Australasian Journal of Environmental Management ...

12 downloads 0 Views 242KB Size Report
Nov 13, 2012 - Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles. Darwin University , Darwin , Australia b. School of Sociology ...... Fitzsimons, J, Freudenberger, D, Garnett, ST, Groves, C, Hobbs, RJ, Kingsford, RT,. Krebs, C ...
This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University] On: 20 November 2013, At: 16:36 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjem20

Costs of participatory monitoring and evaluation of joint management of protected areas in the Northern Territory, Australia a

b

a

A. Izurieta , L. Petheram , N. Stacey & S.T. Garnett

a

a

Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University , Darwin , Australia b

School of Sociology , Research School of Social Sciences, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University , Canberra , Australia Published online: 13 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: A. Izurieta , L. Petheram , N. Stacey & S.T. Garnett (2013) Costs of participatory monitoring and evaluation of joint management of protected areas in the Northern Territory, Australia, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 20:1, 21-33, DOI: 10.1080/14486563.2012.726130 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2012.726130

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 2013 Vol. 20, No. 1, 2133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2012.726130

Costs of participatory monitoring and evaluation of joint management of protected areas in the Northern Territory, Australia

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

A. Izurietaa*, L. Petheramb, N. Staceya and S.T. Garnetta a Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia; bSchool of Sociology, Research School of Social Sciences, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

Joint management of protected areas by indigenous people and government management agencies is being promoted at the international level as a tool to strengthen the protection of biodiversity and the recognition of indigenous peoples’ interests in protected areas. Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of joint management is, however, in its infancy. To help managers, we calculated the costs of participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) of joint management in the Northern Territory (NT), Australia relative to other joint management expenses. Costs of the process constituted only 1.31.5 per cent of the total joint management budget of over AU$10 million over three years. The preparation and validation/feedback phases of PM&E demanded most time and money, with contractor costs, particularly for external facilitators, representing the largest proportion of expenditure. The relatively low costs of PM&E are in contrast with common perceptions of the process as time-consuming and expensive. Keywords: participatory monitoring and evaluation; management effectiveness; joint management; monitoring costs

Introduction Joint management of protected areas has been practised in Australia for more than 30 years as a result of recognition of Indigenous ownership over lands previously declared protected areas by government. These arrangements, which vary across the different state and territory jurisdictions, have attempted to reconcile Indigenous land rights and ownership with the conservation goals of government (Bauman & Smyth 2007; Moyses & Panton 2008; Porter & Meyers 2008). In the Northern Territory (NT), joint management of parks has provided an opportunity for Indigenous owners and government park managers to work in an ‘equitable partnership’ to manage protected areas (Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act 2005 (NT)). However, there has been slow progress in increasing equity in decision making, respecting and applying customary knowledge to park management, and in delivering improved social and economic outcomes for Indigenous people (Bauman & Smyth 2007; Timko & Satterfield 2008; Haynes 2010; Izurieta et al. 2011). As joint management has become established, there have also been increasing calls to assess the effectiveness of protected area management (Estrella & Gaventa *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] # 2013 Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand Inc.

