Place‐based collaborative governance: The potential influence of governments

Abstract

AbstractGovernments seeking to implement state/territory‐wide or national agendas and policies can impose (un)intended impacts and consequences on self‐managed community‐led collaborative governance initiatives by which people attempt to solve place‐based environmental and resource problems. The impacts of government actions and changes to policy, funding targets and criteria, and local government reform on emergent place‐based and self‐managed community collaborative governance initiatives can be significant in relation to longevity and ongoing achievement of beneficial environmental outcomes. Such outcomes are irrespective of whether place‐based initiatives are considered to emerge in the shadow of government or independent of central government. This article establishes that place‐based self‐managed community‐led collaborative governance initiatives are not immune to the influences and consequences of state/territorial and/or federal government decisions and actions, be those through the development of environmental regulations and policies that direct actions and/or set targets for policy outcomes; the provision of funding to be administered according to set criteria; or, at state/territory government levels, forced local government amalgamations. Discussion about these issues is positioned in relation to a successful place‐based community‐led collaborative water governance initiative known as the Clarence Floodplain Project (CFP) in northern New South Wales, Australia. The experience of the CFP suggests that state/territory and/or federal government decisions and actions may result in (un)intended negative as well as positive impacts on place‐based community‐led collaborative governance initiatives. Although the CFP was impacted by government actions, its success also highlights the importance of place‐based approaches to natural resource management and governance.