricted the capacity of Victorian (in particular) local authorities to implement Local Agenda 21 plans. Mercer and Jotkowitz (2000, p.166) argue that until there is a ‘radical ideological change at both state and federal government levels in terms of their funding of, and approaches to, the powers of local government and local democracy there can be no possibility of genuine progress in making sustainability work at the local level’. State governments evaluate the performance of local government based on state needs or criteria. Local governments increasingly find themselves in a position of merely reacting to far-reaching policy reforms which, like National Competition Policy, or the promotion of budget-linked performance indicators, have been imposed on them ‘from above’ (Mercer & Jotkowitz 2000; Municipal Association of Victoria 2002). Rather than identifying local needs, state governments tend to initiate new roles for local government based on national or international models (Wild River 2002a), therefore enacting an outside-in perspective. However, local government works with communities, their representatives are counsellors who are elected by the community in which they live or work. According to Salvaris (1999) many problems facing communities require locally specific information and solutions to be effective. Argument for the inside-out perspective is therefore bolstered by the Local Agenda 21 proposal (ICLEI 1991). State governments do change legislation to give more power to local government (Wensing 1997), however, state governments often do not fully understand the implications of new legislation without the resources (both monetary and expertise support) being provided to enact the new laws at the local level. Nonetheless, local governments have limited powers, especially with reference to environmental issues. For example, local government cannot provide a rate rebate for nature conservation. This makes it difficult to implement new protocols for environmental management if the local government cannot reward members of the community for complying with new rules. Another example, from Queensland, indicates that while local government is given more powers, the increase in workload without reasonable support can impact on the feasibility of local government. Since the inception of the Queensland Environmental Protection Act (QEPA) 1994, local governments in Queensland issued 10,676 Environmental Relevant Activities (ERA) permits in first two years. This indicated a significant increase in workload for local governments, some of which in Queensland are so small as to only have one or two full time staff members. In the same time period the state governments issued only 3,681 ERAs. Resource scarcity, efficiency, and connection to the community are issues familiar to many local governments but not generally understood by state governments. Research funded by the Commonwealth Government and coordinated by the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) on a national strategy of Ecological Sustainability Development (Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee 1992) found that there was an absence of

15

reliable, universal, high quality information or environmental data monitored at a local level (Alexandra, Higgins & White 1998). Local government’s ability to take an active part in environmental and resource management is also hampered by local vested interests and lack of commitment. Environmental matters are generally given a much lower priority, after economic and social needs of the community. The Australian model of governance, as discussed in Chapter 1 has had a considerable influence on natural resource management effectiveness at the local level. Both NHT and NAP funding have flowed from the Commonwealth to the regions via a sometimes complicated and circuitous state process. Natural resource management progress has been retarded by the non-signing of the Bilateral Agreement. Paton et al. (2004, p. 262) suggest that state agencies have used the processes as an opportunity to cost-shift ‘followed by the subsequent flow-on effect of shifting of responsibilities from government to regional communities’. The Commonwealth subsequently tightened the funding arrangements to prevent cost shifting and the states responded by withdrawing or contracting state extension services from small rural communities. Patchy technical input into regional natural resource management plans does not auger well for the long-term benefit of the environment. The change from an extension framework to a regulatory and compliance context creates another level of compliance that the local level can ill afford. Community level capacity building and commitment to whole of government environmental management strategies is severely undermined (Municipal Association of Victoria 2002; Paton et al. 2004). Paton et al. (2004, p. 264) emphasise that ‘there is little tolerance within the wider community for perceived government buck passing …. But paradoxically, communities are eager to accept responsibility when properly resourced and treated with respect.’ This includes flexibility which acknowledges local ownership and regional relevance. One step toward restraining the gap between inside-out and outside-in politics is the recognition by State Government that local environmental needs are best served by local environmental action. Australia has a prominent local government environmental organisation (Environment Australia), recognised by outside agencies (Osmond & Ray 1996). Environment Australia funds the employment of an environmental resource officer (ERO) full time, in each of the local government associations in Australia. This is a major step towards establishing a responsible environmental presence at the local rather than state level. 2.7 Diversity between Australian Local Governments While there are advocates for the potential for local government in Australia to be the primary driver for delivering beneficial environmental outcomes, there is considerable diversity amongst local governments both within and between the Australian states. The most populous local government has over 5000 times the number of citizens as the most sparse. The richest local government authority spends 50,000 times that of the poorest, and the most extensive covers 250,000 times the land of the smallest (Wild River 2002a; Yanarella 1999). These are extreme differences in the fundamental structure of population, funding and land size. Also, since each state regulates local government, there are also differences in laws, regulations, monitoring, and aid, from state to state. This has repercussions for natural resource management policies, as rivers, weeds, animals, coastlines, and other natural resource management relevant issues do not abide by state boundaries, making some initiatives difficult to coordinate. In terms of natural resource management, about 27% of local government budgets deal with environmental works and services (Wild River 2005a). In case studies conducted by the author 34 local governments took on roles beyond their statutory requirements. The research suggests that local government in Australia has developed novel and creative ways to implement natural resource management policy. Patterns of implementation were different as the local government’s focus shifted between planning, management and protection. WildRiver’s work shows that the best attempts at natural resource management were found to have improved the economy, and retained the social and ecological values of the community. The status of the local environment was improved if the council had had long term involvement in environmental strategies.

16

2.8 Landcare The long held ‘top-down’ government-driven models were supplemented during the 1990s by strong preferences for ‘bottom-up’ community involvement in decision-making and planning. This change signalled a broad acceptance of core principles of sustainability, particularly those relating to social equity and community participation. It also acknowledged that environmental problems cannot be isolated from one another and that an integrated approach is more likely to have sustainable outcomes (Aplin et al. 1999; Worboys, et al. 2001). Inappropriate farming practices and poor understanding of the Australian environmental conditions have significantly degraded vast tracts of land. Nationally in 1999-2000, local government current expenditure on solid waste management was $1,048m, while capital expenditure was $96m. Current expenditure on waste water management was $649m, while capital expenditure was $394m. Total current expenditure protection expenditure by local government was $1,899m, while capital expenditure was $607m. A 1995 estimate of the cost of land and water degradation to lost agriculture production was $1.41 billion. Dry land, salinity, soil erosion, loss of habitats, all threaten agriculture, productivity, public health, and living standards. These costs necessitated that the landowners and the government work together to ensure that responsible environmental management occur on the private properties as well as on public land. In 1990, Australia embarked on the “Decade of Landcare” and within 18 months 900 volunteer community groups had been organised across Australia. Landcare is a state-funded organisation, providing funding for natural resource management issues recognised at the community level by groups of interested and committed volunteers as well as inter-group communications (Curtis 2003). It was estimated that by 1998, 66 per cent of all farmers in the nation were involved in Landcare groups (Aplin et al. 1999) addressing a variety of environmental issues and problems as well as challenging long held farming traditions and promoting new values through education and extension. Curtis and Lockwood (2000) examined Landcare and its implications for local government and natural resource management. They posit that while government enthusiastically encouraged and adequately funded action at the local level sustainable development was foreseeable. However, over the past five years, the level of government funding and support has gradually diminished. Conacher (2002) stresses the emerging importance of ‘partnerships’ among all stakeholders (individuals and groups across public and private sectors) with an interest or ‘investment’ in environmental and natural resource management. She argues that the new model embodies the notion of ‘mutual obligation’ and centres on greater co-operation among all parties, integration of policies, planning and actions, and a sharing of ideas and resources. But less palatable (partly in the context of global and national economic change), has been a deliberate shift of costs and responsibilities by higher levels of government to regional and local spheres of governance (Municipal Association of Victoria 2002). Curtis (2003) also acknowledges that the efficacy of Landcare has been undermined by an increasing tendency to shift responsibility for environmental issues from the state and Commonwealth governments to local communities. While often viewed as ‘empowering’ and ‘efficient’, this transformation has brought with it a good deal of angst in respect of social and economic inequalities and has been particularly apparent in relation to competition for recognition and allocation of resources. In spite of aspired to (and admirable) government notions of regional self-help and local relevance, the net effect for some has been physical and social marginalisation; and certainly one where environment sits low (if at all) in priority issues. Lyden et al(1990) contend that community involvement with agency or government control has not lead to any real increase in participation. They and others insist that successful rural development projects should be flexible, provide for active participation of citizens, and are sensitive to local conditions and cultures (Kottak 1991; Uphoff 1992). Most natural resource management participation requires a willingness to learn through experience and sacrificing short term gains for longer term objectives. As well, Williams and Saunder (2005) underscore the need for community-based groups to constantly shift focus to match environmental needs if progress is to be made. They

17

advocate that Landcare transfer its focus from treating the symptoms to preventing the causes of degradation. Woodhill and Nabben (2004, p. 2) suggest that a weakness of Landcare in Australia is that it is too focussed on the micro level, concerning itself with what local landholders could do differently rather than ‘examining and encouraging society and political leaders to find solutions to the macro-level and structural causes of unsustainable natural resource use’. There have also been local management issues that have not been addressed. Curtis (2003) has observed that the lack of succession planning, poor long term priority setting and an absence of holistic catchment planning are undermining the efficacy of Landcare. Many local groups have not been able to maintain consistent leadership with solid management expertise which further limits the future of Landcare. Understanding and driving a development trajectory for communities requires collaborative ‘vision’ and the complex leadership traits required of a leader or leaders at the community level with no formal institutional guidelines are rare (Gray & Lawrence 2001). As has been the issue for a broad range of volunteer groups, burnout and poor support is enervating and threatens the very essence of organisations such as Landcare (Edgar 2001; Ife 1999; Rogers & Ryan 2001) Thus, the next step for Australia is to give more power back to regional committees with the concomitant funding support to broaden leadership and provide adequate education opportunities. 2.9 State of the Environment Reporting State of the Environment (SoE) Reporting has been carried out in Australia in various forms and across different levels of government for more than a decade. As explained by Maganov (2005) under statutory and non statutory reporting provisions, SoE reports provide a ‘snapshot’ or statement of environmental status at the national, regional or local levels. National and State of the Environment reports follow the OECD ‘pressure-state-response’ model for reporting on the environment. Monitoring and sets of indicators enable change between reporting periods to be tracked. Reporting objectives are to provide up to date information on environmental condition and early warnings to problems, increase public understanding, and supply regular reports on the effectiveness of responses to problems. It is intended that early notification of deteriorating resource conditions will enable policy or decision-makers to proactively respond through relevant policies, strategies or other programs. Over the decade that SoE reporting has been in place, there have been reforms and various innovations to mitigate the reported difficulty in preparing the reports, although these have not noticeably lessened the vast array of expectations and interpretations placed upon the process through statutory and non statutory requirements.

2.9.1 State of the Environment Reporting: A National Perspective In 2001, Australia’s second State of the Environment Report was issued (http://www.ea.gov.au/soe/). It places a stronger emphasis on implications of problems than the previous 1996 report. Seven theme reports cover land, inland waters, coasts and oceans, biodiversity, natural and cultural heritage and human settlement. It should be noted that not only does the State of the Environment reporting cover ‘natural’ resources, but also human activity. Furthermore, explicit links are made between the two, the ways in which human activities encroach and impact on natural assets. In so doing, the links also acknowledge the importance of economic, social and environmental components of ‘sustainability’ (Conacher 2002). However, the 2001 national State of the Environment Report remarks that in spite of some significant improvements, there are still major challenges for the maintenance of Australia’s natural and cultural heritage. Pressures continue to build on the environment. Some of the key issues and continuing problems (briefly) relate to: • land - accelerated land degradation; costs of repair; exacerbations of climate • water - overuse; decline in quality; hydrological and ecological interference • vegetation - continued land clearing and other pressures; fragmentation; costs of management • biodiversity - species loss, disturbance; insufficient levels of protection • pests and disease - losses to agricultural production; costs of control; threats to ecosystems

18

• salinity, acidity - big increase in areas; loss of productive land and water quality; costly and difficult management

• nutrients - increased environmental loads; loss of carbon to clearing; management costs • soil and land pollution - damage to land as a receiving environment for solid and toxic wastes • coasts and oceans - population pressures; pollution; ecological disturbance; fragmented

management • atmosphere - greenhouse effect; ozone depletion; other pollutants; environmental and human

health impacts • human settlements - intensification of land uses; material consumption; quality of life issues

(noise, pollution etc); waste disposal • natural and cultural heritage - pressures of land use change; inadequate identification; uncertain

futures • mining - land disturbance; pollution; abandonment; social disruption (fly in, fly out) • forests - logging practices; pressures of disease, fire etc; conservation status • externalities - global, climate, technological, social change; uncertainties. The list is depressing in its scope and severity, but it should not overshadow the substantial contributions made by governments and communities to help resolve some of the problems. Commonwealth initiatives and investments have significantly influenced management and planning at regional and local levels around Australia. Some of these include:

greater cooperation between the Commonwealth and states through intergovernmental agreements and funding of programs relating to the NHT, National Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality, Great Barrier Reef, Murray-Darling Basin and Great Artesian Basin; an overhaul of natural resource and environmental laws and structures, notably water reform and environmental harm; harmonisation of national data bases, conduct of a national land and water audit to improve quality and accessibility; increased private sector use of voluntary measures in environmental reporting and auditing assisted by national standards and measures, among many others (Conacher 2002, p. 8).

2.9.2 State of the Environment Reporting: State Perspectives At state levels, commonalities in environmental and natural resource management concerns are reflected in the list above. However, there are many specific differences which are tied to regional geographical characteristics of location, climate, soils, land cover, history, settlement and land use practices. These emphasise the difficulty of relying on generic responses to problems. While broad national and state policies are desirable as guiding and integrating management frameworks, specific solutions matched to unique regional and local problems are essential if effective actions and outcomes are to be achieved. New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT each have legislatively-based requirement for regular State of the Environment reporting. Western Australia has no legislative requirement to report although it has produced two reports and the overall activities of the government are set in a ‘sustainability’ framework (Harding and Traynor, 2003). As alluded to earlier, there are high expectations that state government agencies have the capacity to collect a wide range of data and integrate it into useable documents that have the potential to influence decision-makers within government and business sectors (Maganov, 2005). Maganov (2005), Harding and Traynor (2003) and Higham (2000) suggest that there is insufficient capacity and limited transfer between data collection and meaningful translation into government policy. Higham (2000, p. 60) reported that “in Western Australia, as in other States of Australia, there has been a tendency to develop indicators in isolation from environmental management and policy systems. We have been driven by the need to report, rather than the need to inform policy and management”.

19

2.9.3 State of the Environment Reporting: Local Government Perspectives New South Wales is the only state where local councils have a statutory requirement to prepare annual state of the environment reports, although in other jurisdictions voluntary reporting has been undertaken by numerous councils in the form of Local Agenda 21 reports, Catchment Council or Management Plans, Local Conservation Plans or similar (Maganov, 2005). The lack of capacity at the state level is magnified at the local government level. Harding and Traynor (2003, p. 201) suggest that there has “been a failure to use the SoE information to drive policy and management change and to address ESD”. Too often, there is limited if any continuity between SoE Reporting and subsequent accounts report on the same programs and policies. Maganov (2005) recommends formal follow-up reporting from previous reports to avoid repetition and facilitate more effective ‘closing of the loop’ on SoE outcomes. 2.10 Local Agenda 21 (LA21) As discussed in Chapter 1, Local Agenda 21 (LA21) is a policy statement put forward by the United Nations in order to encourage sustainability development with community development, balancing environmental economics, political, institutional, social and cultural issues. The rationale was that the local level is likely to be that which is the closest to the practice of natural resource management (Bulkeley 2000a). LA21 has been adopted in several governments throughout Europe, and is increasingly being looked at in an Australian context (ICLEI 1991). (Wild River 2002a, p. 72) has written that the ‘United Nations Local Agenda 21 challenges local governments to produce a blueprint for their area. This is mindful of broader environmental policies and priorities.” Glass (2002) argues that the impetus for LA21 to encourage so much local activity is that they realise that local governments are the key to sustainability. They plan and control development, resource use, waste, energy consumption, and they are partial regulatory bodies for production and land use. LA 21 gave local government the chance to gain an agenda and control from the state and Commonwealth governments. However, there is no requirement for local government to have LA 21 initiatives (which also need substantial investment). In 1996, 1500 local governments in 69 countries were working on developing LA 21, yet, only 16% of local governments in Australia are committed to LA 21. The most common reasons for not becoming involved are the high cost, limited powers, and insufficient encouragement and practical support. Bulkeley (2000a) suggests that a reliance on local processes to achieve global goals has manifested significant tensions at the community based on insufficient support and perceived cost shifting by the higher levels of government. Governments involved with a LA 21 have the opportunity to improve or restructure decision making processes so considerations of socio-economic and environmental issues are fully integrated. LA 21 is a bottom-up initiative, which requires community and broad stakeholder input and support to identify issues of interest to that community. From this perspective, it is intended that ‘ordinary people’ deal with sometimes quite complex issues. It is imperative that the lay people have the opportunity to become more educated on the issues of interest in order to be able to participate in debate with people who are more expert on natural resource management policies and issues. Part of the key to the success of LA 21 is the focus on environmental education for sustainability and community development (ICLEI 1991). Selman and Parker (1997) and Parker and Selman (1999) identified three contributors to LA21: The community representatives or residents groups; agents of change, who are dynamic persons who initiate projects and follow them through to the end; and local actors which are organizations in the local area who can bring about change. These authors have contended that significant change to sustainability will require more active citizenship, lifestyle changes participation, and more inclusive discourse about local issues. They have also asserted that LA 21 is supposed to be ‘open, transparent and participatory’, thereby encouraging local participation. A citizen in a community can be either active or passive, with denser communities having a higher possibility of collective participation.

20

Different ways to engage the community are: Visioning; Consensus-building; Round tables; Broadening of the environmental agenda; and maintaining locally derived priorities. It is evident however, that this has not translated into practice. The importance of furthering a natural resource management agenda by involving citizens is a theme that resonates across the literature. Reade (1997), for example, points out that in the UK, significant social reform has occurred after pressure from single issue campaigning groups, indicating the importance of stakeholder participation to bring about change. Similarly, Marvin and Guy (1997) assert that the ‘new localization’ is in the power of local communities. According to Parker and Selman (1999), ideally, both government and community stakeholders should be equal partners in both the implementation and the financing of environmental initiatives. These environmental initiatives tend to fall into three main focus areas: • environmental planning • management • protection. Each of these focus areas has four drivers and constrainers: • initiatives, beliefs, and commitments • practical resources • rights and responsibilities • institutional inertia. Taken together, each of these focus areas can be analysed and measured in each of the driver/constrainer areas. This could produce a measurement of local government responsiveness to the community, and government/local partnership. This would assist in the quantification of the local government role as a community environmental leader. Showing how local government can take an active role in natural resource management initiatives will help lift barriers to environmental action, as well as enable community support for LA21 type initiatives. In most communities, the main barriers to environmental action are: • perceptual/behavioural • institutional/structural • economic/financial. However, unless people in these communities can see that natural resource management initiatives will benefit them, that there is support from the governmental institutions that they deal with directly, and that there is a realistic economic/financial way to support these initiatives, they are not likely to succeed in any meaningful sense (Parker & Selman 1999). It has been the crucial lack of the underpinnings of technical and financial support from the higher levels of government that has contributed to the limited implementation of LA21 across Australian local government authorities (Bulkeley 2000b; Mercer & Jotkowitz 2000; Paton et al. 2004). Mercer and Jotkowitz (2000) blame the federal policy of championing neo-liberal policies (Hilmer 1993), and divesting many of the legislative and regulatory responsibilities in the environmental arena that has contributed to the less than enthusiastic take-up of LA21. They also suggest that short-lived and piecemeal policies and programs directed to the local level are insufficient to tackle serious environmental problems. This is at the same time that local governments are expected to respond to, and be responsible for, a growing array of social and economic demands while their financial resources and revenue base remain relatively stagnant (Municipal Association of Victoria 2002).

21

2.11 Evaluation of policy The most significant impact of government policy on the Australian environment can be seen through the changing face of water use. Since the earliest European settlement, Australia has been utilizing water under policies that are extremely consumptive. This involves damming, diverting, and generally pumping every accessible litre of water for agricultural and urban uses. Over time, this has caused problems with acidity (in coastal acid-sulphate soils), salinity (in the saline-sodic soils found throughout Australia), and general environmental degradation during drought periods. Today, government policy is beginning to change to allow a portion of environmental water uses in order to alter what we now know is an unsustainable water use paradigm (Arthington & Pusey 2003). Changing such a long standing natural resource management paradigm involves juggling competing water use demands, and making policy from an incomplete knowledge base. The central problem is changing the mindset of water users from one that is intrinsically self-centred into one that is good for the ecosystem as a whole. This requires some sacrifices to be made on the part of individual Australians and a shift in mindset by entire industries (Allan & Lovett 1996). Some of the difficult decisions in water management are made when juggling things like volumetric allocations (which are better for wetlands), and operational procedures (which are better for in-stream systems) that seek to manage the use and re-injection of water into rivers (Glass 2002). Often decisions about water use cross local political boundaries. A catchment area might encompass several shires or municipalities, for example, but anything that alters one part of the water system can have impact on the whole. Although some changes to the system may be politically expedient, they may not adequately consider long-term or cross-boundary issues (Arthington & Pusey 2003), nor the holistic social, economic and environmental health of the catchment. Today, many of these decisions are being made by state and federal agencies, such as catchment management authorities and Landcare groups. Local government does not always have a say in how these decisions are made, and sometimes they are shoehorned into a ‘one size fits all’ mentality, as sweeping policy decisions are made without considering local conditions (Aitkin, Jinks & Warhurst 1980). 2.12 Research Questions Although implementing pro-environment policies as a whole in Australia can generally be considered good for the long term health of the country, the manner in which they are implemented may have certain effects on the local communities responsible for carrying out execution of these policies. Although there may be significant community buy-in or goodwill towards protecting the environment, sometimes policies might clash with the economic and social realities of rural Australia. Research is needed into how state and federal policies affect, and can be implemented in a sustainable way by the local communities to which they are targeted. Those rural areas which depend heavily on resource and agriculture exploitation are likely to be most sensitive to changes in policy regarding land and environment use. These communities often face economic realities that require them to trade off environmental action with production that sustains them. When looking at today’s changing state and federal policies on natural resource management in Australia, and their impact on local governments, several key questions present themselves • What are the key natural resource management issues for local government? • How important is it that the natural resource management strategies of the different spheres of

government are coordinated effectively so that the available resources are spent wisely? • How can we gain clearer understanding of the perceptions held by local government authorities

regarding their responsibility for natural resource management? • How can we identify the contribution local government is making to natural resource

management?

22

• How can we clarify the role and potential contribution of local community stakeholders regarding natural resource management?

• How can we identify the facilitators and impediments for local government authorities in developing, implementing and monitoring the environment and natural resource management?

• How can we identify strategies and initiatives already initiated in various states and assess their efficacy?

These questions were selected to be explored in this study through a series of interviews with local governments and local natural resource management.

23

Chapter Three: Methodology

3.1 Introduction This chapter describes the design of the research methodology which included case studies and a Q-methodological study. The rationale for the choice of these approaches and their design is outlined in this chapter. Further to this discussion is a justification for the selection of the methods of interviews and document analysis within the case studies. Finally, the processes engaged for data analysis are described, the limitations of the study identified, and the ethical issues pertinent to this research canvassed.

3.2 Rationale for case studies When deciding on a methodology Yin (2002) suggests that the case study is most appropriate when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context. These three features are present in this research study. The research questions relate to how rural local governments could develop greater capacity in relation to natural resource management, and why some rural local governments are more engaged in addressing natural resource management than others. Secondly, in this naturalistic study the researcher has little control over the events. In examining the issue of rural local government and natural resource management there is only limited ability to control variables and, certainly, no ability to control variables in the manner of a laboratory experiment. Finally, the question of rural local governments and the management of natural resource management is a contemporary problem that is situated and contextualised. It is thus an appropriate subject to be examined using case studies which are both descriptive and holistic (Stake 2003).

Two further advantages of the case study require highlighting as they are particularly pertinent to this study. First, the case study is an appropriate methodology when little is known about a subject, as is the case in relation to natural resource management and local government. It is a method particularly useful in exploratory research (Stake 2003). Second, as Lincoln and Guba (1990, p. 359) note, the research case study based on ‘real-life’ situations ‘builds on the reader’s tacit knowledge’ and ‘provides the ‘thick description’ so necessary for judgments of transferability’. In this it has both ‘rigor and relevance’ (Perry 1998, p. 799) as an avenue for bridging theory and practice and their illuminative nature could facilitate change and action. The case study is therefore useful in that it allows the reader (or participants in the process) to make links between cases described in research and their own situations. In this respect, the case study is particularly suitable to applied rural social research.

3.3 Rationale for case study selection While a positivist approach would sample through quantitative means in accordance with the principles of statistical validity and generalisability, the case study uses purposeful or criterion based sampling (Ritchie et al. 2002). These criteria for sampling can include: the typical, the deviant, the convenient, the comprehensive, the quota, the network, the unique, the reputational, the ideal and/or the discrepant (Burns 1990, p. 371). Other sampling strategies outlined in the literature are theory based cases, homogeneous cases, politically important cases, and combination or mixed sampling cases (Miles & Hubermann 1994, p. 28).

As outlined in Chapter 1, Wild River’s (2004) work from the Land and Water project facilitated the selection of local governments as case study areas for this project. Wild River (2004) classified each non-metropolitan local government area according to a range of environmental problems related to inland waters, soil and land management, biodiversity, climate and human settlements which were weighted equally, based on National Land and Water Resources Audit and Australian Bureau of Statistics data. A scale of 1 to 3 was then assigned; 1 indicated no problem, 2, a moderate problem and 3 a serious problem. This information was compiled into a map as shown in. Figure 3.1

24

Map compiled by Su Wild River, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University.

The natural resource management (NRM) issues classification is a composite indicator built from separate indicators related to inland waters, soil and land management, biodiversity, climate and human settlements - all weighted equally. A scale of 1 to 3 was used. 1 indicated no problem, 2 a moderate problem and 3 a serious problem. Compact urban local governments were not included in the NRM analysis due to practical constraints.

Variations in classifications between maps are due to different interquartile rangeswhen comparing within the particular area.

NRM information is from National Land and Water Resources Audit and Australian Bureau of Statistics. Audit data and local government boundaries are from 2000 and 2001. Local government boundaries in Geographic Information System format from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000.

Data are assumed to be correct as received from the data sources.

Thanks to Ann Hamblin, Karl Nissen and Ross Cunninghamg from The Australian National University for technical advice and support. Project funded by Land and Water Australia, National Land and Water Resources Audit and Murray Darling Basin Commission.

Natural resource management issues by local government areaAustralia

®

new2_australiaGROUPED_ME

compact urban

1 - 1.86

1.87 - 2.05

2.06 - 2.2

2.23 - 2.79

NRM Issues

0 500 1,000Kilometers

March 2004

Figure 3.1: Natural Resource Management Issues by Local Government Area

(Source: Wild River 2004).

Using this tool, two local government areas with serious environmental problems were selected from each of the four states. These cases provide insight into what Miles and Hubermann (1994, p. 28) term the ‘extreme or deviant’ in that one can learn ‘from highly unusual manifestations of the phenomenon of interest’. The rationale for the case study choice was therefore the belief that focusing the research on areas where there was such ‘deviance’ from the norm would provide a far greater opportunity to inform the research questions than examining a situation where there were few natural resource management issues.

One further factor guided case study selection. That is, whether local government areas could be identified as sea change or tree change communities2. The decision to use this as variable as part of the sampling frame was based on preliminary discussions with key informants (e.g. government representatives, other researchers working on natural resource management issues) as well as the emerging literature on the sea-change and tree-change phenomenon (e.g. Sammels 2004; Salt 2004) which has estimated that the rate of population growth in these areas is fifty per cent higher than the national average, and that the coastal population is predicted to increase by a further million people over the next fifteen years. Thus, while tree and sea change areas are today, in terms of Wild River’s 2 The word ‘seachange’ (or words sea change) and more recently, ‘tree change’ have become important in the Australian vernacular, underscored by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) television series Seachange. It has come to represent people wanting to escape the city to pursue Arcadian, nostalgic or alternative, usually beachside, lifestyles. ‘Tree change’ refers to a lifestyle change to a bucolic environment. . The accepted meaning of the term then, as it is today, is ‘a profound, or notable transformation’ (Natoli 2004).

25

(2004) map, typically those in the ‘moderate problem’ category, these areas are coming under increasing pressure environmentally as local governments aim to deal with the divergent needs of a changing community and landscape. These shires were thus selected on the basis of their ‘reputations’, and like those selected because of they face major environmental problems, were also considered important for being ‘extreme’ or ‘deviant’ (Miles & Huberman 1994).

Once these two criteria were determined for selecting case studies (serious natural resource management problems and sea/tree change areas) sites were nominated across the four states which could meet these criteria and be ‘comparable cases’ (Gray 2004, p. 325). This led to the identification of 16 potential case study sites. However, this list required further modification as three local government areas originally selected declined to participate in the project. These shires expressed concern at the potential resource demands of being involved in research, particularly as they said that they had been involved in a range of past studies on a wide range of topics. They explained that, with limited staff and unpaid councillors, they were unwilling to commit to participation in more research at the present time. A further disincentive for these councils was their sense that they were facing more critical issues than natural resource management. As one CEO explained in a telephone interview in which access was being negotiated, ‘It’s not that environmental issues aren’t important here, it’s just that there are other more important priorities.’ To select alternative case study sites the same sampling frame described above was used.

