doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00629.x FEATURE

1 2 3 Conservation planning in a cross- 4 5 6 cultural context: the Wunambal 7 8 9 Gaambera Healthy Country Project in 10 11 the Kimberley, Western Australia 12 13 By Heather Moorcroft, Emma Ignjic, Stuart Cowell, John Goonack, Sylvester Mangolomara, 14 Janet Oobagooma, Regina Karadada, Dianna Williams and Neil Waina 15 16 17 18 This article illustrates how a 19 conservation planning 20 21 approach combined 22 Indigenous knowledge and 23 Western science to support 24 Indigenous Traditional 25 Owners to make decisions 26 about managing their 27 ancestral lands and seas,

28 Colour online, B&W in print 29 and communicate more 30 strategically with external 31 stakeholders 32 33 Key words: conservation planning, Envi- Figure 1. Traditional Owners and project partners in the men’s group during a planning work- 34 ronmental Non-Government Organisations, 35 shop for the Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country Project. (Photo: Wunambal Gaambera Aborigi- Indigenous knowledge, Traditional Owners, nal Corporation). 36 Western science. 37 38 Regina Karadada isaGaamberaelder,aWun- An Emerging Collaborative 39 Heather Moorcroft is a conservation planner ambal Gaambera Traditional Owner and WGAC Conservation Space 2 40 and PhD candidate at the Australian Centre for Director; Sylvester Mangolomara is a Wunambal 41 Cultural Environmental Research (University of man, a Wunambal Gaambera Traditional Owner here is a growing recognition in the 42 Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, and Wunambal Gaambera Senior Cultural Advi- TAustralian conservation sector that 43 Australia; Tel: 0401 414 732; Email: hmoor- sor; Janet Oobagooma is a Wunambal elder and to address national environmental 44 [email protected]). Emma Ignjic is an Indige- Wunambal Gaambera Traditional Owner; Neil challenges and achieve conservation 45 nous Partnerships Officer with Bush Heritage Waina is a Gaambera man, a Wunambal Gaam- outcomes, partnerships with Indige- 46 Australia (PO Box 329, Flinders Lane, Melbourne, bera Traditional Owner and Head Uunguu Ran- nous land owners are essential (Ross 47 Victoria 8009, Australia; Email: eignjic@bushheri- ger; Dianna Williams isaGaamberaelder,a et al. 2008; National Biodiversity Strat- 48 tage.org.au). Stuart Cowell is Conservation Pro- Wunambal Gaambera Traditional Owner and egy Review Task Group 2009). 49 grams Manager with the Tasmanian Land WGAC Cultural Advisor Director, [PMB 16 This recognition is welcomed by 50 Conservancy and was previously with Bush Heri- (Kalumburu) via Wyndham, Western Australia, Indigenous land owners. In 2008, the 51 tage Australia (PO Box 2112, Lower Sandy Bay, 6740, Australia]. This article is a narrative of total Indigenous land estate was 52 Tasmania 7005; Email: [email protected]). John aspects of a conservation planning process. It is approximately 20% of the Australian 53 Goonack is a Wunambal man, a Wunambal Ga- based on the views of the authors who were continent (Australian Government 54 ambera Traditional Owner and Wunambal Gaam- involved in the process. Traditional Owners have 2010). Most Indigenous held land is 55 bera Aboriginal Corporation (WGAC) Director; 1 approved the article and the use of the images. remote, largely intact and has high

ª 2011 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 1

EMR 629 Dispatch: 12.12.11 Journal: EMR CE: Gayathri J. Journal Name Manuscript No. B Author Received: No. of pages: 9 PE: Radhika FEATURE

