NRM Regions in Australia: the ‘Haves’ and the ‘Have Nots’

273

Geographical Research

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

doi 101111j1745-5871200700460x

Blackwell Publishing Asia

Original Acticle

L Robins and S Dovers

NRM Regions in Australia

NRM Regions in Australia the lsquoHavesrsquo and the lsquoHave Notsrsquo

LISA ROBINS and STEPHEN DOVERS

Fenner School of Environment and Society Australian National University Acton ACT 0200 Australia

Corresponding author Email lisarobinsanueduau

Received 8 August 2006 Revised 7 September 2006 Accepted 19 September 2006

Abstract

This paper identifies external factors affecting the capacity of Australiarsquosnow-formalised 56 regional natural resource management (NRM) bodies and theircommunity-based Boards to meet planning and management responsibilities Itdemonstrates that little is known about the basic capacity-related characteristicsof NRM regions despite the lengthy and elaborate process of regionalism thatAustralia has embarked upon with its associated and substantial devolution ofresponsibilities and resources A suite of indicators is used to develop anlsquoexploratoryrsquo capacity typology of NRM regions The ten regional lsquotypesrsquo identifiedare found to attract varying budget allocations under the Natural Heritage TrustExtension and National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality There areindications that State and regional interests within and outside NRM can signifi-cantly influence the distribution of resources An examination of resources allocatedto capacity-building activities shows significant differences between regions inthe scale of resources allocated (0ndash96 of total budget) The paper argues thecase for intervention to reduce the gap between lsquohaversquo and lsquohave notrsquo regionsand for further exploration of disparities in the allocation of resources to capacity-building activities Clarification is needed of the extent to which capacity-buildingactivities adequately target regional NRM bodies and their Boards

KEY WORDS

capacity capacity-building National Action Plan for Salinityand Water Quality (NAP) Natural Heritage Trust Extension (NHT2) naturalresource management (NRM) regional organisations typology

ACRONYMSACT Australian Capital Territory ARIA AccessibilityRemoteness Index of Australia NAP National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality NHT2 Natural Heritage Trust Extension NLWRA National Land and Water Resources Audit NRM Natural resource management NSW New South Wales SA South Australia WA Western Australia

Introduction

Strategic planning priority-setting and resourceallocation in natural resource management (NRM)in Australia are increasingly determined at regional

level (Paton

et al

2004) Australia is now formallydivided into 56 NRM regions (Figure 1) eachwith a community-based Board of managementwith responsibilities for integrated management

274


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation copy 2007 Institute of Australian Geographers

of the regionrsquos natural resources supported by aregional NRM body (ACIL Tasman 2005)The shaping of these regional boundaries forNRM especially the influence of catchment-based approaches to management is discussedby Powell (1993) and more recently by Ewing(2003) and remains the subject of debate (Dolleryand Crase 2004) The regional institutionallandscape is complex and has changed overtime (Morrison 2004 Brown 2006) While manyregional organisations started in response todemand from communities (bottom-up) theyhave been increasingly moulded homogenisedand professionalised to deliver (top-down) pro-grams on behalf of StateTerritory Governmentsand especially the Australian Government (Doreand Woodhill 1999 Peters 2006) The currentregional arrangements are now widely perceived

as the preferred approach to NRM delivery(Sinclair Knight Merz 2006) although there aredetractors (Lane

et al

2004 ITS Global 2006)The present 56 regions represent a major shift informalising boundaries and functions creating afar more recognisable and persistent set of insti-tutional and management entities than existedpreviously

This paper examines lsquocapacity-buildingrsquo issuesconfronting the 56 regions in relation to twomajor national NRM programs the NaturalHeritage Trust Extension (NHT2) and the NationalAction Plan for Salinity and Water Quality(NAP) (Commonwealth of Australia 2001c)The NAP comprises 21 priority areas whichencompass about 30 NRM regions in whole orpart To access program resources regions musthave an accredited NRM plan and investment

Figure 1 Australiarsquos 56 NRM regions formalised under the NHT2 (Prepared by Karl Nissen Centre for Resource andEnvironmental Studies Australian National University September 2006 Regional boundary and label data sourced from httpwwwdehgovaumetadataexplorerexplorerjsp)



275


strategy (Department of Agriculture Fisheriesand Forestry 2005 2006) To June 2005 theseprograms have allocated over $392 M to the 56regions including $106 M (~27) for capacity-building (NRM Ministerial Council 2005)

Establishing an improved understanding ofregional lsquocapacityrsquo undertaken here throughdevelopment of an exploratory typology isimportant because

1 effective design and delivery of NHT2 and NAPare dependent upon the capacity of regionalNRM bodies and community-based Boardsto prepare and implement quality regionalNRM plans and investment strategies

2 external factors outside the control of regionalNRM bodies and Boards affect their capacityto design and deliver effective plans andinvestment strategies and

3 resource allocations to regions may reflect theseexternal factors and should be adequatelytaken into account in the delivery of nationalprograms

The paper has three parts Part I discussescapacity-building and external factors affectingthe capacity of regional NRM bodies and Boardsto meet planning and management responsibilitiesPart II draws on these external factors to identifya suite of indicators from which to develop anlsquoexploratoryrsquo capacity typology and describesthe capacity typology comprising ten classesof regions These classes are used in Part III toexamine the distribution of NHT2 and NAPresources across NRM regions and allocationsfor capacity-building activities

PART I ndash External factors affecting regional capacity

What is lsquocapacity-buildingrsquo

lsquoCapacity-buildingrsquo describes knowledge andawareness-raising activities to support desiredchange (Robins

et al

2005) Coutts

et al

(2005)suggest that capacity-building programs need toprovide all lsquorungsrsquo of the lsquocapacity-building ladderrsquocomprising information access programmedlearning facilitation and empowerment mentorconsultant and technological developmentThe NRM capacity-building Framework for theNHT2 and NAP defines lsquocapacity-buildingrsquo aslsquoawareness skills knowledge motivationcommitment and confidencersquo It was endorsed in2002 by the Programs Committee of the NaturalResource Management Ministerial Council asproviding lsquoa common consistent and com-

plementary approach to capacity-building as aguide to all jurisdictions in planning and imple-menting capacity-building investmentsrsquo with aview to also informing other NRM programs(Commonwealth of Australia 2002)

What external factors affect capacity

There are similarities and differences amongNRM regions that affect the capacity of regionalbodies and Boards to develop plans and invest-ment strategies that warrant greater attentionthan has been the case to date The externalfactors are regional setting and complexityphysical remoteness access to political andbureaucratic decision-making processes accessto information profile of regional NRM issuesand proximity to learning and research centresSurprisingly such data on the characteristicsof NRM regions have not been compiled andanalysed previously This discussion of externalfactors is exploratory not exhaustive and suchvariables are not necessarily mutually exclusiveWe aim to expose the diversity of geographicalsocial and political settings in which regionalNRM bodies operate and demonstrate the needfor consideration of these factors in the designand delivery of national programs

Regional setting and complexity

The 56 designatedNRM regions vary hugely in area (1840 to1 850 000 km

2

) and population (4000 to 3 500 000)(Table 2) Area and population have implica-tions for the collection of information aboutthe regionrsquos condition and for engaging withlandholders and interest groups Larger areascomplicate catchment planning stakeholderparticipation is difficult Potentially largerpopulations provide greater access to humanand financial resources however very largepopulations introduce complexity (Robins1995)

Regional bodies operating across jurisdictional(State and program) boundaries confront challengesin accessing information and resources assessingresource condition engaging with stakeholdersand reporting on progress (Crabb 2003) SeveralNRM regions share planning and managementresponsibilities under the NAP with otherregions (Department of Agriculture Fisheriesand Forestry 2005)

Physical remoteness

The location of a regionand its infrastructure influence capacity to fulfilplanning and management responsibilitiesRemote communities have difficulty attracting

276


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290


and retaining staff compared to regions withlarge urban centres A region with good infra-structure especially airports major roads andvisitor facilities has better access to goods andservices and is more attractive for stagingevents like conferences Regions closest tocapital cities have greater access to decision-makers and therefore more scope to advocatetheir interests

