This article uses Yarning with Country as a methodological approach where Country plays a pivotal role as an active participant. Our focus is on examining how we learn from and establish respectful, reciprocal, and accountable relationships with Country, as told through the eyes and experiences of knowledge holders, in this case, Doc Reynolds. The knowledge shared about the importance and meaning of Country contributes to advancing ecological-research methodologies to better acknowledge and learn from Indigenous knowledge systems, offering insights into sustainable practices and community engagement within landscapes. This body of knowledge serves as an invitation for Australians to reconceptualise Country, envisioning it both as a noun and a verb. As a noun, Country represents the physical landscape and environment, imbued with cultural significance and history. As a verb, it highlights the dynamic and interactive relationships that exist between people and their environment. This dual understanding encourages a deeper engagement with Country, that it is not merely a backdrop for human activity but a living entity that requires care, respect, and ongoing dialogue.
There is a global move to advocate for the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledges into conservation and land management programs. In Australia this is being reflected in some programs and also regularly in strategy documents. However, we argue that this rarely reflects self-determination for Traditional Custodians. In this article we use two Culturally Significant Entities (CSEs), the humpback and southern right whales, to demonstrate how the regulatory framework that is in place to support species conservation does not adequately allow for Traditional Custodians to extend culturally appropriate levels of care for Country or preserve the knowledge held or associated with a species. Our aim is that the Australian Government and people will work with us to find a way to support the care of CSEs. Position statement We, the authors, are Indigenous Australians. We have familial connections to whale Lore Holders and/or hold traditional whale Lore/Law as part of our cultural obligations. It is from this position that we advocate for greater care of the whales with which we have Ancestral kinship and reciprocal responsibility.
This paper synthesises the lessons learnt and challenges encountered when applying Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and methods in natural and cultural resource management (NCRM) in northern and central Australia. We primarily draw on the papers within this special issue of Ecological Management & Restoration, which originated largely from the Indigenous land management symposium at the 2010 Ecological Society of Australia conference. Many of the papers and therefore this article discuss practical experiences that offer insight for enhanced on-ground cross-cultural NCRM and can inform broader thinking and theoretical critiques. A wider literature is also drawn upon to substantiate the points and broaden the scope of the synthesis. Four key themes for consideration in collaborative cross-cultural NCRM are discussed. They are as follows: 1. The differences in environmental philosophy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultures which profoundly shape perceptions of environmental management; 2. Cross-cultural awareness of Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and methods; 3. The mechanics of two-way approaches to ecological research and managing country (NCRM as perceived by Indigenous people) and 4. Operational challenges for Indigenous NCRM organisations. To conclude, we point out five broad principles for managing country using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge: (i) Recognise the validity of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous environmental philosophies; (ii) Create more opportunities for improved cross-cultural understanding, respect and collaborations; (iii) Involve Indigenous people and their knowledge and interests at all stages of the Indigenous NCRM project or research (including planning, design, implementation, communication and evaluation); (iv) Ensure that time and continuity of effort and resources are available (to undertake participatory processes and for trust-building and innovation) and (v) Establish high-level political support through legal and policy frameworks to maintain continuity of government commitment to Indigenous NCRM.