1 conservation value (Altman et al. co-managed with Indigenous Tradi- Alcorn (1993) argued that conserva- 2 2007). However, the natural and cul- tional Owners) added another 9.8% tion is best achieved through partner- 3 tural assets of this estate are facing (Australian Government 2010). In ships between conservationists and 4 increasing threats and pressures, many other words, Indigenous held lands Indigenous peoples. With a growing 5 that were not present in pre-European can be considered a cornerstone of recognition of Indigenous peoples’ 6 Australia, such as destruction of cul- Australia’s protected areas. rights, particularly as owners of areas 7 tural sites as a result of development A new conservation approach is of high biodiversity, there has also 8 actions (Vinnicombe 2002). Managing evolving in this context, providing been support to address the social 9 these vast and largely inaccessible opportunities for collaborations between impacts of conservation (Springer 10 landscapes can be resource intensive, Indigenous Australians and the conserva- 2009). The recognition of the inter- 11 and Traditional Owners and their rep- tion sector. Historically, ENGOs based connectedness of biological diversity 12 resentative bodies are seeking support their conservation efforts on cultural and cultural diversity (Perry et al. 13 from external organisations to help perspectives dominated by non-Indige- 2009) is driving a major paradigm shift 3 14 plan for (Fig. 1) and manage these nous people, ‘a community of scien- among Western conservationists who 15 areas, particularly for conservation tists’ (Brockington 2010) and a accepts human use and occupation of 16 (Dhimurru 2008; Hoffman et al. in preservationist belief. The Western the environment as integral to finding 17 press). preservationist view of ‘wilderness’ a common ground of sustainability 18 The Indigenous estate has made a contends that there is an inverse rela- (Berkes 2008: 237). A number of EN- 19 substantial (in terms of area at the tionship between humans and the nat- GOs in Australia have developed Indig- 20 least) contribution to Australia’s ural environment, a dichotomy of enous engagement polices, employ 21 National Reserve System (NRS), nature and culture (Berkes 2008). By Aboriginal people and have Indige- 22 mainly through Indigenous Protected contrast, Indigenous Australians’ rela- nous Australians on their management 23 Areas (IPAs). IPAs are Australia’s tionship with the environment is boards. Many, such as WWF Australia 24 equivalent to internationally recogni- firmly based on the connectedness of and Bush Heritage Australia (BHA), 25 sed Community Conserved Areas, humans and the natural environment, have Indigenous partnership pro- 26 which are landscapes of natural or on ancestral association and resource grammes. Some ENGOs further 27 cultural significance, voluntarily man- utilisation (Rose 2005). Reinforcing acknowledge that conservation out- 28 aged or conserved by local commu- dualistic world views in environmen- comes on a collaborative project with 29 nities (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. tal campaigns and management has Traditional Owners can only be 30 2004). In 2008, the NRS covered sometimes resulted in conflict achieved if the project also supports 31 12.8% of Australia (Fig. 2). Private between Indigenous people and the cultural, social and economic out- 32 reserves, owned mainly by Environ- conservation sector (Herath 2002; comes, such as sustainable livelihoods 33 mental Non-Government Organisa- Adams 2008; Pickerill 2009). It has for Traditional Owners. 34 tions (ENGOs), contributed to over also resulted in imposed control and Castree and Head (2008) ask 35 4% of the NRS. In contrast, IPAs restrictions on Indigenous people’s whether we are reaching a time in 36 made up 19.4% of the NRS and ability to use and occupy their ances- Australia when we have passed this 37 shared management protected areas tral estates (Langton et al. 2005; Pear- dualism of world views, and note 38 (includes reserves jointly managed or son 2010). the importance of reporting on 39 approaches that challenge this dual- 40 ism. In this article, we describe the 41 challenges of adapting a widely used 42 ‘dualist’ conservation planning and 43 prioritisation tool so that it respects 44 and privileges Indigenous knowledge 45 and ownership whilst maintaining 46 the benefits of its Western science 47 base. 48 49 50 Wunambal Gaambera Colour online, B&W in print 51 Country and its People 52 Wunambal Gaambera Country covers 53 approximately 2.5 million hectares of 54 Figure 2. Diagram highlighting the importance of the Indigenous estate in Australia’s expanding the north Kimberley region of Austra- 55 National Reserve System. lia, including land and sea (Fig. 3).

2 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 ª 2011 Ecological Society of Australia FEATURE

1 continued their efforts for proper rec- 2 ognition and responsibility. 3 Coinciding with Wunambal Gaam- 4 bera actions, public and private sec- 5 tor interest in the north Kimberley 6 region increased through tourism, 7 mining, oil and gas processing, the 8 establishment of further reserves, and 9 National Heritage assessment under 10 the Commonwealth’s Environment 11 Protection and Biodiversity Conser- 12 vation Act 1999. Along with these 13 increasing external pressures, the 14 passing of a number of Wunambal 15 Gaambera elders who had the vision 16 and strength to pursue recognition 17 and control of their ancestral estates 18 Figure 3. Maps showing the location and area of Wunambal Gaambera Country. added urgency and significance to 19 the task of seeking respect and rec- 20 ognition as the owners and managers 21 Wunambal Gaambera Country is part Derby, Broome and Kununurra. Today of their ancestral estate. 22 of the Wanjina Wunggurr commu- one family group lives permanently on In 2006, the WGAC, on behalf of 23 nity. Wunambal Gaambera people call their family group’s ancestral estate Traditional Owners, prepared the Uun- 24 their ancestral estate, their ‘country’, (their graa)atKandiwalonNgau- guu Tourism Plan (WGAC 2006) to 25 Uunguu – their living home. Uunguu wudu (the Mitchell Plateau), and manage impacts and secure benefits 26 culture is based on Wanjina Wung- other families regularly visit their own from tourism activities on Wunambal 27 gurr Law, and it is unique to, and can graa. There are 10 graa in Wunambal Gaambera Country. Development of a 28 only exist in, Wunambal Gaambera Gaambera Country. ‘healthy country’ (see Rose 1996; Bur- 29 Country, as it has for millennia. Its Wunambal Gaambera Traditional gess et al. 2005) framework to sup- 30 ongoing contribution to the diversity Owners have striven to ensure that port these activities was identified as a 31 of Australian culture is dependent on they are respected and recognised as priority under the Tourism Plan. 32 Wunambal Gaambera people main- the owners and managers of their Consequently, the WGAC sought 33 taining their natural and cultural assets ancestral estate. In 1998, the Wunam- assistance from a number of organisa- 34 on country. Wunambal Gaambera peo- bal Gaambera Traditional Owners tions to help develop and then imple- 35 ple’s long-term presence is depicted in incorporated the Wunambal Gaambera ment a ‘healthy country’ framework. 36 the extensive rock art sites and in the Aboriginal Corporation (WGAC) as the That framework, the Wunambal Gaam- 37 wealth of Indigenous knowledge that formal governance body responsible bera Healthy Country Project (the 38 continues to be maintained. to them for management of Wunambal WGHCP), was conceptualised in two 39 Wunambal Gaambera Country is Gaambera Country. The Wunambal phases: through a 2-year participatory 40 recognised for its rich cultural and Gaambera Traditional Owners lodged planning process followed by a 10- 41 natural assets. It is part of the area cov- their native title determination applica- year implementation stage, both for- 42 ered by the West Kimberley National tion under Australia’s Native Title Act malised by legal agreements between 43 Heritage Listing and the North Kimber- 1993 in 1999. Subsequently, in 2001 WGAC and their partners. In 2011, 44 ley National Biodiversity Hotspot. It they prepared a management plan for Wunambal Gaambera native title was 45 has a number of listings of Nationally a part of their estate, Ngauwudu,in determined over 25 000 km2 of land 46 Important Wetlands and Priority 1 and response to the Western Australian and sea. 47 Priority 2 Wild Rivers (Australian Gov- Government’s declaration of four 48 ernment 2011). Three of the World conservation reserves over parts of The Wunambal Gaambera 49 Wide Fund for Nature’s Global 200 Pri- Wunambal Gaambera Country, which Healthy Country Project 50 ority Eco-regions include Wunambal included Ngauwudu. The Traditional 51 Gaambera Country (World Wide Fund Owners believed these declarations The Wunambal Gaambera Traditional 52 for Nature 2010). were imposed without adequate con- Owners sought the right to make deci- 53 The Wunambal Gaambera people sent as required by the Native Title Act sions about their estates, through a 54 (of approximately 400) reside mainly 1993. Despite this, the reserves voluntary commitment to conserva- 55 in the Kimberley towns of Kalumburu, remained and Traditional Owners have tion management and the use of

