This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 07 September 2015, At: 17:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Click for updates

Australian GeographerPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cage20

A Study of Governance Arrangementsfor Land Use and Natural ResourceManagement Planning in Cape YorkPeninsulaRuth Pottsa, Karen Vellaa, Allan Daleb & Neil Sipec

a Queensland University of Technology, Australiab The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Australiac University of Queensland, AustraliaPublished online: 03 Sep 2015.

To cite this article: Ruth Potts, Karen Vella, Allan Dale & Neil Sipe (2015) A Study of GovernanceArrangements for Land Use and Natural Resource Management Planning in Cape York Peninsula,Australian Geographer, 46:3, 389-409, DOI: 10.1080/00049182.2015.1048594

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2015.1048594

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

A Study of GovernanceArrangements for Land Use andNatural Resource ManagementPlanning in Cape York Peninsula

RUTH POTTS, Queensland University of Technology, AustraliaKAREN VELLA, Queensland University of Technology, AustraliaALLAN DALE, The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, AustraliaNEIL SIPE, University of Queensland, Australia

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

KEY WORDS Land use planning; natural resource planning; Cape York Peninsula;governance; evaluative principles; best practice.

Introduction

In this paper, we view planning as a form of policy making that occurs in the contextof a broader governance system that involves numerous interests, agendas, stake-holders and other influencing factors (Friedmann 1987). The quality of planningprocesses and outcomes are influenced by the quality of governance arrangementsthat surround and support them (Healey 2006). To improve planning processesand outcomes, it is necessary to first analyse the governance arrangements that

© 2015 Geographical Society of New South Wales Inc.

Australian Geographer, 2015Vol. 46, No. 3, 389–409, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2015.1048594

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

support and influence them. Such analysis allows planners to identify wheredecision-making systems are working well, where they are failing to deliver desiredoutcomes, and to identify areas needing reform. Best practice principles or prin-ciples of ‘good’ governance are widely extolled by theorists and planning prac-titioners as critical considerations to support institutions within governancesystems to deliver their desired outcomes (OECD 1995; UNDP 1997; Grahamet al. 2003b; Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra 2004; Nanda 2006; Lockwood 2010).Planning in Cape York Peninsula, like many regions across Australia, is highly

contested and socially complex. Despite significant investment in land use andnatural resource management (NRM) planning over the last 20 years, the regionis yet to have community-owned land use and NRM plans (CYPLUS 1995; NHT2005; Holmes 2011a, b). However, while past planning processes have been docu-mented, there has been little discussion of the governance arrangements surround-ing NRM and land use planning in the region and their contribution to systemfailure of planning activities. This paper begins with a review from the literature ofpotential criteria that could be used for best practice governance for planning.Next, a Cape York Peninsula case study is described and the challenges facing plan-ning for land use and natural resources in the Peninsula identified. Finally, bestpractice principles, drawn from the literature, are applied to assess the governanceor decision-making arrangements for planning in the Peninsula, leading to rec-ommendations for future planning in the region.

Case study overview

Cape York Peninsula is located at the northernmost point of Queensland, and has apopulation of approximately 15 000 people (approximately 60 per cent Indigen-ous). It covers an area twice the size of the entire Australian State of Tasmania(see Figure 1; Phillpot 2005; OESR 2012). The region has an abundance of inter-nationally and nationally important natural resources, including remnant rainfor-ests, rich mineral reserves (bauxite, gold, kaolin, silica sand), several rivers thatare of high ecological significance, high biodiversity, and a strong Indigenousculture (NHT 2005). Issues surrounding Aboriginal rights to own, access, andmake decisions about the use and management of these natural resources havebeen at the heart of the contention in the region for the past 140 years (Holmes2011a). The contention is driven largely by the conflicting and competing visionsfor the future of the region amongst the Cape’s key power groups (miners, pastor-alists, Indigenous communities, conservation groups and developers). In fact,within and between these power groups there are multiple binaries and nuancesthat add to the complexity of undertaking regional NRM planning and addressingNRM problems (Pickerill 2008; Nursey-Bray 2009).These contests over the planning space are ‘characterised by fluxing alliances and

schisms between and among Indigenous, development and conservation interests(Holmes 2011a, p. 54). Among other things, this contention has until this point pre-vented agreed land use and a regional NRM plan from being formally recognisedand implemented in the region. The region’s social and political complexityimplores the use of best practice governance principles. Such principles haveemerged in the literature to guide decision-making approaches in situations charac-terised by highly complex resource use and management problems like those faced

390 R. Potts et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

in the Peninsula. We argue that, unlike many who suggest that Cape York Peninsulais unique and thus requires special treatment, given the history of failed planningapproaches, broader attention to generic best practice principles in governanceand planning would do much to improve planning outcomes in the region. This isarguably one solution to overcome the historic and contemporary challenges thathave led to the Peninsula having a highly contested regional land use plan andbeing one of the only NRM regions1 in Australia without an accredited or commu-nity-owned regional NRM plan.

Methods

The methods applied for this paper are as follows: firstly, a detailed literature reviewwas undertaken, drawing on reports of past planning in the region and past planswhere available. This provided context for the discussion of the NRM planning pro-cesses for Cape York Peninsula. The dynamics of governance for land use and NRMplanning in the region, and the challenges faced by planners and NRM institutionswere explored during an 18-month period of intermittent observation of andunstructured conversations with the planning processes, stakeholders and decisionmakers in the region between 2012 and 2014. The governance arrangements inthe region during this period are the focus of the results of this paper.

FIGURE 1. Location of Cape York Peninsula, Australia, in context with other natural resourcemanagement regions.Source: SEWPaC (2008).