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

22 A. Izurieta et al. 1998; Hockings et al. 2000; Plummer & Armitage 2007) with government reports in Australia strongly critical of the level of investment in evaluation of environmental performance (e.g. Australian National Audit Office 2008). As a result, various forms of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) have been established. M&E usually involves assessing the ‘performance’ of a program or activity against its goals for the purpose of informing the management (Owen & Rogers 1999). M&E is useful in many ways, from improving understanding of how well (or poorly) management is working, to exposing potential problems and identifying ways to address these (Rigby et al. 2000). Various M&E frameworks have been proposed for protected areas (Armitage 2003; Mahanty et al. 2007; Leverington et al. 2008). The benefits of M&E are widely recognised (Selin et al. 2000; Conley & Moote 2003), with good protected area management often linked to well-designed M&E processes (Stem et al. 2005; Hockings et al. 2006). In reality, however, M&E is rarely carried out, and even less often conducted from the start of a project (Frame et al. 2004; Plummer & Armitage 2007). Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) is a version of M&E that involves project staff, local people and/or other stakeholders in the design and implementation of the assessment process (Abbot & Guijt 1998; Bayer & WatersBayer 2002). PM&E has been widely advocated for protected area management (Hockings et al. 2006; Leverington et al. 2008; Reed et al. 2008), but there is little guidance in the literature on practical aspects of implementation in joint management (Keen & Mahanty 2006; Armitage et al. 2008), or the real costs (in time and money) associated with it (Guijt 1999). Despite this lack of information, PM&E is often perceived as a time consuming, and thus an expensive, investment management procedure (Mutimukuru et al. 2006). Much literature on PM&E research is derived from conservation efforts in developing countries, often with a strong focus on measuring biophysical performance (e.g. Danielsen et al. 2005; Topp-Jorgensen et al. 2005). Relatively few studies have considered monitoring and evaluating the socio-economic or institutional contexts in which the park management takes place (Guijt 1999; Bellamy et al. 2001). Commonly, PM&E frameworks have been designed to encourage participation by local people in the collection of data for assessment, but have not encouraged participation in planning or management (George et al. 2004; Izurieta et al. 2011). Ross et al. (2004) suggest that PM&E has been designed primarily to assess what management wants to achieve (‘outcomes’) rather than how management and institutional arrangements (‘processes’) are working. These processes can include: all aspects of governance; communication between and among stakeholders; and social, cultural and economic outcomes among stakeholders from management activities (Bauman & Smyth 2007; Plummer & Armitage 2007; Izurieta et al. 2011). The NT Parks and Wildlife Service (Parks Service) has been conscious of the need to improve the practice of joint management, the shortcomings of much M&E practice in protected areas and the potential of PM&E to contribute to the assessment of not only management effectiveness but also the implementation and operation of joint management itself. They therefore initiated a trial program in PM&E of joint management in collaboration with representatives of the Indigenous owners of four ‘pilot’ parks where joint management was being introduced. This paper reports on one contentious aspect of PM&E in these parks  the costs  on the principal that park managers are unlikely to implement PM&E of joint management unless they know the proportion of their budget it will consume. Using data on

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

23

expenditure for each aspect of the PM&E process and joint management as a whole, we hope to help managers and their partners understand the scale and proportions of investment required for different components in PM&E of joint management, as well as the potential benefits (and possible disadvantages) of integrating such PM&E with other activities in jointly managed protected areas in general.

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

Methods Study sites The study was conducted in four jointly managed protected areas, two in the northern region and two in the southern region of the NT (Figure 1). Two of the sites, East MacDonnells and Daminmin (also known as Adelaide River Parks and Reserves), consist of clusters of three and five smaller protected areas and reserves respectively. There were thus a total of ten protected areas, or approximately 40 per cent of all areas that have entered into joint management agreements between the Parks Service and Indigenous land owners (Dillon & Westbury 2007). Their characteristics are described in Table 1. In the northern regions of the NT, the Parks Service runs a major office in the city of Darwin with a support office in Katherine and operational offices near or inside some parks and reserves. In the southern region, the main office is in Alice Springs with a support office in Tenant Creek and operational offices near or inside some parks. The regions work on joint management in collaboration with the Northern and Central Land Councils. These Land Councils are statutory bodies that represent the interests of traditional Indigenous owners of lands across Australia.