ª 2011 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 3 FEATURE

1 non-Indigenous planning approaches provided funds in support of the plan- social, economic well-being and Wun- 2 in a ‘community-centric’ way. The ning process. WWF Australia Program ambal Gaambera capacity is central to 3 WGHCP identifies and articulates the funded the completion of the ethnobi- achieving conservation outcomes. 4 principle values of ‘healthy country’ in ological project during the time of the Biodiversity, within the Wanjina Wung- 5 modern contexts and maintains those ‘healthy country’ planning process. gurr cultural context, would need to 6 values consistent with Wanjina As Sylvester Mangolomara, Wunam- include the human element. The plan- 7 Wunggurr Law under the direction of bal man and Wunambal Gaambera ning process and timeframes also had to 8 Traditional Owners (Vigilante & Mang- Senior Cultural Advisor, explains: be flexible. The process had to respect 9 olomara 2007). and support Traditional Owners’ local We got to go back to country and look 10 Although the WGHCP is coordi- priorities, governance structures, knowl- after our place. That’s where we get 11 nated and directed by the Traditional edge systems, capabilities and objec- more stronger – from the country and 12 Owners through WGAC, it is a collabo- tives. The following sections outline from the spirit in our country. We got 13 rative project involving a number of some examples of how the planning to work all together now and find 14 partner organisations: BHA – a national process was adapted to achieve these somehow to protect them. Not just 15 not-for-profit ENGO that provides requirements while trying to maintain the land but the islands too, and look 16 funds, advice, technical support – facil- the strengths of a ‘Western’ conserva- after the songs – keep them alive. 17 itated the planning process; and the tion planning tool. That’s why we need others to give us 18 Kimberley Land Council (KLC) – as the a hand to see what to do – business Respecting and valuing the 19 regional Traditional Owner representa- way you know … When we’re help- different social constructs 20 tive body that supports Traditional ing each other we can really go out 21 Owners with technical expertise, Conservation Action Planning was and do it … I can’t do it by myself – I 22 advice, logistics – promotes Traditional adapted in two key ways. Firstly, to need support too. From people who 23 Owner interests as paramount. Other support meaningful contribution by maybe want to help us – how to set 24 partners include the Australian planning participants, the process, up and all that. 25 Government’s IPA Program, which typically driven by conservation plan- 26 provides funds towards the planning ners and facilitators, incorporated 27 and management of IPAs; the Northern Indigenous governance structures, The Planning Process 28 Australian Indigenous Land and Sea local protocols and priorities. Sec- 29 Management Alliance (NAILSMA), By working through the structured ondly, core CAP concepts, based on 30 which provides technical advice; and CAP process, it became evident to the ecological processes and systems, 31 The Nature Conservancy (TNC), which planning participants that the wider were adapted so they included 32 33 34 Box1.ConservationActionPlanning 35 36 Conservation Action Planning (CAP) is a process for planning, implementing and measuring results for conservation projects 37 developed over the last 25 years by the US-based TNC (http://www.nature.org). CAP guides project teams to prioritise strate- 4 38 gies through a consistent process that links targets (assets) to actions and outcomes. CAP is supported by Excel-based software 39 and an extensive global network of practitioners and coaches. CAP is gradually becoming synonymous with three other tools 40 and approaches used for conservation planning globally – the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (http://www. 41 conservationmeasures.org), the Miradi planning software and the ConPro database. 42 The Open Standards were prepared to ‘bring together common concepts, approaches, and terminology in conservation project 43 design, management, and monitoring in order to help practitioners improve the practice of conservation’ (http://tinyurl.com/ 44 67rzxve). They were developed by the Conservation Measures Partnership, a collaboration of 13 NGOs, including WWF, TNC 45 and Conservation International together with the World Commission on Protected Areas and International Union for the Conser- 46 vation of Nature. 47 Miradi (http://tinyurl.com/5r8yd7a) is a software tool developed to support the Open Standards. Miradi helps to manage the 48 information relationships between the many objectives, strategies and actions that ultimately go to make up a conservation plan, 49 rather than having to try and do many of these tasks manually. 50 ConPro (http://conpro.tnc.org/) is a web-based database that records the outputs of either the CAP Excel tool or Miradi and 51 allows other teams ⁄ individuals to search those projects based on a range of criteria. 52 Both CAP and Miradi are increasingly being used in landscape and property conservation planning projects throughout Austra- 53 lia, including well-known landscape projects (e.g. Gondwana Link), and as the primary planning tools for a number of ENGOs. 54 The tools are also increasingly being adapted to support Indigenous community use (http://tinyurl.com/683gedb). 55

