Author
Listed:
- Karen Vella
(School of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia)
- Allan Patrick Dale
(The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia)
- Diletta Calibeo
(School of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia)
- Mark Limb
(School of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia)
- Margaret Gooch
(School of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia)
- Rachel Eberhard
(Eberhard Consulting, Fairfield Gardens, Brisbane, QLD 4103, Australia)
- Hurriyet Babacan
(The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia)
- Jennifer McHugh
(The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia)
- Umberto Baresi
(School of Architecture and Built Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia)
Abstract
The Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (Reef 2050 Plan) was crafted to protect, manage and enhance the resilience of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR). It explicitly recognises that strengthening governance is key to achieving its targeted outcomes. To date, however, the lack of evaluation of the impact of GBR governance (including many complex policies, programmes and plans) under the Reef 2050 Plan has hindered its adaption. This paper presents a first benchmark of the health of the governance system associated with the Reef 2050 Plan. A novel analytical framework was built to do this. It was populated through the gathering of multiple lines of evidence, including global theory and evaluation practice and case studies and primary data from interviews and workshops with Traditional Owners, experts across government, industry, non-government organisations and other governance systems experts. Our assessment has found the health of governance system to be emergent to maturing, yet strong by global standards. Strengths include robust global engagement, the integrative nature of the Reef 2050 Plan, crisis response systems and GBR Marine Park management. Weaknesses include the increased need for (i) power sharing with Traditional Owners; (ii) rebuilding governmental trust with the farming and fishing sectors; (iii) more contemporary spatial planning for GBR and catchment resilience; and (iv) greater subsidiarity to deliver government programmes. In conclusions, we strongly recommend that regular benchmarking and informed refinement of Reef 2050 Plan governance arrangements would mature the system toward better outcomes.
Suggested Citation
Karen Vella & Allan Patrick Dale & Diletta Calibeo & Mark Limb & Margaret Gooch & Rachel Eberhard & Hurriyet Babacan & Jennifer McHugh & Umberto Baresi, 2025.
"The Health of the Governance System for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef 2050 Plan: A First Benchmark,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-20, September.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8131-:d:1745966
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:18:p:8131-:d:1745966. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.