Research process The PM&E process was carried out at the four sites areas over three years from 2008 to 2010. Activities in the four parks involved: meetings and workshops with partners to develop the participatory approach to joint management outcomes and indicators to be monitored and, later, training of partners (phase 1); data collection (phase 2); analysis and interpretation (phase 3); and feedback and validation of the assessment (phase 4) (Figure 2). These activities were conducted alongside the development of the official joint management plan (as per legislative requirements) for each of the parks. During this official process, referred to here as ‘park joint management planning activities’, partners agreed on the future directions of day-today management, including the identification of management outcomes against which PM&E could be carried out. Each phase involved a team of members from Parks Service staff, Land Council staff, Indigenous owners and a facilitator (a role played by Charles Darwin University researchers). PM&E team numbers varied from park to park depending on the requirements for Indigenous representation and involvement, and the availability of Indigenous family group members and Parks Service staff. The facilitator(s) was based in the city of Darwin. Coordination and communication between the facilitator(s) and Parks Service and Land Council staff was via telephone, email and occasional face-to-face meetings. Joint management costs fell into six categories (Table 2): government planning (all direct government expenditure directly related to development of park management

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

24 A. Izurieta et al.

Figure 1.

Map showing the four Northern Territory protected area sites of this study.

plans including salaries, travel costs, vehicle purchase and running costs); Land Council engagement (salaries of Land Council officers, travel expenses); joint management coordination (salaries of government joint management engagement officers and governance advisers); Indigenous employment (salary and running costs); M&E; and lease payments (paid to traditional park owners for use of the land as a jointly managed park). During the research, information on the cost of each of the PM&E activities was recorded. This data included costs in time and money associated with each stage of the PM&E process, details of the number of people and time (in hours) of each person involved, their salary rate (including leave and other entitlements), and operating costs such as transportation, travel allowances, catering and office materials. The funds for participation of Indigenous owners (AU$150 per

Characteristics of the protected areas selected for participatory monitoring and evaluation in the Northern Territory of Australia.

Characteristic Location Area (km2)

Watarrka National Park 450 km southwest of Alice Springs (Southern) 1056

Flora River Nature Park 120 km southwest Katherine (Northern) 77

East Macdonell Ranges Parks 85 km east of Alice Springs (Southern) 22.8

Daminmin National Park (Adelaide River Parks) 80 km southeast of Darwin (Northern) 109 A cluster of five small reserves and conservation areas

Mostly composed of ancient sandstone formations in a dry desert environment

Mixture of savannah and associated habitats

A cluster of three small protected areas

Main feature is its associated springs along the river

Mostly tropical and wetland Characterised by old red savannah sandstone rock formations with a number of water holes that become dry during the dry season

Traditional owners

Anangu people

Wardaman people

Arrernte people

Distribution of the traditional owners

Most live in nearby communities outside the park

Most live in indigenous communities near Katherine

Physical characteristics

Some have relocated to Alice Springs

None of the Arrernte people live inside any of these Some live out on their country protected areas near Flora River Nature Park Most live in Alice Springs Some live in a nearby indigenous community on country near the parks

Wulna people Most live in Darwin Some live in one indigenous community on their country near the parks

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

Table 1.

25

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

26 A. Izurieta et al.

Figure 2.

Phases of the participatory monitoring and evaluation process.

person per meeting), and logistical expenses associated with engagement were provided by the Parks Service and Land Councils, with additional funding from Charles Darwin University during training, data collection, and analysis and interpretation phases. Budgetary data for the entire joint management process, including Land Council participation, were provided by Parks Service annual accounts. We also calculated the costs for implementing PM&E of joint management in conjunction with, or separately from, park joint management planning activities by calculating the extra time spent at each joint management meeting dedicated solely to PM&E as well as the logistical costs necessary for a meeting irrespective of its purpose (i.e. costs that would be incurred if meetings were convened solely for PM&E). Monitoring and evaluation for this exercise included all activities associated with a research project aimed at testing the efficacy of PM&E. Although lease Table 2. Costs of joint management in the Northern Territory, Australia, 20082011 (AU$’000s). Expenditure

20082009

20092010

20102011

Total

Government planning Joint management coordination Indigenous employment Land Council engagement Monitoring and evaluation