4 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 ª 2011 Ecological Society of Australia FEATURE

1 categories defined by Wunambal Ga- adapted the process to incorporate The larger workshops and the trav- 2 ambera Traditional Owners and incor- both ways. elling workshop provided people with 3 porated Indigenous knowledge. These the opportunity to visit country and Adaptations for supporting 4 changes, elaborated below, reflect the supported the Indigenous protocol of meaningful contribution 5 Karparti approach described by ‘being on country in order to speak for 6 Horstman and Wightman (2001) when We developed adaptations to the typi- country’. As Dianna Williams, Gaam- 7 commenting on their ethnobiological cal conservation planning process to bera elder, stated: 8 work with Traditional Owners of the support meaningful contribution by The most important thing is for 9 same area. participants. Four of these are dis- people to get in contact with the land 10 Although the non-Indigenous facili- cussed below. – the soil. All them young ones. To 11 tators from the partner organisations, take care of country you need to sit 12 who have a Western science back- Planning on country on it. 13 ground, were well respected by 14 other Indigenous groups they had Location was an important part of the Convening large group meetings on 15 worked with, they were vetted by planning process, as such, workshops country is logistically challenging and 16 Traditional Owners. This was to were held on Wunambal Gaambera costly. Some Wunambal Gaambera 17 ensure they had adequate under- Country. Several large workshops Traditional Owners are quite elderly 18 standing and respect of Indigenous were run with representatives from all and immobile, and some require regu- 19 world views, Wunambal Gaambera the Wunambal Gaambera family lar medication. However, despite 20 circumstances and that their groups. These workshops were held these challenges and the cost, the 21 approach would be inclusive. at the dry season ranger camp at Gar- large workshops held at the early 22 Wunambal Gaambera Traditional mbemirri, on the Anjo Peninsula stages of the project made it easier for 23 Owners and their ‘healthy country’ (Fig. 1). Following these, a smaller people to understand issues and relate 24 partners recognised that Wanjina workshop was held at Kalumburu to non-Indigenous, relatively abstract 25 Wunggurr needed to be inherent in specifically work on developing objec- planning concepts to Indigenous 26 the process. This presented some tives, strategies and actions. The final knowledge. Concurrent flora and 27 challenges as Wanjina Wunggurr planning workshop was a ‘travelling fauna survey work and recording 28 and the chosen planning approach of road show’, with meetings in Kalumb- Indigenous knowledge as part of the 29 CAP are very different constructs, as uru, Kandiwal and Derby and visits to ethnobiological project helped to 30 illustrated in Fig. 4. Traditional Own- country at Munurru (King Edward inform workshop discussions, as well 31 ers and the partners respected and Crossing), Wandadjingari (Port War- as supported transfer of knowledge 32 valued the differences that these two render) and Punamii-Unpuu (Mitch- within the Wunambal Gaambera com- 33 constructs brought to the process and ell Falls). munity. Conducting workshops over a 34 few days also meant that people could 35 visit nearby cultural sites, go hunting 36 or fishing, collect bush foods or paint. 37 As discussed by Walsh and Mitchell 38 (2002), such gatherings are viewed as 39 critical in Indigenous society today 40 where the process can be just as signif- 41 icant as the outcome. 42 43 44 Utilising Indigenous governance 45 structures 46 Local governance structures were 47 supported in numerous ways,

48 Colour online, B&W in print including establishing a steering 49 group made up of a majority of 50 senior Traditional Owners and con- 51 vening a working group represent- 52 ing each family group, to develop 53 objectives, strategies and actions, 54 Figure 4. Diagram illustrating the different constructs of Conservation Action Planning and some of which were specific to 55 Wanjina Wunggurr. each graa. Breaking into men’s and