A further amendment to the methodology was required in May 2005 when the CEO from one of the case study sites in Victoria contacted the researchers and stated that their shire no longer wished to participate in the project. At this late stage in the study, all data had been collected and analysed, but a newly elected council had reviewed the shire’s involvement and withdrew permission for the data to be used. The CEO conveyed the new council’s concern that the project may reflect negatively on the shire. This was despite assurances of anonymity. Given the lateness of this withdrawal a new case study could not be commenced and thus, the number of Victorian case studies reported is three rather than four. While this was unfortunate, the exclusion of this case study did not impact on the validity of the findings as the other case study data were sufficient to address the research questions.

The difficulties the researchers experienced in terms of access are not just important methodologically. They also provide insight into the study’s research questions. They highlight the tensions surrounding local government management of natural resource management. They provide evidence, for example, of the sense of suspicion from the local government sector that they are being monitored by outsiders, but that they are not being sufficiently resourced to address natural resource management issues. Also emphasised is the fact that rural local governments are typically resource poor (in terms of time, staff etc) and under increasing demands from a range of quarters (researchers, other tiers of government, rate payers). Environmental problems may be recognised but these are not typically prioritised especially when other operational matters appear to be more pressing.

3.4 Rationale for data collection methods within case studies The case study is defined by the fact that it typically requires a range of data gathering methods (Yin 2002). In this study interviews and document analysis were engaged. The decision not to use focus groups was driven primarily by the needs of participants. As stated above, gaining access was problematic in this project and the researchers became very mindful of ensuring that involvement in the study did not make unnecessary demands on participants. Using interviews rather than focus groups meant that participants could be involved at a time and place which suited them, rather than have a time and place prescribed by the researcher. This flexibility greatly facilitated access.

Interviews took approximately one hour and were ‘lightly structured’ (Wengraf, 2001, p. 111) in that while a list of questions was prepared and all interviews covered the set questions, there was enough flexibility in the process for participant responses to inform the structure of the interviews (See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). The semi-structured approach provided the opportunity for questions to be contextualised and for participants to expand on issues or raise themes that had not been anticipated (Mason 2002). This was an important rationale for the use of the method. Interviews are

26

also suitable to the topic as they allow participants to expand on responses, while, in turn, the researchers are able to probe for further depth and understanding of the phenomenon in question (Gubrium & Holstein 2002). This is critical in a project where different levels of meaning require exploration and where individual perspectives and experiences are critical.

Sampling procedures for selecting in-depth interviewing used purposeful or theoretical sampling rather than statistical sampling (Ritchie, et al. 2002). Specifically, Minichiello et al. (1995, p. 162) describe the process as it applies to in-depth interviewing as ‘selecting informants on the basis of relevant issues, categories and themes which emerge in the course of conducting the studies’. In this study the informants considered most critical were mayors, CEOs, councillors and particularly those with portfolio responsibilities for natural resource management, environmental officers and/or managers and members of regional natural resource management boards with responsibility for local government. In total ninety-three interviews were undertaken across the 15 case studies with an average of six to seven per case study (See Appendix 3). Further to this were four interviews with state government representatives from Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia concerned with local government and natural resource management. All interviews were taped and transcribed in full to assist with analysis.

A final type of data collection within the case study sites was document analysis. Documents sourced included council newsletters, local newspaper reports relating to the council and environment and state, regional and local natural resource management plans and evaluation reports. Analysing documents was important in triangulating the study as well as in providing a more comprehensive understanding of each of the case study sites (Yin 2002). 3.5 Rationale for Q-Methodology Q-methodology was developed by psychologist and physicist William Stephenson in the 1930s, and documented in his much-referenced book, The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and its Methodology (1953). Its aim is to study people’s own perspectives, meanings and opinions. The first of the attractions of Q-methodology is its focus on the subjective experiences of participants, its emphasis on context, and its privileging of the everyday and local. As Brown (1986, p.73) has written the ‘first axiom of Q-methodology is that it is the subjective self that is at the centre of all meaning’. Thus, what is of interest to Q-methodology researchers is how actors come to know and make meaning and sense of their worlds from their own perspectives and experiences. This rejection of ‘a priori assumption’ about what items may mean or what a group of items may mean is distinctly different from approaches that seek to fit the experiences of participants into pre-determined categories (Gallivan, 1994 p.33). Thus, Q-methodology is useful to examine the world from the internal standpoint of the individual being studied (Brown 1980, p. 1). A second advantage of using Q-methodology to address rural social research problems is that it combines the openness of qualitative methods to document a person’s communication of their point of view, with the statistical thoroughness of factor analysis using quantitative research analysis (Addams & Proops 2000; Brown 1996).

3.6 Design of Q-Methodology Q-methodology has five key stages. The first stage involves the identification of the particular ‘discourse’ which is under investigation. This will, of course, be directly connected to one’s research question. In Q-methodology a discourse refers to a set of shared beliefs, opinions, understandings or meanings that is held by a population. In this study the discourse under examination was attitudes and perspectives surrounding rural local government and natural resource management. The second stage in the process is to identify the different dimensions in a discourse about a topic. This is known as a concourse. In developing a concourse researchers may use either naturalistic or ready-made texts (McKeown & Brown 1988). In this study the interviews from the case studies were used to provide the concourse.

27

The third stage in the Q-methodology process is to develop a statement set or Q-sample from the concourse. Usually the concourse will be ‘around three times the size of the aimed-for Q set, say 200 for an aimed-for Q-set of 65’ so this is quite an arduous process (Stainton Rogers 1995, p.185). The size of the statement set will vary, but typically it is between 30 and 60 statements (Thomas & Watson 2002, p.142). In this study the statement set was 56. Time and practical constraints need to be considered when determining the size of the sample. Overall, researchers must ensure that they have covered the breadth of opinions or themes that may circulate about a discourse, but also ensure they have avoided unnecessary duplication as well as under/over sampling. There is a range of suggested Q-sample design techniques for moving from the concourse to the Q-sample. In this project a structured approach guided matrix development and selection of statements (McKeown and Thomas, 1988). This sampling strategy was grounded in an inductive design which emerged from the patterns observed as statements were collected, i.e. during interview analysis and identification of dominant themes discussed by interviewees. This involved drawing statements from the interviews around the four themes of engagement outlined below (Table 3.1). Statements were then selected so as provide a description of each of these themes as possible facilitators or barriers to local government implementation of natural resource management (see Appendix 4). Thus the researchers structured the items in the Q-sample conforming to the conditions (as noted in Table 3.1). Each ‘engagement factor’ (Community, Capacity, Connection, Commitment) was produced along two dimensions (Facilitators and Barriers) creating eight possible combinations. Statements were assigned to each combination based on the researchers’ definition of the category (that is, the community acting as facilitator to natural resource management — ae). To enable a variety of experiences to be expressed, each combination was then replicated seven times as suggested by McKeown and Thomas (1988), producing a statement sample of 56 items (see Appendix 5).

Table 3:1 Structure Sample Justification

Main effects Levels N

A. Engagement factors (a) Community (b) Capacity (c) Connection (d) Commitment

4

B. Dimensions (e) Facilitators

(f) Barriers

2

Q-sample = (N) = (Main Effects) (Replications) = ([A] [B]) (m) (A) (B) = (4) (2) = 8 combinations Replications (m) = 7 N = (8) (7) = 56 statements

The fourth stage after the development of the Q-sample is asking participants to order the statements in a process that is called a Q-sort. Statements were written on small cards and sorted into piles in a quasi-normal distribution according to instructions described by the researcher. In this study the instructions were ‘What is your experience of rural local governments and natural resource management?’ Participants were asked to nominate statements according to the following: most like my experience (+5) or most unlike my experience (-5) (See Figure 3.2 Q-sort distribution).

28

Figure 3.2: Q-sort distribution Most unlike my experience Most like my experience

Value -5

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5

Frequency 2 3 4 5 6 16 6 5 4 3 2

Because Q-methodology emphasises individual subjectivity, traditional positivist sampling techniques, which focus on the need to generalise from the studied population using large sample sizes, are not relevant (Brown 1996). The process is much more akin to the purposeful or strategic sampling characteristic of qualitative research (Stenner & Marshall 1995). Thus, researchers may select participants to obtain variety in particular characteristics such as age, education, occupation, sex, political persuasion, cultural background or other factors relevant to the study. In this study the participant set was structured using the following two characteristics. First, the different types of stakeholder organizations involved in local government and natural resource management and second, the different states under investigation (Table 3.2). Applying McKeown and Thomas’s (1998) formula resulted in the recruitment of 28 participants for q-sorting. Whilst variations in sample size occur in q-methodological studies, small samples are typical. Thus, the sample size for this study is consistent with that recommended in the literature.

Table 3.2: P–Set Structure of Structure of Stakeholder Groups

Main Effects* Levels N

A: Stakeholder organisations

(a) Producer groups: agri-political organizations, irrigator groups

(b) Business groups: chambers of commerce (c) Conservation groups: Landcare (d) Voluntary, recreational and sporting groups: fishing

organizations, horse riding groups, camping and bush walking groups, social service groups

(e) Research and Development Organisations (f) Regional NRM organisations, State government agencies

7

B: Geographic location

(a) Western Australia (b) Queensland (c) Victoria (d) New South Wales

4

N=(A)(B) = 28 From this sample, the five factors were defined by the following Q-sorters: • Factor A: (7, 9. 10. 21, 23). While these sorters came from three of the four states they all

belonged to other government agencies working with rural local government on natural resource management. That is, three of them were involved in regional natural resource management groups either as representatives on a board or employees, and two were state government natural resource management staff working with rural local governments. All have tertiary qualifications and have undertaken formal training in natural resource management

29

• Factor B: (1, 3, 11, 12, 16, 25) The Q-sorters making up Factor B are not as homogenous as those making up Factor A. They come from all four states and are representative of each of the six different stakeholder groups outlined in Table 3.2. Two of the six of these have formal training in natural resource management

• Factor C: (5, 8, 24, 28) Those participants who loaded in Factor C were a Landcare officer, a Landcare participant, a researcher involved in rural local governments and natural resource management and an officer working with a regional natural resource management group in Victoria. Each of the four q-sorters in this Factor lives in one of the four states at the centre of the study

• Factor D: (2, 15, 26, 27). The four participants who constituted Factor D were representatives from Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales. Their interface with rural local governments on issues relating to natural resource management is in their capacity as representatives from an irrigation group, a recreational group, a conservation group and state government

• Factor E: (17. 19, 20).Representatives from an agri-political group, Landcare group and Business group working with rural local governments and interested in natural resource management issues loaded on Factor E.

3.7 Data analysis Data analysis needed to address both the qualitative data from the case studies and Q-methodological data.

In terms of the qualitative data, Miles and Hubermann (1994, p. 9) identify ‘a fairly classic set of analytical moves’ common across different qualitative research types as: coding; reflecting; sorting to identify patterns, similarities or differences between variables; isolating these and using them to focus follow-up field work; developing a small set of generalisations; and using these generalisations with the literature to develop theory. These stages reflect the approach taken to data analysis in this study. The data from the Q-methodology study were factor-analysed in order to identify patterns across individuals. This is distinguishable from the traditional survey R methodology, which is concerned with determining patterns across variables.3 ‘Like minded’ individuals who ‘load’ on the same factor have sorted the statement items similarly and consequently will be those who have a similar discursive position. Others who load negatively on the same factor hold diametric points of view on the issue (Addams 2000). To assist with data analysis the Q-methodology package PQMethod was utilised.

The use of factor analysis is fundamental to Q-analysis, because it is the statistical means by which ‘like minded’ individuals in Q studies are grouped. A five factor solution was judged by the researchers to represent the subjectivity of people’s experiences of dealing with natural resource management. Before detailing the profiles, the Q-analytical moves used during interpretation are briefly discussed in the following section.

3.8 Five factor solution The 28 Q-sort responses were entered into the PCQ software package (Stricklin & Almedia, 2002), which intercorrelates all Q-sorts and informs the profiles or factors generated. Variance was calculated by the PCQ software at 5.71. In Q-method, variance is not an arbitrary setting, rather it is a function of the number of items and the number of piles in the Q-sort study (Stricklin & Almedia, 2002). As recommended by leading Q-researcher, Stephen Brown (1980, p. 223), solutions were run with more factors (nine-factor solution) than was expected to be significant. This process assists in interpretation because the researchers continually posit possible explanations for the factor arrays

3 There is significant debate about the differences between Q and R methodologies in the literature (see Durning 1999 p. 404-405;Robbins and Kr ueger 2000,

p. 640). There is also considerable argument as to whether such a comparison is even necessary or justified..

30

until the best explanation has been developed for the factors generated. In this study, relevance of the factors generated was guided by relating the discourse and relationships between statements against the current natural resource management literature and policy developments.

A five-factor solution was selected based on ease of interpretation and description of the natural resource management discourses, with 22 sorts out the 28 aligned significantly4 (i.e. factor loading +.34) with the five factor solution. This approach follows the 0.3 ‘rule of thumb’ used in typical factor analysis. Q-factor solutions however are not determined by statistical criteria alone. Brown (1980, p. 42) argues that the contextual setting to which the factor(s) are organically connected is equally important. Thus the selection of the Q-factor solution used a combination of statistical significance and contextual interpretation to finalise selection of the five-factor solution. Table 3.3 reports the factor loadings for all 28 Q-sorters.

Table 3.3 also illustrates that, in addition to the five participants with significant loadings on Factor A, six had significant loadings on Factor B, four loaded significantly on Factor C and different four participants loaded significantly on Factor D and three participants had pure loadings on Factor E. The table also reveals that four participants (6, 13, 18, 22) had significant loadings on more than one factor; that is, these people represented two or more factor profiles. The remaining two participants (4, 14) did not have a significant loading on any of the factors, indicating that the Q-sort provided by these participants were distinctive and unrelated to the established natural resource management profiles.

The communalities (h2), reported in Table 3.3 indicates the percentage of commonality of the Q-sort responses with the five factors defined by people’s experience of natural resource management and rural local government. Therefore, the h2), values for sorters 4 and 14 are low. Specifically, these people had least in common with the other 26 people that defined the five ‘idealised’ natural resource management discourses, which represented distinct patterns of response and discourse about natural resource management. Also revealed during PCQ analysis are those statement items that have similar scores across all factors, and thus point to areas of consensus and agreement amongst the factor profiles. These consensus items add to the understanding of natural resource management experiences. PCQ software5 identified one consensus items in the three factor solution (see Table 3.4). This item is likely to have emerged as one on which all participants agree because the issue of the limited political power of local government may be seen as a statement of ‘fact’. This is also an issue that resonates strongly in the literature on Australian local government (see, for example, Mercer & Jotkowitz 2000; Adams & Hine, 1999; Wild River 2002; 2003a; 2005).

4 Factor loadings are deemed significant in Q-methodology if they exceed +/- 2.58 (1/SQRT(N)), where N is the number of statements in the Q sample. In the current study N=56.,which produced .34 criterion) 5 PCQ compares each item across all factors in the study and declares a consensus if the scores are in contiguous piles or not

separated by more than one pile (Stricklin, 2004, email communication).

31

Table 3.3: Significant Q-sorters Q-Sorter Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Factor E H2

1 .19 -.49* .05 -.17 -.15 .33

2 .16 .04 -.01 .64* .05 .45

3 .10 .46* .15 .15 -.14 .30

4 .18 -.06 .10 -.24 .07 .11

5 .29 -.09 .40* .09 .06 .27

6 0 -.15 .09 .37* -.49* .42

7 .62* .08 .06 .01 .01 .40

8 .02 -.01 .68* -.04 -.49 .53

9 .36* .17 .07 0 .01 .18

10 .57* -.11 .14 .18 -.26 .48

11 -.18 -.59* .15 .07 -.10 .43

12 .08 -.40* .15 .15 -.29 .23

13 .22 -.39* .32 .42* -.13 .50

14 0 -.09 .32 .28 .12 .20

15 .14 0 .22 .39* -.08 .27

16 .18 .58* .01 -.10 -.09 .39

17 -.18 -.12 .10 -.03 -.22 .26

18 .45* .57* .12 -.07 .01 .56

19 .23 .17 -.04 .02 -.45* .72

20 .29 .17 -.09 -.04 -.01 .59

21 .58* -.25 -.18 .13 -.79* .46

22 .59* .14 -.10 .50* -.67* .64

23 .46* .11 .11 .22 -.10 .29

24 .34* .05 .50* .18 0 .40

25 .10 -.44* .17 -.26 .02 .33

26 .09 -.29 .18 .42* -.02 .30

27 .16 .04 -.01 .64* .05 .45

28 -.11 -.05 .65* -.10 .11 .46

*Denote a loading significant at .34

Table 3.4: Consensus Statement

Factors A B C D E Statement: An enormous barrier to local government environmental policy formulation in Australia is the lack of effective political power of local government.

1 0 0 0 1

32

3.9 Methodological Limitations and Validity The case study and Q-methodology are both criticised for bias, partiality, subjectivity which, in turn, affects validity and the reliability of data (Burns 1990). Similar concerns are raised about the other data collection techniques used in this study such as interviewing (Schmidt 2004) and document analysis (Prior 2003). In part, these concerns have been addressed by triangulating data from the different sources, and particularly the use of qualitative methods and the Q-methodological approach. Through the use of these multiple methods, links between findings could be established, differences could be illuminated and critiqued, and deficiencies in methods be addressed. Negative case analysis involved asking questions designed to find exceptions to what has been documented in the published literature on social marketing and internet sociology.

As well as being limited by its subjectivity, the case study is also criticised for what is commonly referred to as the ‘generalisation problem’ (Gomm et al. 2000). The argument is that the methodology is limited, or even flawed, by the fact that the case study is not representative and so it is difficult, if not impossible, to generalise from the data. This is particularly problematic when the unit of analysis is an Australian local government area as there are so many variations between local governments across the four states studied. as case studies It is thus important to acknowledge that while generalisability in quantitative studies may be defined in terms of statistical sampling, case studies are not designed to be statistically representative of the broader population (Stake 2003). The primary purpose of a case study is not quantification, but description, classification and theory development (Yin 2002). This does not mean that it is impossible to generalise from case study research. Rather, it means that particular strategies need to be engaged in to improve the empirical generalisability of a case study (Gomm et al. 2000). Critical to this is engaging a systematic process for the selection of case studies as has been undertaken in this project.

3.10 Ethical concerns Confidentiality is a key ethical issue in case study research as people are likely to be recognised (Yin 2002). This was particularly pertinent in this study as participants expressed a high level of concern about this both prior to agreeing to be involved in the project and during the course of the study. To address the issue of confidentiality and privacy, participants were provided with a participant information form which provided a written outline of the research and provided assurance of confidentiality. A copy of this form is attached in Appendix. 6. This is one strategy for ‘honouring the participant’ (Krueger 1993, p. 83). However, this does not fully address the question of confidentiality as participants may still be recognisable. For this reason, and to facilitate access and disclosure, the researchers decided to avoid identifying any of the case study areas. It was only because of this that individuals could be assured that their views and strategies would not be adversely judged in comparison to others. 3.11 Conclusion This chapter has provided a rationale for the use of the case study and Q-methodological study as well as explained the research design. Fifteen case studies of rural local governments were undertaken across Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia to examine the factors impeding and facilitating the management of natural resources. A Q-methodological study was then undertaken to document the different stakeholder experiences of natural resource management and rural local government. Before turning to the Q-study data, the following four chapters document the findings from each of the state based case studies.

33

Chapter Four: New South Wales Case Studies

4.1 Introduction Over recent years, the NSW government has undertaken a major restructure of local government authorities (see Figure 4.1), as well as the state agencies responsible for natural resource management. It has also undertaken major reviews of natural resource management legislation. Two reform issues are noteworthy in terms of the management of natural resource management by NSW rural local governments. Figure 4.1: New South Wales Local Government Areas

(Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services – modified) The first of the changes at a state level has been the abolition of committees (e.g., Vegetation Management Committees and Catchment Management Boards), and the establishment of new natural resource management bodies under the Catchment Management Authorities (CMA) Act 2003. The legislation allowed for the formation of thirteen state funded catchments management authorities throughout the state with the autonomy to determine the most effective means of investing in natural resource management. Further to the Act, was a Memorandum of Understanding between the Local Government Association of NSW and the Shires Association of NSW. The document recognises the critical role of local government in relation to natural resource management, as well as establishes roles for different parties. The document also proposes the development of a written agreement

34

between each of the catchments management authorities and the councils within their region, to establish a clear working relationship. The second of the state government changes to natural resource management affecting local governments has been amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Act requires local councils in NSW to develop Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) that divide the area they cover into ‘zones’, such as residential, commercial or industry, and to list the types of development that are permissible within each zone. An environmental study must be undertaken prior to the development of a new local environmental plan. Draft local environmental plans must be made publicly available for comment before they can be given approval by a Minister. While in the past some councils required multiple plans, changes to the act in 2003 now require only one local environmental plan, which can apply to an entire council area. The legislative impetus for local government involvement in natural resource management in NSW is the NSW Local Government Act 1993. This act makes it clear that ecologically sustainable development is a fundamental element of the charter of local government and requires councillors, councils and employees to take account of ecologically sustainable development principles in carrying out their responsibilities. Further to this, Section 203 (3) of the act requires all NSW councils (either individually or at a regional level) to prepare a comprehensive State of the Environment (SoE) Report every four years following council elections. In addition, councils are required to produce supplementary interim reports as part of the annual reports. Eleven environmental areas are required to be discussed in the SoE reports. These are land, air, water, biodiversity, waste, noise, Aboriginal heritage, non-Aboriginal heritage, management plans relating to the environment, special council projects relating to the environment, and the environmental impact of council activities. In August 2004 a forum on SoE reporting was held between NSW State and local government representatives. Some of the key issues raised at the forum resonated in the case study data. For example, in both instances local government representatives called for SoE reporting to be made voluntary and/or for the state government to contribute to the costs of SoE reporting (http://www.lgsa.org.au/site/policy/1000150/1000151/3001187.html). While the NSW Department of Local Government ‘encourages’ councils to publish their SoE reports on the internet, this is an option taken up by only one of the NSW case study sites (NSW Department of Local Government 1999, p. 3). The state government also advises that councils use the SoE reporting for the preparation of environmental plans and strategies, as well as for engaging the community in natural resource management. However, as the case studies will demonstrate, the SoE reports developed by the NSW rural councils under investigation were not being utilised for these purposes. 4.2 Case Study NSW1 The population of 13 000 in the central western shire of NSW1 is primarily reliant upon the agricultural and mining industries. To date, the shire has avoided being amalgamated by signing a formal ‘strategic alliance’ with two neighbouring councils in 2003. This strategic alliance has resulted in the integration of staff, budgets and other resources, but the maintenance of local representation. The shire has a council of 13 and a council staff of 170. Staff are organised into three program areas, each of which has a director who reports to the CEO. One of these areas is Environmental Services. Reporting to this position is a Health and Building Surveyor, a Commercial and Compliance Officer, a Development Planning Officer, a Manager of Building and Environment and an Economic Development Officer. As the titles suggest, the roles and responsibilities of these staff reflect a traditional view of local government environmental management framed around planning applications, health and safety and building works rather than sustainability and natural resource management. The key environmental concerns in the shire the participants raised concerned water catchment and supply, the protection of native vegetation, weed management and waste management. According to the 2003-2004 annual report, the shire recently ‘recommenced’ its Local Environmental Plan. The original document was first written in 1991. A range of other environmental reporting documents have been produced by the council (e.g., SoE reports) in the interim to meet legislative requirements, but these have not been strategic. Further, these reports have typically been produced by outside

35

consultants rather than generated by the community and/or council. As is required by legislation NSW1’s annual reports contain SoE documentation. These reports highlight problems in local government reporting of environmental management. While the council reports under each of the headings outlined in the legislation, information is brief and very broad. There is no benchmarking and there are large gaps in the provision of available data. Consequently, it is impossible to use these SoEs to measure natural resource management outcomes in an accurate manner. The historical lack of attention given to natural resource management in the shire was acknowledged by participants with one councillor stating:

I don’t think we actually do enough in terms of our planning. I know in individual cases, such as individual development applications, they have a section in there about the environment, an environmental impact statement. But on the whole there is no overall environmental strategy.

As she discussed this issue further, the councillor reflected that the low priority of natural resource management in the shire was exemplified by the fact that it was not an allocated portfolio area for any particular councillor. She explained, ‘We actually don’t have a committee that looks at natural resource management. We have pretty much committees for everything else …’ This participant was more positive of change occurring in the near future in terms of council’s response to natural resource management, arguing that there was increased recognition that councillors could not ignore the environment. She explained:

Probably three months ago we actually had discussions at a council meeting of how we could become part of the environmental improvement. There’s a whole push throughout the county to improve natural resource management and I guess the best way of putting it is that we’re thinking about it. Not thinking about whether we will, but thinking about what we can do.

The participants raised two key issues in explaining why NSW1 had not been highly engaged in natural resource management. The first issue concerns a lack of financial resources. As the council officer responsible for environmental management stated:

Local government doesn’t have the resources to put huge amounts into natural resource management because it isn’t often immediate. There are long term effects more than immediate. So, it’s one of those things you can put on the back burner until money is available.

The council has no specific allocation of funding for natural resource management. Thus, natural resource management outcomes are typically achieved as an adjunct to other projects funded by the shire. For example, the shire had dedicated resources to weed management along one of the area’s river banks as these were threatening the town’s water supply. The Director of Environmental Services explained that the removal of the weeds was a positive environmental outcome, but one that was only undertaken on the basis that an essential service was being compromised. The Director of Environmental Services noted the availability of grants for natural resource management projects, but he stated that he was too busy to devote time to the task of writing applications, as well as being unskilled in grant writing process for large bureaucracies. The second issue raised as a barrier to natural resource management by the council focused on the community itself. Participants believe there is not broad public support for the council taking a more active role in relation to the environment. They highlighted the need for economic development in rural areas, and positioned this need as separate from natural resource management. The following quotation, in which a councillor responds to a question asking what factors may have impeded the engagement of council in natural resource management, is illustrative of this view:

36

I guess this council is more committed to the provision of services to the community; at an equitable and reasonable cost and committed to trying to assisting in economic development rather than the environment. In saying that though at the back of every application we always think about environmental sustainability.

Even the councillor who positioned herself as the most committed of her counterparts to natural resource management agreed that the only way that funding would be allocated to meeting environmental goals would be if these were tied to a development project. The above view is likely to have been sharpened in NSW1 through the 2003 closure of a major employer in the shire, which had resulted in the loss of 300 jobs. The environmental officer (EO) argued that this view was also informed by the large farming population in the shire whom he considered to be wary of natural resource management. The emphasis he gave to this issue was apparent in his statement that ‘… the only way you can do it [natural resource management] is to get the farmers on board’. While the Director of Environmental Services lamented what he considered to be the limited community interest in natural resource management compared with other shires, there had been no dedicated attempts to engage the public in an environmental agenda. Like other case study shires, NSW1 has broad community consultation forums periodically, but these are not focused solely on natural resource management. Asked about community involvement in natural resource management he stated:

Probably fairly typical for a rural area. There really isn’t any. People sort of mosey on doing their thing and we do our thing. If there’s a complaint we go out and solve it. And that person sort of gets back in their box for want of a better way of putting it.

In responding to the same question two councillors disagreed with the above sentiment saying there was ‘substantial’ consultation undertaken by the council on natural resource management. As evidence of this, they pointed to the production of brochures on issues such as waste management and native vegetation, as well as a survey undertaken on preferred opening hours for the land fill. NSW1 incorporates two catchments and, consequently, the council is involved in two regional catchments management authorities. Participants interviewed believed these groups could take a bigger role in natural resource management by taking responsibility for SoE reporting. They were also critical of the lack of funding allocated to councils to resource them to work more closely with the catchments management authorities. As with other case study participants, the common theme of a lack of resources to devote to natural resource management pervaded the interviews. The issue of rate capping was raised as a particular impediment to revenue raising. Clearly, Case Study NSW1 is at a very early stage of engaging in natural resource management. This is a stage of questioning what actions and activities the shire needs to take to ensure sustainability. Despite the nascent stage of this agenda NSW1 is still further along the engagement continuum than its counterpart NSW2 as the following case study description will demonstrate.

37

4.3 Case Study NSW2 Case study NSW2 is a shire of 6000 sq km in the central west of the state. It has a council of 10 elected members and a council staff of 180. It boasts a strong agricultural base (grains, horticulture and wine) and a mining sector, as well as developing retail and transport industries. The population of the shire is 15 000, and similar to NSW1, the area encompassed by NSW2 forms part of the catchment of two main river systems. In line with this shared catchment characteristic, the most critical environmental issue raised in the interviews was catchment management with additional concern voiced for the issues of weed management, erosion, salinity and loss of biodiversity. Natural resource management is largely absent in NSW2’s corporate documentation. It is not mentioned as part of the mission statement or values statement. Similarly, the environment is not included in the four nominated goals in the most recently released three year corporate plan. Service issues relating to water supply, water, sewerage and the built environment are highlighted and a statement documenting the legislative requirement to produce a SoE is included, but this is the totality of an environmental focus in the document. As with NSW1 the SoE reports included in the annual general reports of NSW2 are scant and not connected to any stated goals or performance indicators. The limitations of the report were noted by one council staff member:

To a certain extent there’s not an analysis in it. Part of it is that we’re hungry for technical information. So it’s the sort of document you get done and get signed off so that you can say you’ve met the requirements. It’s not as proactive as it should be.