A Study of Governance Arrangements 391

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

Based on the observations and conversations, a description of the governancesystem’s key structural and functional components was developed using the Govern-ance Systems Analysis (GSA) framework outlined in Dale et al. (2013a). A numberof frameworks exist to analyse individual plans, policies and institutional dynamics(Patton 1982; Conley & Moote 2003; McDavid & Hawthorn 2006; Owen 2006;Hsu & Sandford 2007; Hoggarth & Comfort 2010). However, the GSA frameworkwas used in this study because it takes a more systemic and holistic approach to con-ceptualising and analysing complex and multiscalar governance arrangements thanexisting frameworks (Dale et al. 2013a, b; Potts et al. 2014).Following the GSA method, a number of regionally based decision makers and

‘experts’ of the region were engaged in semi-structured interviews to provide com-ments and validate the accuracy of the evidence and conclusions of the functionalityof the governance system (Dale et al. 2013a). Interviewees were selected based ontheir extensive (5 years or more) experience in Cape York Peninsula and representedregional non-government organisations (NGOs), research organisations, and gov-ernment agencies (included any department or agency subsidiary to the Australian,State, or local governments). Based on the interviews, the description of the govern-ance system was modified for accuracy and updated based on changes to insti-tutional arrangements over time. The diversity of data sources and groundtruthingwith multiple regional participants of NRM used to assess the governance arrange-ments in the region enabled triangulation of the evidence and conclusions of thisresearch. This reduced bias in the final assessment and increased the reliabilityand validity of the data. The content contained in the results section of this paperis the conclusions of the application of the GSA Framework to study land use andNRM planning in Cape York Peninsula. Quotes in the results section are identifiedby institutional sector, including regional non-government organisation, govern-ment agency, and research sector.

Principles for evaluating governance arrangements for land use andnatural resource management planning

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

Evaluative criteria

There is a high degree of congruency of ‘good’ governance principles promoted anddefined in the literature. Governance best practice principles are espoused by theor-ists from a number of contexts, including global development (OECD 1995; UNDP1997; UNESCAP 2012), corporate responsibility (OECD 2004; Strenger 2004;Zattoni & Cuomo 2008), the public sector (Barrett 2003), and NRM (Griffithet al. 2009; Gruber 2010; Lockwood 2010). Dale and Bellamy (1998) recognisedthe high degree of congruency amongst the principles across disciplines and ident-ified a synthesised and ubiquitous set of seven principles of ‘good’ governancesystems. The seven evaluative principles, applicable to the evaluation of governance

392 R. Potts et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

TABLE 1. Comparison of principles for ‘good’ governance

Criteria Equity Accountability Effectiveness Efficiency Adaptability Sustainability Adequacy

GovernanceUNESCAP (2012) sets out principles of sustainable

human and regional development✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ×× ×

Graham et al. (2003a) describe principles of goodgovernance

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ × ×

Thomas (2010) defines World Bank indicators ofworldwide good governance

× ✓ ✓ × × × ×

Corporate governanceOECD (2004) discusses the principles of corporate

governance✓ ✓ × × × × ×

Barrett (2003) defines principles for public-sectorgovernance in Australia

× ✓ × ✓ × × ×

NRM governanceZafrin and Rosier (2011) describe indicators of

successful governance of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement

✓ ✓ ✓ × × × ×

Lockwood et al. (2010) outline principles for regionalNRM governance in Australia

✓ ✓ ✓ × ✓ × ×

Gruber (2010) undertook a meta-study of NRMinitiatives/programs and identified traits ofsuccessful initiatives

✓ ✓ ✓ × ✓ × ×

Notes:✓ Principle matches or matches in part; × principle is not considered.

AStudy

ofGovernance

Arrangem

ents393D

ownl

oade

d by

[Que

ensla

nd U

nive

rsity

of T

echn

olog

y] a

t 17:

38 0

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

015

for planning, include: (1) equity; (2) accountability; (3) effectiveness; (4) efficiency;and (5) adaptability, (6) sustainability, and (7) adequacy. Table 1 demonstrates theprocess used by Dale and Bellamy (1998) to synthesise a number of frameworks andtheir principles of ‘good’ governance.Of the frameworks analysed, six have been applied to real-world case studies,

where they were tested for their relevancy and appropriateness in an effort toanalyse the quality of the governance arrangements, and consequent planning.Although two of the aforementioned sets of principles have been tested in AustralianNRM case studies (Queensland coastal governance (Zafrin & Rosier 2011), and 13Australian NRM regions [not including Cape York Peninsula] (Lockwood et al.2010)), they have yet to be applied specifically in the context of Cape York Penin-sula. Table 2 defines the seven evaluative principles of best practice governanceand planning identified by Dale and Bellamy (1998) that are adopted in this paper.

Equity. Stakeholderswho perceive decision-making andplanningprocesses to be fairand thus equitable aremore likely to fully participate or engage in both planning and itsimplementation (Innes & Booher 2003; O’Faircheallaigh 2010). Long-term planningoutcomes are likely to be poor and unviable in situations where equity issues are notaddressed because they are able to re-emerge and create further conflict in theregion (Dale & Bellamy 1998). Equitable governance and planning arrangementsare inclusive and enable all organisations, communities and individuals, who are inter-ested and willing, to be involved in the process (Innes & Booher 2003; Perkins 2011).In the context of a region scarred by the impacts of white paternalism, for example,equity is a crucial principle in present-day governance, ensuring all voices can beheard and considered in the planning process (Perkins 2011; Angman 2013).

Accountability. Accountability is a critical trait of effective and functional govern-ance arrangements in any region, evidenced in the answerability of decisionmakers and the ability to enforce sanctions on decision-makers who violate theirresponsibilities (Schedler et al. 1999; Innes & Booher 2010). For decision makersto be considered accountable they should inform stakeholders not only of thedecision but also the rationale for that decision. Public involvement in NRM andplanning processes has been demonstrated to increase the accountability of decision

TABLE 2. Evaluative principles for natural resource management planning in Cape YorkPeninsula

Principle Description of principle

Sustainability Governance and institutional arrangements can be maintained whileoutcomes are being pursued

Equity The fairness of decision making in the systemAccountability The answerability of decision makers to other system participants and broad

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

workingEffectiveness Governance activities result in meaningful outcomesEfficiency Use of resources and capital to achieve outcomes through activitiesAdaptability Ability of systems to strategically and operationally evolve and change as the

context of the governance system changes

394 R. Potts et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

makers, increase the efficiency of the process, and the effectiveness of its outcomes(Ostrom 1996; Parkins & Mitchell 2005).Effectiveness. The principle of effectiveness is focused on whether the policy-making process is delivering desired and meaningful outcomes. The effectivenessof a planning process is relative to the desired outcomes sought and may be observedin a number of on-ground or policy outcomes, such as improved stakeholder aware-ness, strengthening of relationships, reduced land degradation, published plans, etc.(Innes & Booher 2004; Lane 2005). Effective planning systems and processes, it isargued, have high levels of participation and collaboration (Healey 1997). If a plan-ning governance system is not effective then it is unlikely to adequately deliver theoutcomes sought by stakeholders or substantive improvements to environmentalor social conditions (Rydin & Pennington 2000; Innes & Booher 2010).