1,312 1,483 1,879 202 35

404 835 1,182 500 51

1,376 457 613 406 52

3,092 2,775 3,674 1,108 138

Total

4,911

2,972

2,904

10,787

38

48

1,351

1,437

Lease payments

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

27

payments to traditional owners for the use of the parks by government for conservation processes is a genuine joint management cost, it is not included in the total joint management budget because this money is provided to the traditional owners unconditionally and so it is not appropriate to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its deployment. The costs calculated represented an effective approach to PM&E of joint management, rather than a minimum cost provision. Thus, they reflect assertions that: “

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

“

“

“

“

“ “

“

“

“

the PM&E process requires a neutral facilitator to assist the partners  a team of two facilitators for the preparation phase and one for the other phases; each park/reserve has an established joint management committee, with representatives from the traditional Indigenous owners, the Parks Service and Land Councils; traditional Indigenous owner members of the joint management committee are well informed and prepared by the Land Councils before each activity or meeting; traditional Indigenous owner participation is funded for each step of the PM&E; interviews are conducted with traditional Indigenous owner members of the joint management committee, and there are at least three one-on-one interviews with traditional Indigenous owners who are not part of the joint management committee; the group and one-on-one interviews do not exceed one hour; interviews with at least three Parks Service staff are carried out by the facilitator. Interviews with traditional Indigenous owners are carried out by the facilitator with assistance from a Land Council staff member; for the preparation phase, an initial meeting to discuss the start of the process does not take more than 2 hours; for the preparation phase, a second meeting to plan the PM&E process does not exceed one full day (7 hours); training of a core PM&E team takes one full day (7 hours).

Results Costs of joint management During the period 20082010 a total of approximately AU$10.8 million was spent on joint management in the NT across all parks. While most of the expenditure was focused on the four pilot areas (representing ten out of the 27 jointly managed parks and reserves in the NT), governance procedures relevant to all parks were developed and the Parks Service and Land Councils conducted surveys and planning for joint management arrangements on some other parks. Joint management costs fell into six categories (Table 2): government planning (all direct government expenditure directly related to development of park management plans including salaries, travel costs, vehicle purchase and running costs); land council engagement (salaries of Land Council officers, travel expenses); joint management coordination (salaries of government joint management engagement officers and governance advisers); Indigenous employment (salary and running costs); M&E; and lease payments (paid

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

28 A. Izurieta et al. to traditional park owners for use of the land as a jointly managed park). At the time of the research joint management was relatively new in the NT and preparing park management plans was a major activity, consuming about 30 per cent of the total budget. The Land Council officers also spent much of their time in planning activities, largely ensuring that the correct people were being engaged in the planning; but they were also involved in developing the governance processes whereby joint management would be conducted across all jointly managed parks in the NT. Formal joint management coordination included funds allocated to staff dedicated to enhancing engagement of Indigenous owners in joint management processes, although many Parks Service staff also allocated their time to this activity. As part of joint management numerous Indigenous rangers and trainees have been appointed, which consumed over a third of the total budget allocated. Salaries and wages made up about 55 per cent of all costs over the three years, with operating costs accounting for the remainder. Although this included purchase of a number of vehicles, depreciation of vehicles in joint management is high because of the condition of roads and access tracks so this is not considered an exceptional expense. Costs of PM&E The total cost of establishment of PM&E integrated with activities associated with parks joint management planning activities across all four pilot parks was AU$138,000; no M&E was undertaken on parks other than the pilot parks. Had the PM&E been undertaken as a separate process from planning activities it would have cost about AU$157,000 (Table 3) and would have required participants to spend 227 hours more time across the four sites. These amounts constitute, respectively, 1.28 per cent and 1.46 per cent of the total joint management budget. The general pattern in costs was similar across the different parks for the various phases (Table 4). Preparation usually made up about half of the total cost because it involved training a core PM&E team for each of the pilot areas. Such training included transport of trainers and logistical costs for the traditional Indigenous owners, Parks Service and Land Council staff involved in the training. Coordination and assistance time from the partners as well as logistics were less demanding in the other phases which required less travel to and from Indigenous communities by smaller numbers of Parks Service and Land Council staff and facilitators. The total cost for Daminmin was much lower than for the other sites, especially Watarrka, because travel distances were much shorter. Wages represented about 75 per cent of the costs of PM&E, with the facilitator costing about 41 per cent of the total. A substantial proportion of operating costs, such as purchase of vehicles, was absorbed into the operating budgets of joint management. Nevertheless substantial distances had to be covered: in total the facilitators travelled approximately 23,700 km, Parks Service staff 3400 km and Land Council staff 8400 km. Discussion A fundamental constraint on effective PM&E of joint management is resourcing as both collection of M&E data and its effective transmission into improved performance are perceived to require substantial funds. In the case described here, however, PM&E of joint management of 40 per cent of all jointly managed parks in