ª 2011 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 5 FEATURE

1 women’s groups during workshops this issue, a plain language glossary addition to identifying tangible tar- 2 encouraged free discussion and was developed and referred to gets such as valuable food species, 3 accommodated avoidance relation- throughout the process (http://www. Traditional Owners also identified 4 ship restrictions (see Fig. 1). Issues conservationgateway.org/file/cap-plain- customary obligations, which have 5 about particular cultural matters english). Local Indigenous language intangible benefits such as ‘Wanjina 6 were referred to relevant senior terms were also used, particularly for Wunggurr Law’ and ‘right way fire’, 7 people, as Neil Waina, Head Uun- places, plants and animals. as described below. The conservation 8 guu Ranger and Gaambera man, targets became simply the ‘really 9 noted: important things about country’. Adapting the concepts 10 Interestingly, but not surprisingly, a … most of the time some women too 11 In addition to supporting meaningful number of the ‘really important shy and that encouraged them to 12 contribution during the actual plan- things’ identified by Traditional Own- speak up… broken into the two 13 ning process, the concepts within the ers had parallels to what would be groups… feel comfortable with that 14 CAP were also adapted in various ways considered standard or usual conser- group so more willing to talk… even 15 – from definition of the project area, vation targets in a non-Indigenous our young people had a bit more 16 inclusion of tangible and intangible context. The main threats identified thing to say too. I don’t like talking 17 cultural targets and threats to culture, were threats to the ‘really important over our old people… I take advice 18 as well as the incorporation of social things about country’, such as ‘loss from them. 19 and cultural indicators. These adapta- of traditional knowledge’, ‘not being 20 tions enabled an Indigenous world secure on country’ and ‘visitors not 21 view and respect for Wanjina Wung- being respectful’. These were com- Adopting flexible timeframes and provid- 22 gurr to be combined with a non-Indig- bined with the more standard ecolog- ing regular feedback 23 enous world view and Western ical threats that Traditional Owners 24 The process for developing the plan science. recognise as important. Similarly, as 25 was not hurried and it respected peo- Identifying the project area as the well as the usual biological indica- 26 ple’s obligations and priorities. Meet- whole of Wunambal Gaambera Coun- tors, social and cultural indicators 27 ing dates changed several times try, including both land and sea, were identified to monitor the health 28 because of cultural responsibilities reflected cultural responsibilities and of country. 29 such as ‘sorry business’ (mourning relationships, rather than bio-geo- 30 and funeral practices). This resulted in graphical or other non-Indigenous spa- ‘Wanjina Wunggurr Law’ as a 31 extensions to the initial planning time- tial boundaries. conservation ‘target’ 32 frame. Conservation Action Planning tar- 33 Regular feedback was given to par- gets are usually natural assets such as Wunambal Gaambera people believe 34 ticipants throughout the process. This ecological systems. However, the that if they are not on their graa,pass- 35 included revisiting what had been dis- value of an asset for Traditional Own- ing on their Indigenous knowledge and 36 cussed and agreed to during previous ers reflects resource utilisation following traditional Wanjina Wung- 37 workshops, summing up at the con- and ⁄ or cultural significance and cus- gurr Law, then the Country, including 38 clusion of each workshop, and prepar- tomary obligations as well as the its people, will not be healthy. As Syl- 39 ing regular pictorial reports for biodiversity value. Animals such as vester Mangolomara explains: 40 participants to read between work- jebarra (emu, Dromaius novaehol- Traditional knowledge makes us 41 shops. landiae), aamba (kangaroos and stronger and shows that we belong to 42 wallabies), mangguru (marine tur- the land. Keeping our culture strong, 43 tles) and balguja (dugong, Dugong Using appropriate terms and language that makes us the person we are – 44 dugon) are valuable food species and Wunambal. If we don’t look after 45 One of the first steps in any participa- were therefore identified as targets country – that makes us nobody. We 46 tory planning process is to ensure that (WGAC 2010). need to hang onto that and teach our 47 participants understand and are famil- For Wunambal Gaambera people, younger generations so they can fol- 48 iar with the process. CAP has its own customary practices passed down low our footsteps. We got to keep it 49 language with terms such as critical through generations honour ancestral alive all the time. 50 threats, situation analysis and stres- obligations. Traditional Owners 51 sors. These terms are technical jargon believe that if such practices are not During the planning process, 52 derived from the Western science dis- maintained, then this will impact neg- Wanjina Wunggurr Law was impli- 53 ciplines of ecology and conservation atively on the ‘health’ of the country, cit to all decisions made about the 54 planning. Such terms had little mean- as these activities interconnect ‘really important things about coun- 55 ing to Traditional Owners. To address with everything – with Uunguu.In try’. However, it was not until after

6 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 ª 2011 Ecological Society of Australia FEATURE

1 the second workshop that it diversity, number of hectares burnt 2 became evident that ‘Wanjina Wung- and water quality were comple- 3 gurr Law’ needed to be the number mented by social and cultural indica- 4 one conservation target. ‘Wanjina tors such as amount of time spent 5 Wunggurr Law’, as the most impor- on country, amount of Indigenous 6 tant target, anchored the plan to an knowledge being passed on, the 7 Indigenous world view, rather than availability and taste of certain 8 that of a non-Indigenous perspective foods, the amount of fat on some 9 privileging biodiversity conservation. animals, the number of visits to cul- 10 It clearly demonstrated the cultural tural sites, who is making decisions 11 reality of Traditional Owners con- about management and who is car- 12 Figure 5. Uunguu Rangers Elton Waina nection to their Country. It sup- Colour online, B&W in print rying out the management (see also and Raymond Waina checking cultural sites 13 ported Traditional Owners’ expertise Fitzsimons et al. 2011 this issue). while doing a ‘firewalk’. Carrying out field 14 and primary aspirations to maintain activities such as ‘firewalks’ during the plan- For example, if the bush apple is 15 control and ownership of the pro- ning process informed workshop discussions. sweet and juicy, or if there is a 16 cess and the plan. (Photo: Robert Warren). good amount of tail fat on a kanga- 17 roo, then this can be an indication 18 that burning is being carried out in ‘Right way fire’ as a conservation ‘target’ 19 checking and maintaining sites and the right way and that the country 20 ‘Right way fire’ refers to burning 5 carrying out ‘right way fire’ (Fig. 5). is ‘healthy’. 21 according to customary responsibilities Some of the cultural and social 22 (including who can burn, when to ‘Loss of traditional knowledge’ as indicators identified were based on 23 burn and where to burn) to ensure that athreat subjective measurements, such as the 24 cultural sites are maintained and so that taste of foods and the amount of 25 there are resources available to hunt The CAP process identifies critical Indigenous knowledge being passed 26 and collect, such as animals and bush threats to targets. For Wunambal on. At the time of writing, an expert 27 foods from plants, and so that these Gaambera people, threats to culture panel advising on research and moni- 28 foods taste good. When asked how to are as relevant as threats to biodi- toring of biological, social and cul- 29 tell if the Country is healthy, Regina Ka- versity. Subsequently, ‘loss of tradi- tural indicators was being established 30 radada, Gaambera elder, responded: tional knowledge’ was identified as and will include senior Traditional 31 one of the key threats because the Owners and knowledge holders as 32 look around you – there’s more ani- ‘health’ of the cultural and social … well as experienced ecologists 33 mals if you’re not burning right aspects of people’s lives will impact … trained in Western science. 34 there’s no food up that way you on achieving ‘healthy country’. As 35 don’t see them anymore. This last year Wunambal elder Janet Oobagooma 36 nothing – too much late burning. explained, contemporary practices Planning Outcomes Burn it anytime just hot, hot, hot. We 37 are important but it is also impor- Although the WGHCP is ongoing, the got to teach them, they got to know 38 tant to make sure that Indigenous finalisation of the first phase, the plan- how to burn right way … Long time 39 knowledge and customs are main- ning process, has proven to be a pow- ago a person had a job – that was to 40 tained and passed on. erful tool for the Traditional Owners. burn country. They had their own 41 The Uunguu Indigenous Protected people who went and light up the There’s lots of new ways – sometimes 42 Area Stage 1 has been declared fire. So they were looking after their it’s good. Some young ones try to 43 (Fig. 6). The Australian Government animals and plants too – that was their learn the old ways too but they see 44 has included the planning process and food. It has to be done at certain time it’s too hard. The Western things 45 the resultant plan as an example of a you know so you have the right vege- come across their mind – like they 46 participatory planning model for other tation for the animals – and the peo- brushing it and they put a different 47 IPAs (Hill et al. 2011). TNC is also ple. Our old people passed that on view of things there. They see new 48 using the planning process as a tem- and we got to keep it going. things and they more interested in the 49 new things than the old things – that plate to support other IPA consultative 50 During the planning process, a of the land. projects in northern Australia. Funds 51 number of ‘right way fire’ activities from the private and public sector 52 were undertaken, including Uunguu have been secured to assist with the Applying social and cultural indicators 53 Rangers doing multi-day ‘firewalks’ project and the WGAC has entered 54 with Traditional Owners from the rele- Measures such as species abundance into a 10-year partnership agreement 55 vant graa, walking through country, and distribution, species range and with BHA to assist with implementing