Efficiency. The efficiency of a system is complementary to the principle of effective-ness, as the outcomes of planning must be weighed up against their costs to deter-mine whether the benefits delivered are worth the costs expended. The efficiencyof planning can be quantified into a dollar amount or as an effort expenditure,which can then be compared against the outcomes achieved for that effort. Ineffi-cient governance arrangements are often ‘characterized by a high degree of corrup-tion, in transparent decision processes and dominance of established powerstructures’ (Pahl-Wostl 2009, p. 356). Compatibility of the visions and objectivesof institutions within a system is a significant factor in the efficiency of arrangementsbecause the common goal provides a starting point for collaboration and sharedinvestment in complementary strategies to achieve the common desired outcomes(Pahl-Wostl 2009).

Adaptability. Land use and NRM governance systems are generally complex andhave inherently high levels of uncertainty embedded within them (Griffith et al.2009). Adaptive governance systems for land use and NRM planning consist ofhighly integrated and collaborative institutions, policies and programs that devolvepower and rights to enhance the participation of the different quasi-autonomousand self-organising components of the governance system (Olsson et al. 2006;Lane & Robinson 2009). For a system to be considered adaptive it must be ablemake strategic and operational changes in response to new information or contextualchanges (Folke et al. 2005).

Sustainability. Following the publication of the Brundtland report (Our commonfuture) in 1987 and ongoing worldwide environmental degradation, there has beena strong impetus to achieve more sustainable planning processes and outcomes(Brundtland 1987; Bellamy et al. 2002; Dovers 2009). The durability of NRM gov-ernance and institutional arrangements is a significant determinant of the sustain-ability of resulting management outcomes (Agrawal 2003). Sustainablegovernance arrangements are able to be self-sustaining and endure over time,rather than being short lived and reliant on other mechanisms to survive.

Adequacy. The principle of adequacy seeks to identify whether the actions of plan-ners, decision makers, and implementers are sufficient to address the problem/s athand. Wallington and Lawrence (2008) argue that the adequacy of institutionalarrangements is best indicated by the responsiveness and capacity of institutions

A Study of Governance Arrangements 395

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

within a governance system to solve problems. The importance of providing ade-quate funding to support planning and management activities, for example, hasbeen discussed widely (Head & Ryan 2004; Morrison et al. 2004). Arguably,however, simply increasing the availability of resources to institutions for planningmay produce some positive outcomes, but may still not be sufficient to cover thehigh transaction costs of planning in remote areas.

The Cape York Peninsula case study: challenges facing land use andnatural resource management planning

The natural resources of Cape York Peninsula have significant economic, social,ecological, cultural and natural heritage value. Conservative estimates suggest that60 per cent of the region’s population has Indigenous heritage and 86.6 per centof the population is in the ‘most disadvantaged’ financial and social quintile, yetthe region is rich with economically valuable mineral natural resources (OESR2012) All of the region’s economic drivers are reliant on the quality and availabilityof natural resources (Smith 2003a; Klimenko & Evans 2009; Carney & Colvin2012).

Regional challenges

The physical size, remoteness and monsoonal conditions of the region, the diverserange of stakeholders with interests in resource use outcomes as well as the social,economic and governance complexities that exist continue to pose challenges forplanning. Issues of social disadvantage, conflict over land rights, complex arrange-ments for land tenure and a history of planning and governance approaches inCape York Peninsula are examples of the challenges that need to be confrontedthrough regional planning approaches.Debates surrounding Aboriginal rights and questions about how to resolve Indi-

genous disadvantage have been ongoing in Cape York Peninsula for the last 140years (Holmes 2011a). The significant contention between the region’s Indigenouscommunities, and government agencies over land tenure and the rights and respon-sibilities of different groups to manage land continue to provide a challenge for gov-ernance and planning arrangements today. Holmes (2011a) argues that twodominant paradigms pervade decision making in Cape York Peninsula and suggeststhat institutions and stakeholders in the region tend to fall somewhere on a spectrumbetween the traditionalism/localism and developmentalism/modernism. Tradition-alists/localists generally are supportive of the conservation agenda and economicdevelopment in the region using a customary or hybrid economy. Alternatively,developmentalists/modernists argue that to achieve greater self-determination, Indi-genous people and others in the region must engage with the ‘real economy’ of con-ventional industry (particularly mining; Holmes 2011a).This dichotomy in approaches is evident within and throughout government, non-

government and community institutions’ agendas and policies throughout theregion. The tension between the two approaches has been particularly evident inthe last two decades as exemplified by debates about the proposed World HeritageArea listing, the protection of ‘Wild Rivers’, natural resource planning and manage-ment, and Indigenous disadvantage. Government decision makers responsible for

396 R. Potts et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

setting policy agendas for Cape York Peninsula and who are based in cities locatedsouth of the region (predominantly in Brisbane and Canberra) have at times sup-ported both paradigms. In the past, external policy makers intent on protectingthe natural values of the region have also relied on regulatory mechanisms toprotect landscapes, without recognising the significant constraints such regulationshave on economic development in the region (Dale 2013). Political developments in2013 saw the Queensland State government repeal ‘green tape’ legislation and, insupport of the developmentalist/modernist agenda declared the region ‘open forbusiness’ (Kim & Nancarrow 2013).Land tenure in Cape York Peninsula is also highly complex and frequently con-

tested by governments, politicians, Indigenous and industry leaders, communities,and Indigenous institutions (Smith 2003b, 2005; Pearson 2005; Balkanu 2010;Holmes 2011b; Barrett 2012; Carney & Colvin 2012). While tenures are relativelystable throughout much of Australia, in Cape York Peninsula they have continuedto evolve and land uses continue to be transferred between tenure types (Holmes2011b). This is in part due to the regionally inspired Cape York Tenure Resolutionprocess that began in 2004 and has been highly successful in returning high conser-vation value lands to traditional owners as national parks or Aboriginal Freeholdland with conservation agreements (Holmes 2011b).Contested land tenure issues in Cape York Peninsula are also exacerbated by

problems of social dysfunction. Cape York Peninsula’s Indigenous populationhas high rates of substance and spousal abuse, mental health issues, and welfaredependency (CYI 2007; OESR 2012). While there is growing interest in addres-sing social issues through planning and decision-making approaches that enableIndigenous self-determination and economic participation, such approacheshave largely failed to address power imbalances within the region or resolveunderlying land rights issues. There are also a number of significant, but notinsurmountable, challenges in engaging the region’s largely remote Indigenouscommunities in planning processes. These challenges stem from the obviousdifferences in culture between Aboriginal communities and dominant decisionmakers, inequality of power in decision-making processes, and the often limitedpolitical and administrative experience of regional communities (Sutton 1990,2009).The failure of past approaches to address power imbalances in the region is largely

