Environmental governance and the hybrid regime of Australian natural resource management

Lockwood, Michael; Davidson, Julie

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.001

Cited by 80 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For water allocation, many watershed level stakeholder committees are disbanded once the water allocation plan is completed, as water is then distributed by the department according to the plan. Often, catchment management or Regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) groups have had and continue to have a long term role in planning and implementing integrated land-water management but in most Australian states they do not have a legislative basis and little guarantee of on-going funding (for further information see [28][29][30].…”

Section: Australian and Brazilian Water Management: Similarities Amonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water: Drought, Crisis and Governance in Australia and Brazil

Júnior

Baldwin

Camkin

et al. 2016

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite huge differences in population, household income and development levels, Australia and Brazil have some temporal convergences in their water governance systems. Over the last 20 years, both countries have significantly reformed their water policies and practices by introducing a legal foundation for more integrated and participatory catchment/basin management based on the best information available. A critical test of any water reform is how effective it is in meeting the challenges of extreme and unpredictable conditions of drought and floods, which are expected to increase under climate changes scenarios. This paper compared the contemporary water governance frameworks of Australia and Brazil in relation to three elements of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM): integration, participation, and information/knowledge. We focused on insights from Brazil's recent drought and Australia's fluctuating water crises to derive lessons and recommendations for future changes. Among the main recommendations, we stress the need for both systems to improve effective participation and to embrace a more comprehensive approach to cope with water scarcity in future scenarios. Furthermore, water related decisions should be based on a transparent and well informed process, and take into account the lessons from similar situations worldwide in order to avoid unnecessary or ineffective measures. As demonstrated in the Australian case during the Millennium Drought, the most effective initiatives were those involving government, the private sector and society to achieve a more sustainable consumption pattern in all sectors. There is much to learn from the Brazilian and Australia experiences in water reforms and crises, but it is imperative to understand the social, economic and environmental context within which these took place. Continuing to develop the capacity and willingness of researchers and policy makers to work together can make an important contribution towards meeting the growing and spreading challenges in water resource management around the world.

show abstract

Section: Australian and Brazilian Water Management: Similarities Amonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water: Drought, Crisis and Governance in Australia and Brazil

Júnior

Baldwin

Camkin

et al. 2016

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was a bold governance experiment (Lane, Robinson, & Taylor, 2009;Lockwood & Davidson, 2010;Robins & Dovers, 2007;Wallington & Lawrence, 2008). Each Australian state introduced different regional governance models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Value Proposition of Regional Natural Resource Management in Queensland

Vella¹,

Cole-Hawthorne²,

Hardaker³

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although regulatory control provides the basis of environmental policy (Glasbergen 1998) and has made considerable headway with some environmental problems of the 20th century, its limitations are now realized because it alone fails to reconcile conflicts and polarized positions of actors, is unable to enforce compliance, and is limited in effectiveness under conditions of uncertainty and change that characterize contemporary environmental challenges Meffe 1996, Kettl 2002). Alternatively, it is argued that the retreat from a regulatory approach or a 'rolling back of the state' is due to neoliberal reforms (Himley 2008, Lockwood andDavidson 2010). Attention has thus been shifting away from 'government' and toward alternative models of governance (Himley 2008, Pahl-Wostl et al 2008, de Loë et al 2009).…”

Section: The Changing Landscape Of Environmental Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This shift involves environmental governance being reconceptualized from an overly structural or static view and toward a dynamic perspective that stresses the ability to navigate interconnected and multilevel social-ecological systems (Lemos and Agrawal 2006, Folke 2007, Ostrom 2007, de Loë et al 2009, Plummer and Armitage 2010. Several recent efforts (Lemos and Agrawal 2006, Biermann et al 2009, de Loë et al 2009, Lockwood et al 2010, Reed and Bruyneel 2010) draw attention to changes in what governance implies, how it occurs, and what it seeks to achieve. In bringing together the concerns identified with the shift in environmental governance, Armitage et al (2012:247-248) draw attention to "... five key concepts or issues in environmental governance: (1) recognition of the importance of fit and scale; (2) fostering adaptiveness, flexibility, and learning; (3) coproducing knowledge from diverse sources; (4) understanding the emergence of new actors and their roles in governance; and (5) changing expectations about accountability and legitimacy."…”

Section: The Changing Landscape Of Environmental Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Can Adaptive Comanagement Help to Address the Challenges of Climate Change Adaptation?

Plummer¹

2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. A shift is taking place within environmental governance that draws attention to modes and instruments that respond to system dynamics, uncertainty, and contested values. Adaptive comanagement is one process being advanced to make governance operational as it emphasizes collaboration among diverse actors, functions across scales and levels, and fosters learning though iterative feedback. Although extensive experience with adaptive comanagement has been gained in relation to other environmental and resource issues, its potential contribution to the governance of adaption is largely unexplored. This paper probes how adaptive comanagement might offer support to climate change adaptation and identifies gaps in knowledge requiring attention. In drawing upon existing literature and applied experiences, it is argued that adaptive comanagement may contribute to climate change adaptation by building generalized adaptive capacity as well as providing a novel institutional arrangement to generate adaptive responses. At the same time, several questions emerge about adaptive comanagement in this context. Considerations are thus discussed for adaptive comanagement scholarship and application in addressing the challenge of climate change adaptation.

show abstract

Environmental governance and the hybrid regime of Australian natural resource management

Cited by 80 publications

References 36 publications

Water: Drought, Crisis and Governance in Australia and Brazil

Water: Drought, Crisis and Governance in Australia and Brazil

The Value Proposition of Regional Natural Resource Management in Queensland

Can Adaptive Comanagement Help to Address the Challenges of Climate Change Adaptation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About