ª 2011 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 7 FEATURE

1 Suchet-Pearson 2004). Application of space (Hill 2003). The WGHCP plan- 7 2 such planning approaches into an ning process supported local gover- 3 Indigenous context risks impacting nance structures. The success of the 4 on Indigenous governance structures, planning process was also dependant 5 by constructing and imposing exter- on open communication between the 6 nal frameworks that undermine local partners, and a willingness to take a 7 authority, expertise and knowledge flexible and adaptive approach in 8 systems. Structural constraints to par- terms of timelines for reporting and 9 ticipatory planning processes, such funding. Results of research into other 10 as the organisational systems of part- aspects of the project, including analy- 11 ners, funding programme require- sis of the engagement between the Colour online, B&W in print 12 Figure 6. Uunguu Rangers Terrence ments and accountability, can also Traditional Owners and the project 13 Marnga (left) and Neil Waina (right) with Senior impede on delivering outcomes partners, will be presented in the 14 Cultural Advisor Sylvester Mangolomara 6 (Trickett et al. 2004). future. 15 (centre) installing a sign for the Uunguu Indige- Although conservation planning The WGHCP has shown that the 16 nous Protected Area. (Photo: Robert Warren). processes in post-settler nation states success of a collaborative conservation 17 such as Australia have in the past often planning process in a cross-cultural 18 the plan, providing a measure of long- resulted in the marginalisation of context requires support of Tradi- 19 term security for the project. Indigenous groups, planning can tional Owners’ interpretations of 20 The Healthy Country Plan itself, achieve positive outcomes for Indige- ‘healthy country’ as well as the recog- 21 now being implemented, has also nous groups if it is community-based, nition of cultural, social and economic 22 been used in negotiations with other and centred on community objectives, outcomes. Most significantly, the 23 stakeholders such as the Western Aus- capabilities and knowledge systems WGHCP demonstrates that Indigenous 24 tralian Government and the business rather than those imposed by another Traditional Owners’ aspirations to 25 sector, with the engagements being party (Lane 2006). The Wunambal drive the conservation planning 26 defined by Traditional Owner aspira- Gaambera Traditional Owners view agenda for their ancestral estates can 27 tions, as articulated and structured in Western science as one of the key con- be achieved. 28 the plan, rather than those being tributions ENGO partners can offer. 29 imposed externally. Using Western science provides valid- Acknowledgements 30 As John Goonack, Vice Chair of ity to external stakeholders, it sup- 31 WGAC, explains: ports articulation of ‘healthy country’ This project has involved the participa- 32 principles to a wider audience and it tion of many dedicated people. The That Healthy Country Plan is a good 33 provides for contemporary manage- authors wish to acknowledge first and thing – we know what direction we 34 ment in dealing with new threats. foremost the Wunambal Gaambera Tra- are heading in – seen as having one 35 The challenge with the planning ditional Owners who always have been, group, all pointing in right direction. 36 process for the WGHCP was adapting and always will be, the key contribu- Everyone real happy about it. Chan- 37 a widely accepted conservation plan- tors. We would also like to acknowl- ged a lot from when we didn’t have 38 ning approach so that it continued to edge the assistance of the WGAC, in [partners] helping us. All good now. 39 be informed by Western science particular the Directors and Bevan Stott, Got this IPA set up. Bit more meeting 40 whilst respecting and complementing as well as Bush Heritage Australia staff, yet. 41 Indigenous knowledge. As Jacobson especially Lyndall McLean, and KLC 42 and Stephens (2009) stated, this meant staff Tom Vigilante, Frank Weisenber- 43 respecting and valuing the differences ger and Robert Warren. 44 Implications for Other Collaborative Conservation in the knowledge systems of the part- 45 ners ‘without compromising their Planning Projects References 46 independence or distinctiveness’ (Jac- 47 Historically, conservation planning in obson & Stephens 2009: 161). Adams M. (2008) Foundational myths: country and 48 conservation in Australia. Transforming Cul- Australia has been embedded in a Ensuring the process was con- tures eJournal 3(1), 291–317. 49 specific cultural context that privi- trolled by Traditional Owners and Alcorn J. B. (1993) Indigenous peoples and conser- 50 leges Western science, linear views incorporated Indigenous language and vation. Conservation Biology 7, 424–426, in 51 Berkes (2008) Sacred ecology, pp. 234. of time and bounded notions of core concepts respected and sup- Routledge, New York. 52 space, and asserts particular assump- ported community integrity. This Altman J. C., Buchanan G. J. and Larsen L. (2007) 53 tions about the separation of nature affirms the assertion that Indigenous- The Environmental Significance of the Indige- 54 nous Estate: Natural Resource Management as and culture, resource management controlled planning can shape a more Economic Development in Remote Australia. 55 and human intervention (Howitt & equitable intercultural conservation

