Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef

Abstract

A growing field of sustainability science examines how environments are transformed through polycentric governance. However, many studies are only snapshot analyses of the initial design or the emergent structure of polycentric regimes. There is less systematic analysis of the longitudinal robustness of polycentric regimes. The problem of robustness is approached by focusing not only on the structure of a regime but also on its context and effectiveness. These dimensions are examined through a longitudinal analysis of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) governance regime, drawing on in-depth interviews and demographic, economic, and employment data, as well as organizational records and participant observation. Between 1975 and 2011, the GBR regime evolved into a robust polycentric structure as evident in an established set of multiactor, multilevel arrangements addressing marine, terrestrial, and global threats. However, from 2005 onward, multiscale drivers precipitated at least 10 types of regime change, ranging from contextual change that encouraged regime drift to deliberate changes that threatened regime conversion. More recently, regime realignment also has occurred in response to steering by international organizations and shocks such as the 2016 mass coral-bleaching event. The results show that structural density and stability in a governance regime can coexist with major changes in that regime’s context and effectiveness. Clear analysis of the vulnerability of polycentric governance to both diminishing effectiveness and the masking effects of increasing complexity provides sustainability science and governance actors with a stronger basis to understand and respond to regime change.

Polycentric governance in telecoupled resource systems

“…Polycentricity is often implicitly portrayed as a static attribute of governance systems despite its dynamic character (Galaz et al 2012). To conceive action situations as having a temporal imprint allows analyzing the evolution of interactions in polycentric governance systems over time, including the emergence of new governance spaces and the termination of others (Morrison 2017). In our ABSL analysis, the "land deal setup" action situation is terminated after agreements are concluded, and the "project implementation" starts with initial land conversion (Fig.…”

Protecting Migratory Species in the Australian Marine Environment: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Policy and Management Plans

“…The boundary between the two jurisdictions is unclear because they define "low water mark" differently. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 granted the federal government authority over the entire Great Barrier Reef region but the boundary difference was resolved by complementary zoning of adjacent state and federal marine parks (Day, 2016), an example of policy coherence in a polycentric governance system (Dale et al, 2016;Morrison, 2017).…”

“…Such systems have been identified as a means to address complex environmental problems (Biggs et al, 2012;Morrison, 2017), as independent government units may not be able to unilaterally resolve complex socioecological problems (Ostrom et al, 1961;Biggs et al, 2012). The success of polycentric governance systems in addressing environmental problems supports the need for policy coherence: complementary legislation that works between and within legislative sectors to achieve mutually-decided policy outcomes (Nilsson et al, 2012).…”

Power, politics and policy in the appropriation of urban wetlands: the critical case of Sri Lanka

“…However, as many studies on neo-liberal nature (Heynen et al 2007;McCarthy and Prudham 2004) have shown, in an economic policy environment dominated by privatisation and deregulation, the efficacy of these institutions is challenged in many ways (also see Morrison 2017). As observed in 'green grabbing' studies (Fairhead et al 2012), in Colombo an 'environmental' pretext for wetlands was used to justify further appropriation of wetlands and eviction of low-income communities.…”