because external, rather than internal, institutions have driven regional planningprocesses in the past. High levels of social and economic disadvantage in additionto the region’s concentration of natural resources have been cited by the State andCommonwealth governments as justification for treating Cape York Peninsula asunique and requiring special management. This approach has historically disem-powered local (and particularly Indigenous) interests and perpetuated a paternalisticview of the region’s uniqueness as needing to be ‘looked after’ or protected by exter-nal decision makers. As such, early attempts at planning in the region were seen asfurther ‘outside incursion and domination’ of the region’s communities because oftheir limited consideration of the priorities of the Cape’s communities and insti-tutions. The externally mediated planning processes were also in conflict withregional aspirations for Indigenous autonomy, Aboriginal decision making, andvalue structures (Sutton 1990, p. 2). As a result of this history, there is a significantlack of trust between local communities and government planning agencies (Smith2005).

A Study of Governance Arrangements 397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

Arrangements for planning

Unlike many other regions in Australia, land use planning and natural resource plan-ning and management have been both closely intertwined and poorly integrated atdifferent times historically in Cape York Peninsula. They have also been drivenlargely by government agencies external to the region, although a notable exceptionwas the Cape York Heads of Agreement, which was internally driven.Overall there have been five attempts to develop regional land use or NRM plans

for Cape York Peninsula in the past 20 years. Land use planning for Cape YorkPeninsula was first attempted in 1989 as part of the Cape York Economic Develop-ment Strategy. A year later, NRM planning was also attempted in the region in the1990s through the Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy (Stage One and StageTwo) (CYPLUS), which considered both land use and NRM issues. The thirdattempt at regional planning for Cape York Peninsula occurred in the 2000sunder the Natural Heritage Trust Phase Two (NHT2) and focused largely onNRM issues. Regional NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula was funded for afourth time in 2013–14 (SEWPaC 2013). Concurrent to the NRM planningprocess, a statutory regional land use planning process has been underway, with aland use plan published by the Queensland government mid-2014. This history issummarised in Table 3 below.

Application of best practice principles to evaluate natural resourcemanagement planning governance in Cape York Peninsula

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

Equity

The governance arrangements for land use and NRM planning in Cape York Penin-sula having historically been and remain somewhat inequitable, perhaps with theexception of the Heads of Agreement and some aspects of CYPLUS. The NRMplanning arrangements are focused on engaging with local communities, land-holders, and local management groups. However, most processes have tended tonot equitably involve the region’s broader regional institutions, which, despitetheir varied mandates, are also equally interested in land use and NRM activitiesacross Cape York Peninsula. Engagement of local-scale institutions and stake-holders is subregion specific, with most regional institutions demonstrating strongrelationships in several communities in Cape York Peninsula. This means thatengagement in the planning process is not regionally consistent, with some localgroups and regional institutions choosing not to engage with specific regional-scale institutions in the development of strategies, despite common interests. Thisfragmentation is attributable to low levels of trust between institutions, and per-ceived inequity, and exclusion in regional decision-making processes.

398 R. Potts et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

TABLE 3. An overview of land use and natural resource management planning in Cape York Peninsula, 1989–2014

Planningattempt Planning process Emphasis Focus Planning outcomes

1 Cape York EconomicDevelopment Strategy,1989

Land use Establishing a stronger land use planningframework for the Cape York Peninsula inresponse to a number of land use pressuresemerging in the region in the 1980s

Resulted in Interim Guidelines for ResourceUse and a checklist of key considerations tobe explored during major project assessment

Recommended development of a regionalconservation plan, regional accessibilityplan, and clearer policy and developmentdirections for pastoral and tourismindustries

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

2 Cape York PeninsulaLand Use Strategy(Stage One), early1990s

Land useandNRM

Providing scientific data to inform planningand decision-making processes in the CapeYork Peninsula that until that point hadbeen lacking (CYPLUS 1995)

A significant number of research projectsfocused on the region (43)

Establishment of a large GIS database ofenvironmental, social and economic data

Public participation enabled public input intothe process

Land use strategy consultancy releasedAddressed the lack of information available to

support planning in the region, building theregion’s capacity to undertake a planningprocess

(Continued)

AStudy

ofGovernance

Arrangem

ents399D

ownl

oade

d by

[Que

ensla

nd U

nive

rsity

of T

echn

olog

y] a

t 17:

38 0

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

015

TABLE 3. (Continued )

Planningattempt Planning process Emphasis Focus Planning outcomes

Cape York PeninsulaLand Use Strategy(Stage Two), late1990s

Strategic planning to build local consensus andcreate a framework for centralised andregional decision making surrounding theuse and management of land in Cape YorkPeninsula (CYPLUS 1995; Holmes 2011a).Identifying specific project priorities ratherthan a definitive land use plan

The State and federal governments respondedwith a $40 million response package thatincluded land purchase, protected areainfrastructure and property management

The process was driven under the stewardshipof a community-based advisory group,which led to high levels of communityengagement and participation in theplanning for Cape York Peninsula

Began addressing land tenure and land rightsissues in the region, which led to the creationof the Cape York Heads of Agreement

Cape York Heads ofAgreement, 1996

Born out of the second stage of CYPLUS, theCape York Heads of Agreement constitutedconsensus amongst regional stakeholdersthat the region had significantenvironmental, pastoral, historical andcultural features that should be protected(Holmes 2012)

Signed by the Cape York Land Council, thePeninsula Regional Council of ATSIC, theCattlemen’s Union, the AustralianConservation Foundation and theWilderness Society (Hart &Whatman 1998)

Recognition that the State and federalgovernments had some responsibility in thelong-term conservation of the region’sresources

Addressed land tenure conflicts in the regionthrough the establishment of the Cape YorkTenure Resolution process

Good land use outcomes for communities,landholders, and traditional owners

(Continued)

400R.P

ottset

al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

TABLE 3. (Continued )

Planningattempt Planning process Emphasis Focus Planning outcomes

3 Natural Heritage TrustPhase TwoNRMPlan,2005

NRM Securing community agreement on clearaspirational, resource condition, andmanagement action targets for NRM inCape York Peninsula. Developed by anexternal consultancy that was subcontractedby the regional organisation contracted todevelop the plan (NHT 2005)

