U Places and People: Taking Aboriginal Understandings Seriously in Land and Sea Management

YolYol\\\\uu Places and People: Taking Aboriginal Understandings Seriously in Land and Sea Management

Margaret Leanne Ayre B. For. Sc. (Hons), University of Melbourne

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

2002

Department of History and Philosophy of Science The University of Melbourne

Abstract

In this thesis I look at the work of managing Yol\u Aboriginal estates by the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation (Dhimurru) and Yol\u Aboriginal communities of NE Arnhem Land. I examine the practices of doing contemporary land and sea management at Dhimurru drawing on work I did at Dhimurru assisting in the development of a plan of management for the Yol\u place, }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem in English), and negotiating a curriculum/pedagogy for Dhimurru Yol\u Rangers.

I examine the mobilisation strategies of the environmental sciences and Yol\u knowledges which together perform the ‘object of management’ in Dhimurru’s practice, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, as a multiplicity: a Yol\u-managed place. Showing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as a multiplicity (multiple but partially connected objects) allows us to understand place as multiple materialities performed through sets of routine, but quite often very different, sets of practices. The work of managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is the work of managing multiple realities within which the object of management is continually performed as partial, messy, contingent and local.

I contend that in order to take Yol\u understandings seriously in land and sea management we need to understand Dhimurru’s unique ontology as a knowledge landscape characterised by an emergent methodology I call ‘journeying-naming- tracing’. I examine episodes in the training of Yol\u Aboriginal rangers through Dhimurru, Batchelor College and the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory. Comparing these different episodes we can see that they are an education/training in differing methodologies of knowledge making. The rangers were being sensitised to, and disciplined in working different ‘ontological tensions’ as they were trained to ‘manage Nature/“the environment”’ and to ‘manage Yol\u places/people’. Through a critique of four episodes in ranger training, I suggest that an effective curriculum/pedagogy for trainee Yol\u rangers will make these ontological contrasts explicit and employ a methodology of ‘journeying-naming- tracing’.

ii DECLARATION

This is to certify that:

(I) the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD,

(ii) due acknowledgment has been made in the text to all other material used,

(iii) the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices.

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I dedicate this thesis to the members of the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation.

I first acknowledge my colleagues and teachers at Dhimurru for their friendship, humour, generosity and support over many years. These people are: Dja`a`i\ba Yunupi\u, Galarrwuy Yunupi\u, Nanikiya Munu\giritj, Greg Wearne, Djawa Yunupi\u, Botha Wunu\murra, Mark Stevens, Mandaka Marika, Ma\atjay Yunupi\u, Sharon Peters, W^pit Munu\gurr, Larrtjan\a Ganambarr, Kelvin Leitch, Da\ata\a Gondarra, B^wurr Munyarryun, Gaymala Yunupi\u, Gulumbu Yunupi\u, Rarriwuy Marika, Banduk Marika, ~^\ani Marika, Dhuwarrwarr Marika, Darren Larcombe, Grant Gambley, Nalkuma 2 Burarrwa\a, Rr^wu] Maymuru, Mirrit\a Yunupi\u, Gatjirrimi Yunupi\u, Dwayne Watson, Larry Yuwulkpuy and Mick Yinarri.

I thank my principal supervisor Dr. Helen Verran for her faith, her inspiration and for helping me to make sense of my painful puzzles. I also thank Dr. Mandawuy Yunupi\u, Raymattja Marika-Munu\giritj and Nalwarri Ngurrwutthun for their guidance and support.

I thank the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Melbourne, in particular Dr. Rosemary Robins and Professor Rod Home, and the History and Philosophy of Science Postgraduate Student Association, for providing a unique and precious intellectual home in which to do my work.

I gratefully acknowledge the generous support I have received from the Faculty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management at the Northern Territory University, the Yothu Yindi Foundation and the Garma Cultural Studies Institute, the Nambara Schools Council, and from the Dhimurru Executive Committee.

Without the encouragement, love, support and teachings of family, friends and co- workers I would never have begun or completed this thesis. I thank these people for all they have given me: Paul Whytcross, Alex Russell, Kerryn Morey, Nick Wellman, Lisa Palmer, Tao Bak, Cheryl Arnott, Maryellen Hargreaves, Mirrkiyawuy Ganambarr- Stubbs, Fiona Fidler, Jane Hall, Mark Wallbridge, Allan Arnott, Bronwen Jones, Sam Tracey, Helen Balfe, Banbapuy Maymuru, Les Kneebone, Matthew Klugman, Mosese Rika, Kristian Camilleri, Rebecca Benson, Deturru Yunupi\u, Tracey Regan, Lisa Albion,

iv Daniel Wagg, Alice Bosac, Ledua Gentle, Kenny Gentle, Johnny Rika, Esther Rika, Leon White, Bruce Lawson, Yalmay Yunupi\u and |alawurr Munu\gurr.

I want finally to thank my family, for everything: Don, Charles, Dave and Hazel.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACTABSTRACT...... IIIIII

DECDECLARATIONLARATIONLARATION...... III...... IIIIIIIII

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... IVIVIVIV

TABLE OF CONTENTSCONTENTS...... VIVIVIVI List of IllustrationsIllustrations...... ixixix Plates...... x List of AbbreviationsAbbreviations...... xixixi FOREMATTERSFOREMATTERS...... 111 Preliminary Information ...... 111 1. The Yol\u Community...... 1 2. The Local Context...... 2 3. The Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation ...... 3 4. Description of Institutions Collaborating with Dhimurru ...... 4 PROLOGUEPROLOGUE...... 5555 Scene 1: A Dhimurru Committee Meeting --- May 19941994...... 5...... 555 Scene 2: A Monday Morning at Dhimurru --- March 19961996...... 8... 888 Scene 3: Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) launchaunch...... 121212 THIS THESIS ...... 151515

CHAPTER 1. CONTEMPORCONTEMPORARYARY LAND AND SEA MANAGEMANAGEMENTMENT IN AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA...... 202020 1.1 Land and Sea Management Policy and Strategy in AustraliaAustralia...... 212121 1.2 International Land and Sea Management Agreementss...... 242424 1.3 AdmiAdministrationnistration of Land and Sea in Australia ...... 313131 1.3.1 Administrative Recognition of Aboriginal Land/Sea Tenure...... 36 1.4 Land and Sea Management Policies and Strategies in Australia ...... 404040 1.5. What Does Land and Sea Management Set Out to Achieve in Indigenous Australia? ...... 454545 1.6. What Are the Implications of These Policy Statements and Institutional Arrangements?Arrangements?...... 494949 Table 1.1. International Land and Sea Management DocumentsDocuments....Documents ...... iiii Table 1.2. Australian Land and Sea Management Documentsents...... xixixi CHAPTER 2. COOPERATICOOPERATIVEVE MANAGEMENT OF LANLANDD AND SEA IN AUSTRALAUSTRALIAIAIAIA...... 111 2.1 The Notion of Joint ManagementManagement...... 111 2.2 Formal Joint Management AgreementsAgreements...... 9999 2.3 Artefacts of Joint Management: the (1) Lease, (2) Plan of Management, (3) Board of Management and the (4) InInstitutionalstitutional StructureStructure of the Park ...... 131313 2.3.1 The Lease...... 13 2.3.2 The Board of Management...... 14 2.3.3 The Plan of Management...... 15 2.3.4 The Institutional Structure of the Park...... 16 2.4 Encountering the Joint Management Agreements at Ulu ruuu-u---KataKata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks ...... 171717 2.4.1 Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park...... 17 2.4.1.1 Encountering the Plan of Management for Uluru-Kata Tju=a National Park ...... 17 2.4.1.2 Cultural Relativism as Ontological Strategy...... 23 2.4.2 Evolving Ontological Strategies and Joint Management at Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks...... 25 2.4.3 Kakadu National Park...... 28 2.4.3.1 Encountering the Aboriginal Managers...... 28

vi 2.4.3.2 Kakadu National Park Board of Management...... 30 2.4.2.3 Universalism as Ontological Strategy...... 31 2.4.2.4 The Kakadu National Park Plan of Management...... 32 2.4.2.6 Institutional Structures of Joint Management...... 34 2.5 Conclusion ...... 37373737 CHAPTER 3. THE DEVELDEVELOPMENTOPMENT OF THE DHIMURDHIMURRURU LAND MANAGEMENT ABORIGINAL CORPORATICORPORATIONONONON...... 393939 3.1 IntroductionIntroduction...... 393939 3.2 Dhimurru and tthehe Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern TeTerritoryrritory....rritory ...... 404040 3.2.1 Beginnings...... 40 3.2.2 Negotiations with the Government Environmental Agencies...... 51 3.2.3 Dhimurru’s Vision Realised...... 56 3.3 Conclusion ...... 58585858 CHAPTER 4. GENERATINGENERATINGG A PLAN OF MANAGEMEMANAGEMENTNT FOR }ANYDJAKA 11...... 606060 4.1 Planning and Management of Protected Areas and Reserves ...... 606060 4.1.1 Introduction...... 60 4.1.2 Land and Sea Management and Protected/Reserved Areas in Australia and the Northern Territory...... 61 4.1.3 Plans of Management ...... 67 4.2. The }anydjaka Fauna SurveySurvey...... 747474 4.2.1 Managing Traps...... 75 4.2.2 Episode Two: Managing Specimens...... 85 4.3 How Some of Our ‘Found’ Objects Do Important Work iinn Answering the Question ‘How Representative Is }anydjaka ?’?’...... 87878787 4.4 ConclusionConclusion...... 91919191 CHAPTER 5. GENERATINGENERATINGG A PLAN OF MANAGEMEMANAGEMENTNT FOR }ANYDJAKA 2 ...... 106 ..... 106106106 5.1. Journeying and NaNamingming at }anydjaka}anydjaka...... 106106106106 5.1.1 Introduction...... 106 5.1.2 A First Trip to }anydjaka-Saturday 28 May 1994...... 107 5.2 The Routine Practices of Working the World as Gurru=u and DjalkiriDjalk iriiriiri ...... 109109109109 5.2.1 Placing Names ...... 109 5.2.2 Writing Stories...... 111 5.2.3 Gay\a[a ...... 113 5.2.4 Margaret’s Tree ...... 115 5.3 NaminNamingg as a Translation DeviceDevice...... 116116116 5.4 Working the Two Technologies of Translation/Mobilisation Together in the Development of a Plan of Management for }anydjaka ...... 119119119 5.4.1 Back in the Dhimurru Office...... 120 5.4.1.1 Names and ‘Maps’ ...... 120 5.4.1.2 Making ‘Maps’...... 124 5.4.1.3 Air Conditioning...... 126 5.4.2 Interpreting Dhimurru’s Object of Management ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and its Draft Plan of Management...... 128 CHAPTER 6. DOING MULMULTIPLETIPLE MATERIALITIES OF PLACEPLACE...... 145145145145 6.1 IntroductionIntroduction...... 145...... 145145145 6.2 Performance and the Singularity and MultiplicityMultiplicity of Place ...... 146146146146 6.3 Alternative Definitive Performances of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) ...... 148..... 148148148 6.3.1 A Set of Routine Practices Which Perform the Definitive Technoscientific Object ‘Cape Arnhem’ ...... 148 6.3.2 A Set of Routine Practices Which Perform the Yol\u Definitive Object ‘}anydjaka’ ...... 151 6.3.2.1 Wa\arr Guwak Story ...... 151 6.3.2.2 Guwak Painting ...... 152 6.3.2.3 A Garma Bu\gul ...... 153

vii 6.3.3 The Effect of Having the Two Definitive Objects Inside Dhimurru’s Plan of Management for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’...... 154 6.4 The Work of Managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as a Designated Recreation AreaArea...... 155155155155 6.4.1 Story 1: Managing Permits...... 156 6.4.2 Story 2: Locating People and Place...... 159 6.4.3 Story 3: Settling Names on the Managed ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ ...... 162 6.4.4 Story 4: The Practices of Surveying a New Access Road...... 163 6.5 The Stabilised Work Practices WWhichhich Perform Dhimurru’sDhimurru’s Object of ManagementManagement...... 168168168168 6.6 A Methodology of ‘Journeying‘Journeying----NamingNamingNaming----Tracing’Tracing’ ...... 171171171 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIOCONCLUSION:N: TOWARDS APPROPRIAAPPROPRIATETE CURRICULUM/PEDAGOCURRICULUM/PEDAGOGYGY IN YOL|U RANGER TRAITRAININGNINGNING...... 178178178 7.1 IntroductionIntroduction...... 178178178 7.2 A Knowledge LandscapeLandscape...... 179179179179 7.2.1 Objects as Emergent...... 179 7.1.2 Managing Complexity...... 180 7.1.3 Multiplicity and Certainty ...... 181 7.3. Inventing the ‘Yol‘Yol\\\\uu Ranger’ RoleRole...... 183183183 7.4. The History of Ranger Training at DhimurruDhimurru...... 184...... 184184184 7.5. Teaching/Learning Episodes with TechTechnosciencenoscience ObjectsObjects...... 188188188 7.5.1 Towards Research-Based Curriculum/Pedagogy ...... 188 7.5.2 Episode One: A Ranger Training Workshop at {aliwuy ...... 192 7.5.3. Episode Two: ‘Doing Ecology’...... 199 7.6. Teaching/Learning Episodes with YolYol\\\\uu Objects ...... 208208208 7.6.1 Galtha Rom Workshops...... 208 7.6.2. Episode Three: A Garma Living Maths Workshop at Y^\unbi...... 210 7.6.3. Episode Four: A ‘Worrk Dj^ma’ Workshop at Dh^linybuy ...... 215 CHAPTER 8. TRACING MMYY RESEARCH AT DHIMURDHIMURRURURURU...... 234234234

REFERENCESREFERENCES...... 237237237237

APPENDICESAPPENDICES...... 272272272272 Appendix A. YolYol\\\\uu Matha Orthography and PronunciationPronunciation...... 272272272272 Appendix B. List of YolYol\\\\uu Clans and Languages ...... 274274274 Appendix C. Descriptions of Collaborating Institutions ...... 275275275275 Appendix D. List of Dhimurru Commitee Members and Their ClansClans...... 279279279279 Appendix E. Regional Agreements in AustraliaAustralia...... 280280280 Appendix F. IUCN Protected Area CategoriesCategories...... 282282282282 Appendix G. Dhimurru’s Functions and Guiding Principlesples...... 285285285285 Appendix H. Dhimurru’s Organisational StructureStructure...... 287...... 287287287 Appendix I. Dhimurru’s Vision of Collaborative Management...... 288288288288 Appendix J. Description of YolYol\\\\uu Categories in the Land and SeaSea...... 289...... 289289289 Appendix K. Description of the Batchelor College NCRM CourseCourse...... 291291291291 Appendix L. Ecological Definitions Worked Up in the Batchelor College/ Dhimurru Plant Ecology Workshop ...... 292292292292 Appendix M. Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)...... Arnhem) ...... 293293293

viii List of Illustrations

Figures

Figure 1: Map of Dhimurru Management Area ...... 57 Figure 2: Vegetation Map of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)...... 58 Figure 3: Map of NE Arnhem Land showing Yol\u Homelands ...... 61 Figure 4: Map of the proposed coastal reserve at Port Bradshaw (encompassing }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem))...... 59 Figure 5: PWCNT Park Planning Summary...... 92 Figure 6: Map of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) showing the survey/study area for the }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) fauna survey...... 93 Figure 7: Quadrat habitat proforma and explanation used in the }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) fauna survey...... 94 Figure 8: Location and description of quadrats from the }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) fauna survey...... 98 Figure 9: Species richness values for survey sites in northern Australia (where NE Arnhem Land tallies include results of the }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) fauna survey)...... 100 Figure 10: Similiarity indices values for all wildlife species for survey sites in northern Australia showing }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) compared to other sites...... 101 Figure 11: Museum catalogue numbers for voucher specimens collected during the }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) fauna survey...... 102 Figure 12: Species recorded from northeastern Arnhem Land but from 0 or only 1 other survey site considered from northern Australia ...... 104 Figure 13: My lists of names at }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem): Yol\u names of w^\a (places in the land), moieties and Wa\arr associations ...... 134 Figure 14: My lists of names at }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem): Yol\u place names and Wa\arr associations...... 135 Figure 15: List of Dhimurru Recreation Areas with names of Yol\u custodians and landowners...... 136 Figure 16: A sketched 'map' of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)...... 137 Figure 17: A sketched 'map' of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) ...... 138 Figure 18: Map of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) with Yol\u place names ...... 139 Figure 19: Map of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) from Ganbulapula (Yunupi\u et al. 199?) publication showing Yol\u places and names and the journeys of the Wa\arr dog and nightjar (Guwak) and possum...... 140 Figure 20: Copy of Wandjuk Marika's 'charts' of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) from Berndt (1964, p. 273 ('Sheet A'); p. 276 ('Sheet B')) with my notes...... 141 Figure 21: Interpretation of Wandjuk Marika’s ‘chart’ of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) by Berndt (1964, pp. 272-73 (‘Sheet A’))...... 142 Figure 22: My template map of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) ...... 143 Figure 23: Dhimurru Cultural Site Register proforma...... 174 Figure 24: Recreational Site Assessment Sheet used in the {aliwuy Bay ranger training camp...... 227 Figure 25: Landform/unit descriptions used in the recreation site assessment exercise at the {aliwuy Bay ranger training camp...... 228 Figure 26: Batchelor College/Dhimurru Plant Ecology workshop worksheet...... 229 Figure 27:Y^\unbi Galtha Rom workshop booklet contents page...... 231

ix PlPlPlatesPl ates

Plate 1 : Aerial view of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) ...... 62 Plate 2: Ganbulapula carving and Garma bu\gul ...... 62 Plate 3: Batchelor College students checking an Elliot trap...... 105 Plate 4: Pitfall trap...... 105 Plate 5: Telling and learning place names at }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) ...... 144 Plate 6: Yol\u Trainee Rangers fishing at Gay\ada ...... 144 Plate 7: Cover of Ganbulapula publication...... 175 Plate 8: Painting by Mungurrawuy Yunupi\u in Ganbulapula publication showing the Wa\arr Guwak (nightjar) ...... 176 Plate 9: Display board with text describing the painting by Mungurrawuy Yunupi\u of the Wa\arr Guwak painting at the Garma Festival...... 177 Plate 10: Aerial view of the place 'Guwak' ...... 177 Plate 11: {aliwuy ranger training camp...... 232 Plate 12: {aliwuy ranger training camp recreational site planning...... 232 Plate 13: Journeying as part of worrk dj^ma ...... 233 Plate 14: Yol\u Trainee Rangers telling and tracing the collective 'map' of worrk dj^ma ...... 233

x List of Abbreviations

AAAS Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science

ABTA Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account

ACF Australian Conservation Foundation

ACT Australian Capital Territory

AFFA Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia

AGPS Australian Government Publishing Service

AHC Australian Heritage Commission

ALR Australian Law Report

ALRA Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cwth)

AMG Australian Mapping Grid

ANCA Australian Nature Conservation Agency (formerly the ANPWS now Parks Australia)

ANPWS Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (later ANCA and now Parks Australia)

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation

Council

APA(I) Australian Postgraduate Award (Industry)

ARC Australian Research Council

ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia

and New Zealand

ASO Administrative Service Officer

Ass. Dip. of Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Natural and App. Sci. (NCRM) Cultural Resource Management)

ATSIC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

BIITE Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education

CAPAD Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database

CAR Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (system of reserves)

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CCNT Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (now the PWCNT)

CEC Community Education Centre

CINCRM Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management

CLC Central Land Council

CLP Country Liberal Party

CLR Commonwealth Law Report

CoA Commonwealth of Australia

COAG Council of Australian Governments

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

CSU Charles Sturt University

D-BATE Deakin-Batchelor Aboriginal Teacher Education

DEH Department of Environment and Heritage

DEST Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories

DLMAC Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation

DoLCP Decade of Landcare Plan

EA Environment Australia

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ELDO European Launcher Development Organisation

EMEC Environmental Management Education Centre

EPBC Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

ERC Estimated Review Committee

ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

GCSI Garma Cultural Studies Institute

GIS Geographic Information Systems

HLC RATE Homeland Centre Remote Area Teacher Education

HoRSCERA House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts

IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia

IGAE Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment

xii IGU Intergovernmental Unit

ILC Indigenous Land Corporation

ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreement

ILO International Labor Organisation

IPA Indigenous Protected Area

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (now the WCU)

KBoM Kakadu Board of Management

LPC Literature Production Centre

MABP Man and the Biosphere Program

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

NCSA National Conservation Strategy for Australia

NGO non-government organisation

NHT Natural Heritage Trust

NLC Northern Land Council

NLP National Landcare Program

NRS National Reserve System

NRSMPA National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas

NSCBD National Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity

NSESD National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development

NT Northern Territory

NTA Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

NTLA Northern Territory Legislative Assembly

NTOC Northern Territory Open College

NTT Native Title Tribunal

NTU Northern Territory University

PWCNT Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory (formerly the CCNT)

QDEH Queensland Department of Environment & Heritage

RA Regional Agreement

xiii RAC Resource Assessment Commission

RATE Remote Area Teacher Education

RFA Regional Forest Agreement

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

SEAC State of the Environment Advisory Council

SECITAC Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee

SoER State of the Environment Report

SOMER State of the Marine Environment Report

SML Special Mining Leases

TEK Traditional Ecological Knowledge

TPWC Act Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act

TWS Tasmanian Wilderness Society

UKTBoM Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a Board of Management

UN United Nations

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UNFCCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

VET Vocational and Educational Training

WCED World Commission on Environment and Development

WCPA World Commission on Protected Areas

WCS World Conservation Strategy

WCU World Conservation Union (formerly the IUCN)

WRI World Resources Institute

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

YYCSI Yothu Yindi Cultural Studies Institute (formerly the GCSI)

YYF Yothu Yindi Foundation

xiv FOREMATTERS

Preliminary Information

1. The YolYol\\\\uu Community

‘Yol\u’ is the word Aboriginal people of North East (NE) Arnhem Land use to describe themselves. It translates literally as ‘people’ in the languages of Yol\u matha . Yol\u people own the area known as Arnhem Land (an area of approximately 85,000 km sq.) under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976 (ALRA). The ALRA grants unalienable freehold title to Yol\u traditional owners of land to the low water mark.

Yol\u matha may be translated as ‘“the tongue of the people’” (Watson 1989, p. 64). It is a generic term describing the mutually intelligible Yol\u clan languages of NE Arnhem Land. Appendix A gives details of the orthography and pronunciation of Yol\u matha . Appendix B is a list of the Yol\u clan names and languages 1. The Yol\u township of Yirrkala is situated approximately 17 km from Nhulunbuy and has a seasonally fluctuating population of 500 people upwards (see Figure 1). Yirrkala was established by the Methodist Overseas Mission in 1935. Yol\u people from surrounding lands settled at Yirrkala from the mid-1930s and members of different Yol\u clans reside there today. In the 1970s, many Yol\u people living at Yirrkala returned to settle on their clan estates in what is often referred to as the homeland movement. These settlements are Yol\u homelands with populations ranging from approximately ten to one hundred people (see Figure 3).

1 These clan names and languages are identified on the poster for the Garma Festival 2001 (YYF 2001). The identification of these groups as ‘Yol\u’ can be a strategic matter.

1 2. The Local Context

Special Mining Leases (SML) (1, 2, 3 and 4) were granted by the Australian Commonwealth Government to the Gove Bauxite Corporation Limited in 1963. These areas were excised from Yol\u clan estates and the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve without consultation or consent from the Yol\u landowners. In 1963 Yol\u landowners delivered a petition (known as the ‘bark petition’) expressing their objections to these mining leases to the Commonwealth Parliament. However, the Commonwealth proceeded in 1968 to enter into an agreement with a Swiss- Australian mining consortium to develop bauxite deposits on Yol\u traditional lands on the Gove Peninsula.

Yol\u landowners fought the mining venture on their lands in the courts in the case of Milirrpum v Nabalco and the Commonwealth of Australia from 1968. In 1971 Justice Blackburn ruled the Yol\u plaintiffs unsuccessful. In his judgement, Blackburn recognised a ‘system of law’ which governed Yol\u relationships with the land, but declared this law ‘did not provide for any proprietary interest’ 2 (1971, pp. 273-274). With no recognisable proprietary interests in Australian common law, Yol\u landowners had no legal power to control the use and disposal of their estates. The mining project thus went ahead under the management of Nabalco Pty Ltd (Nabalco).

Nabalco manages the bauxite mine and alumina processing plant situated on the Gove Peninsula in NE Arnhem Land approximately 400 km east of the Northern Territory capital city of Darwin. This Gove Joint Venture mining project is wholly owned by Alcan Aluminium Pty. Ltd. (Nabalco 2001) a multinational, billion-dollar aluminium manufacturing consortium. The nearby township of Nhulunbuy has a population of approximately 4,500. Nhulunbuy was established on a special lease within the Arnhem Land Reserve from the late 1960s as the service centre for the Gove Joint Venture project. Nhulunbuy is managed by the Nhulunbuy Corporation.

2 Senior members of Dhimurru including Dja`a`i\ba Yunupi\u gave evidence in the case.

2 3. The Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation

The Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation (DLMAC) (known as ‘Dhimurru’) is a Yol\u Aboriginal organisation incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 on 8 September 1992. Dhimurru’s central function is to manage areas of land and sea that Yol\u traditional owners have made available for recreational use by the residents of Nhulunbuy in NE Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory of Australia and, increasingly, by visitors to the region. Dhimurru was set up in response to the concerns of Yol\u landowners about unauthorised use and access to their estates and the degradation of areas on these estates which had been used over many years for recreation by mainly non-Aboriginal visitors. Dhimurru has a commitment to the protection, conservation and management of Yol\u estates through encouraging and assisting traditional landcare strategies in the context of contemporary environmental concerns. The organisation is controlled by a Committee of representatives of the seventeen Yol\u landowning clans who have estates and interests in the Dhimurru management area. Dhimurru employs six Yol\u rangers, 3 an Executive Officer and an Administrative Assistant. The Dhimurru office is located at Nhulunbuy. The Dhimurru website identifies: ‘A fundamental objective of the organisation is to investigate avenues for incorporating western science-based management practice with traditional [Yol\u] resource management’ (DLMAC 2001).

Dhimurru issues permits for access to Yol\u lands designated by the Yol\u traditional owners for the purpose of recreation. Dhimurru monitors compliance with access conditions to Recreation Areas through regular patrols by Dhimurru Rangers. Other functions of Dhimurru include the development and implementation of management plans for areas under its jurisdiction, ranger professional development and training, providing land and sea management advice and assistance to Yol\u landowners, organisations and homelands outside the Dhimurru Recreation Areas, and the development of collaborative research through a commitment to working with mainstream research, education and management institutions.

3 This is the Dhimurru workforce at August 2001.

3 4. Description of Institutions Collaborating with Dhimurru

Dhimurru pursues its objective of finding ways for Yol\u knowledges and Western knowledges to work together in productive and mutually beneficial ways through engaging in cooperative working relationships and collaborative research with other institutions including:

• Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern TerritoryTerritory (PWCNT): the Northern Territory Government’s environmental protection and management agency • Environment Australia (EA)(EA): the Commonwealth Government’s environmental protection and management agency • BatcheloBatchelorr Institute of Indigenous Tertiary EducationEducation (BIITE(BIITE)) (formerly Batchelor College): an Indigenous tertiary education institution located at Batchelor and in Indigenous communities throughout the Northern Territory • The University of Melbourne: a higher education institution located in Melbourne, Victoria • Northern Territory University (NTU): a higher education institution located in Darwin, Northern Territory • Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management (CINCRM): a research centre located at the NTU in Darwin, Northern Territory • World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF): an international non-government organisation (NGO) conservation foundation • Northern Land Council: a statutory body with responsibilities in the Northern Territory for assisting Indigenous people with land/sea matters • Garma Cultural Studies Institute (GCSI): a Yol\u educational institution supported by the Yothu Yindi Foundation • Nambara Schools Council: a council of Yol\u stakeholders which manages the Yirrkala Community Education Centre (Yirrkala CEC) and the Yirrkala Homelands Schools 4

4 See Appendix C for more detailed descriptions of these organisations.

4 PROLOGUE

Scene 1: A Dhimurru Committee Meeting --- May 1994

Good, a Dhimurru Committee meeting, I thought. A day with some structure to it. A day when I can just sit and listen and not have to do anything. A day when I don’t have to worry about how I should do my job at Dhimurru. I have been working with Dhimurru now for three months. The meeting is at Yirrkala, not at the Dhimurru office in Nhulunbuy. This makes me feel more like I am a part of something within the Yol\u community. It somehow locates Dhimurru for me. I am still feeling my way in my new job, experiencing daily alternate bouts of confusion and inspiration. The meeting is to be held at the Yirrkala Homelands Schools Resource Centre at Yirrkala. I hope I will bump into some of the Yol\u women teachers. All the land management workers at Dhimurru apart from myself are men. It’s nice to be amongst women sometimes.

The members of the Dhimurru Committee arrive for the meeting intermittently from between 9 and 11 am. It gets hot and boring waiting although there is tea to drink on the shaded verandah of the school building. The Dhimurru Rangers pick up people who have flown in from their homeland communities for the meeting from the airport. They also cruise around the Yirrkala community in their vehicles offering lifts to those who wish to attend the meeting. The Committee is made up of representatives from the thirteen Yol\u landowning clans that have interests in the Dhimurru Management area (see Figure 1). Each landowning group has two representatives on the Committee although not everyone will be here today. These people are senior Yol\u men and women who have responsibility for matters of land and sea.

I have my Dhimurru Ranger’s uniform on. It is a green cotton work shirt with a cloth badge which is the Dhimurru logo on the front chest pocket. My shirt is slightly different from those worn by the rangers. The rangers have the Dhimurru badges sewn on each of the upper arms of their shirts. I am self- conscious about wearing my uniform today. There are so many people here I don’t know and I wonder if they know where I fit in. Maybe this will be cleared up in the meeting. I stand with Mark as we wait for the meeting to start. He is a Senior Ranger with the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory (PWCNT), the Northern Territory Government’s land and sea management and conservation agency. Mark worked in NE Arnhem Land as a Ranger for the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (CCNT)

5 (now the PWCNT) 5 from 1987. Then in 1991, the CCNT withdrew their presence in this region and Mark spent a year working locally on secondment to the Northern Territory Government’s Department of Sport and Recreation. In 1993 he took up the position of Ranger/Trainer with Dhimurru and was paid through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) grant to Dhimurru. This funding support to Dhimurru is not automatic, and the Dhimurru Commitee has already discussed the possibility of achieving a more permanent arrangement with the CCNT regarding Mark’s employment. This might involve members of Dhimurru and Yol\u landowners in negotiating a cooperative management agreement of some sort with the Northern Territory Government.... For now, Mark continues to work with Dhimurru in a training capacity. He is again employed by the CCNT who are negotiating a co-management agreement with Dhimurru.

Finally, it appears that everyone who is likely to be coming to the meeting has arrived and we all move into the air-conditioned schoolroom. Greg Wearne, Dhimurru’s Executive Officer, has arranged the chairs into a large semicircle. At the front of the room, the Chairperson, Da\ata\a, sits at a table facing us; with the Vice-Chairperson, Raymattja, next to him. I know Raymattja. She is a teacher and a linguist and is the wife of one of the senior Yol\u Rangers, Nanikiya. Greg sits a short distance from the table to the left of Da\ata\a and Raymattja. The meeting begins.

The meeting proceeds slowly, more or less according to the agenda which Greg has written up on the whiteboard behind the Chairperson’s table. I struggle to follow what is going on-where we are up to on the agenda. Most of the people here I don’t know. There are a lot of the more senior community members in attendance . The discussion is almost all in Yol\u matha . The various speakers talk in their clan languages which include the languages of Gumatj, Rirratji\u, Golumala, Wangurri, |aymil and others. My concentration lapses often and I feel guilty about this. I try to follow the major items and am anxious to pick up when the discussion moves on to the issue of the development of the management of one of the Dhimurru Recreation Areas. I feel as if it’s my job to try and follow what is said about this particular place, known for the purposes of Dhimurru’s work as }anydjaka, or Cape Arnhem in English, as I have been employed to help develop a plan of management for }anydjaka. The meeting seems to me to lurch from animated conversation between a few

5 The CCNT was restructured in July 1995 to form the newly named Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory (PWCNT).

6 people to periods in the proceedings when one person is given the opportunity to speak more or less uninterrupted. The individual speakers sometimes stand up and address the meeting. Some speeches are quite long and passionate. The other members of the group sit quietly waiting for the speaker to finish. Debate ensues when the speaker has made their contribution. Men and women both contribute to the discussion.

Djaàì\ba is speaking. I know Djaàì\ba, or Old Joe, from his visits to the Dhimurru office. He is a tall, charismatic man, a senior member of the Gumatj clan and a very important ceremonial leader. I guessed that the meeting had now moved to discuss }anydjaka because I know that Djaàì\ba is a custodian of this place. He has been to the office to discuss the management plan project for }anydjaka that I am also working on. A couple of days ago I arranged to travel to }anydjaka with him this weekend to start learning about the country. But what was he saying now, I wondered? I could make out some words: ‘}anydjaka’, ‘ Gumatj ’, ‘Dhimurru’, ‘Yol\u’, ‘ranger’, ‘NLC’, ‘ w^\a’ ...and a few others. I felt frustrated and desperately wanted to understand more of what he was saying. As Djaàì\ba finished talking, others joined in a discussion. I guessed that the meeting was talking about people and the place, }anydjaka. I heard Djaàì\ba saying ‘~amamirri’-the name of a Yol\u clan I had heard before. Greg had explained to me previously that as far as he was aware this clan had ownership interests in }anydjaka and was now represented by its last two remaining members who lived at the Yol\u community of Galiwin’ku (see Appendix D) for a list of Dhimurru Committee members by clan and the names of the ~amamirri women). Two old ~amamirri ladies. I wondered whether Djaàì\ba was talking about going to Galiwin’ku to talk to the old ladies about ideas Dhimurru had about how to manage }anydjaka? I know that Djaàì\ba had talked with Greg about wanting to take them to visit }anydjaka-they have never been there before, he says. Their connection to }anydjaka and the visit Djaàì\ba proposed seemed to be an important part of Dhimurru’s work in caring for this place. The management planning work involved the ~amamirri women. Perhaps Djaàì\ba would explain more to me on the weekend.

7 Scene 2: A Monday Morning at Dhimurru --- March 1996

The morning air was moist and tepid as I sweated up the stairs onto the verandah of the Dhimurru office building. I’d thought I was going to be the first person here today but a glance into the tearoom revealed Djawa, Botha and Nanikiya talking over their first cups of tea of the day. I join them in the small room cluttered with gear and office materials: swags and eskies from a recent camping trip; a pile of archive boxes in the corner containing administrative files; a fridge and sink with tea-stained cups and scatterings of sugar; and the table where the men now sit, are the main instalments of this ‘smoko’ (tea) room. The toilet and a small bathroom adjoin this room. Dhimurru guests sometimes stay at the office and a collapsible camping bed, now leaning against the bathroom wall, is used to transfer the smoko room into self-contained accommodation.

I make myself a cup of tea and we drag plastic chairs out on to the verandah and sit. The men smoke and talk in Yol\u matha while I sit quietly drinking my tea. I follow some of what they are saying, picking out a few words and expressions here and there. We talk together intermittently in English, about the day’s program, the work the rangers are doing at }anydjaka and other things. Botha takes the hose from the side of the building and sprays the newly sown lawn in front of the office. This is a ritual he shares with Mark, the PWCNT Ranger, who is anxious for the lawn to grow before the onset of the harsh conditions of the Dry Season.

The Dhimurru office is reasonably new-we’ve been working out of this building now for two years. It has been quickly adorned with the artefacts of a newly imagined land management space. It is much like a national park rangers’ station or forest planners’ building: I have been in a few of these during my training as a forester. There are several maps on the walls showing various things including the location of Yol\u Homeland communities in NE Arnhem Land, and the vegetation communities of }anydjaka.. Above the photocopier there are certificates neatly pinned to the wall. These have been received by the Dhimurru Rangers and Dhimurru Trainee Rangers for successful completion of various PWCNT training courses. The individual rangers and trainee rangers have certificates for courses in chainsaw operation, four-wheel-driving, firearms and navigation skills. There are also First Aid Certificates which the rangers have obtained from the St John Ambulance Service.

The photos which adorn a large pinboard along another wall of the office are a record of Dhimurru’s short life. They show the rangers at Dhimurru undertaking

8 patrols, tagging sea turtles, burning islands, taking guided walks of Gay\aru (the Town Lagoon at Nhulunbuy), driving, digging holes, erecting signs and trapping mammals. There are photos showing some of the older members of the Dhimurru community standing in the shadow of Ulu ru (known in English as Ayers Rock) talking to Anangu Aboriginal rangers. There are also photos of the same Dhimurru contingent overlooking the wetlands at Yellow Waters in Kakadu National Park and in the cruise boats. I also recognise Dja`a`i\ba in one of the photos standing next to a giant ‘magnetic’ termite mound at Litchfield National Park, south of Darwin.

In the main Dhimurru workspace there are bookshelves containing books, reports, video cassette tapes, photo albums and a plant press. There are computers on several desks, a television and video unit, a fax machine and photocopier. There is also a large whiteboard which records the week’s work program. An internal dividing wall forms a smaller second workspace within the building. It is linked to the other larger room by an open doorway. This area has a high bench which separates the workspace of the Administration Officer, Sharon, from the public reception space. Things are more procedural here in the reception area. This is the public face of Dhimurru. Permits are issued here, questions answered, information exchanged. The area also has an educational function. There are large photos on the wall showing dune damage due to vehicle use, and photos of sea turtles caught in discarded fishing nets. A stand holds copies of the interpretative pamphlets for the Dhimurru Recreation Areas which Djawa and I produced last year. Four small-scale, black and white satellite photos of }anydjaka are arranged together and cover one whole wall. This image is beautiful; the land and sea forms distinguishable by the change in texture and colour gradations of this view from space. The image is a popular talking point among visitors to the office.

Now, most of the Dhimurru workers have arrived and Nanikiya, a Senior Dhimurru Ranger, warns us that the morning meeting is about to start. There is a great dragging and manoeuvring of chairs as people move inside from the verandah. By now we are used to cramming into the small back part of the office and know how annoying it is to arrive late and get stuck behind the partition and close to the constantly ringing phone. We finally settle ourselves into plastic chairs facing the whiteboard, most of us clutching a cup of tea. On this morning Botha volunteers to transcribe the agreed tasks into the work plan on the whiteboard.

The well-used table drawn in red on the whiteboard surface is filled in with last week’s work plan. The names of the workers are listed in boxes of the table

9 down the far left hand column, the days of the week along the top row from left to right. In the boxes of the table, the tasks or work activities are marked in delible black pen in an abbreviated form. Each Monday morning, tasks from the previous week are erased and new ones take their places. Sometimes the planned activity is described in a box, for example, ‘Boat patrol to The Granites’. Sometimes, if a subsequent decision was made for other people to undertake the same activity, the name of the place or just the name of the activity would be written in a person’s box. This work plan in shorthand remains on prominent display in the office for reference by the workers.

There is a large group (ten) of us here this morning although the absence of the Batchelor College (now BIITE) students and Dhimurru Trainee Rangers makes the event somewhat less chaotic from my point of view. There is no teaching workshop scheduled for this week so I am attending the Dhimurru planning meeting as their lecturer to learn about what is happening in the organisation over the next week or so. I have been working for Batchelor College for over a year now. In this role I continue to work closely with Dhimurru with whom I now have more than a two-year working relationship. My agenda is to try and suggest ways in which Dhimurru and the men enrolled in the natural and cultural resource management course through Batchelor College can integrate their activities.

‘OK, what do we have to do today?’, Botha one of the Dhimurru Rangers announces. ‘We have to go and finish laying down that board-and-chain at }anydjaka?’

‘Yeah’, responds Mark the PWCNT ranger, ‘“Mark Two”6 and I drilled holes in more of the boards on Friday arvo. They’re ready to go.’

The group considers how to go ahead with the job of laying the ‘board-and- chain’ at }anydjaka. It takes quite a lot of discussion to get the job organised. }anydjaka (see Plate 1; Figure 1) is a one to one and a half hour drive away on a difficult four-wheel-drive track. The materials for the board and chain project must be transported to the site where they are to be laid by four- wheel-drive utility. It’s hard to fit a lot of the boards (long, flat and narrow planks of hardwood timber) into each ute at any one time. We anticipate many trips to }anydjaka will be required over the next couple of weeks to transport all the boards. The board-and-chain is intended to abate soil erosion on the

6 Mark is referring here to Mark Woodward, the other PWCNT Ranger based at Nhulunbuy at this time, who was given the nickname of ‘Mark Two’.

10 vehicle access track at }anydjaka. Mark learnt about this technology from an article in an Australian land management journal produced by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA, now Parks Australia) called ‘Ranger’. The article described laying down disused rubber mine conveyor belts to help prevent car wheels creating ruts in areas susceptible to erosion, particularly on fragile sand dunes such as those at }anydjaka. Mark has negotiated with Nabalco, the company which manages the multinational bauxite mining project on the Gove Peninsula, to get some of their disused belting for Dhimurru to use. Nabalco has the longest overland conveyor belt in the Southern Hemisphere. It snakes from the mine site near the Gove Airport for 18.7 km (Nabalco c.1995) to the processing plant on Melville Bay where it disgorges raw bauxite onto stockpiles to await refining.

The rangers continue to discuss the board-and-chain project. Who will drive and which vehicles they will take? When they will load the materials? Where they have been stored? Will the vehicles proceed in convoy, or maybe one or more should make a start on their own before the others? How many days will be spent on this job this week depending on other work commitments, and who will be involved on these days? It sounds complicated but it doesn’t take too long. In a few minutes they have a work plan which involves the ongoing board-and-chain ‘job’. There are, however, other things to be done this week-meetings to be attended, visitors to be hosted, consultations to be made-a typical range of work tasks faced by the employees of Dhimurru in a typical week.

11 Scene 3: Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) launch

Gu`ku`a, 16 March 2001

We arrive mid-morning at Gu`kuà. Gu`kuà is Gumatj land located approximately 20 kilometres south of the Gove airport in NE Arnhem Land. It is associated with the Wa\arr (known in English as ‘the Dreaming’ or ‘the Dreamtime’) figures of the spiritman Ganbulapula, the ancestral dingo, and bird, guwak . It is a place of honey; the Yirritja guku (honey) from the stringybark tree known as gay[aka . It is also a home of the yidaki , the Yol\u name for the instrument commonly known as the ‘didgeridu’. Gu`kuà is also the site of the old Dhupuma College, a boarding school for Aboriginal students of secondary school age, which operated here from 1972 to 1980 (White 1991). Only recently, after protracted negotiations, has the Northern Territory Government cleared most of the old College buildings away. The old College oval (sporting ground) is now used as a ceremonial ground for the annual Garma Festival which is organised by the Yothu Yindi Foundation (YYF) and the GCSI. A tall, brightly painted wooden sculpture of Ganbulapula stands at one end of this large clearing in the bush (see Plate 2). The YYF has developed infrastructure at Gu`kuà, including permanent shelters, an ablution block and bore, and a couple of demountable buildings. Dhimurru is planning to host an Indigenous rangers conference here in September. The European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO), which tracked rockets launched from the Woomera army base in South Australia, operated at Gu`kuà from 1964 to 1969. Remnants of this operation are also scattered around the area.

We begin arranging chairs, a video cabinet, and photo display under the large shelter at the edge of the escarpment. From here we can see in the distance the southern coastline of |anydjaka stretching to Yala\bara and Port Bradshaw. I help the Dhimurru Rangers to sweep the concrete floor of the shelter and to wipe down and then position the chairs in rows facing south. Some time later we are instructed to turn the chairs around. Then someone suggests that the chairs should be arranged to the sides of the shelter to allow the passage of the launch delegation. Gradually, and with much shifting, the chairs and people are fitted together. This takes a couple of leisurely hours, in between cigarette breaks and conversation. We pin the Dhimurru flag high on a wall of the shelter, and above it, the new Dhimurru IPA sign. The IPA sign states that the Dhimurru IPA is ‘Managed to World Conservation Union standards by the Yol\u Traditional Owners and Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation’. It displays the Dhimurru logo, and the Commonwealth coat of arms. It also

12 acknowledges the Commonwealth Government’s Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) program with its slogan ‘Helping Communities Helping Australia’.