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

29

Table 3. Total costs (AU$’000s) of PM&E conducted with or separately from joint management planning for four pilot areas in the Northern Territory, Australia.

Phase

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

Preparation of M&E and first joint management meeting Data collection Analysis and interpretation Validation/feedback, and second joint management meeting Total

PM&E and joint management planning conducted separately

PM&E and joint management planning conducted together

75

69

19 23 41

19 23 27

158

138

Table 4. Costs (AU$’000s) of each phase of PM&E for four parks in the Northern Territory, Australia, when integrated with planning. Phase

Watarrka East Macdonells

Flora River Daminmin Total

Preparation Data collection Analysis and interpretation Validation/feedback

21 6 7 8

18 5 6 6

17 5 5 7

14 3 5 6

70 19 23 27

Total

42

35

34

28

139

the NT was achieved with around 1.3 per cent of the total joint management budget. This is relatively low. Lindenmayer et al. (2011) recommend that 510 per cent of the budget of any biodiversity management project be allocated to monitoring, and a major Australian environmental grant program, ‘Caring for Our Country’, currently allows 10 per cent of the budget to be allocated to monitoring (Australian Government 2011). Thus, even if the budget for PM&E of joint management was doubled, it would still be inexpensive. Furthermore, savings can be made through integrating PM&E of joint management with other activities (e.g. consultations and meetings held for park management plan development and development of governance arrangements). These savings are mainly associated with the opportunities provided to local participants to deal with joint management planning activities and PM&E matters at the same time. For example, a meeting to coordinate the PM&E process can also be used to discuss other matters or vice versa. Meetings require complex coordination, particularly as many Indigenous people do not have the means to attend meetings unless collected. Combining PM&E with other activities as part of joint management can help reduce some of these logistical complications, costs and time investments. Importantly, without effective monitoring and evaluation of performance of joint management, the expenditure incurred is unaccounted for and may or may not be a valid investment of public funds. Increasingly, auditors-general are concerned about the lack of accountability of environmental expenditure (NSW Audit Office 2004; Australian National Audit Office 2008; Auditor-General of Queensland 2010; Auditor-General of Victoria 2011). A relatively small investment can not

30 A. Izurieta et al. only provide feedback on monetary performance but can, through M&E, lead to an improvement in the performance itself (Stacey et al. in press).

