Conclusion
The IRGC risk governance framework was used as a heuristic in a case study of LNG development in Gladstone in order to explore what can be learned from this type of post-evaluation; to assess the implementation of risk management; to diagnose the role of the risk assessments in the implementation of risk management; and to point to areas capable of improving similar risk governance problems for resource projects in the future. The findings provide insight into risk governance and stakeholder involvement for LNG projects which is important for researchers and decision-makers seeking to increase their understanding and/or improve the effectiveness of the governance of extractive industries. To inform the analysis the research entailed extensive interviews as well as a comprehensive examination of the literature, including environmental impact statements, public submissions, reports and policy documents. The focus of the paper was the risk management phase comprising the selection of measures to avoid, minimise, mitigate and offset risk, the implementation of risk management plans, the acceptance of responsibility, risk monitoring and control, and stakeholder communication and involvement. Although there was some divergence in stakeholder views, the case study results identified a variety of aspects that have influenced the workability of the risk management phase of the IRGC risk governance process for LNG development in Gladstone. Weaknesses that negatively influenced the workability of the risk governance included the insufficient cooperation between multiple organisations, the failure to balance transparency and confidentiality, the failure to deal with dispersed responsibilities, the monitoring and control of risks, the decision-making structures and bureaucratic nature of government that caused unnecessary delays and uncertainty for other actors, and the rigid nature of the regulations in place which were detrimental to acting in the face of the unexpected. Strengths included the establishment of a variety of multi-stakeholder bodies and the GHHP report card partnership that significantly increased the cooperation between the different parties, improved the monitoring and control of risks, and helped to improve the functionality of the risk governance process in relation to stakeholder communication, involvement and trust. Therefore, the following key points were identified to improve similar risk governance problems in the future: (i) the need for risk governance to start early, (ii) the importance of risk regulation and risk governance to have adaptive capacity, (iii) the value of multi-stakeholder bodies and third party facilitation, (iv) the value of stakeholderdriven mechanisms to support decision making such as the monitoring and advisory body outlined in this case study, and (v) the importance of post-evaluation and structured systemic improvement in planning and development assessment at a governmental level. These findings could help minimize the risks, or at least point to the potential value of an inclusive, adaptive and integrative risk governance process for both future resource projects and future research purposes.