The IPA launch ceremony is due to start at 11 am. Most of the invited guests are now here, and the din of heavy rain on the corrugated iron roof of the shelter causes everyone to raise their voices as they chat and wait expectantly. I notice Djaàì\ba arrive and hasten to say hello to him. He’s a difficult man to catch these days. We stand together and watch some of the new video about the Dhimurru miyapunu (sea turtle) research and management program. Djaàì\ba has been involved in this project since its inception more than six years ago and he features in some of the video. We laugh together as he appears on the screen, standing tall with a somewhat sceptical expression on his face beside an eminent marine biologist. The biologist is earnestly describing the habits of Garun, the Loggerhead Turtle. Djaàì\ba travelled to Mon Repos in Queensland in 1995 along with another Dhimurru Ranger and Dhimurru Trainee Ranger to witness Garun nesting. This visit was a significant event as Garun does not nest in Yol\u country and some Yol\u people have puzzled over this. I remember on his return from Queensland Djaàì\ba saying, ‘I’ve seen it with my own eyes’. This is a story that is often re-told at Dhimurru and the video prompts our reflections.

The Commonwealth Government’s Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, and his entourage arrive with a gaggle of media personnel in tow. After a time spent milling around, the senior members of Dhimurru, the leader of the NLC, the Manager of Nabalco, the Senator and other dignified guests assemble at one end of the shelter. Representatives of the Northern Territory Government are notably absent from the IPA launch. Nanikiya, a Senior Dhimurru Ranger, assures me that the Northern Territory Minister for Parks and Wildlife, and the Director of the PWCNT were invited but he has not had a response from either of them. A senior PWCNT Ranger, Mark Stevens, who was previously based at Nhulunbuy and who worked closely with Dhimurru for many years is also not here today. I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago and he was unsure if his Movement Requisition for travel to the launch event would be approved. Several of the Dhimurru rangers comment to me that they wish he could have made it.

The launch ceremony begins. A group of Yol\u men accompanied by a yidaki player dance and sing their way into the shelter from the opposite end to the dignitaries. Two men dance with long spears and the standing crowd parts to let them pass. Cameras click and flash and the rain beats down overhead. The

13 Yol\u dancers make their way to the table where senior Yol\u are sitting and in front of which the Senator stands. The rhythmic bleat of the yidaki stops and one of the men hands the Senator a spear and a spear thrower. Several speeches ensue, just audible above the sound of the thrumming of the rain on the roof.

Nanikiya welcomes us in English. Dja`a`i\ba then speaks in Gumatj, followed by Bakamumu Marika, a senior Rirratji\u representative, who also speaks mostly in his own language of Rirratji\u. Galarrwuy Yunupi\u, a senior Gumatj representative and Chairman of the NLC addresses the crowd next in English and Gumatj, and then Senator Hill speaks. He praises the efforts of Yol\u in the successful and sustainable management of their estates in accordance with the National Reserve System (NRS) as a registered Protected Area. He acknowledges that

‘Dhimurru’s willingness to combine traditional knowledge of country with Western scientific approaches is a very innovative and effective way of ensuring this special area remains healthy and productive for future generations’ (Hill 2001).

The General Manager of Nabalco, the bauxite mining company which operates on nearby Yol\u lands and within the newly declared Dhimurru IPA, then speaks briefly. The signing of the Certificate of IPA Declaration follows and a long photo session with members of Dhimurru posing proudly with the Senator. Senator Hill has impromptu lessons from Djawa Yunupi\u, a senior Dhimurru Ranger, on how to hold the spear and spear thrower he has been given. They laugh together at the Senator’s efforts to balance the hunting tools.

14 THIS THESIS

I was involved with Dhimurru during this period of its history. Employed in 1995 on a contract basis with Dhimurru, I worked as a researcher helping to develop a plan of management for an area known locally as }anydjaka (or Cape Arnhem). }anydjaka is a particularly vulnerable section of the estates that Dhimurru manages. Later, in 1996, I was employed as a lecturer by Batchelor College to develop and deliver the Associate Diploma course in Applied Science (Natural and Cultural Resource Management) (Ass. Dip. App. Sci. (NCRM)) to ten Yol\u students located at Dhimurru. In 1996 I enrolled part time in a PhD program in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Melbourne and began the years of study which led to this thesis.

}anydjaka, and the other designated Recreation Areas under the jurisdiction of Dhimurru, are subject to a regime of management which differs from the ways other lands and seas are dealt with in contemporary Yol\u life. These Recreation Areas have been made available by Yol\u landowners for use by non-Aboriginal people. The conditions of use and access are stipulated by the Dhimurru system of Recreation Permits. Many of the activities of Dhimurru personnel and the deployment of its resources centre around the Recreation Areas, including ranger patrols of these areas, infrastructure development, public interpretation of features, management planning, and wildlife and vegetation management and research. These activities involve land and sea management issues which are a result of the development of Nhulunbuy, the increased recreational use of Yol\u estates by non-Aboriginal visitors, and the contemporary environmental impacts of colonisation including weeds, feral animals, resource exploitation (e.g. commercial fishing in traditional Yol\u sea estates and mining), and damage to Yol\u sites of significance. The management regime practised by Dhimurru in this context, and the institution of Dhimurru itself, sit partially within the arena of contemporary mainstream (predominantly non- Aboriginal) land and sea management in Australia, and partly within the arena of Yol\u land and sea management practice.

Between 1989 and 1998 Dhimurru and Yol\u owners of estates in NE Arnhem Land participated in an informal cooperative management agreement with the Northern Territory government through their conservation and land management body, the PWCNT. As part of this working relationship, the PWCNT employed two Rangers to work alongside Yol\u Rangers at Dhimurru and committed substantial resources to assist Dhimurru in its works program, including vehicles, a boat and other equipment. The PWCNT also provided other personnel to work with Dhimurru on specific projects including flora and fauna surveys, sea turtle research, and ranger training and

15 development activities. Under this arrangement the Northern Territory Government through its PWCNT had no authority to determine any use or administration of Yol\u lands.

In early 1998 the PWCNT withdrew from the cooperative arrangement with Dhimurru, primarily as a result of failed negotiations about the creation of a Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area (IPA).

Dhimurru was undeterred by the failure of its association with the PWCNT and went on to investigate alternative administrative arrangements with other government organisations. The outcome of this new initiative was that in December 2000, the Yol\u owners of lands and seas declared the Dhimurru IPA. The Dhimurru IPA, the first in the Northern Territory, is managed by Dhimurru with assistance from the Commonwealth’s environmental protection and conservation agency, Environment Australia (EA). As an IPA, the Dhimurru management area forms part of the Commonwealth’s NRS of protected areas. This administrative association proved more robust and flexible than the one Dhimurru had experienced with the PWCNT. Indigenous Protected Areas are a new version of collaborative land and sea management in Australia. According to the Director of the Indigenous Programs Section of EA, an IPA agreement between Indigenous stakeholders and government is ‘A statement of management intent, not a legal statement’ (Szabo, S. pers. comm.).

Part of the work of Dhimurru is the struggle to negotiate a framework for land and sea management which, primarily informed by Yol\u knowledge traditions, still allows it to draw on understandings of technoscientific land and sea management, and utilise the resources (including interactions with ‘expert’ personnel) which emanate from the institutions of contemporary mainstream land and sea management in Australia. The questions I am asking in this thesis are concerned with the struggle to negotiate this framework. I am trained as a scientist and my interest is in technoscientific knowledge traditions. My focus is on how technoscience can fit into contemporary Yol\u land and sea management. I am asking ‘How can conventional (technoscientific) land management practices both work with, and be open to being changed by Aboriginal practices?’ This implies the symmetrical question of: how might Aboriginal practices be open to change? But I argue that this is not for me (trained in technoscientific land management and a philosophically-inclined sociology) to answer. I also ask the question ‘How do we live and work together in the cooperative management of Aboriginal (Yol\u) land and sea?’

In this thesis I explore how ‘knowledge’ and ‘land’ and ‘sea’ are indissolubly mutually embedded within the notion of ‘land and sea management’. From the beginning of

16 my work at Dhimurru I felt that this embedding is different in an Aboriginal community compared to one organised around modern bureaucratic structures. I investigate this difference/sameness, not in an abstract way, but in describing the everyday work practices at Dhimurru. I struggle to make explicit the generative nature of Dhimurru’s work by showing the creative tension that is emergent in the negotiations over how to produce workable management plans and knowing rangers in the contemporary management of Yol\u estates.

In Chapter 1 I present a view of the policy and institutional context that is the domain of land and sea management in contemporary Australia and internationally. I examine a selection of pivotal documents and events which chronicle the development of modern environmentalism, first globally and then in Australia. (In each case I have selected some documents that refer specifically to Indigenous land and sea management.) These documents provide a dominant moral framework in contemporary land and sea management which mobilises the concept of ecologically sustainable development (with its popular acronym ESD) and the concept of conservation of biodiversity as imperatives for a sustained future on earth. They provide an answer to the question ‘How should we live together in the world?’ According to these documents and the institutional arrangements which embed them, the answer to this question lies in the pursuit of technoscience as the organising framework for universal land and sea management and the production of useful knowledge.

Chapter 2 is about the ‘joint management’ of lands and seas in Australia, taking the two most publicised examples of the Ulu ru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu National Parks as the basis for my exploration of this concept. I consider the plans of management for these national parks and the ontological strategies these documents use to present their versions of joint management in these times and places. These strategies are an ontological framing which draw on predominantly relativist and universalist theories of knowledge, respectively.

In Chapter 3 I give a brief history of the Yol\u estate of }anydjaka as an object of biological interest. I also provide an account of the development of Dhimurru as a response by Yol\u to use of their estates for recreation by non-Aboriginal visitors, including its efforts to negotiate a new form of cooperative land and sea management with the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth Government.

In Chapter 4 I consider the work of doing a fauna survey on the Dhimurru-managed Yol\u estate of }anydjaka. I participated in this survey work as an employee of

17 Dhimurru and assisted biologists from the PWCNT in the survey fieldwork. My account of this work reveals ways in which practitioners of technoscience mobilise the object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. I contend that the methodology of the fauna survey work is one of ‘naming’ and ‘tracing’ animal objects using devices and techniques in environmental science. These include the use of indices of biodiversity based on species’ presence or absence. Such indices are used by scientists to define particular places of biological interest as worthy of ‘reserve’ status.

In Chapter 5 I consider the practices of developing a plan of management for }anydjaka. This involves a detailed account of work I performed with my colleagues at Dhimurru, telling and learning }anydjaka. We performed the ‘working-up’ of the plan of management through the practices of ‘journeying’ and ‘naming’ at }anydjaka and the telling of ‘place stories’, in place and elsewhere. I contend that the Senior Dhimurru Ranger-Cultural Adviser (a Yol\u landowner and custodian for }anydjaka) used this form of ‘naming’ as a translation device to mobilise the place }anydjaka in the plan of management. These everyday ‘journeying’ and ‘naming’ practices drew relationships between people and places in particular ways through utilising the Yol\u ‘technologies’ of djalkiri and gurru=u . These practices are in contrast with those technoscientific practices I describe in Chapter 3.

In Chapter 6 I continue my discussion of the work of doing a plan of management for Nanydjaka (Cape Arnhem) by considering the question ‘What is our object of management?’ I write here of what happened after the plan of management document had been written and safely tucked away in various filing cabinets. I consider the work of doing the plan of management. I tell of various episodes in the working of the plan of management which reveal Dhimurru’s object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, as a multiplicity. I take inspiration here from the theoretical approach known as the ‘performative move’ within the social studies of science as developed by Mol (1998), Mol & Law (1998), Law and Singleton (2000) and Verran (2001a). This move recognises how objects are performed in practice and allows us to see possibilities for the productive coexistence of multiple realities within the doing of contemporary Yol\u land and sea management.

In Chapter 7 I consider possibilities for developing an appropriate pedagogy/curriculum for the education and training of Yol\u Rangers at Dhimurru. I do this by examining the practices of particular episodes in Dhimurru’s program of Yol\u Ranger training which produce the categories around which rangers’ work is organised. The work of a ranger is the making and re-making of these categories to produce and sustain particular realities which include the universal technoscientific

18 object of management Nature/’the environment’, and the Yol\u material-symbolic entity of w^\a. I suggest that through the unique Yol\u methodology of cultural/environmental workshops (previously called ‘gatha rom’ workshops) we can begin to see ways in which the creative tension between technoscientific and Yol\u land and sea management knowledges can be a foundation for teaching/learning in land and sea management for Yol\u rangers. Maintaining this creative tension through the explicit negotiation of a methodology of what I call ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ allows us to honour the difference/sameness of technoscience and Yol\u knowledges in non-trivial ways.

CHAPTER 1. CONTEMPORCONTEMPORARYARY LAND AND SEA MANMANAGEMENTAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA

The emergent Aboriginal land and sea management organisation, Dhimurru, is one of many local bodies that carry out contemporary management of land and sea in Australia. In many ways it is a unique and different organisation; and in other ways it resembles other organisations doing land and sea management work. Dhimurru operates within a broader policy and institutional context that is the domain of land and sea management in contemporary Australia and the world. In this chapter I consider some general issues of land and sea management in Australia as a way of developing a background against which Dhimurru can be seen.

I ask ‘What does land and sea management in Australia set out to achieve?’ I answer this question by considering the main policy documents and institutional visions for the management of land and sea for Australia. These documents represent an ‘official’ version of how land and sea management should be done and are material traces of a moral prescription for this enterprise. I describe these documents as I ask about the system of ideas or principles that underpin the social, economic and political system of land and sea management in contemporary Australia.

Why is it important to examine these policy documents and institutional visions in such detail? Firstly, to show the pervasiveness of the assumption of the separation between society and nature in environmental policy even where Indigenous communities are concerned. This separation is implicit in these documents and institutions; Nature is assumed to sit ‘outside’ the realm of the social, and ‘place’ is understood as material location plus added sociality. It is a separation inimical to Yol\u Aboriginal knowledges, where ‘place’ is emergent in socio-material practices. The second reason to examine these documents and institutional visions is to show the context within which the Yol\u land and sea management organisation, Dhimurru, is emerging as an NGO in the 21st century. This is a context where the ‘protocols’ (Strathern 2000) which organise practices and politics are embodied in the international and national policy and strategic documents in environmental technoscience and the institutions which embed them. Strathern suggests that such ‘protocols to do with ethics, audit, and policy have displaced other objects (autonomous institutions, responsible citizens, the rule of law, professional duty-the list is endless)...Audit/Policy/Ethics [is ] a triad of emergent practices, a set of related trajectories’ (2000, p. 282).

20 1.1 Land and Sea Management Policy and Strategy in Australia

‘...no part of Australia should be devoid of management’ 7

Previous commentators suggest that there have been three main eras in ‘evolving Australian environmental visions’ (Frawley 1994 in Dovers ed. 1994, p. 61) since colonisation: 1. ‘exploitative pioneering: nineteenth century onwards’, 2. ‘national development and “wise use” of resources: c.1900-1960s’, and 3. ‘modern environmentalism: 1960s-present’ (p. 61). These visions have been identified as the basis for policy formation and environmental bureaucratic and legislative structures during those eras. They embed the Australian nation’s perception of, and interaction with, its lands and seas. I am interested in the set of ideas and principles which these visions express, in particular, that of modern environmentalism.

Others have written extensively of colonial land and sea management, and how this has impacted on the Aboriginal owners and inhabitants of Australia (see Hiatt 1984; Williams 1998; Langton 1998; Langton, Epworth and Sinnamon 1998?). Many of these accounts are also concerned with explicating the lifestyles and societies of Aboriginal Australians and their interactions with the environments in which they live or lived. These questions are pursued predominantly through the disciplines of anthropology, cultural geography, and the so-called ethnosciences. From the 1980s, the term Traditional Ecological Knowledge, with its popular acronym ‘TEK’ (see Williams & Baines 1993; IUCN 1997) has organised these studies. The mobilisation of the term TEK is an example of a move within the social and technosciences to consider Indigenous knowledges as constituting systematic and exhaustive bases for the management of land and sea under particular conditions and histories. This evolution in the perceptions of Indigenous knowledges by western technoscientific domains is framed within the ideology 8 of modern environmentalism. Milton observes:

7 From paper prepared by two independent working groups to the Prime Minister’s Science Council (c.1992, p. 11). 8 Milton (1993) in Milton (ed.) (1993) notes that environmentalism has been variously analysed as ‘social movement’ (p. 10) and ‘ideology’ (p. 11). In my use of environmentalism the particular expression of immediate relevance is that of environmentalism as ideology; as moral and political commitment. I present my evidence for this in the form of a series of policy statements which emerge from the contemporary institutions responsible for land and sea management in Australia.

[E]nvironmentalism is not confined to ‘contemporary complex cultures’. It is found both in the institutionalised practices of non- industrial peoples, and in their responses to external threats. The Australian Aborigine who avoids hunting animals on sacred sites, and performs ceremonies to ensure the continued existence of edible species, is, like the Greenpeace campaigner, implementing environmental responsibilities. (1993a, p. 3)

It is this ideology of environmentalism which interests me here, since it is within this framework that for the first time Aboriginal voices are starting to be heard in a systematic way. This is not to say, however, that within this framework Indigenous statements and knowledges are necessarily taken as a serious and legitimate alternative or counterpart to technoscientific understandings of the world and its environments. They can be marginalised, or even dismissed. In some cases, and for some purposes, they may be reified, and privileged, and ignored in a different way. I want to explore ways in which Indigenous knowledges can work with and engage in productive and mutually beneficial and non-trivial ways with technoscientific understandings of land and sea within contemporary environmentalism. If technoscientific and Aboriginal knowledge communities are to work together in authentic ways, we need to recognise the difference/sameness of the knowledge- making traditions of these communities.

I am not concerned here with a systematic analysis of environmentalism, but with its expression in the contemporary ideology of land and sea management in Australia. Contemporary land and sea management prescribes a particular set of rules for human action and behaviour towards the environment, or Nature, and is founded within the ideology of environmentalism. I describe environmentalism as ideology to emphasise its political nature. It is a politics which advocates a reappraisal of the interactions between people and the environments in which they live based around ideas of ecology as they are mobilised within technoscientific knowledge domains. O’Riordan (1981), in his treatise on environmentalism, identifies the contradictions which beset this movement due to the divergent evolution of two ideological themes within it: the ecocentric mode and the technoscentric mode. The technocentric mode is identified by rationality, the ‘objective’ appraisal of means to achieve given goals (O’Riordan 1981, p. 11). This values the elements of control and efficiency in the ability for humankind to determine its interactions with and understandings of environmental and social processes (p. 11). Alternatively, the ecocentric mode centres on the inherent morality of ‘nature’ (p. 4) and advocates that humankind has a responsibility to protect and nurture the natural world. The ecocentric mode is

22 consistent with the Enlightenment notion of a Nature object, ‘out there’, and a removed observer subject ‘here’. The ecocentric mode in environmentalism is the predominant basis for modern conservation and land and sea management principles and is vigorously practised by international organisations such as the World Conservation Union (WCU). The focus for planning and management of natural systems within the ecocentric framework of environmentalism is the ecosystem 9 as described by the scientific discipline of ecology.

Ecological science in Australia is to some degree still a ‘science of empire’ (Robin 1997, p. 63). It has its roots in the European and American traditions of Romanticism 10 and the Enlightenment ideal of a pure Nature state. The definition of ecology in Australia was thus influenced both by the founding political empire of Britain and the emerging scientific empire of the United States of America (Robin 1997, p. 63). As a settler colony, science and scientific institutions in Australia were historically influenced by the development of ecology as it emerged in questions of land and sea management and the interactions of nature and culture in a unknown land. Robin (1997) notes that ecology in Australia has been variously mobilised as a ‘science for development’ and a science for conservation (‘conservation science’, p. 65). As a ‘science for development’ the practices of ecology in the land and sea management enterprise of the federation of Australia were coordinated and controlled by a centralised government bureaucracy: the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The ‘science for development’ approach was central to the development of agriculture and visions for its improved economic efficiency and production. Later, in the middle of the twentieth century, a ‘conservation science’ (Robin 1997, p. 65) approach emerged in response to concerns over soil erosion and its effects on agriculture and water production. This included forestry, and soil conservation and ‘science for conservation’ thus ‘became the next important umbrella for ecological work in Australia’ (p. 71) ...

Robin’s historical analysis of the development and application of ecology in Australia echoes the lineages of environmentalism identified by O’Riordan (1981). Both authors identify the attempt through ecology and environmentalism to understand in new ways the relationship between humankind and our environment. This new understanding must take into account, the economic imperatives of the modern world-the impetus for development. It must also recognise that our modern economic

9 The genesis of the concept ‘ecosystem’ is generally attributed to Tansley who described ecosystems as ‘the systems so formed which, from the point of view of the ecologist, are the basic units of nature on the face of the earth...These ecosystems, as we may call them, are of the most various kinds and sizes.’ (Tansley 1935, p. 299 in Corona & Zeide (eds) 1999, p. 10).

23 systems, and most dramatically, humankind’s long-term survival, depend on the ability of the world’s environments to support our means of production and livelihood-the impetus for conservation.

Managing the tension between these two impulses-‘development’ and ‘conservation’-is a moral issue at the heart of the modern world’s most pervasive land and sea management goal, ecologically sustainable development. The concept of ecologically sustainable development, through its descriptive and prescriptive powers, is itself a way of managing this tension between ‘development’ and ‘conservation’, and its corollaries: ‘growth’ and ‘protection’; ‘instability’ and ‘balance’; ‘demise’ and ‘survival’. It provides a moral framework for action based on the analysis of ecological and economic data and prudent planning. This framework legislates an answer to the question ‘How should we live?’

The emergence and development of the environmentalist ideology of land and sea management in contemporary Australia, and of ecologically sustainable development in particular, can be traced through a series of Australian and international documents. In the following section of this chapter, I present some of the main documents that are landmarks in the emergence of this ideology. They take the form of international and Australian reports, strategies, agreements, policies, programs of action, charters, statements, inquiries and plans. In presenting these documents I am describing a politics of environmentalism as much as a rendering of this ideology in policy. By this I mean that these documents are objects within technoscientific land and sea management in Australia which perform a certain politics of people and place, and of ‘nature’ and ‘culture’. However, as we shall see, this does not imply that a consistent, or even a coherent, viewpoint is elaborated throughout these policies and programs. I present the documents here in chronological order. (See Table 1.1 for a selection of these documents some of which I have described in greater detail in the following section of this chapter.)

1.2 InternatInternationalional Land and Sea Management AgreementsAgreements

The management of land and sea in Australia expresses an agenda largely set outside Australia within an international debate and discourse on environmental and economic management. I begin my attempt to understand the framing within which questions of land and sea management in Australia, and questions of Aboriginal land and sea management, come to life by presenting aspects of several important international documents.

10 Classic protagonists in the Romantic vision of Nature include the writers Rosseau (1754) and Thoreau (1854), and the English

1. The World Conservation Strategy: Living ResourceRe source ConservationConservation for Sustainable Development (WCS) was produced in 1980 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (later to become the IUCN) in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). It is the first major document to address international concerns about the management of environmental resources and to promote sustainable development. 11 The WCS is a 48-page, softcover document with the following sections: ‘Preamble and Guide’ (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1980, p. I), ‘Executive Summary’ (p. VI), and the ‘World Conservation Strategy’. The ‘World Conservation Strategy’ section of the document consists of 20 double-page sections under the broad headings ‘The objectives of conservation and requirements for their achievement’, ‘Priorities for national action’, ‘Priorities for international action’ and ‘Map section’.

The WCS identifies among the ‘prerequisites for sustainable development is the conservation of living resources’ (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1980, s. 1, para. 2). This ‘living resource conservation’ it elaborates, ‘is specifically concerned with plants, animals and microorganisms, and with those non-living elements of the environment on which they depend’ (s. 1, para. 4). It also states that human economic development must ‘come to terms with the reality of resource limitation and the carrying capacity of ecosystems’ (p. I). It advocates a ‘new environmental ethic’ (s. 1, para. 2) which aims to achieve the ‘integration of conservation and development to ensure that modifications to the planet do indeed secure the survival and wellbeing of all people’ (s. 1, para. 12).

The WCS urges countries of the world to prepare their own national conservation strategies in the pursuit of global sustainable development and provides a ‘Checklist of priority requirements’ (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1980, s. 20) to guide the development of such plans.

2.2.2. Our Common Future: From One Earth to One World. A CallCall for Action (Our Common Future , also known as the Bruntland Report), is a 400-page report by the United Nation’s World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published in 1987. This document is the response by the WCED to an urgent call by the General Assembly of the United Nations for ‘a global agenda for change’ (WCED

Romantic poets such as Wordsworth and Coleridge (1805). 11 The concept of sustainable development was first introduced in a major international forum at the United Nations conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972. It came to prominence in the World Conservation Strategy in 1980 (Reid 1995, p. xiii).

25 1987, p. ix) in which the WCED see themselves as ‘serving a notice-an urgent notice based on the latest and best scientific evidence-that the time has come to take the decisions needed to secure the resources to sustain this and coming generations’ (p. 2). Our Common Future advocates a new era of economic growth made possible by the management and improvement of technology and social organisation. It emphasises the interrelatedness of the environment, economic development and social and political factors, and reminds us of the interdependence of human societies.

According to Our Common Future , the world that we live in has changed throughout recent history. The introductory chapter, entitled ‘From One Earth to One World’, begins by claiming ‘a new reality’ for humanity engendered by our recent vision of Earth from space as ‘a small but fragile ball’ (WCED 1987, p. 2). It suggests we have to remake the order of this world in transition in order to achieve a viable global future through sustainable development. Sustainable development is defined in the document as ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (p. 43). The document is organised into three chapters which urge us to act according to: ‘Common Concerns’ (p. 25), ‘Common Challenges’ (p. 93) and ‘Common Endeavours’ (p. 259).

Our Common Future asserts the need to act in the ‘common interest’ (WCED 1987, p. 46) which calls for ‘new norms of behaviour at all levels and in the interests of all’ (p. xiv). The document asks a pivotal question: ‘How are individuals in the real world to be persuaded or made to act in the common interest?’. The answer to this question, Our Common Future suggests, ‘partly lies in education, institutional development and law enforcement’ (p. 46). These imply the need for a human moral code of conduct towards people and the environment, and Our Common Future reminds us: ‘All would be better off if each person took into account the effect of his or her acts upon others’ (p. 47). The document also promotes legislative and administrative regulation of environmental and economic behaviour.

3.3.3. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living was published in 1991 by the IUCN, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and WWF. Caring for the Earth ‘extends and emphasises the message of the World Conservation Strategy’. It promotes a new way of living based on an individual moral response to the Earth’s ability to support human life. It states:

The aim of Caring for the Earth is to help improve the condition of the world’s people, by defining two requirements. One is to secure a widespread and deeply-held commitment to a new ethic for sustainable living, and to translate its principles into practice. The other is to

26 integrate conservation and development: conservation to keep our actions within the Earth’s capacity, and development to enable people everywhere to enjoy long, healthy and fulfilling lives. (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991, p. 1)

Caring for the Earth is made up of three parts: ‘Part I: Principles for Sustainable Living’ (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991, p. 7); ‘Part II: Additional Actions for Sustainable Living’ (p. 87); and ‘Part III: Implementation and Follow-up’ (p. 163). Part I addresses the first ‘requirement’ noted above and consists of nine chapters. Chapter 1 of Part I presents the set of ‘Principles for Sustainable Living’ (p. 8) on which each of the rest of the chapters in Caring for the Earth are based. These principles are:

• ‘Respect and care for the community of life’ (p. 13) • ‘Improve the quality of human life’ (p. 18) • ‘Conserve the Earth’s vitality and diversity’ (p. 27) • ‘Keep within the Earth’s carrying capacity’ (p. 43) • ‘Change personal attitudes and practices’ (p. 52) • ‘Enable communities to care for their own environments’ (p. 57) • ‘Provide a national framework for integrating development and conservation’ (p. 64) • ‘Create a global alliance’ (p. 77).

These ideals are explored under the following chapter headings in Part I of Caring for the Earth :

• ‘Energy’ (p. 89) • ‘Business, industry and commerce’ (p. 96) • ‘Human settlements’ (p. 104) • ‘Farm and range lands’ (p. 110) • ‘Forest lands’ (p. 122) • ‘Fresh waters’ (p. 137) • ‘Oceans and coastal areas’ (p. 150). ‘

Caring for the Earth places strong emphasis on the need to engender change in human behaviour by virtue of a global ‘ethic for sustainable living’ (p. 13). This ethic is based upon the intrinsic value of nature as the document states: ‘Human development should not threaten the integrity of nature or the survival of other species’ (p. 14). It also emphasises the human responsibility or ‘duty of care’ (p. 9) towards the environment and claims: ‘Everyone should take responsibility for his or her impacts on nature’. The document advises that ‘This responsibility is both individual and collective’. It also identifies ‘ [the ]...special contribution that Indigenous peoples can make to the rediscovery of sustainable living by the world community’ (p. 14). It asserts this contribution through a need to respect all the species and systems of nature, and claims:

27 Respect for other forms of life is easiest in those cultures and societies that emphasise that humanity is both apart from and a part of nature. (p. 14)

4.4.4. Agenda 21: ProgrammeProgra mme of Action for Sustainable DevelopmentDevelopment (known as Agenda 212121)21 (UNCED 1993a, p. 13) is a document which emerged from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), (also known as the Earth Summit), held on 13 June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Earth Summit marked the twentieth anniversary of the first global forum on environmental management, the United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972. One hundred and seventy-five nations were represented at the conference whose goal was to devise integrated strategies that would halt and reverse the negative impact of human behaviour on the physical environment and promote environmentally sustainable economic development in all countries (UNCED 1993b). A number of other significant documents emanated from this meeting including the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development (UNCED 1993a, p. 7) and the Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests ( Statement of Forest Principles ) (p. 389). Two international treaties were also opened for signature at the meeting: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Treaty on Climate Change (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) (UNFCCCC). 12

Agenda 21 is the principal global plan ‘designed to set the state for both national and international action in the fields of environment and development (UNCED 1993b, p. v). This 600-page document presents itself as ‘a global consensus and political commitment’ (UNCED 1993a, p. 15) necessary to move the world towards the goal of sustainable development; it stands as a ‘comprehensive blueprint for action to be taken globally’ (p. 3). Agenda 21 comprises a set of recommendations organised into fourteen chapters under the sub-sections of: ‘Basis for Action’, ‘Objectives’, Activities’ and ‘Means of Implementation’ (UNCED 1993a). Together with the other Earth Summit agreements, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the Statement of Forest Principles , it promotes ‘the idea that humanity has reached a turning point’ (p. 3). It maintains that together, ‘in a global partnership for sustainable development’ (p. 15), we can better manage and protect

12 The UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol (see Table 1.2) has been at the centre of ongoing controversy between nations worldwide. The Protocol has not yet been ratified by the minimum number of countries (fifty-five) required to make it legally binding on parties. At May 2002, fifty-four countries have ratified or acceded to the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCC 2002). Australia signed and ratified the

28 the ecosystems upon which we rely for our basic needs and bring about a more prosperous future for us all. It suggests that we must change the ways we act towards our environment, this Earth our home. Agenda 21 recognises that ‘ [A] deep understanding of the rationale behind the drive for sustainable global development will enable every person to contribute to the success of Agenda 21 programs’ (Sitarz c.1993, p. 10). It thus suggests that knowledge is the basis for responsible action and advocates that as individuals, we must act knowingly and understand a common goal of achieving sustainable development.

5.5.5. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (known as the Rio Declaration ) is another product of the Earth Summit forum. It is a three-page document made up of twenty-seven principles. These principles are numbered separately and are one to four sentences long. They are intended to guide the world’s communities in their pursuit of sustainable development ‘with the goal of establishing a new and equitable partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among States, key sectors of society and people’ (UNCED 1993, p. 9). Principle 1 of the Rio Declaration states:

Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. (p. 9)

This and the other principles of the document circumscribe the relationship between humans and nature as the environment in which they exist and on which they depend for sustenance. Principle 1 implies that human beings are morally bound to reside within nature harmoniously. Much further down the list of twenty-seven Principles, Principle 22 is the first to address the involvement of alternative approaches to management of land and sea. It reads:

Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. (p. 11)

6.6.6. Principles and Guidelines on Indigenous and TraditiTradit ionalonal Peoples and Protected Areas is a more recent international statement on the role of Indigenous peoples in land and sea management. This document was produced in 2000 by the IUCN, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) and WWF in consultation with Indigenous peoples’ organisations (BeltrXn ed. 2000). This document consists of two

UNFCCC in 1992 but has not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol which operationalises the UNFCCC. This is due to the incumbent Commonwealth Government’s objections to the target level greenhouse gas emissions set for Australia by the Protocol.

29 parts: ‘Part 1: Introduction’ (p. 3) and ‘Part 2: ‘Principles and Guidelines on Protected Areas/Traditional Peoples’ (p. 7). It addresses the need to recognise Indigenous resource rights and Indigenous involvement in the management of protected areas. The document recognises the possibility for the reconciliation of Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests and protected area objectives. It states:

In reality, where Indigenous peoples are interested in the conservation and traditional use of their lands, territories, waters, coastal seas and other resources, and their fundamental human rights are accorded, conflicts need not arise between those people’s right and interests, and protected area objectives. (p. 3)

It also states that:

[T]he territorial and resource rights of Indigenous and other traditional peoples inhabiting protected areas must be respected by promoting and allowing full participation in co-management of resources, and in a way that would not affect or undermine the objectives for the protected area as set out in its management plan. (p. 4)

The first ‘Principle’ of the document identifies the special relationship between Indigenous peoples and their environments:

Principle 1: Indigenous and other traditional peoples have long associations with nature and a deep understanding of it. Often they have made significant contributions to the maintenance of many of the earth’s most fragile ecosystems, through their traditional sustainable resource use practices and culture-based respect for nature. (p. 6)

The document thus recognises an Indigenous approach to land and sea management based on ‘culture’.

In its other Principles and Guidelines (pp. 7-12), the document Principles and Guidelines on Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas , addresses: the establishment of protected areas involving Indigenous interests and agreements for protected area management between Indigenous and the conservation agencies of nation states (pp. 7-9); the institutional mechanisms for management, including plans of management (pp. 7-11); the sharing of economic and other benefits in the management of protected areas (p. 11); and the recognition of Indigenous rights and interests as an international responsibility (p. 11-12).

30 The major international policy and strategic documents that I have presented here advocate nation states as primary actors in developing and implementing local and global measures aimed at achieving sustainable land and sea management. So, we might ask, who within nations is responsible for the pursuit of the international goals of land and sea management that these documents present? I examine this question in the context of Australia by looking briefly at the institutions and arrangements that are concerned with the implementation of land and sea management strategy and policy.

1.3 Administration of Land and Sea in Australia

The administration of public land and sea in Australia is primarily the responsibility of Commonwealth (Federal), State and Territory, and local governments and their agencies. Environmental management and land use planning, policy formation, implementation and decision making is a complex arena in Australia due to the multiple levels of jurisdiction and fragmentation of processes. It is effected via a number of mechanisms including legislation relating to environmental use and protection, and institutional arrangements which delegate responsibilities in various ways. These mechanisms are both political and bureaucratic. Another mechanism used to administer the goals of land and sea management is the valuation of environmental products and resources including the provision of incentives for sustainable development. This approach recognises the interdependence of ecological and economic development where ‘the challenge faced by policy makers is to achieve a balance between economic, environment and social objectives to ensure that development is sustainable in the long term’ (Productivity Commission 1998, p. 3). Governments also achieve environmental regulation via their sponsorship of a ‘duty of care’ ethos. This mechanism is promoted as a social and moral imperative to act responsibly towards the environment based on an understanding of the implications of one’s action/inaction. This is an appeal to ethical considerations based on an environmentalist ideology.

Since Federation in 1901 the institutions of government in Australia have been organised into a three-tiered system: the Commonwealth (Federal) government, the State and Territory governments, and local governments. There is no specific mention of the environment in the Australian constitution and prime responsibility for environmental and conservation matters rests with the State and Territory governments who each have their own government agencies and legislation governing the environment. However, despite the extensive powers of the States and Territories, the Federal government has substantial powers to enact laws affecting the environment and provides national leadership and coordination of developments

31 regarding what it identifies as ‘matters of national environmental significance’ (DEH 1999). It also has primary legislative power over external territories, and over Commonwealth land held in the states (Worboys, Lockwood & De Lacey 2001, p. 68).

The struggle to coordinate the activities of the three levels of government on matters relating to the sustainable development of the environment has long been the concern of Australian governments (Galligan & Fletcher 1993; Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee (SECITAC) 1999). There has been a relatively ad hoc development of legislation in Australia as international obligations and national needs had to be fulfilled (SECITAC 1999, line 1.1) and the Commonwealth and State/Territory governments have their own statutes, environmental approvals and accountability processes and land/sea use and management institutions. Many day-to-day decisions affecting the environment are made by local governments (Productivity Commission 1998, p. 6) However, since the 1980s an emphasis on ‘cooperative Federalism’ (SECITAC 1999, line 2.6) has emerged with the various levels of government working, in particular, to harmonise environmental protection legislation across jurisdictions.

Several Commonwealth departments hold legislated responsibility for the sustainable development of lands and seas, including the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, the Department of Transport and Regional Development, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (Productivity Commission 1998). These agencies have a mandate to incorporate ecologically sustainable development principles into government decision making across the range of programs and activities they administer. The DEH is responsible for developing and implementing government strategies, policies and legislation on public land and sea for the conservation and protection of the environment through its agency, EA. EA is made up of eleven Divisions, including Parks Australia which is responsible for the administration and management of Commonwealth protected areas, five Portfolio Statutory authorities including the Director of National Parks, and two Executive Agencies (EA 2001b; see Appendix C).

A response to the concern over environmental policy coordination was the establishment in 1991 of the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC), one of two main bodies responsible for the coordinated development of national environmental policy in Australia. ANZECC is a non- statutory Ministerial Council made up of ministers of the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and representatives from New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. It is a forum for the exchange of information and experience between governments, and for the development of coordinated policies on environmental and conservation

32 issues (Productivity Commission 1998, p. 7). The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) also coordinates the activities of Australian governments with respect to environmental protection and management. This is a cooperative body made up of the Prime Minister, the State Premiers, Territory Chief Ministers and the President of the Australian Local Government Association.

In 1992 ANZECC endorsed the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE). The IGAE is a non-legally-binding instrument which guides the coordination of environmental protection and conservation activity among Federal and State/Territory government jurisdictions. The Agreement is designed as the main vehicle for achieving a ‘cooperative national approach to the environment, better definition of the roles of the respective governments, greater certainty of decision making, and better environmental protection’ (DEST 1991, p. 19). It commits all parties to the principle of ecologically sustainable development (Bates 1995, p. 32) and recognises the need for effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in environmental policy development through four main principles: the precautionary principle (COAG 1992, s. 3.5.1); intergenerational equality (s. 3.5.2); conservation of biological diversity (s. 5.3) and ecological integrity; and improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms (s. 3.5.4). It provides for the management of parks and protected areas through recommendations for a representative system of protected areas with ‘nationally consistent principles for management of reserves’ (COAG 1992, schedule 9, cl. 13). The IGAE is integral to the work of the Intergovernmental Unit (IGU) within the Commonwealth environmental management agency, EA, whose role it is to promote and coordinate policy development and provide advice about environmental matters across Federal, State/Territory and local governments. The foundation of the IGU’s work is the concept of ecologically sustainable development (EA 2001c).

In May 1996, COAG undertook a review of Commonwealth/State roles and responsibilities for the environment. The Council received submissions to the review from government, non-government and industry organisations. The outcome of this review was the Agreement on Commonwealth and State roles and responsibilities for the environment (known as the COAG Agreement ) which recommended a reform of Commonwealth environmental legislation. Implementation of the recommendations of the COAG Agreement is the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. To this end, in 1998 the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, released the document, Reform of Commonwealth Environmental Legislation-A discussion paper (CoA 1998c) This document identifies that ‘The Commonwealth’s environmental statutes largely fail to recognise and implement the principles of ecologically sustainable development’ (CoA 1998c, p. 2). The reform proposals made

33 by Hill and his Federal Coalition government were met with much public comment and consternation, including from some Indigenous stakeholders (see NLC c.1998).

The Government’s legislative reform measure passed into law as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Act (EPBC)1999 (EPBC Act), which commenced on 16 July 2000. The Act is designed to produce more consistent national environmental standards through clarifying the roles of government in environmental assessment and approvals. It therefore aims to reduce Commonwealth and State/Territory duplication through setting guidelines for decision making and developmental proposals and by ‘requiring the Environment Minister, when making an approval decision, to take into account the need to integrate environmental, economic and social considerations’ (DEST c.1997). It describes a regime of environmental assessment for development approvals in law. It also allows the ‘accreditation’ (DEH 1999a, p. 1) of State/Territory processes and systems of environmental regulation and protection through bilateral agreements between the Commonwealth and State/Territory governments.

The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment has substantial discretionary powers conferred by his/her administrative responsibilities under the EPBC Act. These include legislative, policy and program responsibilities and decision-making power relating to assessments and approvals of ‘actions’ (DEH 1999a, p. 5) under the Act including the accreditation of plans of management for areas under Commonwealth jurisdiction. Matters of ‘national environmental significance’ (DEH 1999a, p. 1) covered by the Act are the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and include: World Heritage Properties; Ramsar Listed wetlands; nationally endangered or vulnerable species and communities; migratory species and cetaceans; nuclear activities; and management and protection of the marine and coastal environment. The EPBC Act provides for joint management of the Commonwealth-managed national parks: Kakadu National Park; Ulu ru Kata-Tju=a National Park and Booderee National Park. It also provides for the definition of management principles for protected areas in Australia and requires that plans of management, consistent with these principles, be developed for these areas. Management plans for protected areas under the Act are subject to approval by the Minister.

Regulating through the market is another way agencies seek to manage land/sea and its resources in Australia. Governments recognise that the goal of ecologically sustainable development is related to the economic sustainability of resource- dependent markets (DEST 1996; Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Steering Committee 1992) Environmental resource valuation is an important part of this approach as a principle of the IGAE iterates: ‘there should be improved valuation,

34 pricing and incentive mechanisms to achieve environmental goals’ (CoA 1997b, p. 13). The ability for humankind to successfully exploit land and sea resources in ‘new’ markets, as the recent inquiry into ecologically sustainable land management in Australia advocates, 13 is contingent upon the ability to control the distribution of those resources (see Industry Commission 1998). It is also about us being able to guarantee or predict outcomes. Australia’s National Strategy for the Conservation of

Biological Diversity (NSCBD) notes that the development of government policy and strategic documents is an element in this enterprise in risk management:

An important result of developing this Strategy will be the removal of uncertainty for industry by providing clear guidelines for biological diversity conservation, within which investment decisions can be made. (DEST 1996, p. 3)

Motivating people to behave in particular ways towards the environment is a challenge addressed by governments worldwide through the forum of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (as part of the UNEP). The Conference has identified incentives which motivate people to act in ways which support the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (see Young et al . 1996a; 1996b). An incentive measure is defined as: ‘a specific inducement designed and implemented to influence government bodies, business, non- governmental organisations, or local people to conserve biological diversity or to use its components in a sustainable manner’ (UNEP 1996, p. 3). Australia is a party to the CBD and has investigated the development of appropriate incentive measures through EA. These are voluntary incentive mechanisms to promote behaviours that support biodiversity conservation and provide ‘a practical means of implementing the principles of sustainable development’ (EA 1997, ‘5.0 The Future’, para. 1, line 2) on privately managed land, including agricultural and pastoral regions (EA 1997), and on Indigenous-held land and sea. EA delineates the management status of land and sea

13This is a report by the Industry Commission (later the Productivity Commission). The Commission is the Commonwealth Government’s principal advisory body on economic reform. The report gives a comprehensive review of the use of Australia’s agricultural land and its associated resources (Industry Commission 1998, p. 1) and proposes regulatory and economic measures for achieving ecologically sustainable land use.

35 as either ‘on reserve’ or ‘off reserve’ for the purposes of implementing biodiversity conservation and incentive measures. 14

The major government environmental policies and strategies in Australia also promote individual and collective responsibility as a means of achieving regulation of land and sea management. For example, the principles and recommendations of the largest community-based, government-assisted environmental management program in Australia, Landcare, rest on the premise that:

Land owners must understand the consequences of their actions and accept responsibility for them. (Landcare Northern Territory 1992?, p. 8)

Regulation of land and sea use is also assisted via a collective ‘duty of care’ ethos. This is enshrined in major policy documents such as the Australia’s Oceans Policy , which states:

Australian governments, marine industries, communities and individuals should acknowledge and apply a duty of care in use of Australia’s ocean resources. A collective sense of stewardship is a critical element in sharing the responsibility for these assets across all sectors. (CoA 1998a, p. 40)

In 1988, the Industry Commission recommended that a ‘statutory duty of care ’ (Industry Commission 1998, p. 134; original emphasis) of the environment be introduced. So far in Australia, however, there is no legislative duty of care incentive for land owners (Bates 2001).