Political and bureaucratic decision-makingprocesses

Regional NRM bodies and Boardsneed to engage with political and bureaucraticprocesses at all levels of government to influenceNRM programs including problem definitionand priority setting However this influenceexists within a broader socio-political settingparticularly the priority given to NRM ongovernment agendas In 2006ndash2007 the federalbudget allocated $3 billion for NRM comparableto Transport and Regional Services at $49billion but substantially less than Health andAgeing ($417 billion) or Defence ($223 billion)(Commonwealth of Australia 2006b) Watts(2004) suggests that the NHT2 and NAP repre-sent about 01 of the federal budget and canonly address a small fraction of Australiarsquosenvironmental needs Madden

et al

(2000)estimate that $3575 billion are needed eachyear to meet the federal governmentrsquos ownnational targets NRM targets

High-level political trade-offs are largely out-side the influence of regional NRM bodies andBoards For example Commonwealth resourc-ing for NRM increased in 1996 when theLiberal Party made an election promise to allocate$125 billion over five years conditional uponthe partial sale of Telstra (a publicly-ownedtelecommunications business) as part of its broaderplatform of privatisation An IndependentSenator Brian Harradine negotiated a dispro-portionate share ($353 million over five years)for Tasmania in return for passing the Telstrabill (Kingston 2004) Similarly in 1999 theVictorian Government reached a unique politicalagreement with the Independent member forEast Gippsland Craig Ingram to restore SnowyRiver flows to 28 (OrsquoBrien 1999)

Regional bodies and Boards have limitedinfluence on high-level political and bureaucraticnegotiations The signing of Intergovernmentaland Bilateral Agreements between StateTerritoryand Australian Governments is central to theseprograms (WalterTurnbull 2005) In the caseof the NAP the South Australian Government

signed the first Bilateral Agreement in June2001 while the Western Australian Governmentwas last in September 2003 (Department ofAgriculture Fisheries and Forestry 2005) Thisprocess can be delayed by state NRM issuessuch as old-growth logging in Tasmania or landclearing in Queensland Politicians and bureaucratsplay a powerful role in regional decision-making following Bilateral Agreement signingWith NHT2 and NAP Commonwealth Ministersaccredit regional plans and investment strategiesfollowing recommendations from state JointSteering Committees (which include andgenerally are chaired by Australian Governmentagency representatives)

Access to information

Planning processes con-ducted by regional bodies and Boards shouldbe informed by current science and thinkingHowever there are factors limiting access toinformation about programs and researchoutcomes (Sinclair Knight Merz 2006 Walter-Turnbull 2005) While internet access as amajor information network varies considerablyamong regions the form and timeliness of infor-mation from government agencies and researchbodies which generate knowledge also influenceavailability Thus proximity to research centresgovernment bureaus and industry associationcentral offices for example will influence regionalNRM capacities Program managers typicallyhave limited budgets for knowledge transferand tend to be skilled at generating but nottransferring knowledge Experts in knowledge-transfer generally form a separate arm of theorganisation This sees reports published yearsafter research completion (sometimes never)especially from multi-organisational teamsPublication often marks the end of the com-munication process

Incentives for researchers to communicateare limited The promotional system in researchrewards publishing in scientific journals andsecuring research contracts This is despite thefact that government research purchasers haveincreasingly encouraged lsquoaction researchrsquo withformal requirements for community consultation(for example Murray-Darling Basin MinisterialCouncil 2001)

The profile of regional NRM issues

While StateTerritory Governments have responsibility forland and water management the AustralianGovernment increasingly sets the agenda andresource allocation through large-scale centralised



277


programs like the NHT2 and NAP (Paton

et al

2004) Regional bodies may be driven moreby the need to access these resources than byaddressing their most pressing issues and facethe same planning and reporting requirementsirrespective of their resource share Othercross-jurisdictional institutional structures likethe Murray-Darling Basin Commission orNational Water Commission superimpose theirown multi-jurisdiction agendas and budgetallocations

Regional NRM bodies and Boards have a roleto play in debating priorities and determiningresource sharing between and within StatesTerritories These decisions are however stronglyinfluenced by high profile issues (such as salinity)(Commonwealth of Australia 2001a) the extentof impacts (for example vegetation clearance)(Commonwealth of Australia 2001b) andgovernment agendas (such as climate change)(AAP 2005) Previous programs (for examplesalinity focus catchments biodiversity hotspots)influence identification of priority localitiesRegional bodies confronting local lower profileor politically unpalatable issues have less lever-age for accessing available funds or arguing foradditional resources StateTerritory Governmentcost-shifting can further limit timely access toresources (Morrison

et al

2004) as well as themagnitude of available resources (human andfinancial)

Research also influences perceptions of pro-blems and solutions and thus resource allocationIn particular the Research and DevelopmentCorporation (RDC) model (Agriculture Fisheriesand Forestry Australia 2004) is strongly weightedtowards large-scale traditional agriculturalindustries through dollar-for-dollar matchingof industry levies by the Australian GovernmentThe questions that researchers believe are worthinvestigating may not align with the highestpriorities for NRM or apply the cross-disciplinaryintegrative approaches needed (Morrison

et al

2004) Some researchers access funding becausethey are skilled communicators and networkersIdeas and technologies are funded that may beoverstated such as airborne geophysics in thecase of salinity management (Commonwealth ofAustralia 2001c 2006a) or inappropriate suchas clean coal technologies (some would suggest)in the case of climate change (Beeby 2006)Some disciplinary areas capture more resourcestypically the physical and economic sciencesdespite the crucial importance of lsquothe socialrsquo(Higgins and Lockie 2002) Accessing funds

for longer-term studies and new ideas can bedifficult

Proximity to learning and research centres

Thepresence of learning and research centres in aregion facilitates information generation andexchange networking to support regional NRMbodies and increases the likelihood of location-specific (and thus more relevant) research beingundertaken Regions including capital and othercities have greater access to these benefits Researchis often lsquocuriosity-drivenrsquo and focused nearbygoverned by researchersrsquo agendas and prioritiesunlike lsquomission-directedrsquo research to meet anagenda defined by external stakeholders (Barber2004 Graham 2004) The outcomes of researchoften fuel further studies through the identifica-tion of research gaps and availability of data

Universities and research providers monitorfunding opportunities Open call applicationprocesses allow researchers to frame problemsand advance ideas Their networking withfunding bodies and selection panel memberscan be important in the awarding of contractsPanel members have preferences they bringto decision-making processes especially whenrepresenting particular interest groups (such as aregional body)

PART II ndash lsquoBaselinersquo capacity typology

Indicator development to inform lsquocapacity-buildingrsquoof regional organisations is in its infancy (Fenton2004c Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005)The National Land and Water Resources Audit(NLWRA) has conducted indicator trials toassess the capacity of regional organisations andthe social and institutional foundations of NRM(Fenton 2004a b Fenton and Rickert 2006a b)An Australia-wide assessment using some 50indicators (in four categories of recognitionpartnerships engagement and capacity) isscheduled in 2006ndash2007 (Karen Cody NLWRApersonal communication 25 July 2006) Thelsquoexploratoryrsquo indicators used in this study (shownin Table 1) are surrogate measures of externalfactors outside the control of regional NRMbodies and Boards (such as remoteness profileof issues) for which data are readily availablewhile the NLWRA indicators primarily reflectinternal factors within their sphere of influence(such as knowledge of NRM leadership com-petency and financial management performance)

Typologies have been used to inform thedesign and delivery of NRM programs andresearch in Australia in the case of landholders

278


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290


Table 1 Summary of methods and background information on the exploratory indicators used to examine external factorsaffecting the capacity of regional NRM bodies

External factor Exploratory indicator

Method and background information


Area and population

Area and population data were sourced from lsquoregional report cardsrsquo posted on the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestryrsquos webpage (httpwwwnrmgovaupublicationsindexhtmlnsw-report-cards accessed 9ndash10 May 2006) with the exception of figures footnoted