A related issue for NSW2 is that the shire’s environmental staff have had a limited and narrow understanding of natural resource management. The senior management position of Director of Environmental Services has, for example, focused largely on regulatory arrangements in relation to planning and development (for example, animals and pets, caravan park management, cemetery management, waste and recycling, household pests, and food outlets). Just recently, however, the council has created a new position of Manager of Natural Resources to report to the Director of Environmental Services. This position is held by a long-term council employee who previously worked in the position of council engineer. While he represents the council on the two catchment management authorities he was critical of them in two regards. First, he argued that these new forms of government were potentially more powerful than local government. Second, he believed that the existence of such bodies could provide local governments with a legitimate rationale for avoiding responsibility for natural resource management. He stated:

It seems to me that the catchments are usurping any power that the local governments did have or didn’t want to have about local natural resource management. There’s a buffer there where local government doesn’t actually need to get involved in the issue.

The natural resource management Manager was also critical of environmental practices and processes that were not seen to have practical outcomes at a local level. The Council’s Manager of Development Services as well as the three councillors interviewed shared this view summarised by statements such as ‘There’s a lot of academic papers and theoretical stuff about what should be done about the environment, but not a lot of on ground action.’ Similarly, there was a high level of criticism directed at what is perceived as unnecessary state government reporting requirements for natural resource management. Related to this perception, there has been limited attention given by the shire to developing planning documents on the subject of natural resources. As the Manager for natural resources commented, ‘Everything we do is guided by ecologically sustainable development principles, but we haven’t really got an environmental management plan as such’. According to the Manager for Natural Resources, the natural resource management that has been undertaken in the shire has focused on ‘on ground action’. This approach has taken two forms. The first has been through the employment of a Green Corp Crew through the Commonwealth Government’s Work for the Dole Program. The prime responsibility of the Crew has been on revegetating roadsides in the shire. The second method of ‘on ground action’ has been the provision of

38

support for the local Landcare group. There is a close association between the group and Council. The shire provides a work space for the Landcare officer as well as contributes to the cost of a Landcare vehicle. In explaining why there had not been a significant focus on natural resource management in the shire the interviewees stated that they were responding to the priorities of the public. Interviewees suggested that the agricultural and mining base of the shire meant that constituents were not typically supportive of natural resource management. It was a topic, one said, that was ‘not easy to market here’. Bi-annual consultation forums are held by NSW2 to seek community perspectives on council direction. As with NSW1, interviewees claimed that natural resource management had not been raised as a concern at these meetings, and thus, if the council was to devote resources to the environment, community criticism may result. As one participant explained:

The idea of going out and spending money on other issues we may well be criticised by members of the community for not concentrating on core business. In fact, that’s probably one of the bigger beefs that residents do speak about in terms of Council’s performance. It’s always how can you be dealing with this issue or that or producing this document that costs this much when our roads are in such poor condition?

There was acknowledgement, however, that the community forums held to determine council priorities were not particularly well attended. As one participant said, ‘… the residents of this shire are probably not the most proactive group’. It was also noted that seeking written comments on draft council documents did not typically elicit a large response. This was even when the documents were sent to well-established and resourced lobby groups (e.g., state agri-political groups, state fire services). Despite this lack of response, interviewed council staff and elected members professed to know and understand the priorities of the community because of the small size of the population and their proximity to the public as locals. There was a perception that as a result of people involved in agriculture dominating the shire’s population, natural resource management issues would be less widely accepted in the community. As one councillor explained, ‘We’re still a very traditional broad acre farming area and, therefore, some of the principles of natural resource management and ecologically sustainable development are not as trendy to promote as they might be somewhere else.’ According to one of the regional natural resource management officers who liaises with NSW2, there is not necessarily a lack of community interest in natural resource management, but the terminology constituents use to understand the environment may be different. She explained:

I think the language of natural resource management loses rural people because within Councils it’s not a term that’s widely used. So they’re going ‘What do you mean? Do you mean Landcare? We do some bush regeneration or whatever.’ When you say natural resource management they think you must be talking green issues.

Like participants in other case studies, council staff and elected members were highly critical of the continuing devolution of responsibilities from federal and state governments to the local level. Particular concerns were also raised in relation to the SoE reporting. Common views were that further assistance should be provided by the state government to facilitate this task and greater feedback and direction should be given by the state government on the reports. The lack of data to complete the reports and the need for professional expertise to collate such data were highlighted as participant concerns. Like the participants in NSW1, those interviewed as part of NSW2 expressed the belief that their community was not particularly interested in natural resource management issues. Further, they argued that it was impossible to prioritise natural resource management when more immediate concerns (e.g., service delivery and economic development) were facing rural councils. Also evident in the NSW2 participant interviews is a belief that natural resources are managed in a manner that is overly bureaucratic. In this respect, they contrasted natural resource management with Landcare. The following discussion reveals that this theme was also strongly articulated by participants in Case Study NSW3.

39

4.4 Case Study NSW3 NSW3 is in the south-west of the state and has a population of 2000. It is a strong agricultural shire, particularly in grain and stone fruit production. Its proximity to Canberra and Sydney has made it popular as a site for visitors as well as for city dwellers seeking a lifestyle change by re-locating to the country. According to participants, many of these new residents have different attitudes towards the land and environment than those of many of the long-term residents. Interviews revealed that this difference was beginning to result in conflict over the management of natural resources in the shire. Amongst councillors (the majority of whom are involved in farming) and council staff there appeared to be little sympathy for the recent residents’ views. One councillor, for example, stated:

You may have a broadacre farm on one side of the road and the other side of the road there’s five little residential lifestyle lots that have been allowed to go. You get someone that turns up from a non-country background and they hear the tractor running at 11 o’clock at night across the road and we start getting complaints through the Environmental Protection Act because they’re causing noise. They haven’t realised they’re living in a rural area where farming is the primary industry and it should be protected, not their lifestyle.

Two contextual factors are important in interpreting some of the NSWs case study data: First, prior to the interviews the NSW state parliament had named the shire on a financial ‘watch-list’. A number of participants alluded to this during interviews. The amalgamation of the different rural shires was a second contextual issue. NSW3 councillors and staff were expecting that their shire would also be subject to amalgamation. These issues are noteworthy as the case study interviewees talked about natural resource management in terms of the power differential between state and local governments. For example, the person responsible for natural resources in the shire responded to a question about how environmental goals are determined by stating:

It’s legislatively driven how we deal with natural resource management. Not the other way round because if it wasn’t legislatively driven we probably wouldn’t do it because of our size because we just don’t have the resources. I won’t deal with that because there’s no one from a state government department hassling for it. I’ll deal with the ones that we get into trouble for basically because that’s how you’ve got to deal with it otherwise you end up basically getting into strife. You end up on their black list.

A majority of farmers make up the seven member council of NSW3. According to the above participant this fact was important as their background informed their position about natural resource management. He explained:

I don’t think farmers think in the format of natural resource management. They’d be thinking in a Landcare sort of way. They would be thinking ‘Well how can I do this activity to improve the productivity of my land long term so that I can keep making a living off it?’ Landcare is seen as having benefits.

The positioning of natural resource management as involving overly bureaucratic structures that do not contribute to productivity was a theme that emerged in further NSW3 interviews. As above, this point was made by reference to Landcare and what is seen as its results-oriented/grass-roots focus on a number of occasions. One councillor argued that funding provided by the state government for natural resource management was not directed at what he described as ‘action’. He explained:

They (the state government) won’t give us the money. They’ve got reams of money there but they won’t give it to us. They’ll say, ‘We can do a study or run an advertising campaign. Say a campaign to reduce the consumption of wood fires or something like that.’ The grant application process needs you to write a thesis before you can get any money. And we said, ‘Well we don’t want that. We want money to physically go and do something to get an instant benefit.’

A related factor raised was described as the overly complicated governance arrangements for natural resource management. Participants argued that overlapping spheres of influence and boundaries of

40

responsibilities both across and within state and federal agencies made environmental management overly complex at the local level. Understandably, this complexity was particularly highlighted by the person responsible for natural resource management in the shire as he has to ensure environmental reporting and legislative requirements are met. Despite his responsibilities for natural resources the person in the position has no formal training in the area. His background is as a surveyor. His portfolio is also much broader than natural resource management as he also oversees health and planning. He said that having a multitude of areas of responsibility was typical in rural shires, and contributed to the difficulty non-metropolitan areas have in addressing natural resource management. This lack of resources and time is, he continued, aggravated by the lack of willingness of some councillors to embrace natural resource management. Again, he did not think his shire was particularly unique in this regard commenting that ‘… others may have moved away from roads, rates and rubbish, but regional councillors haven’t’. Questions about community involvement in natural resource management revealed that there is little community engagement around natural resource management in NSW3. There was a general sense that this is something that is not particularly necessary in the shire. This view is premised on the belief that individuals can take issues of concern to councillors on a one-to-one basis. The ‘open-door policy’ of the mayor, it was argued, provided the opportunity for natural resource management to be placed on the agenda. In this respect, natural resource management was viewed as being dealt with, but on an individual level rather than a community level. As a councillor stated ‘… if the community had a specific concern they’d be on the phone ringing one of the councillors so we’d follow up’. Similarly, another commented when asked about community consultation on natural resource management:

As a council we don’t tend to do it. No. We tend to look at individual issues as they come before us. Say the engineers might be doing road-works and some of it may be at farm level and they make sure they’re not causing problems for people at that location.

Case Study NSW3 differs from the previous two case studies in that it is a ‘tree-change’ area. As yet, it seems that the influx of new people into the area has not yet had a significant impact on the make-up of the council or council values in terms of natural resource management. However, the data indicate that this may change in the near future. As Burnley and Murphy (2004, p. 135) found ‘living in a natural environment’ figures prominently as a rationale for tree/sea changers and, therefore, they are likely to be concerned with natural resource management. In this event, NSW3 may find itself needing to engage further in natural resource management, as has been the experience of case study NSW4. 4.5 Case Study NSW4 The shire of NSW4 has a population of 13 000. Eight elected council members and a mayor preside over an area that has experienced significant change on four key fronts. The first area of change has been in relation to the economic base of the shire. While wool has traditionally been the key industry, and continues to be important, new agricultural industries are also emerging (e.g., wine, olives and berries) along with a strong tourist industry. The second change experienced in NSW4 is a shift in the population as ‘tree-changers’ are moving from Sydney or Canberra and into or around many of the eight villages that make up the shire. This population has the potential to shift thinking about the environment as incomers bring new experiences and perspectives. The third change affecting the area has been the lack of water. While this problem is not new, concerns about water have severely escalated and, thus, the nature of the problem is somewhat different than it was in the past. A final area of change has been the council itself as in 2003 NSW4 became a ‘new’ shire following an amalgamation. This change has resulted in the employment of new staff, as well as the election of some new councillors. Of the 100 staff at NSW4, two newly appointed officers are employed in half-time positions as environmental officers through a combination of state and local government funds. These officers argued that their appointment is representative of a shift in council thinking about natural resource management. They claimed that there has been a general lack of environmental knowledge amongst councillors and the wider community.

41

The council is still coming of age in terms of natural resource management making that transition. In the far west the problem is there’s not a lot of pressure for change. Not like on the coast where the impacts are really obvious or recognised. You have people there who are more aware as well of the issues. It’s an education thing. But we’re starting to see it here now.

Other participants noted the belief that there had not been a visible, active constituency interested in natural resource management in the shire. They had difficulty in naming any local natural resource management stakeholders besides the Landcare group. The view was that most property owners worked through Landcare rather than through the Council in fostering natural resource management. Further, while there are a number of active sporting, recreational and industry groups in the community these were not viewed to be interested in natural resource management. Councillors explained that all groups have had a previous opportunity to raise natural resource management issues at annual forums designed to elicit the community’s priorities for council action. However, natural resource management issues had never been raised as a key area for concern at these meetings. The priority issue nominated were typically infrastructure, and particularly, roads and human services. The limited enthusiasm for natural resource management amongst shire residents was an issue being addressed by the environmental officers (EOs). They said that they had developed a local environmental issues paper as a means, ‘… of getting people interested in the subject’ and had circulated this for comment. Their aim was that the document would be used as a basis for the generation of a new local environmental plan as the previous local environmental plan was done in 1987. However, they emphasised that before this could be achieved a great deal of community education was required. One suggested that this was ‘… probably the hardest thing in established rural areas’ but noted that ‘… getting the message out’ had been achieved in Landcare and could be similarly achieved by local governments in relation to natural resource management. Furthermore, the two officers emphasised that their role also involved educating councillors or ‘… working internally, as well as externally’ to facilitate engagement in natural resource management. Certainly, not all councillors expressed the same level of commitment to natural resource management as the council EOs. One elected member, for example, challenged the need for any consultation on natural resource management arguing that ‘Consultation is nearly irrelevant here. Broadly, we know what the [natural resource management] issues are and what a lot of the priorities are …’ Similarly, another councillor warned that seeking involvement on natural resource management could open up a ‘pandora’s box’ of concerns that the council would not be in a financial position to address. At the time of the interviews, no formal natural resource management strategic planning had been undertaken by NSW4. Whether or not this was going to occur in the future was not clear as, guided by the council, the EOs expressed some reservation about formal documentation of natural resource management plans. One contended that ‘… the community want to see results. They don’t want to see paperwork being done. They want results on the ground not tonnes of paper being written’. At the same time, NSW4 had fulfilled its legislative obligation in terms of SoE reporting working with eight other councils to produce a regional response. The council was also involved in the development of a preliminary regional natural resource management plan through the newly established catchments management authority. However, what the relationship between the CMA and NSW4 might be was still being negotiated.

We don’t fully understand our role in the catchments management authority plan as yet. We’ve got a draft of how it will work. We had precedents of course with the boards but this is all new. At the moment we’re still trying to get a bit of an appreciation of just where our role stops and starts and what the catchments management authorities role is, because it’s still fairly new in terms of set up.

NSW4 characterises itself as ‘just starting out’ in relation to its management of natural resources. Nevertheless, in terms of natural resource management it is the most strongly engaged of the four NSW case study rural local governments. It is facilitating this direction by the appointment of two professionally qualified environmental officers and a high level of enthusiasm for the task ahead.

42

4.6 Conclusion Three key themes emerge from the NSW case studies presented in this chapter. The first concerns community engagement in natural resource management. Interview participants cited the lack of public interest and involvement in sustainability issues as a major constraint to local government action. This is not surprising, given the fact that public engagement ‘… has increasingly become one of the core principles by which sustainable development is defined’ (Macnaghten & Jacobs 1997, p. 6). However, at the same time there few innovative methods were being utilised by rural councils to heighten community engagement in natural resource management. Related to this, three of the case studies stated that community involvement in natural resource management is not necessary in a small shire as individuals have a greater opportunity to progress issues of concern with their elected members on a one-to-one-basis. This perception demonstrates a limited understanding of the educative and empowerment potential of community involvement in natural resource management (e.g., Gooch 2004). It also ignores the fact that power dynamics in rural shires may make it extremely difficult for some individuals to have their voices heard (Higgins 1997). A second theme in the NSW case studies data is that there is significant negativity amongst councillors and staff directed at what they consider to be the overly bureaucratic, top-down nature of natural resource management. As evidence of this bureaucracy they cite state government reporting documents, the number of government acts, reports and policies relating to natural resource management, the creation of new catchments management authorities, and the lack of financial resources being directed at local government for natural resource management. This view is held despite the fact that, in recent years, the NSW state government has made a concerted effort at a state level to simplify natural resource management planning and policy through the consolidation of documents and a streamlining of reporting processes. A final theme inherent in the case study data is that change is beginning to occur in the management of natural resource management by rural local governments. NSW1 clearly demonstrates that the fact that councillors are now talking about what action they can take in terms of ensuring a sustainable local environment, is a dramatic shift.

43

Chapter Five: Queensland Case Studies 5.1 Introduction While Queensland has two very large local government areas in Brisbane and the Gold Coast, the majority of the 124 state shires are located in rural and regional areas (see Figure 5.1) and have small populations of less than 20 000 (Local Government Association of Queensland 2001). Four of these shires are profiled in the case studies below. As with all the case studies, they were purposefully chosen to reflect diversity according to a range of criteria such as the size and population of the district, the nature of natural resource management problems being faced and the economic and industrial base of the shire. Two case studies in the south-west were selected and two along the central coast.

Figure 5.1: Queensland Local Government Areas

(Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services – modified) The role and responsibilities of local government in Queensland are articulated in the Local Government Act 1993. In their review of the legislative ability of local government to conserve native vegetation Cripps et al. (1999) are positive about the opportunities available in this Act to take a greater role in natural resource management. For example, Chapter Two of the Act gives local government a law making role ‘… for the good rule and government of its territory area’. This is on the basis that the laws are neither inconsistent with State law nor able to be made at a state-level.

44

Further, the Act also allows Queensland local governments the right to charge special rates for a service and to charge rates on a differential basis. Cripps et al (1999, p. 49) write that these represent opportunities for local governments in Queensland to ‘… lead by example’ as they may be able to develop local laws relevant to natural resource management, implement different rate schemes as incentives for natural resource management and introduce an environmental levy. Despite the authors’ enthusiasm for the potential to use both this and other Queensland legislation for local government management of natural resources, limited use of these powers is being made by the case studies investigated. Case study QLD3 has not yet invoked the legislation to facilitate their environmental agenda, but they are currently investigating the introduction of an environmental levy, as well as a conservation rebate to ratepayers. 5.2 Case Study QLD1 The first of the Queensland case studies focused on a local government area in the south-west of the state. In terms of the descriptions of inland Australia outlined by Burnley and Murphy (2003) it is typical in two key respects. First, the economic base is largely derived from cattle and grain industries and, second, in recent years the population has been both declining and ageing. It has a population of just over 1000, but is responsible for administering nearly 15 000 square kilometres with a Council staff of sixty-five. The staff are overseen by a CEO who was newly appointed two years ago, and who expresses a strong commitment to natural resource management. Participants concurred in citing the key environmental issues facing their shire as being weeds/plant management and pest/feral animal management. Seen to be also of importance are problems relating to roadside vegetation conservation, water quality and use, and waterways and wetlands management. At this stage QLD1 has no overall long-term strategic plan for natural resource management such as a Local Agenda 21 plan, but has developed more specifically planned responses to some of the above mentioned environmental concerns. These are particular concerns such as weed control, stock route management, and feral dogs. The capacity to address these particular issues has been assisted by the appointment of dedicated staff. This is at an approximate cost of nearly a quarter of a million a year that is met by the Council. Some support for capital expenditure to assist these staff has been provided by the Commonwealth. The participants blamed the very limited formal and long-term planning that QLD1 has undertaken in relation to natural resource management was blamed on a lack of human and financial resources. They had been ‘treading water’ the CEO explained, waiting for the appointment of an environmental officer. At the time of the interviews, the environmental officer had been in her position for twelve months. Unsurprisingly, she has had little opportunity to engage in any strategic natural resource management work in this short time, especially as she works across four shires and is responsible for a disparate range of environmental issues. These issues include managing sewerage effluent, undertaking water sampling, developing stock route plans, managing refuse tip and waste management, licensing, and monitoring bore water. In addition to these roles, the environmental officer also carries out duties associated with the more traditional role of Health Officer, such as reviewing food safety in local eateries. Despite her enthusiasm and expert knowledge, the capacity of the environmental officer to manage natural resource management strategically on behalf of QLD1 is likely to be limited by the potential demands of her multiple roles and responsibilities. The Mayor, CEO and councillors at QLD1 were full of praise for their EO. They explained that they had taken some time to fill the position, as it was difficult to attract a quality candidate to an isolated rural location, and especially to undertake such a large task. As well as having extensive formal qualifications in natural resource management, the environmental officer also has a breadth of work experience in the area. In terms of natural resource management, they believed that one of the ongoing challenges they would face would be locating and retaining skilled staff who could also assist in educating them about environmental management. Like many rural local governments QLD1 has experienced a shift in the governance arrangements in relation to natural resource management. This shift has occurred as Australian, state and territory governments have identified priority areas in relation to natural resource management and established

45

regional bodies to take responsibility for managing these issues at a regional level. While QLD 1 had formally established relationships with bordering councils to progress issues related to economic and community development, negativity was expressed about the establishment of such relationships for natural resource management. This negativity is despite the fact that regional structures for managing the environment exist and QLD 1 has representation on these bodies. The mayor and CEO expressed two key concerns to explain their lack of enthusiasm for natural resource management regional planning. The first was a belief that this was a top-down strategy that had been imposed rather than initiated by them. As the mayor commented, ‘…We’d love to work with them, but on our terms not on the basis of being dictated to by them.’ This was related to their perception that other tiers of government deemed them incapable of dealing with natural resource management. The second concern related to the significant funding being directed to regional bodies, which they considered to be the unnecessary formation of another level of bureaucracy. As the CEO stated:

There’re not on field. They’re just in an office environment doing policy development and that sort of thing so it’s a lot of money, and it’s not getting onto the ground whereas if local government was funded directly from the Commonwealth like the Roads to Recovery Scheme.

The focus on the financial costs of natural resource management is understandable given that the shire is under significant economic strain due to its aging and decreasing population, as well as the decline in the agricultural sector. Since the appointment of the EO the shire has received three grants from the state and federal governments for natural resource management projects. These grants have supported the purchase of capital goods (disposable bins, misting machine) and required matching funding from the council.

Two other interviewees were much more positive about the regional arrangements. These were the newly employed environmental officer and one of the councillors. For the environmental officer the regional connections have been extremely valuable for support, networking and the provision of natural resource management data. The councillor who represents QLD1 on the regional board was also highly enthusiastic about the regional organisation. She expressed frustration at what she saw as a ‘turf war’ over the governance of natural resource management and believed ‘… egos get in the way’. This long-term shire resident and elected member had first developed an interest in environmental issues through her involvement in a local Landcare group. Subsequently, she become a key driver for natural resource management within council – for example, advocating for the appointment of an EO, undertaking natural resource management training and attending environmental forums.

Since her appointment, the EO at QLD1 has worked at building a community of natural resource management stakeholders in the area. She has done this by attending Landcare meetings, addressing forums held by agricultural groups, fishing clubs and sporting bodies and speaking at the local schools. She was aware that currently there are no formal processes for such groups to be involved in the planning of natural resource management for the shire. This situation is despite the fact that the senior leadership of QLD1 describe their community consultation processes as ‘good’ and ‘ongoing’. This perspective derives from their notion that constituents can come and talk to council members or staff about environmental issues because they have an ‘open door policy’. The only public conflict surrounding natural resource management in the area that was identified by participants related to water allocations. According to the EO, this was not a reflection that the shire population did not care about the environment, but that they ‘… needed education on what natural resource management is and what issues we face’.

As an example of a rural local government in Queensland, QLD1 is illustrative of those that have a low level of engagement in natural resource management. Despite the employment of an EO with other shires, the Mayor and CEO questioned whether local government has any legislative requirement to be involved in natural resource management. They demonstrated a low level of knowledge of natural resource management policy and arrangements and expressed a high level of disregard for regional natural resource management institutions. That these two participants represent the shire leadership suggest further inhibition of a sustainability agenda in QLD1 despite the considerable efforts and energy of the EO and a councillor who champions the need for environmental management by local government.

46

5.3 Case Study QLD2 QLD2 borders QLD1 and shares many of its environmental problems, as well as the same environment officer. It also has a small population of just under 1000 people who rely heavily upon primary production including cattle, timber, sheep and grain. In contrast to the mayor and CEO in QLD1 the incumbent mayor and CEO in QLD2 have held their positions for periods of over thirty years. Both demonstrated a much lower level of engagement in issues relating to natural resource management compared to their counterparts in QLD1. This was an issue first raised by participants in QLD 1. These participants variously described their nearby shire as populated by ‘… a different mob’ who ‘… hope if they shut their eyes things will go away’ as well led by people from ‘… the old school’ who are ‘… a little bit different from other councils’. This reputation was challenged by QLD 2’s mayor and CEO who argued that there were simply no significant environmental problems facing the council, particularly none as significant as other social and economic problems. As the Mayor commented:

It’s not that we’re not interested in natural resource management, but in this shire it’s just not a burning issue. It’s not something that’s seen universally as the most major issue.

In the interviews, the mayor and CEO were provided with a list of potential environmental concerns and asked to nominate which were the priority areas. None of these was named as critical. The three issues of high concern to the Mayor and CEO were weeds/pest management and pest and feral animal management. This was in contrast to the perspective of the regional and local environmental officers who listed water quality, waterways and wetlands management, weeds/pest plant management, pest/feral animal management and land management and soil degradation as issues of very high priority. These other issues were rated as either a medium or low priority by the Mayor and CEO. According to a representative working for a regional natural resource management organisation, the fact that QLD2’s leadership equated environmental problems as pertaining largely to feral dogs, weeds and stock routes was not unusual. It was a view of natural resource management she saw replicated in many of the other eight shires with which she worked. As the previous case study reported, these were also labelled as critical by participants in QLD1. The natural resource management regional officer explained that she often found local government staff and representatives conflated addressing environmental issues with weeds, feral animals and stock routes.

Councils certainly have the issues that they’ve identified. For example, weeds and wild dog and those sorts of things come up quite often. These are the ones they’re dealing with on a day- to- day basis and are involved in. So, those sorts of issues are pretty easy to see and identify and address.

She explained that this traditional view of what constitutes an environmental problem is still prevalent amongst many councillors and council staff. Hence, ensuring what she labelled as ‘less mainstream’ problems on the agenda would require cultural change and training. Given the fact that the senior leadership of QLD2 consider there to be few environmental issues facing their shire it is perhaps not surprising to find that there are no formal natural resource management planning or consultation processes in place. The CEO explained:

We don’t really have any interest groups. Very rarely would there be any type of submission from a group. It’s more at an individual level. If someone wants something done we follow it up that way. Say, if there’s an outbreak of weeds on someone’s property they call us up and we deal with it. Because of the size of the shire we deal with things one on one not in a group way. We see rural landholders as individuals at different times depending on seasonal and industry needs.

This view is despite the presence of an Environmental Officer. This is the same officer who has responsibility for QLD1. The very different attitudes towards natural resource management held by the senior leadership in QLD1 and QLD2 informed the potential of the EO to undertake her work. She explained that while there was still ‘a lot of work to do at QLD1’ the support of the CEO and Mayor

47

meant she could begin to progress this work. There was, for example, an agreed need to develop a strategic planning framework for natural resource management in QLD1. This was not on the agenda at QLD2, she explained. Rather, in this shire there was still a need to educate councillors as to the need for natural resource management. She reflected.

The thinking is, ‘That’s not an issue. It will be alright. We don’t really need to look into that or we don’t have that problem in our shire. We haven’t had it in the past and we don’t have it now.’ That’s the attitude that you are dealing with.

The environmental officer was adamant, that in her experience, ‘… one of the key drivers for natural resource management in local government is if you’ve got a few key interested people’. Thus, the make-up of council and their interests was critical. While the EO received significant support from one of the QLD2 councillors, this person was a sole voice amongst many. This councillor is also the only female on an all male council and has had a much shorter period as an elected member than her male counterparts. In this context, a sole champion for natural resource management is insufficient. Rather, a core group within council is required, or the champions must have a high level of power and status. Change in rural local government’s management of natural resource management in this case was instead dependent, the environmental officer contended, on ‘… people moving on and new people being elected and employed.’ The QLD2 councillor interested in natural resource management noted that there was some ambiguity in the attitudes of her fellow councillors towards regional environmental arrangements. She was aware of the criticism directed at the regional bodies (on which she was a representative). This criticism is exemplified in the following statement from the QLD2 CEO:

Local government is hands-on. The problem is when you’ve got an organisation controlled by bureaucrats the money gets used up by the middle man. It doesn’t get on the ground. If it went straight to local government you’d get more bang for your buck. We could hit the ground running.

Nevertheless, at the same time as suggesting that local government was better placed to manage natural resources than regional organisations, councillors argued that it would not be appropriate for them to be given responsibility for natural resource management when they had other issues with which to contend and when they were not sufficiently resourced or skilled.

We’ve had so many responsibilities devolved to us and we just can’t deal with everything. We don’t have the money for a start or the time. But there’s also the problem that we need to be experts in all these areas and we just can’t be.

The mayor and CEO had significant criticism for the regional arrangements for natural resource management. Their perception was that local government had been marginalised in the process of regionalising natural resource management arrangements. They acknowledged that there had been consultation in establishing the catchments management authority, but considered that ‘… this was back to front. They came to us in the consultation part of it. It should have been local government going to them’. Responses from the environmental officer, the female councillor and regional natural resource management staff contradicted the claims that the regional natural resource management organisations were not inclusive of local government. There is, for example, a dedicated full-time liaison officer working between QLD2 (and seven other local governments) and the catchment management authority. She makes regular visits to individual shires, attends council meetings, briefs individual mayors and CEOs and maintains contact with local Landcare officers. She has also established a local government reference group made up of representatives from councils within the catchment. Given this level of interaction, it is curious that the mayor and CEO of QLD2 remain critical of the lack of inclusion afforded to them in regional natural resource management. One regional natural resource management officer stated that this anomaly was due to QLD2’s concern that regional infrastructure positioned them as a ‘… stakeholder rather than manager of natural resource management when they were more used to being in the position of management’.