This paper synthesises the lessons learnt and challenges encountered when applying Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and methods in natural and cultural resource management (NCRM) in northern and central Australia. We primarily draw on the papers within this special issue of Ecological Management & Restoration, which originated largely from the Indigenous land management symposium at the 2010 Ecological Society of Australia conference. Many of the papers and therefore this article discuss practical experiences that offer insight for enhanced on-ground cross-cultural NCRM and can inform broader thinking and theoretical critiques. A wider literature is also drawn upon to substantiate the points and broaden the scope of the synthesis. Four key themes for consideration in collaborative cross-cultural NCRM are discussed. They are as follows: 1. The differences in environmental philosophy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultures which profoundly shape perceptions of environmental management; 2. Cross-cultural awareness of Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and methods; 3. The mechanics of two-way approaches to ecological research and managing country (NCRM as perceived by Indigenous people) and 4. Operational challenges for Indigenous NCRM organisations. To conclude, we point out five broad principles for managing country using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge: (i) Recognise the validity of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous environmental philosophies; (ii) Create more opportunities for improved cross-cultural understanding, respect and collaborations; (iii) Involve Indigenous people and their knowledge and interests at all stages of the Indigenous NCRM project or research (including planning, design, implementation, communication and evaluation); (iv) Ensure that time and continuity of effort and resources are available (to undertake participatory processes and for trust-building and innovation) and (v) Establish high-level political support through legal and policy frameworks to maintain continuity of government commitment to Indigenous NCRM.
Indigenous land and sea managers are working across Australia for natural and cultural resource conservation. Justifying the outcomes of effort to funding bodies, the broader public and local communities is thwarted, however, by language differences, lack of technical capacity and complex local socio-economic and political histories. This paper details ways that two remote Indigenous ranger groups are collaborating with non-Indigenous ecologists to address this situation using Indigenous and non-Indigenous (two-way) techniques.
Indigenous land and sea managers are working across Australia for natural and cultural resource conservation. Justifying the outcomes of effort to funding bodies, the broader public and local communities is thwarted, however, by language differences, lack of technical capacity and complex local socio-economic and political histories. This paper details ways that two remote Indigenous ranger groups are collaborating with non-Indigenous ecologists to address this situation using Indigenous and non-Indigenous (two-way) techniques.
A version of this Topical Issue was provided as a submission to the Australian Government's discussion paper Review of Caring for Our Country: Australia's Natural Resource Management Investment Initiative. This paper has a specific focus on lessons we have learnt from working with Indigenous peoples engaged in cultural and natural resource management projects in northern Australia and New South Wales. It is based on action research currently being undertaken under the five-year research project People on Country, Healthy Landscapes and Indigenous Economic Futures (PoC) and a related three-year project investigating the socioeconomic benefits of Aboriginal people being involved in the sustainable management of their country in NSW.
Context Amidst growing international calls for inclusive conservation and a backdrop of declining species and cultural diversity, Indigenous-led approaches that offer opportunities for biocultural benefits are of growing interest. Species prioritisation is one area that can be decolonised, shifting from quantitative, large-scale threatened species metrics to pluralistic, place-based approaches that include culturally significant species. Aim This study aimed to establish a list of priority animals of concern to Ŋaḻapaḻmi (senior knowledge holders) in the Laynhapuy Indigenous Protected Area, north-eastern Arnhem Land, Australia. This list could focus the research and management efforts of the Yirralka Rangers and collaborators. Methods Adhering to local governance structures, through six group-elicitation sessions, Ŋaḻapaḻmi were asked to identify animals of concern and describe reasons for concern. Existing occurrence records and threat status of these species were compiled to assess baseline data and guide next steps. Results The Ŋaḻapaḻmi-defined Laynhapuy Priority Animal List contained 30 animals (species/groups), with the highest-ranked animals including Marrtjinyami wäyin (walking animals), Rupu (possums), and Djanda (goannas), all mammals and varanid lizards. The list of 30 animals included 43 species from a Western-science perspective, of which 12 were also listed as threatened through Western conservation frameworks. Some animals were considered high priority locally, such as the waṉ'kurra (northern brown bandicoot, Isoodon macrourus), although not a concern from a Western-science perspective, demonstrating mismatch between local and larger-scale approaches. To help disentangle whether this mismatch is due to cultural significance and/or localised decline not captured at larger-scale assessments, we provide the animal's publicly known Yolŋu clan connections and reasons for concern alongside existing baseline occurrence data. Recent collaborative surveys have substantially increased data for Laynhapuy Priority Animals, demonstrating the benefits of community engaged wildlife research. Conclusions Multidisciplinary research collaborations can produce Indigenous-led 'working' lists of priority animals to guide culturally attuned on-ground action. Approaches that draw on different cultural knowledge systems require interrogation of how knowledge is created and conveyed to ensure mutual comprehension and practical use. Implications Indigenous-led approaches offer possibilities for enhanced management of species by local groups, with anticipated co-benefits to species and cultural knowledge.