Program boundaries and state boundaries

Regional maps were used to identify regions with cross-regional and cross-State boundary responsibilities under the NAP (wwwnrmgovaugtAbout NRM regions then go to each StateTerritory) Those with cross-boundary responsibilities are recorded as lsquo1rsquo those without as lsquo0rsquo

Physical remoteness

Physical remoteness (ARIA+)

The AccessibilityRemoteness Index of Australia (ARIA+) is the standard Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) endorsed measure of geographic remoteness The index is derived from road distance between populated localities and service centres and quantifies accessibility in non-metropolitan areas ARIA+ scores are based on the inclusion of five service centres (rather than four in the case of the earlier ARIA score) providing a slightly more detailed representation of remoteness across Australia The ARIA+ index ranges from 0 to 15 (compared to 0ndash12 in the case of ARIA) which the ABS classifies as major cities of Australia (0ndash020) inner regional Australia (gt020ndash240) outer regional Australia (gt240ndash592) remote Australia (gt592ndash1053) and very remote Australia (gt1053) The location of the head office of each regional NRM body was used to generate ARIA+ scores using the calculator available at wwwgiscaadelaideeduau (accessed 17 May 2006) Further description of the method can also be found at this site

Political and bureaucratic decision-making processes

Remoteness from decision-makers

An estimate is made of the sum of the time and expense for the general manager of a regional body to travel from their head office to the StateTerritory capital and to Canberra as the seat of national government and its agencies (for one-day meetings on separate occasions) including airfare vehicle mileage taxi accommodation and mealsundry expenses


Electronic remoteness

The Telstra BigPond broadband search facility (httpmybigpondcominternetplansbroadbandgtCheck Broadband Availability) was used to determine the availability of internet access from regional bodies head offices) This indicates potential rather than actual internet services and only accounts for the regionrsquos head office (some regions have more than one office location)


Profile of issues Two indicators are used to identify regions with NRM issues with higher political and public profile ndash whether it has been designated under the NAP or falls within the Murray-Darling Basin (and therefore within the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative) The Commission has under various guises existed since 1915 and has a long history of Basin-specific policies and research (Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2006) The figures lsquo2rsquo and lsquo1rsquo are used to denote whether the NRM region is wholly or partly within NAP designation andor the Murray-Darling Basin and lsquo0rsquo if neither


Learning centres A web-based search was conducted of all Australian universities to identify the regions in which NRM courses are available A complete list of universities is available at wwwaustralian-universitiescomlist and is directly linked to their webpages A list of campuses and locations was identified for each university followed by a course search to elicit the availability of NRM-related courses in the region This indicator only measures the number of universities delivering NRM courses in a region not quantity diversity or quality

Research centres A web-based search of CSIRO and State government research centres was used to identify the location of facilities engaged in NRM research CSIROrsquos 57 research centres are listed at ltwwwcsiroaugtWhere we are (accessed 18 May 2006) Individual State agency webpages were interrogated to identify main research institutes coupled with email correspondence with State researchers where web-based information was inadequate (sources footnoted in Table 2)



279


(Emtage

et al

2006) and local governments(Wild River 2005) but not in the case ofregional organisations The exploratory capacitytypology described in this section is based onthe indicators shown in Table 1 and illustratedusing aircraft metaphors Data are presented inTable 2 according to the ten regional classesThe ten classes (Figure 2) are grouped on thebasis of the principal attributes highlighted inthe table and described below Further aggrega-tion could produce a smaller number of classeshowever we consider that the ten based on theprincipal attributes shown are sufficiently differentto warrant separate classification for the purposesof this exploratory study Attempts to use astatistical method called lsquok-mean clusteringrsquo toidentify classes did not result in logical group-ings and was therefore not pursued further Thisis not to imply that statistical approaches could

not be applied in further exploration of capacitytypologies especially as data are improvedand enlarged but we argue that a non-statisticalapproach in this case is not necessarily any lessvalid This capacity typology is robust but couldbe further developed following completion ofthe NLWRA Australia-wide assessment of thecapacity of regional organisations in 2007

Class 1 ndash lsquoJumborsquo regions

The defining attributes denoting the seven lsquoJumborsquoregions are very high population (945 000ndash35million people) a relatively small area (1840ndash37 000 km

2

) and a high number of researchcentres and universities (5ndash19 in total) Theyhave ready access to services (ARIA+ score000ndash057 refer Table 1) and low travel costs(with the exception of travel to Canberra for theSwan region in Western Australia (WA))

Figure 2 Distribution of the ten lsquoexploratoryrsquo capacity classes across Australiarsquos 56 NRM regions (Prepared by Karl NissenCentre for Resource and Environmental Studies Australian National University September 2006 Regional boundary and labeldata sourced from httpwwwdehgovaumetadataexplorerexplorerjsp)

280

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors

Journal compilation copy

2007 Institute of Australian G

eographers

Table 2 Data for 56 NRM regions according to lsquoexploratoryrsquo capacity indicators (and grouped on the basis of the principal attributes highlighted)

State NHT region Exploratory capacity indicators

Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)


NSW Hunter-Central Rivers 37 000 945 000^ 056 729 1741 1 0 0 0 0 1 4NSW Sydney Metropolitan 1 840 3 000 000 000 710 1375 1 0 0 0 0 9 5NSW Hawkesbury-Nepean^ 22 000 800 000 057 1448 933 0 0 0 0 0 0 0QLD South East 23 000 2 500 000 000 650 2004 1 2 0 1 0 8 11SA Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 3 880^ 1 000 000 000 650 1741 1 2 0 1 0 2 11^VIC Port Phillip and Westernport 13 000 3 500 000 000 693 1475 0 0 0 0 0 9 9WA Swan 7 700 1 400 000 000 650 4482 0 1 0 1 0 4 9

Class 2 ndash lsquoHerculesrsquo regions

NT Northern Territory 1 346 200 200 000 300 650 4304 1 1 0 0 1 8 11WA Rangelands 1 850 000 133 000 810 1468 5190 0 1 0 1 1 1 4

Class 3 ndash lsquo737rsquo regions

ACT Australian Capital Territory 2 358 320 000 000 600 600 1 2 2 1 1 4 7NSW Murrumbidgee 84 000 520 000 101 1020 1995 1 2 2 1 1 1 7QLD Burdekin 133 432

190 000

300 1449 3090 1 2 0 1 0 1 6QLD Condamine 27 500 162 000 019 1339 2125 1 2 2 1 1 1 8QLD Fitzroy 300 000 200 000 135 1459 2814 0 2 0 1 0 3 5VIC Corangamite 13 340 330 000 111 1395 2497 0 2 0 1 0 4 2WA South West 50 000 193 000 092 1440 5232 0 2 0 0 0 2 8

Class 4 ndash lsquoJetstarrsquo regions

QLD Burnett Mary 88 000 257 000 173 1303 3032 1 2 0 1 0 1 3SA Northern and Yorke 37 800 100 000 270 1437 2978 0 2 0 1 0 1 3^SA South East 21 000 63 000 232 1088 3039 0 2 0 0 0 1 4^TAS South 25 000 232 000 180 650 2205 0 1 0 1 0 1 4TAS North 25 000 135 000 180 1438 2078 1 2 0 1 0 1 2VIC Glenelg Hopkins 26 000 95 850 210 1938 3040 1 2 0 1 0 2 1WA South Coast 54 000 57 000 270 1122 4844 0 2 0 0 0 1 2

WA Avon 118 000 46 000 096 787 4609 0 2 0 1 0 1 3

L R

obins and S Dovers

NR

M R

egions in Australia

281

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers

Class 5 ndash lsquoMiGrsquo regions

NSW Central West 92 000 180 000 263 1079 2004 0 2 2 1 0 1 3NSW Murray 35 500 101 000 225 2409 2335 0 2 2 1 0 2 1VIC Goulburn Broken 23 915 189 500 088 1443 2301 0 2 2 0 0 1 3VIC North Central 30 000 230 000 047 1395 2497 1 2 2 0 0 1 1VIC North East 19 800 200 000 066 1034 1246 1 0 2 0 0 2 2VIC Wimmera 23 500 44 000 288 1955 2499 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

