Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Protection Agency also supports the pro-burning policy discourse. This
agency is responsible for achieving 'ecologically sustainable development'
under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Queensland
State Government, 1994). The Queensland National Parks and Wildlife
Service is part of the Environmental Protection Agency with direct respon-
sibility for the management of National Parks. As outlined above, the
Environmental Protection Agency actively uses i re as a land management
tool on National Park land as part of their land management policy. This
is also in line with the rationale for the Department of Natural Resources,
Mines and Energy's i re-relevant policies (Marlow, 2000; DNR, 2001).
The pro-burning policy stance in Cape York does not, however, have
unanimous support from all stakeholders. Whilst many stakeholders are
pro-burning, including Aboriginal communities, pastoralists and govern-
ment scientists whose rationales for burning were summarized above,
there are also two key stakeholder groups who are primarily anti-burning.
These are the residents of Wattle Hills (a self-sui ciency community pursu-
ing sustainable forestry practices on their 35 650 ha property), and several
independent scientists who cite a growing body of scientii c and anecdotal
evidence that questions the environmental sustainability of the dominant
pro-burning policy paradigm in Cape York (see, for example, Ockwell and
Lovett, 2005). Cape York stakeholders can therefore be seen as polarized
between two opposing discourses of 'pro-' and 'anti-' burning.
In order to demonstrate the value of discourse analysis in understand-
ing the policy dominance of the pro-burning discourse in Cape York, we
analyse primary data in the form of the transcript of a seminar hosted
by the Cairns and Far North Environment Centre (CAFNEC) in 1992
entitled 'Tropics Under Fire. Fire Management On Cape York Peninsula'
(CAFNEC, 1992). The seminar invited stakeholders to come together and
give short, 20-minute presentations outlining their views on the use of i re
in Cape York. Overall, ten presentations were made by the stakeholders
that were present. This seminar was held some time ago and other seminars
have been held since, however, this particular seminar has been chosen for
analysis for two reasons. First, analysis of later conferences and extensive
consultation with Cape York stakeholders has demonstrated that there
has been little change in attitude since the 1992 seminar was held. Second,
the 1992 seminar constituted the widest and most equally proportioned
representation of the various stakeholder groups. The transcript thus pro-
vides a useful summary of both the pro- and anti-burning discourses from
the perspectives of all the key stakeholders and interest groups.
Double close-reading of the transcript of the seminar by both authors
forms the basis of the analysis presented here. Both Hajer's Foucauldian
and Dryzek's Habermasian frameworks for undertaking discourse analysis