8 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 ª 2011 Ecological Society of Australia FEATURE

1 CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 286 ⁄ 2007. Cen- Government Department of Sustainability, Indigenous interests in environmental cam- 2 tre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Water, Environment, Population and Communi- paigns in Australia. Geoforum 40, 66–79. Australian National University,Canberra. ties, Cairns. Draft report presented for consid- Rose D. B. (1996) Nourishing Terrains: Australian 3 Australian Government (2010) Australia’s Strategy eration at Indigenous Protected Areas Aboriginal Views of Landscape and Wilder- 4 for the National Reserve System 2009 – manager’s meeting, Booderee National Park, ness. Australian Heritage Commission, 5 2030. Australian Government, Canberra. 21-24 March 2011. Canberra. Australian Government (2011) Conservation of Hoffman B. D., Roeger S., Wise P. et al. (in press) Rose D. B. (2005) An Indigenous philosophical 6 Australia’s Biodiversity. Available from URL: Managing country combining Indigenous and ecology: situating the human. The Australian 7 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ Western ecological knowledge – Dhimurru’s Journal of Anthropology 16(3), 294–305. 8 index.html [Accessed 3 October 2011]. experience in NE Arnhem Land. Ecological Ross H., Grant C., Robinson C. J., Izurieta A., Berkes F. (2008) Sacred Ecology, 2nd edn. Routl- 11 Management & Restoration 13(1), ????–????. Smyth D. and Rist P. (2008) Co-management 9 edge, New York. Horstman M. and Wightman G. (2001) Karparti and Indigenous protected areas in Australia: 10 Borrini-Feyerabend G., Kothari A. and Oviedo G. ecology: recognition of Aboriginal ecological achievements and ways forward. Paper in spe- 11 (2004) Indigenous and Local Communities knowledge and its application to management cial issue: Selected papers from the Australian and Protected Areas. Towards Equity and in north-western Australia. Ecological Man- Protected Areas Congress 2008. Hockings M. 12 Enhanced Conservation. Guidance on Policy agement & Restoration 2(2), 99–109. and Garven I. (eds). Australasian Journal of 13 and Practice for Co-managed Protected Howitt R. and Suchet-Pearson S. (2004) Rethink- Environmental Management 16(4), 242– 14 Areas and Community Conserved Areas. ing the Building Blocks: Management and 252. World Commission on Protected Areas Indigenous Epistemologies. Paper presented Springer J. (2009) Addressing the social impacts 15 (WCPA) Best Practice Protected Area Guide- to ‘Processes for cross-cultural engagement’, of conservation: lessons from experience and 16 lines Series No. 11 IUCN – The World Conser- a special session in the Remote future directions. Conservation and Society 17 8 vation Union, ?????. Regions ⁄ Northern Development Session of 7(1), 26–29. Brockington D. (2010) Conservation NGOs in sub- the Western Regional Science Association Trickett E. J., Espino S. L. and Ryerson ????. 18 Saharan Africa. Antipode 42(3), 551–575. Meeting, Wailea, Maui, February 2004. (2004) Collaboration and social inquiry: multi- 19 Burgess C., Johnston F., Bowman D. and White- Jacobson C. and Stephens A. (2009) Cross-cul- ple meanings of a construct and its role in cre- 20 head P. J. (2005) Healthy country: healthy tural approaches to environmental research ating useful and valid knowledge. American people? Exploring the health benefits of Indig- and management: a response to the dualisms Journal of Community Psychology 34(1 ⁄ 2), 21 enous natural resource management. Austra- inherent in Western science? Journal of the 1–69. 12 22 lian and New Zealand Journal of Public Royal Society of New Zealand 39(4), 159– Vigilante T. and Mangolomara S. (2007) Wunambal 23 Health 29, 117–122. 162. Gaambera Healthy Country Project Brief. Castree N. and Head L. (2008) Editorial. Culture, Lane M. (2006) The role of planning in achieving Unpublished report for Wunambal Gaambera 24 nature and landscape in the Australian region. Indigenous land justice and community goals. Aboriginal Corporation and Bush Heritage 25 Geoforum 39, 1255–1257. Land Use Policy 23, 385–394. Australia. 26 Dhimurru (2008) IPA Plan of Management 2008 to Langton M., Ma Rhea Z. and Palmer L. (2005) Vinnicombe P. (2002) Petroglyphs of the Dampier 2015. Prepared by Dhimurru Aboriginal Cor- Community-oriented protected areas for Archipelago: background to development and 27 poration, Wearne Advisors and Samantha Indigenous peoples and local communities. descriptive analysis. Rock Art Research 28 Muller, Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory. Journal of Political Ecology 12, 23–50. 19(1), 3–27. 29 Fitzsimons J., Russell-Smith J., James G. et al. National Biodiversity Strategy Review Task Group Walsh F. and Mitchell P. (eds) (2002) Planning for (2011) Restoring fire regimes in Australia’s (2009) Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Country. Cross-cultural Approaches to Deci- 30 northern savannas: benchmarking and moni- Strategy 2010–2020, Consultation Draft. Aus- sion-Making on Aboriginal Lands. Jukurrpa 31 toring biodiversity, social and cultural attri- tralian Government, Department of the Envi- Books, Alice Springs. 32 butes ⁄ changes. Ecological Management & ronment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, World Wide Fund for Nature (2010) Ecoregions 9 Restoration (this issue). Canberra, ACT. WWF’s Global 200. Available from URL: 33 Herath G. (2002) The economics and politics of Pearson N. (2010) Decision is in: Wild Rivers laws http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/ 34 wilderness conservation in Australia. Society stink. The Australian, 2 October. Available global200.html [Accessed 14 June 2011]. 35 & Natural Resources 15(2), 147–159. from URL: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ Wunambal Gaambera Aboriginal Corporation Hill R. (2011) Towards equity in Indigenous co- news/opinion/decision-is-in-wild-rivers-laws- (2006) Uunguu Tourism. Tourism and Healthy 36 management of protected areas: cultural plan- stink/story-e6frg6zo-1225933011207 [Accessed Country Business Plan. Wunambal Gaambera 37 ning by Miriuwung-Gajerrong people in the 14 June 2011]. Aboriginal Corporation, ?????. 13 38 Kimberley, Western Australia. Geographical Perry J., Adams B., Berkes F. et al. (2009) The Wunambal Gaambera Aboriginal Corporation 10 Research 49(1), 72–85. intersections of biological diversity and cul- (2010) Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country 39 Hill R., Walsh F.,Davies J. and Sandford M. (2011) tural diversity: towards integration. Conserva- Plan – Looking after Wunambal Gaambera 40 National Guidelines for Indigenous Protected tion and Society 7(2), 100–112. Country 2010–2020, Wunambal Gaambera 41 Area Management Plans in Australia. CSIRO Pickerill J. (2009) Finding common ground? Aboriginal Corporation, ????. 14 Ecosystem Sciences and Australian Spaces of dialogue and the negotiation of 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