The plan failed to garner tri-lateral supportfrom the Commonwealth, and Stategovernments, and communities in thePeninsula and was subsequently not ratified

Cape York did not have a regional NRM bodyat the time (NRM activities werecoordinated by a Canberra-based RegionalLiaison officer), leading to highlyfragmented NRM in the region

The plan was never implemented and thusnever addressed any of the region’s coreissues such as land tenure resolution

4 ‘Next Generation’ NRMPlan for Cape York,2014

NRM To establish a decision-making framework andcommunity-owned NRM plan to guideinvestment and management of Cape YorkPeninsula’s natural resources

Process underway at the time of submittingthis article

The process is focused on building the capacityof the region to undertake NRM and landuse planning, with a particular focus onengaging the various communities in theregion in developing a plan that is based ontheir aspirations for their land, communityand region

Alliances and partnerships are evolving withinthe region to support the planning process

5 Cape York RegionalPlan, 2014

Land use To provide strategic direction for land useplanning in Cape York Peninsula, andbalance economic development withenvironmental conservation, through theuse of zoning (DSDIP 2012)

Published in August of 2014, outcomes yet tobe observed

The process was driven by State governmentagencies external to the region (based inBrisbane); however, a regional advisorycommittee consisting of key institutions inthe region has provided feedback and adviceto the State government

Consultation was undertaken through aregional planning committee consisting ofkey regional institutions

AStudy

ofGovernance

Arrangem

ents401D

ownl

oade

d by

[Que

ensla

nd U

nive

rsity

of T

echn

olog

y] a

t 17:

38 0

7 Se

ptem

ber 2

015

Accountability

Accountability among and within institutions in the region varies over time, andthose arrangements continue to evolve. While most institutions are accountable tonational funding bodies regarding where money has been allocated to projects,their accountability to their constituents and each other remains under-resourced,fragmented and is, in many cases, poor. The accountability of externally driven plan-ning institutions (e.g. State government) has tended to be low, as they have tended tobe unable to effectively manage significant political tensions that exist betweenregional institutions regarding the allocation of resources, and ownership orcontrol over specific policy and management areas. Consequently, there has gener-ally been a failure to establish clear and durable mechanisms that bring together theappropriate regional institutions in Cape York Peninsula to discuss, formulate, coor-dinate or negotiate land use or NRM issues and strategies. Although regional insti-tutions are somewhat accountable to their immediate constituents, they are oftenpoorly informed about the activities of other institutions also engaged in developingland use and NRM priorities and strategies in the region. This is due to low levels ofinter-institutional trust (although this is gradually improving) and a degree of terri-toriality of issue areas by institutions in the region.

Effectiveness

The governance arrangements for land use and NRM planning are relatively ineffec-tive due to issues of fragmentation and lack of alignment across scales and issues.Despite significant common interests among the key regional institutions, institutionaland strategic fragmentation persists because ‘it’s a competition for funding…Thecompetition has been set up by the funding programs, and it works against effectiveoutcomes’ (Regional NGO). This cross-regional competition has often led to signifi-cant duplicationofprograms,without coordinationof activities or thenegotiationof anoverarching objective. For example, two of the region’s NRM institutions are heavilyengaged in firemanagement in different subregions in thePeninsula.Despite this, theydo not have a common fire plan or coordinated strategy for their approaches. This hasled to their activities being highly fragmented and ineffective at reducing the spread ofweeds or feral animals through fire management at the landscape scale.Historically, the lack of a community-owned, regionally supported land use and

NRM plan, adequate frameworks, or tools to support decision making furtherreduces the capacity of institutions in the region to address regional issues effectivelyover time. The project-oriented approach to NRM is also ineffective and inefficientin addressing regional scale issues. One interviewee suggested that institutions inCape York Peninsula ‘are just scattering resources at things that sound like goodideas. Then the chance that we’ll reach our objectives, particularly if we haven’tidentified that objective, is small’ (Research Sector). While one institution’s recentdevelopment of a regional investment strategy for allocating NRM funding is agood starting point, it does not articulate regionally agreed objectives for NRM inthe region. The investment strategy is also not used to guide wider strategy develop-ment or implementation activities of any other institution in the region. Put simply,

there are too many organisations running different paths and all coming upwith different outcomes, when some of us are doing similar things and

402 R. Potts et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

working against each other instead of working together to come up with acommon solution to the issues we are all dealing with. (Regional NGO)

Efficiency

The governance arrangements for land use and NRM planning in Cape York Penin-sula are not efficient. Low availability of social, economic, cultural and biophysicalinformation, in combination with fragmented institutions and limited financialresources to support planning in the relatively large region, perpetuate the ineffi-ciency of existing arrangements. The political tensions between institutions and‘the competitive nature of funding prevents the sharing of information or collabor-ation’ (Government Agency). This has led to duplication of strategies and fragmen-ted implementation across the region in many cases. Weed management and firemanagement activities are primary examples of this. Funding is also awarded

based on who can write the best application and not where the most need isor what would be the most effective way of delivering what needs to beaddressed, whatever those issues are. Funding doesn’t get allocatedbecause of an identified need or priority in the region. (GovernmentAgency)

Adaptability

While the corporate governance arrangements of individual institutions involved inNRM in Cape York Peninsula are moderately adaptive, the broader governancearrangements for NRM planning across the region are not. Low levels of connec-tivity among institutions at the regional scale in combination with low levels of align-ment between the priorities of national funding bodies and regional institutions limitthe adaptiveness of planning arrangements. If there

was that cohesion, we would have more of a protective bubble or an agreedstrategy about how we are going to deal with things. Then we can go ‘yep,go for these three things and let’s try to avoid these other things’. Whenthere’s no cohesion, how do you buffer NRM, people and the whole com-munity from… politics. (Government Agency)

The lack of discretionary funding in the existing funding model also limits thecapacity of institutions involved in land management or NRM to respond or restruc-ture their organisation or activities based on emerging threats or issues with anysense of immediacy. Rather, the project-oriented funding model limits institutionsfrom undertaking any strategy development or implementation activities that theyare not contractually obliged to, limiting their ability to adapt their strategies andactivities.

