Melanie Dare

Community engagement and social licence to operate

Achieving ‘a social licence to operate’ is important for organisations with long time horizons, high exposure to global markets and with a wide range of interested stakeholders. Community engagement is critical to achieve a social licence to operate, but its capacity to influence social licence is not well understood. Using case studies from forestry in New Brunswick, Canada and Tasmania, Australia, this article considers what social licence is, how community engagement plays a role in achieving social licence and how an alternative conceptualisation of social licence may improve the influence of community engagement in achieving a social licence to operate. Social licence is often conceived of as a single licence granted by a ‘community’. We argue that social licence is better conceptualised as a continuum of multiple licences achieved across various levels of society. Viewed in this way, we can consider what is needed to achieve social licences at given points along that continuum, and identify the strengths and weaknesses of specific engagement techniques in achieving particular social licences.

Public participation in commercial environments: critical reflections on community engagement methods used in the Australian plantation forestry industry

Summary Social concerns surrounding commercial plantation forest management practices in Australia have resulted in calls for more participatory forms of forest management decision-making. Public participation (or community engagement, CE) processes provide opportunities for affected and interested community members to voice their concerns over proposed plantation management activities, share relevant information and influence decision-making processes. A large body of literature provides ample support for the adoption of more participatory forms of resource management. The literature, however, provides little guidance on implementing such processes within the commercial domain of plantation forest management. Based on a review of the public participation literature and key informant interviews, we highlight the gaps between CE in practice in Australian commercial plantation management, and the theoretical objectives of CE: trust, process flexibility, inclusivity and representation. These gaps stem from the need to implement CE techniques in a way that recognises the commercial and regulatory realities of plantation forest management. While participatory techniques currently used by plantation managers meet some of the ideal objectives of ‘good’ participation and there is room for improvement, this improvement can take place only if CE practitioners recognise and address the commercial realities of CE implementation within plantation management, and acknowledge the limited practical applicability of some theoretical objectives.

Understanding community engagement in plantation forest management : Insights from practitioner and community narratives

Community engagement (CE) processes are an essential component of modern forest management practices. Required under law and in line with modern business paradigms, CE processes need to produce positive social as well as operational outcomes, a balance that is often complicated and idealistic. This paper identifies pathways to successful CE within operational plantation forestry management. Using narratives to explore the multiple experiences of those involved in engagement processes, the paper highlights the perspectives of both practitioners and other stakeholders. Analysing the multiple goals and interpretations of engagement encounters, approaches for improving CE practices used in plantation management and other settings are identified.

Localism in practice: insights from two Tasmanian case studies

There is a growing need to develop and implement new forms of governance that respond to the increasing complexity of decision making and balance the roles of government and local citizens. Localism is (re)emerging as an alternative to traditional ‘top-down’ governance strategies which are criticised for their failure to adequately respond to the diversity of community needs. This article uses two case studies to explore how localism works in practice, the Tasmanian Drought Support Network and the Tasmanian Forest Agreement. Four dimensions of adaptive governance are used to critically identify the benefits and limitations of localism as a governance approach, exploring the approaches capacity for social and economic entrepreneurship, governance quality and the utilisation and enhancement of individual capacities. These empirical findings will help policy makers and community members better understand localism and guide the development of theory around localism and its future practice.

Deliberative democracy and the Tasmanian forest peace process

ABSTRACT Decades of contention regarding Tasmanias forests have been accompanied by several attempts for peace. Most recently the ‘forest peace process’ culminated in the 2012 Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TFA). We evaluate the peace process that led to the TFA, and its subsequent dismantling, from the perspective of deliberative democracy, which promises to achieve democratically legitimate outcomes in the toughest conflicts. Using normative criteria to evaluate the deliberative democratic quality of the process, our analysis shows that trades-offs were needed, and not all normative criteria could be achieved equally and simultaneously. Despite its shortcomings, and short-lived life, the peace process illustrates the possibility of achieving meta-consensus in deep value conflicts, and the crucial role of this consensus for sustaining deliberation.

Australian water governance in the global context: understanding the benefits of localism

ABSTRACT Effective water governance is essential for sustainable global futures. However, conflicting water values increases tension in water governance, highlighting the need for governance systems able to cope with competing objectives. In this paper, we explore the potential for ‘localism’ to improve water governance through increased social learning and institutional integration. We argue that localism can provide a bridge between policy-makers and policy-implementers, as long as there is sufficient capacity to effectively engage. Following the work of Orsini [2013. “Multi-Forum Non-State Actors: Navigating the Regime Complexes for Forestry and Genetic Resources.” Global Environmental Politics 13 (3): 34–55], we consider that this capacity is influenced by the availability of ‘power resources’; namely material, ideational and organizational power. Using a conceptual framework combining power resources and localism strategies, two examples of localism in the implementation of the Murray–Darling Basin Plan are explored. We find that localism can provide the necessary resources for effective water governance, although consideration of the challenges of localism highlights the need for a mix of localism strategies due to variable resource availability.

Are Environmental Water Advisory Groups an effective form of localism

A reduction in the legitimacy of top-down governance approaches has resulted in many government agencies using decentralised governance approaches, including localism. However, the effective implementation of localism is challenging. Localism aims to encourage innovative context-based solutions; however unanticipated implementation problems often constrain localism outcomes. There is a significant gap in our understanding of localism in practice, with a better understanding essential to improve localism design and implementation. This paper contributes to addressing this gap through an empirical examination of localism in action. Using the CLEAR framework, we evaluate the decentralised governance of environmental water in the Australian state of New South Wales, a contentious, uncertain and multi-level governance environment. Qualitative interviews with 58 Environmental Water Advisory Group members identified barriers to an effective localism approach, including issues of access and capacity development, transparency of decision-making outcomes and power inequities. This understanding enables the development of strategies for improved localism practice.