Collaboration at programme management level

Given that collaboration is a key aspect of ICM theory and practice it is of little surprise that the Motueka ICM programme used a number of different collaborative processes

throughout its life to bring together different actors, groups and institutions. These

collaborative processes came in many shapes and forms and ranged from the programme’s management structure to hands-on collaborative focused projects (e.g. Sherry River). Guston (1999) claims that boundary organisations aim to bring together actors and groups

from both sides of the science-policy divide in order to foster collaboration and build relationships. The connection between ICM and boundary organisations is highlighted by Carr and Wilkinson (2005) who claim that ICM committees provided useful examples of boundary organisations due to their ability to blur the lines between science and policy from an environmental perspective.

At the programme management level, collaboration could be seen through the management structure of the ICM programme which was driven by the three partner agencies Landcare, Cawthron and TDC. This partnership was unique as it included a Crown Research Institute (Landcare), an independent research institute (Cawthron) and a District/Regional Council (TDC).

While the ICM programme may have liked to present the image that its three-way management partnership was a classic example of collaboration, evidence collected by Smith et al. (2010), Lawrence (2010) and this study suggest that this partnership was in fact far from perfect. A number of the actors involved in the programme felt that TDC had not engaged and collaborated enough with the ICM programme. They felt that this lack of integration between the TDC and the programme resulted in a disconnect at the policy end of the ICM partnership. This lack of collaboration on TDC’s part is seen by some CRG

members and non-governmental group representatives as being the reason the ICM programme failed to produce more locally focused policy outcomes.

Both Smith et al. (2010) and Lawrence (2010) argue that this weak collaborative partnership could possibly have been improved through focusing on approaches such as embedding the ICM programme’s research within the TDC through information officers or even placing ICM researchers within the TDC building. While these kinds of embedding science into policy institutes approaches may seem like a good idea for increasing science-driven policy outputs, it needs to be remembered that the policy development cycle is a deep-rooted institutional system that is unlikely to be changed due to the work of a few scientists or an information officer handing out reports.

2000; Jasanoff, 1987; Pielke, 2004; Sarewitz, 2004) have become increasingly concerned that science is losing this attribute of trust as different outside forces have attempted to interfere and manipulate environmental science to suit their own political and economic goals. One way the ICM programme was able to manage the issues of trust and credibility was through its collaborative management structure.

As the programme was managed by both research institutes and a local resource

management agency it was able to represent itself as neither a strictly scientific experiment nor a council-driven initiative, but rather a community/stakeholder focused combination of the two. By representing the ICM programme in this light its managers were able to show the actors, groups and communities who make up the catchment that the programme was indeed salient, credible and legitimate.

Given the regulatory role of TDC it was not surprising that some members of the catchment communities had a negative view of the council. As the TDC was a partner of the ICM programme this undesirable view of the TDC could have reduced the credibility of the

programme for some members of the public. This risk was mitigated by the fact that the TDC role was kept in balance by the other two programme partners Landcare and Cawthron, which were both research institutions as opposed to government bodies or agencies. This balance between research organisations and the regional authority was crucial in

maintaining a high level of credibly in the public’s eyes, as it showed that while the TDC was involved in the ICM programme it was not running the programme alone without oversight from its partner institutes.

The TDC involvement in the programme was not all negative in regard to the knowledge attributes. As the TDC is the most active government body in the Motueka catchment, it in many ways represents the government and democracy at a local level. Given that the TDC role is to ultimately serve the people of the Motueka area through supplying it with utilities and managing its resources, its involvement in the ICM programme was crucial in order to establish both salience and legitimacy in the eyes of the rate-paying public. As the TDC has been dealing with catchment related issues for decades it was able to share its knowledge with the ICM programme in order to focus their research on salient and relevant issues. Through having the TDC as a partner the ICM programme was able to harness the council’s

knowledge and skills while also protecting its own credibility and legitimacy through keeping a safe distance from TDCs own political issues.

Cash (2001) argues that in order for boundary organisations to work across the boundaries of science and policy they need to be seen as accountable to both sides. The ICM

programme appears to have managed this relationship through its management structure which remained accountable to its funders, the TDC and the people of the catchment. For example, the ICM programme’s accountability to different actors both within and outside of the ICM programme can be seen on numerous levels and scales. From a financial perspective the programme was responsible to the Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FRST) who provided the funding for the programme. This accountability to FRST came in the form of the contract signed to produce certain research outcomes (reports, published

articles) from the ICM programme in exchange for the millions of dollars FRST invested. As the ICM programme was held within the Tasman district and in partnership with the TDC it was also accountable to the council. This accountability to the council was primarily linked to the programme producing research outputs which the council required to address

catchment issues. The programme’s strong community and stakeholder focus meant that many members of the public invested significant amounts of their own time into the

programme. As a response to the strong community and stakeholder buy-in the programme received, it was held accountable for its actions by catchment stakeholders, iwi and

community members.