Sustainability

Governance arrangements for NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula are yet todevelop to the point of being sustainable, largely due to a combination of shifting

A Study of Governance Arrangements 403

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

political mandates, inadequate funding, short-term funding cycles, and a degree ofterritoriality and competition amongst regional institutions. All institutions involvedin land use and NRM in Cape York Peninsula are directly or indirectly reliant ongovernment funding to support their core activities. NRM funding cycles and gov-ernment election cycles are relatively short (between 1 and 5 years), requiring insti-tutions to constantly apply for new pots of money to ensure their ongoing survival.Government priorities are also quick to change based on these cycles, limiting thesustainability of strategies in the region. In Cape York Peninsula

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

Although the highly fragmented connections between institutions in the region arecertainly not improving the sustainability, they are not significantly impeding iteither. The small number of coordinated and collaborative projects in the regiondemonstrates that institutions are capable of coming together to support and pro-gress a common agenda. While these relationships are piecemeal, a small investmentin them would improve the functionality of governance in the region for land use andNRM planning significantly. Rather, funding security is the primary barrier to thesustainability of planning governance arrangements because

momentum gets up in one project and people will come together around anidea and then it just falls in aheap.There’s a continual senseof loss andexces-sive use of energy to start something up, only for it all to go to shit and thenstart back up again.The energy is just dissipated.Yougetmajor fatigue in thecommunity being involved in stuff in the future. (Government Agency)

Adequacy

Cape York Peninsula is described by some as ‘the basket case in the QueenslandNRM world’ (Government Agency). Past planning processes were allocated ade-quate amounts of resources and time by government funding agencies but theseresources were used ineffectively and failed to resolve the competing aspirations ofstakeholders in the region. This ultimately led to their failure. These past approacheswere based largely on the prevailing perception that Cape York Peninsula was‘unique’ (Regional NGO) and needed protection ‘to avoid the environmental degra-dation that development has caused in southern parts of Australia’ (GovernmentAgency). The Cape York Heads of Agreement was an exception to this, and wasdriven by regional priorities and aspirations, illustrating that effective outcomescan be achieved with relatively limited resources.Land use and NRM planning processes in the region have largely been instigated

in isolation from other policy interventions and strategic processes. Such anapproach has proven to be problematic in a region where social, economic, culturaland environmental issues are highly integrated and interdependent. Planning

in the Cape, more than any other area, really has to be embedded within abroader policy approach. The key is taking a whole of Cape, coordinated

404 R. Potts et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

approach, otherwise there’s no point in investing in it. You could put $10million into NRM or $50 million into the Cape with coordinated effort andget better results. NRM should form just one part of a broader policyagenda in the region. (Government Agency)

The lack of integration of strategic solutions and the fragmentation of institutionsaddressing the myriad of social, economic, cultural, and environmental issues inCape York Peninsula have also perpetuated inter-institutional tensions that limitthe equity, efficiency, efficacy, and sustainability of governance arrangements forNRM planning.

Discussion and recommendations

This research has found evidence that local and regional institutions that play a rolein the governance of land use and NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula areincreasingly demanding that governments adhere to the best practice governanceprinciples discussed above. Historically, however, there has been little adherenceto such approaches, particularly when planning is driven by State or Commonwealthagencies without real ownership from regional players. As the emerging new NRMplanning governance system in Cape York Peninsula is relatively young, the frame-works and connectivity that should reinforce accountability, equity, efficacy, andefficiency are yet to be fully developed. The lack of monitoring and evaluation ofNRM planning activities and outcomes in the region has also been missing,further inhibiting the adaptability of decision-making processes that have been estab-lished and regularly reinvented. While financial support for the governance arrange-ments has been adequate to support land use andNRMplanning, overall it has failedbecause of inadequate adherence to other principles. Broadly, governance arrange-ments across domains have led to continuing conflict and further degradation of theregional landscape more than otherwise would have occurred under a more robustgovernance system.In order to improve the equity, accountability, efficiency, efficacy, and adapta-

bility of governance arrangements in Cape York Peninsula, there needs to begreater bipartisan and cross-governmental commitment to the development ofcore frameworks to support decision making that are missing or underdeveloped.Stronger frameworks for agreed vision and objective setting, strategy development,monitoring, evaluation and review, and bargaining and negotiation such as a stableregional roundtable or panel could significantly improve the functionality of govern-ance arrangements.

Conclusions

We reviewed the relevancy and applicability of criteria for best practice planning andgovernance from the literature. From this a synthesised set of seven best practicegovernance and planning principles was used to assess the governance arrangementsfor planning in Cape York Peninsula. This analysis revealed that decision-makingarrangements for NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula are highly fragmented,and regionally inconsistent in adherence to best practice governance and planningprinciples. Low levels of intra-regional institution accountability significantly under-mine the equity, efficacy, and adequacy of land use and NRM planning governance

A Study of Governance Arrangements 405

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

arrangements. Limited and uncertain funding cycles, in addition to broader shiftingpolitical mandates, are also problematic for the sustainability, adaptiveness, and effi-cacy of the governance system. However, despite these challenges, regional insti-tutions’ adherence to best practice governance principles is weak, but improving.Broader attention and greater investment in best practice principles in governancefor planning are needed to improve the outcomes of land use and NRM planningprocesses in Cape York Peninsula.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correspondence: Ruth Potts, QUT Science and Engineering Faculty, GPO Box 2434,Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia. E-mail:rm.potts@hdr.qut.edu.au

NOTE

[1] Natural resource management in Australia is operationalised at the regional scale andthere are 56 NRM regions across the country (shown in Figure 1). The 56 NRMregions were formalised through a bilateral agreement between the federal and State gov-ernments as part of the National Heritage Trust Program in 2003 (Abrahams 2005).Regional groups were formed and were designated as responsible for the planning andmanagement of natural resources in each of the 56 NRM regions.

REFERENCES

ABRAHAMS, H. (2005) ‘Devolution enhances integration’, Australasian Journal of Environ-mental Management 12(sup1), pp. 57–61. [doi:10.1080/14486563.2005.10648664]

AGRAWAL, A. (2003) ‘Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: context, methods,and politics’, Annual Review of Anthropology 32, pp. 243–62.

AGUILERA, R. & CUERVO-CAZURRA, A. (2004) ‘Codes of good governance worldwide: what isthe trigger?’ Organization Studies 25(3), pp. 415–43. [doi:10.1177/0170840604040669]

ANGMAN, E. (2013) ‘Was this just for show? Discoursive opening and closure in a public par-ticipatory process’, Environmental Communication 7(3), pp. 409–26. [doi:10.1080/17524032.2013.804429]

Balkanu (2010) Balkanu Cape York development corporation: Cape York Agenda, available from:http://www.balkanu.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=16 (accessed 6 July 2012).