1.3.1 Administrative Recognition of Aboriginal Land/Sea Tenure

The legislative, institutional and economic mechanisms that I have described are premised on the tenure of land/sea. The status of tenure determines the application of land and sea management and use legislation. Under Australian law, Indigenous landholders and interest groups may hold land/sea by various rights of ownership, access and use. The Commonwealth and State/Territory governments have varying regimes of Indigenous land rights legislation which confer different levels of control over land and sea estates to Indigenous interests (see Smyth & Sutherland 1998 pp. 38-66). Upon colonisation by the British in 1788, systems of Aboriginal land/sea law were not recognised by the sovereign power. Australia was claimed as land belonging to the Crown based on the foundational myth of terra nullius (‘a land belonging to no one’ or ‘empty land’). Galarrwuy Yunupi\u, an elder of the Gumatj clan and the

14 In its exploration and development of such mechanisms, EA, developed several case studies which included one focused on Dhimurru

36 Chairperson of the NLC, describes the colonial encounter between disparate systems of law:

We learned about the strangers’ law because they, with very few exceptions, refused to learn about our laws. We learned that their law told them a story called terra nullius , which meant that if you go to a land where the people don’t look like you or live like you, then you can pretend they don’t exist and take their land. (Yunupi\u 1998, para. 14, line 2)

Upon federation in 1901, the Australian States/Territories inherited most of the onshore Crown lands from the colonies and retained responsibility for the administration of lands/seas and their uses. Until the 1970s, when the Victorian government was the first in Australia to grant freehold title to Indigenous people under the Aboriginal Land Act 197O [(Vic) ] (Department of Aboriginal Affairs 1985?, p. 2), Indigenous owners of land/sea had no rights to land or sea recognised under Australian common law.

The Aboriginal land rights movement in Australia began most publicly in the late 1960s. Among the most celebrated events in this struggle included the protests of the Gurindji people on Wave Hill station in the Northern Territory and the Yirrkala land rights case ( Milirrpum v. Nabalco and the Commonwealth of Australia ). The Gurindji campaigned from 1966 for award wages and petitioned the Federal Parliament for the right to ownership of their traditional lands. Yol\u people, in an effort to stop the Nabalco mining company commencing operations in NE Arnhem Land, took their case to the High Court in 1963 claiming ownership of their traditional lands. They were not successful in their claim with Justice Blackburn ruling that on the basis of the evidence heard Yol\u interest in land ‘shows a recognisable system of law which did not provide for any proprietary interest’ (Blackburn 1971, pp. 273-274).

In 1967 a national referendum empowered the Federal Parliament to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as Australian citizens and to make laws affecting them. This paved the way for the Labour Government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, to develop a landmark legislative response to the issue of land rights in the Northern Territory: the Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976 (ALRA). The ALRA, a Commonwealth statute, established a land claim process for unalienated Crown land in the Northern Territory and granted title

(EA 1997, ‘Case Study Three’).

37 of most lands previously assigned Aboriginal Reserve status to traditional Aboriginal owners. Under the ALRA, statutory inalienable freehold title was granted to Aboriginal (traditional) landowners and successful claimants. This title is embedded in an administrative structure which includes the statutory bodies who administer the Act-the Aboriginal Land Councils-and the Aboriginal Land Trusts which hold title to land on behalf of the landowners.

The ALRA remains the most powerful land rights legislation in Australia. It applies to unalienated crown land in the Northern Territory only and was largely inspired by the events surrounding the struggle by Yol\u people of NE Arnhem Land to prevent the establishment of a bauxite mine on their traditional lands in the late 1960s and early 1970s (see Williams 1986), and the seven-year protest by the Gurindji people at Wave Hill in the Northern Territory which culminated in their gaining title to their lands by virtue of the ARLA.

In 1992 the High Court in the Mabo v. Queensland case (known as the Mabo case) overruled the propositions made by Blackburn in the Yirrkala land rights case and in doing so discredited the doctrine of terra nullius . In Mabo, the Court found in favour of Indigenous claimants of lands in the Torres Strait and dispelled the myth that upon colonisation Australian Indigenous peoples had no proprietary interest in the land. The High Court found that

at the time when sovereignty was asserted the Aborigines and Islanders were in possession of their land, that the common law recognised that possession and that the Crown subsequently extinguished the native title in piecemeal fashion over a long period of time’ (Reynolds 1993, p. 119).

The Labor Keating Government introduced the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) to deal with the legislative consequences of the Mabo ruling. This Act provides a mechanism for recognising existing native title rights over unalienated Crown land in Australia (CoA 1997a). Indigenous claimants must prove their connection to the land in question to the satisfaction of the administrative body established under the Act: the Native Title Tribunal (NTT). The NTT considers applications from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for a determination of native title. The NTA provides for negotiated agreements between Indigenous and other stakeholders on land ownership and use, and thus forms the legislative basis of regional land use agreements and some joint management agreements around Australia (French 1995; see Chapter 2). Joint management under the NTA involves a negotiated settlement on native title.

38 The recognition of a form of native title by the High Court in Mabo was the recognition of a unique form of land title in Australian common law. However, Galarrwuy Yunupi\u explains how native title has always formed a basis of Aboriginal life and law through the places and people in which it is embodied:

Native Title is in the ground and in the trees, the rocks and the water; it’s in the songs and the dancing, it’s in the painting; it’s in me and it’s in the land. I ask you to understand this. You can’t separate us and you can’t destroy it while there is one Aboriginal person still alive who knows the law. That is why we know we have always had our Native Title and land rights and we always will. (Yunupi\u. G. 1998, para. 71)

In 1996, the High Court’s decision in The Wik Peoples v Queensland (Wik) case clarified that native title was not restricted to unalienated Crown land, but that it could survive and co-exist with other forms of land title and uses including pastoral leases (see Brennan 1998) and protected areas (Symth 2001, pp. 83-84). This ruling was a dramatic turn in the recognition of Indigenous rights to land/sea in Australia and had the potential to empower Indigenous peoples in the negotiation of new sorts of land and sea management agreements. However, its potential was curtailed by amendments to the NTA in 1998, which included the removal of the right to negotiate of Indigenous Australians over future activities on some lands on which their native title has not been extinguished, including some pastoral leases. Other amendments to the NTA aimed to further facilitate negotiated settlements on land use and management between Indigenous and other interests in land through detailed provisions for Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) (see Appendix E).

The reinstatement of a form of land rights for Indigenous Australians through the legislative mechanisms I have briefly described has in many instances been protracted and fraught. These mechanisms have provided limited benefits to claimants and security of tenure remains a major impediment to the pursuit of land and sea management for many Australian Indigenous peoples.

The mechanisms I have described here in the form of government departments, committees, councils, legislation and intergovernmental agreements, are a way of organising the relationship between humankind and our environment in Australia. Important questions implicit in these mechanisms are ‘Who is responsible?’ and ‘How should they act?’ The strategy and policy documents which describe the dominant approach to land and sea management in Australia pursue these questions further.

39 1.4 Land and Sea Management Policies and Strategies in Australia

Here I examine documents which emerge from the institutions and administrative arrangements I outlined in Section 1.3. I look at official policy and strategy documents relating to land and sea management in Australia as developed and endorsed by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. They are policy statements on land and sea management presented as strategies, statements and reports, and are implemented through the institutions and intergovernmental agreements described in the previous section of this chapter. (See Table 1.2 for details of these documents and others in contemporary land and sea management in Australia.)

1.1.1. The National Conservation Strategy for Australia (NCSA) was developed by a conference held in Canberra in June 1983 as ‘the basis for the future development and conservation of Australia’s living resources’ (CoA 1984, p. 7). It is the first national land and sea management policy document in Australia to take up the concept of sustainable development. It was developed in response to the WCS (p. 9).

The NCSA is a 24-page document with the following sections: ‘Definitions’ (CoA 1984, p. 12), ‘Elements’ (p. 12), ‘Objectives’ (p. 13), ‘Strategic Principles’ (p. 15), ‘Priority National Requirements’ (p. 16), ‘Priority National Actions’ (p. 17) and ‘The Future’ (p. 21). Its purpose is ‘to provide nationally agreed guidelines for the use of living resources by Australians so that the reasonable needs and aspirations of society can be sustained in perpetuity’ (p. 9). In its introduction, the NCSA recognises human responsibility towards the natural environment and observes that ‘many people believe Australians have obligations to other living things and that activities must at times be modified to respect the natural cycles of other life forms and their ecosystems’ (p. 8). The document acknowledges the interdependence of sustainable development and ‘living resource conservation’ (p. 12) both of which:

require an attitude of stewardship, especially towards those plants and animals and microorganisms and the non-living resources on which they depend, that could be destroyed if only short term human interests are pursued. (p. 12)

The NSCA also recognises that the imperative for Australians to accept a ‘new sense of responsibility’ (p. 8) to maintain living systems, and to abate the threats to them ‘as a matter of urgency’ (p. 10). These threats, as the result of human activity, include: human population growth; soil erosion; salinity; native vegetation clearance; the extinction of native plants and animals; the decline in fisheries stocks; damage to

40 coastal environments; and, the introduction of pests and diseases (CoA 1984, pp. 10- 11). The Strategy recommends that national resource use strategies should be developed to address these problems.

2.2.2. The National Strategy for EcologicallyEc ologically Sustainable Development (NSESD) was developed by Australian governments and adopted in 1992. The concept of the NSESD builds on the WCS of 1980, the NCSA of 1983 and the 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (ESD Steering Committee 1992, p. 12). It sets out the broad strategic and policy framework under which governments will cooperatively make decisions and take actions to pursue ecologically sustainable development in Australia (p. 17). It represents Australia’s commitment to Agenda 21 , and according to EA, is the basis for all policy development in the conservation of biological diversity in Australia (EA 1997).

The NSESD is a small, blue, 128-page paperback booklet. It is divided into four parts: Part One: ‘Introduction’ (ESD Steering Committee 1992, p. 5); Part Two: ‘Sectoral Issues’ (p. 21); Part Three: ‘Intersectoral Issues’ (p. 50); and Part Four: ‘Future Development of ESD in Australia’ (p. 103). Parts Two, Three and Four of the document contain thirty-three separately numbered sections. The overall goal of the NSESD is ‘ [D]evelopment that improves the total quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends’ (p. 8). It identifies ecologically sustainable development as the concept which must underpin our relationship with and management of the natural environment, and whilst recognising that there is ‘no universally accepted definition of ESD’ (p. 6), follows the definition of ESD suggested in 1990 by the Australian Commonwealth Government in its discussion paper on Ecologically Sustainable Development (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 1990). The NSESD cites this as:

using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased. (ESD Steering Committee 1992, p. 6)

The NSESD states that in order to achieve the Strategy’s goals: ‘Some key changes to the way we think, act and make decisions...will help ensure Australia’s economic development is ecologically sustainable’ (p. 6). It also notes that: ‘Embracing ESD will ultimately rest on the ability of all Australians to contribute individually, through modifying everyday behaviour, and through the opportunities open to us to influence

41 community practices.’ (p. 11) The NSESD thus emphasises our individual moral obligation to care for the environment that sustains us.

3.3.3. Australia: State ofo f the Environment 1996 Report (SoER)(SoER) (SEAC 1996a) is the first in a series of reports (to be produced every four to five years) as part of the state of the environment (SoE) reporting system in Australia. The Australian Commonwealth Government has given responsibility for regular reporting on the state of the Australian environment to the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories (DEST). The DEST commissions the independent report from the State of the Environment Advisory Council (SEAC).

The SoER presents itself as the first ‘independent and comprehensive report on the state of Australia’s environment’ (SEAC 1996b, p. 7). It provides information about the physical, social and economic aspects of the Australian environment as well as proposing guidelines and objectives for improved management of natural and cultural resources. The SoER is a thick hardcover monograph with various page numberings. The much shorter, forty-seven page softcover document, the Australia: State of the Environment 1996 Executive Summary (SoER Executive Summary), summarises the full SoER document under the sections:

• ‘Human Settlements’ (SEAC 1996b, p. 18) • ‘Biodiversity’ (p. 22) • ‘The Atmosphere’ (p. 26) • ‘Land Resources’ (p. 30) • ‘Inland Waters’ (p. 34) • ‘Estuaries and the Sea’ (p. 38) • ‘Natural and Cultural Heritage’ (p. 43) • ‘Acknowledgments’ (p. 46)

The SoER Executive Summary cites the six principles of the SoE reporting system which are: ‘rigour’, ‘objectivity’, ‘cooperation’, ‘openness’, ‘global vision’ and ‘ecological sustainability’ (SEAC 1996b, p. 10). The document acknowledges that society’s use of natural and cultural resources is inextricably linked to the ongoing economic growth and security of the nation and identifies the nation’s goal in land and sea management-to achieve ecological sustainability. It reports that ‘Sustainable development is arguably the central issue of our time’ (p. 9). The SoER Executive Summary also states that the idea of biodiversity ‘has become an important organising principle in a number of national policy statements, and is now influencing decision-making at national, State and regional levels’ (p. 24). The loss of biodiversity in Australian ecosystems is identified in the SoER as ‘perhaps our most serious environmental problem’ (SEAC 1996a, p ES-8). The SoER Executive Summary supplies the following definition of biodiversity:

42 the variety of all life forms; the different plants, animals and micro organisms, their genes and the ecosystems of which they play a part. (SEAC 1996b, p. 22)

4.4.4. The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biodiversity (NSCBD) was produced in 1996 by the Australian Commonwealth Government and endorsed by all levels of government. It is a 54-page (plus plates) glossy, softcover monograph with numerous coloured photos and images. There are several full-page photo montages at the beginning and end of the document which illustrate lines of the well-known poem ‘My Country’ written by Australian poet Dorothea Mackellar (1945). These lines inspire nationalist sentiment and are well popularised in Australia. They include at the beginning of the document: ‘I love her far horizons...’ And: ‘I love her jewel sea...’ Among the pages at the end of the document, a photo of a rainbow is captioned by Mackellar’s line, ‘Core of my heart, my country! Land of the Rainbow Gold...’

The ‘Goal’ (DEST 1996) of the NSCBD is ‘to protect biological diversity and maintain ecological processes and systems’. This ‘Goal’ is elaborated in the document which ‘accepts the core objectives of the NSESD’ and ‘recognises’ several points which refer to: the multiple benefits of biodiversity conservation; the need for ‘more knowledge and better understanding of Australia’s biodiversity’; the ‘pressing need to strengthen current activities and improve policies, practices and attitudes to achieve conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity’; and, the ‘intrinsic value’ of other life forms on Earth (5). The document also cites nine ‘Principles’ as a basis for the Strategy’s ‘Objectives’ and ‘Actions’. Principle 1 of the NSCBD is: ‘Biodiversity is best conserved in-situ’ (p. 6), thereby emphasising the spatial nature of biodiversity. The remainder of the NSCBD document is organised according to seven target areas which are:

• ‘Conservation of biological diversity across Australia’ (p. 7) • ‘Integrating biological diversity conservation’ and natural resource management’ (p. 17) • ‘Managing threatening processes’ (p. 25) • ’Improving our knowledge’ (p. 33) • ‘Involving the community’ (p. 36) • ‘Australia’s international role’ (p. 38) • ‘Implementation’ (p. 41).

The NSCBD acknowledges that biodiversity is the ‘foundation of ecologically sustainable development’.

43 The Guide to the National Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity (DEST 1996?), a six-page glossy fold-out pamphlet, reminds us:

It is the responsibility of all Australians to work together to maintain our living wealth. (DEST 1996?, p. 1)

5.5.5. The Australian Natural Heritage Charter: standards and principles for the conservation of places of natural heritage significancesignificance was produced by the Australian Committee for the IUCN in 1996 as part of the Australian Government’s commitments as signatory to the World Heritage Convention (WHC). The Charter is an 18-page, glossy, paperback document. It consists of five main sections: ‘Definitions’ (Australian Committee for IUCN 1996, p. 5), ‘Conservation principles’ (p. 10), ‘Conservation processes’ (p. 12), ‘Conservation practice’ (p. 14) and ‘Background’ (p. 16). The ‘Ethos of the Charter’ (p. 3) is:

The fundamental concept of natural heritage, which most clearly differentiates it from cultural heritage, is that of dynamic ecological processes, ongoing natural evolution, and the ability of ecosystems to be self-perpetuating. At the cultural end of the spectrum, clear separation of cultural and natural values can be difficult, and more than one layer of values may apply to the same place. (p. 3)

The section of the Charter on ‘Conservation Principles’ (p. 10) identifies the aim of conservation in heritage management as follows:

Article 2: The aim of conservation is to retain the natural significance of a place. (p. 10)

The Charter also provides an alphabetical reference list of definitions used in the document which has the following definition of ‘place’:

Place means a site or area with associated ecosystems , which are the sum of its geo diversity, biological diversity and natural processes. (p. 5, original emphasis)

This definition exemplifies a separation between ‘place’ and ‘people’ which is implicit in the international and Australian policy documents I describe in this chapter; where ‘place’ is taken to be a material location in Nature, outside of the ‘social’. The Charter implies that ‘place’ belongs to the domain of the ‘natural’; and ‘people’ in the domain of the ‘cultural’. According to the Charter, determining the difference between natural and cultural heritage and its associated values can be problematic. Despite this, it claims to provide guidelines for natural heritage management which may be applied across diverse localities and contexts. Its statement of ‘Purpose’ (p. 2) is to:

achieve a uniform approach to conservation of places of natural significance in Australia that can be applied to public and privately-owned places, to terrestrial, marine or freshwater areas, and to protected and unprotected areas.

1.5. What Does Land and Sea Management Set Out to Achieve in Indigenous Australia?

In recent years, organisations with a mandate to represent Indigenous interests in Australia have responded to concerns about contemporary land and sea management regimes. This response can be traced through the land and sea management policy and strategic documents produced by these organisations. I am not interested at this point in how the policies outlined in these documents are put into effect. I am concerned with what they say about contemporary Indigenous land and sea management in Australia. I am asking ‘What does land and sea management set out to achieve in Indigenous Australia?’ The first document I examine here is a policy statement by ATSIC, the Commonwealth statutory body representing Indigenous peoples. I then consider two documents emanating from the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC), another Commonwealth statutory institution with responsibilities for land and sea management.

ATSIC was established in 1990 under the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 1989 . It is the peak national representative body for Indigenous people and is controlled by a national Board of Commissioners and elected representatives from thirty-five Regional Councils (ATSIC 2002). ATSIC is responsible for policy making and service delivery for Australian Indigenous people and administers Commonwealth Government funds allocated to Indigenous peoples for the purposes of infrastructure development (including housing), education, health care and employment. Before 30 June 1997 it also had responsibilities for land management and acquisition.

1.1.1. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CommissionCommissio n EnvironmentEnvironment Policy was produced in November 1994. This is a 12-page, plain leaf document divided into seven sections: ‘Introduction’ (p. 1), ‘Vision’ (pp. 1-2), ‘Goals’ (p. 2), ‘Objectives of the Policy’ (p. 2), ‘Principles Behind the Policy’ (p. 3), ‘General Strategies’ (pp. 3-4) and ‘Specific Strategies-Key Issues’ (pp. 4-12). The ‘Introduction’ section of the document provides a definition of the environment which is given in the Commonwealth’s Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 . This definition takes ‘the environment’ to include ‘all aspects of the surroundings of human beings’ (p. 1) The ATSIC Environment Policy elaborates:

In this document these surroundings are taken to be the land and sea, and the living things and natural processes which occur in them.

It adds:

Matters such as the social and cultural environment (including cultural heritage) are more appropriately covered by other ATSIC policy. (p. 1)

The ATSIC Environment Policy also acknowledges that it has been developed in recognition of two events of ‘special significance’ to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and the passing in 1993 of the NTA by the Australian Commonwealth. The document states:

Recognition of native title and common law rights and interests implies, if it does not actually state, recognition of the Indigenous peoples as stewards and guardians to the land and sea. (p. 1)

The ‘Principles’ of the ATSIC Environment Policy are those of: ‘self-determination and regionality’; ‘sustainability and conservation’; and, ‘precaution’ (p. 3). It provides a definition of Indigenous land management which is:

Indigenous land and resource management means the involvement of Indigenous peoples in management processes, particularly management in which we make choices guided by cultural insights and values, or in which management is based on traditional techniques. (p. 4)

The ‘General Strategies’ (3) section of the document describes the roles of ATSIC’s Central Office and Regional Offices in achieving the implementation of the Policy. These include ‘advocacy of Indigenous land and environmental rights and interests within the machinery of Australian government and public administration’ (p. 4). In the subsequent section, the ‘Specific Strategies’ (ATSIC 1994, pp. 4-12) of the Policy are identified for the three key issues of: ‘Natural and Cultural Ecosystems’ (p. 4), ‘Land and Soil’ (p. 7) and ‘People and The Environment’ (p. 8).

The ATSIC Environment Policy was implemented on Aboriginal-owned land with Indigenous ownership and resource interests through the ATSIC Land Management Program. The Land Management Program finished on 30 June 1997 and the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) assumed all responsibility for Indigenous land use and acquisition from ATSIC. From this date. the ILC policies became the official national Australian statement on Indigenous land and sea management.

The ILC was established in 1995 under the Land Fund and Indigenous Land Corporation (ATSIC Amendment) Act 1995 as an independent Commonwealth

46 statutory authority. This legislation was created in ‘recognition of the fact that many Indigenous peoples who have been dispossessed of their lands would not be able to regain ownership to land through the Native Title Act 1993 ’ (Royal Commission Government Response Monitoring Unit 1997a, p. 119). In many cases, the events of prior dispossession mean that these peoples cannot demonstrate continuous attachment to their lands and/or their native title has been extinguished by another land use. It was also a response to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (p. 119) which found that issues of social justice for Indigenous Australians are linked to their dispossession and alienation from their land/sea.

The ILC administers a national program of funding to assist Indigenous Australians acquire and manage land. 15 Through the ILC Indigenous people may regain lands through purchase and thereby do not have to demonstrate to the courts their right to ownership under common law. The ILC assists Indigenous people in the management of lands where these do not fall under the primary administrative responsibility of another body or where there is no other land acquisition mechanism available, such as claim to native title. The ILC has a seven-member Board of Directors (five of whom must be Indigenous) appointed by the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (ILC 1999). The Board is responsible for policy development and financial decisions relating to purchase and management of land. The role of the Minister ‘is not to direct the Corporation in relation to any of its activities except as expressly provided for in the Act (s. 191L)’ (ILC 1999, p. 16).

2. The National IndigenousIndigenou s Land Strategy 2001-2001 ---20062006 is one of several policy and strategic documents relating to Indigenous land and sea management produced by the ILC. This document outlines the strategic directions and policies of the ILC which centre around the two ‘Key Policies’ (ILC 2001, pp. 7-8) of ‘Land Acquisition’ (p. 7) and ‘Land Management’ (p. 8). In its ‘Land Acquisition’ function the ILC through its National Indigenous Land Strategy aims to ‘ [establish ] a representative land base of culturally significant land over time’ (p. 15). The document defines ‘cultural significance as follows: Cultural significance means land to which Indigenous groups have: ‘traditional links’; ‘historical links’; and, ‘contemporary links’ (p. 7).

In its ‘Land Management’ function the ILC aims:

to assist Indigenous people to manage their lands in a sustainable way, providing them with cultural, social, environmental or economic benefits. (p. 8)

The ILC may undertake land management activities on all Indigenous-held land, including lands it has assisted Indigenous peoples to acquire. For land to be classified as ‘Indigenous-held land’ (ILC 1999, p. 18), it must be held by an ‘Indigenous organisation’ (ILC 1997, p. 6) as defined by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 1989 . Land ownership, and support for the management of that land, is thus legitimised by the administrative category of an ‘Indigenous organisation’. The bureaucratic context of contemporary land and sea management in Australia, within which both ‘Indigenous-held land’ and ‘Indigenous organisations’ are set, influences the functions of the ILC and the benefits it provides to Indigenous stakeholders. The ILC places priority on land acquisition for Indigenous peoples who have been dispossessed of their estates with the general aim of acquiring land of ‘cultural significance’ (ILC 2001, p. 7) to Indigenous peoples. It produces Regional Indigenous Land Strategies for each of the ILC regions delineated by the State and Territory borders (see Table 1.2).

The Aboriginal Land Councils in the Northern Territory have statutory land acquisition and management functions under the ALRA. They are responsible for administering land matters and undertaking land management activities pursuant to the interests and direction of their constituents. The NLC undertakes land and sea management through its Caring for Country unit. The proposed Caring for Country Strategy, which guided the initial work of the unit, aims to integrate government funding and programs in order to facilitate Indigenous regional and community planning for sustainable development, which includes as a priority, ‘sustainable jobs’ (NLC 1995, p. 2). Under the provisions of the ALRA, the NLC, on behalf of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land/sea, may enter into an agreement with another body with respect to management of Aboriginal land. The Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (TPWC Act) also has provision for the development of management agreements on Indigenous held land under its Section 73. To date there are no ‘Section 73’ management agreements in place in the jurisdiction of the NLC (Leitch, K. pers. comm.).

I argue that in these documents and administrative arrangements I have described, the principles of land/sea ownership and control are dominant aspects of the contemporary Indigenous land and sea management agenda in Australia. These documents advocate that responsibilities for Indigenous land and sea estates and

15 The ILC is funded from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund Reserve (the Land Fund), administered by ATSIC under delegation from the Minister for Finance (ILC 2000).

48 sustainable management of resources is contingent upon security of tenure, rights to land/sea and the right to self governance of Indigenous peoples.

There are other policy and strategy documents which address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land and sea management in Australia. I have included some of these in Table 1.2 (see also Symth & Sutherland 1996.)

1.6. What Are the Implications of These Policy Statements and Institutional Arrangements?

The documents in Section 1.4 provide an answer to the question ‘What does land and sea management set out to achieve in Australia?’ They provide this answer by describing three important elements which organise humanity’s relationship with the world. These elements can be characterised in the following three questions:

• What is it we are managing?

• Who is responsible? (Who acts?) and

• What kinds of different solutions might be imagined and/or enabled through these documents? (Or, to put it another way, is ‘difference’ conceivable within the context delineated by these documents?)

In providing answers to these questions, these documents and the administrative organisations and arrangements from which they emanate, frame a particular version of the world-they tell us how the world ‘is’. In doing this work these documents, organisations and arrangements adopt a particular ontological strategy.

Ontological strategy is the use of particular organising concepts, devices and traditions to produce a particular theory of ‘what there is in the world’-or what is ‘real’. The strategic doing of ontology reveals there is more than one way to achieve such a theory, and indeed the possibility of multiple theories. As Mol (1999) suggests, the doing of ontology in various ways is political work. This political work, she notes, is partly the work of making decisions between different ontologies-the acts of choosing between different versions of our performed realities, or ‘what there is in the world’. In considering the realities of our worlds, traditional approaches to ontology in Western knowledge domains have asked either ‘How are things?’ or ‘How did things get to be?’

In answering the first question of ‘How are things?’, we seek to describe a singular reality, paying attention to material objects as given and uncontested. In this interpretative framework we have the tools of technoscience as the means of

49 uncovering this ‘real’ object-laden world. This is the pursuit of universalism. Alternatively, in answering the second question of ‘How did things get to be?’, we consider ‘the-world-out-there’, not as an a priori collection of found objects, but as a culturally generated cohering set of meanings and things. In this interpretative framework, the world is apprehended through the human deployment of cultural symbols, tools and practices. The ‘real’ thus belongs to particular cultures, with the diversity of cultures possessing alternate versions of this reality-state. This is the domain of relativism. Universalism and relativism have one important thing in common: their appeal to Nature as the context for human activity.

In both universalist and relativist ontologies the context of human life, our external reality, or ‘the-world-out-there’, is Nature. This Nature is the assumed locus of human reality. It is also the universal object of management which organises human activity in the pursuit of a viable global future. Emerging with the documents in Sections 1.2 and 1.4 is the prescription for a set of ethics or moral framework that prescribes a view of people and the world in which they live (Nature). This set of ethics draws from an environmentalist view of Nature in which Nature itself is the moral imperative. 16 In this view, Nature as external reality, is uncontested and, as Cronon notes, is assumed to have a particular ideal state which is largely a product of the European Enlightenment (1995, p. 36). Judgements are thus based on both the implicit value of this Nature and the human possibilities for action motivated by the attainment and preservation of its ideal state. The Australian Heritage Charter embodies this version of environmentalist ethics. It assigns an intrinsic value to Nature in the interactions between people and the world in its ‘principle of existence’:

The principle of existence value is that living organisms, earth processes and ecosystems may have value beyond the social, economic or cultural values of humans. (Australian Committee for IUCN 1996, p. 3)

An environmentalist ethics promotes responsible and prudent behaviour in pursuit of the ideal Nature state. It asserts that resources and futures are finite and must be regenerated and a principle of good housekeeping or caretaking of Nature is endorsed. It appeals to a sense of moral duty or duty of care in which we must consider our responsibility to forthcoming generations and lifeforms and seek to maintain and improve the environment’s (Nature’s) capacity to support and nourish life. The interdependence of human life, and the Nature that sustains it, also resonates in the environmentalist framework: humankind is humbled by this

16 I take this idea of Nature as moral imperative from Cronon (1995, pp. 36-43).

50 knowledge. A reverence for Nature is encouraged, as in the report: A Full Repairing Lease: Inquiry Into Ecologically Sustainable Land Management In Australia:

We have been shaped by the landscape every bit as much as we have shaped it. (Industry Commission 1998, p. xix)

Within the ‘natural moral order’ prescribed by the documents in Sections 1.2 and 1.4, an answer to the question, ‘Who should act?’, in the management of land and sea in Australia emerges. The answer implied by these documents is this actor is a universal actor: an individual moral agent responsible for undertaking the land and sea management enterprise. She/he must accept responsibility for her/his appropriate moral response (action/inaction) to problems of Nature, as the following quote confirms:

A viable future for Australia depends on us all becoming ‘land literate’ and developing a landcare ethic. It is an ethic that acknowledges the fact that we all rely on the land and accept some responsibility for its survival. (Clark c.1992, p. 10)

The individual actor, as implied in these documents, is the primary actor in the management of Nature. Furthermore, these multiple individual actors, each with their own interests and moral foundations grounded in the ideal Nature, form part of a secondary category of actor which is a collective. This collective is assumed rather than defined. It is diffuse and everywhere, and has responsibilities for collective moral action predicated on ownership and custodianship of the Nature that sustains it. The titles of many of the prominent land and sea management documents I present in this chapter are evidence of this universal collective actor-what might be called the ‘we’, with its collective possessive ‘our’. These include: Our Common Future (WCED 1987) the World Commission’s Report on the Environment; Our Country Our Future (Hawke 1989), a Statement on the Environment by the Australian Prime Minister; Our Sea Our Future: The State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia (DEST c.1995); Our Community Our Future: A Guide to Local Agenda 21 (Cotter & Hanna 1999) and there are others.

The full title of the document, Our Common Future: From One Earth to One World. A Call for Action (WCED 1987), is a particularly potent example of the ‘we’ actor. By identifying a common interest in global approaches to land and sea management, this document implies that there is a singular goal or set of goals, and a singular way to live (or ways to live) that ‘we’ should be pursuing. And that individuals, and groups of individuals, must adjust their behaviour and ways of living in order to achieve that which is good for ‘us all’: a sustainable global future. The document

51 urges the global community to accept the responsibility of creating one world from our disparate, fragmented, and local ones. As part of this way of living in the world, ‘we’ are urged to learn to value collectively through a shared basis for understanding our actions as the Northern Territory Decade of Landcare Plan implies in its public education goal:

The majority of Territorians are aware of the interrelationship of the components of the land’s natural resources, owning the associated problems and aware of the economic advantages of adopting sustainable land management strategies. (Landcare Northern Territory 1992, p. 13)

To what extent is this emergent moral framework I have described inclusive of Indigenous ethics? Is ‘difference’ conceivable within the context delineated by these documents? By ‘difference’ I mean alternative ontologies and epistemologies.

Many of the documents presented here (and in Tables 1.1 and 1.2) address issues of Indigenous participation in land and sea management. For example, the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1993), recognises that respect for Indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable development and proper management of the environment. It also states that Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation, restoration and protection of the total environment and the productive capacity of their lands, territories and resources, as well as to assistance for this purpose from States and through international cooperation (UN Commission on Human Rights 1993, Article 28). This view resonates to some extent in contemporary Australian land and sea management policy documents which recognise the unique contribution of Indigenous Australians to land and sea management. However, the Australian Government has not to date endorsed the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Objective 22.1 of Australia’s NSESD states:

To ensure effective mechanisms are put in place to represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ land, heritage, economic and cultural development concerns in resource allocation processes. (DEST 1996, p. 82)

In seeking to achieve this Objective, the document states:

Governments will: encourage greater recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ values, traditional knowledge and resource management practices relevant to ESD. (DEST 1996, p. 82)

Similarly, the NSCBD recognises past work by Indigenous communities:

52 Traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander management practices have proved important for the maintenance of biological diversity and their integration into current management programs should be pursued where appropriate. (DEST 1996, p. 14)

The Australia’s Oceans Policy documents recognise that Indigenous interests in the management of the sea environment are based on particular ‘social, cultural and economic relationships’ (CoA 1998b, p. 30). Volume 2 of the Policy states:

In the context of developing integrated ocean planning and management processes, the Government will seek to ensure that:

-traditional conservation and use practices are valued...(CoA 1998b, p. 30)

These documents I describe above advocate ‘recognition’, ‘respect for’, ‘valuing’ and ‘integration’ of Indigenous peoples knowledges and practices into contemporary mainstream land and sea management. 17 However, they assume that Indigenous interests are consistent with the ‘natural moral order’ which I identified as emerging from the documents in Sections 1.2 and 1.4. Indigenous people are recognised within these documents as a specific interest group but there is little appreciation that including Indigenous Australians in the land and sea management agenda is a matter of managing ‘difference’. Rather, the stated goals of international and Australian land and sea management are a universal imperative. I ask, therefore, what possibilities are there to conceive of alternative interpretations or approaches to ecologically sustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity within the context delineated by these documents?

Ecologically sustainable development is the fundamental tenet of official policy and strategic documents addressing land and sea management in Australia and internationally over the last twenty or so years (UNCED 1993, p. 6). It is the stated goal or principle for all contemporary environmental policy and strategic documents although it is variously defined and recognised as a ‘complex concept with no universally accepted definition’ (Productivity Commission 1998, p. 4). It is nevertheless an imperative for action as Agenda 21 , the principle global action plan for care and management of the environment, reminds us: sustainable development of the Earth is not simply an option: it is a requirement (UNCED 1993, p. 6).

Ecologically sustainable development is a framework for human action according to three general organising principles: the principle of intergenerational equality/equity (‘we must act fairly and justly’); the precautionary principle (‘we must act prudently’)

53 and be guided by the best available information (‘we must act knowingly’). These principles of ecologically sustainable development constitute guidelines for behaviour to be adopted by the global community. The administration and management of lands and seas in Australia are subject to the organising traditions of the ecological and economic sciences through ecologically sustainable development irrespective of land/sea tenure and disposal. The Commonwealth Government’s National Principles and Guidelines for Rangeland Management: Managing Australia's Rangelands (1999) states:

Implementation of the objectives of ecologically sustainable development should be applied across the rangelands, irrespective of how the land is held and used. (CoA 1999b, p. 5)

There are differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous land and sea management. We might expect that these differences relate to two conventions I have discussed previously: 1. conventions engaged in the collective actor ‘we’; and 2. conventions engaged in the universal object of management, Nature. ‘We’ assumes the locus of human moral action and ‘Nature’ assumes the locus of human reality. The documents I present in Section 1.5 have, in many ways, a structure and language similar to the ‘mainstream’ documents of in Sections 1.2 and 1.4: in many respects they employ a similar ontological strategy to that of these other documents. For example, the ATSIC Environment Policy identifies Nature or ‘the environment’ (ATSIC 1994, p. 1), as the ‘other’; and the ILC strategic documents privilege the ‘cultural significance’ (ILC 2001, p. 7; ILC c.1996, s. 1.5) of land/sea. However, the documents I describe in Section 1.5 also differ in important ways from the ‘mainstream’ documents in Sections 1.2 and 1.4. They locate human action towards the land and sea, not as a moral imperative derived from Nature, but in the ownership and custodianship of particular places. These places are ‘particular’ in the sense that the actors involved in the management enterprise are identified according to their affiliation with sites and areas in the land/sea in certain times and places.

The ILC recognises the centrality of the Indigenous relationship to land as a defining principle in setting priorities in its land acquisition and management functions (ILC c.1996, s. 3.2). For the ILC, determining land acquisition applications involves assessing the ‘cultural significance’ of land to self-identified land owning groups. In its National Indigenous Land Strategy , the ILC recognises ‘cultural significance’ in the classification of ‘traditional’, ‘historical’ and ‘contemporary’ ‘links’ to land (ILC c.2001, p. 7). The conventions of the ‘we’ collective actor in this case are therefore based upon land

17 See Table 1.2 for other documents which also reflect this view.

54 ownership which links people and places in the land/sea according to various criteria based on: ‘the custom and laws of the group’ (ILC 2001, p. 7); ‘the impact of Indigenous and non-Indigenous settlement of the country’ (p. 7) ; and ‘more recent recognition of Indigenous rights and Indigenous identity’ (p. 7). These criteria engender ownership rights and responsibilities to particular people for particular times and place/s, and thus perform the links between people and land as an evolving political/social/cultural/physical modality. The collective actor, ‘we’, here is mobilised in the criteria for assessment of eligibility for funding by the ILC, who states that ‘Benefits of the activity will be enjoyed collectively’ (ILC 1999, ‘Part Two: Assessment Criteria: Primary Criteria’, para. 2).

The documents in Section 1.5 show that Indigenous institutions see ecologically sustainable development as attainable only through Indigenous peoples having control over land/sea. I suggest there is an assumption within these institutions that Indigenous communities already know and do ecologically sustainable development. This is an interesting issue but it is not for me to comment on or examine here. Instead, I am interested in the possibilities for negotiating ways of working together non-Indigenous and Indigenous ways of knowing the land and sea in contemporary Australia. In order to begin to see possibilities for this I suggest that we need to develop a new ontology; one that allows us to escape the legislative framework of the artefacts of land and sea management examined in this chapter. These artefacts are the policy and strategic documents relating to environmental protection and management in Australia and the administrative institutions and structures which embed these documents.

The documents in Sections 1.2 and 1.4 embody a particular politics which is an ontological strategy of both universalist and relativist tendencies. They contain certain assumptions about ‘what things are’ (our objects of management) and ‘how things are’ (our culture-bound and alternative versions of reality) in the world-a world ‘out there’ which these documents simultaneously describe and reflect. They present a version of reality or order of ‘objects-in-the-world’, which is largely uncontested within contemporary life in Australia. As objects in themselves, with a certain mass and volume and combinations of printed letters and colours, they work to describe the world through language and images. But not only do they describe the world, they also perform it in certain ways through their organising traditions based in technoscience. They are hence both a way of knowing about the world and evidence that the world is indeed manifest according to the particular categories which our technoscience reveals to us, and which these artefacts assume is the shared experience of all Australians. The administration of land and sea is the work of making and remaking these categories of moral action and management. It is the

55 politics of organising knowledge and actors in the pursuit of ecologically sustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity.

In my interpretation of land and sea management in Australia I adopt an alternative ontological framing which resists the foundationalism of universalist and relativist ontologies. I draw on the move within the social studies of science which considers the realities of our worlds to be made or performed in practice. This move, known as the ‘performative move’ (see Chapter 6), is an interpretative framework which pays attention to everyday acts and the outcomes of these acts. Realities, and the objects that are made ‘real’ within lived spaces and places, are the outcomes of collective acting involving socio-material entities symmetrically. The ‘realness’ of objects lies in them being emergent in socio-material practices, not as given material entities (as the universalists would have it), or as made up of established culture-bound practices (as the relativists would have it).

In the next chapter I explore the ontological strategy of two prominent joint/co management agreements in Australia: the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park and Kakadu National Park. I examine the artefacts of these joint management agreements-the Lease, the Board of Management, the Plan of Management, and the institutional structures of the Parks-to reveal the foundationalist ontologies which frame these agreements.

