Watershed management in New South Wales, Australia: a case of constrained decentralisation?

Decentralization includes different types of policy reforms aiming to shift powers from centralized to more localized institutions, such as sub-national units of administration, local government, the civil society and/or local user groups. It has gained increasing support, particularly in the realm of natural resources management (NRM). Moving towards more decentralized forms of NRM can, however, involve remarkable institutional challenges. Understanding the factors that can facilitate and/or constrain decentralization is, therefore, critical in overcoming such institutional challenges, as well as (re)designing and implementing more suitable policies. In Australia, catchment management – a watershed management initiative – is an example of moving decision-making for NRM from the State to the catchment (watershed) level. New South Wales (NSW) was the first Australian State to adopt catchment management as a state-wide statutory policy, in the late 1980s. Catchment management has since undergone a number of institutional changes. Specific legislation, for instance, have been introduced and reformed, such as the Catchment Management Act 1989, the Catchment Management Regulation 1999, and the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003. Consequently, Catchment Management Committees, which operated in the 1990s were replaced by Catchment Management Boards in 2000, which in turn, have recently been replaced with Catchment Management Authorities. This paper presents preliminary findings from a broader study on the NSW catchment management initiative. The paper examines decentralized approaches to NRM as part of such a NSW initiative. Catchment management institutions are analyzed by applying the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework in combination with the recent theorizing on decentralization of NRM

Structural and psycho-social limits to climate change adaptation in the great barrier reef region

Adaptation, as a strategy to respond to climate change, has limits: there are conditions under which adaptation strategies fail to alleviate impacts from climate change. Research has primarily focused on identifying absolute bio-physical limits. This paper contributes empirical insight to an emerging literature on the social limits to adaptation. Such limits arise from the ways in which societies perceive, experience and respond to climate change. Using qualitative data from multi-stakeholder workshops and key-informant interviews with representatives of the fisheries and tourism sectors of the Great Barrier Reef region, we identify psycho-social and structural limits associated with key adaptation strategies, and examine how these are perceived as more or less absolute across levels of organisation. We find that actors experience social limits to adaptation when: i) the effort of pursuing a strategy exceeds the benefits of desired adaptation outcomes; ii) the particular strategy does not address the actual source of vulnerability, and; iii) the benefits derived from adaptation are undermined by external factors. We also find that social limits are not necessarily more absolute at higher levels of organisation: respondents perceived considerable opportunities to address some psycho-social limits at the national-international interface, while they considered some social limits at the local and regional levels to be effectively absolute

Future Scenarios as a Research Tool: Investigating Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation Options and Outcomes for the Great

Abstract Climate change is a significant future driver of change in coastal social-ecological systems. Our knowledge of impacts, adaptation options, and possible outcomes for marine environments and coastal industries is expanding, but remains limited and uncertain. Alternative scenarios are a way to explore potential futures under a range of conditions. We developed four alternative future scenarios for the Great Barrier Reef and its fishing and tourism industries positing moderate and more extreme (2-3°C above pre-industrial temperatures) warming for 2050 and contrasting 'limited' and 'ideal' ecological and social adaptation. We presented these scenarios to representatives of key stakeholder groups to assess the perceived viability of different social adaptation options to deliver desirable outcomes under varied contexts

Interventions to help coral reefs under global change – a complex decision challenge

Climate change is impacting coral reefs now. Recent pan-tropical bleaching events driven by unprecedented global heat waves have shifted the playing field for coral reef management and policy. While best-practice conventional management remains essential, it may no longer be enough to sustain coral reefs under continued climate change. Nor will climate change mitigation be sufficient on its own. Committed warming and projected reef decline means solutions must involve a portfolio of mitigation, best practice conventional management and coordinated restoration and adaptation measures involving new and perhaps radical interventions. We propose that proactive research and development to expand the reef management toolbox fast but safely, combined with expedient trialling of promising interventions is now urgently needed, whatever emissions trajectory the world follows. We discuss the challenges and opportunities of embracing new interventions in a race against time, including their risks and uncertainties. Ultimately, solutions to the climate challenge for coral reefs will require consideration of what society wants, what can be achieved technically and economically, and what opportunities we have for action in a rapidly closing window. Finding solutions that work for coral reefs and people will require exceptional levels of coordination of science, management and policy, and open engagement with society. It will also require compromise, because reefs will change under climate change despiteour best interventions. We argue that being clear about society’s priorities, and understanding both the opportunities and risks that come with an expanded toolset, can help us make the most of a challenging situation

Collaborative natural resource management in a changing institutional landscape : rhetoric and practice of catchment management in New South Wales, Australia