BARRETT, P. (2003) Better practice public sector governance, ANAO, Canberra.BARRETT, R. (2012, January 8) ‘LNP promises to develop Cape York as wild rivers laws

buried’, The Australian.BELLAMY, J., ROSS, H., EWING, S. &MEPPEM, T. (2002) Integrated catchment management: learn-

ing from the Australian experience for the Murray-Darling Basin, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosys-tems, Canberra.

BRUNDTLAND, G.H. (1987). Our common future: world commission on environment and develop-ment, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

CARNEY, M. & COLVIN, M. (2012) Environmentalists and miners debate future of Cape York, PM,Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney.

CONLEY, A. & MOOTE, M. (2003) ‘Evaluating collaborative natural resource management’,Society and Natural Resources 16(5), pp. 371–386. [doi:10.1080/08941920309181]

CYI (2007) From hand out to hand up: Cape York reform project – Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale,Mossman Gorge design recommendations, Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership,Cairns.

406 R. Potts et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

CYPLUS (1995) ‘Stage 1 overview reports – thematic report 1 of 3 natural resources andecology’, in SERVICES, E.S.A. (ed) Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy (CYPLUS),Department of the Premier, Economic and Trade Development, and Department of theEnvironment, Sport and Territories, Brisbane, pp. 1–53.

DALE, A. (2013) Governance challenges for Northern Australia, The Cairns Institute, Cairns.DALE, A. & BELLAMY, J. (1998) Regional resource use planning in rangelands: an Australian review,

Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.DALE, A., VELLA, K. & POTTS, R. (2013a) ‘Governance systems analysis: a framework for

reforming governance systems’, Journal of Public Administration and Governance 3(3), pp.162–87. [doi:10.5296/jpag.v3i3.4385]

DALE, A., VELLA, K., PRESSEY, R., BRODIE, J., YORKSTON, H. & POTTS, R. (2013b) ‘A methodfor risk analysis across governance systems: a great barrier reef case study’, EnvironmentalResearch Letters 8(1), pp. 1–16. [doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015037]

DOVERS, S. (2009) Implementing sustainable development: long term policy and institutional chal-lenges, Kebangsaan University, Malaysia.

DSDIP (2012) Regional planning in Cape York, Department of State Development, Infrastruc-ture and Planning, Brisbane.

FOLKE, C., HAHN, T., OLSSON, P. & NORBERG, J. (2005) ‘Adaptive governance for social-eco-logical systems’, Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30, pp. 441–73. [doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511]

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

GRAHAM, J., AMOS, B. & PLUMPTRE, T. (2003a) Governance principles for protected areas in the21st century, Institute on Governance, Ottawa.

GRAHAM, J., AMOS, B. & PLUMPTRE, T. (2003b) Principles for good governance in the 21st centurypolicy brief no. 15, Institute on Governance, Ottawa.

GRIFFITH, R., DAVIDSON, J. & LOCKWOOD, M. (2009). NRM governance for change: revisiting‘good’ governance through an adaptive lens, Land and Water Australia, Canberra.

GRUBER, J. (2010) ‘Key principles of community-based natural resource management:a synthesis and interpretation of identified approaches for managing the commons’,Environmental Management 45(1), pp. 52–66. [doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9235-y]

HART, V. &WHATMAN, S. (1998) ‘Decolonising the concept of knowledge’, Paper presented atthe HERDSA: Annual International Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.

HEAD, B. & RYAN, N. (2004) ‘Can co-governance work? Regional natural resource manage-ment in Queensland, Australia’, Society and Economy 26(2–3), pp. 361–82. [doi:10.1556/SocEc.26.2004.2-3.11]

HEALEY, P. (1997) Collaborative planning; shaping places in fragmented societies, University ofBritish Columbia Press, Vancouver.

HEALEY, P. (2006) ‘Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and newpolitics of space’, European Planning Studies 14(3), pp. 299–320. [doi:10.1080/09654310500420792]

HOGGARTH, L. & COMFORT, H. (2010) A practical guide to outcome evaluation, Jessica Kingsley,Philadelphia, PA.

HOLMES, J. (2011a) ‘Contesting the future of Cape York Peninsula’, Australian Geographer 42(1), pp. 53–68. [doi:10.1080/00049182.2011.546319]

HOLMES, J. (2011b) ‘Land tenures as policy instruments: transitions on Cape York Peninsula’,Geographical Research 49(2), pp. 217–33. [doi:10.1111/j.1745-5871.2011.00692.x]

HOLMES, J. (2012) ‘Cape York Peninsula, Australia: a frontier region undergoing a multifunc-tional transition with indigenous engagement’, Journal of Rural Studies 28, pp. 252–265.[doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.01.004]

HSU, C.-C. & SANDFORD, B. (2007) ‘The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus’, Prac-tical Assessment Research and Evaluation 12(10), pp. 1–8.

INNES, J. & BOOHER, D. (2003) ‘Impact of collaborative planning on governance capacity’,Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Plan-ning, Baltimore, MD.

INNES, J. & BOOHER, D. (2004) ‘Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21stcentury’, Planning Theory and Practice 5(4), pp. 419–36. [doi:10.1080/1464935042000293170]

A Study of Governance Arrangements 407

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

INNES, J. & BOOHER, D. (2010) Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative ration-ality for public policy, Routledge, New York.

KIM, S. & NANCARROW, K. (2013) Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney has ‘no interest’ in World Heritagenomination for Cape York, available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/seeney-has-no-interest-in-world-heritage-nomination-cape-york/4965596 (accessed 12 December2013).

KLIMENKO, V. & EVANS, R. (2009) Bauxite mining operations at Weipa, Cape York: a case studyNorthern Australia Land and Water Science Review, Northern Australia Land and WaterTaskforce and CSIRO, Brisbane.

LANE, M. (2005) ‘Public participation in planning: an intellectual history’, Australian Geogra-pher 36(3), pp. 283–99. [doi:10.1080/00049180500325694]

LANE, M. & ROBINSON, C. (2009) ‘Institutional complexity and environmental management:the challenge of integration and the promise of large-scale collaboration’, AustralasianJournal of Environmental Management 16(1), pp. 16–24. [doi:10.1080/14486563.2009.9725213]

LOCKWOOD, M. (2010) ‘Good governance for terrestial protected areas: a framework, prin-ciples and performance outcomes’, Journal of Environmental Management 91(3), pp. 754–66. [doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.005]

LOCKWOOD, M., DAVIDSON, J., CURTIS, A., STRATFORD, E. & GRIFFITH, R. (2010) ‘Governanceprinciples for natural resource management’, Society and Natural Resources 23(10), pp. 986–1001. [doi:10.1080/08941920802178214]

MCDAVID, J. & HAWTHORN, L. (2006) Program evaluation & performance measurement: an intro-duction to practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

MORRISON, T., MCDONALD, G. & LANE, M. (2004) ‘Integrating natural resource managementfor better environmental outcomes’, Australian Geographer 35(3), pp. 243–58. [doi:10.1080/0004918042000311304]

NANDA, V. (2006) ‘The “good governance“ concept revisited’, The Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science 603, pp. 269–83. [doi:10.1177/0002716205282847]

NHT (2005) Cape York natural resource management plan: final draft, Cape York PeninsulaLandcare, Cooktown.