ª 2011 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 9 Author Query Form

Journal: EMR

Article: 629

Dear Author, During the copy-editing of your paper, the following queries arose. Please respond to these by marking up your proofs with the necessary changes/additions. Please write your answers on the query sheet if there is insufficient space on the page proofs. Please write clearly and follow the conventions shown on the attached corrections sheet. If returning the proof by fax do not write too close to the paper’s edge. Please remember that illegible mark-ups may delay publication.

Many thanks for your assistance.

Query reference Query Remarks

Q1 AUTHOR: Please check that authors and their affiliations are correct.

Q2 AUTHOR: Please check heading levels.

Q3 AUTHOR: Pretty et al. 2009 has been changed to Perry et al. 2009 so that this citation matches the Reference List. Please confirm that this is correct.

Q4 AUTHOR: Please check this website address and confirm that it is cor- rect. (Please note that it is the responsibility of the author(s) to ensure that all URLs given in this article are correct and useable.)

Q5 AUTHOR: Please check the placement of Figure 5 citation here.

Q6 AUTHOR: Trickett & Espino 2004 has been changed to Trickett et al. 2004 so that this citation matches the Reference List. Please confirm that this is correct.

Q7 AUTHOR: Hill 2003 has not been included in the Reference List, please supply full publication details.

Q8 AUTHOR: Please provide the city location of publisher for reference Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2004).

Q9 WILEY-BLACKWELL: Please check year of publication and provide vol- ume and page range for Fitzsimons et al. (this issue).

Q10 AUTHOR: Hill (2011) has not been cited in the text. Please indicate where it should be cited; or delete from the Reference List.

Q11 AUTHOR: Please provide the page range for reference Hoffman et al. (in press).

Q12 AUTHOR: Please provide the forenames ⁄ initials for the author Ryer- son for reference Trickett et al. (2004).

Q13 AUTHOR: Please provide the city location of publisher for reference Wunambal Gaambera Aboriginal Corporation (2006).

Q14 AUTHOR: Please provide the city location of publisher for reference Wunambal Gaambera Aboriginal Corporation (2010). MARKED PROOF Please correct and return this set

Please use the proof correction marks shown below for all alterations and corrections. If you wish to return your proof by fax you should ensure that all amendments are written clearly in dark ink and are made well within the page margins.

Instruction to printer Textual mark Marginal mark Leave unchanged under matter to remain Insert in text the matter New matter followed by indicated in the margin or Delete through single character, rule or underline or or through all characters to be deleted Substitute character or substitute part of one or through letter or new character or more word(s) through characters new characters Change to italics under matter to be changed Change to capitals under matter to be changed Change to small capitals under matter to be changed Change to bold type under matter to be changed Change to bold italic under matter to be changed Change to lower case Encircle matter to be changed Change italic to upright type (As above) Change bold to non-bold type (As above) or Insert ‘superior’ character through character or under character where required e.g. or

Insert ‘inferior’ character (As above) over character e.g. Insert full stop (As above) Insert comma (As above) or and/or Insert single quotation marks (As above) or

or and/or Insert double quotation marks (As above) or Insert hyphen (As above) Start new paragraph No new paragraph Transpose Close up linking characters

Insert or substitute space through character or between characters or words where required

Reduce space between between characters or characters or words words affected