Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Brisbane) Showcase
Community Involvement in Mary River Water Planning
- Background
- What is different about this case study that shows how government, industry and communities can better engage with each other?
- What are the key outcomes of the case study for government, industry and community?
- What are the key learnings/insights about community engagement?
- What will sustain community engagement into the future in this case study?
Background
Preliminary data collection for the Mary Basin began in 1999, in preparation for the initiation of the Water Resource Plan process. At this time, preliminary discussions began with key stakeholder groups and individuals regarding process and the consultation that would occur. The preliminary discussions revealed some common, though conflicting, attitudinal themes:
- There was scepticism towards the consultative process, with the general view that Government were only pursuing it as a 'tick box' exercise;
- There was a very strong interest to be involved in the development of the Water Resource Plan, and for the community to be given a say.
In 1999 the Department engaged a consultancy firm, GHD, to undertake an appraisal and evaluation of the consultation and community engagement processes employed during the development of WAMPs . The report 'Review of Community Engagement Processes in Preparation of Water Allocation & Management Plans (WAMP)' (Mannion J. 2001) was released in January 2000. Two key findings were:
- That the (then) current process was generally acceptable, but, there was a need to improve and refine the structures; and
- The model focussed on one group only, and failed to provide opportunities for the different levels of stakeholders.
The report suggested the use of a modified citizens' jury process, as one of the recommendations.
In response to some of the recommendations to this report, and the urgings of key stakeholder groups and individuals, the Mary Basin Water Planning Team facilitated the formation of an advisory group to advise the department on the development of a consultative model that would address the key concerns of the report, and the community.
The final model consisted of two tiers of consultation, the formation of a number of Sector Representative Groups, followed by a more traditional Community Reference Panel (which is one group representing all sectors). There was an opportunity to pursue with a modified citizens jury approach if 'required'.
What is different about this case study that shows how government, industry and communities can better engage with each other?
The Department invested a lot of time into asking the potentially affected stakeholders how the consultation should occur. The result was an innovative model, which expanded the involvement of stakeholders in the plan area. It is a model that better reflects the needs of the stakeholders in the plan area, and comes closer to fulfilling key Departmental objectives of the consultation. The model is also flexible which can (and did) cater to the changing aspirations of the community.
What are the key outcomes of the case study for government, industry and community?
For Government:
- A broader range of stakeholders aware of the Water planning process;
- Development of trust built between the Department and stakeholders, particularly between CHQ (previously perceived as 'nameless, faceless beings') and stakeholders.
For Industry and Community:
- Early input into process;
- Capacity building, ability to design and have input into consultative process;
- Greater engagement of the 'secondary level' stakeholder, less reliance on busy 'Professional Committee Members';
- More knowledge on water management issues, and governmental processes.
What are the key learnings/insights about community engagement?
- Consultative process should be flexible;
- Roles and responsibilities have to be clarified;
- Expectations have to be well managed (easier said than done!);
- There will always be a degree of suspicion;
- All consultation involves risks, weigh the benefits against these;
- Need to ensure the consultative process is the best medium for achieving desired outcomes.
What will sustain community engagement into the future in this case study?
This is a project-oriented process, and there is no scope for a formal ongoing role after the finalisation of the Water Resource Plan. Despite this some new networks have been established (some more tenuous than others), inter and intra sector; and between stakeholders and Departmental personnel and technical experts.
Other languages