From activism to “not-quite-government”: the role of government and non-government actors in the expansion of the Australian protected area estate since 1990

Abstract

What can we learn from the prodigious expansion of the non-government protected areas that now comprise 12% of terrestrial Australia? An increasingly professional, formal, and diverse non-government sector has developed since 1990, comprising private individuals, non-government organizations, and First Nations and having close ties to governments. We investigate the drivers, dynamics, and diversity of this sector through thematic analysis of 24 key informant interviews and associated gray literature. Changing environmental movements, science-led conservation, partial recognition of First Nations land rights, international agreements, and neoliberal reforms combined to formalize the sector during the 1990s. A bipartisan policy framework for incorporating non-government lands in the national conservation estate, diverse partnerships, transnational networks, and innovation in public and private funding helped grow the sector. The confluence of interests that has transformed the politics and practice of nature conservation in Australia is likely to inform those engaged with similar changes elsewhere.

Keywords:

• environmental policy
• environmental governance
• Indigenous protected areas
• private protected areas
• environmental non-government organizations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the key informants who gave generously of their time, insights, and good will, and to Lydia Schofield who conducted three interviews and provided valuable comments on a draft of the paper. A.D. and J.B.K. acknowledge the muwinina and palawa peoples of lutruwita and B.C. and L.M.P acknowledge the people of the Woi wurrung and Boon wurrung language groups of the eastern Kulin Nation and the Taungurung people on whose unceded lands and waters we live and work.

Conflicts of interest/competing interests

BC is member of a Committee of Management for a Trust for Nature property in Victoria and receives no financial compensation for this role.

Availability of data and material (data transparency)

All primary data is held confidentially as per approved ethics protocol and will be archived in the University of Tasmania Research Data Portal.

Ethics approval

Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee (H0017689 and H0017805).

Consent to participate

Written formal consent as per approved protocol.

Consent for publication

Written formal consent as per approved protocol. Consent to be named or kept anonymous as per outlined in text.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2040452

Additional information

Funding

Funding (information that explains whether and by whom the research was supported): Australian Research Council (DP180103118).