48

The mayor and CEO at QLD2 expressed little interest in environmental management. They also had little regard for regional natural resource management arrangements. They maintained that natural resource management is not a priority of the broader community. As with QLD1, this case indicates that the presence of the environmental officer and another supportive councillor is not sufficient to foster a significant shift in the natural resource management agenda of QLD2 given that there is only qualified support from the CEO and mayor. In terms of engagement in natural resource management the following third Queensland case study provides a clear contrast. 5.4 Case Study QLD3 QLD3 is located on the central Queensland coast. It covers an area of 2644 sq km and incorporates a population of 16 000 that continues to grow. A number of tropical islands are part of the shire’s responsibility. These islands contribute to the area’s thriving tourist industry, which caters for just under a million visitors annually. Sugar cane and grazing are also vital to the economic base of the shire. At the local level, eight councillors including a mayor oversee governance. They are assisted in this task by a staff of 160. The staff are organised into three divisions, one of which is the Environment and Health division. Each division has a manager who reports to the CEO. The Manager of Environment and Health at QLD3 has been in the position less than two years. He comes to the area with a breadth and depth of experience working in environmental management in the local government sector. Two of his appointments were in shires, which as he explained share some key similarities with QLD3:

There’s a high tourist component, strong agricultural component, there’s residential growth. There’s still a relatively small population base, but that is changing. Also, there’s still a lot of foreshore land that’s undeveloped. There’s a lot of pressure on council from developers but also from residents, farmers and tourist operators. It’s also the case that this area has iconic environmental status. You mention the name of the shire and people think – beautiful. They think of the environment and so people tend to get quite protective. So while there’s a lot of local influence there’s also a lot of external influence.

The Environmental and Health Manager’s past experience in shire’s facing similar pressure had alerted him to the importance of environmental planning. He continued, ‘… You can’t deal with all of this unless you’ve got good frameworks and structures established. You need to do a lot of strategic work otherwise it’s all reactionary’. To this end, the council has begun to develop some sophisticated planning documents in relation to the environment. In the first instance, the council’s environmental goals are articulated in a five year corporate plan. While the publication is necessarily broad rather than specific, importantly, it establishes that one of the four key areas for council attention is the environment. Further to this, the more specific environmental objectives and performance measures are articulated in the council’s annual operational plan. The incorporation of the environmental goals into this document was a new initiative of the Manager of Environment and Health. He was keen to emphasise that environmental goals had been on the council’s agenda prior to his appointment. Nevertheless, it was the case that ‘… the word environment was there, but there was no tangible evidence of how the council was dealing with environmental issues’. The council is now adding to this planning with the development of a more detailed and strategic Local Catchment Management Plan. The use of the term ‘catchment management’ as opposed to ‘environment’ was a political decision made by council staff and elected members. There were three reasons for this. The first is that there is an established and well respected Local Catchment Management Authority group in the area, which has had significant success in attracting funds and in delivering tangible on the ground outcomes. The Council has a strong connection with the group which has been formalised through a Memorandum of Understanding. The CEO explained that this document was useful to demonstrate that ‘… the Council has an ongoing commitment …’ to the

49

environment and the work of the Authority. QLD3 provides the catchment management authority with venues for meetings, as well as assists with administrative support and submission writing. The Council also benefited from its close relationship with the catchment management authority in two respects: First, the catchment management authority’s coordinator’s expertise in environmental science is able to be called upon by the council. This was critical, the CEO stated, as the council lacked skills in this regard. The second benefit for the Council of their close collaborative arrangement with the local CMA was that the CMA provided a readily available mechanism for environmental consultation. The second reasons why QLD3 has adopted the term ‘catchment management’ rather than natural resource management, or environmental management, is that catchment management is considered to be the most significant environmental issue in the district. The council’s environmental staff explained that a range of other major environmental concerns in the area such as soil degradation, weed management and wetlands management, could come under the banner of catchment management. The Manager of Environment and Health explained the final reason for the choice of nomenclature:

One of the problems with using the term ‘environment’ as opposed to say ‘catchment management’ is that the word ‘environment’ can be a really emotive term. It’s also a broad term and could be seen as a vague term. I think people here feel more comfortable with the term ‘catchment management’. It has a more applied feel about it. So we’ve made the conscious decision to use that to progress our environmental goals.

The CEO explained that this was the ‘… softly, softly approach to building capacity in the shire’. Participants claimed that this approach was necessary to avoid alienating constituents. The Manager for Environment and Health is assisted in his environmental work by two officers. One is a part-time officer funded through Commonwealth funds to act as a Land for Wildlife Programme Officer6. The second officer is full-time and has the title Manager of Natural Resources. This position, fully funded by the council, had only been created the previous year. The focus of this role is on operational issues relating to the environment such as liaising with the Catchment Management Authority, community groups and government bodies, assisting with at the nursery the council runs in conjunction with the local catchment management authority, and dealing with individual constituents’ environmental concerns. The Manager for Natural Resources explained that he had a high level of support for his role from the Council, which provided funding for him to attend training and conferences to further his own knowledge and to develop networks to assist him with his work. He saw this support as critical as he returned to council able to resource and inform other council staff, as well as elected members. As previously stated, QLD3 is a shire in which a range of disparate interests need to be managed. There are also some well-organised stakeholder groups in the area such as two very active and politically well connected Chambers of Commerce, two strong district branches of major agri-political groups and a vocal tourist sector. However, council staff interviewed did not consider this activity to be problematic. Instead, the CEO commented:

We have a lot of articulate, talented people in the area. There’s a real window of opportunity in that. Having people who want to be involved and do things. And people who are highly capable.

6 The Land for Wildlife Program originated in Victoria in 1981. Today the program is operating in almost every state and around 6,500 properties around the country. With the assistance of funding from the National Heritage Trust, the program was introduced to south east Queensland in 1998 and today over 800 landholders have registered. In 2000 with NHT funding the program the program was expanded into regional Queensland.

50

QLD3 involves stakeholders in four main ways in environmental management. The first is through formal committees. Currently, there are ten committees including ones for water quality, vegetation, the community nursery and pest management. The second method to involve the community in environmental management in QLD3 is through shire-wide consultation. For example, biennial forums are held to determine council priorities. Draft council documents relating to the environment are also posted on the council’s website along with feedback forms. However, this more broad-scale consultation was not favoured by council staff. Moreover, they realised that despite utilising these methods of engagement they still received criticism from the community about a lack of consultation. The Natural Resource Manager reflected on this paradox:

It became apparent that they didn’t so much want to be consulted in the traditional way of sending the document out to them and giving them two weeks or a month to respond. They wanted to get their hands dirty and be actively involved.

This broad type of consultation is very difficult to do with the whole shire given limited resources. Hence, a third consultation approach has been adopted by QLD3’s environmental staff, which involves consultation on specific issues with a targeted shire audience. This consultation process involves inviting individual constituents to a forum to discuss and debate a particular issue. The fourth form of consultation pursued in QLD3 is an annual shire environmental forum. The first of these was held in 2004, with a second planned for late in 2005. The previous forum involved bringing together the members of the ten local environment committees as well as other state, regional and local stakeholders. Committees reported on their projects as well as the issues they are currently confronting before the wider group of participants that, in turn, were asked to prioritise the issues raised. Despite some early reluctance from some councillors noted by the Natural Resource Manager, the forum had been a major success:

I think some of them were a bit concerned to start with. They were wondering what we were trying to do and felt a bit threatened. There was concern about people stepping on someone else’s turf and fears that if you’re getting all these people together that might cause problems for us, but they came along and it was really positive.

In raising this issue, the officer expressed the view that promoting environmental management amongst council staff and councillors was as important as outside promotion. This internal promotion need exists despite the fact that three of the eight councillors at QLD3 are actively engaged in natural resource management issues. The Natural Resource Manager stated:

Trying to sell the issues internally is still a challenge. There are still some old ideas here in the council. This is the way we’ve been doing things for a long time and we’re not going to change. They don’t see the environment as a major issue so you have to sell it to them.

In addition to the issue of internal resistance to environmental management, two other barriers to local environmental management by rural local governments were raised. The first was the nature of the political cycles in local government, which the participants believed did not allow sufficient time to embed strategic natural resource management frameworks. The second barrier raised was the cost of natural resource management. Because of their concern with funding, QLD3 has begun to examine options to support their own natural resource management program through the implementation of an environmental levy. The CEO stated that the issue had been ‘seriously considered’ in the previous budget, and would be implemented, ‘… if not the next budget, then the one after that’. QLD3 had seen other local governments, particularly urban and larger shires, adopt this strategic approach. The highly engaged natural resource management approach of QLD3 is useful for comparative analysis with the other Queensland case study approaches. The contrasting approaches indicate the necessity to highlight the three key factors identified to facilitate this rural local government’s engagement in natural resource management:

51

1. There is support from a significant pool of council staff and councillors. Significantly, this support comes from the most senior levels in terms of the Mayor and CEO.

2. The council has devoted resources to natural resource management and utilised these resources to employ experienced and qualified staff who can work as change agents and educators.

3. These natural resource management staff have utilised the capacity of the community. It is significant that they began developing a natural resource management agenda for council around pre-existing infrastructure, rather than establishing new bodies. This approach has proved to be a highly successful strategy. While using this pre-existing infrastructure as a base, the council staff and elected members have additionally adopted new methodologies to further engage the community in natural resource management. The success of these methods has contributed to increased commitment and interest in natural resource management. 5.5 Case Study QLD4 The final Queensland case study is also located on the central coast. It has a population of 13 000 and covers an area of 21 000 sq km. The most significant environmental concern raised by all participants is the lack of water in the district. Economic concerns drive the high level of interest and attention directed at this water issue. As council documents report, ‘… the shire is missing out on many opportunities for new jobs and economic activity, because we do not have sufficient supplies of reliable water for industry use’. One potential option being explored to address the lack of water is utilising water from a river supply north of the shire. As a commissioned consultancy report found, this strategy may lead to a range of additional environmental problems related to flora and fauna, the Great Barrier Reef, groundwater and surface water, and visual pollution. Despite being located on the Queensland coast and boasting pristine beaches, the shire has never attracted the strong tourist market that has defined its neighbour QLD3. In part, this may have been due to a lack of attention given to marketing the area as a tourist destination as the area traditionally relied upon horticulture, commercial fishing, railways, mining and meat works. However, throughout the 1980s and 1990s these industries either ceased, or were severely curtailed. The closure of the one of the shire’s largest employees resulted in a loss of over two hundred and fifty jobs. The local economy was further affected when a mine in one of the shire’s towns closed and the district railway was downgraded. Today, the shire carries a significant debt as well as a declining and aging population. Therefore, it is not surprising that discussions about environmental management with participants from QLD4 were framed by the district’s financial problems and the need for state and federal governments to underwrite the financial cost of managing natural resources at the local level. Even the most recent council annual report warned that ‘… without state government intervention, we will not be able to meet our EPA requirement of no ocean outfall from our sewerage plant by 2008’. Consequently, the economic problems of the shire were seen as critical to the limited environmental agenda pursued by the council. This view was not only about the lack of financial resources. Participants also believed that the monetary troubles of the district meant a focus on the environment was not necessarily appropriate. From this perspective, environmental management was viewed as something that should be addressed only when the shire was economically strong.

It’s not that the environment isn’t a concern, but that we’ve had other more pressing matters. Employment has been the biggest. Just getting people jobs so that some would stay and that they would be able to live. The town was decimated economically. We had things taken away from us. Just wiped off. That’s why most of council’s energy has gone into getting an economic strategy together and trying to get some investment happening and development.

The paradox at the heart of this argument is that participants positioned their environment as being the key to a more stable economic future. For example, council web-sites and corporate plans highlight the ‘unique natural environment’ of the shire and the need for it to be promoted to a tourist market. Hence, the notion that environmental management would be dealt with after the economic development issues were fully addressed dominated interviews. This prevalent economic concern is

52

also evident in the fact that the shire has a large and high profile economic development advisory group of leading local stakeholders, but no equivalent environmental community consultation process. In recent years, QLD4 has been successful in gaining state and federal government grants to assist with specific natural resource management projects. For example, two grants of $10 000 had been made through the NHT’s Coastcare program to fund a lagoon interpretive centre, provide for tree-planting, rehabilitate sand dunes, and upgrade walking tracks. Nevertheless, there was a large degree of cynicism as to the intentions of these other spheres of government. More particularly, participants argued that when the funding that was now being directed at regional natural resource management organisations ceased, local government would be left with the responsibility of to resource all environmental programs.

What will happen when they run out of funding? We’ll be asked to take up the slack. There’s money at the moment through NHT. And some may come this way, but it’s only initial funding. Then it’ll be local government’s done it for awhile, it’s all yours.

In this case study interviews there was a sense that there was an implicit danger in a local government being too involved in natural resource management lest it be left to manage and resource the environment without any assistance from the state or federal governments. While there is a Director of Environment and Health at QLD4, there is no employed staff dedicated to natural resource management as is the case with QLD3. Further, the responsibilities of the Director are narrowly focused on health inspections, licensing, supervision of garbage collection and public conveniences, parks and reserves, pest control, animal control and recycling. Participants struggled to provide examples of community engagement in relation to natural resource management. The general view was that this was the case simply because there is not a lot of need for consultation. As one councillor stated:

There’s one or two hot heads but most people are reasonably focused on progress. There’s not really been much conflict here. It’s just not like that. Maybe people are a bit more laid back, and also really concerned with the place getting back on track.

Like other rural shires, QLD4 had received some financial assistance from the state and federal governments. Some of this had been utilised to appoint staff on short-term contracts. Again, a lack of shire resources was cited as the reason for not continuing these appointments. Therefore, interviewees were critical of the short-term nature of much federal and state government natural resource management funding. The mayor stated, ‘… We get funding for a year or two or worse, money for six to twelve months and we need to have something secured for at least 10 years.’ Apart from a lack of financial resources and other more pressing issues, participants in QLD4 raised an additional barrier that limits their engagement in environmental management. This is a lack of expertise and knowledge. Discussions with the Director of Environment and Health, who also did not have formal qualifications in natural resource management, highlighted this. She explained that environmental management was ‘… a specialist field and we don’t have that specialist knowledge’. This knowledge was seen as distinct from other practical types of knowledge that might be needed by council staff and elected members, which could be gained through life experience (e.g., knowledge of financial management, communication, community development). The Director of Environment and Health suggested that the problem of a lack of expertise in natural resource management at the local government level was aggravated in rural areas as there is often a difficulty to attract competent staff to non-metropolitan locations. She also believed that there was less likelihood that expertise would be available in a rural community than an urban community. Participants argued that another issue adding to the problem of a lack of expertise in natural resource management was that the institutional arrangements, reporting requirements and relevant legislation are overly complex. As one councillor stated, ‘The problem is that there’s a plethora or organisations working on natural resource

53

management preparing documents that are so complicated. They also change all the time, so even if you know what you’re doing one moment this won’t necessarily last.’ In some instances, QLD4 has managed the challenge of limited natural resource management expertise and a challenging and changing legislative and policy environment by employing consultants to prepare specific environmental reports, or studies. However, this management approach is costly. Thus, more recently, to cut the costs of a consultant study of regional waste management options QLD4 joined with a neighbouring shire. In summary, in relation to natural resource management QLD4’s long period of economic hardship has coloured the views of council staff and elected members. Hence, natural resource management is viewed as a luxury goal that cannot be dealt with at this stage. Further, like participants in the earlier Queensland case studies, QLD4 interviewees expressed a high-level of suspicion that, in the near future, the state and federal governments would fully devolve natural resource management to local government. Therefore, engagement in natural resource management would give license to this supposed eventuality. These perceptions act as powerful barriers to the development of a natural resource management agenda in QLD4. 5.6 Conclusion Kellow and Niemeyer (1999) have documented the fact that, historically, Queensland environmental policy was scant and fragmented, and that the state was late in developing any comprehensive and coordinated approach to natural resource management. This situation is reflected in three of the four case studies reported in this chapter that demonstrate a limited engagement in natural resource management. These case studies reveal that a champion for natural resource management is not sufficient to progress an environmental agenda in natural resource management. Other gatekeepers, such as an unsupportive CEO or Mayor, may negate the influence of a champion. They may use what is claimed to be a lack of community interest in natural resource management as a means to dismiss any council responsibility for environmental issues. A lack of involvement with, and suspicion of, regional institutions devoted to natural resource management means that there is little opportunity for attitude change in these disengaged council staff and representatives. The QLD3 approach is in stark contrast to the other three. It showed that employing a manager experienced in environmental planning, developing a natural resource management agenda for council around existing infrastructure, using techniques to engage the community resulted in increased commitment to and interest in natural resource management.

54

Chapter Six: Western Australian Case Studies

6.1 Introduction The peak government agency for natural resource management in Western Australia is the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The Environmental Protection Authority is a statutory authority, which came into existence in 1972, and now operates under the Environmental Protection Act 1986. While there are a range of policies and legislation residing in different government departments and jurisdictions across Western Australia, the Environmental Protection Authority is the overarching environmental and natural resource management agency. Generally, government departments refer environmental matters, legislation and policies to the Environmental Protection Authority and through it, to the Minister for the Environment. The Environmental Protection Amendment Bill 2002 sets out the functions of the Environmental Protection Authority, which include the conduct of environmental impact assessments, the prevention of pollution and environmental harm, the preparation of environmental protection policies, broad dissemination of information regarding environmental protection, and the provision of advice to the Minister on environmental matters. When preparing policies, local government is a key stakeholder, although it does not have any particular responsibilities to the Environmental Protection Authority, nor is there any onus on the Environmental Protection Authority to adopt the recommendations provided to it by local government. In 2004, a new government department was created that amalgamated a number of government environmental departments and agencies (including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Waters and Rivers Commission and the Keep Australia Beautiful Council), to become the Department of Environment. The new agency’s key roles are to integrate environmental protection and natural resource management, assess and allocate natural resources on behalf of the State, and to ensure sustainable use of resources for responsible development. This Department also provides services to the Environmental Protection Authority. The Western Australian Department of Local Government and Regional Development administers the legislation, Local Government Act (and Regulations) 1995 which governs the functions and practices of local government in Western Australia. The 1995 Act significantly elevated local government natural resource management responsibilities from the ‘roads, rates and rubbish’ tradition to a more integrated and proactive environmental organisation. The Department provides advice and support to local government elected members and officers on the operation of the Local Government Act (and Regulations) 1995. However, it is generally agreed that the Department of Local Government and Regional Development adopts a regulatory role. In 2001, the Premier formed the State Local Government Council with the aim to improve the relationships between state and local government. The council membership includes the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association and the president of the Local Government Managers’ Association and they work with the Premier and Ministers to facilitate a better understanding about the work of local government and the agencies within government working with local government. Sustainability has been a core issue for the Council, but generally natural resource management is not specifically addressed. The Western Australian Local Government Association is the peak local government organisation in Western Australia. Where possible it facilitates local government efforts for natural resource management and provides information and policy direction. It coordinates local government policy input into state and Commonwealth sustainability and environmental legislation, policies and strategies and is a conduit of information between the three tiers of government. The four local government case study areas chosen for this project were in the southern half of the State (see Figure 5.1), as Wild River’s study (2004) areas were in the northern half.

55

Figure 6.1: Local Government Areas in Southern Western Australia

(Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services – modified) Two case studies, (WA1 and WA2), are located in the Central Wheatbelt and the local industry is generally limited to broad acre agricultural production. Case study areas WA1 and WA2 are part of the Avon River Basin and the Avon Catchment Council (ACC) (see Figure 5.2). The Avon Catchment Council is a formal regional partnership of community, industry and governments to provide leadership and direction for natural resource management within the Avon River Basin. It provides funding for co-ordinated, on-the-ground projects within the region. The Avon Natural Resource Management Strategy provides a strategic context for investment in the natural resources and infrastructure of the Avon River Basin. The strategy focuses on regional initiatives delivered at a regional scale. The Avon River Basin is approximately 120 000 square kilometres (12,071,326 hectares). It extends to the East to Southern Cross, North to Dalwallinu, West to Northam and South to Pingrup. The Avon River Basin has 36 local government shires, 726 sub-catchments and 40 land conservation groups located within it (Swan Avon Integrated Catchment Council 2004). Case study 1 is located at the top of the catchment area, while case study 2 is towards the bottom of the catchment. Priority natural resource management issues in both of these case study areas are:

• salinity and water logging • funding and government support of natural resource management issues • community awareness and participation • soil erosion, structure and nutrient decline • sustainable land and resource use.

56

Figure 6.2: The Avon River Basin

(Source: Australian Local Government Association 2003) Case study areas WA3 and WA4 are not geographically related at all although both are local government areas, which are experiencing considerable coastal re-development pressures. WA3 is north of Perth while WA4 is south of Perth. The agricultural industry has historically underpinned the local economy in both areas for more than 150 years. In both case study areas WA3 and WA4, the intensification of agriculture, particularly horticultural production, and in the last twenty years with wine production also becoming a natural resource management issue. The priority natural resource management issues in both of these case study areas are:

• coastal management • nutrient management and the protection of ground water supplies • weed management • funding and government support of natural resource management issues • community shared responsibility • sustainable land and resource use.

6.2 Western Australian Case Study WA1 WA1 has a population of considerably less than one thousand people who are scattered over an area of more than 10 000 square kilometres. Broad acre agriculture is the only local industry and there are two small settlements in the Shire. There are seven elected councillors and 30 employed staff. Strategic natural resource management has been recognised by the council employees and the broader

57

community as very important for the future of the agricultural industry in the region. Consequently, the local government authority has been actively involved in natural resource management for more than 20 years. The local Landcare conservation district committee (LCDC) was one of the first gazetted in Western Australia, in 1984. In 1999, the Shire formed a Community Landcare Committee to specifically work with the local community to manage natural resources. This became the Natural Resource Management Committee in 2003 and consists of councillors, Shire representatives, LCDC members and community members. This committee meets quarterly. The identified natural resource management issues are salinity, drainage, acidification and weed control. At the next level of governance, the Shire is an energetic member of a voluntary regional organisation of councils (VROC). The VROC is a group of neighbouring councils, which voluntarily come together on a regional basis and co-operate on particular projects and problems, utilising a range of skills, resources, experiences and networks from across the member councils. Co-ordinating the natural resource management efforts between councils is logical because, quite simply, environmental problems and issues are not bound by contrived boundaries. There has been strong recognition from the council that the issues are regional and, therefore, a regional perspective is likely to be more effective and the sharing and co-ordination of scare resources more efficient. This VROC is an active group of seven local government authorities with a specific charter focusing on regional development. The CEO of WA1 is the current Chair and WA1 contributes significant in-kind support to VROC. The group is dedicated to the development of a regional strategic planning process to enable a more holistic approach to regional natural resource issues and to allow resource sharing within the seven shires. At a local level, this Shire has dedicated significant resources to providing the community with consistent natural resource management service and information. The Natural Resource Management Committee initiated the local Environmental Protection Plan Stages 1 and 2. The process included the identification of key focus areas, the formulation of goals for these areas and then actions to achieve these goals. Asset identification has taken place across the Shire, using the asset guidelines established in the Avon Catchment Council Regional Strategy. These assets include:

• water assets • biodiversity assets • infrastructure assets • land assets.

The assets in each class have been given an asset value between high to low. The potential threats of each asset has also been assessed and given a threat score. The feasibility of managing and maintaining each asset has been determined. This identification process enabled the prioritisation of management of the assets within the Shire and the determination of those that are more valuable to the community, the region, the state and the nation. The Environmental Protection Plan goals and actions were developed from the assets identification and prioritisation process. Stage 2 involves the development of catchment plans. Each catchment in the Shire will be assessed individually and a plan for each property developed in consultation with landholders. At the same time, an audit of previous activity in each catchment will be recorded. Future environmental protection activities will be planned in consultation according to the goals and strategies of the Environmental Protection Plan. Strategically, the Plan informs a variety of Shire programs, budgets and corporate documents as well as all future planning for the Shire. It has been developed in line with the goals and target areas of the Avon Catchment Council Regional Strategy, the VROC members and the State Salinity Investment Framework. Importantly, the local strategies develop the local capacity for the larger projects being implemented at the regional level. Developing an Environmental Protection Plan of this complexity and magnitude requires a dedication of significant resources and local support. To that end, this Shire has employed a full-time Landcare Technical Officer entirely from its recurrent funds. It did not seek funding for this position from the Avon Catchment Council or NHT. Consequently, the Council has been assured of environmental

58

policy and planning consistency. It is evident from the interviews with both Council staff and Shire constituents that the role of the Landcare Technical Officer is highly valued for the future viability of the area and region. The CEO has also been instrumental in the promotion of natural resource management issues by identifying the environment as core business for the Shire. He has developed sophisticated scientific knowledge regarding soil types and structures, hydrology and engineering. He demonstrates real engagement with the issues and various stakeholders both within the region, but also at government and non-government organisation levels. He has offered in-kind support to a range of environmental investigative projects. These have included university-based research projects, a World Wildlife Fund Woodland Watch Project, Worldwide Fund for Nature after the area was identified as one of the largest areas of biodiversity in the State. He also initiated a youth council, which mirrors the full Council, but whose agenda focuses on a sustainable future for the Shire. It has been noted that environmental issues are consistently raised in this forum. With the support of the Shire, local school and the local newspaper, youth interest in natural resource management has significantly increased. This has subsequently translated to being physically active in Shire environmental initiatives. It was acknowledged by the council staff that a commitment to environmental issues has not been a universally popular agenda, because of a diversity of views regarding possible solutions to waterlogging and saline problems. However, there was consensus in the interviews that after a full-time Landcare Technical Officer was appointed and more consistent communication and consultation strategies adopted that there has been less local antipathy to the environmental agenda and greater commitment to discuss environmental issues. Building trust among the stakeholders and demonstrating a willingness to work along side them rather than lecturing at them has been an important goal. Since he was appointed four years ago, the Landcare Technical Officer has worked hard to be an active member in a variety of local organisations and community projects outside those associated directly with his job. The CEO and the community have appreciated the effort and his clear commitment to the job and the Shire. All agree that he has developed rapport and enhanced the take-up of natural resource management strategies. This shift is reflected in the following statement.

… now the new elected members have come on, they’re more informed about some of the issues; they’re very much in favour of what we’re pursuing.

6.3 Western Australian Case Study WA2 WA2 is in the same catchment as WA1, but is a considerably smaller local government area. It is more densely populated with a population of approximately 1200 people in an area of 2,000 square kilometres. Broad acre agriculture is the only local industry and there is one small town in the Shire. There are 11 elected council members and 27 employed staff. There was general agreement by the interviewees (council employees and councillors) that the key natural resource management issues in this Shire are salinity, drainage, weed and feral animal control. Environmental issues were enthusiastically embraced by LCDC groups in the 1990s and local projects had varying degrees of success as more and more landholders understood the environmental costs of soil and water degradation. Throughout the region, small groups worked together under the fairly loose LCDC funding arrangements. However, it was noted that upper catchment LCDC groups were pursuing initiatives with limited regard for landholders further down the catchment. Being in a lower catchment area, the CEO of this Shire was keen to adopt a co-ordinated ‘whole-of-catchment’ approach to environmental strategies. This approach has been achieved to a large degree through the regional catchment council, but it was also recognised by the Shire CEO, the council and the broader community shire involvement that dedicated natural resource management expertise was required at the local council level to ensure local ownership and a co-ordinated approach. Consequently, a community land care co-ordinator role, whose local government salary component is supplemented by several funding programs including the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Commonwealth NHT funds. This position now also contracts part of the working week to the Avon Catchment Council, which provides the broader regional perspective.

59

This council does not have a designated environmental policy, but endeavours to integrate environmental and natural resource management principles into all Shire policies. According to the CEO, the shire president and the community land care co-ordinator, the overall aim of the community land care co-ordinator is to monitor local natural resource management activities, preserve remnant vegetation and promote more sustainable farming practices and systems. This integrative approach is encouraged through Department of Agriculture field days and industry information days, however it was admitted in the interviews that the size of the local government area and the diversity of the issues make it difficult to achieve more than the communication and educative role. The opportunity to implement rehabilitation programs are limited by a lack of resources. Every five years, the local community is brought together by the Shire and community land care co-ordinator to discuss the strategic direction of the council and formulate a local action plan to operate as a framework for Shire activities. A range of community topics are discussed, including environmental issues and sustainable farming practices in the Shire. These are usually well-attended by a cross-section of the local community and supported by regular communication bulletins through the Landcare groups, the shire mail outs and the local newspaper. A significant regional issue that has particular impact in this local government area is drainage of saline areas. There is a group of farmers from throughout the Avon Basin who are consistently losing productive land to salt encroachment. They have formed the Western Australia Channel Management Group with the idea of channelling excess saline water through the ancient river systems to the Avon River and subsequently, to the sea. So as to take advantage of the natural topography, some proposed channels are required to flow through land owned by landholders who do not support the proposed drains. These ideas have caused considerable controversy within and across communities, particularly as there has been limited, if any, direction from the State or Commonwealth governments, or other environmental authorities. The Channel Management Group has made depositions to politicians and government agencies, but has not spoken or discussed the issues with the various local government authorities. From a WA2 local government perspective, it is a ‘watching brief’, but councillors and shire employees are actively encouraging discussion and debate in open forums to preserve community relations and broad social interaction. WA2 is not part of a voluntary regional organisation of councils although it does collaborate with neighbouring councils on a needs basis, depending upon the issue, but there is not a co-ordinated VROC natural resource committee. Overall in WA2, natural resource management by the local government is in monitoring mode. There are limited funds for expanding the position of the community land care co-ordinator and there is some uncertainty for the future of the position due to State and Federal elections and restructuring of some natural resource management programs. However, the community land care co-ordinator and the CEO of the Shire states that generally, the local community is supportive of the work undertaken by the council and there is limited diversity in community expectations.