Collaborative approaches to natural resource management (NRM), emphasising participatory and decentralised forms of decision-making, such as catchment management, have been experimented with in Australia over the past 15 years or so. These experiments have taken place in an institutional context that has been changing frequently and rapidly, as many states have, particularly in recent years, reviewed legislative and administrative arrangements for NRM. Such reforms may involve significant changes in the legislative and administrative arrangements, such as new and specific legislation, NRM entities with diverse names, structures and functions, as well as new processes. In New South Wales (NSW), for instance, such changes have often altered the structure and process of NRM decision-making (e.g., the interests represented, the level of authority and power devolved, community participation, geographic domain, etc.). Although, these reforms have sought to improve NRM performance and outcomes, they have occurred in a context where the exact requirements for institutional change, in order to facilitate collaborative NRM, are not well understood. In this context, it is not explicit how (and if) these institutional reforms are establishing, or are likely to establish, appropriate arrangements to translate the rhetoric of collaborative NRM into practice. This research examined the design of and change in institutional arrangements for collaborative NRM in the context of the NSW experience. The study used a case study research approach to undertake a comparative analysis of the arrangements experimented with over the history of the NSW catchment management initiative (late 1980s-mid 00s). The Institutional Analysis and Development framework was used to examine three catchment management institutions, representatives of periods characterised by institutional change. The research aimed to provide a better understanding of how (and why) institutional design and change have taken place, and how such design and change have facilitated (or otherwise) collaborative NRM. The study showed that institutional arrangements, in terms of who participate in NRM decision-making and how they are selected, authority, powers and resources devolved, decision-making and aggregation arrangements, arrangements for communication, interaction, reporting and monitoring, functional scope and geographic domain, varied considerably throughout the history of the NSW catchment management initiative. Despite the variations, institutional arrangements were characterised by significant constraints and have been limited in facilitating collaborative NRM. In many cases, institutional change reinforced the constraints to collaborative processes, such as those associated with stakeholder and citizen engagement, levels of authority and power devolved, and autonomy and flexibility of catchment management institutions. The analysis also provided insights into the challenges and complexities surrounding the development and implementation of collaborative NRM. Another key issue demonstrated in this study was an emerging trend in terms of institutional arrangements in NSW, where the current arrangements have evolved away from a collaborative model towards one of deconcentration (i.e., administrative decentralisation). Given the complexities and challenges involving the development and implementation of collaborative NRM, the adequacy and appropriateness of indiscriminately pursuing collaborative approaches was considered

A contribution to the mitigation of impacts from the Aquatic Macrophyte Eichhornia crassipes on the Coastal Zone of Southern Bahia, Brazil

E. crassipes is a free-floating aquatic macrophyte from tropical and sub-tropical freshwater environments. The excessive growth of this species is associated with nutrient enriched sites and causes detrimental impacts on\ud water uses. In the central-southern part of the State of Bahia, Brazil, in addition to the adverse impacts on water resources, freshwater macrophytes have considerably affected the coastal zone. During periods of increased river flows, a large amount of macrophyte biomass is brought to the coast. This biomass covers extensive stretches of sand beaches,affecting tourism and recreation activities. The present paper analyzes the effects of E. crassipes infestation in the Cachoeira river watershed on the coastal zone of the municipality of Ilhéus. Management and control measures are discussed, considering the watershed as the unit of analysis

Challenges to decentralization of watershed management: the case of New South Wales, Australia

Decentralization includes different types of policy reforms aiming to shift powers from centralized to more localized institutions. It has gained increasing support, particularly in the realm of natural resources management (NRM). Moving towards more decentralized forms of NRM can, however, involve remarkable institutional challenges. Understanding the factors that can facilitate and/or constrain decentralization is, therefore, critical in overcoming such challenges, as well as (re)designing and implementing more suitable policies.\ud \ud In Australia, catchment management – a watershed management initiative – is an example of moving decision-making for NRM from the State to the catchment (watershed) level. New\ud South Wales (NSW) was the first Australian State to adopt, in the late 1980s, catchment management as a state-wide statutory policy. Catchment management has since undergone a\ud number of institutional changes. Specific legislation, for instance, has been introduced and reformed, such as the Catchment Management Act 1989, the Catchment Management\ud Regulation 1999, and the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003. Consequently, Catchment Management Committees, which operated in the 1990s were replaced by Catchment Management Boards in 2000, which in turn, have recently been replaced with Catchment Management Authorities

Democratic decentralization of environmental governance: insights from catchment management in Australia

Decentralization involves the formal transfer of powers from a central government to actors and institutions at lower levels in a political-administrative and territory hierarchy (e.g., Agrawal and Ribot, 1999; Ribot, 2002; Larson and Ribot, 2004). It includes different types of policy reforms aiming to shift powers from centralized to more localized institutions, such as sub-national units of\ud administration, local government, the civil society and/or local user groups (Meinzen-Dick and Knox, 2001). \ud \ud In Australia, approaches to environmental governance emphasizing participatory and decentralized forms of decision-making have been experienced over the last 15 years or so. Currently, such approaches provide the basis for considerable investment in natural resource management across the country (CoA, 2002). These governance “experiments” have been taking place in an institutional\ud context that has been changing frequently and rapidly, as many states have, particularly in recent years, reviewed legislative and administrative arrangements for natural resource management (Pannell et al., 2004)

Watershed management in New South Wales, Australia: a case of constrained decentralization?

No abstract available