Class 6 ndash lsquoStealthrsquo regions

NSW Border Rivers-Gwydir 50 000 75 000

304 1465 2610 0 2 2 1 1 0 1NSW Lachlan 84 700 100 000 261 1098 2055 0 2 2 1 1 0 1NSW Namoi 42 000 94 000 242 1408 2306 0 2 2 1 1 0 3QLD Maranoa Balonne Border Rivers 100 670 54 600 019 1339 2125 1 2 2 1 1 0 2SA Lower Murray Darling 63 300 29 000 259 1262 2187 0 2 2 1 1 0 1^SA South Australian Murray Darling Basin 70 000 81 000 094 764 2305 1 2 2 1 1 0 2^VIC Mallee 39 256 61 095 247 1326 2869 0 2 2 1 1 0 3

Class 7 ndash lsquoConcordersquo regions

NSW Northern Rivers 50 000 550 000 193 1701 2061 0 0 0 0 0 2 6QLD Wet Tropics 22 000 200 000 390 2335 3161 0 0 0 0 0 1 8

Class 8 ndashlsquoDash 8rsquo regions

NSW Southern Rivers 29 000 400 000 010 766 1431 1 0 0 0 0 1 0QLD Mackay Whitsunday 9 000 113 285 216 1501 3263 1 0 0 0 0 2 1TAS North West 22 500 107 000 267 1933 1999 1 0 0 0 0 1 2VIC West Gippsland 17 500 170 000 081 1416 2518 0 0 0 0 0 2 1

Class 9 ndash lsquoUltra-lightrsquo regions

QLD Cape York 137 000 18 000 300 1731 3092 1 0 0 0 0 0 0SA Alinytjara Wilurara 250 000 5 000

+

000 650 1741 1 0 0 0 0 0 0^SA South Australian Arid Lands 538 000 25 000 248 990 3041 0 1 1 1 1 0 0^VIC East Gippsland 21 300 38 000 243 1932 3034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued

282

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers

Class 10 ndash lsquoSingle enginersquo regions

NSW Western 230 000 18 000 932 1921 3511 1 1 2 1 1 0 0QLD Desert Channels 510 000 16 000 1167 2628 3930 1 0 0 0 0 0 1QLD Northern Gulf 194 000 9 000 1318 3646 4272 1 0 0 0 0 0 0QLD Southern Gulf 230 000 35 000 600 2218 3694 1 0 0 0 0 1 1QLD South West 187 170 10 000 1049 2449 3417 1 1 2 1 1 0 1QLD Torres Strait 48 000 8 000 1500 4320 5776 0 0 0 0 0 1 0SA Eyre Peninsula 55 000 33 000 623 1188 2969 1 0 0 0 0 1 2^SA Kangaroo Island 4 370 4 000 695 1088 2845 1 2 0 0 0 0 0^WA Northern Agricultural 75 000 60 000 900 2410 5692 0 2 0 0 0 0 3^

Notes amp sources (by column)

BBD ndash Type of broadband connectionNAP ndash Designation under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water QualityMDB ndash Murray-Darling BasinRegion ndash ^ Hawkesbury-Nepean (NSW) has been amalgamated with Sydney Metropolitan (NSW) for the purposes of regional categorisation as it is Sydneyrsquos principal water source catchmentArea ndash ^ K Good pers comm 27 May 2006 wwwburdekindrytropicsorgauaboutregionindexhtml accessed 22 May 2006 T Gowdie Qld Murray-Darling Committee perscomm 26 amp 31 May 2006Population ndash ^ wwwhcrcmanswgovau then see lsquoblueprintsrsquo for Hunter Central and Lower North Coast wwwburdekindrytropicsorgauaboutregionindexhtml accessed 22 May2006 T Gowdie Qld Murray-Darling Committee pers comm 26 amp 31 May 2006 wwwnrmgovaustatensw then see lsquoblueprintsrsquo for Border Rivers and Gwydir

+

G OrmsbyAlinytjara Wilurara NRM region pers comm 30 June 2006Research Centres^ ndash Northern Territory (S MacCarthy Charles Darwin University NT pers comm 22 August 2006) South Australia (B Munday CRC for Plant-based Managementof Dryland Salinity pers comm 26 May 2006 P Butler Department of Land Water and Biodiversity Conservation SA pers comm 1 June 2006) Western Australia (J BartleConservation and Land Management WA pers comm 26 May 2006 D Bennett WA Department of Agriculture and Food pers comm 29 May 2006 J McGrath Forest ProductsCommission WA pers comm 26 May 2006)


Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued



283



The defining feature of a lsquoHerculesrsquo region isits vast area (1 346 200 km

2

and 1 850 000 km

2

)The Northern Territory is somewhat of ananomaly in that it is a lsquoStatersquo rather than alsquoregionrsquo These have a moderate overall popula-tion (200 000 and 133 000 people) Access touniversities is available throughout the NorthernTerritory One university campus and fourresearch centres are located in the Rangelands(WA) There are two NAP regions within theNorthern Territory one of which is shared withthe Rangelands The cost of travel to the Statecapital is low but expensive to Canberra andARIA+ scores are high (300 and 810)


A lsquo737rsquo region (seven total three in Queensland)is characterised by high access to resources andservices coupled with the necessity to coordinateplanning and management with other regionsThey are all priority regions under the NAP(three also within the Murray-Darling Basin)and have high access to research and learningcentres (the number of research centres anduniversities ranges from seven to 11) Travel tothe State capital is inexpensive but moderate tohigh to Canberra in some regions The regionshave very high access to services with ARIA+scores of 000ndash135 with the exception of theBurdekin (Qld) at 300 All regions except theSouth West (WA) have cross-boundary NAP plan-ning issues and in some cases between StatesPopulation is moderate (162 000ndash520 000)while area is varied (2358ndash300 000 km

2

)


lsquoJetstarrsquo regions closely mirror lsquo737rsquo regions buthave fewer universities and research centres (3ndash5)including at least one university Their populationis generally smaller (46 000ndash257 000 people) andaccess to services lower but with good access tofinancial resources All regions are NAP-designatedbut outside the Murray-Darling Basin and none hasState cross-boundary planning responsibilities(although some have NAP responsibilities) Regionalarea is more uniform (21 000ndash118 000 km

2

) andtravel costs to State capitals are comparable buttravel costs to Canberra higher on average Class 4comprises eight regions with two in each of WANew South Wales (NSW) and Tasmania


lsquoMiGrsquo regions (six of which four are in Victoria)have comparable access to learning and research

centres as lsquo737rsquo regions but greater potentialaccess to resources and knowledge by virtue ofbeing within the Murray-Darling Basin Onlyone (North East Victoria) is not an NAP region


lsquoStealthrsquo regions (seven three in NSW) haveequivalent access to resources as lsquoMiGrsquo regionsas they are NAP regions and within the Murray-Darling Basin but face a higher level ofplanning complexity and more limited access totechnical support lsquoStealthrsquo regions have cross-boundary issues at both NAP and State levelsand no universities offering NRM coursesThey do however have between one and threeresearch centres


The defining features of a lsquoConcordersquo region areits high number of research centres (six andeight) in a small area coupled with low potentialto access resources lsquoConcordersquo regions areoutside the Murray-Darling Basin and not NAP-designated Population size is moderate to high(550 000 and 200 000) with ARIA+ scores of193 and 390 Northern Rivers (NSW) and WetTropics (Queensland) comprise this class

Class 8 ndash lsquoDash 8rsquo regions

A lsquoDash 8rsquo region is differentiated from a lsquoCon-cordersquo region by lower access to learning andtechnical support with fewer universities andresearch centres (1ndash2) They represent moderateto high populations (107 000ndash400 000 people)in relatively small areas (9000ndash29 000 km

2

)with good access to services (ARIA+ score010ndash267) but restricted access to resources(not NAP-designated or within Murray-DarlingBasin)