60

6.4 Western Australian Case Study WA3 WA3 is 3,300 square kilometres with a population of 4,400 people. The Shire employs 50 full-time equivalent staff and has 10 elected councillors. WA3 is located on the perimeter of the Perth Metropolitan Area and has traditionally been a highly productive rural community, although the 80 km western Shire boundary is the Indian Ocean and fishing has also been an important local industry. More particularly, the rock lobster industry is a principal employer for at least half of each year. Small seaside communities have existed for more than 150 years and many of these were informal squatter shacks until the early 1990s. Since then, the State government has outlawed casual residences and the four designated coastal communities in the Shire have experienced above average population growth in comparison to the State average. This is simultaneous to a national trend for sea change and coastal second homes (Selwood & Tonts 2004). The Shire has diverse horticultural and agricultural sectors including viticulture, nurseries, fruit and vegetable production, plantation timber, pigs, beef, poultry, wool and sheep. It has been estimated that 61 per cent of the Shires’ gross value of agricultural production is generated from horticulture and yet it utilises only 1.02 per cent of the total land area in the Shire. While tourism is not a major contributor to the local economy, it is still important to the Shire and achieving a balance between environmental management and there is recognition that the pursuit of economic development initiatives requires a careful balancing of priorities. The Shire’s proximity to Perth and improved transport and road networks have increased the threat of encroachment by nearby suburban communities over the last decade. Some residents of the Shire now commute between the rural location and the city for work. Furthermore, with the expansion of the Perth Metropolitan Area, there has been relocation of intensive agricultural industries to this area to accommodate metropolitan urban growth. The intensification of land use in the local government area has promoted both the State government and the Shire to undertake comprehensive strategic planning to ensure careful management of the natural resources. The two most contentious natural resource management issues in the Shire were nominated to be groundwater management and coastal area conservation and management. While coastal management around the designated townsites is being managed, the coastal areas between the townsites are not. The council is consistently concerned about unlawful access by four wheel drive vehicles, which cause vegetation desiccation and wind blown erosion. Sand dunes are subsequently damaged with adverse impacts on bona fide agricultural land. Illegal camping in coastal dunes also has adverse environmental impacts with the additional threat of bushfires in the summer. In the early 1990s, the Shire developed the Local Rural Strategy, the purpose of which was to identify and respond to strategic land use issues throughout the Shire. A crucial focus of the Strategy was the management of groundwater and its ability to be utilised to sustain viable irrigated horticulture and other commercial ventures. The groundwater resource is rapidly reaching its maximum resource allocation potential and State government agencies have indicated the need to introduce a key stakeholder committee to oversee the management and allocation of what is a precious and finite resource. Apart from a Shire Development Strategy, which outlines key objectives for encouraging sustainable development in the Shire, there has not been a detailed plan formulated for the attainment of these objectives. Although environmental issues have been identified as important for the Shire by paid staff and elected council members, the Shire does not have an environmental officer. It has a planning officer and also uses a planning consultant, neither of whom have specific environmental training. The CEO does not have specific natural resource management knowledge, but when interviewed for this research, indicated that he has considerable input to environmental decisions in the Shire. Generally, natural resource management decisions are referred to a councillor who does not have formal environmental management qualifications, but has a particular interest in environmental matters and this person’s advice is sought on a variety of natural resource management issues. This local government councillor also has a position on the regional catchment council.

61

The catchment council has recently finalised its NHT/NAP regional strategy and investment plan and the local shires are key stakeholders in these plans. From this, WA3 has assessed how this broader plan impacts at the shire level and has developed plans in response to it. Overall, it would appear that this local government area tends be reactive in environmental issues rather than proactive. During interviews, consistent concerns were raised by councillors and paid employees that there are environmental demands placed on the Shire by developers, farmers and other landholders as well as a range of government agencies, but due to limited funds and a small staff, the Council is not able to satisfy all the environmental planning demands placed on it. There is ongoing friction between State government agencies such as the Department of Environment and Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and the shire as well as land holders, who have a variety of land uses including land development, horticulture and agriculture. The Shire consistently feels that regulations and guidelines are put in place, which they do not have the resources to monitor or manage. For example, a condition of property sub-division is a foreshore management plan, which each of the relevant government agencies must pass prior to development, but the onus for implementation of the plan is placed on the council with no additional funding or expertise to support the implementation. This complaint triggers a number of contentious issues. If the state government was to implement more prescriptive guidelines or take over the role of monitoring, there would undoubtedly be complaints that local government planning prerogatives were being usurped. Governments at state and federal levels have stated their goals for whole-of-government policies and actions. However, at the local level there are complaints that government policy is applied with no concern or understanding for small community bases or local conditions. The issues raised are not unique to this shire, but are encountered by numerous local government authorities throughout the state and even nationally as evidenced by the submissions made to the Senate Enquiry on Cost Shifting (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 2003). There have been suggestions that neighbouring local government authorities collaborate on issues of mutual interest or share resources but it was claimed that distance renders inter-shire partnerships too difficult. 6.5 Western Australian Case Study WA4 WA4 is a recognised Western Australian sea change community that has experienced considerable population growth over the last two decades. The population is almost 25,000 people in an area of more than 1,400 square kilometres. The population density of this local government area is considerably more than the neighbouring shires and most rural local government areas in Western Australia. However, none of this data incorporates the highly transient nature of a certain percentage of the population. Research participants reported that many people, as couples, singles and families, move into the local government area seeking work in the tourist or wine growing industry, but also move out within the inter-census period due to lack of reliable work opportunities. Over the previous two decades, there is evidence of some diversification in the local economy, particularly as transport infrastructure has improved, making travelling time between the city and WA4 significantly shorter and enabling a variety of industries to access diverse markets. It is estimated that 150,000 people visit WA4 annually. Until the 1980s, the most important industry was agriculture, followed by fishing. While broad acre agricultural industries are still important to the local economy, new industries have developed, such as viticulture, agricultural value-added produce and boutique artisan production, tourism and leisure industries such as surfing. Furthermore, sophisticated infrastructure has enabled people to access a broad range of services and to enjoy lifestyles often considered more common in the city. However, while there has been some industry diversification, the consistent industry contributors to the regional domestic product continue to be the ‘old economy’ industries such as farming. Wholesale and retail trades, both of which are important in tourist consumption, are also prominent. Tourism has been touted as an important industry for WA4. However, the profitability of this industry is compromised by its seasonality, the transient nature of some sectors of employees, mediocre service, and uncoordinated marketing to a poorly understood target client base (Walmsley 2003). It

62

would appear that the sector is oversupplied in the WA4 area and profitability for many businesses is marginal. The general shift from ‘roads, rates and rubbish’ to a more strategic local government role has been felt acutely in this Shire, particularly as the local government authority has struggled to contain the growth demand and has for two decades, struggled to keep up with environmental management issues. Neither the CEO nor the mayor considers environmental management to be core work of the Shire or council employees.

We don’t see Council planning for natural resource management as our core function. We see it still as a State Government function. Local government is very testy about cost shifting that’s occurred over the years with State Government. You know if they [Shire ratepayers] want to make sure that natural resource management is core local government business then I will – I will hesitate – I would not support that at this point in time. If we had all of our roads and all of our parks and all of our local government – our core local government infrastructure and systems and processes and skills and everything real Mickey mouse, and then we had spare resources, then I’d say, sure, we can put something into the budget that’s not core local government business like natural resource management.

The Shire has 13 elected councillors and now employs almost 200 staff, including eight staff in the planning department and two dedicated to environmental management, although both the CEO and the environmental officer said that the environmental officer role was providing advice, monitoring human development activities and applying for Commonwealth funding to maintain coastal erosion and waterways management. This is one of the largest local government staff for a rural-based shire in Western Australia. The demands from recreational uses, and land and housing development, in particular, have put a strain on local government staff. At the same time, the broader awareness for prescient environmental planning has meant that Shire staff is expected to provide comprehensive advice to the local community on natural resource management issues, which the mayor and the CEO both claimed to be beyond the statutory and legislative responsibilities of local government. The topography in the Shire varies from dramatic coastline on the western boundary, some undulating farm land, wetlands, tracts of State forest and large areas of flat, low lying land, which has been cleared for farming. Drainage, season flooding, weeds and feral animals have been consistent environmental problems in the Shire for decades. More recently, nutrient management of waterways has becoming an increasing problem. For two decades, housing has consistently encroached on land that was previously zoned for farming. In response to the constant demand for advice, the environmental officer convinced the senior council staff and the elected councillors that an environmental strategy for the Shire was necessary. WA4 contracted an outside agency to develop an environmental strategy to provide a strategic framework to undertake environmental management activities. It is aimed at targeting key areas related to improved management, from an organisational perspective, and the facilitation of more effective partnerships with the community and other stakeholders. The Environmental Strategy was adopted in mid 2004 and implementation is being rolled out as resources and opportunities arise. It incorporates 66 actions covering the key themes of:

• biodiversity • coastal management • wetlands and waterways • agricultural land use • community participation and awareness • fire management • funding resources • waste management.

63

Funding and resources influence the level of environmental management activity able to be undertaken and this influence is consistently undermined by a variety of competing priorities. However, the Shire has committed two salaries to environmental matters from council revenue, one of whom is employed full-time to implement the Environmental Strategy. In addition, external funds are sought for a variety of environmental projects. The catchment council, which WA4 falls within, has at the same time been developing its regional strategy and implementation plan. While the environmental WA4 environmental officer had some input to these plans, there has not been a strong relationship between the two organisations. It was stated by the WA4 environmental officer that keeping with the day-to-day environmental management demands in the shire is challenging enough. 6.6 Conclusion The four Western Australian case studies demonstrate the varying views of local government with regard to their perceived responsibility for natural resource management. At one end of the spectrum, the administration of the local government and the elected councillors of WA1 take their commitment to ecological sustainable development very seriously and every action taken by the local government is assessed against their environmental policies. Natural resource management is viewed as the responsibility of everyone living in the shire. At the other end of the spectrum, both the CEO and the mayor of WA4 do not believe natural resource management is the core business of their local government and, consequently, environmental stewardship is ‘tacked onto’ other local government business when the resources and opportunity are available. WA2, WA3 and WA4 were all concerned that responsibility for expensive land care activities were continually being foisted on them by the higher spheres of government without insufficient funding or support, whereas WA1 adopted the attitude that unless it assumed leadership for natural resource management in their domain and beyond, no-one else could be expected to and the livelihoods and future of the shire could, therefore, not be guaranteed. The co-ordinated management of land and water at a regional level was understood by all of the case study interviewees, but active cooperation and collaboration by the local governments at the regional and catchment management scale was variable. WA1 was also actively involved at the regional level and worked with adjacent local government authorities to coordinate activities, which were not limited to physical investment in natural resource management, but also included education programs, in-kind commitments and information and resource sharing. The other local government authorities tended to follow rather than lead. They were not always committed or fully aware of the regional or catchment management authority activities.

64

Chapter Seven: Victorian Case Studies 7.1 Introduction The key, overarching legislation dealing with biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of native flora and fauna in Victoria is the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. It applies to both public and private land (IWS, Indigo Shire & Kunert 2003). The legislation guiding the day to day operations of municipal councils in Victoria is: • Local Government Act (1989) (planning and advisory role) • Planning and Environment Act 1987 (land use planning and development). These and numerous other Acts pertaining to natural resource management operate alongside the Environmental Protection Act 1970 and State Environmental Planning Policies. These Acts and policies are consistent with the definition and concept of sustainable development that were popularised by the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland 1987), although they also emphasise the importance of environmental, social, economic, cultural and conservation integration throughout society. Local government in Victoria went through a rigorous restructuring in the late 1990s under the then premier, Jeff Kennett. The current Victorian local government area configuration is shown in Figure 6.1 which as noted in Chapter 2, changed markedly under the 1990s Kennett Liberal Coalition governments when local government authorities were reduced from 210 to 79 active local government areas between years 1994 and 1995. Figure 7.1: Local Government Areas of Victoria

Source: Department of Transport and Regional Services, 2004. At about the same time, significant portfolio changes were made by the coalition government, which reduced the opportunity for the integration of environmental management and planning processes. The State government bureaucracy responsible for the environment was slashed, ‘… limiting the capacity

65

to respond effectually to environmental challenges, to innovate or implement programs’ (Conacher & Conacher, 2000, p. 378). Christoff (1998) argues that under the Kennett government, the environment was not viewed as important as regional economic development except when the environment offered a ‘resource use’. More recently, under the Brack’s Labour Government the environment has recovered a little, but it is still not resourced adequately according the case study interviewees and the States’ peak local government organisations. Currently, there is no one Victorian State government department that has overall jurisdiction for the operation and regulation of local government. Local government authorities defer to the State Department of Sustainability and Environment for most environmental issues and derive much of their state-based funding for natural resource management from this department. The three Victorian local government case study areas chosen for this project are diverse. While two are adjacent (VIC1 and VIC2), they each have distinct natural resource features within their boundaries and treat natural resource management in different ways. Their economies are different and for VIC1 and VIC2, whose economic base largely depends on broad acre agriculture, the drought is having devastating social, economic and environmental impacts. The third shire, VIC3, has a more diverse economic base, which includes small scale farming, viticulture and tourism. The latter shire has been popular with those seeking a lifestyle change in a rural environment and, consequently, the local government area has experienced population growth. Rather than sea change communities, communities such as this one are referred to as ‘population turnaround localities’ (Burnley & Murphy 2004) or ‘tree change’ communities. While they have experienced an increase in population due to an influx of residents seeking a more Arcadian lifestyle, the traditional rural industries usually continue to underpin the local economy. The accommodation of a growing population, while simultaneously preserving the integrity of the various communities, presents a unique set of challenges for local government. 7.2 Case Study VIC1 VIC 1 is located in the western third of Victoria. The local government area has four towns and agriculture underpins the local economy. The broad acre cropping of cereals, oilseeds and pulses is the predominant agricultural activity, although there is some wool and fat lamb production. The shire has a little more than 6,200 residents, scattered over 7,500 square kilometres. There are about 110 paid council employees, including a Landcare co-ordinator, and six elected councillors. Natural resource management is critical for this area and is broadly recognised by the interviewees from the shire as a fundamental issue that underpins the future viability of agriculture, as well as the four towns. This shire offers a rebate to landowners who are actively involved in local government natural resource management initiatives. This has been a very successful strategy to encourage local awareness and involvement in natural resource management issues. It is widely understood in this shire that prescient natural resource management has a direct impact on the economic and social viability of the shire and region. Consequently, there is broad community commitment to natural resource management and this has been supported and promoted by senior management in the shire for over two decades. The shire receives marginal rainfall, even when not in drought and the wholesale clearing of land (97 per cent) over the last one 150 years has created a variety of environmental problems, most particularly a rising water table, wind erosion and widespread salinity problems throughout the area. This shire has a reputation for being at the forefront of proactive natural resource management, having won numerous state and national land care awards. A critical area of natural resource management focus for local volunteers and council is revegetation. Much of the superior remnant vegetation is on road reserves and both council employees and the broader community understand the preciousness of this resource and nurture its biodiversity and pristine condition.

66

There is, however, the constant threat of introduced weeds and rabbits. A significant proportion of the shire environmental budget is dedicated to weed control and eradication. There are comprehensive training programs for the cleaning down of machinery, careful mapping of heavy weed infestations and fencing off both infested areas and key bio-diverse areas. The preservation of water is also critical and this shire, in collaboration with the regional catchment management authority, is developing strategies to minimise water wastage from the river and channel systems and the nearby lake through evaporation. Because this area is part of the Murray Darling Basin, which is an ancient sea bed, salt deposits are close to the surface. Wind can easily take the top soil from the flat topography and it is, therefore, critical that farmers are mindful of the fragility of the environment and that they understand and apply sustainable farming practices. There has been wide concern, both within the council and the broader community that government has consistently withdrawn funding for key local government activities and much of the responsibility for natural resource management falls to Landcare networks and volunteers. Furthermore, the Commonwealth grants tend to be on a 12 month basis, which means that there is the potential for program disruption if the funding cycle is interrupted, and there is also the threat of staff not being retained longer than the life of a grant. This shire is no longer prepared to live with that uncertainty and it has taken the decision to retain the environmental officer position from recurrent shire funds. The environmental officer calculated that one third of all farms are actively involved in Landcare and shire natural resource management programs and another third are interested, but not involved all the time. Consistency of service and information from the council is critical for maintenance of local volunteer networks, communication and local natural resource management initiatives. With economies of scale and aggregation of properties however, the local population is both diminishing and ageing and the pool of volunteers becomes smaller all the time. Five years ago there were 16 local land care groups and in 2004 that number had been whittled to 12. The CEO reported that council staff spend a great deal of time accessing government grants and undertaking preventative measures to ensure that volunteers are protected from over-exposure to poisons and dangerous machinery without adequate training. There was also some frustration with the time and costs associated with providing justification and verification of the acquittal of government funds. The role of the shire environmental officer is critical for maintaining the links and communication channels between the other levels of government, the catchment management authority and the grassroots and between the different levels of community participants. The longer the drought continues, the harder it is for council to rally volunteers to community natural resource management issues. It was reported that these groups are beginning to resist doing work exclusively for the community and, increasingly, will only participate if the work directly assists their own farm management programs and has a likelihood to improve the viability and sustainability of their enterprise. The environmental officer reported that there is discernible disillusionment when funding programs or grants are rumoured to be pared and it takes a great deal of effort to rally commitment, or rekindle enthusiasm for natural resource issues. There was general agreement from the interviews that there is genuine commitment by a range of state and commonwealth environmental agencies, as well as NGOs and the private sector, to work alongside each other and in collaboration with local government to achieve long-term sustainability for this shire and the wider region. Some state government departments have high turnover of staff and it takes time to establish a rapport. Until there is that relationship, the local government and Landcare groups are often overlooked and/or not consulted, which causes irritation. Once the rapport has been established, there is greater co-ordination and co-operation at all levels. The shire and the local Landcare group work well with the catchment management authorities and had considerable input into the regional catchment strategy, which provides the overarching natural resource management framework for the region. The shire environmental strategy fits in underneath the regional catchment strategy, which facilitates funding applications and local government policy continuity. The interviewees agreed that long-term personal rapport between representatives of the

67

catchment management authority and the local government has been important for the efficacy of the natural resource management programs and the implementation of a variety of programs. Participants also suggested that because there is not a great deal of industry diversity, the goals of residents are relatively similar across the region and it is, therefore, not difficult to get agreement on the problems and their scale. It was reported that as populations become smaller, the networks are more inter-linked and communication is easier. However, it was emphasised that consistency of services and programs is critical and when funding becomes tight, it is important that wherever possible, the environmental officer position, the person who works on a day-to-day basis with the farmers, remains as the conduit between council, the regional catchment authority and the farmers for ongoing environmental management efficacy. 7.3 Case Study VIC2 VIC 2 is adjacent to VIC1 and lies partly within the same catchment management authority. Another catchment management authority meets within the shire boundaries, meaning that the policies and strategies of two regional catchment authorities influence the day-to-day natural resource management activities of this shire. There was some disagreement between the interviewees regarding whether two regional catchment authorities made environmental management in the shire more complex. While there are some natural resource management issues identified as important by VIC1 that are the same confronting VIC2, this shire has different soil types and has not been cleared as aggressively as has been the case in VIC1. VIC2 is an area of approximately 9,000 square kilometres with about 4,500 people who mostly live in one of the five towns or on broad acre agricultural properties. Sheep grazing has been the predominant industry. Like VIC1, this shire has a diminishing and ageing population which undermines the viability of services provided by the Shire as well as impacting on the number of willing and able volunteers prepared to be involved in community and Landcare activities. There are about eight active Landcare groups in the Shire. There are five elected councillors and 80 FTE employees in the local government authority. Until early 2005, the shire had not employed an environmental officer, but it was decided to extend the responsibilities of the planning officer to incorporate environmental management as well. This officer does not have any formal training, although has been on the staff for almost two decades and has a very good understanding of the local environmental issues. The position is not paid from grants or programs because of the threat of government funding being linked with particular initiatives and, therefore, having a limited life. The planning and environmental officer is funded from recurrent council revenue. Until now, this shire has not sought natural resource management grants or monies from the catchment management authority, but with the appointment of an employee whose responsibility is natural resource management, it is anticipated that this will change. The council does not have an environmental policy. Nevertheless, within the next two years it is scheduled to undertake an environmental management planning process with a range of stakeholders, including all the environmental agencies, the land care groups, the landholders in the various communities. For the time being, guidelines for natural resource management are derived from the overarching Council Strategic Plan, council planning codes and the two regional catchment authorities, which meet within the shire boundaries. The planning and environmental officer derives the majority of her environmental and natural resource management information from the State Department of Sustainability and Environment. VIC2 estimates it has about 35 per cent remnant vegetation and maintaining that level of vegetation occupies a significant proportion of council staff. Significantly, this shire has a large area of wetlands within its boundaries and their maintenance and rehabilitation (in some cases), are of considerable concern for the Shire, the local community and the regional catchment authorities. The Shire works hard to keep up with the monitoring of drainage and pumping of water into the lake and wetland systems. Centre pivots have been used over a long period of time, drawing water from the aquifer to irrigate the land. However, there are signs that this is not sustainable and widespread saline issues are beginning to emerge wherever the pivots are used. The council interviewees admitted that the Shire is

68

not well equipped to enforce state wetlands policies and is not adequately resourced to do the task properly. The identified natural resource management issues in this shire are varied and several, such as the cost and efficacy of waste management and recycling programs are urban settlement concerns. The provision of road maintenance is also a significant impost, with more than 3,000 kilometres of road, 2,000 kilometres of which is unsealed. The latter road networks require gravel supplies and these are fast running out, or are tied up, in native title claims. There are several large blue gum plantations in the shire, which have not been unanimously welcomed by the local government area or the local residents. It is claimed by council employees that these create a fire hazard and are not necessarily welcome habitat for native animals as the blue gums are not indigenous to the area and the local animals have not colonised the plantations. Nonetheless, most of the plantations have been planted on land that was previously used for broad acre farming and, therefore, they generally contribute to revegetation, which has been an overall Shire goal. The Victorian government has a rigid vegetation net gain regime and the local government authorities are expected to implement and monitor tree clearing and planting activities. In this shire, weed control and revegetation has been an individual responsibility with no overarching local government environmental policy or strategy. Concerns and some resentment were evident in the interviews regarding the impost on individuals. Both paid staff and elected councillors felt that broad state guidelines were being imposed on them with limited consultation or understanding of individual local government areas. Many landowners felt they were being dictated to and that the agency did not understand the economic, social and environmental challenges that their directives were creating. Furthermore, the CEO considered there to be inadequate training and council staff resources, or departmental assistance, to accurately implement the guidelines. The Council is worried by the inconsistencies in interpretation of legislation and the threat of litigation by both farmers and state government. Farmers struggle to understand that they are not at liberty to fell trees, clear vegetation or generally do what they want on their land without adhering to strict state government laws. Consequently, the negotiation, implementation and monitoring of state government clearing and revegetation policies occupies a lot of council employee’s and councillors time. In the past, this council has not enjoyed a very productive relationship with Environment Victoria and on several occasions have been involved in VCAP conflict resolution cases, which are both costly and locally divisive. The senior council management have worked hard to bring about a better understanding between the groups in conflict and the State government as well. Council staff has consciously adopted a more consultative and consensual style and it was reported that there is a discernible improvement in collaboration and co-operation between the farming groups and the government agencies by getting the groups together and working out compromises and solutions. This is evidenced by a growing number of farmers fencing off land for revegetation purposes. Methods of communicating council policies are changing and it was agreed this has enhanced community relations with the council. Council information is still on the website, published in the local newspapers and in brochures, but increasingly, shire staff is being encouraged to talk face-to-face with people on particular issues and wherever possible, visit with farmers and talk them through ideas and guidelines. It was admitted by both paid staff and councillors that the shire has tended, in the past, to be rather didactic and ‘top down’ and not inclusive of stakeholders.

We are getting more proactive with the consultation. We get out there and get feedback to develop a way forward. People appreciate you even coming out and having a look at their block rather than just getting a phone call or a piece of notice in the paper saying, “You shall do this.” The people don’t like being told like that. If you go out and explain to them why they listen to you and you take on their points as well. They’ll of ten say, “Oh yeah, I can see where you are coming from. All right.”

69

Relations between council staff and councillors have also improved. More inclusive decision-making and broader consultation with councillors has made it easier to implement planning and environmental decisions. The desire to develop a shire environmental plan now has more traction than it has in the past. Hopefully, by developing funding applications for specific environmental projects, tangible environmental benefits will be achieved that will have broad benefit. The appointment of a planning and environmental officer who was known to the councillors and many shire residents has diminished some of the perceived threat of proactive natural resource management. 7.4 Case Study VIC3 VIC3 is in northern Victoria. It covers an area of 2,000 square kilometres and there are nine towns scattered throughout the shire, with a growing population of about 15,000 people. The shire employs 143 people and there are seven councillors. The industry base is varied; the two key industries are tourism and varied agriculture-related businesses which include beef, sheep, dairy, fruit and viticulture. This area is typical of tree change communities; it has good access to amenities and infrastructure such as schools, tertiary institutions and medical services but each of the towns in the shire are relatively small with a great deal of charm, natural beauty and historic character. The population is growing with a wide diversity of age groups and as a result, the local economy is vibrant. The key natural resource management focus areas in this shire are weeds and pests, salinity, the conservation and management of native vegetation and water quality and quantity. A large proportion of the shire’s resources and the general thrust in the council plan are directed to maintaining and protecting the natural assets and the built environment. The natural resources of the shire are highly valued and this is evident by the high number of people (five) employed in related planning and environmental roles in the shire. Council’s commitment to the environment has been recognised by the receipt of a number of state and national awards including Landcare awards and national local government awards. Many of the residents of the area have moved to the shire because of the natural amenity so, generally, it was reported by interviewees that it is not difficult to encourage volunteers to be involved in Landcare and other natural resource management activities. There have been numerous working bees and community gatherings to undertake a variety of natural resource management initiatives such as tonnes of noxious and environmental weeds as well as planting thousands of seedlings and spreading tonnes of mulch throughout the Shire. These activities have included Green Corps, Green Reserves, Work for the Dole, Community Jobs Program, Conservation Volunteers Australia, Service Clubs and Landcare Groups as well as individuals. The interviewees agreed that without the community groups’ participation in the shire natural resource management programs they would not have achieved the numerous environmental outcomes they have, which have included the protection of bird and rare flora habitats, road side revegetation and weed eradication. Groups such as the Country Fire Authority which have not always been onside with the council have, through negotiation and consultation, become better acquainted with the goals of council and demonstrated willingness to comply with shire initiatives, most particularly the comprehensive Roadside Management Plan. Correspondingly, the council guidelines are not regularly challenged by residents. It was claimed in interviews that about 90 per cent of residents are willingly compliant with state and council environmental regulations. New environmental strategies and initiatives are generally decided through community workshops organised by the shire which are usually well attended. Goals and natural resource management guidelines are communicated to the community through glossy brochures, posted on the shire website, council officers working in the community and perhaps most effectively, through the very active Landcare groups. It was also noted that this shire has a good track record for receiving government grants for natural resource management, and consequently, there have been successful one-off programs that have been highly visible to the community and work to encourage participation in other initiatives. There is, however, some frustration when grants are short-term or are terminated when sufficient traction has not been achieved.

70

If we could somehow get some idea of what grants we might receive a few years in advance so that we can maximise the result, in other words plan it properly and coordinate it and resource for it.

This shire and the regional catchment authority work very closely together. Both organisations contribute to the other’s policies and, wherever possible, the initiatives undertaken by both endeavour to be complementary. This relationship has been nurtured over many years through personal contacts and is now embedded through policies and strategies. It was noted that it is very wise to have a good relationship with the regional catchment authority because it is through that organisation that significant funds flow from NHT and NAP Federal funds for local environmental projects. The relationship with the state government is not nearly so convivial. The interviewees concurred that there was too little respect for the work of local government and the achievements. There was resentment regarding the lacked of continuity in the grants systems and perceived cost shifting. Council employees resented increases in their monitoring role in association with limited support from the State government and with no consultation. There was universal agreement that the state government imposes policies with insufficient training or education, which leaves councils vulnerable to prosecution. 7.5 Conclusion While some individual Victorian local governments have made natural resource management and environmental issues a priority, it appears that this approach derives from the personal commitment of key leaders in the community rather than from integrated government policies across the three tiers of government. All three case study local government authorities in Victoria had made a commitment of some kind to natural resource management, but the efforts and outcomes were patchy. Catchment management authority and local government boundaries do not overlap and some local government authorities are expected to work with up to 16 different regional level agencies, creating overlaps and time consuming negotiations. It was repeatedly reported that if a local government authority aims to develop long-term natural resource management strategies then they must fund environmental officer positions from recurrent funding. The logic of this view is based on the perception of the inconsistency of state and federal funding, which potentially undermines local government natural resource management initiatives. It was generally felt that local government efforts for the environment are not valued or properly supported.