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

Costs of PM&E components The preparation and validation phases of a PM&E process are the most expensive because consultation with the traditional owners requires travel by both partners to the communities before any meeting can take place (see Figure 1). This is also the phase during which training occurs. It is likely that these costs will significantly reduce over time. There will be less time (and cost) required for training partners for each of the four phases, and partners will also become faster at activities at each phase. For instance, while training will always be needed, particularly for Parks Service staff who are likely to be temporary and itinerant (Carson et al. 2010), the amount needed to train Indigenous people, most of whom are reluctant to lose touch with their traditional country, should decline over time as they become more familiar with methodologies (Humbert-Droz 1992). Second, much of the initial effort in PM&E is developing performance indicators. Once these are decided, the funds needed to undertake the measurement of the indicators is much less, as is the time required at meetings to report findings. Third, as trust develops among partners, external facilitation may no longer be needed as frequently, although external facilitation retains a value by providing an independent perspective on processes and progress. In the cases described, external facilitation accounted for over 40 per cent of total expenditure, so any savings would substantially decrease costs, although these savings can carry some risk that the process is captured by one side or the other (Garcia & Lescuyer 2008). Overall, we argue that if PM&E is integrated from the start into joint management then not only are there cost savings but there are also more opportunities to build knowledge on monitoring and evaluation processes, inputs, outputs and expected outcomes (Izurieta et al. 2011). This in turn is likely to increase the incentive to both partners to be involved and enrich partnerships for making decisions on future joint management actions. There are also opportunities to shift some expenses from the existing budget into monitoring. Over a third of the joint management budget was allocated to Indigenous employment. To date this has largely been spent on providing jobs for Indigenous people as park rangers and specific short-term contracts to support seasonal management activities (e.g. maintenance of tourist tracks, control burning and weed control). It is also not specified that the Indigenous people employed in a park are from among its traditional owners. However, some of this budget could readily be directed to employing Indigenous people to undertake monitoring. The involvement of local landowners in M&E is a form of transformative knowledge transfer (Garnett et al. 2009), a process which not only provides new information but changes those who collect and evaluate it. This can lead to synergistic benefits if those who undertake PM&E are also involved in the daily operation of joint management. However, care needs to be taken to ensure the independence of data collection and that Indigenous people engaged in collecting data for M&E are representing the traditional Indigenous joint management owners of the protected areas and not de facto representatives of the Parks Service by virtue of their funding source. There are also cultural issues to be considered associated with this approach such as familial kinship relations, and avoidance relationships between indigenous

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

31

families and clan groups such as how people should (and can) relate to each other (Berndt & Berndt 1992; Bauman & Smyth 2007). In future research in this area, it would be useful to also carry out cost-benefit analysis (DOF 1991), not just in the establishment of joint management and PM&E in the park areas, but over a longer period, so that costs can be estimated once the joint management process has been in operation for some years. Comparison with costs of PM&E from other protected areas would also be useful, to help understand some of the main factors associated with both costs and benefits.

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

Conclusions The importance of PM&E for environmental management is widely accepted nowadays by development and funding agencies (Guijt 1999; Owen & Rogers 1999). This study demonstrates that, as a proportion of the total budget, and contrary to popular perceptions, PM&E can be relatively inexpensive. Furthermore, savings can be obtained by integrating PM&E into other related activities and consultations among partners for joint management, which also produces additional benefits in terms of knowledge and partnership building. Understanding the scale and proportions of investment and the associated benefits is valuable for managers  especially those working in remote regions and with indigenous people  who need to consider ways to be able to anticipate and minimise costs in implementing PM&E. This research also provides explicit figures on the costs of the different components of PM&E in settings that sometimes require extensive travel and complex coordination of multiple players. In most parts of the world distances will be far smaller and the costs correspondingly smaller. Acknowledgments This research was conducted with financial support from The Australian Research Council (ARC), the Northern and Central Land Councils, the Northern Territory (NT) Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, and Charles Darwin University (CDU) as part of an ARC Linkage project ‘‘Does monitoring and evaluation improve joint management? The case of national parks in the Northern Territory’’. The research was conducted with approval from the CDU Human Research Ethics Committee (Number H08034). This research would have not been possible without the support from the Aboriginal traditional owners of the four parks and reserves especially: Wardaman traditional owners of Flora River Park; Arrernte traditional owners involved in joint management of East MacDonnell Parks, and Wulna traditional owners engaged in joint management in Adelaide River region. Thank you also to all Anangu traditional owners of Watarrka for their participation. We thank the joint management staff from the Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs offices of NT Parks, NRETAS; The Northern Land Council, Central Land Council and project Steering Committee members.

