Integrated Natural Resource Management

Reflections from the Land and Water Australia Integration Symposium
May 5-6, 2004

Professor Allan Curtis, Charles Sturt University, Albury

Introduction

Earlier this month Land and Water Australia (LWA) hosted a two-day symposium exploring aspects of integration for natural resource management (NRM). I attended the Symposium and have prepared this summary of what I think were some of the key points from my notes as a way of stimulating thinking about integration and flagging the outcomes of the Symposium. A short communiqué was drafted at the workshop and will be available soon, as will the papers prepared for the Symposium.

The participants included a mix of academics and policy and program managers from all jurisdictions. The symposium was structured around four integration themes:

Theories and methods; Diverse interests and knowledge bases; Policy development and regional implementation; and Organising for integrated research in natural resource management. LWA had invited papers from about 20 individuals/groups across these four themes. Discussants (Geoff Syme, Ronnie Harding, Ruth Lane, Allan Curtis) were asked to review the papers in each theme and present their synthesis at the Symposium. After a Keynote address by Gary Jones (CRC Freshwater Ecology), the Symposium explored each of the four themes using a combination of discussant presentations, comments by paper contributors, small group reflections on the topic from the perspective of different NRM “players” (policy, research, management, communication, evaluation), and whole-group discussion of key ideas. A wrap-up session attempted to consolidate key learnings from the Symposium in a short communiqué.

Some of the key ideas

What integration involves?

Those present certainly thought that integration was fundamental to effective regional delivery of NRM in Australia. It was acknowledged that integration was not a panacea and would not resolve all NRM issues, that an integrated approach is not always required or practical and that many major advances in knowledge have been the result of disciplinary research. There seemed to be agreement that sound disciplinary knowledge was essential for those working on Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM). Most participants also agreed that integration was a process and a means rather than an end in itself: the nature of the process would vary depending on the desired end. At the same time, there was little discussion about whether integration is usually a part of sound NRM or an additional element. My view is that it would have be worthwhile examining the other elements of effective NRM as a way of teasing out what integration adds. I’ve had the same experience when examining the meaning and application of adaptive management: it is easy for discussion to lose focus and embrace all aspects of INRM.

There seemed to be a consensus that INRM involves the management of the impact of people on natural resources in a way that is:

  1. holistic in that it includes all elements of rural landscapes
  2. systematic in that it considers the interactions between these elements
  3. comprehensive in that it embraces the range of values attached to rural landscapes.

On another level, participants agreed that INRM required:

  1. whole of government responses (agencies, jurisdictions)
  2. engagement of the range of stakeholders
  3. inclusion of the range of knowledge systems (local, scientific, Indigenous etc)
  4. operation at a variety of scales, but the landscape or regional scale seemed particularly suited to integration
  5. a coherent mix of policy options.

How to do integration?

The focus should be on problem definition (including questioning underlying assumptions) and that this process should define the approach to be taken.

Sufficient time and resources need to be allocated to developing relationships and building capacities for integration. With Indigenous communities, the investment in relationship and capacity building might be 50% of the project budget.

Important to reassure those contemplating integration that most of us learn best through action: so start from where you are now, but be open to and seek the input of others (stakeholders, knowledge systems) and be aware of the different capacities of stakeholders, and of the connectivity between elements.

Scope the approach to be taken prior to commencing an integrated project. Integration also requires sound project management and effective communication.

Stakeholder disagreements may reflect different world-views and it should not be the objective of integration to assimilate these.

Most people make decisions without thorough knowledge and decision-making is based as much on values as on rational thought. Perhaps integration should focus on critical problems. We need some principles about which problems or circumstances require or suit an integrated approach.

Integration requires more than modelling and examples of other ways of approaching integration across disciplines, stakeholders, knowledge systems are explored in Symposium papers.

Move from an issues-based to an assets-based approach to NRM planning so that the focus is on interactions between elements of the environment rather than on causes of issues. This is a more positive way to approach landholders in that NRM becomes a partnership that seeks to enhance assets that provide goods and services. The concept of ecosystem services underpins this thinking.

Need to link INRM management and research with teaching in universities.