71

Chapter Eight: Q-Method Study 8.1 Introduction In Q-methodology individuals who rank statements in a similar manner are said to ‘make up a factor’ (Maxwell 2001, p. 341). In this study, five distinct factors or profiles were identified. Each of these factors represents different stakeholder experiences of natural resource management and rural local government. There were 22 stakeholders who had statistically significant loadings on one of these five factors. In reporting on Q-sorts researchers typically label each factor as a simplified means of capturing the essence of the discourses that make up the results (Dryzek 1994). This strategy is also used below in the discussion of five different stakeholder perspectives on rural local government and NRM. 8.2 Profile A: Local government as unwilling to be involved in natural resource management Profile A loaded highest on four items, which collectively position rural local governments as isolationalist and traditionalist. That is, they disagreed most strongly with the two statements that ‘shires are becoming more used to working co-operatively on projects for planning’ (-5), and ‘rural local governments have moved from a siege mentality to a proactive agenda in relation to NRM’ (-5). Similarly, they agreed most with the statements that ‘rural local government is conservative and developmentalist in orientation and dealing with the environment is still seen as radical’ (+5), and ‘councils are more familiar with engineering works, with the more traditional sets of tangible costs and benefits and the costs of environmental loss, ecosystem degradation and species decline do not feature within such traditional frameworks’ (+5). Profile A’s strong perception of rural local governments as disconnected is also evidenced by their selection of statements, which were identified as counter to their experience. These were ‘councils work closely with catchment councils and incorporate their goals into the council environment plans’ (-4),‘shire environment plans incorporate principles from the regional catchment authorities and state legislation’ (-4), and ‘local governments have a strong record on community consultation in relation to NRM as they are the closest tier of government to the people’ (-4). It is important to highlight that there was a degree of homogeneity in those Q-sorters who loaded most strongly on Profile A. That is, all belong to government agencies working with rural local governments on natural resource management. Three are involved in regional groups as either representatives on a board or employees, and two are in state government positions liaising with regional groups and rural local governments. In terms of working with regional organisations, this particular stakeholder group has had a negative experience with rural local governments. The background of Q-sorters loading strongly on Profile A is noteworthy in light of the two differentiating statements which make up this profile (See Table 8.1)7. Those working in state and regional natural resource management positions are likely to have formal qualifications in environmental management, which may highlight the limited knowledge and skill capabilities in council counterparts. While working for state and regional bodies the Q-sorters loading on Profile A disagreed with the statement that ‘state and federal governments recognise that the cost and responsibility of natural resource management can’t rest entirely with local government’ (-3). Based on their experience the perception is that state and federal governments have attempted to place responsibility for natural resource management at the feet of local government. Despite articulating strong negative views about rural local government’s capacity and commitment in terms of natural resource management, the stakeholders in Profile A still believe that this tier of

7 In Q analysis, a distinguishing statement signifies that the score on one factor is at least three ranked 'piles' away from all other factors. In mathematic terms this translates to a difference of a least one standard deviation (Stricklin & Almeida, 2002).

72

government is critical to future sustainability. This view is evidenced by their strong agreement with the statement that ‘roads, rates and rubbish is no longer an option’ (+4) and their positive reaction to the statements that suggest a commitment to natural resources needs to be articulated at the highest level of council (+2) and that council environmental officers need to be positioned in a key place in the administrative hierarchy of the shire (+2) Table 8.1: Statements differentiating Profile A No Statement A B C D E 14 The range of skills required for defining, monitoring, planning

for, and managing natural resource management at the local level is not currently readily available within local government areas.

+5 0 -3 0 0

26 State and federal governments recognise that the cost and responsibility of natural resource management can’t rest entirely with local government.

-3 +3 +3 +2 +3

Overall Profile A stakeholders expressed strongly negative view of rural local government and their willingness to progress an environmental agenda. They would see this as highly problematic given their belief that local government is integral to sustainability. 8.3 Profile B: Local government as redundant in natural resource management In terms of the statements loading highest in the first three categories (+5, +4, +3) and lowest in the final three categories (-5, -4, -3), Profile B shares some similarities with Profile A. That is, there are strong loadings given to statements, which point to rural local governments as disengaged, controlling and separatist (12, 28, 11). However, this is where the similarity between the two profiles ends. The distinctiveness of Profile B is best illustrated by examining those statements that resonated strongly with stakeholders as either most or least like their experience. What is of interest is that this profile gives credence to the view that local government is not integral to natural resource management. There are loadings of (-4) given to the statements that ‘successful management of natural resource management depends on local government taking a lead role’ and ‘a commitment to natural resource management needs to be articulated at the highest level by the CEO and Mayor’. Consistent with this view is that, in their experience, lobby groups typically bypass local government in relation to natural resource management (+3). The perception that local government is not critical to natural resource management that is articulated in Profile B may be explained by examining the loadings of other statements. This profile had a very strong negative reaction to the statement that there ‘are some dynamic and passionate individual staff and councillors who are committed to natural resource management and they are making a difference’. Despite the fact that this statement is qualified with the word ‘some’ this profile still registered it as (-5). This loading is one of five distinguishing statements in Factor B (see Table 8.1). It may be that this poor experience of levels of commitment has led some stakeholders to dismiss local government as having any role in natural resources. The same could be said for other key distinguishing statements. For example, because those loading in Factor B have had little experience of the natural resource management assisting a shire in developing a local identity (-4), or of the existence of appropriate local environmental data (+4) they may believe there is no role for local government in environmental management. Also contributing to this perspective may be their view that ‘elected members and staff are not experienced in community engagement’ (+5). Again, the fact that the Q-sorters may have had so little positive experience in this regard may have caused them to abandon any belief in local government’s role in natural resource management. In response, these stakeholders may be focusing their attempts to progress a natural resource management agenda through other means. While this approach may include other tiers of government it is unlikely as Profile B is also defined by the fact

73

that they very strongly endorse the statement that ‘there is a lot of public distrust of government seeking community involvement’. Table 8.2: Statements differentiating Profile B No Statement A B C D E 8 There are some dynamic and passionate individual staff

and councillors who are committed to NRM and they are making a difference.

0 -5 -1 0 +3

10 One of council’s roles is to go out to people and articulate NRM goals in a language they understand and get them on board.

-1 -5 +1 0 +5

15 Focusing on NRM can assist a shire in developing a strong local identity.

+2 -4 0 0 +1

24 There is a lack of appropriate data on NRM at the local government level for defining and managing NRM problems.

-1 +4 -4 -1 0

46 Elected members and staff are not experienced in community engagement.

+1 +5 0 0 -3

8.4 Profile C: Local government as having potential to manage natural resources, but facing challenges Those loading in profile C have had a much more positive experience of rural local government’s management of natural resources. They assign high negative value to the statements that ‘local government wants to control rather than be a partner in the management of natural resources’ (-5). This is in distinct contrast to those who load on Factors D and B. Profile C’s more positive positioning of local government’s response to natural resource management is also illustrated by the negative assignations they make to the statements ‘councils act as little islands and they don’t share their knowledge’ (-4), and ‘rural local government is conservative and developmentalist in orientation and dealing with the environment is still seen by many as radical’ (-3). This is not to suggest that the stakeholders loading in Factor C are entirely positive about rural local government’s commitment to the environment. For example, they indicate agreement with statement such as ‘an enthusiasm for vision statements of local governments is not matched by a commitment to detailed action and implementation plans’ (+4), ‘councils tend not to look at unless there is a specific problem’ (+3), and ‘local government environmental goals would be to make sure that the development you approve doesn’t have any detrimental effects’ (+2).

74

Table 8.3: Statements differentiating Profile C No Statement A B C D E 17 Even if the community isn’t using the term natural

resource management they are still very likely to be interested and committed to the issues. They might just talk about it as water, logging or something like that.

+1 -2 +5 -1 -1

43 Local governments want to control natural resource management rather than be a partner in the management of natural resources.

0 +2 -5 +3 0

The more ambivalent attitude expressed towards rural local government’s management of natural resources by those loading in Profile C may be explained by the fact that they believe there are some fundamental barriers to local government engaging an environmental agenda. For example, they have had little experience of local governments being able to use ‘loopholes in state government legislation to impose population caps and other novel constraints on developments in their local areas’ (-5). They also strongly believe that the ‘political cycle at both a state and local level makes it difficult for any long term natural resource planning’ (+4). While highlighting some important barriers to rural local government’s engagement in natural resource management, those Q-sorters in Profile C differentiate themselves from other sorters by the high loading they give to one potential environmental resource available to rural local governments, i.e., the community. What is evident is that there is a strong perception amongst those in Profile C that community members are interested in natural resource management issues, but they are often unlikely to use this language. Those in Profile C had a very strong experience of the statement that argued, ‘Even if the community isn’t using the term natural resource management, they are still very likely to be interested and committed to the issues. They might just talk about it was water, logging or something like that’. This was rated as (+5) by those constituting this profile while the majority of other profiles loaded it negatively. 8.5 Profile D: Local government as representing selective interests in natural resource management This profile has some strong similarities with Profile A. This similarity is exemplified in the fact that both profiles give a high positive factor score to item 12, which positions rural local government as ‘conservative and developmentalist’. These two profiles also strongly agree that ‘councils are more familiar with engineering works, with the more traditional sets of tangible costs and benefits’ than they are with the costs of environmental degradation and loss. Also common to both profiles is the selection of some statements, which were seen to be most unlike the experience of participants. The statement ‘rural local governments have moved from a siege mentality to a proactive agenda in relation to NRM’ was identified as most unlike (-5) the experience of both profiles. They also shared an equally negative experience of local governments’ record on community consultation. A further commonality between the profiles is that they have had little experience of regional NRM utilising the skills and knowledge of local government or of local government shire plans incorporating NRM principles from regional organisations and state legislation. While Profile D shares some similarities with Profile A, it also bares some resemblance to Profile B in suggesting that an environmental agenda for Australia may be successfully developed by by-passing local government. This can be illustrated by the fact that there is very strong disagreement for the statement that ‘roads, rates and rubbish is no longer an option’. These respondents appear to believe that local government can continue to focus on a narrow and traditional set of roles and responsibilities, and that other groups or tiers of government will progress a sustainability agenda.

75

Further to the similarities Profile D shares with Profiles A and B are some similarities with Profile E. This similarity is evident in the high level of emphasis Profile D Q-sorters give to consultation and the involvement of community groups in council’s management of natural resources. They express high positive support for statements such as ‘local government needs to focus on educating and empowering the community about natural resource management’ and ‘councils should provide in-kind and direct financial assistance to community based groups dealing with natural resource management’. Table 8.4: Statements differentiating Profile D No Statement A B C D E 21 Lobby groups bypass local government about natural

resource management. 0 +3 0 -4 +4

Given the similarities between Profiles A and other profiles it is critical to examine where Profile D deviates from its counterparts. Two issues require highlighting. The first concerns the differential loading on Profile D accorded to the statement ‘lobby groups bypass local government about ’. Those situated within Profile D strongly disagree with this statement. Given that those Q-sorters loading in this factor are representative of a range of different lobby groups it is possible that they themselves have sought action through their local government. Importantly, other profiles have either loaded as agreeing with this statement, or felt it to be a statement on which they had no strong experience/ opinion. The second noticeable feature of those loading on Profile D is that respondents gave the highest possible score (+5) to the statement ‘in rural shires certain individuals and groups have greater political power and their voices are heard most strongly when questions are asked about natural resource management’. Those in Profile A also agreed with this statement (+3), but to a lesser degree while others rated it as not important or disagreed with it. 8.6 Profile E: Local government as a partner in natural resource management The stakeholders loading in Profile E can be differentiated from the other participants in that they agree strongly that councils must address natural resource management through engagement with the community. They articulate this stance by assigning a highly positive value (+5) to statements such as ‘councils should provide in-kind and direct financial assistance to community based groups dealing with NRM’ and ‘one of councils roles is to go out to people and articulate NRM goals in a language they understand and get them on board’. This latter statement is one about which Profile B respondents were diametrically opposed rating it as (-5). While recognising the critical role of community engagement in sustainability initiatives, Profile E also acknowledged the time consuming nature of engagement. They did not believe, however, that there needed to be environmental staff with specialist skills in community consultation. This view is perhaps because they believe that such skills are already available within local councils. Those defining Profile E have had a positive experience of community consultation in the local government sector in relation to natural resources. They have had very limited experience (-4) of local government ‘wanting people’s participation but fearing it more’ or of ‘certain groups and individuals having greater political power’ and having their voices ‘hear most strongly when questions are asked about natural resource management’ (-3). They also believe that local governments are experienced ‘in relation to community consultation’ and that local governments ‘have a strong record on community consultation as they are the closest to the people’.

76

Table 8.5: Statements differentiating Profile E No Statement A B C D E 10 One of council’s roles is to go out to people and articulate

natural resource management goals in a language they understand and gets them on board.

-1 -5 +1 o +5

33 Local governments have a strong record on community consultation in relation to natural resource management as they are the closest tier of government to the people.

-4 0 -1 -5 +4

44 The dilemma for local government is that they may need people’s participation but they fear it more.

0 +1 0 +4 -4

Importantly, those loading on Profile E do not position local government as wholly responsible for natural resource management. They strongly disagree with the statement that ‘local government has to lead the community on natural resource management and not be a follower’ which suggests that they understand environmental management requires a partnership rather than a leader and a follower. 8.7 Conclusion Q-methodology has proven a useful means of delineating stakeholder views and positions on a subject (Schon & Rein 1994; Van Eeten 2001). This study is no exception. Stakeholders have expressed a continuum of beliefs and experiences about rural local government and natural resource management that have been classified into five key profiles. Profile A has a very negative experience of rural local government and natural resource management. According to these stakeholders, the lack of engagement in environmental issues at the local government level is not explained solely by the much reported lack of financial resources for natural resource management, the limited knowledge or training of shire staff and elected members or the lack of dedicated environmental staff (e.g., Municipal Association of Victoria 2002; Local Government Association of NSW & Shires Association of NSWb 2003; Australian Local Government Association 2005). In contrast, these stakeholders suggest that there is a cultural problem within rural local governments in that they retain a strong degree of parochialism and traditionalism. These negate the development of a collaborative approach to natural resources. These stakeholders have also experienced rural local governments as most strongly focused on development and not natural resources. Clearly, to foster natural resource management within rural local governments, there is not only a need for operational change, but also for the much more problematic ‘cultural change’ (Cuthill 2001, p. 201). The stakeholder perception that is characterised by Profile B is that a future environmental agenda can be delivered without reference to local government. Why those loading in this profile so strongly dismiss the role and potential of local government in terms of natural resources is likely to be strongly linked to their negative experiences of working with local government on environmental issues. These negative experiences are detailed in a number of statements selected by the Q-sorters. The dismissal of local government is perhaps also linked to the very strong belief that there is significant public distrust of government seeking community involvement. This connection – between public alienation from the institutions of government and a future sustainability – is highlighted in the literature and considered to be a key potential constraint to the progression of an environmental agenda in local government (e.g., Pinfield 1996; Stoker 1997). The stakeholders loading in Profile C are important to highlight the fact that, in their experience, many rural people are interested in, and concerned about, the environment. This perspective contrasts with many of the views expressed by rural local government staff and elected members in the case study interviews. What is critical is that the nomenclature of natural resource management may not be meaningful to rural people. Macnaghten and Jacobs’ (1997) Lancashire focus group study of public identification with sustainable development echoes this finding. Only two of the participants in their

77

eight groups had heard of the term ‘sustainability’ and the term was largely seen as ‘abstract jargon; even gobbledygook’ (Macnaghten & Jacobs 1997, p. 15), but this was not necessarily indicative of a lack of concern for environmental issues. Thus, as rural local governments seek to involve community in natural resource management, it is critical that they engage a language around the issue that is not alienating. Profile D shares some important similarities with Profile A in positioning rural local governments as developmentalist and conservative. Those in this profile also echo some of the sentiments of Profile B in suggesting that sustainability is not necessarily dependent upon local government involvement. Further, in emphasising the critical role of community involvement to local environmental management, those in Profile D emulate the views of Profile E. How those in Profile D differ is in relation to their perceptions of interest groups and local government. They have very little experience of lobby groups bypassing local government, but at the same time, have a very strong experience of rural shires giving attention to certain interests and individuals in relation to natural resource management. The fact that local governments may represent particular interests in a rural community rather than the rural community in its entirety is a theme that has been well documented in the literature (e.g., Gray 1991). How this may manifest in relation to natural resource management is clearly a concern. Profile E positions local government in relation to natural resource management in a much more utopian manner than any of the other profiles. In this respect the profile echoes the sentiments of Local Agenda 21 (see Parker & Selman 1999; Bulkeley 2000b). The Local Agenda 21 view emphasises that natural resource management requires a partnership between governments and community, that community involvement and participation in environmental management is to be nurtured and encouraged and that local government is well placed to deliver in terms of natural resource management as it is close to people and the community. Clearly, stakeholders have a range of disparate views and experiences of how rural local governments operate in relation to natural resources. These views and experiences will necessarily inform how they interact with rural local governments, and ultimately, the future potential of rural local governments to progress an environmental agenda. The research finding that there are some stakeholders who have had very negative experiences of local government management of natural resources is of great concern.

78

Chapter Nine: Conclusions and Recommendations

9.1 Introduction The findings presented in this report add to the still limited literature that has considered local government engagement in natural resource management in Australia. In sum, the report makes four key contributions to knowledge about local government and sustainability. First, given its qualitative nature the data is both descriptive and detailed. It thus gives depth and breadth to the quantitative findings reported in previous surveys of local government capacity to take up an environmental agenda (e.g., local Government Association of NSW & Shires Association of NSWb 2003; Australian Local Government Association 2005). The addition of qualitative data is critical to gain a more nuanced perspective of the factors that facilitate and constrain local government engagement of natural resource management. As Whittaker (1997, p. 321) notes in reporting on two surveys of local sustainability and Local Agenda 21 in Australia ‘quantitative statistics’ can sometimes ‘… be misleading as it is difficult to judge the nature of the work and the type of activities being undertaken and more specifically how they differ from existing practice’. In this study, the researchers had the opportunity to visit each of the case study sites, peruse existing local government documentation in relation to natural resource management, and interview key informants. This provided an in-depth and detailed perspective on the extent to which rural local governments are involved in natural resource management. Second, unlike some other research, (Municipal Association of Victoria 2002) the data crosses state boundaries. Boundary crossing allows for important contrasts and comparisons to be made about local government involvement in natural resource management. Given that local governments in Australia are so critically linked to their individual state government’s policies and legislative apparatus (Adams & Hine 1999) the capacity to undertake comparative work is crucial. A third defining feature of this study is its focus on local governments that are facing particular environmental concerns, but are not necessarily engaged in natural resource management. There has been a tendency in the literature to concentrate on and celebrate only those local government areas that are progressive and successful in developing an environmental agenda (Wild & Marshall 1999). This celebratory work is important to acknowledge the potential of local government in terms of natural resource management and highlighting best practice. At the same time, the reality that these more engaged local governments are not representative of the entire sector needs wider recognition. Consequently, building greater understanding about the factors that may be impeding their involvement in natural resource management is critical. The final way in which these findings contribute to the knowledge about natural resource management and local governments is through their specific focus on rural shires and rural stakeholders. This focus is important given the urban bias of much of the literature, which typically reports case studies from metropolitan local governments and ignores those outside of this city space (e.g., Gibbs et al. 1998; Commonwealth of Australia 1999). While Keen and Mercer (1993, p. 94) noted over a decade ago that ‘… it should be emphasised that the focus of interest’ in environmental management in local governments was ‘largely metropolitan’ researchers have subsequently not moved to explore the factors that may explain this situation. Even Wild-River’s (2005a) comprehensive study of 34 local governments throughout Australia revealed little ‘about the environmental capacity of poor, sparsely populated and geographically extensive local governments’. The present study fills an important gap in knowledge.

79

9.2 Barriers/drivers to rural local government engagement in natural resource management Data from the case studies and the Q-methodology study reveals that the barriers and drivers to rural local government engagement in natural resource management can be categorised in terms of four main themes. These were the themes around which the Q-statements were developed. They are: community, capacity, co-ordination and commitment. In the discussion below, each of these four themes is briefly discussed. A summary table (Table 9.1) is also used to draw together the barriers to engagement in natural resource management and the possible strategies to address these barriers. 9.3 Community The case studies revealed that there is very limited community involvement in natural resource management at the local government level. The type of strategies typically engaged to foster community participation are traditional and limited in scope, such as large scale public forums. There was little evidence that the more innovative ‘new’ methods of public participation described in the literature such as visioning exercises, citizens’ juries, empowerment schemes, interactive websites, mediation groups and consensus conferencing are being utilised or even being considered in rural local governments (e.g., Tuxworth 1996; Stoker 1997; Wilson 1999). One strategy to overcome the barrier of alleged limited community engagement in natural resource management may be the adoption of some of these more novel approaches. Table 9.1 also highlights the critical role that may be played by new community members in this regard as the literature reports that they are likely to have more sympathetic views toward natural resource management than some long-term residents (Burnley & Murphy 2004). In the case study sites there were two key reasons given for limited community involvement in natural resource management. The first was that the community is simply not interested in environmental issues. This rationale is contradicted by survey data, which has reported high levels of concern for the environment amongst Australians. Importantly, these surveys found little difference in concern rates across the states or between urban and rural areas (Lothian 2002). Consequently, as Table 9.1 suggests, it is important for rural local governments to question the orthodoxy that ‘our residents just are not interested in natural resource management’. The second way in which case study participants legitimised limited community engagement in natural resource management was framed around the idea that their communities are more interested in economic issues. In fact, some argued that a focus on environmental issues may lead to community criticism when other problems facing the shire were considered more pressing. While many of the case study rural shires are struggling financially, the logic of this rationale for a lack of interest in natural resource management fails to account for the fact that economic and environmental goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Indeed, the environment of many rural shires is potentially economically significant as it is this natural resource which may attract a tourist market as well as new citizens. This issue was recognised in the shires which were highly engaged in natural resource management (e.g., QLD3). The importance of ‘ecological economics’ for local government is effectively demonstrated in an economic analysis of the costs and benefits of conserving a koala habitat prepared for the Coffs Harbour City Council in New South Wales (Hamilton et al. 2000). The authors of the study demonstrate that rather than ‘… regarding koalas and other environmental concerns as “constraints” on development’, local governments should be persuaded to see them as a critical resource in development to be conserved and protected (Hamilton et al, 2000, p.168). In general, this value-adding and integrative type of understanding was absent in the case study interviews. It is thus critical that rural local governments, and the communities they represent, develop a greater understanding of the economic value of their natural environment. The Q-methodology study was useful in highlighting the fact that some groups of natural resource management stakeholders in rural areas have had negative experiences of dealing with local government. These stakeholders represent a potentially powerful resource for rural local governments as they work to progress an environmental agenda. As a consequence, their perceptions and concerns

80

need to be taken seriously. One group, for example, was defined by its view that rural local government is not inclusive, and affords power and legitimacy to some groups above others. This perceived inequity implies a particular challenge for rural local governments to ensure that their processes are as inclusive as possible and that all views are considered equally in relation to natural resource management (see also Wild-River 2003, p. 356). Another group expressed a strong view that an environmental agenda can be furthered in Australia without the involvement on rural local governments. This view points to alternative inequity perceptions around stakeholder notions of power and capacity. 9.4 Capacity In their study of the impediments to environmental water management in Australia, Allan and Lovett (1997, p. 204) note the ‘… perennial problem of a lack of financial and human resources, a characteristic of all the case studies examined’. The same constraining issues apply to natural resource management in Australian local governments. This constraint is a concern that resonates across the literature (e.g., Australian Local Government Association & Biological Diversity Advisory Council 2000; Atkinson et al. 2002). The participants in this project strongly voiced this concern. What needs to be emphasised, in terms of the case studies reported in this project, is that constrained resourcing issues are necessarily magnified for rural and remote shires. As Binning et al (1999 p. 32) comment ‘… these councils are often hard pressed to undertake their basic functions, such as road maintenance’. Hence, this report concurs with the notion that many rural local governments are resource poor and struggling financially (Daly 2000). However, as the literature review highlighted and as reported in Table 9.1 possibilities do exist to circumvent this problem. These problem solving possibilities were demonstrated in some of the case studies which were more engaged in natural resource management. For example, QLD3 has dealt with a comparative lack of resources for natural resource management by utilising existing community and council resources. QLD3 is also examining innovative methods of self-funding similar to those described by the best practice case studies documented by Wild-River (2002, p. 224). Strategies include charging an environmental levy and providing rebates for utilising conservation practices on private land. The capacity of rural local governments to garner resources for natural resource management will differ from state to state depending upon the legislative context (Binning et al. 1999). Rate pegging in New South Wales, for example, operates to limit rural local state governments raising rates to support environmental goals (Local Government Association of NSW & Shires Association of NSW 2003). While these strategies exist, it is also imperative that state and federal governments continue to resource local governments to deal effectively with natural resource management. The fact that they have limited capacity for revenue raising while they are increasingly being asked to undertake new roles and responsibilities needs to be acknowledged and addressed. Funding also needs to be committed on a long-term basis so that local governments are not confined to implementing only one-off environmental initiatives tied to singular project funding. Local governments need to be ensured that there is a commitment of longer-term funding which will allow them to take a strategic approach to natural resource management.

81

Table 9.1: Summary of barriers and potential strategies for addressing barriers Theme Barriers Rural local government

strategies for addressing barriers

State and Federal Government strategies for addressing barriers

Community Community refers to the population of people living in the rural shire, and their level and type of involvement in natural resource management. It concerns the extent to which local citizens are interested in natural resource management and whether they place demands on their local government to address natural resource management. Involvement in natural resource management is mediated by community knowledge and understanding of natural resource management.

• Lack of interest in natural resource management in community.

• Limited resources for community engagement (time, money, expertise).

• Critique whether a lack of community interest is real or imagined.

• Question whether this is about the language they use in terms of natural resource management and begin with the language used by community.

• Understand that limited community involvement may be part of a broader issue of public alienation from government institutions and work to rebuild trust in the local level (e.g., by ensuring any participatory forums produce outcomes for constituents, that participants receive feed-back and follow-up information).

• Work to engage new community residents who may hold different views about the environment.

• Implement more innovative forms of community engagement beyond the narrow and traditional models.

• Develop specific strategies to engage those not represented by more powerful lobby groups to ensure that all community voices are heard.

• Share best practice examples with other rural councils.

• Start small and utilise existing community resources with strong positive reputations (e.g., Landcare groups). Utilise

• Ensure the involvement of rural local government in their own consultation processes for natural resource management (new regional arrangements, development of new legislation, changes to environmental reporting).

82

community members from outside council with expertise in engagement and facilitation (e.g., local school teachers).

• Resource environmental interest groups in order to build their capacity, and as a consequence, broader community capacity.

• Develop skills in community engagement and knowledge of potential beneficial outcomes of community engagement.

Capacity Capacity refers to both human and financial resources. Human resources include the natural resource management skill and knowledge levels of council members and staff. It also refers to whether local councils employ specifically dedicated natural resource management staff. The level of financial resources of rural local governments and their ability to access financial resources are also critical in terms of capacity.

• Lack of financial resources.

• Lack of expertise, skills and training.

• Limited readily available and accessible data on natural resource management for planning.

• Limited political and legislative power of local government in relation to natural resource management.

• Short political cycles make planning problematic

• Implement incentive mechanisms to support environmental goals.

• Utilise available opportunities to raise revenue to meet environmental outcomes.

• Utilise skills and knowledge of wider community to resource council and community.

• Network with other councils to share resources/expertise (e.g., employment of an environmental officer working across councils)

• Promote incentive schemes for environmental management and outcomes from environmental levies.

• Recognise that rural local governments are critically under-resourced and resource them accordingly to progress local environmental agendas.

• Utilise existing structures and institutions (e.g., regional natural resource management authorities) to resource local government (e.g., provision of training, development of data).

• Continue to work with rural local governments to progress possibilities for strengthening local government’s political and legislative capacity to deal with natural resource management. For example, Re-examine potential changes to state legislation which could provide greater

83

opportunity for local governments to implement revenue raising and incentive schemes for environmental management.

• Work with rural local governments to provide access to natural resource management data.

Co-ordination This theme focuses on the multiple institutions and arrangements for natural resource management, and the extent to which rural local governments are involved in these arrangements. Participation with natural resource management state, federal and regional bodies and natural resource management alliances with neighbouring councils are also included in co-ordination.

• Poor coordination between three tiers of government

• Variable coordination and collaboration between regional and local spheres

• Lack of understanding of the multiple roles of local government

• Understand that meaningful participation in regional scale natural resource management is critical for holistic approach to natural resource management

• Sharing of resources across local governments and with catchment authorities is likely to have a win-win outcome

• Involve environmental officer in council decision making for more effective integration

• Work to ensure local government authority has an active and informed representative at the regional level.

• Promote incentive schemes for local government and catchment authorities to work collaboratively

• Enhance effective communication strategies between all spheres of government and stakeholders

• Re-assess boundaries of catchment authorities and local government to enhance consistency.

• Re-assess natural resource management funding arrangements based on local government and catchment authority collaboration and cooperation.

• Adequately resource local government to undertake its natural resource management responsibilities

• Adequately support through education and in-service training local government employees about state and commonwealth natural resource management commitments.

• Ensure that local government involvement is properly valued and not simply consulted.

• Ensure environmental officers are funded

84

for the long term Commitment Commitment refers to the level of ownership a rural local government (councillors and staff) may have in terms of natural resource management. Definitions and constructions of what constitutes natural resource management may influence commitment.