An lsquoUltra-lightrsquo region is denoted by having nouniversities or research centres These regionshave reasonable access to services (ARIA+ score000ndash300 for head office which may be outsidethe region) and low to moderate travel coststo State and federal capitals The population issmall (5000ndash38 000 people) but the regionalarea varies in extent (137 000ndash538 000 km

2

andonly 21 300 km

2

for East Gippsland Victoria)


A lsquoSingle enginersquo region is remote (ARIA+ scores600ndash1500) This generally results in highertravel costs to State and federal capitals

284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290


However almost all have access to broadbandor desktop wireless facilities Universities andresearch centres are not well represented (0ndash3)while about half are within the Murray-DarlingBasin andor designated (wholly or partly) underthe NAP Of nine Class 10 regions five are inQueensland and two in South Australia

PART III ndash NHT2 and NAP budget allocations

We now explore whether regional lsquotypersquo repres-enting external factors beyond the influence ofregional NRM bodies is reflected in allocatedbudgets In the absence of accessible actualregional budgets total NHT2 and NAP funds (toJune 2005) are used as a surrogate indicator offinancial resources (Natural Resource Manage-ment Ministerial Council 2005) These budgetsallocate spending (self-defined by regions) toresource assessment planning capacity-buildingand on-ground activities This may underesti-mate available resources of regions with largerbudgets as they have scope to diversify incomesources The analysis uses $km

2

as the unit forexamining differences in total NRM budgetsbetween regions and $person to examinedifferences in capacity-building funding

Budget allocations between StatesTerritories

There are significant disparities in total NHT2and NAP budgets between StatesTerritories (seeTable 3) ranging from a total of $245 millionfor the Australian Capital Territory to an averageof $1424 million per region in Victoria At theStateTerritory level this is determined to some

extent by the willingness of individual govern-ments to commit resources on a dollar-for-dollarbasis with the Australian Government (Part I)but the apportioning of total resources amongjurisdictions is still strongly dictated by intra- andinter-governmental decision-making processesThe Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Victoriareceived a total budget allocation of $1021 perkm

2

and $625 per km

2

respectively whereas theremaining StatesTerritory range from $5 to$118 per km

2

The NAP provides substantial resources for

targeting salinity primarily a phenomenon ofsouthern Australia While this should explaingreater resources allocated to the southern Statesit does not explain Victoria capturing 363($14243 million) of the total while representingonly 31 of the land area The greatestexpanse severity and threat of dryland salinityis in Western Australia which has a total alloca-tion of $444 million and is prominent in manyNew South Wales regions (receiving less thanhalf the allocation of Victoria at $7034 million)(Commonwealth of Australia 2000) Victoriarsquosdisproportionate share of resources is perhapsexplained by the maturity of its regionalarrangements formalised by the

Catchmentand Land Protection Act 1994

relative to otherStates

Budget allocations between classes

Table 4 shows combined NHT2 and NAP budgetallocations (to June 2005) for each region (intotal and per unit area) and adjusted averages forthe ten typological classes Adjusted averages

Table 3 NHT2 and NAP budget allocation by StateTerritory (to June 2005) (collated from Natural Resource ManagementMinisterial Council 2005)

State NHT2NAP budget allocation (to June 2005)

State total $M

Reg avge $M

Total area rsquo000 km2

Total pop rsquo000 pers

$Area $km2

ACT 245 245 2 320 1021NSW 7034 541 821 6812 86NT 726 726 1346 200 5QLD 4907 377 2010 3773 24SA 6776 847 980 1313 69TAS 859 286 73 474 118VIC 14243 1424 228 4858 625WA 4440 740 2155 1889 21

3923 648 7615 19639 246



285


Table 4 NHT2NAP budget allocation (to June 2005) in total by area and for capacity building activities according to eachindividual region and typological class (average adjusted) Highlighting indicates anomalies

State Region NAPNHT2 $Area Cap Bldg Cap Bldg Cap Bldg$ $km2 $ $person

Class 1 ndash lsquoJumborsquo regionsNSW Hunter-Central Rivers 4 149 486 112 17 705 413 075NSW Sydney Metropolitan amp Hawkesbury-Nepean 4 198 437 176 25 1 049 609 028QLD South East 5 090 928 221 55 2 800 010 112SA Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 12 279 202 3165 37 4 543 305 454VIC Port Phillip and Westernport 5 062 095 389 19 961 798 027WA Swan 7 341 846 953 48 3 524 086 252

Total Adjusted Average 4 625 237 225 29 1 379 208 1

Class 2 ndash lsquoHerculesrsquo regionsNT Northern Territory 7 258 535 5 30 2 177 561 1089WA Rangelands 10 471 520 6 15 1 570 728 1181


Class 3 ndash lsquo737rsquo regionsACT Australian Capital Territory 2 454 851 1041 29 711 907 222NSW Murrumbidgee 12 945 195 154 23 2 977 395 573QLD Burdekin 3 855 086 29 35 1 349 280 710QLD Condamine 5 078 281 185 64 3 250 100 2006QLD Fitzroy 8 048 296 27 16 1 287 727 644VIC Corangamite 15 409 654 1155 30 46 226 1401WA South West 7 093 027 142 49 3 475 583 1801


Class 4 ndash lsquoJetstarrsquo regionsQLD Burnett Mary 4 122 396 47 21 865 703 337SA Northern and Yorke 4 295 904 114 50 2 147 952 2148SA South East 5 909 502 281 40 2 363 801 3752TAS South 2 985 025 119 30 895 508 386TAS North 3 331 708 133 19 633 025 469VIC Glenelg Hopkins 21 312 865 820 33 7 033 245 7338WA South Coast 6 949 014 129 61 4 238 899 7437WA Avon 6 669 474 57 41 2 734 484 5945


Class 5 ndash lsquoMiGrsquo regionsNSW Central West 2 842 166 31 38 1 080 023 600NSW Murray 22 319 282 629 4 892 771 884VIC Goulburn Broken 37 914 560 1585 13 4 928 893 2601VIC North Central 24 689 536 823 16 3 950 326 1718VIC North East 5 111 273 258 13 664 465 332VIC Wimmera 13 321 196 567 12 1 598 544 3633


Class 6 ndash lsquoStealthrsquo regionsNSW Border Rivers-Gwydir 2 458 002 49 74 1 818 921 2425NSW Lachlan 3 077 074 36 26 800 039 800NSW Namoi 1 343 213 32 68 913 385 972QLD Maranoa Balonne Border Rivers 7 666 495 76 18 1 379 969 2527SA Lower Murray Darling 3 562 079 56 22 783 657 2702SA South Australian Murray Darling Basin 31 196 904 446 17 5 303 474 6547VIC Mallee 10 260 416 261 39 4 001 562 6550


Class 7 ndash lsquoConcordersquo regionsNT Northern Rivers 8 239 382 165 27 2 224 633 404QLD Wet Tropics 3 180 915 145 28 890 656 445


286 Geographical Research bull September 2007 bull 45(3)273ndash290


Class 8 ndash lsquoDash 8rsquo regionsNSW Southern Rivers 4 057 360 140 76 3 083 594 771QLD Mackay Whitsunday 2 408 962 268 47 1 132 212 999TAS North West 2 268 838 101 21 476 456 445VIC West Gippsland 5 492 323 314 32 1 757 543 1034


Class 9 ndash lsquoUltra-lightrsquo regionsQLD Cape York 1 280 403 9 40 512 161 2845SA Alinytjara Wilurara 5 403 547 22 25 1 350 887 27018SA South Australian Arid Lands 2 231 083 4 0 0 0VIC East Gippsland 3 853 620 181 14 539 507 1420

Total Adjusted Average 2 971 678 12 22 621 016 100

Class 10 ndash lsquoSingle enginersquo regionsNSW Western 1 147 816 5 96 1 101 903 6122QLD Desert Channels 2 230 013 4 48 1 070 406 6690QLD Northern Gulf 1 949 678 10 40 779 871 8665QLD Southern Gulf 1 975 590 9 27 533 409 1524QLD South West 2 181 647 12 62 1 352 621 13526QLD Torres Strait ndash ndash ndash ndash ndashSA Eyre Peninsula 3 372 927 61 55 1 855 110 5622SA Kangaroo Island 3 067 381 702 18 552 129 13803SA Northern Agricultural 5 879 240 78 52 3 057 205 5095