56 57

Table 1.1. International Land and Sea Management Documents

DocumDocumentent Date Organisation/ Description Event Man and the 1971 UNESCO • The first intergovernmental conference to seek to reconcile the conservation and use of Biosphere (MAB) natural resources Program • Pre-dated by a biosphere conference convened in 1968 by UNESCO (Smyth & Sutherland 1996, p. 77) • An international program which recommended several environmental conservation initiatives including the creation of protected areas and the protection of natural and genetic resources; and, endangered species recovery and management (see UNESCO 2002) • Developed the concept of ‘Biosphere Reserves’ in 1974 which are described as: ‘representative examples of biogeographical areas or natural or minimally disturbed ecosystems’ (p. 78) • Biosphere Reserves are declared countries worldwide including 12 in Australia in 1996 (p. 78)

Declaration of the 1972 United Nations • The concept of ecologically sustainable development was first developed in a cohesive United Nations Conference on the fashion at this international forum (CoA 1991, p. v) Conference on the Human Environment, • Produced the ‘Stockholm Declaration’ and Action Plan which did not identify Indigenous Human Environment Stockholm, Sweden peoples specifically (Stockholm • The Declaration acknowledges ‘the need for a common outlook and for common Declaration) principles to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment’ (UN Conference on the Human Environment 1972, p. 1)

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event World Heritage 1972 UNESCO • Establishes the World Heritage Committee which administers the WHC, and the World Convention Heritage List (and the List of World Heritage in Danger) and criteria and process of (Convention for the inscription of properties on the list Australia ratified the WHC in 1974. Protection of World • Defines ‘natural’ (UNESCO 1972, Article 1) and ‘cultural’ (Article 2) heritage as separate Natural and Cultural attributes of sites/places Heritage) (WHC) • The Convention provides protection and management guidelines for places/properties which are deemed to be of ‘universal value’ (Article 1; Article 2) due to their natural or cultural attributes • The World Heritage Committee in 1992 endorsed the category of ‘cultural landscapes’ (UNESCO 1992, para. 36, line 1) in its Guidelines and notes ‘Protection of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land use and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape’ (para. 38, line 2) World Conservation 1980 IUCN • Advocates a ‘new environmental ethic’ of ‘living resource conservation’ Strategy (WCS) UNEP (IUCN/UNEP/WWF c. 1980, s. 1, para. 2). Identifies humans as ‘trustees of natural WWF resources’ (Foreword) • Urges an ‘integration of conservation and development’ (s. 1, para. 12) where the ‘message of conservation’ is for humans to take responsibility for their actions, which are depleting the carrying capacity of natural ‘ecosystems’ to ensure our long-term survival and the Earth’s capacity to support life (Foreword) • Presents itself as a ‘intellectual framework and practical guidance for actions’ (Foreword) relating to its aim of ‘sustainable development’ (p. iv) • Acknowledges a ‘global responsibility’ for human action and identifies twenty ‘priority issues’ (p. v) for national and international actions • Identifies three groups of ‘users’ (p. iv) or individual actors which are: ‘government policy makers and their advisers’, ‘conservationists’ and natural resource managers, and ‘development practitioners’ (p. iv) • Urges countries of the world to prepare their own national conservation strategies in the pursuit of global sustainable development (s. 20)

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Our Common Future 1987 World Commission on • Serves ‘a notice of urgency’ (WCED 1987, p. 2) Environment and • Promotes better management through improved technology and better social Development organisation (WCED) • Links environment, economic development, and social and political issues • Insists that more responsibility requires more widespread knowledge • Identifies the individual as the locus of knowledge and responsibility • Advocates ‘new rules of behaviour’ (WCED 1987, p. 28) to sustain economies and ecosystems

ILO Convention No. 1989 International Labour • Earliest international instrument to offer recognition to the rights of Indigenous peoples 169: Indigenous and Organisation (ILO) • Notes the responsibility of governments for developing, with the participation of the Tribal Peoples Indigenous peoples concerned, actions to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples Convention • Recognises the right of Indigenous peoples to decide their own priorities for development as it affects themselves and the ‘lands they occupy’ (Article 7, point 1) • States that ‘Governments shall take measures, in cooperation with the peoples concerned, to protect and preserve the environment of the territories they inhabit’ (Article 7, point 4) • Recognises the right of Indigenous peoples to ‘participate in the use, management and conservation’ of the natural resources pertaining to their lands (Article 15, point 1), to occupy their traditional lands (Article 16), and for their system of transmission of rights to their lands to be respected (Article 17) • Only 15 countries are party to ILO Convention No. 169. Australia is not a party to the Convention

iii

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Caring for the Earth: 1991 IUCN • Endorses the World Conservation Strategy of 1980 A Strategy for UNEP • Advocates a new ‘world ethic of sustainable living’ (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991, p. 13) Sustainable Living WWF which includes a moral duty to ‘seek harmony with other people and with nature (p.8) • Promotes nine ‘principles for sustainable living’ for the global community • Urges a global consensus on ethical principles which will influence individual action (p. 13) • Advocates an emphasis on ‘the obligations of individuals as much as their rights’ (p. 13) • Advocates the development of a ‘duty of care’ for the environment through the faith and teachings of the world’s major religions (p. 15) • Argues that ‘people in many societies need to change their attitudes towards nature’ (p. 13) • Links conservation of the environment and social development • Identifies the intrinsic value of all species (p. 15) • Identifies ‘sound scientific knowledge’ as a basis for sustainable development (p. 73) • Identifies the ‘special contribution’ that Indigenous peoples can make to sustainable living (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991, p. 14) • Identifies the need for a ‘common approach’ to resource management between Indigenous peoples and other stakeholders (p. 61)

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Agenda 21: 1992 United Nations • Urges a need to act as we are confronted with worldwide social and environmental Programme of Action Conference on problems for Sustainable Environment and • Identifies the fundamental significance of the Earth system as life support (UNCED Development development 1993b, p. 463) (Agenda 21) (UNCED) ‘Earth • Presents itself as a ‘blueprint for action to be taken globally’ Summit’, Rio de • Janeiro Brazil Advocates that humankind should accept the responsibility to change in order to create a ‘safer, more prosperous future’ • Claims : ’humanity stands at a defining moment in history’ Urges integration of the environment and human development through open, multilateral trading systems (p. 138) and economic policies that foster ‘accountable public administration with individual rights and opportunities’ (p. 141) • Promotes individual responsibility to know and to act responsibly • Promotes scientific knowledge as the basis for articulating the universal goal of ESD and in environmental decision-making • Identifies the need to improve our understanding of ‘the linkages between human and natural environmental systems’ (p. 466) through scientific research, communication and technologies • Promotes the activity of developing methods; ‘to link the findings of the established sciences with the Indigenous knowledge of different cultures’ (p. 465) • United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development established to oversee and evaluate the implementation of Agenda 21 • Recognises the particular knowledge, interests and roles of Indigenous peoples (UNCED 1993a) and their ‘holistic traditional scientific knowledge of their lands’ (UNCED 1993a, p. 227)

Document Date OrganisatioOrganisation/ n/n/n/ Description Event Convention on 1992 United Nations • The first global, legally binding agreement to address biodiversity conservation. Biological Diversity Conference on • The CBD (UNEP 1992) in its Preamble, among other things: (CBD) Environment and • recognises the ‘intrinsic value of biological diversity’ (line 1); development • (UNCED) ‘Earth recognises (for the first time) that the ‘conservation of biodiversity is a ‘common Summit’, Rio de concern of humankind’ (line 3); Janeiro Brazil • recognises ‘the close and traditional dependence of many Indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles on biological resources, and the desirability of sharing equitably benefits arising from the use of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices...’ (line 12); • Presents biodiversity conservation as a fundamental component of the move towards sustainable development • Promotes the need to increase our ‘basic understanding’ of biological diversity through developing ‘scientific, technical and institutional capacities’ (UNEP 1992, Preamble, line 7) • Promotes a partnership approach among countries and as a international legal instrument defines the rights and obligations of the Parties concerning ‘scientific, technical and technological cooperation’ • Recommends ‘incentive measures’ to encourage behaviour which contributes to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity • Obliges contracting parties (including Australia) to develop their own national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation of biological diversity, to report annually to the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, and urges them to develop a system of protected areas and to develop guidelines for their selection, establishment and management

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Declaration on 1992 United Nations • Reaffirms and builds on the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Conference on Human Environment adopted at Stockholm in 1972 Development Environment and • Consists of 27 definitionary principles of relations between humans and nature (see development UNCED 1993a) (UNCED) ‘Earth • Claims that ‘human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development Summit’, Rio de (UNCED 1992, Principle 1) Janeiro Brazil • Advocates the sovereign right of nation states to exploit their resources according to their own environmental and developmental policies (Principle 2) • Advocates the participation of ‘all concerned citizens’ in environmental issues (Principle 10) • Recognises ‘Indigenous people and their communities, and other local communities, have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices.’ (Principle 22) • Not legally binding on parties Non-legally Binding 1992 United Nations • Promotes a utilitarian incentive for sustainable forest use which identifies the goal of Authoritative Conference on sustainable management of forests to meet human ‘needs’ (for forest products and Statement of Environment and services) (see UNCED 1993a) Principles for a development • Promotes the sustainable management of forest lands and resources according to the Global Consensus on (UNCED) ‘Earth sovereign right of nation states to exploit their resources according to their own the Management, Summit’, Rio de environmental policies and development ‘needs’. Conservation and Janeiro Brazil • Insists that more information on forests is ‘essential’ for improved public understanding Sustainable of forest management and decision making Development of All • Types of Forests Notes that nation states should develop national guidelines for forest use and protection (Global Statement of which include integrated management regimes and ‘the protection of ecologically viable Forest Principles) representative or unique examples of forests’ (UNCED 1993b, p. 113) • Notes that national forest policies should ‘recognise and duly support the identity, culture and the rights of Indigenous people’ (p. 112)

vii

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event United Nations 1992 United Nations (UN) • Opened for signature at the UNCED ‘Earth Summit’, Rio de Janeiro Brazil Framework • Legally binding international treaty ratified by 186 countries Convention on • Thirty-three page document with twenty-six Articles including ‘Objective’; ‘Principles’; Climate Change ‘Commitments’; ‘Research and Systemic Observation’ and ‘Education, Training and Public (UNFCCC) Awareness’, ‘Settlement of Disputes’ and ‘Protocols’.

• Aims to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (UN 1992, ‘Article 2’, p. 9) • Acknowledges the ‘common concern of humankind’ that is climate change (UN 1992, p. 2) • Notes the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ (Article 3, point 1, p. 9) of countries who are parties to the Convention dependent on their economic status • Advocates precautionary action to manage climate change (Article 3, point 3, p. 9) • Notes that parties should promote sustainable development (Article 3, point 4, p. 10) • Details commitments by parties as signatories to the Convention which include: the adoption of national policies on the mitigation of climate change; obliging developed countries to provide financial support for mitigation of climate change to poorer, developing countries; a commitment to specific efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions; and a commitment to raising public awareness and understanding of climate change and its effects • Commitments in the Convention are elaborated in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 which operationalises the Convention

viii

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Draft Declaration on 1993 United Nations • Consists of 45 Articles which elaborate the ‘individual and collective’ rights of Indigenous the Human Rights of Commission on peoples Indigenous Peoples Human Rights • Affirms the right of Indigenous and all other peoples to be ‘different’ and ‘be respected as such.’ (UN Commission on Human Rights 1993, Preamble, line 1) • Recognises that: ‘respect for Indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to the sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment’ (Preamble, line 9) Kyoto Protocol: Kyoto, December, Conference of the • International agreement which extends the United Nations Framework Convention on Conference of the 1997 Parties to the United Climate Change and pursues its Objective (UN 1992, Article 2, p. 9) Parties to the United Nations Framework • Requires fifty-five nations to ratify it before it comes into effect Nations Framework Convention on • The Protocol has not yet been ratified by the minimum number of countries (fifty-five) Convention on Climate Change required to make it legally binding on parties. At May 2002, fifty-four countries have Climate Change (UNFCCC) ratified or acceded to the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC 2002). • Australia has signed, but not yet ratified the Protocol • Twenty-three page document with twenty-eight Articles • Controls the behaviour of parties to the Convention through committing them to legally binding targets for reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions • Obliges parties to develop their own national system for the estimation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and sources and relevant carbon sinks (UNFCC 1997, Article 5, point 1) • Identifies the achievement by participating parties of their ‘quantified [greenhouse gas ] emission limitation’ as the promotion of sustainable development (Article 2, p. 2) • States that parties shall cooperate in: regional programs of emission control; the development of environmentally sound technologies; and, scientific research, ‘systematic observation’, and the establishment of data archives related to the climate system (Article 10, pp. 9-11)

Document Date OrganisatOrganisation/ ion/ Description Event Principles and 2000 IUCN/WCPA • Emerges from the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and its response to Guidelines on and WWF recommendations made at the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Indigenous and (Baltr àn ed. 2000) Areas held in Caracas, Venezuela, 1992 Traditional Peoples • Twelve-page document consisting of: Part A: Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and and Protected Areas Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines; and, Part B: Case Studies • Establishes five ‘Principles’ with associated Guidelines for protected area management based on the IUCN System of Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN 1994) • Recognises the rights of Indigenous peoples to inhabit protected areas • Identifies the traditional sustainable resource use practices of Indigenous peoples and their ‘culture-based respect for nature’ (Baltr àn ed. 2000, p. 7) • Recommends that agreements between Indigenous and other stakeholders for the management of protected areas should recognise the ‘collective rights’ of Indigenous peoples to use their own ‘institutions and authorities to co-manage’ their estates (Guideline 2.2a, p. 9)whilst also recognising the responsibility of the parties, including, Indigenous and other traditional peoples to ‘conserve biodiversity’ and ensure sustainable development (Principle 2, p. 8) • Recommends that management of protected areas should proceed through a formal mechanism, for example, management and co-management agreements and management plans, and that the parties to an agreement should be accountable for the fulfilment of the agreed management objectives and plans (Guideline 3.2, p. 10) • Recommends the collaborative development of ‘management plans’ (Guideline 3.5d, p. 10) for protected areas involving Indigenous and other traditional peoples and their organisations and local, provincial or national governments and communities (Guideline 3.4, p. 10)

x Table 1.2. Australian Land and Sea Management Documents

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event National 1984 Proposed by a • Proposed strategy developed in response to the World Conservation Strategy. A Conservation Conference held in precursor to the NSESD. Strategy for Australia Canberra in June • Hailed as ‘an important step towards the goal of adoption of a National Conservation (NCSA): Living 1983 Strategy for Australia.’ (? 1984, p. 3) Resource • Provides nationally agreed guidelines for the use of’ living resources’ (p. 9) Conservation for • Sustainable Identifies the need to act as a ‘matter of urgency’ to modify our consumption and use Development of living resources (p. 10) • Recognises that Australians must at times modify their activities to respect ‘the natural cycle of other life forms and ecosystems’ (p. 8) And this requires an ‘attitude of stewardship’ (p. 12) towards other life forms • Claims: ‘Development and conservation are but different expressions of the one process.’ (p. 8) • Recognises the need to reform Commonwealth environment legislation and coordinate State, Territory and Commonwealth legislation.

Our Country 1989 Statement on the • Endorses the objectives of the NCSA (1984) and a commitment to ecologically Our Future Environment by the sustainable development Prime Minister Bob • Declares the ‘world’s natural environment is under siege’ (p. iv) Hawke • Launches the Year and Decade of Landcare • Introduces Australia as an ‘exploited land’ (p. 1) and urges ‘we have little time to spare’ (p. 2) in addressing our past mistakes in environmental management • Claims that along with ‘human-centred’ concerns, preservation of the environment should be underpinned by a recognition of the intrinsic value of plants and animals and ‘as their custodians, we have a responsibility towards their preservation.’ (p. 3) • Recognises that despite variances in individual motivations for environmental preservation that ‘all reasons point to the same conclusion’ (p. 3) which is an increased effort in its protection

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Decade of Landcare 1990 Commonwealth • Ten-page document which announces ‘Australia’s Transition to Sustainable Land Use’ (p. Plan Government 1). • Identifies itself as a ‘framework for action’ (p. 4) • The document claims the Plan is a result of governments, industries, communities and individuals accepting a need to change the way ‘we manage our land and water resources to sustain and maintain their long term potential’ (p. 1) • Identifies past poor land management practices as a result of ‘inadequate information’ on the consequences of landholder’s individual actions • Recognises that management practices do now exist which can reduce the rate of land/water degradation. However there is a need for individuals to ‘adopt’ (p. 1) these practices to ensure an ‘economically and ecologically sustainable future for our country’ (p. 1). Humans must achieve ‘long term change to attitudes and individual behaviour’ to realise ‘sustainable land use’ (p. 7) • Promotes individual accountability as a powerful incentive for responsible human action towards the land and claims that sustainable land use ‘is most likely to be achieved through profitable operations which enable individual land uses to capture the benefits and bear the costs of their decisions’ (p. 3) Ecologically 1990 Commonwealth • First national statement by a government in Australia to address the concept of Sustainable Government, ecologically sustainable development Development: a Department of the • The first step in the development of a national strategy for ecologically sustainable Commonwealth Prime Minister and development (CoA 1991a, p. v) Discussion Paper Cabinet • Proposes the principles of ecologically sustainable development as the basis for all government economic and environmental decision-making (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 1990, p. 10) • Recognises the link between economic growth and a ‘”well-managed” environment’ (p. 1) • Recommends the establishment of Working Groups on ESD to report on specific sectoral issues in the pursuit of ecologically sustainable development

xii

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Executive Summary- 1990 Ecologically • Working Groups made up of community and interest group members along with Final Report Sustainable representatives from government convened by the Government to consider the Development (ESD) implementation of ESD principles across a range of industry sectors which included: Working Groups agriculture, energy production, energy use, fisheries, forest use, manufacturing, mining, tourism and transport • Summaries the findings of the separate Working Groups and identifies changes needed to achieve ecologically sustainable development • Identified, along with the discussion paper, Ecologically Sustainable Development: A Commonwealth Discussion Paper June 1990 (CoA 1991a), as a major element of the ‘ESD process’ in Australia

Intergovernmental 1992 Commonwealth Heads • Agreement between the Commonwealth, States, Territories and Local Governments on Agreement on the of Agreement the environment Environment (IGAE) (COAG) • Mechanism to facilitate a cooperative approach to the environment, better definition of the roles of government and reduction in the number of disputes on environment issues, greater certainty of Government and business decision making, and better environmental protection in the national pursuit of ESD (COAG 1992) • Statement that parties agree that environmental considerations will be integrated into all Government decision-making and cites principles of policy and program implementation including the ‘precautionary principle’ (COAG 1992, s. 3.5.1), ‘intergenerational equity’ (s. 3.5.2), conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity (s. 3.5.3), and improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms (s. 3.5.4) • Statement that parties agree that a ‘representative system of protected’ areas should be developed and managed according to ‘nationally consistent principles’ (Schedule 9, point 13)

xiii

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event National Forest 1992 Jointly developed by • Builds on the NCSA (1983) and the National Forest Strategy for Australia (1986) Policy Statement: A the Commonwealth • Presents a vision for Australia’s public and private forest estate based on ecologically New Focus for States and Territories sustainable development (p. 3) and states that ‘there should be a sound scientific base Australia’s Forests through the for sustainable forest management and resource use.’ (National Forest Policy Statement Australian Forestry 1992, p. 7) Council and the • Advocates governments setting the regulatory framework for the use of native forests. Australian & New Presents government forest management agencies as the stewards of the community’s Zealand Environment assets & Conservation • Council (ANZECC) States that Australia governments agree to manage public native forests for their multiple conservation values including cultural significance to Aboriginal people • Promotes nature conservation reserve systems based on the principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness National Strategy for 1992 NSESD Steering • Australia’s first cooperative national strategy for ecologically sustainable development as Ecologically Committee the guiding concept for land/sea management Sustainable Builds on the World Conservation Strategy (1980), the NCSA (1983) and Our Common Development Future (1987) (NSESD Steering Committee 1992, p. 12) (NSESD) • Recommends ‘key changes to the way we think, act and make decisions’ (p. 6) in the pursuit of ESD • Advocates the need for individuals to contribute to ecologically sustainable development through modifying behaviours and practices • Recognises the need to incorporate the ‘land, heritage, economic and cultural development and employment concerns’ of Indigenous Australians in ‘ESD processes’ (p. 82) • Actions identified in the ‘Objectives’ of the Strategy are: • the establishment across the nation of a comprehensive system of protected areas and that ANZECC be used as the primary forum for coordination of all nationwide nature conservation functions (p. 54) • regular national state of the environment reporting (p. 63) by governments on the extent to which their ‘actions have met ESD guidelines’ (p.67)

xiv

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Women and the 1992 A Statement Prepared • Statement intended to provide input to ESD strategies and policy in Australia Environment by the Office of the • Recognises that sustainable development will not be achieved unless women’s Status of Women, involvement is recognised and incorporated into policy and planning at all levels Department of the (Commonwealth of Australia 1992, p. 11) Prime Minister and • Examines ways in which women relate to the environment through ‘Women’s Cabinet, on behalf of Fundamental Relationship With The Earth’ (p. 4) the Government of • the Commonwealth Argues for ‘the need for a ‘feminisation’ of the approaches to environment and of Australia for the development issues’ (p. 3) to increase the acceptance of female values and issues (p. 12) United Nations • Argues how the complexity of the modern world has removed us from an awareness of Conference on the our dependence on the Earth for our sustenance. Indigenous communities are an Environment and exception: their ‘close relationship with the Earth is clear’ (p. 4) Development • Identifies that women are poorly represented in most of the national, regional and (UNCED), 1992 international forums relating to the environment and ESD (p. 11) • Argues that there are ‘gendered ways of seeing and doing’ (p. 12) along a spectrum of behaviour with ‘male’ at one end and ‘female’ at the other • Elements of the ‘female approach’ (p. 12) are: a ‘holistic approach’ (p. 13) and a ‘nurturing approach’ (p. 14) • The nurturing approach is exemplified by the ‘way Indigenous people see their relationship with the Earth’, who see themselves as ‘custodians of the land’ (p. 14). And ‘They do not see themselves as having unlimited rights in terms of land usage.’ (p. 14)

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Biodiversity: The Role 1993 Australia, Parliament, • Outlines the role of protected areas in the conservation of biodiversity and proposes the of Protected Areas House of establishment of a national, ecologically representative system or nature conservation Representatives reserves (HRSCERA 1993, p. 7) Standing Committee • Makes substantive recommendations regarding the land and sea interests and on Environment, management rights and responsibilities of Indigenous peoples Recreation and the • Advocates a ‘bioregional framework for the planning and management of all land and Arts (HoRSCERA) resource use’ (p. 6) which allows for integration of land use across jurisdictions in working towards ecologically sustainable development (p. 7) • Promotes the measure of in situ conservation (both inside and outside of protected areas) as the most significant in nationwide biodiversity conservation (p.1) • Advocates‘ [using ], where appropriate, the traditional knowledge and skills of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the development and implementation of management plans for protected areas’ (p. 67) Coastal Zone Inquiry: 1993 Resource Assessment • Commonwealth Government public inquiry into the use and management of Australia’s Final Report Commission (RAC) coastal zone resources • Recognises the coast as a ‘priceless national resource’ (RAC 1993) • Promotes ‘integrated management’ of resources (p. 363) • Makes 69 Recommendations including: • a national approach to coastal management (p. 361) • the ‘active management’ of ecologically sustainable development (p. 362) • the recognition of traditional Indigenous resource rights (p. 370) • Advocates greater involvement of Indigenous peoples in management of protected areas (pp. 370-376) including: • ranger training programs • the development of a national policy on ownership of and access to Indigenous cultural property • a review of Commonwealth heritage policy and legislation • the adoption of a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Fisheries Strategy

xvi

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event ATSIC Land 1994 Aboriginal and Torres • First comprehensive ATSIC land management strategy Management Policy Strait Islander • Document written in the first person plural Commission (ATSIC) • Principles of the policy are ‘self-determination and regionality’; ‘sustainability and conservation’; and ‘precaution’. • Considers ‘the environment’ to be the ‘surroundings’ of human beings which are ‘the land and sea, and the living things and natural processes which occur in them’ (ATSIC 1994, p. 1) The ‘human’ and ‘the environment’ are thus considered as separate. • Promotes the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the development and implementation of government environmental policies (p. 2) • Defines Indigenous land and resources management as: ‘the involvement of Indigenous peoples in management processes, particularly management in which we make choices guided by cultural insights and values, or in which management is based on traditional techniques.’ (p.4) • Links the preservation of native title rights to land and sea on the ability for Indigenous peoples to practice their ‘social and subsistence activities’ on that land and sea (p.5) • Advocates that Indigenous peoples should consider ‘principles of conservation and sustainability’ in the exercise of their native title rights and interests over land and sea (p.5)

xvii

Document Date Organisation/ DescrDescriptioniption Event Living on the Coast: 1995 Commonwealth • A response to the RAC’s Coastal Zone Inquiry: Final Report. The Commonwealth Department of the • Aims to promote ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s coastal zone Coastal Policy Environment, Sport • Advocates increased participation of Indigenous Australians in coastal management and Territories (DEST) Our Sea Our Future: 1995 Commonwealth • Provides the ‘first comprehensive scientific description of our marine environment’ (DEST Major Findings of the Department of the c.1995, Foreword) State of the Marine Environment, Sport • Forms part of Ocean Rescue 2000 Program and State of the Environment reporting Environment Report and Territories system, for Australia (DEST) • Identifies the goals of marine environmental management as the maintenance of

biodiversity and ecologically sustainable development • Predicts that the alternative to biodiversity conservation and ecologically sustainable development is ‘continuing environmental degradation and ecological collapse.’ (p. 103) • Identifies a ‘perennial barrier between science and management’ (p. 68) which thwarts the application of scientific knowledge in marine management in Australia • Joins international documents and other national initiatives in ‘stressing the importance of ecologically sustainable development and large-scale, long-term, integrated ecosystem management’ (p. 97) • Recognises Indigenous interests as ‘special interests’ in the coast and seas and notes that the Native Title Act 1993 provides for sea rights of Indigenous Australians but in practice there has been no authoritative legal precedent set for the granting of native title to sea estates

xviii

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Interim Biogeographic 1995 Thackway, R. and • Project initiated by the Australian Natural Conservation Agency (now Environment Regionalisation for Cresswell, I.D. (eds) Australia) in the mid 1980s Australia(IBRA) for the National • A national classification of biogeographic regions which seeks to define, map and Reserve System describe the major ecosystems in Australia. program, Environment • This national biogeographic framework is in the form of a publicly available spatial data Australia. set. • The IBRA is for use in planning for ecologically sustainable development and biodiversity conservation • The IBRA is used to develop the National Reserve System of protected areas. Areas are judged for inclusion in the National Reserve System (NRS) based on their ‘representativeness, adequateness and comprehensiveness’ (Thackway & Cresswell eds. 1995) with respect to the national framework.

Indigenous Land 1996 Indigenous Land • Applies to the ILC Regional Area of the Northern Territory Corporation Regional Corporation • Identifies key factors in Indigenous Dispossession of land and sea in the Northern Indigenous Land Territory and recognises the limited scope of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 which Strategy: Northern has resulted in some Indigenous groups being left without any ownership rights to land Territory Regional and sea (ILC 1996, s. 2.3.1) Area • Details principles of land acquisition and management for Indigenous interests in the Northern Territory • Identifies the ‘Nhulunbuy ATSIC Region’, encompassing Yol\u estates in NE Arnhem Land, as the only ATSIC region in Australia where all the land area in Aboriginal freehold (s. 6.4)

xix

Document Date Organisation/ Description/Comments Event Australia: State of 1996 State of the • First in the series of reports in the national state of the environment reporting system the Environment Environment Advisory • Recognises itself as the ‘first objective and comprehensive assessment of the state of Report (SoER) Council Australia’s environment’ (SEAC 1996b, p. 7) (SEAC) • Identifies the national goal of land and sea management as that of ecologically sustainable development (p. 9) • In its ‘Overall Message’ states that with respect to Australia’s environmental problems: ‘We are all responsible’ (p. 8). And, advocates changes in ‘government policies and programs, corporate practices and personal behaviour.’ (p. 8). • Aims to augment Australia’s knowledge on the environment in order to better assess the impact of human activity on biodiversity • Identifies the loss of biodiversity as perhaps Australia’s ‘most serious environmental problem' (p. 13) • Advocates a ‘comprehensive and systematic approach’ (p. 8) to environmental management • Recognises our international responsibility to protect Australia’s biodiversity • Recognises the economy and human society as part of the ecological system and that the struggle towards ESD must recognise this ‘fundamental truth’ (p. 15)

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event The Australian Natural 1996 Australian Committee • Provides standards and principles for the conservation of places of natural heritage Heritage Charter for IUCN significance • Produced as part of Australia’s commitments to the World Heritage Convention • Recognises a ‘spectrum of values’ in ‘natural heritage’ which is differentiated from ‘cultural heritage’ by that of ‘dynamic ecological processes, ongoing natural evolution, and the ability of ecosystems to be self-perpetuating.’ (Australian Committee for the IUCN, 1996. p. 3) • The ‘Ethos of the Charter’ (p. 3) acknowledges the principles of: intergenerational equity, existence value, uncertainty and precaution (p. 3) • Recognises in is ‘principle of existence’ that living organisms, earth processes and ecosystems may have (intrinsic) value beyond those held by humans (p. 3) • Intends to provide a ‘uniform approach’ to conservation of places of natural heritage significance which can be applied across the range of land and sea tenures in Australia (p. 2) • Defines ‘place’ as a ‘site or area with associated ecosystems, which are the sum of its geodiversity, biological diversity and natural processes.’ (p. 5) It does not include the social or cultural values of places in the land and sea in this definition. • The companion document to the Charter is the Natural Heritage Places Handbook: Applying the Australian Natural Heritage Charter to Conserve Places of Natural Significance (Australian Committee for IUCN 1999)

xxi

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event National Strategy for 1996 DEST • Forms part of Australia’s international commitments as a party to the international the Conservation of Convention on Biological Diversity Biological Diversity • Acknowledges the core objectives and accepts the guiding principles of the NSESD (DEST 1996, p. 5) and recognises ecologically sustainable development as ‘essential to biodiversity conservation’ (p. 1) • Recognises an ‘ethical basis’ for the conservation of biological diversity (p. 2) based upon humankind sharing the Earth with other organisms who have intrinsic value. It states: ‘We share the earth with many life forms that warrant our respect, whether or not they are of benefit to us’ (p. 2) • Recognises that governments, industry, community groups and individual land managers all have some responsibility for the management of biological diversity (p. 3) • Calls for immediate action to change unsustainable practices • Identifies objectives for the conservation of biological diversity including: bioregional planning (Objective 1.2) and integrated management (Objective 1.3); a ‘comprehensive, adequate and representative system of protected areas covering Australia’s biodiversity’ (Objective 1.4) • Recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests (Objective 1.8), their ‘special knowledge’ of, and ‘particular interest’ in biodiversity (p. 14), and their ‘traditional approaches’ whereby ‘law and cosmology establishes intimate connections between people, land and other species (p. 14)

xxii

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event Heads of Agreement 1997 Council of Australian • Proposes a framework for comprehensive reform of Commonwealth-State roles and on Commonwealth/ Governments responsibilities for the environment State Roles and • Focuses the role of the Commonwealth on matters of ‘national environmental Responsibilities for significance’ and lists thirty matters of ‘national environmental significance including the Environment World Heritage • Responsibility for local or State/Territory environmental assessment and approval processes remain with State/Territory governments who will be accredited through bilateral agreements established under the EPBC Act • Notes that Indigenous heritage issues are being addressed in a separate process and are not covered by the Agreement Australia’s Oceans 1998 Commonwealth of • Produced as the basis for a national oceans policy but not a formally agreed statement Policy: caring Australia or policy understanding • Reminds us that ‘We have a shared responsibility of ensuring the long term health of our using wisely oceans’ (Environment Australia 1998a, p. 1) (volumes 1 and 2) • Advocates a goal of ecologically sustainable ocean use (p. 19); integrated ocean planning and management (p. 21) and the conservation of marine biodiversity through a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) (pp. 22-23) • Includes reference to ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People’s Responsibilities and Interests’ (1998b, pp. 24-25) as one of the ‘Specific Sectoral Measures’ identified in Volume 2 of the document Interim Marine and 1998 Thackway, R. and • This document was ‘developed as a regional framework for planning resource Coastal Biogeographic Cresswell, I.D. (eds) development and biodiversity conservation’ (Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation Regionalisation for for the Interim for Australia Technical Group 1998, p. vi) Australia: an Marine and Coastal • Details the Commonwealth’s commitment to developing a National Representative ecosystem-based Regionalisation for System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) (p. 2) which fulfils Australia’s obligations classification for Australia Technical under the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP 1994) (p. 3) marine and coastal Group • Advocates the use of ‘ecological boundaries’ in bioregional land use and conservation environments planning, ‘rather than artificial administrative boundaries for management’ (p. 4). Identifies 60 marine/coastal bioregions in Australia.

xxiii

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event National Principles 1999 Australian & New • Establishes a framework for the development of policies and strategies for the and Guidelines for Zealand Environment ecologically sustainable development of Australia’s rangelands Rangeland & Conservation • Identifies a 25-year vision for the rangelands and recognises their intrinsic value, ‘because Management Council and of their biodiversity, areas of high wilderness quality and other conservation values’ Agriculture & (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 1999, p. 11) Resource • Advocates a regional approach to manage local differences Management Council • of Australia & New Contains a number of principles and values which include identifying ‘land users’ as Zealand individuals with primary responsibility for natural resource management; and that the objectives of ecologically sustainable development ‘should be applied ‘irrespective of how the land is held and used’ (p. 5) The Burra Charter: 1999 Australia International • The principles of the Charter are used as the basis for assessing places for inclusion in The Australian (originally adopted in Council on the Register of the National Estate which is the list of ‘heritage places’ in Australia ICOMOS Charter for 1979) Monuments and Sites protected under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 the Conservation of (ICOMOS) Delineates and guides the protection of ‘cultural heritage places’ and sets a ‘standard of Places of Cultural practice’ in 34 Articles for the management of ‘places of cultural significance’ in Australia Significance (Australia ICOMOS 2000, p. 1) • Defines ‘cultural significance’ as: ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations’ (Article 1 .2 , p. 2). These values are embodied in the ‘place’ (Article 1.1, p. 2), such that it is the place which must be conserved’ so as to retain its cultural significance’ (Article 1.4, p. 2) • Outlines the Burra Charter Process (see Article 6, p. 4) which broadly involves understanding the significance of a place through recording and assessing information, and then developing a policy for management, • States that knowledge of the ‘ cultural significance’ (see Article 6.1, p. 4) of a place is imperative to the development of management policy for that place. Advocates that cultural significance is retained through a ‘cautious approach’ (Article 3.1, p. 3) to management where minimal change is advised. This is based on a ‘respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings’ (Article 3.1, p. 3) of a place

xxiv

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event An Indigenous Marine 1999? Senior lawmen of the • Sets out a vision for a ‘publicly endorsed and legally sanctioned marine protection Protection Strategy Indigenous peoples of strategy’ (p. 1) for the seas called Manbuy\a ga Rulyapa off the coast of NE Arnhem for Manbuy\a ga NE Arnhem Land Land in Australia’s Northern Territory Rulyapa • Advocates that this Strategy should be based on ‘the Yol\u management principles of dj^gamirr (land/sea managers) and dj^mamirr’ (land/sea management workers) (p. 1). Recognises that Yol\u land/sea managers and workers have ‘access and use of the sea in accordance with our [Yol\u] law which derives from kinship ties [gurru=u]’. Management responsibilities, performed through the particular relationships Yol\u have with sea country and its lifeforms, is determined by gurru=u • Recognises that Yol\u ‘management arrangements for the sea are as complex as’ the incumbent ‘official’ non-Aboriginal administration and management regime for seas and that they ‘have an established system of control [of land/sea access and use ] and delegation of responsibility’ for Manbuy\a ga Rulyapa (p. 5) • Advocates that the application of Yol\u law throughout Manbuy\a ga Rulyapa off should be recognised and supported by Australian governments (p. 1) • Recognises the need to officially instate Yol\u names for sea/land through the Strategy and for all Australians to use these names (p. 2) • Describes Yol\u ownership and management responsibilities in Manbuy\a ga Rulyapa as bestowed through the ‘totems and dreamings [Wa\arr] that we share our common history’ (p. 2) and the connections between people and place which are made in the ‘journeys of our totems [Wa\arr]’ (p. 2). Recognises water as a source of knowledge with multiple meanings; some secular, others ‘sacred’ (p. 4) • Recognises that a ‘long-term sustainable relationship’ (p. 4) between all the Indigenous resource users of Manbuy\a ga Rulyapa is necessary to engender ecologically sustainable management • States the desire of Yol\u to have their ‘collective rights’ to Manbuy\a ga Rulyapa recognised including the right to participate in the administration of sea country (pp. 3- 4)

xxv

Document Date Organisation/ Description Event National Indigenous 2001 Indigenous Land • Follows on from the ILC National Indigenous Land Strategy 1996-2001 Land Strategy: 2001- Corporation (ILC) • Framework document for the Regional Indigenous Land Strategy which sets out 2006 guidelines to the development of strategies for the states and territories. • Recognises the rights, prior ownership of land and dispossession of Indigenous people in Australia (ILC 2001, p. 4) • Advocates the regional specificity of actions rather than a national approach to land acquisition and management • Links sustainable land management with economic sustainability of Indigenous organisations and communities • Details key policies of the ILC which are: ‘land acquisition, in recognition of the many unmet needs of dispossessed people’ (p. 7) and ‘land management’ (p. 8) • In ‘land acquisition’ the ILC’s objective is ‘establishing a representative land base of culturally significant land over time’ (p. 15) • In ‘land management’ the ILC’s mandate is to assist Indigenous people to ‘manage their lands in a sustainable way providing them with cultural, social, environmental and economic benefits’ (p. 8). These benefits include the employment/training of Indigenous people and Indigenous business development (see pp. 11-12)

xxvi Figure 111:1: Map of Dhimurru Management Area (source: DLMAC 2000b)2000b)

57 FFFigureFigure 222:2: Vegetation Map of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) ( (source:source: DLMAC 1999 created from mapping compiled by Brocklehurst (1993))

58 Legend CLASS NO. DESCRIPTION CLASS 1 Coastal monsoon vine thicket - grassland

CLASS 2 Coastal monsoon vine thicket - low closed forest

CLASS 3 Mangroves

CLASS 4 Mangroves (low open forest)

CLASS 5 Grassland with Casuarina - chenier

Grassland with scattered coastal monsoon vine thicket - CLASS 6 henier

CLASS 7 Grassland with scattered pandanus

CLASS 8 Eucalyptus open-forest

M. cajuputi open-forest/woodland - Monsoon vine forests, CLASS 9 Mangrove fringe

CLASS 10 Melaleuca low open - forest

CLASS 11 Monsoon vine forest / Mangrove fringe

CLASS 12 Monsoon vine forest / Melaleuca sps (swamp forest)

CLASS 13 Saline flat/Samphire

CLASS 14 Spinifex / tussock grassland

CLASS 15 Spinifex / tussock grassland(4)

Mosaic of coastal monsoon vine thicket-grassland & Sand CLASS 16 dune (stabilised to some extent)

CLASS 17 Beach

CLASS 18 Long stabilised dune

CLASS 19 Sand dune (stabilised to some degree)

CLASS 20 Sand dune (active blowouts)

CLASS 21 Rock platform/cliff

59 Layer: Vegetation 1:15 000 Theme type: polygon

Data outline: This shapefile represents the vegetation for the Cape Arnhem area (scale 1: 15,000) as created from mapping compiled by P.Brocklehurst of the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory (previously the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory).

Source: The map used to create this theme was supplied in hard-copy format only. No metadata were supplied. The following steps were followed to produce this theme.

The hard copy map was scanned on an A3 scanner at 100dpi and saved as a .tif file.

The .tif file was imported into ERDAS Imagine (Version 8.3.1) as an .img file.

The .img file was then georeferenced to the coastline data in the frame shapefile, supplied by AUSLIG (scale 1: 100,000). The total RMS error for this referencing procedure was 6.1 (with 1x1m pixels).A vector (line) layer was created by on-screen digitising using the image as a guide. Topology was built on the vector layer created in Imagine in Arc/Info using the BUILD or CLEAN commands.

The coverage was converted to a polygon shapefile in ArcView.

The attribute table was edited to include the vegetation descriptions as supplied on the hard copy map.

Projection: UTM, zone 53.

Figure 333:3: Map of NE Arnhem Land showing YolYol\\\\uu Homelands (source: Watson 1989)

Plate 111 : Aerial view of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (photo: Margaret Ayre)

Plate 222:2: Ganbulapula carving and Garma bububu\bu \\\gulgul (photo: Margaret Ayre)

62 CHAPTER 2. COOPERATICOOPERATIVEVE MANAGEMENT OF LANLANDD AND SEA IN AUSTRALAUSTRALIAIAIAIA

In this chapter I tell a story about how ontological problems, and hence how power relations, have been managed in the technoscientific discourse of joint land and sea management agreements in Australia between Aboriginal landowners and government. The story is one which points to a painful struggle to negotiate equitable relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowers and practitioners in the arena of contemporary land and sea management. This pain arises in the disruptions effected for both Aboriginal landowners and technoscientific land managers in the attempt to negotiate mutually beneficial practices and outcomes. It is a story that leads us to begin to explore the questions that are central to this thesis. These are: ‘How can conventional land management practices both work with and be open to being changed by Aboriginal practices?’ This implies the symmetrical question of how might Aboriginal practices be open to change-but I also argue in this thesis that this is not for us to answer. And: ‘How can we live and work together in the cooperative management of Aboriginal (Yol\u) land and sea?’

2.1 The Notion of Joint Management

Here I discuss two examples of Aboriginal/technoscientific joint management agreements in Australia that were negotiated in the 1970s and 1980s. The first is Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park located in the Northern Territory, approximately 1400 km south of Darwin and 330 km south-west of Alice Springs, which came under joint management in 1985. The second is Kakadu National Park, located approximately 400 km south-east of Darwin in the Northern Territory, which has been subject of joint management since 1979. In considering aspects of these two instances of joint management, I reveal the strategies that are used as part of the technoscientific discourse of joint management in Australia. These strategies work to manage the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ways of knowing within the complex arena that is living and working together in joint management.

I will not provide here an exhaustive critique or comparison of joint management initiatives in Australia, nor of the case studies in joint management that I have chosen to elaborate more fully. 18 I will however introduce some of the important documents and artefacts of management that constitute the contemporary forms of land and sea management involving partnership arrangements between Aboriginal and

18 For analysis and commentary on the joint management arrangement at Kakadu National Park see Lawrence (2000) and for Uluru- Kata Tju=a National Park see Willis in Birckhead et al. (1992); For comparison and discussion of joint management of these parks see Cordell (1993) in Kemf (ed.) and De Lacey and Lawson (1997) in Stevens (ed.). non-Aboriginal constituents. I will show how these documents and artefacts effect a particular form of what I will call ‘ontological management’.

I use the term ‘ontological management’ to describe particular knowledge making, representation and negotiation strategies. In attempting to reveal these strategies I am engaged in a philosophical endeavour-I am asking the question ‘How can we work together Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ways of knowing in land and sea management?’ I am interested in looking at ways of engaging this question that do not prescribe a moral imperative designed by a foundationalist interpretative frame. This particular frame sees, as Verran explains, ‘some sort of foundation (either the ‘physical entities of the world’ or ‘the concrete practices of the social world’) on which a knowledge-structure of symbols is built’ (Verran 1999, p. 143). I want to show how this frame is not useful in attempting to engage with questions of how to negotiate between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ways of knowing about the world. I do this by acknowledging and continuing my dual role as a participant storyteller/researcher in the events and narratives that I recount. In doing so I take inspiration from the work of Kathyrn Pyne Addelson who writes on how to do the work of this ‘double participation’ responsibly (1994, pp. 160-182).

Joint management of land and sea in Australia involves a partnership arrangement between Aboriginal landowners and managers and government and is usually enshrined in a legally binding agreement. A complex legal, social, political and epistemological institution, which has developed in Australia out of the struggle for Aboriginal land rights and self-determination, joint management has a special place in the history of land and sea management practice and protected area management. I wish to highlight some of the features of just two examples of joint management in Australia. In doing so I pay attention to the artefacts that accompany the lawful designation of lands and seas 19 as ‘jointly managed’: (1) the ‘Lease’, (2) the ‘Board of Management’, (3) the ‘Plan of Management’, and (4) the ‘institutional structure of the Park’. These artefacts are instrumental in managing complexity. They sustain and perform the concept of joint management in both the theory and practice of law, policy, and land and sea management. Examining the technoscientific discourse and

19In this thesis I will not be addressing details of Indigenous interests in sea estates in Australia outside of the context of Dhimurru. This is however an important issue and is the subject of much recent debate. It includes a range of considerations such the recognition of Indigenous ownership of traditional sea estates, hunting and resource rights under common law, and the management of marine species for subsistence and conservation (see Resource Assessment Commission (1993); Kennett, Webb, Duff, Guinea and Hill (eds) (1998); Smyth (2001) and Lowe and Davies (2001) in Baker et al. (eds); Jackson (1995)). Members of the Dhimurru and Yol\u communities of NE Arnhem Land have been involved in the development of a cooperative management strategy for areas of the Arafura Sea called An Indigenous Management Strategy for Manbuy\a ga Rulyapa (see NLC 1993; Table 1.2).

2 artefacts of joint management more closely reveals some of the tensions that exist in the doing of land and sea management as Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people work together.

In this chapter I produce a historical narrative of joint management as it is told in the documents which embed the joint management agreements of two Australian National Parks. I also use stories of how my Yol\u co-workers responded during visits to these places to study how these agreements worked. I choose to elaborate aspects of the joint management arrangements for the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks, rather than others because they are widely recognised as exemplary practice in joint management in Australia, and as such are a potent influence on the development of joint management arrangements elsewhere in Australia and internationally, including at Dhimurru. Through this narrative I will provide examples of what I take to be the ontological management strategies that are used as part of the technoscientific discourse of joint management in Australia.

The concept of joint management is a philosophical and organisational framework used in the management and administration of Aboriginal-owned lands and seas. It was proposed as early as 1974 in Australia as a panacea for land use conflicts on Aboriginal traditional estates used for/proposed as recreation and conservation reserves. Justice Woodward noted in the findings of the Commonwealth Government’s Aboriginal Land Rights Commission that, apart from employment opportunities, a ‘scheme of Aboriginal Title, combined with National Park status and joint management should be acceptable to all interests’ (Woodward 1974, p. 1041). Joint management implies that Aboriginal landowners and their institutions and mainstream government land management bodies manage the land in partnership. In Australia, joint management of Aboriginal lands and seas is advocated by many of the prominent land and sea management institutions and policy statements. However, there is no national policy nor are there guidelines for the cooperative management of protected areas with Aboriginal ownership and resource interests. This is despite the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment Recreation and the Arts (HoRSCERA) in 1993 regarding the establishment of a policy framework to assist negotiations between Aboriginal peoples and conservation management agencies regarding the management of protected areas (HoRSCERA 1993, p. 70). Nevertheless, in recent years joint management has been promoted as a means of dealing with both environmental and social problems. For example, EA in its Reconciliation Action Plan identifies five central themes, the fifth being: ‘Strategies to protect and use traditional ecological knowledge in addressing contemporary environmental issues’, and includes the following:

Continue scientific research and land management programs that incorporate traditional Aboriginal knowledge and practices in Kakadu, Ulu ru and Booderee national parks (EA ?2000, s. 5, line l. 2) and Continue to employ senior Aboriginal people in the jointly managed parks as consultants and incorporate traditional knowledge into scientific reports. (s. 5, line l. 3)

At the same time the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a Board of Management (UKTBoM) and Parks Australia claim that joint management will ‘greatly contribute to reconciliation in Australia and the recognition and maintenance of Indigenous cultural values’ (2000, p. 51).

The Commonwealth Government has also accepted in principle the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody which made recommendations aimed at improving the social and economic wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. Recommendation No. 315, known as the Millstream Recommendation, refers to Indigenous involvement in National Parks and Nature Reserves, and specifically recommends in parts a and b:

a) the encouragement of joint management between identified and acknowledged representatives of Aboriginal people and the relevant State...’ and

b) the involvement of Aboriginal people in the development of management plans for National Parks... (Royal Commission Government Response Monitoring Unit 1997b, p. 849)

There are a variety of forms of joint management currently working in Australia. I cannot for the purposes of this thesis explicate all these, but will provide here a brief description of several non-specific examples of joint management. I make a distinction between two broad types of joint management. The first is what is sometimes called ‘formal’ joint management which involves a specific legislative framework for cooperative management which describes a lease, a management structure and plan of management for the management area, usually a designated national park or reserve area. The second is what I call ‘informal’ joint management which is an agreement about management which does not necessarily involve a formal lease arrangement and which may or may not be defined in a legal contract between parties. I make this distinction to highlight a crucial aspect of the institution of ‘joint management’. That is, the implications of the status of land/sea,

4 as determined by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous systems of land/sea tenure and classification, in determining possibilities for successful joint management.

