James Whelan

Community engagement or community action: Choosing not to play the game

Abstract Environment movement organisations in Australia have experienced a frustrating honeymoon with deliberative governance. During the last three decades, conservationists have had increasing access to decision-making processes and forums. Since the 1980s, environmental decisions have generally involved public consultation and community engagement. Activist participants in these processes have tended, however, to over-estimate their potential to achieve conservation objectives through deliberative governance. And in many instances, environmental advocates have been coopted, institutionalised and neutralised. This case study of the major and successful campaign to control widespread landclearing in Queensland, Australia, examines failed community engagement. By rejecting both hierarchical, centralised decision-making and the inadequate engagement practices proposed by the state, activist groups mobilised community opinion and action to bring about an historic conservation win.

Regional Community-based Planning: The Challenge of Participatory Environmental Governance

A new approach to environmental governance is sweeping Australia. Two national funding schemes require collaborative bodies to administer funds for regional on-ground projects to manage rivers, coastlines, biodiversity and vegetation. The devolution of power and resources to these bodies is contingent on participatory, representative and transparent processes. This decentralisation of responsibility reflects stakeholder expectations and a focus on empowerment and social capital. Supporters of the new regional arrangements anticipate that the heightened inclusion of community members in decision-making will contribute to a holistic and collaborative approach, in stark contrast to adversarial, ‘decide and announce’ approaches. Their case is strengthened by the consensus that traditional top-down governance has failed to achieve sustainable natural resource management and may, in fact, have contributed to adverse impacts, including salinity, ecosystem loss and climate change.