AbstractGlobal climate change can interact with local drivers, such as ecosystem engineers, to exacerbate changes in ecosystem structure and function, with socio-ecological consequences. For regions of Indigenous interest, there may also be cultural consequences if species and areas affected are culturally significant. Here we describe a participatory approach between the Indigenous (Yolngu) Yirralka Rangers and non-Indigenous researchers that explored the interaction between sea level rise and feral ungulate ecosystem engineers on culturally significant floodplains in the Laynhapuy Indigenous Protected Area (IPA), northern Australia. A feral ungulate exclusion fence array (12 fenced and 12 unfenced plots) was stratified by elevation/salinity to disentangle the effects of salinity and ungulates on floodplain soil and vegetation. We found that exclusion of feral ungulates improved ground cover vegetation, which, according to our literature-derived ecosystem process model, may enhance soil trapping and reduce evapotranspiration to provide the antecedent conditions needed to improve floodplain resilience to sea level rise. The mid-zone of the supratidal floodplain study site was suggested as the region where the benefits of fencing were most pronounced after two years and ground cover species diversity was highest. Ongoing monitoring is required to investigate whether removal of feral ungulates can increase resilience against sea level rise and recruitment of eco-culturally significant Melaleuca species. An interview with a key Yolngu Traditional Owner of the study site demonstrated the importance and effectiveness of the partnership. Yolngu land owners and rangers were active co-researchers and will decide if, when and how to integrate results into feral ungulate management and climate adaptation responses, highlighting the importance of industry-university partnerships in maximising biocultural conservation outcomes.
Warning This article contains names and/or images of deceased Aboriginal Peoples. Context The global biological-diversity crisis has resulted in a widespread uptake of market mechanisms to promote conservation. Despite widespread recognition of Indigenous-led contribution to biodiveristy conservation, market mechanisms are often derived from Western scientific approaches that do not appropriately incorporate Indigenous cultural values and objectives. Aims This research sought to produce a proof-of-concept case study for a novel 'Biocultural Credit Assessment Framework' (BCAF) to facilitate design of an Indigenous-led biocultural conservation project in response to ongoing decline of culturally significant fauna in north-eastern Arnhem Land, Australia. The BCAF is underpinned by Indigenous identification of project dimensions, combining biological and cultural values and aspirations, which could form assessable foundations of a potential Indigenous-led biocultural credit project. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine Yolŋu Elders over 2 days. A three-stage thematic analysis using pre-defined coding categories and both latent and semantic level analysis were used to elucidate key components of a biocultural project from Elder responses, including biocultural concerns, actions, targets and indicators. Key results Yolŋu Elders expressed six key concerns about local fauna, including the following: that some animals were no longer seen; youth were not learning cultural knowledge; invasive-species impacts; reliance on shop food; and Western influences. These concerns were linked to three key targets, including improved cultural transmission, access and use of more bush foods, and seeing 'species of decline' again. Ten key indicator groups assessed by a mix of Indigenous and Western methodologies were identified and revolved around biophysical and cultural learning parameters to measure the impact of actions to progress targets. In total, six actions were identified, including spending more time on Country, science-based environmental management strategies and knowledge sharing. Conclusions The BCAF elucidated key components of an Indigenous-led biocultural conservation project as identified by Elders. A mix of biophysical and cultural learning indicators assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively could be used to feed into a potential biocultural credit market to enhance project delivery. Implications Further research is required to progress this conceptual framework with Cultural Advisors and real financial partners to further elucidate challenges, opportunities, and next steps towards an inclusive biocultural market.