In most cases ‘formal’ joint management proceeds under a legally binding agreement. Lawrence, in his recent treatise on the management of Kakadu National Park, adopts the following definition of ‘joint management’:

‘joint management’ refers to a negotiated and legally binding agreement, usually in the form of a lease, between Indigenous owners of land and a national parks agency, for the formal establishment and management of a national park [or protected area ] on land owned by Indigenous people. (Osherenko, 1988, p. 13 in Lawrence 2000, p. 8)

This definition also specifies the land use of the area under joint management to be that of a ‘national park’. Other characteristics of formal joint management are a statutory requirement to produce a plan of management: this reflects the historical context of formal joint management in Australia, which is that of protected area management. There are several examples of formal joint management agreements in Australia, the most celebrated of which are Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park and Kakadu National Parks in the Northern Territory. These parks are two of the three mainland parks managed under a legally binding agreement between the Australian Commonwealth Government and the Aboriginal traditional owners of the land/sea, the third being Booderee (Jervis Bay) National Park in New South Wales. Other jointly managed national parks in Australia involve the relevant state or territory land/sea management agency in lease-bound partnership arrangements of various forms with Aboriginal landowners. Until recently the Northern Territory was the only state or territory jurisdiction where national parks are owned by Aboriginal people and managed under [formal ] joint Aboriginal/government agency control (Smyth & Sutherland 1996, p. 145). These parks include Gurig (Cobourg Peninsula) National Park, the first jointly managed national park in Australia formed in 1981, and Nitmuluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park formed in 1989. New South Wales and South Australia are the only other states who have established formal joint management agreements for parks: these are the Mutawintji National Park in 1998 and the Witjara National Park in 1995 (Smyth 2001). In the other states and the Australian Capital Territory there are various arrangements for Aboriginal participation in land and sea management, although to date none of these represent formal joint management agreements between a state/territory government and Aboriginal landowners established on the basis of Aboriginal tenure of the land/sea. There are however many areas currently under claim by Aboriginal peoples which may become jointly managed protected areas (De Lacey & Lawson 1997; Symth 2001).

I use ‘informal’ joint management’ here to describe a relationship between a government land and sea management agency or other stakeholder/s and Aboriginal landowners based on an agreement involving resources and management responsibilities for a particular land/sea area or environmental resource. Such an arrangement may take a variety of forms and includes, in Australia, the concepts of IPAs and Regional Agreements (RAs) (see Edmunds ed 1999; Appendix E ).

The concept of IPAs has been developed by the Commonwealth land and sea management agency in Australia, EA, and involves Indigenous people voluntarily choosing to manage their lands/seas for ‘the protection of natural and cultural features in accordance with internationally recognised standards and guidelines’ (EA 2001a). 20 An IPA is a category of protected area defined under the NRS Protected Area Management Categories. The inclusion of Indigenous-held land/sea in the NRS thus helps achieve the Commonwealth Government’s objective of the NRS which is ‘to assist with the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of protected areas to conserve Australia’s native biodiversity’ (CoA 1999, p. 6). The process used to identify areas as appropriate for reservation under the NRS included the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) (Thackaway et al . 1995; Table 1.2). The conservation of biodiversity is effected through the NRS by reservation of select areas based on biodiversity criteria delineated in the IBRA. As Figgis, the author of Australian National Parks and Protected Areas: Future Directions observes: ‘Major gains for conservation are possible, therefore, if Indigenous people manage their lands voluntarily as protected areas’ (1999, p. 26).

In general, IPA management agreements (known as ‘voluntary conservation agreements’ under the NRS) involve an agreement between Indigenous landowners and the relevant State or Territory environmental protection and conservation agency which determines responsibilities for funding, administration and land/sea management for an area for which the Indigenous landowners retain title and control of management. An IPA agreement stipulates a number of elements in a working partnership between Indigenous landowners and the relevant government which are: a nominated management area and a regime of management for this area, including resources requirements, management personnel, a management structure, and a plan of management. The IPA agreement is thus a negotiated settlement on these elements that does not involve a lease agreement between Indigenous landowners and government. Funding assistance under any IPA program could be available from

20 So far in Australia there have been over twenty IPAs declared with an estimated twenty more to be declared over the next four or so years. The IPA program receives approx. $800,000 per annum under the NHT (Rose, D. 2001 pers. comm.).

6 both the State/Territory Government land and sea management agency and the Commonwealth Government for a range of activities including developing plans of management; implementation of existing plans of management; community consultation or planning; expert advice and assistance; on ground management; and, natural and cultural heritage surveys (ANCA c.1997).

In the Northern Territory, the PWCNT’s Northern Territory Parks Masterplan promotes IPAs as the strategic framework for cooperation between government and Indigenous peoples in land and sea management for ‘conservation purposes’ (PWCNT 1998?, p. 26). This document supports the framing of such agreements within the TPWC Act and one of its key recommendations is ‘that the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act be amended to give greater prominence to Aboriginal involvement in parks and to provide for the declaration of Indigenous Protected Areas’ (p. 26). It elaborates in detail the proposed criteria for the declaration of IPAs, the potential benefits of IPAs for ‘Aboriginal landowners’ and for ‘the management of the Northern Territory park system’ (p. 27). The document recognises however that flexibility in options for conservation management of Aboriginal-owned land should be emphasised and provides a range of specific management options available for IPAs under Northern Territory legislation (p. 27). At the time when the Northern Territory Parks Masterplan was published the relationship between Dhimurru and the PWCNT was one such existing arrangement. The Masterplan records of these informal institutional arrangements: ‘In simplest form, such as that proposed by Dhimurru, these might involve supporting the traditional owners and assisting them in their own conservation efforts’ (p. 22). However, while the Northern Territory Government supports in principle the cooperative management of Aboriginal land/sea under the IPA program, it did not support the establishment in 2000 of the Dhimurru IPA in NE Arnhem Land, the first IPA declared in the Northern Territory (see Chapter 3).

The Northern Territory Parks Masterplan qualifies its support of informal cooperative management arrangements by explaining

When the circumstances are right, however, and when all parties agree, there are still benefits to be gained on all sides from the more formal establishment of parks. This conveys a clear and unambiguous message to the public that the particular area of land is being managed for conservation purposes (PWCNT 1998?, p. 24).

The Northern Territory Government also harbours fiscal reasons for their management interests in Aboriginal-owned land. The tourism sector is one of the Territory’s largest industry sectors and the largest employer (NTG c.1999, p. 3). The

7 Northern Territory Tourism Development Masterplan (2000-2005) details recommendations for the continued development of the Northern Territory’s system of parks and reserves and, in particular, opportunities for ‘nature’ ((NTG c.1999, p. 19) -based tourism. It acknowledges that ‘many of the opportunities and recommendations of the 1994 Tourism Masterplan are still to be achieved’ (p. 28). And also states ‘Much of this is related to uncertainties associated with Aboriginal land interests’ (p. 28).

Australian State and Territory governments are generally concerned with achieving ‘certainty’ 21 over land rights and interests and favour the formalisation of land use and management agreements with Indigenous stakeholders. This reveals a preoccupation with provision of security for the development of economic interests or benefits including tourism, (as Australia’s largest export market (NTG?, p. 11), in protected areas and national parks. Finlayson recognises that ‘Current legislative reforms seem grounded in the return of power, particularly in relation to land management and land use, from the centralised umbrella of the Commonwealth Government to that of individual State/Territory Governments’ (1997, p. 1). This reflects the incumbent Commonwealth Coalition Government’s push for a ‘New Federalism’ (Galligan & Fletcher 1993, p. 1) through empowerment of the States/Territories in their self-administration.

In the domain of land and sea management, State/Territory governments are generally most supportive of formalised agreements for joint management with Indigenous stakeholders or landowners. The Commonwealth statute, the EPBC Act, has provisions for ‘Bilateral Agreements’ (DEH 1999a) and ‘Conservation Agreements’ (DEH 1999a) which provide a mechanism for devolving primary responsibility for environmental protection and management to the States and Territories. In contrast to this, the Commonwealth Government has provided leadership on, and support for, the IPA concept as its major effort to promote conservation on Indigenous-owned land. However, it retains interest in joint management and formal lease-back arrangements through the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a, Kakadu and Booderee National Parks. State/territory governments are also involved in ‘informal’ joint management as parties to the various IPAs nationwide. The ability of Aboriginal people to negotiate joint management is contingent on the recognition of their ownership rights to land

21 The issue of ‘uncertainty’ regarding land/sea ownership has been promulgated by the findings of the Wik judgement (see Section 1.3.1) which recognised that native title could co-exist with other property rights on pastoral leases and unalienated Crown Land. In mediating the interests in lan/sea of stakeholder groups, the Commonwealth Government provided its ‘Ten Point Plan’ to deal with

8 and sea estates. There is a predominant, largely non-Aboriginal perspective on joint management which regards land title and security of tenure as the basis for successful negotiations surrounding shared responsibilities for management (Blowes & Chambers 1993; Woenne-Green et al . c.1994; De Lacy 1994; De Lacey & Lawson 1997; Corbett, Lane & Clifford 1998, p. 25; Smyth 2001, p. 76; Young, Ross, Johnson & Kesteven 1991, p. 147). Who negotiates and the outcomes of these negotiations is in these analyses a question of both the recognition of native title rights and the custodial and ownership responsibilities and rights of Indigenous landowners under Indigenous systems of law. I argue here that although land tenure and its disposal under Australian common law does shape the institution of joint management in important ways, there are other strategies used to mobilise particular versions of joint management which are non transparent, non-trivial and largely unexamined. 22 These are ontological strategies.

2.2 Formal Joint Management Agreements

The concept of formal joint management in Australia was first developed in the proposal for a national park in the Alligator Rivers Region of the Northern Territory in 1965. This proposal culminated in 1979 in the formation of the Kakadu National Park in a historic agreement between the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS, later ANCA and now Parks Australia), the Commonwealth environment agency, and the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust representing the Aboriginal traditional owners. As the basis of this agreement the Aboriginal owners of lands forming the Stage 1 Kakadu National Park were granted title to their traditional estates in the first land rights claim under the new ALRA, on the condition that they lease these estates to the Commonwealth government for the purpose of establishing a national park. The Kakadu National Park was thus established under the new Commonwealth legislation, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (NPWC Act).

In 1977, the Ulu ru Kata-Tju=a National Park was the first area declared under the NPWC Act. The area of the park was excised from the surrounding Aboriginal traditional estates under an agreement between the Commonwealth and Northern

native title and a further legislative response-the reform of the NTA: the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997. The Bill has ramifications for the joint management of land/sea through its empowerment of the States and Territories on matters of native title. 22 Christie (1991; 1996) writes on Western scientific and Yol\u Aboriginal ontologies and possibilities for a negotiation of appropriate curricula for Yol\u children and for living together in the world sustainably. Verran (1998; forthcoming) writes of the need to acknowledge ontological politics as integral to our negotiations about how to develop appropriate strategies for contemporary land and sea management in Yol\u communities of NE Arnhem Land. Benterrak, Mueke and Roe (1996) tell of the practices of knowing land/sea through narratives, paintings and journeyings. This telling draws people and places as emergent in their (ontic) negotiations and performances of Aboriginal land/sea.

9 Territory Governments and without the consent of the Aboriginal owners. The Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (CCNT) was responsible for its management (UKTBoM/ANPWS c.1991, p. 4). Following an unsuccessful claim under the ALRA for an area that included the park in 1979, unalienable freehold title to the area known as Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park was later granted to Aboriginal claimants under the provisions of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Act 1985 and National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Act 1985. These Acts were amended to allow the Aboriginal owners of the land to claim the land area of the Park which as alienated Crown land was excluded from claim under the ALRA, and to provide for that area to be simultaneously leased back to the Commonwealth Government to continue to be managed as a national park. A joint management agreement between Aboriginal traditional owners and the Commonwealth Government was signed in 1985.

The definition of the places that are now known widely as Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park and Kakadu National Park as ‘Aboriginal national park’ is promulgated in the EPBC Act and the ALRA which provide the legal basis in Australia common law for the joint management arrangements at Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks. The EPBC Act binds the Commonwealth and the Aboriginal landowners as partners in the joint management of the Parks. The Act details specifically what must be done for consulting with the traditional owners of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks, through the office of the Central Land Council (CLC) and NLC respectively, in regard to the Boards of Management, lease and plans of management for the parks. Inalienable freehold title to most of the area within the bounds of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks is granted under the ALRA to the Aboriginal traditional owners of these lands. This title is vested in an Aboriginal Land Trust administered by the relevant Aboriginal Land Council established under the ALRA. Areas within the national parks have been alienated as special purpose or mining leases.

The management regimes at Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks are shaped by the standards of national park management as determined by Australian and international policies and guidelines for protected area management. Under Australia’s NRS of protected areas, management guidelines for place as ‘protected area’ follow those developed by the IUCN. The current Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park Plan of Management provides the definition of a protected area derived from the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas:

An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural

10 resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000, p. 34)

Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park has been assigned the IUCN Category II National Park (p. 34). Kakadu National Park is also assigned this category under the IUCN classification system (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 5). 23

Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks are recognised nationally and internationally as places of great ‘natural and cultural significance’. The primary policy vehicle for this recognition is their listing as World Heritage sites under the World Heritage Convention administered by the IUCN (see Table 1.2). Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks are amongst the few World Heritage sites listed for both their ‘natural and cultural heritage’ values. In 1994, Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a became the second national park in the world to be recognised as a cultural landscape by the World Heritage Committee, and since 1977 it has been listed as a Biosphere Reserve under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Program (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000, p. 5; see Table 1.1). Wetlands areas in Kakadu are also listed under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention) (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 21), an international intergovernmental treaty on wetlands conservation and management. Both Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu are also on the Register of the National Estate as testimony of their importance to the Australian nation.

The attention given to joint management at Kakadu and Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Parks is amplified by the fact that these places represent powerful cultural symbols for the broader Australian community. The world’s largest monolith, the place ‘Ulu ru’ (known in English as ‘Ayers Rock’), is embedded in the consciousness of Australians. Its image is far reaching, adorning everything from tea towels to album covers, and reproduced in countless promotional materials for Australia and the Northern Territory. It is evoked in metaphor as the ‘heartland’ of the nation ( Weekend Australian , 26-27 February 2000, p. 1). Kakadu National Park also has a cherished public identity and is evoked as a wilderness frontier and ‘a world heritage of unsurpassed beauty’ (Ovington 1986). The first Northern Territory Tourism Development Masterplan recognises Ulu ru and Kakadu, ‘icons of the Australian landscape’ (NTG 1994, p. 34), and as ‘attractions of the highest international standard’ (p. 35). For this reason, the economic and social value, as well as the ‘natural and cultural’ attributes, of Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks are well recognised by Australian governments.

The Northern Territory Government is opposed to Commonwealth control of national parks in the Northern Territory (Lawrence 2000, p. 203; NTLA 1991e) and has sought unsuccessfully for many years to bring the management of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks under its jurisdiction. This, it suggests, is a matter of interests in ‘management’ and claims that under the Northern Territory’s management policies, the PWCNT would assist in managing these estates to the best interests of the Aboriginal traditional owners and visitors to the region. In 1997, The Hon. Tim Baldwin, the Northern Territory Minister for Conservation stated:

It is a flawed argument to claim that these two international tourist icons

[Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks ] cannot be managed in the same way that the Parks and Wildlife Commission manages other parks and reserves in the Territory. (NTLA 1997, p. 413)

The Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks are lauded by the Commonwealth government and their respective Boards of Management as exemplary models of joint management. The Plan of Management for Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park asserts that:

As the Board of Management and Parks Australia look to the new millennium, joint management will continue to progress at the forefront of world best practice. (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000, p. 51)

Similarly, the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management recognises:

The management arrangement in the park between Bininj/Mungguy and Parks Australia is often cited as an example of an innovative and effective cooperative management arrangement. The joint management of Kakadu has led to international praise for Australia, the Australian Government and the joint management partners. (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 20)

As the result of the large visitation, media attention, public interest, publicity and revenue generated by Kakadu and Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Parks they are under constant review and scrutiny by the wider community. The pressure for joint management partners to perform under this level of attention is indicated by a senior A]angu traditional owner, Topsy Tjulyata, in the Plan of Management for Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park :

23 See Appendix F for the IUCN Protected Area Categories.

12 That is why we have to get it right because they are watching us. All places are watching us, so we need to plan our new Plan of Joint Management properly. (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000. p. xxx)

In the following section I discuss the ‘artefacts’ which perform joint management in the Kakadu and Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park case studies. The strong tone of self- congratulation evident in much of the evidence I have presented in this section is further enabled by these artefacts which generate the requisite seamlessness of joint management as exemplary practice in these particular times/places.

2.3 Artefacts of Joint Management: the (1) Lease, (2) Plan of Management, (3) Board of Management and the (4) Institutional Structure of the Park

The EPBC Act situates the ‘partnership’ relationship between the Commonwealth and Aboriginal landowners of Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks within the framework of four important artefacts of joint management:

• the lease;

• the Board of Management;

• the plan of management; and

• the institutional structure of the Park.

2.3.1 The Lease

The 24-page lease document for the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park is held officially at the Registrar General’s Office in Darwin in the Northern Territory Australia (Parks Australia and the CLC in Alice Springs also hold copies) (Palmer, L. pers. comm.). The lease secures the formal joint management agreement between the Australian (Commonwealth) Government and the Aboriginal owners of the land: it is legally binding under the EPBC Act. In the case of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks, the inalienable communal freehold title to the land was returned to the Aboriginal owners, on the condition that the land was immediately leased back to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife for the purposes of forming a jointly managed national park. It is therefore, as Smyth bluntly states, ‘an arrangement of convenience or coercion, rather than a partnership freely entered into’ (2001, p. 76).

The Commonwealth government placed great emphasis on the symbolic gesture of the ‘handover’ (Lawrence 1996, p. 20) of the land/sea areas known as Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks to the Aboriginal claimants. The current Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park Plan of Management records that a major ceremony was held at

13 the Park on 26 October 1985, at which the Governor-General of Australia, Sir Ninian Stephen, formally granted title to the Park to the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a Aboriginal Land Trust (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000, p. 9). Hundreds of Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal people attended the ceremony near the base of Ulu ru while the Northern Territory Government, opposed to the terms of the agreement, boycotted the ‘handover’ ceremony (Lawrence 1996, p. 20). The title deeds to the Park were presented to the A]angu landowners in a large glass-covered case to be lodged with the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a Aboriginal Land Trust. The traditional owners of the area of the Park thereupon possessed exclusive control of the area of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park for approximately five minutes (CLC c.1997) before they were obliged under the conditions of the grant of title to sign a lease agreement conferring responsibility for management to the statutory office of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. Thus the (conditional) ‘handover’ of traditional estates to the A]angu owners was confounded with the compulsory ‘lease-back’ of these same estates to the government.

2.3.2 The Board of Management

The Boards of Management for the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks were established under amendments to the NPWC Act made in 1985 and are now enshrined in the EPBC Act. These amendments legislated for the creation of a Board of Management for jointly managed national parks of which the majority of members must be Aboriginal landowners. This enabled much more active participation than previously by Aboriginal stakeholders in the management planning and implementation process under joint management. The other members of the Boards of Management for the two parks include the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, a representative of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, a representative of the Commonwealth Minister for Tourism, and a specialist scientist (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000; KBoM/Parks Australia 1998). Despite being allocated a seat on the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a Board of Management at the time of ‘handover’, the Northern Territory Government ‘was so incensed by the handback, it refused to take it up’ ( Land Rights News March 1999, p. 10.)

The functions and role of the Board of Management established for a Commonwealth reserve (under joint management) in Australia is set out by the EPBC Act. The functions of the Board include: ‘to make decisions relating to the management of the reserve that are consistent with the management plan in operation for the reserve’ (EPBC Act, s. 376). And, ‘in conjunction with the Director, to: prepare management plans for the reserve; to monitor the management of the reserve; and advise the

14 Minister on all aspects of the future development of the reserve’ (EPBC Act, s. 376). The plan of management is the official statement of intention of a Board of Management on management and planning within a Park.

Proposed changes to the institution of joint management under the EPBC Act were met with opposition from Aboriginal owners of Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks (see NLC 1998). These included the compulsory transfer of the lease from the Director of National Parks and Wildlife to the Commonwealth Government (represented by its Minister for the Environment), and the inclusion of a Northern Territory Government representative on the Boards of Management for the Parks. The concerns of the Aboriginal owners were, in general, twofold. Firstly, that the removal of the independent office of the Director would jeopardise Aboriginal control of the Park and expose the joint management arrangement to the political whim of the Commonwealth Government via its Minister. And secondly, that the opportunity to include a Northern Territory Government representative on the Board of Management without the consent of Aboriginal members, would allow the Northern Territory Government to exercise power in decision making for the Park. This reflects the Aboriginal owners’ mistrust of the politicised nature of joint management and in particular the agenda of the Northern Territory Government, These proposed changes to the artefact of the Board of Management were not included in the ratified EPBC Act.

2.3.3 The Plan of Management

As both ‘Commonwealth reserve’ and ‘World Heritage Property’, Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks are subject to the provisions of the EPBC Act in regard to the content and preparation of plans of management. The plan of management for these parks must be consistent with Australian IUCN reserve management principles, which are made under the Act (p. 13). The Act specifies the ‘Mandatory Content’ of a plan of management for a Commonwealth reserve (EPBC Act s. 367) and prescribes the steps in preparing management plans for a Commonwealth reserve (s. 368). The plan must also be consistent with Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention (EPBC Act s. 316 (3)) and Australian World Heritage management principles. These principles stipulate the preparation of a management plan for each world heritage property, the primary purpose of which ‘should be to identify, protect, conserve, present and, where appropriate, rehabilitate the World Heritage values of the property’ (DEH 1999b, p. 21).

Initially a draft plan of management for a reserve is produced and must undergo a process of review and stakeholder and public consultation. This draft plan is revised

15 accordingly before it is submitted to the Board of Management and the Director of Parks and Wildlife for their endorsement. The plan of management is then passed to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment who presents it to the Commonwealth Houses of Parliament who have the ultimate powers to ratify the document under the EPBC Act. Thereafter, the plan of management document is legally binding on all Commonwealth agencies. Each plan is deemed to have a ‘life’ or ‘term’ (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000, p. 55) which extends from its ratification by Parliament until it is superseded by the subsequent Plan. The proposed five-year lifespan of a plan (EPBC Act s. 319 (1)) is often extended due to delays in the process of its development. 24

The Board of Management of a Park has some licence to formulate the style, presentation and structure of the plan of management document which is illustrated by the variations between the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park and the Kakadu National Park Plans of Management. The concept of a Plan of Management is outlined in the introductory section of the Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management as follows:

A plan of management is a device which enables management to proceed in an orderly way over a specified period of time by: -helping to reconcile competing interests; -identifying priorities for the allocation of available resources -indicating sound resource management programs; -facilitating public understanding of, and involvement in, the planning process; and -providing a basis for future plans. (UKTBoM/ANPWS 1991, p. 2)

2.3.4 The Institutional Structure of the Park

The institutional structure of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks consists of the organisational features of joint management, namely the employment hierarchy; the roles and responsibilities of staff; the procedures and processes for making decisions about management operations including meetings, day-to-day communications between staff, consultation mechanisms etc.; and the administration of the park. These are determined by a combination of factors including conditions

24 Lawrence (2000) notes that a plan of management for a national park in Australia ‘must deal with a number of matters specified in the legislation. It must contain a description of any buildings, structures, facilities and developments, and provide details of any mining operations, excavations, works or other operations, plus information about plans for public recreation and appreciation. In addition, it must detail the natural condition and protection of special features of biological, historical, paleontological, archaeological, geological and geographical interest, and proposals for the protection, conservation and management of wildlife and for the protection of the

16 of the lease for the Parks, the organisational framework of the management agency, Parks Australia; the policies on employment, recruitment and training of Parks Australia (e.g. EA’s Aboriginal Recruitment Training and Career Development Strategy); the distribution of resources and infrastructure for administering the Parks; and the administrative protocols and procedures which determine processes of decision making and implementation of planned actions. These processes are partly the province of the Plan of Management for the Parks.

In his recent treatise on Kakadu National Park, Kakadu: The Making of a National Park , Lawrence argues that:

A successful management plan is concerned with processes. It should describe legal obligations, legislative requirements, lease agreements, tenure details and area values and significance. It should answer the question ‘Why manage?’ (2000, p. 185)

This question of ‘Why manage?’ resonates strongly in the complex arena of joint management. It leads us to consider related questions such as ‘Who manages?’, ‘What is being managed?’ and, importantly, ‘Why and how we should live and work together in joint management?’ In the rest of this chapter I explore responses to these questions as they are provided by the artefacts which perform joint management at Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks. In Chapter 3 I examine how these artefacts of joint management, which originate from the exemplary joint management agreements for Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks, figured in the negotiations between Dhimurru and the PWCNT concerning the development of a cooperative management agreement for Yol\u land/sea.

2.4 Encountering the Joint Management Agreements at Ulu ruuu-u---KataKata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks

2.4.1 Ulu ruuu-u---KataKata Tju=a National Park

2.4.1.1 Encountering the Plan of Management for Uluruuu-u---KataKata Tju=a National PParkarkarkark

The focus of my work with Dhimurru was to assist in the development of a plan of management for }anydjaka. My task was to formulate the plan as a document: a daunting and challenging task. Write a management plan? A ‘plan of management’?

park or reserve against damage’ (2000, p. 184). For further details on the content of management plans see Lawrence (2000, pp. 184- 88).

17 How do I do that? Which subject at university covered how to write a plan of management?, I wondered.

I remembered doing a subject in ‘Forest Inventory’ at university which involved developing a plan of management for the Creswick State Forest in Victoria. This was a team project and I had only worked on one component of the plan-an inventory of the softwood ( Pinus species) resources of our designated management area. Other members of the team had worked on the hardwood ( Eucalyptus species) inventory component, an evaluation of the recreation opportunities and resources, and the history of management of the area. Recommendations for future management of the area were discussed and recorded in our collective plan. I remember this exercise as being very compartmentalised-it was possible to work on each separate section of the project, each set of management prescriptions, seemingly quite independently of the others. In the end it was a matter of compiling our work, putting the various sections together, to produce the plan of management document. It all seemed a little unreal-as if the forest was eminently flexible, a sort of pliable model of a forest, and that there were many possible scenarios for management based on our discretion and judgement. We walked in this forest almost every day, we knew parts of it very well, and yet the forest we produced in our plan was something different from the one we knew through our field excursions and recreational activities-it was a forest under a plan of management. So, what does all this have to do with writing a plan of management for }anydjaka? Well, I want to write about the encounter I had at Dhimurru with the plan of management for Uluru-Kata Tju=a National Park through doing the work of developing a plan of management for }anydjaka.

After spending a day or two sitting at my desk wondering where to start, my idea of ‘What is a plan of management?’ had become more and more vague. I was now quite distressed, feeling embarrassed about my lack of competence. Surely after four years of a degree in Forest Science I should know how to write a plan of management! If I’d learnt nothing else, I MUST have learnt how to ‘do’ a plan of management? Finally I found the courage to approach Greg, Dhimurru’s Executive Officer to ask what he thought the first Dhimurru plan of management should look like? ‘Why don’t you have a look at this?’ he suggested. ‘It might be a good idea to include some of the same things.’ He handed me a small, thin monograph entitled ‘Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management’ . This small paperback book, produced in c.1991 by the CoA, has a red and yellow cover with a black silhouette of the place Ulu ru at its centre.

The Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management (Ulu ru Kata- Tju=a Board of Management (UKTBoM)/ANPWS c.1991) became one of the most

18 important devices I used as I assisted in the development of a plan of management for }anydjaka. I read and re-read it, pored over it and studied its structure. I took notes from it and wrote and rewrote the headings from the various sections. I learnt a lot from this document, carrying it home with me each day from the office, perhaps in the hope that by having it nearby I could better assimilate it to my work. It provided me with a way ahead and a way of beginning to think about management planning on Aboriginal land. However, when I came to the task of translating the management actions that Dhimurru was planning for }anydjaka into the format, style and language of a plan of management document, inevitably, I became frustrated and confused. In desperation I tried to use the Ulu ru (Ayers Rock- Mount Olga) Plan of Management document as a template for the text I was attempting to produce for Dhimurru. It was at least a way forward for me. And the document was seductive, with its neat and assured presentation of Aboriginal (Anangu) interests in joint management of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a estate.

The Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management was different from the plan of management texts that I was used to dealing with in environmental science domains. At an initial glance the document appeared familiar to me. I recognised the ‘Foreword’ as a standard sort of introduction to the object of management: ‘Ulu ru-Kata Tjuta’ (‘Ayers Rock-Mount Olga’ in English). It announces the importance of Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park to Australia and claims this can be illustrated by reference to its three major attributes:

the area’s great significance is the culture and religion of the Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjarjara people who own the Park; the Park’s natural features and environment, which have received national and international recognition through listing as Biosphere Reserve under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program and the inclusion on the World Heritage List and the Register of the National Estate; and the major attraction which Ulu ru (Ayers Rock) and Kata-Tju=a (the Olgas) have for the thousands of visitors who visit the Park each year. (ANPWS c.1991, p. iii)

The Foreword announces the domains of an Aboriginal ‘culture’ and ‘religion’ (above) and presents them as sitting alongside and separate from the domain that is the Park’s ‘natural features and environment’. This makes it clear that we are dealing with a place different from the usual sort of national park. According to the Plan of Management, this is a place with multiple attributes that extend beyond Nature and include elements of Aboriginal culture. This description of a place under management (further detailed in the ‘Introduction’ of the Plan) was quite familiar to me: a

19 technocratic, succinct and uncontested description. However, as I turned to the second main section of the Plan of Management document, I found something which I had not encountered before: this section introduced ‘Tjukurpa as a Guide to Management’ (p. 11).

‘Tjukurpa’ is presented in Part 2 of the Plan of Management document, ‘Tjukurpa as a Guide to Management’ (p. 11), under eight headings: ‘Tjukurpa: A Religious Interpretation of Landscape’ (p. 11); ‘Tjukurpa: An Ecological Record’ (p. 12); ‘Tjukurpa: Mapping the Landscape’ (p. 15); ‘Tjukurpa: Interpreting Ulu ru National Park’ (p. 19); ‘Tjukurpa: the Laws of Social Behaviour’ (p. 20); ‘Tjukurpa: the Law of Ecological Responsibility’ (p. 21); ‘Maintaining the Law: Managing Visitor Access’ (p. 23): and, ‘A]angu and History’ (p. 25). Under these headings the text is organised according to the subheadings ‘Background’; ‘Previous management’; and, ‘Management prescriptions’ (and including ‘Objectives’ and ‘Implementation’). Again, I recognised the structural features of this chapter of the document. And the subsequent parts of the Plan of Management all follow the same format and style of language. However, the Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management (c.1991) was different from other plan of management texts in one significant way; and that is Tjukurpa.

The concept of Tjukurpa is acknowledged in the Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management (UKTBoM/ANPWS c.1991) as the main repository for management guidelines. The Plan also recognises Tjukurpa as a body of knowledge which must be taken into account when planning for the joint management of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park: ‘The Tjukurpa contains information about the landscape features, the ecology, the flora and fauna and appropriate use of areas of the Park’ (p. 19). The Tjukurpa, under the first heading of this section (2.1), 'Tjukurpa: A religious interpretation of landscape’, is described as ‘above all, a religious philosophy’ (p. 19). The document elaborates:

The Tjukurpa defines what is real, what is natural and what is true. These definitions stand as the Law which governs all aspects of A]angu life. (p. 11)

And explains that:

Primarily, A]angu have a religious interpretation of the landscape of the Park. (p. 11)

Under the ‘Management Prescriptions’ for this section the management objective is:

20 to take into account A]angu religious interpretations of landscape in all areas of Park management, particularly in relation to the nature and siting of developments within the Park. (p. 12)

The c.1991 Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management thus affords recognition to the Tjukurpa as a series of prescriptions for management. An attempt is made in the document to elaborate the complexity of Tjukurpa by addressing it under separate sections that reflect Western categories of resource management and planning. By having the technoscientific categories as organisers, the document implies that while ‘they’, the A]angu, have a metaphysics, the system in which they are presented, does not. Tjukurpa is thereby identified in this Plan as an alternative to technoscientific land and sea management through its interpretation according to pre-ordained, value-free categories of ‘ecology’, ‘laws’ and ‘mapping’. (see UKTBoM/ANPWS c.1991, pp. 11 -25). For example in the section ‘Tjukurpa: An Ecological Record’, it states that:

Much of what Piranypa would call biological or ecological knowledge about the behaviour and distribution of plants and animals would be considered by A]angu to be knowledge of the Tjukurpa. (p. 12)

And from section ‘3.1.1: Background to Landforms, geology and soils’ under the section on ‘Management of Natural Resources’:

The many A]angu explanations of the formation of Ulu ru and Kata-Tju=a derive from the Tjukurpa. Most of these explanations, especially those which concern Kata-Tju=a, are in the realm of secret information. Current scientific knowledge on the formation of the inselbergs of Ulu ru and Kata-Tju=a and of the low range of hills known as the Sedementaries to the north of the Park point to folding and upthrust of rock strata during earth movements. (p. 27)

However Tjukurpa is re-presented most strongly in the Plan of Management as 'religious philosophy’ (p. 19). We can see from the following excerpt from the Plan of Management that it maintains a dichotomy between A]angu knowledge and technoscientific understandings of landscape and land and sea management planning processes, and in doing so re-presents A]angu knowledge as ‘religious philosophy’ and ‘knowledge of the Tjukurpa’. Despite this effect, the Plan of Management struggles valiantly to present A]angu interpretations of landscape as a valid alternative to those of technoscience. The A]angu and technoscientific interpretations are acknowledged as different but legitimate explanations of the world as we see from the following excerpt from the Plan of Management:

21 When A]angu speak of the many natural features within Ulu ru National Park, their interpretations and explanations of these features are expressed in terms of the activities of particular Tjukurpa beings rather than by reference to reference to geological or other types of explanation. Primarily, A]angu have a religious interpretation of the landscape of the Park. (p. 11)

As I dealt with the Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management document in my work with Dhimurru I became discontented and disconcerted with the story it was telling about joint management. It seemed too clear, too clean and sure of itself. I was aware that management plans are typically like this but the tension I sensed at the heart of the Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management was more profound than the gulf between policy and practice which is characteristic of conventional land and sea management and forest planning: it was not a ‘communication problem’. And yet the document spoke rarely of tension, and never of disconcertment! The most it concedes of tension is:

It is also from Tjukurpa (as Law) where A]angu learn about religious responsibilities-the formal religious responsibilities of caring for the land. (pp. 21-22)

And It is within this sphere that A]angu have generally had the most difficulty in communicating with Piranypa. (p. 22)

I now understand that the document avoids the need to address the negotiations between A]angu imperatives to care for and manage land/sea as part of Tjukurpa, and the technoscientific rationales for Park management, by adopting a relativist account of knowledge and knowing. It avoids discussing the ways in which the different realities of Tjukurpa and technoscience might be both connected and separated in practice by presenting them as incommensurable worlds.

By labelling the theoretical and interpretative strategy of the Ulu ru (Ayers Rock- Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management as ‘cultural relativism’ I am revealing an ontological strategy at work. An ontological strategy is a particular way of representing ontology in order to ‘deal with’ questions of ‘What there is in the world?’ An ontological strategy therefore works to promote, discount, reveal, conceal or manage the relationship between different ways of knowing (epistemologies and ontologies) and communities of knowers (actors and practitioners). In mediating between different ways of knowing and knowers it attempts to manage the questions ‘Who knows?’, ‘What do they know?’ and ‘How do they know?’ Managing these

22 questions effectively means providing convincing answers. In the case of working together A]angu knowledge and technoscience, answers to these questions work to allay our confusion and disconcertment at dealing with the messiness of negotiating a way of living and knowing together in joint management. In other words, these answers maintain clarity for us by providing a legislated response to the question ‘How should we live and work together in joint management?’

2.4.1.2 Cultural Relativism as Ontological Strategy

Cultural relativism has been variously explicated in the anthropological and social studies of science literature. It is an interpretative framework (theory) and methodology that arises from the tradition of social constructivism. Hess defines it amongst three other types of relativism (epistemological relativism, metaphysical or ontological relativism and moral relativism) as referring to ‘a research stance and method that begins with the understandings of a community, actor, or some other unit. In other words, social action is interpreted relative to the cultural meanings attributed to it by the actors involved’ (Hess 1998, p. 38). Actors are thus engaged in constructing worlds that are given meaning through collective knowledge-making practices. These practices, according to Latour (1993), involve delegates of the ‘modern’ (p. 10) world in the work of translation, ‘creating mixtures between entirely new types of beings, hybrids of nature and culture’ (p. 10) and the work of purification which ‘creates two entirely distinct ontological zones: that of human beings on the one hand; that of nonhumans on the other’ (pp. 10-11). It is the work of purification, which he calls the ‘modern critical stance’ (p. 11), that circumscribes the domains of the characteristic dichotomies of the modern worldview-those of ‘human’ and ‘nonhuman’, of ‘culture’ and ‘nature’, and of ‘object/thing’ and ‘subject/person’. He argues that ‘ [I]t is the particular trait of Westerners that they have imposed, by their Official Constitution, the total separation of humans and nonhumans-the Internal Great Divide-and thereby artificially created the scandal of the others’ (p. 104).

Latour argues that claims to modernity have been based on a rigorous adherence to what he calls the ‘modern Constitution’ (1993, p. 13). This Constitution, he argues, has to make a total distinction between humans and nonhumans on the one hand and between purification and mediation/‘translation’ (p. 11) on the other. Relativism ‘makes its living’ from the ‘modern Constitution’ (p. 13) and is defined by Latour as a tradition within which ‘the cultures are thus redistributed as many more or less accurate viewpoints on that unique Nature. Certain societies see it “as through a glass darkly”, others see it through thick fog, still others under clear skies’ (p. 104). In this tradition Nature and Culture are separate with Nature existing ‘outside’

23 Culture. Cultures each construct their own representations (systems of symbols and signs) of the Nature object/s, and their alternative representations are regarded as ‘more or less’ legitimate and precise. We might say therefore that within this tradition Nature and the domain of ‘objects/things’ passively awaits discovery by Cultures clamouring to tell the most coherent, convincing and truthful (accurate) story about it/them.

Different cultures contest the Nature ‘object/thing’. The question is ‘Who has the best, most accurate description, explanation, representation for Nature?’ Latour suggests that in practice a third model is always secretly used as soon as Nature comes into play without being attached to a particular culture (1993, p. 104). This model is what he calls ‘particular universalism’ (p. 105) whereby: ‘One society-and it is always the Western one-defines the general framework of Nature with respect to which the others are situated’ (p. 105). In other words, Latour writes: ‘One of the cultures (the Western one) has a privileged access to Nature which sets it apart from the others’ (p. 105). It is this interpretation of the relationship between knowing communities (Western knowers and the ‘others’) and the known (Nature and its objects) that is the ontological strategy of the Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management (UKTBoM/ANPWS c.1991).

The Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management deals with the differences between A]angu knowledge and technoscience in joint management by interpreting A]angu knowledge in terms of Western concepts of law and ‘religious responsibility’ (UKTBoM/ANPWS c.1991, p. 23). It thus privileges the critical stance of Western knowledge and technoscience. ‘Law’ and ‘religion’, for example, are taken for granted as pre-existing categories to which any body of knowledge conforms and subscribes. We can see this from the following examples from the document:

Like any body of law, the Tjukurpa is the source of rules of appropriate behaviour which relate people to other people and people to the land. (p. 20)

In referring to A]angu knowledge of places in the landscape the Plan of Management document states:

It is as much a part of A]angu religious responsibility to care for this information properly as it is for other religions to care for their sacred precincts and relics. (p. 23) 25

25 These same statements are retained in the 2000 version of the plan of management for the Park (see UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000, p. 27; p. 29).

24 2.4.2 Evolving Ontological Strategies and JoinJointt ManagementManagement at Ulu ruuu-u---KataKata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks

I now want to look further at the ontological strategies used within the institutions of joint management in Australia. The most recent plan of management for the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000) is in some ways quite a different document from the Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management of c.1991. The Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park Plan of Management provides a ‘Board of Management Vision’ (p. ix) at the beginning of the document which suggests a shift in the way A]angu knowledge is dealt with in the Plan of Management and in the practices of managing the Park. The English text of the vision statement is translated from Pitjantjatjara, the name used to describe the group of languages spoken by Aboriginal people in the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a area and adjacent lands. Italicised Pitjantjatjara text with its English translation is used to preface and conclude many of the sections and subsections of the document. A succinct description of Tjukurpa is given in the Plan as:

A]angu grandparents and grandchildren will always gain their knowledge from this landscape. They will live in it in the proper way. This is Tjukurpa. (p. x)

However, the main body of the Plan of Management text maintains the definition of Tjukurpa as ‘religion’. For example in section ‘2.5.2: World Heritage listing’, it states:

The listing of Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park as a World Heritage Cultural Landscape 26 provides international recognition of Tjukurpa as a major religious philosophy which links A]angu to their environment, and is their primary tool for caring for country. (p. 36) 27

The concept of joint management as a working partnership between the A]angu owners and the Commonwealth Government, through its Minister for the Environment and agency, Parks Australia, is treated explicitly in the current version of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park Plan of Management in a separate section on 'Joint Management' (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000, p. 43). The Plan states that:

The intention in developing this Plan of Management is to identify ways of making joint management more sustainable and workable. (p. 43)

26 The concept of a ‘cultural landscape’ (above) is an attempt to recognise the interactions between humans and their environment/Nature. It is also an attempt to accommodate uses of protected areas which are not normally part of the traditional ‘national park’ model including hunting and foraging rights of Aboriginal people (see Altman & Allen 1991) and national parks as ‘occupied areas’ (Lawrence 2000, p. 226). 27 The Board of Management for Kakadu National Park and the Aboriginal owners of the Park have also sought its nomination as a World Heritage cultural landscape (Lawrence 2000).

25 and Joint management aims to balance A]angu cultural and ecological knowledge with Western conservation practice. (p. 67)

Formal and informal mechanisms for achieving and sustaining joint management in the Park are subsequently identified in Section 3 of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park Plan of Management document; entitled ‘Joint Management’ (p. 43). The formal mechanisms considered are the Plan of Management itself, the Board of Management, and the legislative arrangements which define the roles of the joint management partners: the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and Parks Australia; the Mutijtulu Community Inc. and the Office for Joint Management; and, the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a Aboriginal Land Trust and the CLC. The informal mechanisms involve the issues surrounding the concept of ‘Tjunguringkula waakaripai-working together’ (p. 50) as it underpins the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park joint management agreement. The Plan of Management states: ‘Working together is the basic philosophy of the Park’s joint managers’ (p. 50). Working together, the document qualifies, to implement the vision of the Board of Management. This is a vision of working together as equals, exchanging knowledge about different cultural values and processes, and applying A]angu Tjukurpa and practice and relevant Piranypa knowledge in joint management. (p. 50)

This current Plan of Management for Ulu ru Kata-Tju=a National Park places a strong emphasis on the practices of A]angu and Piranypa working together in a joint management role. Tjukurpa is no longer presented as incommensurable with technoscientific land and sea management, as it is in the c.1991 version of the Plan of Management. Alternatively, this 2000 version states:

Tjukurpa unites A]angu with each other and with the landscape. It embodies the principles of religion, philosophy and human behaviour that are to be observed in order to live harmoniously together, with one another and with the natural landscape. Humans and every aspect of the landscape are inextricably one. (p. 17)

I believe that this definition represents a tentative shift from the relativist version of Tjukurpa as ‘religion’ or ‘religious philosophy’ in the previous Plan of Management (UKTBoM/ANPWS c.1991), to an idea of Tjukurpa as a complex entity of ‘peoples- places-knowledges’. This change in focus is beginning to emphasise practices (the acts of living), and thus some exploration, of how Tjukurpa and technoscience might be both connected and separated, becomes possible. The Plan mobilises a version of Tjukurpa which connects ‘peoples-places-knowledges’ in particular ways for a particular purpose. The Plan notes:

Everything is one Tjukurpa. (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000, p. 15)

Topsy Tjulyata, in his ‘New Plan Story’ in the ‘Executive Summary in English’ of the 2000 Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park Plan of Management , explains the importance of the plan of management to A]angu as a ‘way of living’:

It is really important to make sure we include everything in the Plan of Management because we are going to be living in it, so we can’t afford to leave anything out. All our traditions must be kept there so that our children inherit and manage things according to our Laws. (p. xxx).

This suggests A]angu recognise the Plan of Management as an answer to the question ‘How should we live and work together under joint management?’ This emerges as we learn from the English translations of Pitjatjinjara statements. On the following page of the document there is another example of an erosion of relativist preoccupations in the English translation of a Pitjatjinjara text:

The Plan of Management is an important Tjukurpa for A]angu. There are a lot of stories in the Plan-sacred sites; protecting Law. A]angu and Park staff are working together. A]angu and Park management together. (p. 18)

Thus through A]angu words we learn that the Plan of Management is, itself, the Tjukurpa. Perhaps this is a strange idea for non-Aboriginal people to deal with. It brings Tjukurpa out of the realm of ‘religion’, with its attendant notions of ‘other worldliness’, mythology and immateriality, into the light of the everyday, material, tangible and practical realm of ‘land and sea management’. This 2000 version of the Plan of Management for Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park is struggling with the issue that the ‘other’ knowledge, in this case A]angu knowledge, does not work within an a priori separation of the world (or Nature) and knowers and their knowledges. This issue helps non-Aboriginal partners in joint management begin to recognise that ‘we’ have a metaphysics too! This is a shift from relativism: a demonstration of increasing reflexivity which is inevitable when one opts for relativism. It is a first step in going beyond relativism.