Budget data collated from Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2005)


Table 4 Continued

exclude significantly higher or in one case(Central West NSW) lower budget allocationsper unit area within a class These anomalies(highlighted Table 4) are discussed below Table 4also shows regional budget allocations (total andper person) for capacity-building activities

lsquoMiGrsquo regions are distinctive for having anaverage total budget of $164 million and perunit area allocation of $569km2 about two andhalf times that of the next nearest type (lsquoJumborsquoat $225km2) lsquoJumborsquo lsquo737rsquo lsquoJetstarrsquo lsquoConcordersquoand lsquoDash 8rsquo regions have moderate unit areaallocations ranging from $107 to $225km2 butsignificantly lower average total budgets ($36ndash74 million) lsquoHerculesrsquo regions have the secondhighest overall budget ($89 million) but very lowexpenditure per unit area at $6km2 The remain-ing three classes (lsquoStealthrsquo lsquoUltra-lightrsquo lsquoSingleenginersquo) have both low average total budgets ($23ndash36 million) and by unit area ($12ndash50km2)

The high average total and per unit areabudgets for lsquoMiGrsquo regions demonstrate the com-parative advantage of both NAP-designation andlocation in the Murray-Darling Basin coupled

with low remoteness and proximity to universitiesand research centres influencing decision-making processes and accessing informationIt was anticipated that the average total budgetsfor lsquo737rsquo regions would exceed those of lsquoMiGrsquoregions on the basis of having similar charac-teristics (although there are only three regionswithin the Murray-Darling Basin) but a muchgreater presence of universities and researchcentres This difference is attributed to the regionsin this category being non-Victorian States (except-ing Corangamite) although the prevalence ofcross-boundary issues within this class may alsoact as a barrier Similarly lsquoJetstarrsquo regions havecomparable attributes to lsquoMiGrsquo regions butare not located within the Murray-DarlingLike lsquo737rsquo regions the anomaly is in Victoria(Glenelg Hopkins)

lsquoJumborsquo and lsquoConcordersquo regions exhibit a highprevalence of universities and research centresand moderate average budgets despite being out-side the boundaries of the Murray-Darling (thetwo anomalies are NAP regions) In the case oflsquoJumborsquo regions it is likely that proximity to

L Robins and S Dovers NRM Regions in Australia 287


decision-making processes assists in garneringresources

lsquoStealthrsquo regions have a small allocation of$50km2 despite being NAP-designated and withinthe boundaries of the Murray-Darling Thisoutcome is attributed to some degree to thecomplex planning environment with all regionsexhibiting cross-boundary planning issues atboth NAP and State levels and compounded bythe scarcity of universities and research centres

lsquoUltra-lightrsquo regions have an average alloca-tion of $12km2 which may be attributed to largeregional areas compounded by lack of accessto resources through the NAP or the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative (except part of SouthAustralian Arid Lands) and the absence ofuniversities and research centres lsquoSingle enginersquoregions have an average allocation of $22km2

and a small average total budget of $23 millionThis outcome is largely attributed to their highremoteness

Accounting for within-class anomaliesAnomalies within classes are highlighted inTable 4 Three classes have no anomalies(lsquoHerculesrsquo lsquoConcordersquo lsquoDash 8rsquo) Elevenanomalies are shown in the remaining sevenclasses with no more than two in any classAdelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (SouthAustralia ndash SA) is the most extreme with anallocation of $3165km2 compared to $17ndash$55km2 for the four other regions in the same classand the Swan (WA) is also an anomaly at $953km2 The Goulburn Broken (Victoria) standsout within the cohort of generally well-fundedlsquoMiGrsquo regions ($258ndash823km2) with a budget of$1585km2 while the other anomaly in the classCentral West (NSW) received only $31km2

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) andCorangamite (Victoria) have high allocations($1041km2 and $1155km2 respectively) whereasthe budgets of the other five lsquo737rsquo regions rangefrom $29 to $185km2 Another Victorian regionGlenelg Hopkins received $820km2 relativeto $47ndash281km2 for the remaining seven regionsThe five typical lsquoStealthrsquo regions have uniformbudgets ranging from $32 to $76km2 whereasthe two anomaly regions (South AustralianMurray Darling Basin and Mallee Victoria)received $446km2 and $261km2 respectivelyEast Gippsland (Victoria) was allocated $181km2 compared to the other three lsquoUltra-lightrsquoregions at $4ndash22km2 Finally only one of thenine lsquoSingle enginersquo regions fell outside the rangeof $4ndash78km2 (Kangaroo Island $702km2)

As a cohort five of these anomalies are inVictoria (Corangamite East Gippsland GlenelgHopkins Goulburn-Broken Mallee) three inSouth Australia (Adelaide and Mount LoftyRanges Kangaroo Island South AustralianMurray-Darling Basin) and the remainder oneeach from New South Wales (Central West)Western Australia (Swan) and the ACT Thesignificant variation in budgets is attributedto influence differences between the StatesTerritories In the case of Victoria this reflectsthe disproportionate share of total NHT2NAPresources allocated to the State discussed earlierand together with the Swan (WA) may relate tothe networks developed by these regional organ-isations over longer histories of operation

In South Australia resourcing of the Adelaideand Mount Lofty Ranges and South AustralianMurray-Darling Basin regions may be explainedby their long-standing role in the deliberationsof the Murray-Darling Basin Commission andas recipients of Murray-Darling surface waters(some of these resources have also perhapsflowed to Kangaroo Island by virtue of its proximityto Adelaide) All three are NAP-designated

The anomaly of the higher ACT allocationprobably reflects its power and influence base withCanberra as both national and Territory capitalProgram design delivery and resourcing are corebusinesses in Canberra which is also the locationof Australian Government agencies national researchbodies and non-government organisations

Capacity-building allocationsTotal expenditure on capacity-building activities(self-defined) by regional bodies (to June 2005)was $106 million (~27 of total allocation)The target audiences for these capacity-buildingactivities may be land managers Landcareor similar groups industry organisations theregional community andor the regional NRMbody and Board itself While the percentage ofactual budgets allocated to building capacity ofregional NRM bodies and Boards is not knownan examination of regional budgets allocated tocapacity-building (in total and per person)indicates the importance attributed to and scaleof capacity-building activities

The total proportion allocated to capacity-building between regions shows no distinctpattern ranging very widely from 0 to 96 oftotal budget ($0ndash703 million) Within-classvariability is also high in either percentage ordollar terms for example lsquoSingle enginersquo regions(18ndash96 of total regional budget) and lsquoJetstarrsquo



regions ($865 000ndash703 million per region) Theonly clear exception is lsquoMiGrsquo regions whichrange from 4 to 16 indicating that regionswith larger average total budgets can allocatesmaller percentages to capacity-building

Some patterns emerge with respect to totalbudget allocation to capacity-building on thebasis of regional population although the rangeis still great at $0ndash270 per person lsquoJumborsquolsquoHerculesrsquo lsquoConcordersquo and lsquoDash 8rsquo regions haverelatively uniform capacity allocations on a popu-lation basis at $1 $11 $4 and $8 per personrespectively lsquoSingle enginersquo regions stand outwith $59 per person on average ($15ndash135) Vari-ability within other classes is more pronounced

There are significant differences betweenregions in the apparent importance attributed tocapacity-building and thus resources allocatedThese variations beg further investigation andclarification regarding what activities and costsare designated as lsquocapacity-buildingrsquo whetherregional NRM bodies and their Boards areadequately targeted and intended outcomes

ConclusionsThis investigation demonstrates that there aresignificant differences between NRM regionsthat their attributes affect budget allocations (withimplications for planning and managementoutcomes) and that changing these attributes islargely beyond regional influence Also indicatedare strong signs of resource allocation governedby issues other than the management of naturalresources and that delivery of national programsmay be compromised by powerful State andregional interests

