More recently I joined South East Catchments which is an NRM regional body. 3 There are three levels of government in Australia, and we vote to elect representatives to each of these levels: federal, state or territory and local. With the...
moreMore recently I joined South East Catchments which is an NRM regional body. 3 There are three levels of government in Australia, and we vote to elect representatives to each of these levels: federal, state or territory and local. With the Coalition in power federally and Labor in power at a state level across the country from 2000 -2007. A change from the Coalition to Labor Government at the Federal level occurred on 24 th November 2007. Learning from episodes -More theory for multi-party negotiation processes Chapter 6 (Intermezzo I) draws on learnings from the ASAP NRI and compliance episodes and further delineates the need for investigating and developing a methodology to underpin interventions in the form of facilitated interactive negotiations. Theoretical aspects of organisational change for adaptive environmental management are explored en route to proposing a triple-loop-negotiation model that assists the design, facilitation and conduct of multi-stakeholder negotiation processes. Chapter 7 examines further episodes where triple-loop negotiation is tested as a concept for underpinning planning and implementation of multi-stakeholder interactive decision-making and negotiation processes. The first episode specifically targets the use of negotiation thinking and theory in the development of a collective plan for continuation of the Rural Water Use Efficiency program across Queensland. The second episode connects the New Extension Framework (2000) with negotiations on the role and function of NRM extension in DNR&M. Drawing on learnings from preceding episodes, Chapter 8 (Intermezzo II) explores current research in the organisation and facilitation of multi-stakeholder negotiation processes. Particular attention is paid to the organisational dimensions of such processes with investigations of organisational learning literature. Triple-loop negotiation is further developed as a means of conceptualising and planning these interactive negotiations. A methodology is proposed for enabling and facilitating triple-loop negotiation processes. Chapter 9 examines an in-depth action research process where the triple-loop-negotiation approach is employed aiming to influence extension policy nationally. This involves reflective learnings in the participatory design and implementation of national events particularly focused on extension policy spanning 2003-2004. Included in this is the development of a draft National Framework for Extension in Australia (NEFA). Chapter 10 builds on learnings from these events and reflects on the employment of the triple-loopnegotiation approach in the initiation, plans and progressive outcomes of the State Extension Leaders Network (2005+). This network has a strategic role in influencing coordination and collaboration of key institutional stakeholders in the Australian extension system. Chapter 11 brings together key learnings for organising and facilitating multi-party (and other) negotiations in the NRM system in Queensland and Australia. It also relates these findings to past and contemporary thinking on extension in effort to inform further development of extension (or NRM extension) in Queensland and indeed Australia. The findings from the research journey are drawn into key conclusions and recommendations for the Department of Natural Resource and Mines (and its successors), for NRM extension, and for organising and facilitating multi-stakeholder negotiations in the NRM extension system. Mines Department to form NR&M. A later merger with the Department of Energy to form NRM&E (2003), and then another change back to NR&M (2004) and in 2006 to NRW (Natural Resources and Water). 5 See chapter 2 6 It is important to note that Australia is a federation and constitutional monarchy. Australians elect state and territory legislatures based on the Westminster tradition, as well as a bicameral Parliament of Australia, which is a hybrid of Westminster practices with the uniquely federalist element of the Australian Senate. Under this system, powers are distributed between a national government (the Commonwealth) and the six States (three Territories) (Australian Government 2010) 7 National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality 8 Natural Heritage Trust (Round 2) Murray (1999), Marsh and Pannell (2000) and all noted the movement from one-on-one services to group facilitation in public approaches to extension. Emphasis away from individual one-on-one services toward a broader platform reflects increasing environmental and social concerns than the previous 'production/economic' focus 10 . In balance with this shift, Coutts et al. ( ) reports strong one-on-one extension continuing in the private sector. This shift to larger societal concerns and a broader sociological approach sees public extension agencies spending a large amount of time considering the social impacts of collective issues such as land/resource degradation and environmental stewardship. Marsh and Pannell (2000) identified that moves away from top-down approaches, towards groupbased extension activities were advantageous. Emphasis on 'adult learning' and landholder 'ownership' of both problems and solutions were likewise very positive, and facilitated the 9 My italics. It is interesting that Murray saw moves to secure external funding as 'frantic'. 10 Note: Changing priorities see some agencies reversing this trend . 13 entry of rural people other than producers into rural issues (e.g. Landcare). Compared to technical concerns common to other international extension systems, however, it seems that Australian extension systems place far greater importance on group processes (Murray 1999). Marsh and Pannell (2000) caution that the recent emphasis on groups may be excessive, resulting in problems relating to effectiveness of group approaches in all situations, the sustainability of group-based extension and its ability to involve all who need to be involved. State Governments have trended towards a reduction in publicly-supported extension services, with corresponding increases in externally-resourced delivery. A key rationale is that individuals profiting from public advisory services should pay for them and participatory approaches to collectively solving issues and generating funding to support related activities are in the interests of society. Some landholder (stakeholder) groups feel there are advantages associated with not being as dependent on public agencies. Murray (1999) found, however, that some landholders feel that extension (Government) is abdicating its responsibilities. observe the private sector operating in the same sphere as public extension, but continuing to expand, providing individual technical advice as well as undertaking interactive group-based activities. In some cases, however, decreases in State support resulted in State Government extension staff reductions below a 'critical mass' with many extension programs being largely non-functional. While this has led to strategies for seeking funding through cost-recovery, fee-for-service, and external sources, the requirement of extension projects to align with funder priorities may be inconsistent with State objectives (Murray 1999). Key elements in this strategy development process included: 1. Using the framework process (as per Timms and Clark above) 2. Compiling a list of key stakeholders to target 3. Organising regional, metropolitan, and head office workshops 4. Organising voluntary regional extension teams to assist where possible Key Research Question: "What processes and approaches do people in natural resource management use to negotiate outcomes given the different values and paradigms in the Department and the community, and in what ways can these approaches, when reflected against literature, inform, develop and institutionalise Extension in the Department of Natural Resources & Mines?" Key Action 1 -Undertake a comprehensive identification and analysis of current Natural Resource Information practices and initiatives within and across Queensland and Commonwealth Government agencies and other relevant bodies. Key Action 2 -Identify and clarify the authority, role and functions performed by State Government agencies and other stakeholders in Natural Resource Information activities. Key Action 3 -Build on existing initiatives to establish a Queensland Natural Resource Monitoring and Reporting System to inform government and the community on the condition and trend of our natural resource asset and inherent environmental values.