So, we start to see that the Tjukurpa is at once a ‘way of living in the world’ and ‘a way of living in the Plan...’ An A]angu answer to the question, ‘Why manage?’, may therefore be a life imperative-a way of going on. A way of living and working in the world that is, for A]angu, negotiating the contemporary realities and everyday messiness of the interactions between land rights politics, economics, community

27 welfare, technoscience, family, tourists, park management bureaucracy, doing land management, relationships with Parks Australia staff, and importantly, Tjukurpa, as it relates people to place.

2.4.3 Kakadu National Park

2.4.3.1 Encountering the Aboriginal Managers

In the initial development of Dhimurru, Yol\u community members and landowners of estates in NE Arnhem Land were involved in important discussions regarding the structure of their emergent proposed land and sea management institution. As part of these discussions, the members of the newly formed Yol\u land and sea management agency visited several national parks in the Northern Territory managed under cooperative management regimes.

Here I tell a brief story, using excerpts from my journal, of impressions of a visit by one of the senior Dhimurru Rangers and a Dhimurru Committee member, Djaàì\ba Yunupi\u, to Kakadu National Park. Djaàì\ba and other members of Dhimurru were hosted in Kakadu by members of the Bininj/Mungguy community and ANCA.

We have been camped at Ra\ura at the southern end of }anydjaka for two days in a sheltered spot behind the dunes. There are a lot of us on this work camp: the Dhimurru Rangers and Trainee Rangers, the Dhimurru Executive Officer and his two sons, Mark, the CCNT Ranger, a work experience student, myself and my mother who is visiting me from Melbourne. We spent today visiting places of special significance to the management plan work at }anydjaka.

Dja`a`i\ba sat in a shaded, sandy spot on the ground near the edge of an overhang. This place is special he told us: it is a place you can know about but it is not a place that should be visited without good reason. As he explained this I felt a sense of responsibility had been placed upon me. So, is this place something like a ‘secret’? I wondered. Surely other Yol\u must know about it? I was confused. As I inspected my surroundings of ordinary bush I was conscious however of being part of a group, a shared experience of the place. This was our particular, diverse and motley group, all here as part of the work of developing the plan of management for }anydjaka.

Dja`a`i\ba continued to talk. He spoke about a recent visit he had made to Kakadu National Park with other members of Dhimurru. He had spent time during this visit with a senior custodian and owner of estates in Kakadu called

28 Big Bill Neidji (or Big Bill). Dja`a`i\ba described Big Bill as an important man, a man with great knowledge, a man who he had listened to and learnt from. Bill, he said, had told him of important land and sea management practices for which he was responsible on his country.

In retelling his visit to Kakadu, I understood that Djaàì\ba was moved by his meeting with Big Bill. This Kakadu man is his counterpart-a man engaged in developing contemporary Aboriginal land and sea management practices under joint management. He is also a revered leader and an expert politician and land manager. During his visit with other senior Yol\u to Kakadu, Djaàì\ba said he had also learnt about the arrangements for employment under joint management at this place. He told me that he was amazed and alarmed to see ‘old Yol\u (Aboriginal) men working down the bottom’ as ‘trainees’ (Aboriginal trainee Rangers) and was adamant that this was not right. He was also concerned about the Board of Management for Kakadu which had several non- Aboriginal members with voting rights. He told me that upon their return to NE Arnhem Land, he and the other senior Yol\u landowners agreed that in their model for cooperative management, the Dhimurru Committee would have only Yol\u representation.

Dja`a`i\ba, along with the other members of Dhimurru who visited Kakadu National Park, was dismayed at some aspects of what he encountered at this and the other jointly managed national parks they visited in the Northern Territory ... In particular the Dhimurru contingent were concerned with features of the institutional arrangements of joint management in these places. 28 They were perturbed to see senior Aboriginal landowners and managers at low-level positions within the employment hierarchy of the joint management institutions 29 and were also disapproving of the Board of Management model that was in place in the national parks. After reflecting on their experiences of joint management in the Northern Territory, including Kakadu National Park, Yol\u persisted with their intention to form their own, Yol\u-controlled land and sea management organisation in Dhimurru, and began to explore the possibility of forming a cooperative management arrangement with the Northern Territory Government.

28 They also visited Uluru-Kata Tju=a National Park, Gurig (Cobourg) National Park, and Nitmuluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park. 29 This impression is echoed by Lawrence who observes: ‘The cultural adviser positions are important, but were created in the formative days of the park’s establishment to give status and position to senior traditional owners who had once been employed as labourers and gardeners, and in practice they appear to have a nebulous position within the park [Kakadu National Park] hierarchy’ (1996, p. 17).

29 The Dhimurru Committee was formally established in 1992 as the decision-making body for Dhimurru. It differs significantly from the Boards of Management the senior Yol\u encountered in their study tours to sites of joint management in the Northern Territory. It consists of only Yol\u members, and together with the respective Yol\u traditional owners of estates, retains sole responsibility for the operations of Dhimurru and the management of Yol\u land and sea under its jurisdiction. 30 In order to understand just how the Dhimurru vision differed from the visions for the antecedent joint management agreements we need to know a little of the structure of the management arrangements at these places. I take Kakadu National Park as an example of such arrangements in the following section.

2.4.3.2 Kakadu National Park Board of Management

Kakadu National Park was declared in 1978 and the first Kakadu Board of Management was established in 1989. The Board is made up of ten Aboriginal nominees of the Aboriginal traditional owners, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, the Assistant Secretary of Parks Australia North, a person prominent in nature conservation and a person employed in the tourism industry in the Northern Territory (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 13). Under the EPBC Act, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife has responsibility for managing the Park, preparing and implementing the plan of management for the Park, and for producing an annual audit of the plan of management. The Act also accounts for dispute resolution where the Board of Management and the Director of National Parks and Wildlife are unable to agree on certain management issues (including the preparation of and amendments to the plan of management for a park or reserve), whereupon the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment or some alternative individual may be called on to intervene as arbitrator. The Plan of Management for Kakadu National Park clearly advocates this ‘recourse to objectivity’. It endorses the guideline made by Justice Woodward in the inquiry into Aboriginal Land Rights in the 1970s:

The clear wishes of Aboriginals on any matter relating to the land should not be able to be overruled without reference to some independent authority who can determine the particular issue in an informed and impartial way. (Woodward 1973, para. 515 in KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 46)

30 The Dhimurru Committee is accountable to its Yol\u constituents under the ALRA via their statutory representative body, the NLC.

30 Some Bininj/Mungguy 31 have recently begun to contest the power structure of the joint management agreement at Kakadu. Commonwealth legislation governing environmental planning and management in Australia underwent a review in the process of recent reform measures (see Chapter 1). In the debate about the new legislative framework, Mick Alderson, the former Chairperson of the Kakadu National Park Board of Management expressed the Bininj/Mungguy desire to have the Board of Management instituted as the statutory authority for joint management at Kakadu National Park:

We would like this committee to recommend to the Senate, in the spirit of reconciliation and in the true meaning of joint management, that the Kakadu board of management holds the statutory power to run Kakadu National Park. This means that the board, which has balandas [non- Aboriginal people] on it as well as bininj [Aboriginal people ] is directly responsible to the people of Australia to make joint management work for all of us. (CoA 1999, p. 374)

The EPBC Act was, however, passed in 1999 and the Director of National Parks and Wildlife is retained as the statutory authority in the joint management arrangements at Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a, Kakadu and Booderee National Parks (EA 1999) and retains the power to legislate on decisions under joint management. This includes the power to legislate on the question, ‘Why manage?’, and provides another example of the ontological strategy of particular universalism.

2.4.2.3 Universalism as Ontological Strategy

The contemporary plan of management document for Kakadu National Park, Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998), came into effect in March 1999 and consists of two distinct parts. The first is ‘A Description of Kakadu National Park’ and the second is ‘A Plan of Management in Respect of Kakadu National Park’. The ontological strategy adopted in these two parts of the document is different from that of the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a ‘style’ of ontological management which I identify as ‘particular universalism’ evolving to ‘cultural relativism’. The strategy of the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998) is a profoundly universalist style of ontological management. In this document, Aboriginal knowledge and technoscience are held apart, existing alongside one another, but ever and always separated by what Latour calls the ‘External Great Divide’ (1993, p. 99) or ‘The Modern Partition (as practised but denied by the moderns)’ (p. 99) which separates ‘Us’ (Westerners) from ‘Them’ (all the ‘Others’)

31 ‘Bininj/Mungguy’ is the term ‘local Aboriginal people [use to ] refer to themselves’ (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 6).

31 (p. 103). And it is this partition that generates possibilities for the form of relativism that Latour identifies as ‘particular universalism’ (1993, p. 105).

An ontological strategy of ‘particular universalism’ pays attention to claims of ‘objective truth’-and it is the technoscientific (‘Western’) side of the Modern Partition which provides these. This is a perspective founded in individualism where ‘what the individuals know is the one world, the one nature that all living beings face. When the individuals genuinely know, they grasp the one truth, or they observe the facts that anyone properly equipped would also observe’ (Addelson 1994, p. 165). The embodiment of this perspective, Addelson calls the removed ‘judging observer’ (p. 53), an individual with a privileged perspective on objective truth, allegedly stripped of temporal, historical, cultural or political context. This ‘judging observer’ generally stands apart from the collective but will intervene to assign praise and blame, and to condemn or legitimise the actions of others. She notes that: ‘Scientists constitute one paradigm of the judging observer’ (Addelson 1994, p. 165).

An ontological strategy of universalism relies on what Addelson calls the ‘thesis of epistemic equality’ (p. 145). This asserts that as individuals, we are all knowers, capable of knowing the same things given the right tools and circumstances. This ‘thesis’ engenders the notion of the ‘level playing field’ which is the ontological strategy of the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998) and the institutional structure of joint management at Kakadu National Park which it promotes and legitimises.

2.4.2.4 The Kakadu National Park Plan of Management

The ‘Plan of Management in Respect of Kakadu National Park’ section of the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998) document is divided into two parts: Part 1: ‘Introductory Provisions’; and, Part 2: ‘How the park will be managed’. Part 2 is divided into the following subsections: ‘Making decisions well’ (p. 33); ‘Bininj/Mungguy interests’ (p. 45); ‘Caring for country’ (p. 60); ‘Tourism’ (p. 104); ‘Telling People About the Park’ (p. 138); ‘Administration’ (p. 146); ’Residents and Occupants’ (p. 165); and; ‘Research, Surveys and Monitoring’ (p. 179). Within each of these subsections, the text of the document is organised according to various issues. There are no Aboriginal texts, nor English translations of Aboriginal texts as part of the Plan of Management document.

The Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998) is intended to be a practical guide to decision making. In the section, ‘A Description of Kakadu National Park’ (p. 3), it directly attributes quality and accountability of decision-making to the Plan of Management and explains:

it [the plan ] increases the efficiency and consistency of decision-making and makes it clear how and why particular decisions are made. (p. 14)

It also presents the Plan of Management as an aid to reconciling competing interests:

The Plan tries to identify a way of making sure park management decisions are better shared by the joint management partners, as are the problems and responsibilities of managing a large and complex national park. (p. 14)

The Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998) does not elaborate an Aboriginal philosophy of management such as the A]angu concept of Tjukurpa in the Ulu ru-Kata Tjuta National Park Plan of Management (UKTBoM/Parks Australia 2000). It addresses Aboriginal participation in and contribution to joint management most directly in the section entitled; ‘Bininj/Mungguy Interests’ (p. 45). The text of this section places emphasis on the involvement of Bininj/Mungguy in park management as stakeholders with particular considerations and contributions to make. It acknowledges that:

Respecting and protecting the interests of Bininj/Mungguy is a primary management objective for Kakadu National Park. It is also of primary importance to conserve the natural and cultural heritage of the Park. (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 45)

And [I]t is a challenge to balance various park management objectives and the range of interests various people hold in the Park. (p. 45 )

‘Decision making’ is addressed throughout the Plan of Management for Kakadu National Park as a crucial aspect of joint management at Kakadu (see KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, pp. 33-50). The document acknowledges the principal of consultation is a fundamental underpinning of decision making under joint management at Kakadu. In the section, ‘Bininj/Mungguy Interests’ (p. 45), it advocates a ‘two-way exchange of information’ (p. 48) between Bininj/Mungguy and non-Aboriginal participants in joint management and elaborates this approach under the subheadings: ‘Making roles and responsibilities clear’ (p. 47); ‘Knowing who speaks for country’ (p. 47); ‘Being fair’ (p. 48); and ‘Being responsible for making decisions’ (p. 48). These ‘Issues’ (p. 47) identified in the Plan of Management for Kakadu National Park (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998) reveal an ontological strategy of universalism. This includes the ways in which participants in joint management are organised in the institutional structures of joint management.

33 2.4.2.6 Institutional Structures of Joint Management

The institutional structures of joint management influence the management of the Kakadu National Park. These include, in particular, the administrative framework and the employment strategies of the Park management regime. Parks Australia, the administrative body for Kakadu National Park, is an organisation within EA which has its divisional office for its sub-program, Parks Australia North, in Darwin. It also has an office in Canberra where the centralised administration of EA is located. The Park Headquarters for Kakadu National Park near the township of Jabiru is the centralised base for the (local) park administration, senior management staff and project staff (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 146.) The park management program is undertaken through the coordination of six administrative centres located throughout the Kakadu National Park (Wellings 1995, p. 245). These centres have ranger stations (with houses and equipment storage facilities) where rangers live with their families and where administrative, casual ranger and research staff may also work and reside.

All staff at Kakadu National Park are employed under the Public Service Act 1922 (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 148). Under the Park lease agreements, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife is required ‘to take all practical steps to promote Aboriginal administration and control of the park’ (p. 148). Wignell & Boyd (1994), in their study of workplace literacy at Kakadu, note however, that ‘while numbers of Bining [sic ] staff are employed most are at the lower levels of the employment hierarchy. The hierarchy has Bining at the top (Board of Management), Bining at and around the bottom and mostly Balanda [non-Aboriginal people ] in the middle’ (p. 6). Bininj/Mungguy are employed within the park as rangers, as members of the Board of Management and as ‘specialists in managing cultural resources, fire management controlling feral animals, controlling weeds, interpretation, training and managing visitors’ (p. 149) and they make up approximately 50 per cent of the permanent full- time workforce in the park (Smyth 2001, p. 86). The majority of permanent Bininj/Mungguy staff, however, are employed as rangers in the bottom three ASO [Administrative Services Officer ] levels of the staffing table. Some have been at these levels for over ten years (Wignell & Boyd 1994, p. 26; Lawrence 2000, p. 271). 32

Kakadu National Park has an Aboriginal Ranger Training Program, the first in Australia, which has been running for over twenty years. Bininj/Mungguy rangers [normally ] commence their working lives as trainee rangers in the park (Wignell & Boyd 1994, p. 12) whereas non-Aboriginal staff have been recruited at all levels into

32 There are six ASO levels with ASO1 being the lowest and ASO6 the highest .

34 the park employment structure and are usually selected elsewhere and appointed to Kakadu (p. 12). Wignell and Boyd consider that many non-Aboriginal staff are also highly literate tertiary graduates (p. 11). The Plan of Management for the Park recognises:

[For ] Aboriginal staff: Further training in a range of skills is needed to make sure Aboriginal staff in Kakadu can compete for positions at the higher classification levels. Developing literacy and numeracy skills is very important for some staff. (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 153)

The document also concedes that the goal of the current training programs which is ‘employing Bininj/Mungguy at all levels in the park’ is not working, and that ‘the park needs to take a strategic approach to training, using skills audits and competency based training’ (p. 153).

This evidence from the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998) suggests that, if given knowledge and capabilities through ‘training’, Aboriginal employees will be better able to access the institutional structures of joint management. It assumes the apparently uncontested ideal of an employment strategy for Aboriginal staff as one ‘that helps them get as far as they can in the Kakadu staff structure’ (p. 153). This ideal extends also to the way in which staff participate ‘responsibly’ in decision making.

The category of ‘Fairness’ (p. 34; p. 36) or ‘Being fair’ (p. 48; p. 50) in the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management document is a significant element in the ontological strategy of the institutional structure at Kakadu National Park. It is explicated in various ways throughout the Plan of Management. As we can see from the following excerpt from the document, the ‘Issue’ of ‘Fairness’ in the section on ‘Making Decisions and Evaluating Proposals’ (p. 33), introduces the idea of ‘objectivity’ as a means of dealing with different ‘interests’, ‘viewpoints’ and ‘attachments’:

At times staff may be requested to assess a proposal about which they may already have particular ideas. Personal views and attachments may influence staff in how they assess the proposal. Similarly, at times particular Board members may have an interest in particular proposals. It is important that any assessment process is objective and impartial. (KBoM/Parks Australia 2000, p. 34)

Transparency of decision making is also valued in the document, and is subsumed under the ‘Issue’ of ‘Fairness’, in the section of the Plan of Management for Kakadu

35 National Park (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998) on ‘Making Decisions and Evaluating Proposals’ (p. 33), where we find the following prescription for management:

Proposals will be assessed professionally. The process will be clear and fair and will include quantitative data to the extent practicable, as well as qualitative data. The positive as well as negative sides of proposals will be equally considered. Appropriate records will be kept. (p. 36)

The Plan also considers a process of democratic decision making under the ‘Issue’ of ‘Being fair’ in the section on ‘Consulting and making decisions’ (p. 45) as follows:

It is necessary to make sure that the whole community of traditional owners has fair access to consultation and decision making. This is particularly important when it comes to involving women in consultations. It is also important that younger generations of traditional owners have the chance to put their views and understand how and why decisions have been made. (p. 48)

Yet another ‘Issue’ identified in the Plan is that of ‘Being responsible for making decisions’ (p. 48). This ‘Issue’ contributes further to the moral foundation for management that the Plan of Management is presenting. The document states:

It is important that everyone consulted and involved in making the decision accepts responsibility for the decision. This includes making sure that the right people are consulted and that how decisions are made is clear. Proper records must be kept to make sure that decision-making is accountable and to keep a historical record of why decisions were made. (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 48)

And Parks Australia will maintain a central data base that records, in a standard format, all decisions made in consultation with traditional owners. (p. 50)

It is evident from these samples from the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998) that the document adheres to a process of joint management that recognises the ‘rights and interests’ of all the relevant stakeholders as individuals-male or female, young or old, Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal. It prescribes a set of protocols for managing the relationships between different groups of individual ‘knowers’, and between individual ‘knowers’ and the knowledge that they possess. For example, the concept of ‘fairness’ in the context of the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998) implies an ideal of the ‘level playing field’ on which knowers and their knowledge are pitted against one another

36 in conditions of equal advantage and handicap. The moral prescription of the ‘level playing field’ is part of an ontological strategy of particular universalism. It interprets differences between ways of knowing as legitimate yet alternative representations of the ‘real’ world-in this case Bininj/Mungguy knowledge is presented as a legitimate alternative to technoscience. Particular universalism thus sees Aboriginal knowledge as doing what our own technoscience is trying to do. However, it casts Aboriginal knowledge in amongst all the ‘other’ knowledges who, with their respective symbolising systems and devices, struggle to produce a ‘more or less’ true (accurate) version of what is in the world, albeit less successfully than technoscience. Differences between knowledges are thus ‘ironed out’. If there is any difference at all it ‘is in “context”, in social practices and experiences’ (Sadghi-Rad Hassall 2001, p. 26).

In the joint management discourse that suffuses the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management (KBoM/Parks Australia 1998), the ontological strategy of particular universalism works to deny Aboriginal cognitive authority in the face of ‘the objective and impartial judging observer’ (Addelson 1994). Those knowers are represented as a tier of non-Aboriginal individuals steeped in the technoscientific imperatives of record-keeping and data storage as the Plan of Management reveals (see KBoM/Parks Australia 1998, p. 50). This is exemplified in the employment status of Aboriginal people in the Park, where despite holding a majority on the Board of Management, they are chronically over-represented at the lower levels of the employment hierarchy.

2.5 Conclusion

In this chapter I have shown that in order to begin to explore ways of redressing the power imbalances engendered by the discourse of joint management of reserved lands in Australia, we need to consider the ontological management strategies that characterise this discourse. We need to make these strategies visible enough so we can begin to see how they might be different. Seeing how things might be different is at the heart of the question ‘How do we reconcile the management imperatives of “national park” or “protected (reserved) area” with the notion of Aboriginal place?’ Or, to put this question a different way, ‘How should we live and work together in joint management?’ I contend that answers to these questions can be approached by attending to the generative aspects of the practices of doing cooperative land and sea management.

37 My argument is that we need to explore possibilities for new forms of ontological management in order to deal with the complexities of working together Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ways of knowing and managing the land and sea. This is a matter of moving beyond the foundationalist traditions of relativism and universalism. Yol\u people, through their land and sea management organisation, Dhimurru, resisted the forms of ontological management they witnessed in the discourse and practice of joint management at the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a and Kakadu National Parks and experienced in their aborted negotiations with the PWCNT. At the time when I joined the Dhimurru, we were struggling with ways to manage the tensions and confusions surrounding the generation of a new way of doing cooperative land and sea management. I elaborate these tensions in the following chapters of this thesis. In doing so I attend to practices; to the collective acts of people engaged in negotiating the work of Dhimurru.

38 CHAPTER 3. THE DEVELDEVELOPMENTOPMENT OF THE DHIMURRU LAND MANAGEMANAGEMENTMENT ABORIGINAL CORPORATICORPORATIONONONON

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter I give a brief history of the development of the contemporary Yol\u Aboriginal land and sea management organisation —the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation (known as Dhimurru). I tell of the particular way the interaction between technoscientific and Yol\u Aboriginal ways of knowing was managed in the negotiation of a cooperative land and sea management agreement between the Northern Territory Government’s Parks and Wildlife Commission (PWCNT) and Yol\u traditional landowners and managers. The negotiations between Dhimurru and the PWCNT contrast with the account I gave in Chapter 2 of joint management of Aboriginal-owned lands as it exists in the prominent Australian national parks: Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park and Kakadu National Park. Situating myself as a participant in this emergent dialogue, I discuss briefly some of the tensions I felt doing the work of assisting to develop a plan of management for the Yol\u-owned and managed place, }anydjaka.

My involvement with Dhimurru and Yol\u communities of NE Arnhem Land began in 1994. Initially, I was employed at Dhimurru for ten months as a research assistant to help develop a plan of management for the Yol\u estate of }anydjaka on the Gove Peninsula (see Figure 1). I also undertook other duties during this time including assisting in field-based activities (including fauna surveys, tree planting, walking track development, patrolling), clerical and administrative tasks, and the development of a series of interpretative pamphlets for the Dhimurru Recreation Areas. From 1995 to 1997 I continued to work closely with Dhimurru through my role as community-based lecturer in the Batchelor College Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Natural and Cultural Resource Management) course (Ass. Dip. App. Sci. (NCRM)). Since 1997 I have been involved in a series of learning/teaching workshops run by Dhimurru and the GCSI.

In 1996 I began my doctoral studies full time. My PhD project is part of an Australian Research Council (ARC) funded Collaborative Research Project entitled: ‘Revealing Yol\u Aboriginal Environmental Knowledge for Ecologists’. This project was funded for three years by the Commonwealth Government through the ARC. The partners in this collaborative project are the University of Melbourne, the Yirrkala Community Education Centre (CEC), Dhimurru and the GCSI/YYF. I was the recipient of an Commonwealth government stipend —an Australian Postgraduate Research Award (Industry) (APA (I)) from 1997-99 as part of this project.

Here I locate myself and my study to show how this thesis is an outcome of a working collective. This collective is the people, things and places that engage the collaborative research project I detailed above and include the everyday workings of the Yol\u institutions involved, particularly Dhimurru. In locating myself I acknowledge my double participation, as a Dhimurru/Batchelor College/GCSI knowing worker, and as a researcher-in-training under the auspices of the Dhimurru Committee, the Nambara Schools Council, the GCSI Board of Studies and the University of Melbourne’s Department of History and Philosophy of Science (HPS). Addelson (1994) argues that knowledge makers/knowers are also participants in collective action, making worlds and knowledge in particular places and particular times. The moral responsibility of ‘knowers/doers’ (Addelson 1994), she suggests, is to ask the question ‘How may we best uncover the outcomes of this double participation?’ (p. 181). As a researcher and a worker I therefore aim in this thesis to provide a responsible account of a working collective through a reflexive analysis of the work/knowledge making I have done in particular times and places.

3.2 Dhimurru and the Parks aandnd Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory

3.2.1 Beginnings

The Commonwealth and Northern Territory administrations showed interest in the land use potential of areas in NE Arnhem Land as early as the 1950s. 33 The Northern Territory forestry program was funded by the Commonwealth Government from 1958 (CSIRO c.1976, p. 5). Subsequently, a further program —’The Forestry Program on Reserves for Wards’ —began in 1961 with its main objectives ‘to expand forestry activities on certain areas of Aboriginal Reserves, to train and employ Aborigines in forestry work, and to provide social and economic benefits to Aboriginal communities’ (p. 5). A review of the ongoing forestry program from 1970-71 to 1974- 75, commissioned by the Department of the Northern Territory, records the efforts of the Northern Territory Forestry Branch to survey the native forest resources of the Northern Territory and pursue the various ‘Conservation and Forest Management’ (p. 8) activities of the Branch. However, the report of the review notes that the planning of further activities and policies, and the alienation of lands for the purposes of forest production or the management of the natural resources for ‘multiple use objectives’ (p. 18) must await the passage of the Aboriginal Lands (NT) Bill through the Commonwealth Parliament (p. 36). This bill came into effect in 1977 as the ALRA.

Government interest in the creation of a conservation or nature reserve in NE Arnhem Land is evident since at least the early 1970s. A report to the Department of the Northern Territory entitled Gove Land Use: Study of the Conservation Aspects by Professor J.S. Turner (1973) makes recommendations regarding the use and management of areas in the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve, in particular the Town Lagoon at Nhulunbuy, the beaches around Nhulunbuy and the Drimmie Peninsula, and the coastal areas south of Yirrkala to Caledon Bay. Turner reports on the feasibility of forestry operations and a proposed woodchip project on the Nabalco mine lease and also attends to the issue of the disposal of red mud (ferrosit) which is the major by-product obtained after treating raw bauxite with sodium hydroxide (1973, p. 15) from the Nabalco mining operation. Specifically, Turner recommended that an area of the Aboriginal Arnhem Land Reserve be made ‘available for the enjoyment of all Australians , now and in the future, in the same way and under the same type of management as applies to national parks of world class’ (p. 67) (original emphasis). This area, he states, should form the proposed ‘Port Bradshaw Coastal Reserve’ which would encompass the areas known as Cape Arnhem, Port Bradshaw and associated areas (see Turner 1973, Fig. 2). He notes that such a reserve would be ‘managed’ as per the current American definition of a ‘National Park’ 34 which he cites as:

An extensive area of public land of national significance because of its outstanding natural features, and diversity of land types, set aside for two purposes:

(a) to conserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects and the wildlife , and (b) to provide for the enjoyment of the same by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment and education and inspiration of future generations . (? in Turner 1973, p. 68, original emphasis)

However, Turner noted that the proposed ‘Port Bradshaw Coastal Reserve’ could not take the classificatory title of ‘national park’ because at the time ‘National Parks’ could not be established within ‘Aboriginal Reserves’ under Australian or Northern Territory land administration systems (p. 34).

The management of such an area, Turner also recommends, should be the province of a (proposed) Conservation Service for the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve (1973,

33 The Northern Territory became self-governing in 1978. Prior to this it was controlled by the Australian Commonwealth Government administration.

41 p. 70). Such a body, he suggests, would build on the work of the Conservation Commitee for Gove which was established by the Northern Territory Administration in 1972 to report on the measures required to maintain environmental control on the Gove Peninsula (p. 49), including the rehabilitation of mine sites on the Nabalco mining lease. Turner also suggests that the proposed Conservation Service ‘would have substantial Aboriginal representation and the necessary funds for establishment of a ranger system and for day to day management’ (p. 70) and that the land/marine area for the proposed conservation reserve should remain under the control of the Crown. He reports that private ownership of land is a threat to the attainment of land use and planning aimed at conservation (p. 62) and thus recommends: ‘ that there should be no alienation of land in the Aboriginal reserve , whether for black or white people’ (p. 62, original emphasis). He qualifies this by stating: ‘Of course, the aborigines should retain substantial rights over the use of the land in the Reserve, short of actual personal ownership. With these rights should go a responsibility towards land use along the lines proposed in this report’ (p. 61). He further recommends: ‘There should be a thorough biological and ecological survey of this part of the coast’ (p. 36).

Turner’s arguments for the creation of a national park type reserve within the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve are based on a conservation imperative emanating from environmentalist concerns for the preservation of an ideal Nature. This Nature is epitomised by the ideal of ‘wilderness’ (Turner 1973, p. 59) or ‘virgin ecosystem’ (p. 44). In his report to the Department of the Northern Territory, Turner draws on aesthetic and scientific descriptors to present his argument for a conservation imperative for this land/sea area which he identifies as a ‘whole wild and beautiful, unspoilt coastal region’ (p. 33). He discusses the imperative to protect the ecology of this area whilst acknowledging it has ‘been inadequately studied as yet’ (p. 30).

Turner uses the work of Specht to support his argument for reserved land/sea. Specht described the ‘major vegetational units’ (1958 in Turner 1973, p. 28) for Arnhem Land in his survey as part of the American Australian Expedition in 1948 including the ‘“coastal dune edaphic complex”’ (p. 30) which is represented in the coastal areas from Nhulunbuy to Caledon Bay in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The occurrence of this vegetation complex is, Turner states, ‘of first importance both from the landscape and scientific aspects’ (1973, p. 30). He notes the ‘handsome trees and shrubs’ this complex supports, and in particular the monsoon or rain forest patches which he considers ‘have no economic value but are of considerable scientific importance to ecologists’ (p. 30). Further, he identifies the problem of controlling

34 Turner (1973) does not provide the source of this definition.

42 the impacts of recreational activities and advocates protection of the ‘coastal dune complex and its associated swamps, lagoons, creeks, headlands and beaches’ (p. 33) through the establishment of a reserve area with restricted access, and the planned development of recreational facilities. ‘Good planning and good management’ (p. 34), Turner argues, are necessary to achieve the objectives of this proposed land use which are the definitionary principles of a ‘National Park’ as cited above. He details two aspects the ‘management of such a Reserve requires:

-a clear understanding of the rights of the aborigines at Yirrkala, and also their responsibilities in connection with conservation;

-a ranger system along the lines of that normal in national parks. It will be quite useless to make rules for the conservation and local development of this reserve unless these rules can be policed. (pp. 35-36)

The plans by government to develop a conservation reserve and expansive forestry operations in NE Arnhem Land were halted by the advent of the ALRA in 1977 which gave the Yol\u inalienable freehold title to their traditional estates. The Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve established in 1931 thus became Yol\u land under Australian common law.

From 1931 to 1976-97 public access to Yol\u lands as part of the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve was by permit with the system controlled by the Commonwealth’s Northern Territory Administration (DLMAC 1999c, p. 28). In 1975, a series of fifteen areas on Yol\u lands within the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve were identified for recreational use by non-Aboriginal residents of the newly established mining township of Nhulunbuy (‘Managing Miwatj’ report 1992, p. 1). Yol\u clan leaders, the Gove Joint Liaison Group and community members and associations agreed upon a system of entry permits to these areas and this was administered by the Department of Territories Welfare Branch. Later, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs resumed responsibility for the system of permits (p. 1).

After 1976-97, the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve became Aboriginal freehold land under the provisions of the ALRA and the Northern Territory Government no longer had the power to control the use or administration of Yol\u lands. The NLC, as the statutory representative body under the ALRA, thereafter assumed responsibility for the system of access permits for recreation in NE Arnhem Land which it administered from its Nhulunbuy office until 1992.

43 In the 1970s and 1980s, Yol\u landowners become increasingly concerned about the sustainable management of areas of their land and sea estates which were becoming degraded due to uncontrolled recreational use by mostly non Aboriginal people. Despite the permit system, which provided some control of access to areas designated for recreational use, with no personnel or other resources to enforce compliance with this system or to ameliorate the effects of recreational use on the land/sea, Yol\u landowners identified detrimental impacts of recreational use. These effects included: soil erosion (including proliferation of access tracks around Nhulunbuy and }anydjaka); damage to vegetation and Yol\u sites of significance from unauthorised access; vandalism of recreational facilities and Yol\u sites of significance; threats to wildlife including damage to sea turtle nesting beaches; and, unauthorised intrusion and pursuits (e.g. hunting and fishing) on Yol\u estates not designated for recreational use (Wearne, G. pers. comm.; NLC 1992b, p. 19).

In 1986-97, leaders of Yol\u clans began tentative discussions with the Northern Territory Government’s Conservation Commission (CCNT) (now the PWCNT) about a proposal for a jointly-managed National Park incorporating }anydjaka, Port Bradshaw and surrounding areas in NE Arnhem Land.

The CCNT established a permanent presence in NE Arnhem Land in 1987 35 with the establishment of an office at Nhulunbuy. It employed two rangers at this office until 1991: initially Wolf Sievers and Bryan Walshe, and then Mark Stevens (who replaced Wolf Sievers), and a part-time Administrative Officer. The CCNT rangers worked in an informal cooperative capacity with Yol\u landowners and responded to their requests for land management assistance. They played a significant role in the local crocodile management program and undertook other wildlife management and protection services. The CCNT rangers were also engaged in 1990-91 in discussions with Yol\u leaders about their plans for the use and management of Yol\u estates, including }anydjaka. The CCNT Annual Report for 1998 records that the CCNT undertook these discussions with:

A view to developing long-term management agreements on a number of areas in the region. These included the Nhulunbuy town beaches and the local recreation lease area.

A planned management strategy [for the areas under the proposed management agreement ] will address problems cause by uncontrolled

35 Before this time the CCNT deployed staff from other regions to undertake activities on Yol\u land/sea including soil conservation works (CCNT 1981, p.32) and crocodile management.

44 vehicle access to the beaches, soil erosion, litter and the lack of adequate visitor facilities. (CCNT 1998, pp. 14-15)

Officers of the CCNT also discussed with Yol\u leaders the possibilities for developing a formalised cooperative arrangement with the CCNT in the management of Yol\u lands for recreation (Stevens, M. pers. comm.; Munu\giritj, M. pers. comm). Yol\u leaders were generally supportive of their ongoing relationship with the CCNT but did not rush to formalise it. The NLC provided in-principle support for such a cooperative management arrangement in NE Arnhem Land, and in September 1990, the Northern Territory Minister for Conservation, Steve Hatton and the Chairman of the NLC, Mr. John Ah Kit, released a joint press release which stated their combined support and efforts towards the establishment of a jointly managed national park in NE Arnhem Land including Cape Arnhem. The joint management partners in the proposed agreement would be Yol\u landowners and the Conservation Commission (NTLA 1991a, p. 1010). Yol\u land owners and managers in NE Arnhem Land proceeded with discussions about the future management of their estates with the assistance of the NLC. The NLC engaged consultants to advise on the nature and severity of land degradation occurring in the area (of Cape Arnhem) and report on the views of traditional owners (NLC 1991, p. 21).

In 1991 the CCNT closed its Nhulunbuy office and withdrew its staff from NE Arnhem Land. 36 This occurred as a result of a decision of the Estimated Review Committee (ERC) which made recommendations for a rationalisation of Northern Territory Government services across a range of sectors. The Northern Territory Government Member for Nhulunbuy, Sid Stirling, noted in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly (NTLA) following the decision to close the Nhulunbuy CCNT office that ‘one of the reasons given for the closing of the Conservation Commission operation in Nhulunbuy is that the area has no established park’ (NTLA 1991a, p. 1010). The CCNT, in its 1990-91 Annual Report confirms that the closure of the CCNT’s Nhulunbuy office occurred at a time when: ‘Negotiations over a proposed Cape Arnhem national park were stalled by the NLC which linked Cape Arnhem, in eastern Arnhem Land, to the Cobourg Marine Park in north west Arnhem Land’ (CCNT 1991, p. 39). In response to the closure of the CCNT office, Roy Marika, a senior Yol\u leader, wrote a letter in late 1991 to the CCNT asking them to continue their support of Yol\u land and sea management activities (Wearne, G. pers. comm.). At the same time Yol\u sought assistance from the NLC who commissioned the

36 The CCNT crocodile management program continued following the closure of the local office. The CCNT also retained office, some equipment and storage space at the Nhulunbuy Industrial Estate (Stephens, M. pers. comm.).

45 consulting company, Advyz, to investigate Yol\u concerns and aspirations for the management of their lands and seas.

The debate over the management of areas in NE Arnhem Land (and of }anydjaka in particular), and the possibilities for CCNT involvement in cooperative management of Yol\u land/sea was raised regularly in the NTLA in the early 1990s. 37 Stirling recognised in his speech to the Assembly in 1991 that: ‘The closure of the office [PWCNT ] in Nhulunbuy will have long-term implications on the future training of Aboriginal rangers, the joint management of environmentally sensitive areas and the creation of a future park’ (NTLA 1991a, p. 1010). He notes that Nanikiya Munu\giritj had already been chosen by the Yirrkala community to undertake ranger training with a view to his later employment with the CCNT to assist in management of the ‘proposed Cape Arnhem National Park’ (NTLA 1991a, p. 1010). In a subsequent session of the Assembly, Stirling adds that the CCNT Nhulunbuy-based Rangers worked hard to develop relationships with Yol\u landowners based on cooperation and trust. He noted that: ‘An enormous amount of work has gone into securing the trust and commitment of traditional landowners to joint land use and joint management of sensitive beach and dune areas’ (NTLA 1991b, p. 1402).

At a full meeting of the NLC at Nhulunbuy from 23-25 September 1991, Yol\u landowners were called upon by the traditional owners of Cobourg Peninsula (which includes the Gurig National Park) to withdraw from negotiations relating to the development of a ‘Cape Arnhem National Park’ ( Land Rights News 1990, p. 2). The Aboriginal traditional owners of Gurig National Park asked Yol\u and the NLC to support their demands for the Northern Territory Government to honour a promise it made in 1981 to grant them control of sea areas around the area of the Park (Land Rights News 1990, p. 2). Upon the establishment of the Gurig National Park in 1981, traditional owners of this area had agreed to a joint management agreement with the Northern Territory Government which included several concessions; the most significant of which was the decision by traditional owners of the land/sea to withdraw their land claim over the Cobourg Peninsula and to enter into a negotiated agreement with the Northern Territory Government. This agreement entailed a commitment by the Northern Territory Government to cede control of lands in the Gurig National Park to the Aboriginal traditional owners and of seas to two kilometres offshore of the Park area (see Foster 1997). The Aboriginal landowners were, however, unhappy with this proposed settlement and insisted that they should be granted ownership of a larger area of their traditional sea estates.

37 See: NTLA 1990, p.8722; 1991a, pp. 1008-10; 1991b, pp. 1401-02; 1991c, p.2499; 1991d, p.3173; NTLA 1993, p. 9028.

46 Foster (1997) in his treatise on joint management at Gurig National Park, notes that the traditional owners of }anydjaka agreed to suspend all negotiations with the government over the proposed development of a Cape Arnhem National Park ‘until such time as the promise [to grant title to sea to the traditional owners at Gurig as part of a new Cobourg Marine Park ] is honoured’ (letter from NLC to the Minister for Conservation, October 1990 in Foster 1997, p. 25). He also records that at this time the NLC approached the CLC in an attempt to ‘establish clear and consistent policies on park management issues throughout the whole of the Territory’ (Foster 1997, p. 25).

On 26 September 1991, immediately following the NLC Council meeting at Nhulunbuy, Yol\u landowners met at Dhupuma to discuss issues of land/sea access and management. Present at the meeting were representatives of the Rirratji\u, Gumatj, Warramiri, Golumala, G^lpu, Wangurri, |aymil, {^=iwuy, and Ma\galili clans, along with an NLC lawyer, the Aboriginal Liaison Officer from the mining company Nabalco, two members of the consulting company engaged by the NLC to organise the meeting, and a guest of the Marika family (Advyz 1991). 38 The meeting discussed issues of Yol\u land and sea management including: the tenure of the estates under consideration and ‘defining the relationship between the ~amamirri and Gumatj people and the boundaries of their shared estate with respect to the Rirratji\u and other dua [Dhuwa ] clans’ (p. 2); the need for Yirritja and Dhuwa clans (see Appendix J) to cooperate in finding solutions to problems; and, the need for Yol\u to control use and access of their estates which were suffering damage and inappropriate use due to the accumulated activities of recreationalists over a fifteen-year period. Galarrwuy Yunupi\u, the leader of the Gumatj clan, spoke about the construction of the road (to }anydjaka) over the jump-up [edge of the escarpment ] seven years ago by persons unknown, without permission of the landowners, which resulted in the destruction of an important site (p. 2). Participants at the meeting also expressed their views on the possibilities for establishing a national park at }anydjaka (and possibly including adjacent areas).

Some participants at the meeting supported the idea of a national park at }anydjaka, and called for increased support from the CCNT, NLC and Nabalco to assist in the development of such a proposal and with the training of Aboriginal rangers. Others were more circumspect and discussed the problems arising from the

38 This information is taken from a document which is the Draft Minutes of the meeting made by member/s of the consulting company ‘Advyz’. The Draft Minutes of meeting record: ‘Meeting commenced at 1.00 pm, at the Dhupuma lookout and was conducted throughout in Yolngu Matha. These notes were made with the assistance of several interpreters-Raymitja (sic), Nanikiyah (sic) and Wukun’ (Advyz 1991,p .1).

47 ongoing negotiations between the CCNT and Aboriginal traditional owners in the management of the Gurig National Park on the Cobourg Peninsula. At the close of the meeting, Yol\u landowners chose to exercise their powers of exclusion of access and use of their estates under the ALRA and the meeting resolved to close }anydjaka indefinitely to access by recreationalists northwards from the place called Yukuwarra (pp. 2-3). This meant that the NLC would no longer issue permits for access to }anydjaka until such time as they were instructed to do so by Yol\u landowners.

The Yol\u members of the meeting at Dhupuma appointed a working party to investigate and report on options and recommendations for the future management of lands and seas affected by recreational use and access issues. This working party, called the Go\-Walu Committee, undertook a process of consultation with Yol\u stakeholders over several months and produced a report Managing Miwatj (Go\-Walu Committee 1992). This work was funded by the NLC and the Commonwealth Government’s Department of Education, Employment and Training (DEET).

The Managing Miwatj report detailed the prevailing recreational use of Yol\u lands/seas in the Miwatj (NE Arnhem Land) region and the concomitant environmental issues; aspects of Yol\u-controlled land management including employment and training for Yol\u people in land management; the need for public education regarding land management activity on Yol\u land; and, the reform of the recreation permit system. It disclosed the determination by Yol\u to develop their own land and sea management agency to manage areas of Yol\u land/sea identified for recreational use (by mainly non-Aboriginal visitors). This agency is presented in the report as a Yol\u-controlled ‘new land management organisation’ to be named ‘Gong Walu’ (p. iii). The report recommends that this organisation be formed ‘to help traditional owners better manage, in a co-operative and sustainable way those parts of their estates they consent to being used for recreation’ (p. 4). Yol\u representatives of the Miwatj area clans and members of the Go\-Walu Committee considered the Managing Miwatj report on the 7th and 8th of April 1992 at a meeting at Yirrkala. At this meeting, members resolved to establish a Yol\u land and sea management organisation to carry out the work which was recommended in the report. The Go\-Walu group thus came to form part of a new Dhimurru Committee (Y^n 1992, pp. 22-23).

The NLC provided funding for three consultants to facilitate discussions and canvas opinion amongst Yol\u concerning the development of the proposed Yol\u land and sea management agency. From August 1992, Nanikiya Munu\giritj, Mamburra (Banduk) Marika and Greg Wearne were given a brief to liaise with funding and

48 other agencies and undertake the preparation of funding submissions to support Dhimurru’s creation and development. They produced a draft Development Plan for the new organisation and secured funding from several sources including the ANPWS, ATSIC, the CCNT and Yol\u traditional owners (Wearne, G. pers. comm.). Dhimurru was formally incorporated on 8 September 1992 and the first general meeting of the Dhimurru Committee was held on 14 December 1992. This Committee is made up of representatives of the seventeen Yol\u landowning clans in the Dhimurru management area (see Appendix D). 39 }anydjaka was thereafter re-opened by Yol\u leaders for recreation access by non-Aboriginal permit holders as part of the Dhimurru management area.