The paper suggests that the playing field isuneven and will not right itself without inter-vention There is a snowballing effect whereregions with more resources have greatercapacity (staff resources experience skillsand information) to gain further resources Thisaccentuates the gap between the lsquohaversquo and thelsquohave notrsquo regions We suggest there is a role forusing typological approaches to analyse andguide program and research design and deliveryincluding resource allocation generally andspecifically in the case of capacity-building Ifregional delivery and governance are to continueto develop these disparities need to be purpose-fully targeted

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSLisa Robins acknowledges support from the Department ofEducation Science and Training (Australian PostgraduateAward) and the Rural Industries Research and Development

Corporation (Postgraduate Research Scholarship) The com-ments of Dr Richard Baker (The Fenner School of Environ-ment and Society Australian National University) KarenCody (National Land and Water Resources Audit) andNoel Beynon (Land and Water Australia) were greatly appre-ciated The figures were kindly produced by Karl Nissen(The Fenner School of Environment and Society AustralianNational University)

REFERENCESAAP 2005 Kyoto Protocol lsquonext to uselessrsquo PM The Sydney

Morning Herald (16 February) Accessed 29 June 2006from lthttpwwwsmhcomauarticles200502161108500136426htmlgt

ACIL Tasman 2005 Institutional Arrangements in theAustralian Water Sector National Water CommissionCanberra

Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Australia 2004Research and Development Corporations and CompaniesFact sheet Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry AustraliaCanberra Retrieved 8 March 2006 from lthttpwwwdaffgovaucontentoutputcfmObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0A03880 then rdc_factsheet_aug_04docgt

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005 Social and EconomicData Sources for Natural Resource ManagementNational Land and Water Resources Audit Canberra

Barber M 2004 Excellence in mission-directed researchIn Measuring Excellence in Research and ResearchTraining National Academies Forum The Shine DomeCanberra 22 June 2004 Accessed 2 July 2006 fromlthttpwwwnaforgauresearchexcellencebarberhtmgt

Beeby R 2006 CSIRO crosses line in new mining pushstaff The Canberra Times (22 February)

Brown AJ 2006 Reform of Australiarsquos Federal SystemIdentifying the Benefits NSW Farmers AssociationSydney

Commonwealth of Australia 2000 Australian DrylandSalinity Assessment 2000 National Land and WaterResources Audit Canberra

Commonwealth of Australia 2001a Australian AgriculturalAssessment 2001 National Land and Water ResourcesAudit Canberra

Commonwealth of Australia 2001b Australian NativeVegetation Assessment 2001 National Land and WaterResources Audit Canberra

Commonwealth of Australia 2001c National Action Planfor Salinity and Water Quality Agriculture Fisheries andForestry Australia Canberra

Commonwealth of Australia 2002 National NaturalResource Management Capacity Building FrameworkDepartments of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry andEnvironment and Heritage Canberra

Commonwealth of Australia 2006a Living With Salinity ndasha Report on Progress the Extent and Economic Impact ofSalinity in Australia Senate Committee Report Environ-ment Communications Information Technology and theArts References Committee March 2006

Commonwealth of Australia 2006b Portfolio BudgetStatements 2006ndash07 Department of Treasury CanberraAccessed 2 July 2006 from lthttpwwwbudgetgovau2006-07pbshtmlindexhtmgt

Coutts J Roberts K Frost F and Coutts A 2005 TheRole of Extension in Capacity Building What Works andWhy ndash a Review of Extension in Australia in 2001ndash2003and its Implications for Developing Capacity into theFuture Rural Industries Research and DevelopmentCorporation Canberra



Crabb P 2003 Straddling boundaries inter-governmentalarrangements for managing natural resources In Dovers Sand Wild River S (eds) Managing Australiarsquos Environ-ment The Federation Press Leichhardt 229ndash254

Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry 2005About Natural Resource Management (NRM) RegionsAccessed 29 June 200 from lthttpwwwnrmgovauabout-regionsindexhtmlgt

Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry 2006Accreditation of Regional NRM Plans Accessed 18April 2006 from lthttpwwwnrmgovaunationalaccredcriteriahtmlgt

Dollery B and Crase L 2004 A critical note on lsquoeco-civicregionalisationrsquo as the basis for local government boundariesin Australia Australian Geographer 35 289ndash300

Dore J and Woodhill J 1999 Sustainable RegionalDevelopment Final Report an Australia-Wide Study ofRegionalism Highlighting Efforts to Improve the Com-munity Economy and Environment Greening AustraliaLimited Canberra

Emtage N Herbohn J and Harrison S 2006 Landholdertypologies used in the development of natural resourcemanagement programs in Australia Australasian Journalof Environmental Management 13 79ndash94

Ewing S 2003 Catchment management arrangements InDovers S and Wild River S (eds) Managing AustraliarsquosEnvironment The Federation Press Leichhardt 393ndash412

Fenton DM 2004a A Monitoring and EvaluationFramework for the Social Dimensions of the NHT andNAPSWQ Land and Water Australia Canberra

Fenton DM 2004b Framework Development Indicatorsof Capacity Performance and Change in Regional NRMBodies National Land and Water Resources Audit Canberra

Fenton DM 2004c Socio-Economic Indicators of NRM(Project A11) Indicators of Capacity Performance andChange in Regional NRM bodies National Land andWater Resources Audit Canberra

Fenton DM and Rickert A 2006a Monitoring andEvaluating the Performance of NAP SWQ RegionalBodies in Queensland State Summary Report NationalLand and Water Resources Audit Canberra

Fenton DM and Rickert A 2006b Refining Indicatorsfor Monitoring and Evaluating the Social and InstitutionalFoundations of Regional NRM Programs Department ofEnvironment and Heritage and Department of AgricultureFisheries and Forestry Canberra

Flinders University 2005 Vehicle Mileage ReimbursementInstructions Adelaide Retrieved 29 June 2006 from lthttpwwwflinderseduauhrdhtmlformsVMR_instructions-0306doc)

Graham R 2004 Excellence in investigator-driven researchIn Measuring Excellence in Research and Research Train-ing National Academies Forum The Shine Dome Can-berra 22 June 2004 Accessed 2 July 2006 from lthttpwwwnaforgauresearchexcellencegrahamhtmgt

Grains Research and Development Corporation 2006 On-line Action Plan Accessed 2 July 2006 from lthttpwwwgrdccomauaboutonline_actionhtmgt

Higgins V and Lockie S 2002 Re-discovering the socialNeo-liberalism and hybrid practices of governing in ruralnatural resource management Journal of Rural Studies18 419ndash428

ITS Global 2006 Evaluation of the National InvestmentStream of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Finalreport ITS Global Melbourne

Kingston M 2004 Brian Harradine man of honour TheSydney Morning Herald (29 June) Accessed 29 June

2006 from lthttpwwwsmhcomauarticles200406291088392648667htmlgt

Lane MB McDonald GT and Morrison TH 2004Decentralisation and environmental management inAustralia a comment on the prescriptions of TheWentworth Group Australian Geographical Studies 42103ndash115

Madden B Hayes G and Duggan K 2000 NationalInvestment in Rural Landscapes The Virtual ConsultingGroup and Griffin NRM Pty Ltd

Morrison TH 2004 Institutional integration in complexenvironments pursuing rural sustainability at the regionallevel in Australia and the USA Unpublished PhD ThesisUniversity of Queensland Brisbane

Morrison TH McDonald GT and Lane MB 2004Integrating natural resource management for betterenvironmental outcomes Australian Geographer 35243ndash258

Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2006 The Murray-DarlingBasin Agreement Canberra Accessed 2 July 2006 fromlthttpwwwmdbcgovauaboutthe_mdbc_agreementgt

Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council 2001 IntegratedCatchment Management in the Murray-Darling Basin ndash2001ndash2010 Delivering a Sustainable Future Murray-Darling Basin Commission Canberra

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2005National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality Nat-ural Heritage Trust Regional Programs Report 2004ndash05Departments of the Environment and Heritage and Agricul-ture Fisheries and Forestry Canberra