References Abbot, J & Guijt, I 1998, Changing views on change: participatory approaches to monitoring the environment, SARL Discussion Paper 2, International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Armitage, D 2003, ‘Traditional agroecological knowledge, adaptive management and the socio-politics of conservation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia’, Environmental Conservation, vol. 30, pp. 7990. Armitage, D, Marschke, M & Plummer, R 2008, ‘Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 18, pp. 8698.

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

32 A. Izurieta et al. Auditor-General of Queensland 2010, Sustainable management of national parks and protected areas: a performance management systems audit, Report to Parliament No. 9 for 2010, Audit Office of Queensland, Brisbane. Auditor-General of Victoria 2011, Environmental management of marine protected areas, Government Printer, Melbourne. Australian Government 2011, ‘Guidelines for developing a project monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) plan’, viewed 19 December 2011, Bhttp://www.nrm. gov.au/me/guidelines-meri-plan.html. Australian National Audit Office 2008, Regional delivery model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Fund for Salinity and Water Quality, Audit Report No. 21, Auditor-General, Canberra. Bauman, T & Smyth, DM 2007, Indigenous partnerships in protected area management in Australia: three case studies, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra. Bayer, W & Waters-Bayer, A 2002, Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) with pastoralists: a review of experiences and annotated bibliography, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. Bellamy, J, Walker, D, Mcdonald, G & Syme, G 2001, ‘A systems approach to the evaluation of natural resource management initiatives’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 63, pp. 407423. Berndt, RM & Berndt, CH 1992, The world of the first Australians. Aboriginal traditional life: past and present, Angus & Robertson, London. Carson, D, Coe, K, Zander, K & Garnett, ST 2010, ‘Does the type of job matter? Recruitment to Australia’s Northern Territory’, Employee Relations, vol. 32, pp. 121137. Conley, A & Moote, MA 2003, ‘Evaluating collaborative natural resource management’, Society & Natural Resources, vol. 16, pp. 371386. Danielsen, F, Burgess, ND & Balmford, A 2005, ‘Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 14, pp. 25072542. Dillon, MC & Westbury, ND 2007, Beyond humbug: transforming government engagement with indigenous Australia, Seaview Press, West Lakes, South Australia. DOF (Department of Finance) 1991, Handbook of cost-benefit analysis, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Estrella, M & Gaventa, J 1998, Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and evaluation: a literature review, IDS Working Paper No. 70, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK. Frame, TM, Gunton, T & Day, JC 2004, ‘The role of collaboration in environmental management: an evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 47, pp. 5982. Garcia, C & Lescuyer, G 2008, ‘Monitoring, indicators and community-based forest management in the tropics: pretexts or red herrings?’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 17, pp. 13031317. Garnett, ST, Crowley, GM, Hunter-Xenie, HM, Kozanayi, W, Sithole, B, Palmer, C, Southgate, R & Zander, KK 2009, ‘In the right hands: paying community researchers as an exercise in transformative knowledge transfer’, Biotropica, vol. 41, pp. 571577. George, M, Innes, J & Ross, H 2004, Managing sea country together: key issues for developing co-operative management for the GBRWHA, Technical Report No. 50, CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville, Queensland. Guijt, I 1999, Socio-economic methodologies for natural resources research best practice guidelines: participatory monitoring and evaluation for natural resource management and research, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK. Haynes, C 2010, ‘Defined by contradiction: the social construction of joint management in Kakadu National Park’, unpublished PhD thesis, Charles Darwin University. Hockings, M, Stolton, S, Leverington, F, Dudley, N, Courrau, J 2006, Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd edn, International Union for Conservation of Nature  World Commission on Protected Areas, Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK. Hockings, M, Stolton, S & Dudley, N 2000, Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management of protected areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK.