In 1992, senior Yol\u landowners and members of Dhimurru visited national parks under joint management in the Northern Territory as part of an information- gathering field trip. This trip was funded by ATSIC and allowed Dhimurru members to investigate the joint management operations at Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a, Kakadu and Gurig National Parks. The Dhimurru delegation were unhappy with various aspects of what they witnessed of these management arrangements, and in particular, with the artefacts of the Board of Management and the institutional structure (including the employment structure) of the parks (see Chapter 2). This informed their decision to develop their own institutional arrangements and land and sea management organisation in Dhimurru, and to invest exclusive decision-making power with the Dhimurru Committee as representatives of the relevant Yol\u landowners and managers. While the members of Dhimurru were eager to develop cooperative relationships with government and other institutions, they insisted unwaveringly that membership of the Dhimurru Committee would consist of Yol\u landowners and community members only. Early in Dhimurru’s development, the Dhimurru Committee instructed the Executive Officer of Dhimurru to explore and present to them for discussion options for formal joint management with the CCNT. The Committee considered and rejected these options (Wearne, G. pers. comm.).

At the inaugural meeting of the Dhimurru Commitee, Nanikiya Munu\giritj was appointed manager of Dhimurru, and Greg Wearne, Executive Officer/Training Coordinator. Mark Stevens accepted deployment from the CCNT to the Dhimurru Ranger/Trainer position for a two-year period from 1 July 1993 (DLMAC c.1993). In 1993, there were four other Yol\u Rangers working at Dhimurru: Djawa Yunupi\u, Mandaka Marika, Botha Wunu\murra and W^pit Mu\u\gurr. Dja`a`i\ba Yunupi\u worked full time from 1994 to 1997 as the Senior Yol\u Ranger-Cultural Adviser at

39 This is the Dhimurru Committee at 2 February 1996 when there were eighteen clans represented on the Committee by the individuals listed. Since this time all members of the ~amamirri clan have died.

49 Dhimurru and has since continued to work on a casual basis for Dhimurru in a similar capacity.

The authority invested in the Dhimurru Committee resides for Yol\u in the unequivocal understanding that as owners of land and sea estates they are responsible for their care and maintenance. The functions that Dhimurru would perform were identified by the Dhimurru Committee in the early stages of the development of the organisation. They included:

• to abate and manage the degradation of Yol\u land identified for recreational use;

• to control access to Yol\u estates through the administration of permits for recreation; and

• to employ and train Yol\u to work as rangers in the management of Yol\u estates. (DLMAC 1995) 40

A Dhimurru management area was identified which included a series of designated Recreation Areas for use by mainly non-Aboriginal visitors (see Figure 1). Yol\u landowners introduced a charge for permits to visit these areas from 1 April 1993, much to the indignation of many Nhulunbuy residents who had benefited from years of free access privileges. Dhimurru assumed responsibility from the NLC in 1994 for the administration of the system of Dhimurru Recreation Permits. A full-time Administrative Officer was employed at Dhimurru in 1994 to assist in this task.

The employment structure at Dhimurru evolved from 1993 in response to the experiences and professional development aspirations of Yol\u working in the organisation and of the Dhimurru Committee. One of the most important aspects of land and sea management work at Dhimurru was the development of the roles of the rangers working within the organisation. The term ‘ranger’ was taken from understandings of land and management as it is historically practised in national parks, but necessarily carries quite different connotations in this setting (see Chapter 7). This was originally supported by the Commonwealth land and sea management agency, ANCA, through its Contract Employment Program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples working in Natural and Cultural Resource Management (CEPANCRM). This funding program enabled the development of Dhimurru through the professional development of its rangers and was the beginning of a productive

40 Appendix G gives the full list of Dhimurru functions from the Development Plan (DLMAC 1995) for the organisation.

50 informal working relationship between Dhimurru and the Commonwealth Government on the management of Yol\u lands and seas.

3.2.2 Negotiations with the Government Environmental Agencies

In implementing Dhimurru’s functions, Dhimurru workers and Committee members agreed that help was needed to enable the effective management of Yol\u estates. In particular Yol\u landowners were concerned about the abuse of the permit system for recreation on Yol\u land/sea and the attendant damage to, and intrusion onto Yol\u estates. Dhimurru thus approached the CCNT about the possibility of supporting Yol\u in a cooperative management role. From 1992, the CCNT agreed to enter into discussions with Dhimurru and its constituents regarding the development of a ‘co-management’ 41 agreement between Yol\u landowners and the Northern Territory Government. Following the closure of the Nhulunbuy CCNT office in 1991, the CCNT had no permanent presence in NE Arnhem Land at the time this approach was made. However in 1993-94, the PWCNT maintained a senior PWCNT Ranger, Mr. Mark Stevens, at Nhulunbuy to work on secondment from the CCNT as Ranger/Trainer with Dhimurru. His salary was paid by an ATSIC grant to Dhimurru.

During a period of approximately six years (from 1993 to 1998), Dhimurru and the CCNT (PWCNT) were engaged in negotiations aimed at formalising a cooperative management arrangement for Yol\u lands and seas in the Dhimurru management area. On a day-to-day basis, the PWCNT and Dhimurru Rangers worked together under the guidance of the Dhimurru Committee to fulfil the Yol\u land and sea management agenda. This was, in general, a productive and positive working relationship. Yol\u Rangers at Dhimurru undertook on-the-job training through working in cooperation with Mark Stevens, other Nhulunbuy-based rangers and visiting PWCNT personnel, and through participation in the nationally accredited course, the Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) delivered by Batchelor College, (now BIITE) (see Chapter 7). The relationship with the PWCNT was a crucial factor in the development of ranger work at Dhimurru and Greg Wearne has reflected that Dhimurru’s relationship with the PWCNT started over training (pers. comm.). Meanwhile, Dhimurru and the PWCNT discussed the signing of a co-management agreement for Yol\u estates in NE Arnhem Land. The NLC also participated in these negotiations as the peak representative body for Yol\u landowners.

41 At this stage in Dhimurru’s development, the term ‘co-management’ was used to describe a formalised working relationship between Dhimurru and the Northern Territory Government through its CCNT (see Appendix K). This was Dhimurru’s first move in adopting alternative terminology from that of ‘joint management’ to describe a landowner-government partnership in land and sea management. Later, in its negotiations with Yol\u stakeholders regarding the development of a Dhimurru IPA, Dhimurru adopted the term

Dhimurru developed a working model for its proposed co-management agreement with the PWCNT which they stipulated would contain the following elements:

1. An evolutionary or development model where the starting point is not major agreements but rather smaller, short term ‘trial’ arrangements which can be advanced as co-operation and collaborative practice are developed and confirmed.

2. No lease-back or rental arrangements.

3. To build on the work of community rangers [Yol\u Dhimurru Rangers ] and Mark Stevens in developing a mutually acceptable form of interaction and working relationships.

4. Ongoing evaluation using Prof. Nancy Williams as a consultant.

5. Stage 1 in 94-95 which would trial the provision of one CCNT Ranger (T2).

The co-management area would include all designated recreation destinations and estates close to Nhulunbuy requiring more constant monitoring including all the Gove Peninsula, the Bremer Islands, Cape Arnhem, Port Bradshaw and adjacent islands, Wonga Creek catchment and the Cato and Peter John Rivers. (DLMAC 1993?)

The legislative basis in Australian common law for this proposed co-management agreement is the TPWC Act and the ALRA. Under Section 73 of the TPWC Act (and subject to the ALRA) the PWCNT may enter into an agreement relating to management of the land with an Aboriginal Land Council as the representative of the Aboriginal landowners. The details of such an agreement are not explicated by this statute. No administrative artefacts such as a plan of management, a board of management, a lease, or a prescribed employment structure are specified. It thus provides for flexible interpretation, and accommodates a range of options for partnerships in management with a role for government in ‘assistance and cooperation’ (TPWC Act s. 73 1 (A)) through to a signed agreement with Aboriginal landowners for the management of a particular area for which the ‘object of agreement’ (s. 73 1 (A)) is negotiated. Dhimurru considered the signing of a ‘Section 73’ agreement to be an opportunity to enhance the efficacy of the organisation by ensuring commitment from the PWCNT to the provision of ranger support and other resources, and the possibility of pursuing stricter control and access measures to

‘cooperative management’ to describe a working arrangement between Yol\u landowners and managers and other interest groups. See Appendix 11 for Dhimurru’s vision of ‘cooperative management’.

52 land/sea through the empowerment of Dhimurru Rangers as PWCNT ‘honorary conservation officers’ (see TPWC Act s. 93). This status could allow them, and the PWCNT Rangers under a signed ‘Section 73’ agreement, to enforce PWCNT By-Laws on Yol\u land.

In the process of negotiating a ‘Section 73’ management agreement for Yol\u estates, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was developed between the Dhimurru Commitee, the NLC and the CCNT (now the PWCNT) as the basis of the ongoing cooperative working relationship. It detailed the commitment by the CCNT to maintaining Mark Stevens in his working capacity with Dhimurru and by all parties to working towards establishing a cooperative management arrangement for the management of Yol\u lands and seas. From 1995, the PWCNT augmented its commitment to its working relationship with Dhimurru and established a second PWCNT ranger (Darren Larcombe and later Mark Woodward) at Dhimurru. However, due largely to ongoing concerns of the NLC regarding the formalisation of a management agreement, the MoU was never signed and in 1998 the negotiations between Dhimurru, the NLC and the PWCNT failed. The PWCNT informed Dhimurru and the NLC that they would no longer pursue the development of a cooperative management agreement with Yol\u landowners due to the inability of parties to settle on a ‘Section 73’ agreement for management and the PWCNT objections regarding Dhimurru’s proposal for a voluntary conservation agreement under the NRS. The PWCNT rangers were subsequently withdrawn from their postings at Nhulunbuy although the Commission retained its local storage facilities and a boat and other equipment to support the crocodile management program and the periodic deployment of staff to the region.

From 1998 Dhimurru changed direction. It explored the IPA concept developed by the Commonwealth agency, EA (see Chapter 2). This would involve Yol\u in signing a voluntary conservation agreement to include areas of their estates in the Commonwealth Government’s NRS of protected areas. Dhimurru received an initial grant from EA’s new IPA program to investigate the feasibility of establishing an IPA on Yol\u lands in NE Arnhem Land. As part of this project entitled, ‘Dhimurru Recreation Areas and Adjacent Seas-Towards Stewardship’ (DLMAC 1999a), Dhimurru developed a working model for a stewardship agreement with the Commonwealth Government and involving the Northern Territory Government through its PWCNT. The notion of ‘stewardship’ was developed in the IPA concept by EA as: a partnership between government and conservation agencies and land holders, in which the responsibilities and obligations are identified by both parties. Public funding is provided to land holders in exchange for their agreement to manage identified lands primarily for the conservation of

53 biodiversity and the associated cultural values. It is based on the principle that no one party can enforce the agreement unless it has maintained its obligations. Neglect of the agreement by either party can render the agreement null and void. (EA c.1997)

The final report of the Dhimurru IPA feasibility report detailed the consensus response of the Yol\u traditional owners consulted in the process of exploring possibilities for an IPA agreement for Yol\u land/sea: they gave explicit endorsement of the proposal to declare all designated coastal and inland recreation areas currently managed by DLMAC as an IPA (DLMAC 1999a). It also presented the two ‘parameters’ within which they supported this proposal which are:

Any structure for the future management of the recreation areas must be totally controlled by Yol\u. Dhimurru should continue to develop good relationships with other agencies, but any decisions about looking after Yol\u country must be made by Yol\u. (DLMAC 1999a, p. 3)

And

Yol\u must have the right to easily withdraw their country from an Indigenous Protected Area. (DLMAC 1999a, p. 3; see Appendix 6)

The first of these parameters above was enshrined in the proposed management structure for the organisation and areas under its control. This structure (see Appendix H) invested a representative body of Yol\u traditional owners, the W^\a Wa=a\u Yol\u (previously the Dhimurru Commitee), with exclusive power to make decisions concerning the IPA. The Dhimurru Executive Committee under this structure, is made up of Yol\u landowners and members of Dhimurru and gives effect to the directions of the W^\a Wa=a\u Yol\u, sets the management program and enters into collaborative arrangements with other agencies. The proposed Dhimurru Advisory Group, a new addition to the evolving Dhimurru management framework, provides advice to the Dhimurru Executive on programs and assists it with collaborative arrangements and includes representatives of the NLC, the PWCNT, EA, Dhimurru and other institutions by invitation of the Dhimurru Executive or the W^\a Wa=a\u Yol\u. Dhimurru has named this management framework ‘collaborative management’ as distinct from ‘joint management’ (see Appendix I).

The PWCNT were not happy with the model for management proposed as a result of discussions with Yol\u stakeholders through the Dhimurru IPA feasibility project. It now insisted (despite early responses to the contrary) (Leitch, K. pers. comm.) that a cooperative management agreement involving the PWCNT with Yol\u landowners

54 and Dhimurru would be contingent upon one of its representatives sitting on the newly constituted Dhimurru Committee-the W^\a Wa=a\u Yol\u-as a voting member. This amounted to the PWCNT insisting on some degree of shared decision-making responsibility as per its formal joint management role at the other Northern Territory National Parks: Gurig National Park and Nitmuluk National Park. The incumbent Dhimurru Committee would not agree to this condition and no compromise position was reached. The Agenda for the Dhimurru Annual General meeting 2000 records this stand by the PWCNT:

The Parks and Wildlife Commission have strenuously objected to the fact that they would have no ‘vote’ in final decisions about management of the IPA. However, this is a Commonwealth Government program. The Commonwealth is quite comfortable with the proposed IPA management arrangements and has supported Dhimurru and the landowner’s wishes on this key point. (DLMAC 2000a)

The Federal Member for the Northern Territory in the House of Representatives, Snowdon, noted the bargaining position taken by the PWCNT:

The Northern Territory government made a cabinet decision to withdraw ranger support [from the working arrangement with Dhimurru ] in 1998, and it will not reinstate that support unless, as part of the IPA negotiations, Dhimurru and its landowner constituents agree to a joint management arrangement. (APHR 2000, p. 18596)

He elaborated on how the Northern Territory Government’s decision is inconsistent with the Northern Territory Parks Masterplan (PWCNT 1998?)-the vision and policy statement guiding protected area management and planning in the Northern Territory:

What is being asked of the commission [PWCNT ] is to go against its own master plan and insist on one way, only, of acting cooperatively with Dhimurru...The Northern Territory government approach is not in the spirit of IPA's [sic ]. (APHR 2000, p. 18596) 42

42 The Northern Territory Parks Masterplan (PWCNT 1998?) recognises Aboriginal people as major landholders and stakeholders in the management of lands and seas in the Northern Territory. It claims to provide a strategic framework for cooperation between Aboriginal groups and the government in the management of Aboriginal land for conservation and recreation through the concept of IPAs. It recognises that: ‘Aboriginal traditional practice is an essential element in developing strategies for conservation management of Northern Territory lands’ (PWCNT 1998?, p. 21).

55 3.2.3 Dhimurru’s Vision Realised

The Dhimurru IPA was declared by a resolution of the Dhimurru Executive Committee on 16 November 2000. It consists of approximately 92,000 hectares of land area and approximately 9,000 hectares of adjacent marine areas inside Sacred Sites 43 boundaries (DLMAC 2000b; see Figure 1). The Dhimurru IPA is the thirteenth IPA to be declared across Australia and the first in the Northern Territory. Yol\u landowners and Dhimurru spent approximately four years negotiating this management agreement. The Commonwealth Government via its agency, EA, has agreed to initially commit approximately $90,000 per year for three years to Dhimurru to manage the IPA (Wearne, G. pers. comm.). The remainder of Dhimurru’s recurrent revenue is made up of a contribution of approximately $125,000 per year from Nabalco and approximately $80-90,000 per year from the sale of Dhimurru Recreation Permits. A ‘Section 73’ management agreement with the PWCNT, Dhimurru, the NLC and EA as signatories is now being finalised. The Director of the PWCNT has given Dhimurru his verbal assurance that under this agreement he will reinstate two PWCNT rangers to work with Dhimurru in NE Arnhem Land (Munu\giritj, N. pers. comm.).

The primary stumbling block in the negotiations between Dhimurru, the NLC and the PWCNT over the development of a cooperative management arrangement was the issue of the power to determine use and management of Yol\u lands and seas. For Yol\u, contemporary land and sea management is predicated on Yol\u control where Yol\u knowledge is the source of authority exercised by Yol\u landowners with regards to their estates. Mandawuy Yunupi\u, an elder of the Gumatj clan, explains here that Dhimurru is an expression of this knowledge:

Dhimurru is a focus point which allows for young Yol\u people to be involved with the guidance of older people-giving them guidance in terms of management of the land, which its principal role is, and making cultural understandings, particularly traditional landowners and how landowners are wanting people, residents of Gove in particular, to respond and acknowledge the fact that Aboriginal people have got power in terms of utilising their views in land management and in taking care of the environment. (Yunupi\u, M. in Ayre 1998, p. 83)

For the Northern Territory Government, also, land and sea management is about control and power. The Honourable Tim Baldwin, the Country Liberal Party Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment expressed his regret that the PWCNT could not

43 These marine areas are included in ‘Sacred Sites’ (defined under the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989) boundaries.

56 act to ‘empower’ (NTLA 1998, p. 1508) Yol\u landowners until Dhimurru commit to a legally binding joint management agreement. Empowerment, as he sees it, relates to the ability for Yol\u land and sea managers to implement PWCNT By-laws under the TPWC Act on Yol\u estates. He says:

One of the issues is that, under the arrangement, we have by-laws that we can enact, and empower the Dhimurru rangers to enact, but a signed agreement on the land is needed. It is all about land management. We were sitting there doing those things, with a commitment to reaching a point where we could empower the local rangers and our rangers could be empowered to act on that land to protect its conservation values. However, we were unable to obtain the commitment from the land council. That is why the commission is no longer there. It was there for 5 years, working with the locals [Yol\u] and waiting. (p. 1508)

Baldwin further explains that the PWCNT has been thwarted in its attempts to negotiate a joint management agreement with Dhimurru and its constituents. He claims that the relationship between the Northern Territory government and Dhimurru has been good. and identifies the NLC as the thorn in the side of the proposed agreement. He continues:

The history of this goes back to the formation of Dhimurru in 1994-1995. A commitment was made by all parties and the relationship has been very good between us and Dhimurru. Nobody is disputing that. However, the commitment at the time that the parties would agree on the preservation and conservation of a piece of land. That required the land trustees [the NLC ] to be a party to the agreement. They consented to being added but, a couple of years down the track, they advised Dhimurru to hold off signing the agreement. The commission [PWCNT ] had been involved there for 5 years, I think, and we had a total commitment to the project. Unfortunately, the land council, as the land trustee, has not. (p. 1508)

We can see from the story of the struggle by Yol\u to negotiate acceptable institutionalised management of their estates in NE Arnhem Land that the matter of agreeing on ‘the preservation and conservation of a piece of land’ (p. 1508) is a complex and controversial issue. Baldwin suggests that the development of a joint management agreement at Dhimurru involves negotiating a relationship between parties that ‘is all about land management’ (p. 1508). A question that arises out of this negotiation is ‘What is this thing called “land and sea management” and how does it connect with issues of power?’ I argue that taking Yol\u understandings of land and sea management seriously is a matter of recognising the politics of doing

57 ontology in multiple ways. This politics is the context within which certain ontological strategies prevail on definitions of ‘land and sea management’. By examining the practices which constitute these strategies, we can begin to see how outcomes of power and control are achieved, and importantly, how they might be otherwise.

3.3 Conclusion

Where does the plan of management for }anydjaka, that I was employed to help develop in 1994, fit into the story I have told in this chapter? For Dhimurru, the production of its first formal plan of management for a Yol\u estate was an important element in the negotiations between Dhimurru and the PWCNT over the cooperative management of Yol\u estates in NE Arnhem Land. It was an opportunity for Dhimurru and its members to develop and consolidate a working relationship with the PWCNT through the enrolment of various PWCNT resources in the planning enterprise. These resources were institutional, financial and human. It also allowed the PWCNT to gain scientific information on aspects of NE Arnhem Land and }anydjaka in particular, a place of much interest to the world of technoscientific land and sea management. This Dhimurru plan of management is different in many ways from the plans of management that embed, and are embedded in, the institution of joint management. It is a plan of management that helped promote Dhimurru’s vision of collaborative management of their estates.

At Dhimurru, in helping to construct the first plan of management for this emerging land and sea management organisation, I was participating in Dhimurru’s version of collaborative management. An evolving model of a working relationship between the Yol\u landowners of estates in NE Arnhem Land, (including how this relationship sits within Australia’s land/sea administrative arrangements), was in the making. I quickly learnt that this Yol\u version of land and sea management was something quite different from what I knew from my training in environmental science.

58 Figure 444:4: Map of the proposed coastal reserve at Port BradsBradshawhaw (encompassing }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)) (source: Turner 1973, ‘Figure‘Figure 2’)

59 CHAPTER 4. GENERATINGENERATINGG A PLAN OF MANAGEMEMANAGEMENTNT FOR }ANYDJAKA 1

4.1 PlanPlanningning and Management of Protected Areas and Reserves

4.1.1 Introduction

In 1994 Dhimurru set out to develop a plan of management for the Yol\u estate, }anydjaka. Developing this land and sea management plan involved inventing ways to ‘mobilise’ Nanydjaka-ways which needed to make sense and stand as legitimate both within contemporary Yol\u life and within the workings of the environmental sciences and associated administrative structures. In order to achieve this it had to somehow manage and work a relationship between two disparate ways of knowing.

}anydjaka is a designated Recreation Area as part of the Dhimurru management area and as such is used by primarily non-Aboriginal visitors for camping, fishing and other recreational pursuits much like a national park. It is a popular destination for visitors particularly those from the nearby mining town of Nhulunbuy who travelled to this place for many years before Dhimurru’s inception in 1992. It was explained to me by the Dhimurru staff that the development of a plan of management for }anydjaka was in response to concerns amongst Yol\u landowners about the use of the area by non-Aboriginal visitors. The patterns of visitor use raised issues of access and land degradation due to inappropriate and uncontrolled activities on this estate.

I was employed as a research assistant to help develop the plan of management for }anydjaka. In undertaking the development of a plan of management for }anydjaka I was acting on the ideas that: ‘}anydjaka requires management’ and ‘}anydjaka needs a plan of management’. From my training in forest science this seemed reasonable. I had been taught that planning is the key to sustainable land and sea management. And, that all good land and sea management practice has planning as a precursor to activity-to minimise impacts of use and at the same time promote and sustain certain types of activities according to identified ‘management goals’. It is recognised within such an approach that the goals of management are dependent on the local management context but are universally underpinned by certain principles. In the contemporary arena of land and sea management in Australia these are the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity.

60 4.1.2 LanLandd and Sea Management and Protected/ReservedProtected/Reserved Areas iinn Australia and the Northern Territory

Contemporary management of protected and reserved areas in Australia has developed primarily out of the domains of forest conservation and management and the American model of the classificatory land use of ‘national park’. This approach to management has its philosophical underpinnings in the principles of conservation as they derive from an Enlightenment ideal of humankind as caretakers of a universal reality, Nature. It arose in response to the exploitation of lands in the era of colonial settlement in Australia, America, Canada and other nations of the British Empire and prompted the reservation of lands by Governments and public spending on resource management. The particular arguments for park reserves in these emergent nation states were ‘aesthetic and nationalistic and, for forest reserves, to regulate logging and ameliorate the climate’ (Pyne 1997, p. 25).

The motivation for conserving and preserving land that emerged slowly from the 1880s onwards in Australia came partly from a newly developed interest within the profession of botany. Botanical gardens, as sites for scientific study, preservation and cultivation of species and a public retreat to an exotic form of Nature within urban and rural centres, were widely established in eastern states from the late 1880s. Organisations such as the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), established in 1872, were a forum for a nascent ideology of environmentalism. Colonial botanists such as Walter Hill and Baron Ferdinand von Mueller were active in promoting a reformed approach to forest use (Powell 1976, pp. 121-124). Von Mueller, as President of the AAAS in 1890, expressed concern at a conference of the AAAS in Melbourne for the prudent use of forests and timber and urged the need for conservation and appropriate reservation. He said:

Choice areas, not necessarily very extensive, should be reserved in every great country for some maintenance of the original vegetation, and therewith for the preservation of animal life concomitant to particular plants. Where the endemic riches are the greatest, there also the danger is more imminent for these being swept out of existence, unless timely measures are adopted for the reservation of some sequestered spot, to which rural occupations should never be allowed to have any access with their disturbing influence on primeval harmonies. Such spots should be proclaimed for all times the people’s inalienable property, and every inhabitant or visitor of the locality should consider himself the co- preserver of such areas... (von Mueller 1890, p. 10 in Powell 1976, p. 122).

61 Von Mueller’s vision of reserved, communally held lands for the preservation of wildlife and vegetation reflects the Western preoccupation with romanticism and its object, Nature. The arguments for the preservation of this Nature were scientific with communities of naturalists in Australia campaigning for the protection of lands and species through their royal societies or natural history societies which were established in almost all the Australian colonies by the 1890s (Worboys et al . 2001, p. 30). However the reservation of land as ‘national park’ from the late 1880s in Australia was provoked as much by government action to provide places for public recreation and health (Powell 1976; Worboys et al . 2001; Hall 2000), than by a scientific rationale for a sanctuary for Nature’s sacred objects and places. Australia’s Royal National Park, declared in Sydney in 1879, was only the second national park in the world after the Yellowstone National Park in California declared in 1872.

During the period from the late 1800s to the middle of the nineteenth century, the Australian States and Territories each pursued their own conservation efforts through the establishment of conservation societies such as Field Naturalists Clubs, professional organisations (such as the National Parks Association of Tasmania formed in 1914), and legislative means (Powell 1976). Scientific interest in the Australian environment was further developed through learned societies to encourage science (Dargavel 1995, p. 61). Public interest in natural areas for the pursuit of amateur biology and bushwalking (Hall 2000, p. 34), and recreation in general also expanded throughout the period. Powell notes however that there was no significant (national) organisation for parkland reservation during this period (1976, p. 113). The individual States/Territories declared reserved lands (mostly as ‘national parks’) under their own administrative and legal instruments. These areas were generally selected from estates owned by the Crown and from amongst those regarded as worthless-with no agricultural or commercial value (Hall 2000, p. 33). They were thus government land and a public asset.

Forested lands in Australia were reserved for timber and water production under a system of ‘state’ forests which evolved early in the nineteenth century. Dargavel notes that the state/territory government Forest Services were responsible for surveying, mapping and preparing plans of management for the multiple uses of these areas; a job in Victoria for example, which involved the enormous task of running strip survey lines, 200 metres apart, through the forests (1995, p. 69). Foresters undertook this planning and management work as administrators of the multi- resource use policy for Australian forests which came to prevalence in the 1950s and 1960s (Dargavel 1995, p. 76).

62 The management of Australia’s forest estates from the mid-nineteenth century became part of a debate about the preservation and conservation of lands and the development of the protected/reserved area concept in Australia. The demand for multiple uses of forests included that of scientific inquiry and recreation (including tourism), both of which were accommodated to some degree by the national park paradigm. Dargavel identifies the establishment of the Kosciusko National Park in 1994, as the inception in Australia of ‘the notion of reserving land as a wilderness accessible to none but a hardy or scientific few’ (1995, pp. 75-76). Robin notes that the public campaign for national parks in the 1950s was focused on their amenity values (‘Parks were for people’ (1993, p. 137)); whereas from the 1960s more diverse arguments for land conservation and protection emerged, including the scientific values of national parks (1993, pp. 137-138). She writes:

Scientific values of parks became such a useful factor in debates that they did not have to be proven...Arguments were framed in terms of the need for Science to have access to organisms which were not yet even known. Natural history no longer needed to be discovered for it to be valued. (Robin 1993, p. 138).

In 1980, the Australian Academy of Science produced a statement by its Standing Committee on National Parks and Conservation on Scientific Research in National Parks and Nature Reserves .44 This was prepared for publication by J.S. Turner and discusses ‘the history and purposes of national parks with particular reference to their role as field laboratories for scientific research’ (Turner 1980, p. 1). Turner argues for multiple use of protected and reserved areas which is underpinned by ‘research directed towards management’ (1980, p. 8). He recognised that:

[M]anagement of ecosystems requires knowledge of how ecosystems function. That knowledge is not yet available and it can be obtained only by research carried out by scientists and competent naturalists. (Turner 1980, p. 12)

The Academy of Science in Australia thus endorsed the emergent field of ecology and circumscribed its relationship to management through its powers of description and prediction. The science of ecology allows management to proceed ‘knowingly’ through what Turner identifies as a ‘clear statement of objectives and a proper management plan’ (1980, p. 5). He elaborates: ‘The preparation of such a plan can be soundly based only on the results of scientific research into the species and habitats of the park.’ p. 5) From the 1960s, the discipline of cartography also made an

44 This was prepared for publication by J.S. Turner, the author of the report, Gove Land Use: Study of the Conservation Aspects which I discuss in Chapter 3.

63 important impact on the reservation of lands in Australia. Thackway (1996?), notes that around this time, small-scale aerial photographs and environmental maps (at scales of 1:250,000 to 1:2,000,000), including geological, climatic and vegetation maps, became generally available (‘Introduction’). Coupled with the data obtained from biological surveys, this spatial information assisted scientists and governments to determine reserve selection based on samples of ecosystem types.

The conservation movement in the 1970s and 1980s in Australia campaigned to promote the conservation of areas of land as ‘wilderness’. Conservationists argued for the reservation of large tracts of pristine land as the sole means of ensuring this land use. Their opposition to commercial forestry was vigorous and groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Tasmanian Wilderness Society campaigned with some degree of success for the cessation of logging in mature-aged native forests (so-called ‘old growth forests’). Their efforts produced significant additions to the network of protected areas (Worboys et al . 2001).

The ‘hegemonic (...) model of a wilderness free of people’ (Carruthers 1997, p. 134) was broadened in the 1980s to recognise the role of protected areas in sustaining human societies. Innovations in planning and management were developed to accommodate the interactions between the multiple facets of protected area use, and included for example, the American planning concept of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), and the recognition of hunting and habitation rights of Indigenous peoples in some areas (see Altman & Allen 1991). The wilderness concept has been vigorously challenged by many Indigenous peoples in Australia where public perception generally supports the role of national parks and protected areas in the protection of wilderness. Concepts such as ‘cultural resource management’, ‘cultural landscape’ and ‘heritage value’ have emerged in the 1990s from environmentalist concerns of how to account for human/Nature interactions in the discourses of land and sea management and planning.

The system of protected/reserved areas currently in evolution in Australia is one in which technoscience provides the basis for description and decision making. The principles of ecologically sustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity underpin management regimes which perform the dual function of describing the management area (quantifying and qualifying the objects of scientific interest) and prescribing actions that will maintain its ecological integrity in accordance with the objectives of management. The contemporary concept of protected areas, including national parks, is based on the need to recognise multiple use (traditionally non- exploitative) values of these areas (e.g. tourism, recreation, education) and sustain

64 ecological systems and processes. Protected areas in Australia form part of the NRS and meet the IUCN definition of a ‘protected area’ which is: An area of land and/or sea dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. (IUCN 1994 in Cresswell & Thomas eds 1997b, p. 2)

The NRS was established in late 1992 to implement the Commonwealth Government’s commitments to the establishment of ‘a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of protected areas covering Australia’s biodiversity’ (DEST 1996, p. 9). 45 Dubbed the ‘CAR’ system, this system is based on the IUCN principles of protected area management which provide categories of management for the classification of protected areas (see Appendix F). The NRS is one of three processes supported by Australian Governments in working towards a CAR system of reserves. The other two are the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) process and the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) (CoA 1999, p. 4).

The IBRA (Thackway & Cresswell eds 1995) and the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (Thackway & Cresswell eds 1998) are the primary classificatory tools for protected area use and management planning in Australia including the NRS. These regionalisations are based on the description of ‘biogeographic regions’ (or ‘bioregions’) (Thackway & Cresswell eds 1995, ‘Definitions’) where ‘IBRA regions represent a landscape-based approach to classifying the land surface, including attributes of climate, geomorphology, landform, lithology, and characteristic flora and fauna’ (s. 3.2.1). The ‘bioregion’ thus constitutes a unit of management which organises our knowledge on the environment into a ‘hierarchical information structure’ (s. 4.3) embodied as the IBRA. Thackway and Cresswell, who write on the IBRA, note limitations of the regionalisation exercise including:

The IBRA regions are at best a convenient approximation of the complexity observed in the real world and it should not be expected that they will yield highly precise answers in all situations, particularly in fine scale situations and applications involving individual species. (1995, s. 4.4.1)

The IBRA regions form the unit of management for the bioregional planning framework for protected areas adopted by the Commonwealth Government and the States and Territories since the mid-1990s. 46 A version of integrated management, bioregional planning aims to manage for multiple and diverse uses and users across

45 The document, Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas in Australia (CoA 1997) records all the protected areas in Australia using data collated in a national database, the Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD).

65 locations, and according to the SoER, aims to ‘overcome the major problems associated with fragmented decision making or the ‘tyranny of small decisions’ (SEAC 1996b, p. 220).

Managing the complexity of the world is an important part of developing a methodology of land and sea management and involves defining or describing, with some degree of certainty, exactly what it is that is being managed. Chikumbol, Spencer, Turner and Davey identify that Australia’s environmental resource managers:

are trying to develop new forest practices but [we ] are severely constrained by our limited understanding of a landscape laboratory that has been modified by past practices Planners and decision makers will never have complete knowledge on which to base strategic decisions. Forest managers will never have fully adequate knowledge on which to base operational decisions. (Maser 1994 in Chikumbol et al . 1999, p. 8)

If it is generally agreed that we manage forests, landscapes, regions of land and sea for ecologically sustainable development and that we manage for the conservation of biodiversity, then where do we find these things? Where in the world do they reside? Where do we begin to look for them in the multi-layered, incohesive, messy and often undifferentiated world in which we live? We look to ways of describing our environment and its objects and their interactions: we search for ‘units of management’. These units are those concepts or object-things that we use to structure and classify the world under management.

Management units in contemporary land/sea management policy and planning documents in Australia are generally defined using the organising concepts ‘landscape’, ‘bioregion’, ‘ecological’-sometimes as alternative and differentiated concepts and sometimes synonymously. For example, Australia’s Oceans Policy uses all three of these categories as an organising framework for management.

The mixture of protected areas, agricultural and pastoral lands, urban and suburban areas and industrial sites together with linkages and corridors form the mosaic of the landscape. This landscape ecological framework provides the basic unit for management. (CoA 1998a, p. 11)

In addition to this, the Australia’s Oceans Policy (CoA 1998a; 1998b) takes landscapes to be synonymous with bioregions. Specifically, the Australia’s Oceans Policy document cites ‘Regional Marine Planning’ (CoA 1998a, p. 11) as the planning framework for our oceans resources based on ‘large marine ecosystems’ (p. 11).

46 Bioregional planning is endorsed by the SoER (SEAC 1996), the NSESD (1992) and the NSCBD (1996).

66 Alternatively, a Commonwealth Government Issues Paper on the Australia’s Oceans Policy describes the management units within this (bio) regional framework based on ‘ecosystems’ and ‘regions’. It states:

Ecosystems are inherently spatially structured, on a hierarchy of scales, and application of the principles of multiple use management will inevitably be spatially or regionally based. (Sainsbury, Haward, Kriwoken, Tsamenyi and Ward 1997, p. 15) and A region is an area chosen for management purposes. Its boundaries would be coherent with ecologically defined units, with a region being a selected level in a hierarchy of nested spatial units, where each level in the hierarchy represents an ecologically defined spatial unit. The region should be chosen to be ecologically meaningful...(Sainsbury et al . 1997, p. 17)

These descriptions, although internally inconsistent in terminology, reveal that defining units of management is primarily a matter of recognising inherent ecological and spatial characteristics in the land and sea. The delineations between units, and the units themselves, are considered to exist ‘naturally’ as exemplified by Objective 1.2 of Australia’s NSCBD which is to:

Manage biological diversity on a regional basis, using natural boundaries to facilitate the integration of conservation and production-orientated conservation. (DEST 1996, p. 8)

In the land/sea management enterprise described in these documents, the identification of ecologically and/or spatially defined units of management transcends alternative attributes of the land and sea-such as political jurisdictions and tenure-with its recourse to ‘naturally’ given boundaries and objects.

4.1.3 Plans of Management

During the last thirty years, the legislative framework for the protection of the environment and establishment of parks and reserves in Australia has required park management agencies to prepare plans of management for protected areas (ANZECC 2000, p. 1). Currently, environmental planning in Australia is governed federally by the EPBC Act (see Chapter 1). This legislation applies to publicly held lands including protected areas and formally requires the principles of ecologically sustainable development to be taken into account when considering project approvals and management. The EPBC Act also requires Commonwealth agencies to report annually

67 on how their activities satisfy the principles of ecologically sustainable development (EA 2001c). 47

In Australia, the EPBC Act stipulates that the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment has the power ‘to prepare a plan of management for each [Commonwealth ] park and reserve declared under the Act and undertake a process of public consultation in doing so’. It also describes the Minister’s duty to ‘carry out his functions and powers in relation to a park or reserve in accordance with the plan of management and not otherwise’ (EPBC Act 1999, s.635). It prescribes the mandatory content for a plan of management for a Commonwealth reserve; the steps in preparing a plan of management; and, the process by which the document must be approved by the Commonwealth Parliament (see EPBC Act 1999, s.367; s.368; s.370). In the Northern Territory, plans of management are required for all lands (and sea estates) managed by the PWCNT as stipulated by the TPWC Act. The development and approvals process for plans of management in the Northern Territory echo those of the Commonwealth with a mandatory content and process of approval under the TPWC Act. The PWCNT is involved in joint management arrangements with Aboriginal landowners in the Northern Territory (see Chapter 2). Under such arrangements, a management agreement is struck between the PWCNT and the relevant Aboriginal Land Council as the statutory representative of the land owners. The terms of such an agreement outline the management structure, including provision for a board of management and its composition and role, and management functions which include the development of a plan of management for the management area/s.

The purpose of a plan of management 48 is to provide the basis for all management operations within a protected area, to provide a strategy for coordination of the protection of natural and cultural heritage and acceptable uses of the area, and to identify preferred courses of action for park management staff (Lawrence 2000, p. 185). Conventionally, a plan of management distils and records the process of management planning for public land. This process ideally reflects a ‘rational, adaptive and participatory planning process’ (Worboys et al . 2000, p. 127). This is a planning process which involves: resource inventory; identifying possible management issues and actions; establishing the goals and objectives of management; evaluating management issues and actions according to management constraints and the goals

47 Australian States and Territories also have their own environmental regulatory legislation which relates to protected areas. 48 There are many types of plans which may fall under the category of ‘plan of management. However, in referring to a plan of management here I am generalising about a ‘typical’ or ‘conventional’ plan of management for a protected area as described by Page in the study guide for unit ‘NR 217: Protected Area Management and Operations’ (2000, p. 69) at the University of Queensland.

68 and objectives of management; selecting appropriate management actions; integrating and implementing these actions; and, reviewing the effectiveness of these actions (pp. 127-138). A plan of management is a legal instrument, a policy statement and a planning tool. It is also a guide for action.

A plan of management aims to mobilise policy guidelines and constraints locally. The local situation is defined by the planning components under consideration which consist of: the management area or article of interest; financial and administrative features and capabilities of the institution/s of management; and the management jurisdiction and ownership interests. In contemporary land use and management planning in Australia, a plan of management thus aims to present a set of proposed actions pertaining to the local area under management as well as the resource values embodied by a moral framework established through the discourses of ecologically sustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity. The ideal ‘plan of management’ must therefore ‘manage’ this tension between local and global demands. It must also fulfil the dual role of providing description of, and prescription for, the management of the ‘object of management’. This latter point belies the problem of implementation. In order to better match budget and planning processes with a plan of management as the template for action, many conservation and management agencies in Australia prepare detailed subsidiary plans for the same area. These subsidiary plans relate to specific components of management, for example fire management plans, conservation plans, interpretation plans, etc. (ANZECC 2000, p. 16). The PWCNT in its Annual Report 1999-2000 gives a graphical representation of its progress in developing plans for management of its parks network (PWCNT 2000, p. 43; see Figure 5). We see from this that management plans are an important aspect of the business of doing land management in terms of legal and administrative accountability: they are a category of audit.

The structure of most plan of management documents reflects the rational planning approach I detailed above. These documents are typically structured according to categories which address aspects of management: the background; a description of current management and resources; objectives of management; and recommendations/prescriptions for management. In many cases the structure of a plan of management is standardised by management agencies through the use of management planning manuals and templates which describe the procedures, contents and form of the plan and its development (PWCNT 2000, p. 10). The Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Draft Management Planning Manual (QDEH 1997) is such a document. This document is used as a reading for the unit entitled ‘NR 217: Protected Area Management and Operations’ (Page 2000) at the University of Queensland.

The unit study guide for the ‘NR 217: Protected Area Management and Operations’ unit identify the bureaucratic hierarchy which embeds plans of management in Queensland: this is a typical scenario for the production of plans of management in Australia:

Most regions have planning officers whose primary role it is to produce the plans. As a ranger or employee on a protected area, it is unlikely that you will be responsible for the writing of the draft management plan. However, it is most likely that you will be consulted and asked to participate in the planning process....Although not writing the plan, you should be encouraged to participate as it is most likely that you will, at least partly, be responsible for the implementation of that management plan. (Page 2000, p. 72)

The role of units such as ‘NR 217: Protected Area Management and Operations’ which may be taken as part of the Batchelor of Applied Science program at Gatton College, and the materials which help organise its delivery, such as the course notes and supporting material from other institutions including the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Draft Management Planning Manual (QDEH 1997), is to induct students into the scientific paradigms of the domain of ‘the management of land and sea as reserve or protected area’.

Kuhn conceptualises ‘paradigms’ (1970) as models or accepted scientific practice which include law, theory, application and instrumentation together. Paradigms, he argues, are instrumental in maintaining traditions of scientific work as they enable newcomers or students to gain membership to a scientific trade. This work of inducting members into a community of scientific practice, such as ‘the management of land and sea as reserve or protected area’, is accomplished through the use of materials such as textbooks, lectures, and field trips which reveal the paradigms. A plan of management is such a paradigm: its purpose and role revealed in the teachings of the unit ‘NR 217: Protected Area Management and Operations’. A plan of management is also an information management device. It reduces complexity through the presentation of information in a standardised and simplified form. A report, Best Practice in Protected Area Management Planning (ANZECC 2000), finds that there has been a move to shorter, more concise plans with little background resource information. This, the document claims, assists in quality control and efficiency of production and also increases accessibility to user groups including Aboriginal traditional owners in the case of the ‘very simple English style’ (p. 10) of the 1998 Kakadu National Park Plan of Management.

70 Public participation is an important part of the conventional framework for the development of plans of management. Environmental planning legislation in Australia requires a period of public consultation with respect to any draft plan of management prepared for a protected area. Public consultation may take the form of both written submissions and public discussions hosted by the protected area management agency involved. In the Northern Territory, the TPWC Act allows for public participation in government planning through the plan of management development process. This participation may be engendered through a range of mechanisms including individual or group submissions to the relevant agency, attendance at forums for public discussion and comment, and meetings with consulting personnel.

A plan of management is a convention of land and sea management and planning. It is a pervasive land and sea management tool, enshrined in legislation, and providing accountability and procedural dictates for land/sea managers. The PWCNT see a plan of management as a prescription for management and a benchmark for retrospective evaluation of management actions (PWCNT 1998?). A plan, as Suchman (1987) points out, is also a resource for people’s practical deliberations about action. A plan of management is about ‘how to go on’. It is about doing things in certain ways to achieve a prescribed state: to meet the goals of management. It is also about the way things have been done in the past implying action: specific kinds of action which relate to the object of management. I came to Dhimurru having been disciplined in the use of such principles.

It was obvious to me, given my previous training in the field of natural resource management, that }anydjaka required management and hence, }anydjaka needed a plan of management. However, I could not have justified this. It was a self-evident fact that }anydjaka required a plan of management. Through my training in forest science I had developed a tacit knowledge of how ‘land/sea’ and ‘management’ relate. Polanyi might recognise these as two terms or kinds of tacit knowing (1996, p. 9) with the functional relation between them: ‘we know the first term only by relying on our awareness of it for attending to the second’ (1996, p. 10, original emphasis). I attended to ‘land/sea’ as a given; I attended to the ‘management’ of this ‘land/sea’ as the purpose of Dhimurru’s operations, and of my university training. This tacit knowing I had developed in the process of induction into a paradigm of ‘land and sea management’ which I had undergone at the University of Melbourne and the Victorian School of Forestry. I could not have told how I knew ‘land/sea’, I just knew it, and I knew I knew it.