NURSEY-BRAY, M. (2009) ‘A Guugu Yimmithir Bam Wii: Ngawiya and Girrbithi: hunting,planning and management along the Great Barrier Reef Australia’, Geoforum 40, pp.442–53. [doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.02.002]

OECD (1995) Participatory development and good governance, Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development, Paris.

OECD (2004) Principles of corporate governance, OECD, Paris.OESR (2012)Queensland regional profiles: Cape York region, Office of Economic and Statistical

Resarch, Brisbane.O’FAIRCHEALLAIGH, C. (2010) ‘Public participation and environmental impact assessment:

purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making’, Environmental Impact Assess-ment Review 30(1), pp. 19–27. [doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.05.001]

OLSSON, P., GUNDERSON, L., CARPENTER, S., RYAN, P., LEBEL, L., FOLKE, C. & HOLLING, C.S.(2006) ‘Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecologi-cal systems’, Ecology and Society 11(1), pp. 1–18.

OSTROM, E. (1996) ‘Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development’,World Development 24(6), pp. 1073–88. [doi:10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X]

OWEN, J. (2006) Program evaluation: forms and approaches (3rd ed.), Allen & Unwin, CrowsNest.

PAHL-WOSTL, C. (2009) ‘A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes’, Global Environmental Change 19(3), pp. 354–65. [doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001]

PARKINS, J. &MITCHELL, R. (2005) ‘Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn innatural resource management’, Society & Natural Resources 18(6), pp. 529–40. [doi:10.1080/08941920590947977]

PATTON, M. (1982) Practical evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.PEARSON, N. (2005) The Cape York Agenda viewpoint, Cape York Institute for Policy and Lea-

dership, Canberra.

408 R. Potts et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5

PERKINS, P. (2011) ‘Public participation in watershed management: international practices forinclusiveness’, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 36(5–6), pp. 204–12. [doi:10.1016/j.pce.2010.02.004]

PHILLPOT, R. (2005) ‘The “gammon economy” of Cape York: lessons for national building inPacific Island communities’, Paper presented at the Oceania Development Network PacificConference on Growth and Development, University of Papua New Guinea.

PICKERILL, J. (2008) ‘Finding common ground? Spaces of dialogue and the negotiation ofIndigenous interests in environmental campaigns in Australia’, Geoforum 40(1), pp. 66–79. [doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.06.009]

POTTS, R., VELLA, K., DALE, A. & SIPE, N. (2014) ‘Exploring the usefulness of structural-func-tional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems’, Planning Theory. [doi:10.1177/1473095214553519]

RYDIN, Y. & PENNINGTON, M. (2000) ‘Public participation and local environmental planning:the collective action problem and the potential of social capital’, Local Environment 5(2), pp.153–69. [doi:10.1080/13549830050009328]

SCHEDLER, A., DIAMOND, L. & PLATTNER, M. (1999) The self-restraining state: power andaccountability in new democracies, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO.

SEWPaC (2008) Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions, available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nrm-regions-map.html (accessed 4 September2012).

SEWPaC (2013) Regional NRM planning for climate change fund (stream 1), available from:http://www.environment.gov.au/cleanenergyfuture/regional-fund/about.html (accessed 18September 2013).

SMITH, B. (2003a) ‘A complex balance: mediating sustainable development in CapeYork Peninsula’, The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs 4(2), pp.99–115.

SMITH, B. (2003b) ‘Whither “certainty”? Coexistence, change and land rights in northernQueensland’, Anthropological Forum 13(1), pp. 27–48. [doi:10.1080/0066467032000068219]

SMITH, B. (2005) ‘“We got our own management”: local knowledge, government and devel-opment in Cape York Peninsula’, Australian Aboriginal Studies 2, pp. 4–15.

STRENGER, C. (2004) ‘The corporate governance scorecard: a tool for the implementation ofcorporate governance’, Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on CorporateGovernance, Birmingham.

SUTTON, P. (1990) ‘Planning and decision-making in Cape York Peninsula: whose principles,for whose benefits?’ Paper presented at the Remote Aboriginal Community Futures confer-ence, Cairns.

SUTTON, P. (2009) The politics of suffering: indigenous Australia and the end of the liberal consensus,Melbourne University, Melbourne.

THOMAS, M. (2010) ‘What do the worldwide governance indicators measure?’ EuropeanJournal of Development Research 22(1), pp. 31–54. [doi:10.1057/ejdr.2009.32]

UNDP (1997) Good governance for sustainable human development. available from: http://magnet.undp.org/policy/chapter1.htm (accessed 14 March 2012).

UNESCAP (2012) What is good governance? available from: http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp (accessed 16 October 2012).

WALLINGTON, T. & LAWRENCE, G. (2008) ‘Making democracy matter: responsibility and effec-tive environmental governance in regional Australia’, Journal of Rural Studies 24(3), pp.277–90. [doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.11.003]

WINER, M., MURPHY, H. & LUDWICK, H. (2012). ‘Ecological conflicts in the Cape York Penin-sula: the complex nature of the black-green divide’, Paper presented at the ISEE Confer-ence 2012: Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for aGreen Economy, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

ZAFRIN, S. & ROSIER, J. (2011). ‘Queensland‘s coastal management: indicators to measurecoastal governance outcomes’, Paper presented at the Queensland Coastal Conference,Cairns.

ZATTONI, A. & CUOMO, F. (2008) ‘Why adopt codes of good governance? A comparison ofinstitutional and efficiency perspectives’, Corporate Governance: An International Review16(1), pp. 1–15. [doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00661.x]

A Study of Governance Arrangements 409

Dow

nloa

ded

by [Q

ueen

sland

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tec

hnol

ogy]

at 1

7:38

07

Sept

embe

r 201

5