• Other priorities seen as more important e.g., economic priorities/service priorities

• Lack of support from mayor, council, council staff

• Narrow definition of natural resource management

• Environmental officers not placed in key positions in organisational hierarchy

• Develop clear understanding of the meaning of natural resource management

• Ensure that natural resource management is not viewed as a threat to future opportunities

• Enhance understanding of holistic local government activities

• Ensure that appropriate funding is in place for environmental officers

• Ensure that natural resource management is as equally valued in local government business as the economic, social and culture aspects.

• Encourage sharing of resources and achievements between local governments and others tiers of government

• State of the Environment reporting put more emphasis on holistic local government activities

• Ensure local government leadership is educated regarding role of natural resource management in a healthy and sustainable local government area

• Incentives are in place for local governments demonstrating holistic and sustainable management of their natural, social and economic resources.

85

In terms of capacity, local governments are not just impeded in environmental management by a lack of financial and human resources. They are also constrained by their political status compared with state and federal governments. As Mercer and Jotkowitz (2000, p. 176) have commented, ‘Certainly, by comparison with many overseas countries, an enormous barrier to local environmental policy formulation in Australia, too, is the lack of effective political power of both local government and the citizenry in terms of influencing what happens at a local level’. They cite state government power to change local government boundaries and amalgamate councils as indicative of this power differential. 9.5 Coordination The coordination of conservation and protection of natural resources and the environment is intrinsically difficult by virtue of the diversity of the constituent interests. Integrating specific programs, which address endangered and threatened species, land health, fresh water health, vegetation conservation, air quality, marine environment protection and the management of feral plants and animals invariably, involves multiple government agencies, industry groups, civic organisations and academic disciplines. This complexity is overlaid with political agenda and issues to do with governance. Environmental issues and biodiversity are interconnected, but public policy habitually compartmentalises causing fragmentation and ‘dis-connection’. Coordination of environmental and natural resource management policies across the three spheres of government, civil society and industry in Australia is a vexed issue. Throughout this project, it was reported by local government employees and elected councillors, as well as the peak local government organisations that there is a continuous devolving of natural resource management responsibility to the grass roots and local government levels without sufficient accompanying funding or support. The issue of cost shifting was raised repeatedly and the lack of Constitutional status was blamed (among other things), thereby enabling higher levels of government to arbitrarily demand that local government administrations be accountable to them (Kiss 1999; Mercer & Jotkowitz 2000). Local government is hampered by its limited capacity to raise its funds and its regulatory powers are also restricted. However, both the federal and state governments have accused local government of not pulling its weight and as noted by Adams and Hine (1999, p. 196), '… a stalemate has, in many cases, resulted, with state and local governments alike accusing each other of dragging their feet in terms of environmental management’. To complicate the issue, over the last two decades natural resource management issues have increasingly been viewed on a regional or catchment scale based on the logic that natural resources are not bound by an artificial line that delineates one local government authority from another. According to Conacher and Conacher (2000, p. 308), ‘… the focus of land management in Australia increasingly is away from individual farm, district or sub-catchment levels and towards integrated catchments and regional scales’. To some degree the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality in Australia (NAP) has tried to achieve environmental and natural resource management program coordination through the devolution of power and authority to regional and local institutions and organisations when dealing with local sustainability issues. However, the enthusiasm and capacity of local government to participate is highly variable as is the willingness of the catchment management authorities to engage with local government (Wild River 2005b). Local governments consistently complain that they may be consulted, but rarely engaged in the higher level programs and decisions made about issues that will have a direct impact on their area and constituents. State governments and peak industry organisations also complain that they are frustrated by the lack of coordination for ecologically sustainable development (Productivity Commission 1999). The lack of a holistic view of what occurs at the ground level is a concern to Morrison, McDonald and Lane (2004) and Crowley (2004). They agree that while there have been achievements in incorporating sustainability principles into environmental policies, the ‘… lack of integration of substantive matters in policy design and the lack of vertical and horizontal harmony in our system of resource governance …’ (p. 244) has made the achievements modest at best. They contend that the

86

natural resource management ‘… policy and implementation fragmentation is a critical issue hindering better natural resource outcomes’ (Morrison et al. 2004, p. 244). Crowley (2004, p. 401) claims ‘… federalism complicates environmental governance, given the traditional and constitutional responsibility of the states and the growth of the Commonwealth control of environmental matters’. Further, operational inconsistency and fragmentation is hardly surprising given that the establishment and operation of regional organisations and the delineation of regional boundaries to cover specific governmental activities (e.g., the delivery of services, or the operation of a department or agency) lies wholly within the arrangements of a particular jurisdiction. These regularly change with restructuring or a change in state or federal governments. There is limited guidance provided on how economic, environmental and social considerations might be integrated in the development of policies and programs at all levels of government. Considerations for the reduction of natural resource management policy fragmentation have included an overarching strategy for integration and the reduction of agencies responsible for the management and administration of natural resource management. Regional approaches to public policy is currently favoured however, neither the states nor the Commonwealth have been comfortable in giving up their respective authorities (Dollery & Crase 2004; Wild River 2005b). Some of the perceived weaknesses in coordination of natural resource management policies may also present local government with an opportunity. As noted by Crowley (1998), whilst the complexity of Australia's intergovernmental arrangements has its negative administrative features, it does leave scope for local innovation that may not be possible in a less chaotic polity. The lack of Constitutional inclusion provides local government with flexibility and its closeness to the grass roots provides it with the opportunity to be spontaneous and inclusive. This was borne out by Wild River (2005a, p. 10) who reported that ‘… local governments are delivering beneficial environmental outcomes in novel and creative ways partly [as] a result of them stepping beyond their statutory limits’. Morrison, McDonald and Lane (2004) suggest that distributed power and responsibility to multiple agencies allow political trade-offs through negotiation processes. Notwithstanding, the local governments that participated in this research reported that there were too many agencies to which they were answerable, too much policy ambiguity and not enough respect for local government and its various roles. This continual clash between the tiers of government was underscored by the experience of Wild River (2005b, p. 5) who was ‘… continually frustrated by an apparent inability of local government insiders to engage with state government priorities and the matching inability of state government personnel to understand the local government priorities’. 9.6 Commitment As noted earlier, local government is the sphere of government closest to the people and the environment and they ‘… necessarily integrate social, economic and ecological issues in everyday work’ (Wild River 2005b, p. 3). Local government councillors usually have some altruistic commitment to their community and although some come onto council with a particular agenda, the work of a councillor requires coverage of a multitude of local issues. As in all organisations, some local government employees are more dedicated and keen about their work than others. Wild River (2005a, p. 13) cites the work of enthusiastic, committed local government employees and councillors making a significant impression on the outcomes of local government environmental agenda, ‘… [an] important feature of successful attempts by local governments to deliver beneficial environmental outcomes was the presence of passionate individuals with a long-term connection to the local area and commitment to the environmental work’. In earlier work, Wild River (2003b) found that even though environmental officer positions were not well paid, most were thoroughly dedicated to their constituents and had a heightened sense of place and connection to it. ‘… [Many] have become highly knowledgeable and influential in local government environmental issues throughout their states’ (Wild River 2003b, p. 17). These findings were strongly supported by our findings in this study. Those people who worked with and for the environment at a local government level were mostly passionate. Most viewed their continued connection to their local places being a function of the health and

87

sustainability of the environment. Wild River (2005a, p. 10) describes local governments and committed people within them:

… tak[ing] on environmental work beyond their statutory requirements, because they perceive themselves as creatures and servants of the local area, and not of the state. They respond strongly to issues that are important in the local area whether or not they lie within the statutory categories for local government work.

However, a cautionary note is required. Not all councillors or paid employees were committed to natural resource management, or the environment. Many did not understand the role or inter-related nature of biodiversity and viewed environmental issues as potentially inflammatory and an expensive impost on the time and budget of their local government. As identified in the case studies, some local government authorities did not view natural resource management as core local government business and, hence, it was low on the council’s list of priorities. In other instances, environmental issues were viewed as the preserve of ‘greenies’ and presented a potential conflict between other local government policies that promoted development and regional economic development. The link between the health of the natural systems and the economic well-being of the local government area was not always well understood by local government employees or elected councillors. Consistent with the findings of Rydin and Greig (1995, p. 291), the environmental agenda was often subordinated to other agendas ‘… either explicitly or, more often implicitly by liking an environmental policy to the achievement of another policy goal’. Wild River (2003a p. 357) adds that ‘… the capacity to balance different values for persistent outcomes is clearly compromised when resources or momentum are inadequate or lost’. The lack of coordination and collaboration between the different spheres of government and between the regional and local natural resource management authorities (as discussed earlier) often caused frustration and disillusionment at the local level with a consequent negative outcome on local commitment to natural resource management issues. The case studies demonstrated that leadership by the mayor and / or the CEO was often pivotal regarding the overall commitment of the local government authority to natural resource management. Where there was commitment to natural resource management by the local government leaders, budget and resource priorities were directed to natural resource management initiatives. Where the local government leaders were lukewarm or committed to issues, natural resource management tend to fall by the wayside. 9.7 Conclusion This summary chapter began by emphasising the four key contributions to knowledge made by this report. First, it has provided qualitative and, therefore, descriptive and in-depth data about local governments and natural resource management. Second, it has crossed state lines and, therefore, allowed for comparisons to be made between the states. Third, it has focused not simply on those local governments highly engaged in natural resource management, but also those facing significant existing and future natural resource management problems, which they are struggling to address. Finally, the report has placed rurality at the centre of its inquiry and, thus, highlighted the particular problems in developing an environmental agenda for shires outside of the metropolitan sphere. Data from the case studies and Q-methodology study have been analysed according to four key themes: community, capacity, coordination and commitment. A range of barriers and facilitators to rural local government engagement in natural resource management mobilise around each of these four themes. The conclusion has given emphasis not just to the barriers to rural local government involvement in natural resource management, but also identified a range of strategies to implement to address these barriers. This approach is not to suggest that all of the barriers facing rural local governments in relation to natural resource management are easily resolved. It is salutary to note that the types of barriers identified in this study in 2005 resonate strongly with those from Australian work undertaken over a decade before (Keen & Mercer 1993; Keen et al. 1994). It is clear that efforts have been made to address these barriers. Nevertheless, it is also evident that a number of past recommendations made by

88

comprehensive studies of local government and natural resource management have been ignored (see, for example, the recommendations made in Binning et al 1999). Thus, barriers identified in previous research continue to impede local governments in taking up an environmental agenda. In the interim, natural resource management at the local government level in Australia is compromised. This reality is particularly so for rural local governments, which typically have low capacity and a limited resource base. 9.8 Recommendations The environment cannot be ignored at the local level however it is evident from this research that local government does not always view environmental issues as part of its core business. The value and importance of the environment from both short and long term perspectives needs to be better understood by all participants in local government. There is a lack of clarity regarding the core responsibilities of local government for natural resource management. Short term funding cycles and job insecurity due to funding uncertainty has a direct impact on the employment of local government environmental officers. While there is inconsistency in ongoing funding sources for natural resource management, it is unlikely that natural resource management will be of core importance to local government. It is recommended that state and Commonwealth legislation and policies endorse local government and provide it with more statutory power to strengthen its environmental role. It is imperative that the other spheres of government support natural resource management with appropriate funding support that has a long term perspective rather than short, disjointed funding arrangements. Equally, local government needs to be creative financial managers to maximise the impact of whatever finances are invested in natural resource management. It is important that local government is not presumed to be homogenous. Local government does not always have a say in how decisions are made at other levels of government, and they are often shoehorned into a ‘one size fits all’ mentality (Aitkin, Jinks & Warhurst 1980), as sweeping policy decisions are made without considering local conditions. There is limited evidence of ‘big picture’ strategic planning at local government level. Suitably qualified and committed local government employees need to be attracted to the sector, especially in non-metropolitan local government authorities. As it is, there is concern that, due to staff shortages throughout the sector, local government is unable to execute their legislative obligations. The sector has an ageing population which coincides with a general tightening of the labour market due to a relative decline in skilled labour able and willing to participate in local government employment. The local government sector has been slow to adopt workforce planning in a practical sense and this needs to be addressed immediately. It is imperative that specific local government expertise and training is incorporated into a training program tailored to the local government sector. Recognition of the importance of workforce planning for sustainability cannot be over-emphasised. The lack of integration between the different spheres of government, agencies and approaches and the patchy collaboration at the community level undermines the ‘truly holistic implementation of catchment plans’ (Paton et al, 2004, p. 259) and hence the effectiveness of environmental and land-use planning and programs at the grassroots level. In addition, there is a need for local government constituents to understand the value of natural resource management and the potential role for local government. This educative process needs to be a key focus for local government but will require ‘whole-of-community’ commitment. The responsibility does not rest only with formal government, but also with other stakeholders and they too have obligations to take responsibility for the shared beliefs and the operational workings of natural resource management.

89

References Adams, G & Hine, M 1999, 'Local environmental policy making in Australia', in K Walker & K

Crowley (eds), Australian Environmental Policy: Studies in Decline and Devolution, 2nd edn, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Addams, H 2000, ' Q methodology. Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q

methodology', in PH Addams & J Proops (eds), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 14-40. Addams, H & Proops, J (eds.) 2000, Social discourse and environmental policy: an application of Q

methodology Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Aitkin, D, Jinks, B & Warhurst, J 1980, Australian Political Institutions, Pitman Australia,

Melbourne. Alexandra, J, Higgins, J & White, T 1998, Environmental Indicators for National State of the

Environment Reporting Community and Local Uses, Environment Australia, Canberra. Allan, J & Lovett, S 1996, Institutional Impediments to Managing Environmental Water Provisions,

Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra. Allan, J & Lovett, S 1997, 'Managing water for the environment: impediments and challenges',

Australian Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 200-10. Aplin, G, Beggs, P, Brierley, G, Cleugh, H, Curson, P, Mitchell, P, Pitman, A & Rich, D 1999,

Global Environmental Crises: An Australian Perspective, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

Arthington, A & Pusey, B 2003, 'Flow Restoration and Protection in Australian Rivers', River

Research and Applications, no. 19, pp. 377-95. Atkinson, N Rogers, N & Lyon, P 2003, Victorian Local Government Weed Management Report,

Municipal Association of Victoria: Melbourne.

Aulich, C 1999, 'From convergence to divergence: Reforming Australian local government', Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 12-23.

Australian Local Government Association 2003, Natural Resources Management, Australian Local

Government Association, Deakin, A.C.T., 26 May 2003. Retrieved 5 October, from http://www.alga.asn.au/policy/environment/resourceManagement.php

Australian Local Government Association 2005, 2004-2005 National NRM Survey of Local

Government. http://www.alga.asn.au/policy/environment/nrm/survey. Accessed 31/5/2005.

Australian Local Government Association & Biological Diversity Advisory Council 2000, National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy, Australian Local Government Association and Biological Diversity Advisory Council Canberra.

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & Biological Diversity

Advisory Committee 2001, Biodiversity Conservation Research: Australia's Priorities, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Baker, G 2003, 'Management reform in local government', in B Dollery, N Marshall & A

Worthington (eds), Reshaping Australian Local Government : Finance, Governance and Reform, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

90

Barton, H & Bruder, N 1995, A Guide to Local Environmental Auditing, Earthscan, London. Bates, G 2003, 'Legal perspectives', in S Dovers & S Wild River (eds), Managing Australia's

Environment, Federation Press, Annandale, NSW. Bates, G 1995, Environmental Law in Australia, 4th edn, Butterworths, Adelaide. Berwick, MM & Thorman, R 1999, National Government Biodiversity Strategy, Australian Local

Government Association and Biological Diversity Advisory Council, Canberra. Binning, C & Feilman, P 2000, Landscape conservation and the non-government sector,

Environment Australia Natural Heritage Division, Canberra. Binning, C, Young, M & Cripps, E 1999, Beyond Roads, Rates and Rubbish: Opportunities for local

government to conserve native vegetation, Environment Australia, Canberra, 1/99. Bishop, P 2000, 'Customers, citizens and consultation: The ethics of representation', in P Bishop & N

Preston (eds), Local Government: Public Enterprise and Ethics, Federation Press, Annandale.

Black, A 2005, 'Rural communities and sustainability', in C Cocklin & J Dibden (eds), Sustainability

and Change in Rural Australia, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, pp. 20-37. Bridgman, P & Davis, G 2000, The Australian Policy Handbook, 2nd edn, Allen and Unwin, Crows

Nest. Brown, R.R. (1980) Political subjectivity: applications of Q methodology in political science, Yale

University Press. New Haven, CT Brown, S. R. (1996) Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 6 (4) pp.

561-567. Brown, A, Jones, A & MacKay, F 1999, The Representativeness of Councillors, York Publishing

Services, York. Brundtland, G 1987, The U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common

Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Buckingham-Hatfield, S & Percy, S 1999, 'Constructing future local environmental agendas', in S

Buckingham-Hatfield & S Percy (eds), Constructing Local Environmental Agendas: People, Places and Participation, Routledge, London, pp. 186-92.

Bulkeley, H 2000a, 'Down to earth: local government and greenhouse policy in Australia', Australian

Geographer, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 289-308. Bulkeley, H 2000b, 'Down to earth: Local Government and greenhouse policy in Australia',

Australian Geographer, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 289-308. journal article. Burnley, I & Murphy, P 2004, Sea Change: Movement from Metropolitan to Arcadian Australia,

University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Burns, R 1990, Introduction to Research Methods, Melbourne. Byrnes, J & Dollery, B 2002a, 'Do Economies of Scale exist in Australian Local Government? A

review of the research evidence', Urban Policy and Research, no. 20, pp. 391-414.

91

Byrnes, J & Dollery, B 2002b, 'Do economies of scale exist in Australian local government? A

review of the research evidence', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 391-414. Christoff, P 1998, 'Degreening government in the Garden State: Environment policy under the

Kennett government', Environmental and Planning Law Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 10-32.

Commonwealth of Australia 1996, Australia, State of the Environment, 1996, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.

Conacher, A & Conacher, J 2000, Environmental Planning and Management in Australia, Oxford

University Press, Melbourne. Conacher, J 2002, National and international environmental legislation and policies that impact on

regional development in Australia, Institute for Regional Development, University of Western Australia, Perth.

Cotter, B & Hannan, K 1999, Our Community Our Future: A Guide to Local Agenda 21, Environs

Australia, Melbourne, from http://www.deh.gov.au/esd/la21/manual/index.html Council of Australian Governments 2002, A National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality,

Agiculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia and Environment Australia, from http://www.napswq.gov.au/publications/pubs/vital-resources.pdf

Cripps, E, Binning, C & Young, M 1999, Opportunity denied: a review of the legislative ability of

local government to conserve native vegetation, Environment Australia Biodiversity Group, Canberra.

Crowley, K 1998, '"Glocalisation" and ecological modernity: challenges for local environmental

governance in Australia', Local Environment, vol. 3, pp. 91-7. journal article. Crowley, K 2001, 'Effective environmental Federalism? Australia's Natural Heritage Trust', Journal

of Environmental Policy and Planning, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 255-72. Crowley, K 2004, 'Environmental policy and politics in Australia', in A Fenna (ed.), Australian

Public Policy, 2nd edn, Pearson Longman, Frenchs Forest. Curtis, A 2003, 'The Landcare experience', in S Dovers & S Wild River (eds), Managing Australia's

Environment, Federation Press, Leichhardt. Curtis, A & Lockwood, M 2000, 'Landcare and catchment management in Australia: lessons for

state-sponsored community participation', Society and Natural Resources, vol. 13, pp. 61-73. Cuthill, M. 2001. Developing local government policy and processes for community consultation and

participation. Urban Policy and Research, 19(2): 183-202. Daly, M 2000, 'The challenges for local government in the 21st century', in B Pritchard & P

McManus (eds), Land of Discontent, UNSW Press, Sydney, pp. 195-217. Davis, G & Keating, M (eds.) 2000, The Future of Governance, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards. Davis, G & Weller, P (eds.) 2001, Are You Being Served? States, Citizens and Governance, Allen &

Unwin, Crows Nest.

92

Department of Environment and Heritage 2005, Natural Resource Management Home Page, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, from http://www.deh.gov.au/nrm/

Dollery, B & Crase, L 2004, 'A critical note on 'eco-civic regionalisation' as the basis for local

government boundaries in Australia', Australian Geographer, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 289-300. Dollery, B & Johnson, A 2004, 'Enhancing efficiency in Australian local government: An evaluation

of alternative models of municipal governance', Structural Reform and Regional Cooperation Forum, West Australian Local Government Association, Perth.

Dore, J, Woodhill, J, Andrew, K & Keating, C 2003, 'Sustainable regional development: Lessons

from Australian efforts', in S Dovers & S Wild River (eds), Managing Australia's Environment, The Federation Press, Leichhardt.

Doyle, T & Kellow, A 1995, Environmental Politics and Policy Making in Australia, Macmillan,

Melbourne. Drysek, J 1997, The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discources, Oxford University Press, New

York. Durning D. W. (1999) The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: a role for Q-

methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18 (3) pp. 389-410.

Dunphy, D & Benveniste, J 2000, 'An introduction to the sustainable corporation', in D Dunphy, J Benveniste, A Griffiths & P Sutton (eds), Sustainability: The Corporate Challenge of the 21st Century, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards.

Eckerberg, K & Mineur, E 2003, 'The use of local sustainability indicators: case studies in two

Swedish municipalities', Local Environment, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 591-614. Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee 1992, National Strategy for Ecologically

Sustainable Development, Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee, Canberra.

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 1999, Local government in Asia and the

Pacific: A comparative analysis of fifteen countries, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

Edgar, D 2001, The Patchwork Nation: Re-thinking Government - Re-building Community, Harper

Collins, Sydney. Ewing, S 2003, 'Catchment management arrangements', in S Dovers & S Wild River (eds),

Federation Press, Annandale, pp. 393-412. Farthing, S 1997, Evaluating Local Environmental policy, Avebury Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot,

UK. Fenna, A 2004, Australian Public Policy, 2nd edn, Pearson Longman, Frenchs Forest. Gallivan, J. (1994) Subjectivity and the psychology of gender: Q as a feminist methodology. Pp. 29-

36 in Crozier, S. D., Gallivan, J. and V. M. Lalande, eds, Women, Girls and Achievemen,t Captus University, North York.

93

Gibbs, DC, Longhurst, J & Braithwaite, C 1998, '"Struggling with sustainability": A weak and strong interpretations of sustainable development within local authority policy', Environment and Planning A, vol. 30, pp. 1351-65.

Glass, SM 2002, 'Sustainability and Local Government', Local Environment, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 97-

102. Gomes, RC 2002, 'Does stakeholder influence matter? empirical evidence about power and decision

making within English local authorities', Sixth International Research Symposium on Public Sector Management, Edinburgh.

Gomm, R Hammersley, M and Foster, P 2000. 'Case study and generalization', In R Gomm, and M

Hammersley and P Foster, Case Study Method. Sage, London, pp. 98-116.

Gooch, M. (2005) Voices of the volunteers: An exploration of the experiences of catchment volunteers in coastal Queensland, Australia, Local Environment, 10 (1), pp 5-19.

Gray, D 2004, Doing Research in the Real World, Sage, London.

Gray, I & Lawrence, G 2001, A Future for Regional Australia: Escaping Global Misfortune, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gubrium, J. F., and J. A. Holstein. 2002. From the individual interview to the interview society. In

Handbook of interview research: Context and method, edited by J. F.Gubrium and J. A. Holstein, 1-32. Thousands Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Hamilton, C, Lunney, D & Matthews, A 2000, 'An economic evaluation of local government

approaches to Koala conservation', Australian Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 7, pp. 158-69.

Harding, R & Traynor, D 2003, 'Informing ESD: State of the Environment Reporting', in S Dovers &

S Wild River (eds), Managing Australia's Environment, The Federation Press, Leichhardt. Higgins, V. (1997) Breaking down the divisions? A case study of political power and change in rural

local government representation, Rural Society, 7 (3/4), pp. 51-58. Higham, A 2000, 'SoE reporting and environmental policy planning in Western Australia', SoE 2000:

Working Toward Sustainable Communities Inaugural National State of the Environment 2000 Conference, Coffs Harbour.

Hilmer, F 1993, National Competition Policy Report, Independent Committee of Inquiry to the

Council of Australian Governments, Canberra. Higgins, V & Lockie, S 2001, 'Getting big nd getting out', in S Lockie & L Bourke (eds), Rurality

Bites: The Social and Environmental Transformation of Rural Australia, Pluto Press, Sydney, pp. 178-90.

ICLEI 1991, Local Agenda 21 Campaign, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives,

Toronto, from http://www.iclei.org/ICLEI/la21.htm Ife, J 1999, Community Development: Creating Community Alternatives - Vision, Analysis and

Practice, Longman, Frenchs Forest. IWS, Indigo Shire & Kunert, C 2003, North East Catchment Management Authority - Local

Government Facilitation Project, North East Catchment Management Authority, Yackandandah.

94

Janicke, M & Weidner, H 1997, National Environmental Policies: A Comparative Study of Capacity

Building, Springer, Berlin. Jones, G & Stewart, J 2002, 'Attention to Inspection', Local Government Chronicle, vol. 15, no. 2. Keen, M & Mercer, D 1993, 'Environmental planning at the local level: the example of local

conservation strategies in Victoria, Australia', The Environmentalist, vol. 13, pp. 83-95. Keen, M, Mercer, D & Woodfull, J 1994, 'Approaches to environmental management at the

Australian local government level: initiatives and limitations', Environmental Politics, vol. 3, pp. 43-67.

Kellow, A & Niemeyer, S 1999, 'The development of environmental administration in Queensland

and Western Australia: Why are they different?' Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 34, pp. 205-22.

Kiss, R 1999, 'Local Government to local administration: the new order', in B Costar & N Economou

(eds), The Kennett revolution: Victorian politics in the 1990s, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, pp. 110-21.

Kottak, C 1991, 'When People Don't come first: Some lessons from completed projects', in M

Cernea (ed.), Putting people first: sociological variables in rural development, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 431-64.

Krueger, R 1993, 'Quality control in focus group research', in D Morgan (ed), Successful Focus

Groups: Advancing the state of the art, Sage, Newbury Park, pp. 65-85.

Lawrence, G, Vanclay, F & Furze, B (eds.) 1992, The Social Context of Farmers: Adoption of Environmentally Sound Practices, Macmillan, Melbourne.

Lincoln, Y & Guba, E 1990, 'Judging the quality of case study reports', Qualitative Studies in

Education, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 53-59.

Local Government Association of NSW and Shires Association of NSW 2003 The Role of Local Government in the Sustainable Management of the Natural Resources of NSW, Local Government Association of NSW and Shires Association of NSW, Sydney.

Local Government Association of NSW and Shires Association of NSW 2003, Natural Resource Management survey of the Needs of Councils, Local Government Association of NSW and Shires Association of NSW, Sydney.

Lothian, A 2002, 'Australian attitudes towards the environment: 1991-2001', Australian Journal of

Environmental Management, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 45-62. Lowe, I 1998, 'The state of the Australian Environment', Agronomy - Growing a Greener Future.

Ninth Australian Agronomy Conference, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga. Lyden, F, Twight, B & Tuchmann, E 1990, 'Citizen participation in long range planning: The RPA

experience', Natural Resources Journal, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 123-38. Maganov, P 2005, 'SoE What? Has ten years or more of SoE reporting across Australia created or

contributed to any environmental improvements or outcomes?' State of Australian Cities, Griffith University, Brisbane.

95

Macnaughten, P and Jacobs, M 1997. ‘Public identification with sustainable development’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 7. no. 1, pp. 5-24.

Marshall, N & Sproats, K 2000, 'Using strategic management practices to promote participatory democracy in Australian local government', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 495-514.

Martin, J & Simons, R 2002, 'Managing Competing Values: Leadership Stiles of Mayors and CEO's',

Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 65-75. Marvin, S & Guy, S 1997, 'Infrastructure Provision, Development Processes and the Co-production

of Environmental Value', Urban Studies, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 2023-36. Mason, J. (2002) 'Qualitative interviewing: Asking, listening and interpreting', in Tim May

(ed.), pp. 225-241, Qualitative Research in Action (London: Sage). Maxwell, J. P. (2001) Managing conflict at the county level: the use of Q methodology in dispute

resolution and strategic planning. Public Administration Quarterly (Fall) pp.338-355. McKeown, B. and D. Thomas (1988) Q methodology, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. McManus, P 1996, 'Contested terrains: Politics, stories and discourses of sustainability',

Environmental Politics, vol. 5, pp. 48-73. McManus, P & Albrecht, G 2000, 'Environmental and Aboriginal issues: The emergence of new

tensions in rural and regional politics', in B Pritchard & P McManus (eds), Land of Discontent: The Dynamics of Change in Rural and Regional Australia, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

McManus, P & Pritchard, B 2001, 'Regional policy: Toward the triple bottom line', Australasian

Journal of Regional Studies, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 249-60. Mercer, D 2000, "A Question of Balance": Natural Resources Conflict Issues in Australia,

Federation Press, Annandale. Mercer, D & Jotkowitz, B 2000, 'Local Agenda 21 and barriers to sustainability at the local

government level in Victoria, Australia', Australian Geographer, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 163-81. Miles, M & Huberman, A 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E. & Alexander, L. (1995) In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis (2nd ed.), Longman, Melbourne.

