Tools to enhance public participation and confidence in the development of the Howard East aquifer water plan, Northern Territory
Highlights
► Participatory planning tools contributed to social learning. ► Stakeholder analysis improved understanding of the needs of water users. ► Visualisation tool improved water user understanding of hydrogeology and limits to extraction. ► Local knowledge and independent expertise built confidence in planning process.
Introduction
Water management institutions are evolving in north Australia in the face of national-scale legal and economic reforms and in the context of variable hydrological systems (Straton et al., 2010, Tan, 2008). Several drivers are influencing the course of water management in Australia’s tropics including increasing awareness of the full range of social, economic, environmental and cultural values for water, institutional changes to water allocation systems, intensifying land use and concomitant growing demand for water for irrigated agriculture and increasing uncertainty about water supplies in the face of climate change (Gehrke, 2005, Jackson et al., 2008). As demand for water grows, north Australian jurisdictions are progressing slowly towards compliance with the National Water Initiative (NWI) directives, yet water planning has been undertaken in only a relatively small number of catchments (Jackson and Altman, 2009, Tan, 2008). In the Northern Territory three water allocation plans have been completed.
Section snippets
Planning context
The Northern Territory’s Howard River catchment covers approximately 1500 km2 immediately adjacent to the capital city of Darwin (Fig. 1). The catchment has a mixture of land tenures, including leasehold for pastoral activities, mineral leases and permits for extraction and exploration, and freehold title. Land use within the catchment provides for peri-urban townships, Aboriginal and recreation sites, and horticultural and pastoral production. Water is sourced from private bore-fields and two
Planning problem
The rights of stakeholders to participate in water use decisions are now widely recognised and often enshrined in policy frameworks, such as the Australian National Water Initiative (COAG, 2004) and the European Union Water Framework Directive (Commission of the European Communities, 2002), which urges states to involve interested parties as early as possible in planning processes (Straton et al., 2010). According to Straton et al. (2010), there is demand for tools that can (i) effectively
Extended stakeholder analysis
Considering the limited experience in water planning in the case study area, a stakeholder analysis was considered to be an important first step for ‘setting the scene’ for future community and stakeholder engagement (Nolan, 2009). In most water planning processes in Northern Australia, this is a quick, informal exercise. A more comprehensive stakeholder analysis (Brugha and Varvasovszky, 2000, Grimble, 1998) would identify the actors that needed to be involved in local water planning, examine
Results and outcomes
The Stakeholder Analysis was found to be of significant value to the water agency (Chris Wicks, pers. com.). It was first used to select representatives for the Water Advisory Committee formed in late 2010 (NRETAS relied heavily on the Analysis for a submission to the Northern Territory Cabinet). Excerpts from the document usefully contributed to a community engagement plan, and an agency issues paper to generate discussions about key issues of concern to be discussed by the Water Advisory
Discussion and conclusion
The participatory process that underpinned this research proved to be a source of strength as well as a challenge. On commencement of the project, researchers were expecting to work with a water advisory committee, in an active drafting phase for a water plan. Due to a delay to the start of the planning process beyond the control of NRETAS, we were compelled to redesign our research methods. On reflection, three observations may be drawn.
First, it was essential that there was adequate time to
Acknowledgements
The Water Planning Tools Project would like to acknowledge the extensive contribution of time, effort, and expertise in building the GVS provided by Associate Professor Mal Cox and his team from the Faculty of Science and Technology, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Acknowledgement is also due to the Queensland water agency (DERM) for co-funding the project in the Condamine, to DERM and NRETAs for provision of data, and to stakeholders in the Howard East for sharing
References (30)
The discursive community: evolving institutional structures for planning sustainability
Ecol. Econ.
(2000)- et al.
Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation
Ecol. Econ.
(2002) - et al.
How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts?
Land Use Pol.
(2006) Regional Statistics, Northern Territory
(2007)Regional Statistics, Northern Territory
(2008)- et al.
Stakeholder analysis: a review
Health Pol. Plan
(2000) - COAG (Commonwealth of Australia), 2004. Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative Between the...
- Commission of the European Communities, 2002. Guidance on Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework...
- et al.
Citizen’s panels: a new approach to citizen participation
Publ. Admin. Rev.
(1986) - et al.
Urban ethnohydrology: cultural knowledge of water quality and water management in a desert city
Ecol. Soc.
(2010)
Stakeholder Methodologies in Natural Resource Management. Socio-Economic Methodologies Best Practice Guidelines
The Theory of Communicative Action
Indigenous rights and water policy: perspectives from tropical north Australia
Aust. Indigen. Law Rev.
Cited by (17)
Irrigator responses to groundwater resource management in northern Victoria, southeastern Australia
2014, Journal of HydrologyEnhancing water security for the benefits of humans and nature-the role of governance
2013, Current Opinion in Environmental SustainabilityGroundwater Visualisation System (GVS): A software framework for integrated display and interrogation of conceptual hydrogeological models, data and time-series animation
2013, Journal of HydrologyCitation Excerpt :However, they are often only approximate, or even erroneous, due to being based on limited or poor data, or an inadequate, or overly complex, conceptual hydrogeological model (e.g. Bredehoeft, 2005; Voss, 2011; Gillespie et al., 2012). In addition, within management procedures these numerical models are usually not available to most stakeholders, or are presented in report form only, and in many cases of policy implementation are not trusted by communities (e.g. Jackson et al., 2012; Tan et al., 2012). This latter observation is also supported by our own experience (Todd et al., 2010).
Deliberative tools for meeting the challenges of water planning in Australia
2012, Journal of HydrologyCitation Excerpt :A case study on groundwater provides evidence (Baldwin et al., 2012, this issue). Evaluations in the Howard East study show one example of confidence building and how this was measured (Jackson et al., 2012a, this issue). Historical distrust of government data and processes existed in the study area, constituting major hurdles for the planning process of a groundwater resource.
Transparency and trade-offs in water planning
2012, Journal of Hydrology