OrsquoBrien K 1999 Victorian Independent MP Wants SnowyFlow Restored lsquo730 Reportrsquo Transcript Australian Broad-casting Commission Sydney Accessed 2 July 2006 fromlthttpwwwabcnetau730storiess59334htmgt

Paton S Curtis A McDonald GT and Woods M 2004Regional natural resource management is it sustainableAustralasian Journal of Environmental Management 9205ndash217

Peters M 2006 Towards a wider debate on federal andregional governance In Federalism and Regionalism inAustralia New Approaches New Institutions A NationalSymposium NSW Farmers Association and GriffithUniversity New Parliament House Sydney 8 May 2006

Powell JM 1993 The Emergence of Regionalism in theMurray-Darling Basin Murray-Darling Basin Commis-sion Canberra

Robins L 1995 Structures and processes for communityparticipation in integrated catchment managementstrategies for the Wimmera and Yarra CatchmentsVictoria Australia Unpublished MSc DissertationEnvironmental Change Unit University of Oxford UnitedKingdom

Robins L Duggan K and Cummins T 2005 CaseStudies for Sustainable Land Management KnowledgeReview A report to the Department of Agriculture Fisheriesand Forestry by Griffin NRM Pty Ltd in association withURS Australia Pty Ltd Canberra

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation2006 About the JVAP Research Program Total ProgramBudget 2005ndash2006 Accessed 8 March 2006 from lthttpwwwrirdcgovauprogramsafthtmlTotal20program20budget201997-98gt

Sinclair Knight Merz 2006 Evaluation of Salinity Outcomesof Regional Investment Final Report Departments ofEnvironment and Heritage and Agriculture Fisheries andForestry Canberra

WalterTurnbull 2005 Evaluation of Current Governance



Arrangements to Support Regional Investment under theNHT and NAP Departments of Environment and Heritageand Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Canberra

Watts MC 2004 Getting on Track A Discussion Paperon Australiarsquos Progress Towards Ecologically Sustainable

Management of our Rural Landscapes Australian Con-servation Foundation Carlton

Wild River S 2005 Enhancing the sustainability efforts oflocal governments International Journal of Innovationand Sustainable Development 1 46ndash64

274


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290


of the regionrsquos natural resources supported by aregional NRM body (ACIL Tasman 2005)The shaping of these regional boundaries forNRM especially the influence of catchment-based approaches to management is discussedby Powell (1993) and more recently by Ewing(2003) and remains the subject of debate (Dolleryand Crase 2004) The regional institutionallandscape is complex and has changed overtime (Morrison 2004 Brown 2006) While manyregional organisations started in response todemand from communities (bottom-up) theyhave been increasingly moulded homogenisedand professionalised to deliver (top-down) pro-grams on behalf of StateTerritory Governmentsand especially the Australian Government (Doreand Woodhill 1999 Peters 2006) The currentregional arrangements are now widely perceived

as the preferred approach to NRM delivery(Sinclair Knight Merz 2006) although there aredetractors (Lane

et al

2004 ITS Global 2006)The present 56 regions represent a major shift informalising boundaries and functions creating afar more recognisable and persistent set of insti-tutional and management entities than existedpreviously

This paper examines lsquocapacity-buildingrsquo issuesconfronting the 56 regions in relation to twomajor national NRM programs the NaturalHeritage Trust Extension (NHT2) and the NationalAction Plan for Salinity and Water Quality(NAP) (Commonwealth of Australia 2001c)The NAP comprises 21 priority areas whichencompass about 30 NRM regions in whole orpart To access program resources regions musthave an accredited NRM plan and investment

Figure 1 Australiarsquos 56 NRM regions formalised under the NHT2 (Prepared by Karl Nissen Centre for Resource andEnvironmental Studies Australian National University September 2006 Regional boundary and label data sourced from httpwwwdehgovaumetadataexplorerexplorerjsp)



275











et al

2005) Coutts

et al







2



Physical remoteness


276


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





et al












277



et al



et al



et al









278


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290






Area and population




Physical remoteness
















279


(Emtage

et al





2



280

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)







190 000




WA Avon 118 000 46 000 096 787 4609 0 2 0 1 0 1 3

L R

obins and S Dovers

NR

M R

egions in Australia

281

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers












+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued

282

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers





+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued



283




2

and 1 850 000 km

2




2

)



2











2




2

andonly 21 300 km

2




284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued

























































































275











et al

2005) Coutts

et al







2



Physical remoteness


276


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





et al












277



et al



et al



et al









278


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290






Area and population




Physical remoteness
















279


(Emtage

et al





2



280

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)







190 000




WA Avon 118 000 46 000 096 787 4609 0 2 0 1 0 1 3

L R

obins and S Dovers

NR

M R

egions in Australia

281

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers












+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued

282

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers





+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued



283




2

and 1 850 000 km

2




2

)



2











2




2

andonly 21 300 km

2




284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued























































































276


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





et al












277



et al



et al



et al









278


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290






Area and population




Physical remoteness
















279


(Emtage

et al





2



280

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)







190 000




WA Avon 118 000 46 000 096 787 4609 0 2 0 1 0 1 3

L R

obins and S Dovers

NR

M R

egions in Australia

281

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers












+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued

282

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers





+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued



283




2

and 1 850 000 km

2




2

)



2











2




2

andonly 21 300 km

2




284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued

























































































277



et al



et al



et al









278


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290






Area and population




Physical remoteness
















279


(Emtage

et al





2



280

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)







190 000




WA Avon 118 000 46 000 096 787 4609 0 2 0 1 0 1 3

L R

obins and S Dovers

NR

M R

egions in Australia

281

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers












+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued

282

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers





+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued



283




2

and 1 850 000 km

2




2

)



2











2




2

andonly 21 300 km

2




284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued























































































278


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290






Area and population




Physical remoteness
















279


(Emtage

et al





2



280

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)







190 000




WA Avon 118 000 46 000 096 787 4609 0 2 0 1 0 1 3

L R

obins and S Dovers

NR

M R

egions in Australia

281

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers












+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued

282

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers





+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued



283




2

and 1 850 000 km

2




2

)



2











2




2

andonly 21 300 km

2




284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued

























































































279


(Emtage

et al





2



280

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)







190 000




WA Avon 118 000 46 000 096 787 4609 0 2 0 1 0 1 3

L R

obins and S Dovers

NR

M R

egions in Australia

281

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers












+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued

282

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers





+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued



283




2

and 1 850 000 km

2




2

)



2











2




2

andonly 21 300 km

2




284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued























































































280

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)







190 000




WA Avon 118 000 46 000 096 787 4609 0 2 0 1 0 1 3

L R

obins and S Dovers

NR

M R

egions in Australia

281

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers












+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued

282

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers





+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued



283




2

and 1 850 000 km

2




2

)



2











2




2

andonly 21 300 km

2




284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued























































































L R

obins and S Dovers

NR

M R

egions in Australia

281

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers












+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued

282

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers





+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued



283




2

and 1 850 000 km

2




2

)



2











2




2

andonly 21 300 km

2




284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued























































































282

Geographical R

esearch

bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290

copy 2007 T

he Authors



eographers





+



Area (km

2

)Pop (no)

ARIA+(0ndash15)

Travel (State) ($)

Travel (Cbr) ($)

BBD(0ndash2)

NAP(0ndash2)

MDB(0ndash2)

Cross-NAP(0 or 1)

Cross-State(0 or 1)

NRM Unis(no)

Res Ctrs (no)

Table 2

Continued



283




2

and 1 850 000 km

2




2

)



2











2




2

andonly 21 300 km

2




284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued

























































































283




2

and 1 850 000 km

2




2

)



2











2




2

andonly 21 300 km

2




284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued























































































284


bull

September 2007

bull

45(3)273ndash290





2





2

and $625 per km

2


2









State total $M

Reg avge $M



$Area $km2


3923 648 7615 19639 246



285




























Table 4 Continued

























































































285




























Table 4 Continued

































































































Table 4 Continued





























































































































































































































































































Documents

NRM Regions in Australia: the ‘Haves’ and the ‘Have Nots’