Downloaded by [Australian National University] at 16:36 20 November 2013

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

33

Humbert-Droz, B 1992, PIDOW Self evaluation: main features and experiences, Swiss Development Corporation, Bangalore. Izurieta, A, Sithole, B, Stacey, N, Hunter-Xenie, H, Campbell, B, Donohoe, P, Brown, J & Wilson, L 2011, ‘Developing indicators for monitoring and evaluating joint management effectiveness in protected areas in the Northern Territory, Australia’, Ecology and Society, vol. 16(3), art. 9. Keen, M & Mahanty, S 2006, ‘Learning in sustainable NRM: challenges and opportunities in the Pacific’, Society and Natural Resources, vol. 19, pp. 497513. Leverington, F, Hockings, M & Lemos Costa, K 2008, Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas: report for the project ‘Global study into management effectiveness evaluation of protected areas’, The University of Queensland, Gatton, IUCN WCPA, TNC, WWF. Lindenmayer, DB, Gibbons, P, Bourke, M, Burgman, M, Dickman, CR, Ferrier, S, Fitzsimons, J, Freudenberger, D, Garnett, ST, Groves, C, Hobbs, RJ, Kingsford, RT, Krebs, C, Legge, S, Lowe, AJ, Mclean, ROB, Montambault, J, Possingham, H, Radford, JIM, Robinson, D, Smallbone, L, Thomas, D, Varcoe, T, Vardon, M, Wardle, G, Woinarski, J & Zerger, A 2011, ‘Improving biodiversity monitoring’, Austral Ecology viewed 11 November 2011, Bhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.x. Mahanty, S, Stacey, N, Holland, A & Menzies, S 2007, ‘Learning to learn: designing monitoring plans in the Pacific Islands International Waters Project’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 50, pp. 392410. Moyses, M & Panton, B 2008, ‘Indigenous partnerships in Northern Territory protected areas: joint management of national parks and support for indigenous protected areas’, in D Smyth & GK Ward (eds.), Protecting country: indigenous governance and management of protected areas, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra. Mutimukuru, T, Kozanayi, W & Nyirenda, R 2006, ‘Catalyzing collaborative monitoring processes in joint forest management situations: the Mafungautsi Forest case, Zimbabwe’, Society and Natural Resources, vol. 19, pp. 209224. NSW Audit Office 2004, Performance audit: managing natural and cultural heritage in parks and reserves: National Parks and Wildlife Service, NSW Audit Office, Sydney. Owen, JM & Rogers, PJ 1999, Program evaluation: forms and approaches, Thousand Oaks, London. Plummer, R & Armitage, DR 2007, ‘Charting the new territory of adaptive co-management: a Delphi study’, Ecology and Society, vol. 12(2), art. 10. Porter, M & Meyers, GD 2008, ‘Indigenous joint management of national parks in Western Australian’, eLaw Journal: Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, vol. 15, pp. 262274. Reed, M, Dougill, A & Baker, T 2008, ‘Participatory indicator development: what can ecologists and local communities learn from each other?’, Ecological Applications, vol. 18, pp. 12531269. Rigby, D, Howlett, D & Woodhouse, P 2000, Sustainability indicators for natural resource management and policy: a review of indicators of agricultural and rural livelihood sustainability, University of Manchester, UK. Ross, H, Robinson, C & Hockings, M 2004, ‘Evaluation of indigenous co-management of natural resources’, in J Bellany (ed.), Regional natural resource management planning: the challenges of evaluation as seen through different lenses, pp. 5158. Selin, SW, Schuett, MA & Carr, D 2000, ‘Modeling stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness’, Society and Natural Resources, vol. 13, pp. 735745. Stacey, N, Izurieta, I & Garnett, ST in press, ‘Collaborative measurement of performance of jointly managed protected areas in northern Australia’, Ecology and Society. Stem, C, Margoluis, R, Salafsky, N & Brown, M 2005, ‘Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches’, Conservation Biology, vol. 19, pp. 295309. Timko, JA & Satterfield, T 2008, ‘Seeking social equity in national parks: experiments with evaluation in Canada and South Africa’, Conservation and Society, vol. 6, pp. 238254. Topp-Jorgensen, E, Poulsen, MK, Lund, JF & Massao, JF 2005, ‘Community-based monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands of Tanzania’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 14, pp. 26532677.