Moore, SA 2005, 'Regional delivery of natural resource management in Australia: Is it democratic

and does it matter?' in R Eversole & J Martin (eds), Participation and Governance in Regional Development, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot.

Morrison, T, McDonald, G & Lane, M 2004, 'Integrating natural resource management for better

environmental outcomes', Australian Geographer, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 243-58. Municipal Association of Victoria 2002, Victorian local government environment management

survey: Programs, resources and management approaches, Municipal Association of Victoria, Melbourne.

96

National Farmer's Federation and Australian Conservation Federation (NFF/ACF) 2000a, A National Scenario for Strategic Investment, National Farmer's Federation and Australian Conservation Federation, Canberra, from http://www.nff.org.au/rtc/5point.htm

National Farmer's Federation and Australian Conservation Federation (NFF/ACF) 2000b, A National

Scenario for Strategic Investment, National Farmer's Federation and Australian Conservation Federation. Retrieved 1 July, from http://www.nff.org.au/rtc/5point.htm

National Office of Local Government 2001, 2000-01 Annual Report, National Office of Local

Government, Department of Transport and Regional Services, Canberra. Natoli, J (2004) 'Meeting the challenge of growth: Resources, leadership and planning', in

WA Sea Change Conference Papers, City of Rockingham, Rockingham. Osmond, P & Ray, S 1996, Attending to the environment: A manual for contract specification,

Environs Australia, Melbourne. Parker, J & Selman, P 1999, 'Tales of Local Sustainability', Local Environment, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 49-

62. Parliament of Australia 2002, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance

and Public Administration inquiry into cost-shifting by State governments to local government, Parliament of Australia, Canberra. Retrieved 25 January, 2005, from http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/efpa/localgovt/report.htm

Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 2003, House of Representatives Standing Committee

on Economic, Financial and Public Administration on Cost Shifting onto Local Government, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, from http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/efpa/localgovt/report/fullreport.pdf

Paton, S, Woods, M, Curtis, A & McDonald, G 2004, 'Regional natural resource management: A

social and environmental experiment', Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 259-68.

Perry, C 1998, 'Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing',

European Journal of Marketing, vol. 32, no. 9/10, pp. 785-802.

Pinfield, G 1996, ‘Beyond sustainability indicators’, Local Environment, vol. 1 no. 2, pp. 151-63.

Prior, L 2003, Using Documents in Social Research, Sage, London. Productivity Commission 1999, Implementation of ecologically sustainable development by

Commonwealth departments and agencies, Report No. 5 AusInfo, Canberra. Reade, E 1997, 'Planning in the future or planning of the future?' in A Blowers & B Evans (eds),

Town planning into the 21st Century, Routledge, London, pp. 71-103. Ritchie, J., Lewis J. and Elam, G. (2002) Designing and Selecting Samples: Qualitative

research in practice, pp. 77-108 (London: Sage). Robbins, P. and R. Krueger (2000) Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human

geography. Professional Geographer 52 (4) pp. 636-648. Rogers, M & Ryan, R 2001, 'The triple bottom line for sustainable community development', Local

Environment, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 279-89.

97

Rydin, Y & Greig, A 1995, 'Talking past each other', Environmental Politics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 270-

93. Salvaris, M 1999, Benchmarks for Australian citizenship: A nation survey, Swinburn University of

Technology, Melbourne. Sammels, B 2004, 'Conference introduction', WA Sea Change Conference Papers, City of

Rockingham, Rockingham. Salt, B 2004, The Big Shift, 2nd edn, Hardie Grant Books, South Yarra. Selman, P & Parker, J 1999, 'Tales of local sustainability', Local Environment, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 47-

60. Selwood, J & Tonts, M 2004, 'Recreational second homes in the south west of Western Australia', in

CM Hall & D Muller (eds), Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes, Channelview Publications, London.

Schon, D. A. and Rein, M. 1994, Frame reflection. Toward the resolution of intractable policy

controversies, Basic Books. New York. Schmidt, C 2004, The analysis of semi-structured interviews, in U Flick, E von Kardorff & I. Steinke

(eds), A Companion to Qualitative Research, Sage, London pp. 253-258.

Simpson, R, Petroeschevsky, A & Lowe, I 2000, 'An ecological footprint analysis for Australia', Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 7, pp. 11-8.

Sproats, K & Kelly, A 1998, The role of Local Government in Natural Resource Management, Local

Government and Shires Association of NSW, Sydney. Stainton Rogers, W 1991, Explaining Health and Illness: An exploration of diversity, Harvester

Wheatsheaf, London.

Stake, RN (ed.) 2003, Case studies: Strategies of qualitative inquiry, 2 edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks. State of Environment Report (2001) details available http://www.ea.gov.au/soe/ Stenner,P. and Marshall H. 1995. Q methodological study of rebelliousness. European Journal of Social Psychology 25 6 621-636. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press. Stoker, G 1997, Local Political Participation. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Stricklin, M. and J. Almedia (2001) PCQ: analysis software for Q-technique (Academic Edition) [Computer software]. Available at http://www.pcqsoft.com/ [7 June 2005].

Swan Avon Integrated Catchment Council 2004, Regional Profile, Swan Avon Integrated Catchment

Council, Perth, from http://www.avonicm.org.au/nrm/showPage.cfm?page_id=84&page_section=NRM%20Information

Thomas, D. M. and R. T. Watson (2002) Q sorting and MIS research: a primer. Communications of

the Association of Information Systems 8 pp. 141-156.

98

Tonts, M 2005, 'Government policy and rural sustainability', in C Cocklin & J Dibden (eds),

Sustainability and Change in Rural Australia, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Tuxworth, B 1996, 'From environment to sustainability: Surveys and analysis of Local Agenda 21

process development in UK local authorities', Local Environment, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 277-97. UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (1999) Uphoff, N 1992, 'Monitoring and Evaluating popular participation in world bank-assisted projects', in

B Bhatnagar & A Williams (eds), Participatory Development and the World Bank, The World Bank, Washington D.C., pp. 135-53.

Van Eeten, M 2000, 'Recasting intractable policy issues: The wider implications of the Netherlands

Civil Aviation controversy', Public Policy, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 391-414.

Wackernagel, M & Rees, W 1995, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia.

Walker, K & Crowley, K (eds.) 1999, Australian Environmental Policy 2: Studies in Decline and

Devolution, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Wallis, J & Dollery, B 2002, 'Social Capital and Local Government Capacity', Australian Journal of

Public Administration, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 76-85. Walmsley, J 2003, 'Rural tourism: A case of lifestyle-led opportunities', Australian Geographer, vol.

34, no. 1, pp. 61-72. Welch, RV 1997, 'Local government and sustainable development: European perspectives',

European Environment, vol. 7, pp. 16-24. Wengraf, T 2001, Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage, London. Wensing, E 1997, 'The Process of Local Government Reform: Legislative Change in the States', in B

Dollery & N Marshall (eds), Australian Local Government: Reform and Renewal, Macmillan, Melbourne.

Whittaker, S 1997, 'Are Australian councils "willing and able" to implement Local Agenda 21?'

Local Environment, vol. 2, pp. 319-28. journal article. Wild, A & Marshall, R 1999, 'Participatory practice in the context of Local Agenda 21: A case study

evaluation of experience in three English local authorities', Sustainable Development, vol. 7, pp. 151-62.

Wild River, S 2002a, The Environmental Implications of the local-state antimony in Australia,

Australian National University. file://D:%5CFiona%20McKenzie%5CEndnote%5Clocal%20govt%20RIRDC.enl.

Wild River, S 2002b, The environmental implications of the local-state antinomy in Australia, PhD

Thesis, Australian National University. Wild River, S 2003, 'Local Government', in S Dovers & S Wild River (eds), Managing Australia's

Environment, Federation Press, Annandale, NSW, pp. 338-62.

99

Wild River, S 2004, Natural resource management issues by local government area, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Wild River, S 2005a, 'Australian local government attempts to deliver beneficial environmental

outcomes (under review)', Local Environment Journal. Wild River, S 2005b, 'Enhancing the sustainability efforts of local governments', International

Journal of Innovation and Sustainability, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-21. Williams, J & Saunders, D 2005, 'Land use and ecosystems', in J Goldie, B Douglas & B Furnass

(eds), In Seach of Sustainability, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Wilson, D 1999, 'Exploring the limits of public participation in local government', Parliamentary

Affairs, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 246-59. Woodhill, J & Nabben, T 2004, Institutional Development and Landcare: Lessons from Australia -

Implications for South Africa, AusAID, Canberra. Worboys, G, Lockwood, M & De Lacy, T 2001, Protected Area Management: Principles and

Practice, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford

University Press, South Melbourne. Worthington, AC & Dollery, BE 2000, 'Can Australian Local Government play a meaningful role in

the development of social capital in disadvantaged rural communities?' Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 349-61.

Yanarella, EJ 1999, 'Local Sustainability Programmes in Comparative Perspective: Canada and the

USA', Local Environment, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 209-23. Yanarella, EJ & Levine, RS 1992, 'Does sustainable development lead to survivability?' Futures, vol.

24, no. 8, pp. 759-74. Yin, R 2002, Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

100

101

Appendices

102

Appendix 1: Focus Group and Interview Guide for Councils Background General discussion of role, length of time in role etc. Natural resource management issues and strategies • What are the major natural resource management issues facing your council? • What strategies are in place to deal with these issues? Plans? Laws? Incentives? • How effective have past strategies been? • What impediments exist to effective natural resource management in this shire? How could these

be overcome? Capacity • Where do you as a shire obtain your information/knowledge about local natural resource

management issues? Own primary data? Regional bodies? State agencies? ABS? • About state, national and international environmental policies and programs? • On average, what financial commitment does this shire make to natural resource management on

an annual basis? E.g. up to $750 000, $500 000, $250 000, $100 000, $50 000? Where does this come from?

• What support do you receive from federal and state government for natural resource management? • Have council members/council staff received training in relation to natural resource management? Institutional arrangements • What do you believe the role of local government should be in relation to NRM? • How is this different from the role of federal and state government? Stakeholder groups • What regional organisations are involvement in NRM in your shire? • What other stakeholder groups are involved in NRM? • What strategies do you use as a council to engage stakeholder group involvement with NRM? Can

you provide an illustration? How effective have these strategies been? How could arrangements between stakeholder groups and council be improved?

• Have there been instances where there has been conflict in the shire in relation to natural resource management? What has been the nature of this conflict? How has it been managed and what has been the outcome?

103

Appendix 2: Interview Guide Local Government Association and State Government Agencies Capacity • How is expertise, knowledge etc for dealing with natural resource management issues developed

at the local government level? • Is the general natural resource management expertise at the local government level adequate?

How does local government keep up to date?

Institutional arrangements • Whose responsibility is it, do you think, for local government at the grass roots level, to have a

clear understanding about specific natural resource management issues? The Commonwealth? The State? or Individual Local Governments?

• How are natural resource management issues, legislation, policies etc communicated to local government at the grass roots level? (by you at the state level? And commonwealth?) Are there any strategies in place to ensure that this knowledge is consistent?

• Are there specific State government strategies to facilitate across government development, implementation and monitoring of local government natural resource management strategies? How were these developed? What consultation (especially with local government)?

• What factors assist the monitoring process? • What factors impede the monitoring process • What do you perceive to be the responsibility of the State/Local Government Association

regarding natural resource management issues and local government? • What do you believe to be the role of local government regarding natural resource management

issues? • How does this differ from the role of the Commonwealth and the State government? • Are there penalties imposed by the State/peak organisation for local governments that do not

comply with natural resource management policies etc? • Are there any incentives given to local governments by the State or Commonwealth to address

natural resource management issues? Engagement of local government in NRM • Why do some local government organisations engage with natural resource management issues

better than others?

104

Appendix 3: Interviews undertaken within Local Government Case Study Sites

Councils Mayor CEO NRM Officer

Economic or Community Development Officer

Environmental Manager

Councillor Regional Total

QLD1 1 1 1 2 1 6 QLD2 1 1 1 2 1 6 QLD3 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 QLD4 1 1 1 3 6 NSW1 6 NSW2 6 NSW3 6 NSW4 6 WA1 1 1 1 3 1 7 WA2 1 1 1 3 1 7 WA3 1 1 3 1 5 WA4 1 1 1 1 3 1 9 VIC1 1 1 1 2 5 VIC2 1 1 1 2 5 VIC3 1 1 1 1 2 6 TOTAL 11 11 7 5 2 27 6 69

105

Appendix 4: Statement Set Community Community refers to the population of people living in the rural shire, and their level and type of involvement in NRM. Statements will canvass whether local citizens are interested in NRM and whether they place demands on their local government to address NRM. Involvement in NRM is mediated by community knowledge and understanding of NRM. Descriptive Statements Facilitators Barriers Local government has to lead the community on NRM not be a follower.

Lobby groups bypass LG about NRM.

Councils should provide in-kind and direct financial assistance to community based groups dealing with NRM.

Involving the community is very time consuming.

Local governments have a strong record on community consultation in relation to NRM as they are the closest tier of government to the people.

In rural shires certain individuals and groups have greater political power and their voices are heard most strongly when questions are asked about NRM.

One of council’s roles is to go out to people and articulate NRM goals in a language they understand and get them on board.

Rural local government community input on NRM has been in the form of responses to one off questionnaires or participation in often poorly attended citizen-council forums.

Local government needs to focus on educating and empowering the community about NRM.

NRM is only a few years old for many rural communities so it will take time for it to be mainstreamed.

There are numerous resources and cost savings available to a council through involving the community in NRM.

People don’t get involved with NRM because they think they have to be experts or have scientific knowledge.

Focusing on NRM can assist a shire in developing a strong local identity.

Elected members and staff are not experienced in community engagement.

Even if the community isn’t using the term NRM they are still very likely to be interested and committed to the issues. They might just talk about it as water, logging or something like that.

The dilemma for local government is that they may need people’s participation but they fear it more.

You need Environmental staff at the local level who have community development backgrounds, not just resource management backgrounds.

There is a lot of public distrust of government seeking community involvement.

106

Capacity Capacity refers to both human and financial resources. Human resources include the NRM skill and knowledge levels of council members and staff. It also refers to whether local councils employ specifically dedicated NRM staff. The level of financial resources of rural local governments and their ability to access financial resources are also critical in terms of capacity. Descriptive Statements Facilitators Barriers More and morel rural local councils are employing environmental specialist staff who help them understand their responsibilities and train up other staff and community members.

The range of skills required for defining, monitoring, planning for and managing NRM at the local level is not currently readily available within local government areas.

State agencies and most local governments now have access to sophisticated databases to rapidly obtain detailed NRM information.

There is a lack of appropriate data on NRM at the local government level for defining and managing NRM problems.

There are some dynamic and passionate individual staff and councillors who are committed to NRM and they are making a difference.

An enormous barrier to local government environmental policy formulation in Australia is the lack of effective political power of local government.

LGs could raise funds through environmental levies or provide financial incentives to businesses, groups or individuals

Councils are providing the resources for their growing role and responsibility for NRM essentially from their own limited rate base and charges.

State and federal governments recognise that the cost and responsibility of NRM can’t rest entirely with LG.

The political cycle at both a state and local level makes it difficult for any long term NRM planning. Governments can change and priorities can change in an instant.

LG can use loopholes in state government legislation to impose population caps and other novel constraints on developments in their local areas.

Knowledge about NRM is lacking amongst council staff and elected members.

107

Connection Statements relating to connection focus on the extent to which a rural local government is involved in inter-agency networking in relation to NRM. Participation with NRM state, federal and regional bodies and NRM alliances with neighbouring councils are also included in collaboration. Descriptive Statements Facilitators Barriers Councils work closely with catchment councils and incorporate their goals into the Council Environmental policy.

Local governments want to control NRM rather than be a partner in the management of NRM.

Shire Environmental Plans incorporate principles from the Regional Catchment Authorities and the State Legislation

Councils act as little islands and they don’t share their knowledge.

Shires are becoming more used to working co-operatively on projects and for planning.

Councils do not have the resources to take an active role in regional NRM groups.

Regional forums offer a platform to connect local governments about NRM.

The regional NRM agencies and State government recognise LGs as key stakeholders but rarely involve them in leadership roles.

Regional bodies connect but do not control the activities of various NRM stakeholders including local government.

Regional NRM plans have been developed without council input.

Regional bodies recognise the efforts of local government in NRM and utilise the skills and knowledge of staff and elected members.

Local governments are wary of any programmes or bodies which could threaten their autonomy.

108

Commitment Commitment refers to the level of ownership a rural local government (councillors and staff) may have in terms of NRM. Definitions and constructions of what constitutes NRM influence commitment. Descriptive Statements Facilitators Barriers Rural local governments have moved from a siege mentality to a proactive agenda in relation to NRM.

Most local governments understand and have expertise in NRM in terms of the old narrow planning and development framework. You know, where you can build factories, where you want your industrial zones and things like that.

LG environmental goals would be to make sure that the development you approve doesn’t have any detrimental effect.

Rural local government is conservative and developmentalist in orientation and dealing with the environment is still seen by many as radical.

Local governments need to pay their environmental officer from recurrent funds so as to safeguard the job.

Local governments see NRM as a State function.

A commitment to NRM needs to be articulated at the highest level by the CEO and Mayor.

An enthusiasm for vision statements of local governments is not matched by a commitment to detailed action and implementation plans with parallel timelines and responsible agents.

Successful management of NRM depends on local governments taking a lead role.

Councils are more familiar with engineering works, with the more traditional sets of tangible costs and benefits. The costs of environmental loss, ecosystem degradation and species decline do not feature within such traditional frameworks.

Roads, rates and rubbish is no longer an option.

Councils tend not to look at NRM unless there is a specific problem that comes up.

Environmental officers need to occupy a central and important place in the administrative hierarchy of councils with high level reporting responsibilities.

Local governments do not want to identify NRM goals. They want to wait for the state government to propose what they will fund and then they’ll become the goals.

109

Appendix 5: Q-Method Results No Statements A

(z-score)

B C D E

1 Knowledge about NRM is lacking amongst council staff and elected members.

+3 (1.06)

-1 (-.22)

0 (.18)

+1 (.19)

-2 (-.57)

2 More and morel rural local councils are employing environmental specialist staff who help them understand their responsibilities and train up other staff and community members.

-1 (-.44)

-1 (.28)

-2 (.46)

-1 (.26)

0 (.05)

3 Focusing on NRM can assist a shire in developing a strong local identity.

0 (.24)

-4 (-

1.18)

0 (.07)

0 -(.13)

-1 (-.26)

4 Rural local government community input on NRM has been in the form of responses to one off questionnaires or participation in often poorly attended citizen-council forums.

-1 (-.41)

+1 (.20)

-1 (.26)

+1 (.17)

0 (-.05)

5 Regional bodies recognise the efforts of local government in NRM and utilise the skills and knowledge of staff and elected members.

-2 (-.85)

0 (.08)

0 (.11)

-3 (-.40)

0 (-.15)

6 An enthusiasm for vision statements of local governments is not matched by a commitment to detailed action and implementation plans with parallel timelines and responsible agents.

-1 (-.54)

0 (-.19)

+4 (.76)

+1 (.32)

0 (.00)

7 Involving the community is very time consuming. 0 (-.41)

+1 (.26)

+2 (.41)

0 (-.09)

+2 (.76)

8 There are some dynamic and passionate individual staff and councillors who are committed to NRM and they are making a difference.

0 (-.13)

-5 (2.29)

-1 (.27)

0 (.12)

+3 (1.01)

9 Local governments need to pay their environmental officer from recurrent funds so as to safeguard the job.

0 (-.03)

0 (-.13)

-1 (-

25)

+2 (.38)

1 (.31)

10 One of council’s roles is to go out to people and articulate NRM goals in a language they understand and get them on board.

-1 (-.58)

-5 (1.56)

+1 (.19)

0 (.15)

+5 (1.64)

11 Local governments are wary of any programmes or bodies which could threaten their autonomy.

+3 (1.23)

+4 (1.26)

0 (.02)

+3 (.57)

-2 (-.63)

12 Rural local government is conservative and developmentalist in orientation and dealing with the environment is still seen by many as radical.

+5 (2.02)

+3 (.92)

-3 (.57)

+5 (1.10)

0 (.05)

13 In rural shires certain individuals and groups have greater political power and their voices are heard most strongly when questions are asked about NRM.

+3 (1.30)

0 (.09)

+1 (.30)

+5 (.86)

-3 (-.90)

14 The range of skills required for defining, monitoring, planning for and managing NRM at the local level is not currently readily available within local government areas.

+5 (2.64)

0 (.17)

-3 (.55)

0 (.07)

0 (.11)

15 A commitment to NRM needs to be articulated at the highest level by the CEO and Mayor.

+2 (.65)

-4 (1.45)

0 (.15)

0 (-.07)

+1 (.26)

6 The regional NRM agencies and State government recognise LGs as key

stakeholders but rarely involve them in leadership roles. +4

(1.30) -2 (-

.42)

-1 (-

.27)

-1 (-

.17)

+4 (1.42

) 17

Even if the community isn’t using the term NRM they are still very likely to be interested and committed to the issues. They might just talk about it as water, logging or something like that.

+1 (.54)

-2 (-

.52)

+5 (1.07

)

-1 (.18)

-1 (-

.31) 18

You need Environmental staff at the local level who have community development backgrounds, not just resource management backgrounds.

+3 (1.09)

-3 (-

.87)

+1 (.18)

+1 (.18)

-4 (-

1.43) 19

An enormous barrier to local government environmental policy formulation in Australia is the lack of effective political power of local government.

+1 (.51)

0 (-

.19)

0 (-

.19)

0 (-

.14)

+1 (.21)

20

Councils are more familiar with engineering works, with the more traditional sets of tangible costs and benefits. The costs of environmental loss, ecosystem degradation and species decline do not feature within such traditional frameworks.

+4 (1.57)

+1 (.28)

+5 (1.04

)

+4 (.77)

1 (.27)

2 Lobby groups bypass LG about NRM. 0 +3 0 -4 +4

110

1 (.03) (1.14)

(.07) (-.81)

(1.16)

22

Councils work closely with catchment councils and incorporate their goals into the Council Environmental policy.

-4 (-1.50)

0 (.00)

-1 (-

.29)

+2 (.45)

+2 (.53)

23

Shire Environmental Plans incorporate principles from the Regional Catchment Authorities and the State Legislation

-4 (-1.44)

+1 (.34)

0 (.04)

-3 (-

.52)

+2 (.75)

24

There is a lack of appropriate data on NRM at the local government level for defining and managing NRM problems.

-1 (-.51)

+4 (1.16

)

-4 (-

.68)

-1 (-

.31)

0 (-

.11) 25

Councils tend not to look at NRM unless there is a specific problem that comes up.

+1 (-1.20)

+2 (.63)

+3 (.68)

0 (-

.17)

-1 (-

.47) 26

State and federal governments recognise that the cost and responsibility of NRM can’t rest entirely with LG.

-3 (-1.20)

+3 (1.04

)

+3 (.56)

+2 (.38)

+3 (1.02

) 27

Councils do not have the resources to take an active role in regional NRM groups.

-2 (-.89)

0 (.11)

0 (-

.10)

-1 (-.24)

0 (.14)

28

Shires are becoming more used to working co-operatively on projects and for planning.

-5 (-2.02)

-3 (-

.91)

-2 (-

.42)

0 (.06)

+3 (1.06

) 29

The political cycle at both a state and local level makes it difficult for any long term NRM planning. Governments can change and priorities can change in an instant.

+2 (.58)

+4 (1.14

)

+4 (.76)

-2 (-

.38)

-5 (-

1.63) 30

LG can use loopholes in state government legislation to impose population caps and other novel constraints on developments in their local areas.

-2 (-.96)

+2 (.54)

-5 (-

1.14)

0 (.12)

0 (.00)

31

Rural local governments have moved from a siege mentality to a proactive agenda in relation to NRM.

-5 (-2.09)

-2 (-

.57)

-2 (-

.31)

-5 (-

.89)

-3 (-

.89)

111

32

Most local governments understand and have expertise in NRM in terms of the old narrow planning and development framework. You know, where you can build factories, where you want your industrial zones and things like that

0 (.27)

-2 (-

.42)

+4 (.80)

+2 (.34)

0 (.01)

33

Local governments have a strong record on community consultation in relation to NRM as they are the closest tier of government to the people.

-4 (-1.88)

0 (.09)

-1 (-

.31)

-5 (-

1.10)

+4 (1.38

) 34

Environmental officers need to occupy a central and important place in the administrative hierarchy of councils with high level reporting responsibilities.

+2 (.72)

-3 (-

.60)

-2 (-

.36)

+4 (.69)

0 (.17)

35

Regional NRM plans have been developed without council input. -1 (-.58)

+1 (.36)

-3 (-

.59)

-4 (.69)

-1 (.21)

36

Councils should provide in-kind and direct financial assistance to community based groups dealing with NRM.

-2 (-.68)

-1 (-

.35)

+2 (.45)

+3 (.56)

+5 (1.75

) 37

Successful management of NRM depends on local governments taking a lead role.

0 (.10)

-4 (-

1.33)

+1 (.23)

-3 (-

.62)

-1 (-

.53) 38

There is a lot of public distrust of government seeking community involvement.

0 (-.06)

+5 (1.46

)

-2 (-

.54)

-2 (-

.34)

+2 (.74)

39

Local government needs to focus on educating and empowering the community about NRM.

0 (.20)

-2 (-

.46)

0 (.13)

+3 (.59)

0 (.20)

40

Local governments do not want to identify NRM goals. They want to wait for the state government to propose what they will fund and then they’ll become the goals.

-2 (-.75)

+2 (.44)

0 (.03)

-2 (-

.34)

-2 (-

.63) 41

People don’t get involved with NRM because they think they have to be experts or have scientific knowledge.

0 (-.27)

-3 (-

.74)

-4 (-

.65)

-2 (-

.38)

-5 (-

1.48) 42

LGs could raise funds through environmental levies or provide financial incentives to businesses, groups or individuals

-3 (-1.20)

+3 (.73)

-2 (-

.41)

+2 (.47)

+2 (.53)

43

Local governments want to control NRM rather than be a partner in the management of NRM.

0 (-.30)

+2 (.41)

-5 (-

.83)

+3 (.62)

0 (.00)

44

The dilemma for local government is that they may need people’s participation but they fear it more.

0 (.30)

+1 (.36)

0 (.09)

+4 (.69)

-4 (-

1.11) 45

Councils act as little islands and they don’t share their knowledge. +2 (.92)

0 (.18)

-4 (-

.65)

-3 (-

.59)

1 (.20)

46

Elected members and staff are not experienced in community engagement.

+1 (.48)

+5 (1.49

)

0 (-

.19)

0 (.00)

-3 (-

1.06) 47

Councils are providing the resources for their growing role and responsibility for NRM essentially from their own limited rate base and charges.

0 (.13)

-1 (-

.32)

0 (-

.22)

0 (-

.12)

1 (.52)

48

Regional forums offer a platform to connect local governments about NRM.

-3 (-1.06)

+2 (.53)

+3 (.61)

0 (.13)

-2 (-.63

49

There are numerous resources and cost savings available to a council through involving the community in NRM.

0 (.00)

0 (.01)

+2 (.32)

0 (-

.03)

0 (-

.15) 50

LG environmental goals would be to make sure that the development you approve doesn’t have any detrimental effect.

+2 (.92)

-1 (-

.38)

+2 (.41)

0 (-

.10)

-1 (-

.42) 51

Regional bodies connect but do not control the activities of various NRM stakeholders including local government.

+1 (.51)

0 (.18)

+1 (.18)

-2 (-

.32)

0 (-

.10) 52

NRM is only a few years old for many rural communities so it will take time for it to be mainstreamed.

0 (.24)

0 (.11)

+1 (.18)

+1 (.25)

-3 (-

.90) 53

Local governments see NRM as a State function. +1 (.37)

0 (.10)

-3 (-

.61)

0 (.15)

0 (-

.20)

112

54

State agencies and most local governments now have access to sophisticated databases to rapidly obtain detailed NRM information.

-3 (-1.09)

0 (-

.20)

0 (.00)

-1 (-

.27)

+3 (.89)

55

Roads, rates and rubbish is no longer an option. +4 (1.81)

0 (.00)

+3 (.62)

-4 (-

.84)

-2 (-

.78) 56

Local government has to lead the community on NRM not be a follower.

0 (-.27)

-1 (-24)

0 (.16)

+1 (.19)

-4 (-

1.37)

113

Appendix 6: RIRDC Research Project (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation)

Factors Impeding and Facilitating Natural Resource Management by Local Government

CONSENT FORM FOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWEES I have read the Information Sheet concerning this project and understand what it is about. All my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I understand that I am free to request further information at any stage. I know that:- 1. my participation in the project is entirely voluntary; 2. I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without any disadvantage; 3. the data (audio tapes) will be destroyed at the conclusion of the project but any

raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in secure storage for five years, after which it will be destroyed;

4. this project involves an open-questioning technique where the precise nature of

the questions which will be asked have not been determined in advance, but will depend on the way in which the interview develops and that in the event that the line of questioning develops in such a way that I feel hesitant or uncomfortable I may decline to answer any particular question(s) and/or may withdraw from the project without any disadvantage of any kind.

5. I may request a summary of project results when they are compiled 6. the results of the project may be published and will be available in the library but

every attempt will be made to preserve my anonymity. 7. I understand the implications (intended outcomes and benefits) of this study. I agree to take part in this project. ........................................................................................................... (Signature of participant) Date ……………………………………………………………………..