71 Contemplating the ‘obvious’ need for management at }anydjaka, I recognised that this estate is subject to ‘multiple use’ (as foresters call it) and perhaps, I wondered, a system of zoning could be implemented to control use and prevent conflicts between user groups? But I am getting ahead of myself here. In order to generate prescriptions for management we needed to begin with an inventory of resources. We needed to know what we were dealing with: we needed to describe }anydjaka by asking ‘What makes it up? And how many? And where?’ We needed to know ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’: our object of management (see Chapter 6).

It is a particular ‘knowing’ of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ that I am interested in here. In order to explore this, I examine how this object is engaged into discourse, as Latour (1999) puts it. I am asking, as he does of the Boa Vista forest (p. 30); ‘When I/we speak of “}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem” to what do I/we refer?’ This is a process of reflecting on how we come to know and therefore talk about what is in the world. In the context of Dhimurru, it is also a question of ‘who knows?’ as non-Aboriginal and Yol\u land/sea managers set about answering the questions: what does a legitimate contemporary Yol\u plan of management look like? And what does such a plan hope to achieve?

The provisions of environmental statutes and the principle of participation in the development of plans of management are devices for managing the public interest in protected areas as ‘reserved’ land/sea. In thinking about the development of a plan of management for }anydjaka, a juxtaposition emerges between the notion of ‘land held in the public interest’ or ‘reserve land’ under the Australian NRS system of protected areas, and the notion of ‘Yol\u place’ as defined by the systems of Yol\u tenure and management. A question thus arises: How can land/sea be ‘reserved’ and ‘Yol\u place’ at the same time? The plan of management for }anydjaka, as a Dhimurru-managed recreation area and Yol\u-owned estate and homeland, must cope with a new notion of land as both ‘reserved and Yol\u place’. How does the convention of a plan of management achieve this?

When I reflect on the time I spent in my role as preparer of a plan of management for }anydjaka at Dhimurru, I identify two main stages or series of episodes. These are located in different times/places: one developing within environmental science working on Yol\u land (this chapter) and one as a result of a negotiation between environmental science and Yol\u knowledges (Chapter 5). I separate these episodes as a narrative device to help us understand better how the development of the plan of management for }anydjaka was realised.

72 I now go on to tell of a series of episodes in the work of doing a fauna survey at }anydjaka. This survey was undertaken by the CCNT and Dhimurru. Its aim was to record the species composition of terrestrial vertebrates at and near }anydjaka. In Chapter 5 I tell of a second series of episodes which include experiencing and knowing the country with my Yol\u and non Aboriginal co-workers at Dhimurru, and in particular, with Dja`a`i\ba Yunupi\u (a senior member of the Gumatj clan and a custodian of }anydjaka). In these episodes I also tell of writing, interpreting the information and understandings I had gathered in the process of developing the plan of management for }anydjaka and translating them into the language and structure of a management plan document. This involved the production of maps, texts and material images as a way of organising information and management prescriptions. In both stages I was working as a translator, and I mean translation here in the wide sense that Callon (1986) and Latour (1993) use it in the discipline of science studies.

Latour (1999) in his study of environmental sciences at work in the Boa Vista forest of the Amazon basin examines the practices of how we come to speak of the world and what is in it. He asks: to what do we refer when we speak of the world in the sciences: what is the ‘ referent of discourse ’? (p. 30, original emphasis). In this study he follows a group of environmental scientists as they work to know aspects of the forest at Boa Vista and in doing so describes the series of transformations that the forest is made to undergo through the scientific practices of deletion, reduction, representation and translation. He argues that throughout this ‘chain of transformation’ (p. 27) of the forest something is preserved-a phenomenon he labels ‘circulating reference’ (p. 24). Circulating reference describes the preservation of phenomena in the acts of producing knowledge about the world-in this case through the social/material practices of the environmental sciences. In the case of his work in the Boa Vista forest this is the phenomenon of the forest-savanna interface. He writes:

Phenomena are what circulates all along the reversible chain of transformations, at each step losing some properties to gain others that render them compatible with already-established centers of calculation. (pp. 71-72)

I want to draw on Latour’s work on ‘circulating reference’ (p. 24) in looking at the production of a plan of management for }anydjaka. However, instead of talking about ‘circulating reference’ I will talk about a process of ‘mobilising the object of management’. I will show how this object of management was maintained through a series of transformations in the practices of developing a plan of management for the }anydjaka. This tells a story of how the embodied }anydjaka became a

73 discursive }anydjaka through the mobilisation strategies of the management plan development process-the on-the-ground and in-the-office practices of generating a plan of management. These practices involved technical devices and social strategies (e.g. both material and symbolic practices) from Yol\u and technoscientific knowledge traditions.

4.2. The }anydjaka Fauna Survey

At the request of Yol\u traditional owners and Dhimurru, the CCNT undertook a survey of terrestrial vertebrates at }anydjaka in February 1994 in collaboration with Dhimurru. This work was intended by Dhimurru to form part of a plan of management for the area. The survey involved four CCNT personnel including three biologists (two faunal experts and a vegetation expert) and a technical assistant/researcher. At various stages over the four-week survey, Dhimurru staff and rangers, the CCNT ranger working with Dhimurru, and family members of those involved assisted in a volunteer capacity. I assisted on the survey for five days as an employee of Dhimurru.

In 1993 and 1994 members of the CCNT undertook vegetation survey work at }anydjaka and surrounding areas in collaboration with Dhimurru. A vegetation map of }anydjaka (Brocklehurst 1993) was produced, along with a species list for the area. A CCNT worker corresponding with Dhimurru about the proposed fauna survey of }anydjaka noted:

I regret that it has proved impractical for our Wildlife Research staff to survey fauna in conjunction with the current floral studies, but other long-standing commitments intervened. In any event it is probably better that the initial flora survey be complete before animals are surveyed. The vegetation map can then be used to plan the fauna survey so that all important habitat types are sampled. (from letter from Peter Whitehead (Wildlife Research CCNT) to Greg Wearne (Executive Officer Dhimurru), 2 September 1993)

The fauna survey work aimed to assess wildlife values and related management issues for the proposed ‘}anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) Reserve’ as the title of the 141-page report to the CCNT and Dhimurru reveals: Fauna survey of the proposed }anydjaka Reserve (Cape Arnhem Peninsula) with reference to the fauna of northeastern Arnhem Land . (Gambold et al . 1995). The term ‘reserve’ (p. v) is used in the report to describe the place, }anydjaka. However it also implies a particular land use objective for this place based on the conventions of public-owned protected area management. In the section of the report, ‘The Context’ (p. vi), several reasons for

74 the seemingly taken-for-granted ‘reserve’ status of }anydjaka are suggested 49 including: ‘ideal location’; ‘a high priority for conservation’; and, ‘the area [as ] representative of much of coastal Arnhem Land’ (p. vi). Although this place has been the site of several previous scientific documentation projects, 50 the report acknowledges that: ‘ [T]here have been few previous published descriptions of the wildlife of north-eastern Arnhem Land’ (p. 1). It also recognises the ‘enlightened ideas’ (p. 3) of Turner who conducted a survey of land use in the NE Arnhem Land region and who, as early as 1973, advocated the development of a ‘reserve’ (Turner 1973, p. 33) encompassing Cape Arnhem and Port Bradshaw (see Chapter 3). No such ‘reserve’ status has been declared over any part of NE Arnhem Land which since 1931 is Aboriginal-owned freehold land. 51 The report of the fauna survey work however reinvigorates this notion of the object of management as ‘reserve’. What does this mean for }anydjaka we may wonder? And what does this mean for Dhimurru as the agency responsible for the management of this place?

4.2.1 Managing Traps

I remember Nanikiya, a senior Dhimurru ranger, pointing to a white piece of tape flapping from a pandanus tree as we were driving at }anydjaka one day. He said it was a remnant from the vegetation survey which members of the CCNT had undertaken with Dhimurru in 1993. I acknowledged that I could see it and thought no more of it. Little did I know that a couple of weeks later I would be unravelling a reel of the very same tape to mark the passing of another episode in the investigation of Nanydjaka-the Dhimurru/CCNT fauna survey...

The CCNT research scientists had set up their first camp just above the beach near the area known in English as the Bauxite Shelf and named Wanawuy by Dhimurru workers. I joined them here in the initial stages of the fauna survey. The location of this first camp was central to their first set of sampling sites in the northern part of the }anydjaka peninsula. It was nestled under the meagre shade of a stand of Casuarina trees. They had been here a day or two already and had slung a couple of tarpaulins over the branches of one of the trees for more shade. Beneath this shelter they had constructed a kitchen and work area which contained long wooden work tables from the Dhimurru office, plastic chairs, portable iceboxes (‘eskies’), boxes of food and cooking equipment, a

49 In several places in the text of the report, }anydjaka is referred to as a ‘park’, implying ‘national park’ (see Gambold et al. 1995, p. vii; p. 46). 50 See Johnson in Specht (ed.) (1964) for fauna collected at }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) on the 1948 ‘American-Australian Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land’.

75 groundsheet, an array of reference books and spare mammal traps, a harp net or two and rolled up swags. I shared a tent with one of the researchers located a short distance away from this communal area. The others slept in their swags, on the ground nearby, or in the back of the Dhimurru utility (four-wheel-drive vehicle) which they had borrowed for the four-week survey. The days were extremely hot and humid and sleeping was difficult. It was February, the middle of the Wet Season. The mosquitos were fierce at night and the air was still and leaden with moisture.

Our work quickly took on a routine. After a stifling night in the tent, I arose around 6.30 am. The research scientists were already up and had checked some of the quadrats. I joined them in checking the rest of the quadrats before the sun rose and any occupants of the traps became overheated and perished: we aimed to release all animals caught alive! As we checked each trap we re-set and re-baited it. We returned to each of the quadrats in the evening and repeated this task. The checking and setting of traps of one kind or another marked the passing of our days: each of the quadrats was checked twice a day for three days and then moved to another place.

The quadrats were located in a variety of different vegetation habitat types including the sparsely vegetated dune fields north of our camp, a grassland area, the stands of Casuarina trees above the beach on the opposite side of the peninsula, a rocky hillside covered with dwarfed monsoon vine thicket, and to my horror, within nearby tidally inundated mangrove forests. Establishing a quadrat involved laying out and baiting the traps, filling in a standard habitat proforma (see Figure 7) and identifying the area with flagging tape. We marked the four corners of the square quadrat by attaching a ribbon of coloured flagging tape to a tree or sometimes, in the absence of a suitably placed tree of shrub, to the trap at each corner of the quadrat.

A quadrat consisted of twenty Elliot traps placed in a rough square shape (five along each side), with four large traps (cage traps) forming each corner of a square approximately fifty square metres in size. Traps were placed at regular intervals but were sometimes orientated in different ways. If a trap was to be positioned close to a tree, for example, we would sometimes place the opening of the trap in the direction of the tree, imagining that a dweller therein might descend to investigate the bait and enter with relative ease. Two pit-fall traps

51 Until the declaration of the Dhimurru IPA in 2000 under the NRS.

76 were also constructed within the area bounded by the traps and two harp traps were also set at each site.

The small mammal traps we were using were called Elliot traps. Elliot traps are a small, oblong aluminium box with flaps at each end (see Plate 3). The flaps allow a captured animal to be removed from either end of the trap. When the trap is set the rear flap is closed and the front flap is opened: a suitable bait is placed inside. (We used a mixture of dog food, rolled oats, peanut butter and honey-a proven concoction!). The front flap is activated by a spring mechanism. When the animal entering the trap steps over the flap the weight of the animal releases the spring and closes the flap, shutting the animal inside. The traps are lightweight, sturdy and collapsible and are stored flat for convenient transport. We were urged to handle the traps carefully-they are quite expensive we were warned.

The pit-fall traps consist, as the name implies, of an oblong-shaped pit dug into the ground (see Plate 4). A plastic bucket is sunk into the pit to the level of the ground and two pieces of fine plastic netting are secured up-right using stakes and positioned to form a makeshift ‘drift fence’ which runs along one axis of the circular pit. It is a simple but effective device. It works on the idea that small reptiles, mammals and other vertebrates who intercept the ‘fence’ on their wanderings, are likely to travel along it in an attempt to avert this obstacle, and then fall unwittingly into the ‘pit’: a particularly opportunistic method of capture. Another opportunistic method of capture we used involves ‘harp traps’. Harp traps are designed to catch bats and are a made of nylon filaments suspended on a collapsible frame. These devices are designed to minimise the detection from bat sonar and are placed strategically to capture bats who may encounter them during their nocturnal movements. We set harp traps in a few places: along the fringes of rainforest thickets where bats typically roost.

The quadrats (fifty-five in total) were clustered at six main sites at }anydjaka and in the nearby area (see Figure 6). Each quadrat was in position for three days (seventy-two hours) and then dismantled and re-assembled at another site. Shifting the quadrats involved dismantling the mammal traps, harp traps and pit-fall traps, filling in the latter with loose earth. As we disassembled our first group of quadrats I realised that as the processes of erosion and accumulation of leaf litter proceeded, it would soon be difficult or impossible for an unknowing eye to pick where these holes, or the quadrats had been; although plastic flagging tape did show the presence of past sites of

77 environmental survey work in a few places at }anydjaka... I confess here that I left the occasional bit of tape: a particularly tight and unwieldy portion of a knot, or a section that I chose not to collect in an attempt to avoid spider’s webs, pungent mud, clouds of mosquitos amongst thickets of mangroves, or scratchy, snatchy, thorny bushes anchored to treacherous, steep rocky slopes!

Having abandoned our survey site and cleaned up (more or less) the traces of its quadrats, we then transported the gear by vehicle to the next site, re-made the quadrats, and continued to mark our days with their maintenance 52 -placing and baiting the mammal traps, flagging the corners of the quadrat with tape, digging the holes and constructing the pit-fall traps, unfolding, untangling and erecting the harp traps, filling in the habitat proforma. The research scientists also undertook bird census counts at each of the survey sites, and observed and recorded animal tracks and the calls of frogs. We also did some ‘spotlighting’ 53 at night, hoping for opportunistic sightings of nocturnal species including the noteworthy Northern Hopping Mouse whose ‘indeterminate’ (Lee 1995 in Gambold et al . 1995, p. 119) conservation status motivates us in our search for this small marsupial.

In the way that I have come to understand this work in the larger question of ‘mobilising }anydjaka’, the Elliot traps act as translation devices. It is through the medium of these small boxes that the animals are ‘born’ as discursive objects. The traps record the animals as present/absent and hence ‘find’ them in the vastness of }anydjaka. They are a standardising practice 54 which allows us to order our survey enterprise and the information and traces we gather according to the ‘Protocol’ (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 16) which governs their use. 55 However, we need to look a little closer at the standardising practice of the trap devices to see what transformations are taking place. The animals in the traps reveal to us something of }anydjaka, the ‘proposed reserve’. But exactly what they reveal is hard to put our finger on.

We process the animals which are caught in the traps. They are all too material, these animals: biting; scratching; threatening to perish in their confinement if we

52 Quadrats were ‘clustered at six main sites...but with a minimum distance of at least 200 m between quadrats’ (Gambold et al. 1995, p. 16). See Figure 8 for the description of sampling sites. 53 This is a field survey technique where a portable light is used to locate nocturnal animals. Animals are identified from the reflected colour of their eyes, as well as their body shape, colour and size. 54 The standardising practices (protocols) of the fauna survey allow the scientists to track their animal ‘objects’ through the construction of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem), as a ‘microworld’ (see Rouse 1987, pp. 101-2); in this case, specifically a ‘field site’.

78 don’t release them before their body temperature rises with the heat of the day. We identify them (preferably without having to handle them at all), and in most cases release them back into the bush. We retain those we cannot identify on site. Some others we also keep for other purposes.

Released back into the }anydjaka landscape our animals are for all intents and purposes once again ‘lost’ to us. The chance of catching the same animal again is small; and how could we be sure whether we had recaptured the same individual anyway? Other fauna survey techniques involving tagging individuals or identifying them in some way but we were releasing our captives unmarked. Despite their transitory passage through our hands and traps, however, these animals cannot again be ‘lost’ to us —we still have them, in the form of the traces we collect and inscribe in our notebooks and later into lists and spreadsheets in our computers. In most cases we retain a specimen of those animals we cannot identify to our satisfaction on-site, or those which are of particular interest to us. To the others we assign a signifier: a ‘species name’.

This ‘species name’ (as a sign) stands in for the animal that we will release. It locates this animal within the scheme of systematic naming taxonomic nomenclature-which records all ‘known’ terrestrial vertebrates in the world. It also codifies all ‘known’ information about the animals to whom it refers: their biological characteristics, behaviour, appearance, and occurrence. In this way, our animals from }anydjaka are connected to all the other members of their species in a virtual population of like entities, through a notion of the ‘ideal type’ (Star & Greismer 1989, p. 410). Membership of a ‘species’ category enables us to tally individual animals according to that category. We can thus count the number of animals of a given species, as well as the number of different species (categories) represented by the range of ‘found’ animals. In this way we produce a ‘species list’-a disciplined, two-dimensional, mobile inscription of the faunal inhabitants of }anydjaka.

Animals thus become discursive objects, their bodily materiality: the fur, the teeth, the blood that regulates their temperature are lost, and are transformed into a presence (or a ‘trace’ as Latour (1987, p. 233) might describe it) in a series of numbers. And yet something has been gained and this something does not belong solely to the realm of ‘signs’ but also to that of ‘things’ (p. 48) —material things: traceable ‘number’ things. Watson and Turnbull remind us ‘to understand quantification as just another robust, clotted form of knowledge that originated in

55 This ‘Protocol’ is described in the ‘Methods’ section of the report which details the ‘fauna sampling technique’ (Gambold et al. 1995, p. 16) of this survey episode.

79 particular situations and enterprises’ (1995, p. 131). The manipulation of numbers, including the practices of quantification, thus collects materiality.

The data of the }anydjaka fauna survey, presented in the ‘Results’ section of the report, are in several forms. Each of these forms relies on the data collected using the quadrats and other survey methods. The quadrats are recorded as a ‘location’ (Gambold et al . 1995p. 140), an Australian Mapping Grid (AMG) coordinate on the maps ‘Gove: 6273’ and ‘Caledon: 6272’ and as a ‘description’ (p. 22) corresponding to a numerical ‘Habitat Code’ (p. 6) (see Figure 8). These habitat classifications are derived from the work of a previous survey of the vegetation of }anydjaka performed by the CCNT and Dhimurru in 1993 (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 5; see Figure 2). This method of connecting habitat descriptions or types to quadrat locations in Cartesian space allows us to assess the distribution of faunal species across the range of sample sites. The movements of the collapsible traps across the }anydjaka landscape and the standardising practices of numbers and theories thus provide a means of transforming it into a laboratory! Latour (1999) observes the work of the sciences in organising the Boa Vista forest. He writes: ‘the land has become a proto- laboratory-a Euclidean world where all the phenomena can be registered by a collection of coordinates...For the world to become knowable, it must become a laboratory’ (p. 43).

We are now able to answer our questions of ‘What?’ (e.g. which species are present?) And ‘Where?’ (e.g. which locations at }anydjaka do particular faunal species inhabit?) Here we understand our referent, our object of management, as a fixed space known as the ‘study area’ (Gambold et al. 1995, p. 16; see Figure 6). The ‘study area’ is described in the ‘Methods’ section of the survey report:

Field work was concentrated on the Cape Arnhem Peninsula and adjacent

uplands to the immediate west (about 95 km 2: (...)). However we include information also on the surrounding area of mainland north-eastern Arnhem Land...(Gambold et al . 1995, p. 16)

Alternatively, in the ‘Results’ section of the report, the tally of the number of individuals of a species sampled in the ‘study area’ allows us to estimate the ‘mean abundance’ (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 22) 56 of this species at }anydjaka. This provides an answer to our question ‘How many?’ The total number of all species occurring in this area is a second important tally. This number is an estimate of ‘species richness’ (p. 18). Species richness is the oldest and simplest measure of species diversity (Krebs 1989, p. 329). In the survey report, the species richness number values are

80 tabulated and given for broad taxonomic groups as well as for ‘All Species’ (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 20; see Figure 9) These figures we use to compare }anydjaka’s biodiversity status with other sites in northern Australia and to produce interpretative statements such as the following from the ‘Discussion and Recommendations’ section of the report of the survey:

Cape Arnhem Peninsula specifically and northeastern Arnhem Land generally hold no endemic vertebrate species, and mostly share a widespread fauna with sites across coastal areas of the Top End and (to a marginally reduced extent) with the western coast of Cape York Peninsula. (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 43)

The ‘species richness’ measurement is a generalisation of }anydjaka —and conventional interpretations would take it to be an ‘abstraction’ of the ‘real’ }anydjaka. Whereas, gathering }anydjaka up through the processes of numbering can also be understood as a ‘transition’-an object-in-the-making-which is part of the process of translating our object of management. But more about this later.

Naming is also an important part of the generation of faunal ‘objects’ as the assignation of species names locates individual animals in the grand organising system of taxonomy. Our faunal ‘objects’ are manifest at }anydjaka through a methodology I call ‘naming-tracing’ where ‘name’ and ‘number’ objects together signify the animals we are interested in. These ‘names’ and ‘numbers’ are ‘traces’ of the animals (they tell us something about the embodied animal): they allow us to track the animals from their embodied presence in the }anydjaka landscape, through the numbers, texts, figures and tables generated in the fauna survey, to the biodiversity and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) databases of the CCNT and the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory (see PWCNT 1999). The traceability of the animals, named and numbered, is what enables their successful mobilisation.

It is the technologies of number and naming, together with the translation devices of the fauna survey, that allow us to accomplish a mobilisation of our faunal ‘objects’ and in the process gain knowledge about the object of biological interest, }anydjaka. This is the process of transforming }anydjaka from an embodied }anydjaka to a }anydjaka as ‘proposed reserve’. It is the transformation of a }anydjaka-buzzing with the wet season heat and mosquitos and the everyday lives and doings of its multitude of unnamed and uncounted inhabitants-to a series of pure, found faunal ‘objects’ which may be aligned to produce a relatively seamless account of the

56 Abundance is an estimate of how many individuals of a species occur in a given area.

81 presence/absence and abundance of terrestrial vertebrate fauna at }anydjaka. By virtue of these transformations we are beginning to ‘know’ }anydjaka as a ‘proposed reserve’. In process of generating knowledge of the place we are seeking to answer the question ‘How should }anydjaka be managed?’ For, along with reserve status in the domain of land and sea management within government, come certain conditions of management.

In order to assess the status of }anydjaka as a ‘proposed reserve’ we are interested in knowing how representative the object of management is. Or, to put it another way, how well does it stand in for the series of objects that constitute (and mobilise) it?

The identification of biogeographic areas (‘bioregions’) is a planning policy initiative of the Australian Commonwealth government through the IBRA (Thackway & Cresswell eds 1995). This project has mapped the Australian continent according to categories of bioregions and provides a GIS database to aid resource planning and development. Twenty nationally-defined bioregions occur in the Northern Territory. Bioregional planning has been accepted as a main plank of conservation delivery in the Northern Territory by the PWCNT (Connors, Oliver and Woirnarski 1996) and aims to assess the need for conservation and management effort on the basis of conservation values, current reservation of these values and land use planning (p. 2).

Bioregions are identified as representative ecologically-based terrestrial and marine systems. In the Northern Territory, descriptions of the conservation values and reservation extent for each bioregion are derived from data sources held by the PWCNT (Connors et al . 1996). These include data on terrestrial vertebrates as ‘geocoded’ (p. 5) records. 57 From this we can see that the animals at }anydjaka indicate something about the bioregional status of the area. However these animals (and their attendant values of abundance and species richness etc.) alone cannot determine its status.

In order to know how representative }anydjaka is and hence judge its worthiness as an object of management under ‘proposed reserve’ status, we need to know it in relation to other places/times-other management objects. Such knowledge relies on our ability to make comparisons through the results of standardising practices, or

57 The CCNT Annual Report for 1991/1992 (CCNT 1992) records the initiation of a project to consolidate records of Northern Territory vertebrates as a precursor to a more comprehensive wildlife data base. It states: ‘Such a database will make a significant contribution to the design of an appropriate reserve system for the Territory’ (p. 50).

82 ‘methods standardisation’ as Star and Greismer put it (1989, p. 404). Standardising practices are the hybrid of methodological protocols, mathematical calculations, cartographic representations and other collection techniques we employed in the mobilisation of }anydjaka and its faunal objects. The report of the fauna survey indicates how the methods allow for comparison through the use of standardised methodological practices. It states: ‘With some minor adaptations, fauna sampling followed the methods of Woirnarski (1992), allowing the results to be placed in context with several other broad scale, standardised surveys in north-western Australia’ (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 16).

The process of standardisation in scientific work, as Rouse elaborates, is one ‘whereby scientific objects and practices become reliably transferable to new research contexts’ (1987, p. 79). This allows sites of local practice to be connected up: it allows us to archive, track, record, examine and classify attributes of sites and objects and to draw comparisons between them. This has the effect of a consolidation and extension of power in networks of people and things through the applications of scientific theory. Scientific theory, as argued by Rouse, (and inspired by Kuhn’s treatise on scientific knowledge The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 1970), is developed, extended and learnt through moving from one concrete example to another. The content of theories is embedded in standard, exemplary solutions to model problems: ‘paradigms’ to Kuhn (1970). In the case of the fauna survey at }anydjaka, the biologists were working with a theory of biodiversity they share with a community of science practitioners. This theory is maintained through the routine, repeatability and protocol of the fauna survey methodology which works to discipline the activities and interpretations of scientists in different times and places in similar ways.

The ability to compare sites is thus dependent on the standardisation of practices. These are the practices of producing a series of quantifiable, known ‘objects’-the everyday practices of quantification in science which transform }anydjaka ‘the study area’ and object of management into a series of numbers of faunal composition and abundance. The notion of the ‘study area’, or what is often called in the natural sciences, the ‘field site’, as a locale of scientific practice is an important element in creating such ‘known’ objects, from the ‘found’ animals to the numbers that transform them into tabulated entities. These ‘known’ objects are, to follow Hacking, ‘phenomena’ (1983, p. 220), created in the constructed world of the laboratory, or equally, the ‘field site’. He argues that it is only through the possibilities of isolation and purification effected through the laboratory that phenomena can emerge from the teeming complexity of Nature/the world (Hacking 1993, p. 226).

83 Rouse elaborates on the constructed world of the laboratory as a ‘microworld’ where ‘there exists only a limited variety of objects, whose provenance is known and whose forms of interaction are strictly constrained’ (1987, p. 101). The ‘field site’ is also a microworld which allows us to isolate things-in-the-world from the infinite complexity of the rest-of-the-world and to intervene in relations between these things: this is the work of ordering and classification which allow phenomena, our ‘known’ objects, to become manifest. The ‘field site’ allows us to track the progress of experimentation in this microworld through the work of sorting, coding, filing, and recording the identity, location and disposition of its elements (Rouse 1987). This, Hacking reminds us, relies on the routine production of reliable tools and technologies (1993, p. 226). The ability to track these elements (or ‘objects/things’) also contributes to the manifestation of phenomena. In the language of Latour this is the work of mobilising objects/things through a process of ‘reference’ (1999, p. 64; p. 69), where objects/things are made to stand-in-for other objects/things, thereby producing a ‘chain of transformations’ (1999, pp. 69-74) in which phenomena are made and re-made as a result of scientific practices.

I wonder, however, do the organising and mobilising effects of the ‘field site’ in the fauna survey transform }anydjaka enough to allow us the answer the question ‘Does }anydjaka require management as a conservation reserve?’ Not quite. In order to come closer to answering this question we need to create a ‘standardised form’ (Star & Greismer 1989, p. 411) which allows us to compare }anydjaka with other sites which indeed may be competing for the elevated management status of ‘conservation reserve’. This form is the ‘similarity index’ (Margules & Pressey 2000, p. 249; see Gambold et al . 1995, p. 36). In conservation planning this is a measure of ‘complementarity, a measure of the extent to which an area, or set of areas, contributes unrepresented features to any existing area or set of areas’ (Margules & Pressey 2000, p. 249).

The similarity index is an index of native faunal species composition which allows us to compare one study area with another for which we have species composition lists. This index ranges from 0 (no species shared) to 100 (all species shared between two sites) (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 18). In the report of the survey these indices are presented for }anydjaka and other previously surveyed sites across the Top End and Western Cape York Peninsula (pp. 36-42; see Figure 10). A comparison of these indices reveals, according to the report, ‘considerable homogeneity of the fauna across a broad area of northern Australia, and especially so for birds and marine species’ (p. 19).

84 }anydjaka is deemed representative. In one sense of the word anyway-it represents well. It complements other areas. That is, it is characteristic of faunal occurrence and abundance across the region, and as an area may stand-in-for the dispersed populations of this part of the country. But we already knew this from the results of the Dhimurru/CCNT vegetation survey at }anydjaka on which the report of the fauna survey draws. The report notes:

No other reserves are located within 200 km of Cape Arnhem Peninsula, and the occurrence there of a broad range of coastal and sub-coastal vegetation render the area representative of much of coastal Arnhem Land. (Gambold et al . 1995, p. v)

So }anydjaka is representative. But what might this mean for its management? Perhaps it represents too well? This will impact on management. What special justification might we have for concentrating management efforts here if the ‘homogeneity of fauna across a broad area of northern Australia’ (p. 19) could be preserved, with reduced costs and effort, elsewhere? Why then should }anydjaka be managed as a conservation/biological ‘reserve’?

4.2.2 Episode Two: Managing Specimens

The location of quadrats in the }anydjaka fauna survey was determined by the CCNT Wildlife Research scientists according to representative vegetation communities identified in a previous CCNT vegetation survey of }anydjaka (see Brocklehurst 1993; Plate 2; Figure 8). One of the scientists had been here on another field trip in 1994. He was therefore familiar with the }anydjaka landscape and many of the plant communities and landscape features which occur there.

As we set out a new quadrat in a new place we anticipated what we might catch there: what might be waiting for us when we next checked the traps?

There is a sense of excitement and anticipation as we check the traps. Not the least, on my part, due to a certain dread about what I might have to remove from its temporary corral. Some things bite and scratch, and my fear of accidentally letting something go before it has been identified and noted, is strong. The trap success rate does not seem to me (a relative novice at this sort of thing) to be very good-most of the traps are empty most of the time. So when we do ‘catch’ something, it matters. Thus there is always the question: what might Nanydjaka reveal to us today?

I undertook the daily maintenance of the quadrats with the CCNT scientists. I was assigned to work with one of the scientists and our work routine developed (to my relief!) such that she took responsibility for emptying any

85 occupied Elliot traps. We checked the quadrats twice daily and re-baited each Elliot trap as we checked it. In some cases we kept the animals caught in the trap devices and returned with them to camp. This was to confirm identification or to process the animal as a specimen 58 to be preserved and later registered with the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. The pit-fall traps were simpler to check than the Elliot traps —this involved simply peering into the buckets at the bottom of the pit, identifying any inhabitants and then releasing or collecting them. We found reptiles (small lizards and skinks) and occasionally a small marsupial in these sunken buckets.

Early on it became clear to me that we are interested in a few things in particular-the Golden Bandicoot and the Northern Hopping Mouse were among these. Sightings of these mammal species have been recorded from this area by amateur naturalists such as the missionary Reverend William Chaseling from the 1930s and more recently by a local tourism operator Noel Wright (Gambold et al . 1995). However, these species remain elusive in the contemporary records held by the CCNT. The CCNT Wildlife Research scientists would much like to confirm their presence at }anydjaka. One of the scientists has seen the telltale tracks of the Northern Hopping Mouse in the sandy wheel ruts of tracks at }anydjaka. He heads out from our camp at Wanawuy early each morning looking for more tracks; before vehicle movements obliterate the delicate footprints of the tiny marsupial mice. The large sand dunes nearby are also a good place to find Northern Hopping Mouse prints-the blowouts in the dunes produce open areas of fine, red sands interspersed with clumps of spinifex. Each morning these areas are traced with the comings and goings of this night creature’s activities. We set a quadrat at this spot but the traps don’t yield anything. The mice are notoriously ‘trap shy’.

The Golden Bandicoot is another matter altogether. There have been no confirmed sightings or specimens of this creature on the Northern Territory mainland since the Reverend Wilbur Chaseling found three members of this species in the area of Cape Arnhem in 1939. 59 This species is currently declared endangered in Australia. Yol\u call this animal wa]’kurra, along with another

58 The methods section of the report of the fauna survey of the proposed }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem Peninsula) reserve details the processing and storage of specimens: ‘Most animals caught during this survey were identified and released at capture point. The 68 vertebrate voucher specimens collected during the survey were individually tagged, fixed in 10 % formalin, preserved in 70 % ethanol and subsequently lodged with the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory (Darwin). Tissue samples were taken from a representative series of reptiles, stored in liquid nitrogen and forwarded to the Evolutionary Biology Unit of the South Australian Museum for future genetic analysis.’ And: ‘Plant specimens collected during this survey are stored at the Darwin Herbarium’ (Gambold et al. 1995 p. 17). 59 See Gambold et al. (1995, p. 113).

86 more common bandicoot species recorded by science as the Northern Brown Bandicoot. The hunt for the Golden Bandicoot on the NE Arnhem Land mainland continues. 60 It would be a significant result of our work to uncover a Golden Bandicoot at }anydjaka.

4.3 How Some of Our ‘Found’ Objects Do Important Work in Answering the Question ‘How Representative Is }anydjaka ?’

Our }anydjaka specimens are numbered and catalogued, and prepared for transport to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. These are our ‘voucher specimens’ (Gambold. et al. 1995, p. 129; see Figure 11): bathed in ethanol, stuffed and mounted, labelled and packed, specimens ‘stand-in-for’ (‘vouch-for’) others of their kind-a bandicoot specimen, for example, ‘stands in for’ other bandicoots. A specimen collected at }anydjaka is a guarantee that at least one and possibly others of these creatures also occur there. A specimen endures through time and space. So what we know now about }anydjaka and, say, our specimen of the Northern Dtella (Gehra australis ), a species of gecko, can be compared with previous and subsequent Northern Dtella/}anydjaka encounters. A previous record of this animal at }anydjaka was made by the American-Australian Expedition to Arnhem Land in 1948 (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 95). A second specimen adds certainty to our ‘find’. The specimens trace our work as a series of ‘found’ objects, thus adding to the corpus of biological knowledge of our object of management. Turner in his proposal for a Cape Arnhem/Port Bradshaw conservation reserve in 1975 draws the relationship between specimens and ‘knowing’ }anydjaka:

Johnson recorded 53 species of native mammals (and ten introduced species), but stated that ‘a number of species are known only from single specimens...and there are thousands of square miles where no mammologist has ever worked.’ Sixty-three reptiles and amphibians and 224 species of birds have been recorded, but there is a lack of information on other animals, including the important group of insects. (Turner 1975, p. 40)

The Northern Dtella —once caught, examined, tagged, catalogued, 61 transported and stored —is a found object: an immutable mobile. Specimens are therefore a standardised form capable of being ‘transported over a long distance and convey unchanging information’ (Star & Greismer 1989, p. 411). They are also a form of

60 In 1999 Dhimurru commenced a fauna survey to collect information of the abundance and distribution of small mammals, including the Northern Hopping Mouse (Notomys acquilo), the Golden Bandicoot (Isodon auratus) and the Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas). 61 See Figure 11 for the list of catalogued voucher specimens from the fauna survey.

87 evidence: a guarantee. But what of the presence/absence of the Golden Bandicoot and the Northern Hopping Mouse at }anydjaka? What forms of evidence do we need to locate these animals?

The Northern Hopping Mouse we already know from previous work is notoriously trap-shy (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 119). At }anydjaka, its presence is traced with certainty only by its footprints in the sand. On occasion we see it fleeing in the path of our vehicle headlights at night. And what of the Golden Bandicoot? Could it still be here despite the threats of feral animals? These animals in particular hold our interest. We are interested in them due to their ‘conservation status’ which indicates their probability of becoming extinct within a given time frame. The Northern Hopping Mouse has ‘indeterminate’ status according to the Draft Action Plan for Australian Rodents (Lee 1995, p. 39). The Golden Bandicoot is ‘endangered (Kennedy 1992 in Gambold et al . 1995, p. 35). We rely on the traces of previous scientific work at }anydjaka and elsewhere to order our search for these elusive species. These species are of conservation concern, and despite their rather ghostly presence, are critical in mobilising }anydjaka as a ‘proposed reserve’, as the report of the fauna survey recognises:

it is the minority of species with more restricted distributions which may reveal the most interesting biogeographic pattern and which may be most critical for management considerations. (Gambold et al. 1995, p. 19) And As Cape Arnhem Peninsula may become the only reserve area for N. aquilo [Northern Hopping Mouse ]. It is an ideal location for the study of this poorly-known species. (p. 45)

It appears that animals that resisted being mobilised, such as the elusive Northern Hopping Mouse and the Golden Bandicoot, speak more loudly than those that did not (see Figure 12 which shows the faunal objects of particular interest in the }anydjaka fauna survey due to their restricted distributions). 62

This mobilisation of }anydjaka as conservation/study reserve has implications for the practices of managing }anydjaka, as the report of the fauna survey suggests:

Continued monitoring for the presence of the Golden Bandicoot Isodon auratus may yet prove rewarding...The documented presence of this species within the proposed reserve may necessitate a reappraisal of

62 The table in Figure 12 (p. 179) shows the species recorded from NE Arnhem Land but from 0 or only 1 other survey site considered (by the PWCNT) from northern Australia (Gambold et al. 1995, p. 28). These species are considered to have restricted distributions and include the Golden Bandicoot and the Northern Hopping Mouse.

88 management guidelines particularly in terms of feral animal eradication. (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 45)

Management effort at }anydjaka is therefore contingent upon (in part at least) the presence/absence of the Golden Bandicoot and Northern Hopping Mouse animal ‘objects’. Together with the work of previous surveys and the calculated ‘conservation status’ of these species, we have, it seems, enough evidence to draw conclusions on what is appropriate management (see Footnote 59) and to answer the question, ‘Should we manage }anydjaka as a biological/conservation “reserve”?’, which the fauna survey effort implicitly addresses.

The collection of faunal specimens locate certainty as they provide evidence of species presence/absence at }anydjaka. These collection practices sit alongside the practices of setting and checking quadrats, and identifying and releasing animals which I described in Section 4.2.1. Together they are the ruts and repetitions and clotted routines of the survey work which gather up }anydjaka in the form of traces and inscriptions. They mobilise ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as the object of management: the ‘proposed reserve’.

But how does the work of the fauna survey justify the claim that I made at the beginning of this chapter: ‘}anydjaka requires management’? And the contention of the official documentation of the survey: ‘}anydjaka should be managed as a reserve’? It does so by determining the types of acceptable results needed to meet the requirements of future use (Rouse 1987, p. 93). This future use is the combination of local circumstances, resources and players.

In the }anydjaka fauna survey, the acceptable results are framed within the theory of biodiversity and its attendant theories of ‘representativeness’ and ‘uniqueness’. These results are the occurrence, distribution, abundance and relative composition of animal species and their habitats. And as the report of the fauna survey discloses, the future use of our object of management is assumed as ‘proposed reserve’ (Gambold et al . 1995, p. v) and even ‘ [national ] park’ (p. 46) with their accompanying notions of preservation and conservation.

I suggest that the theory of biodiversity and the application of its results, in management, provides a particular answer to the question ‘How should we live and work under joint management?’ This answer resonates with the ideals of conservation and preservation of land as ‘reserve’. It is predicated on minimising any detrimental impacts of land/sea use on the species which occur there, and in particular, on those

89 species whose ‘conservation status’ is desperate, dubious or indeterminate. According to a recent seminal article on systematic conservation planning, the two main roles of reserves are: ‘They should sample or represent the biodiversity of each region and they should separate this biodiversity from processes that threaten its persistence.’ (Margules & Pressey 2000, p. 243) Determining the ‘conservation status’ of species is a priority of research into biodiversity in Australia (ANZECC 2001, p. 51). It is also one of most commonly used indicators for biological diversity in Australia and internationally 63 along with the extent of protected areas (Saunders, Margules and Hill c.1998, p. 7). Margules and Pressey note that planning for biodiversity conservation is a spatial exercise, where most areas are chosen on the basis of the occurrence of species (2000, p. 246). Reserve selection in technoscience is therefore about the ‘discovery’ and trackability of known animal and plant objects.

It seems that in jointly undertaking the work of the fauna survey and other management initiatives with the CCNT, Yol\u landowners of }anydjaka and members of Dhimurru, are thinking about ‘reserving’ a part of their lands/seas: they are making a new sort of category from that of ‘reserve’, which is ‘reserved-freehold-Yol\u-owned land.’ This is not surprising given the ‘fact’ of the unsupervised and inappropriate recreational land/sea use at }anydjaka, and the new sort of communal freehold title invented under the ALRA. However, the interesting thing is that having assumed ownership under Australian law of their traditional estates, Yol\u want to explore the use of government regulatory and administrative mechanisms to assist them in the maintenance and management of their lands and seas. From the government’s point of view this is putting things the ‘other-(wrong)- way-around’ for this strategy refuses the precedents and artefacts of joint management in Australia where land/sea ownership and tenure have been the bargaining chips held by government.

So, Dhimurru and its members, in their campaign to develop a sustainable form of contemporary Yol\u land and sea management, choose to draw on the conventional means of establishing a land and sea management regime at }anydjaka, which is that of technoscience. However, as we shall see in the forthcoming chapters, this enrolment of technoscience in the Dhimurru management enterprise is part of the institution and its members and collaborating workers developing an embodied certainty and a way to ‘go on’ that involved a new sort of negotiation between technoscientific and Yol\u knowledges.

63 In national state of the environment reporting in Australia indicators are defined as ‘physical, chemical, biological or socio-economic measures that best represent the key elements of a complex ecosystem or environmental issue’ ( Saunders et al. c.1998, p. 5).

90 4.4 Conclusion

In this chapter I have described the ‘birth’ of new objects in doing management planning work at }anydjaka. I have told stories of the ‘translations’ by which the plants and animals captured, and the flora and fauna surveys undertaken (recent and past), as a whole bring }anydjaka the ‘proposed reserve’ to life. This is achieved through a methodology I call ‘naming-tracing’.

The particular mobilisation of }anydjaka as a ‘proposed reserve’ in the report of the fauna survey is an important strategic tool for Dhimurru. The following is a response from the Executive Officer of Dhimurru to my request for a copy of the report for the purposes of writing this chapter:

[I] Only have one copy each of the Gambold report for }anydjaka and the Soil Erosion Assessment [report ] (Kate Hadden), and two copies only of the vegetation map.

It so happens I spoke to John Woirnarski just the other day about sending us some additional copies because we require them for various reports etc. I’ll forward you a copy on short-term loan when they arrive. It would be appreciated if you could copy and return asap and we’ll need every bound copy we can lay our hands on over the next few months.

I’ll also get the Erosion Assessment copied to include in the package. It’s pretty short and won’t take too long to copy. (Leitch, K. 1998, email).

One such ‘report’ that Dhimurru has enrolled the results of the fauna survey work in is the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a; Appendix M). A plan of management locates strategy in its particular presentation of information-its classification and organisation-and the ontology it embodies (see Chapter 2). A conventional plan of management in the technoscientific domain of ‘land and sea management locates certainty in the implementation of actions prescribed by baseline data derived from survey and inventory work. In the next chapter I tell of the writing of a Yol\u plan of management.

91 Figure 555:5: PWCNT Park Planning Summary (source: PWCNT 2000)

92 Figure 666:6: Map of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) showing the surveysurvey/study/study area for the }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) fauna survey (source: GamboldGambold et al. 1995, p. 14)

93 Figure 777:7: Quadrat habitat proforma and explanation used in the }anydj}anydjakaaka (Cape Arnhem) fauna survey (source: Gambold et al. 1995, pp. 125125----28)28)28)28)

97 Figure 888:8: Location and description of quadrats from the }an}anydjakaydjaka (Cape Arnhem) fauna survey ( (source:source: Gambold et al. 1995, pp. 140140----41)41)41)41)

98 99 Figure 999:9: Species richness values for survey sites in northnorthernern Australia (where NE Arnhem Land tallies include results of the }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) fauna survey) (source: Gambold et aal.l. 1995, p. 20)

100 Figure 101010:10 : Similiarity indices values for all wildlife specispecieses for survey sites in northern Australia showing }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) compared to other sites (source: Gambold et al. 1995, p. 36)

101 Figure 111111:11 : Museum catalogue numbers for voucher specimens cocollectedllected during the }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) fauna survey (source: GamboldGambold et al. 1995, pp. 129129----30)30)

102

103

Figure 121212:12 : Species recorded from northeastern Arnhem LanLandd butbut from 0 or only 1 other survey site considered from northern Australia (source: Gambold et al. 1995, p. 28)

104 Plate 333:3: Batchelor College students checking an Elliot tratrapp (photo: Margaret Ayre)

Plate 444:4: Pitfall trap (photo: Margaret Ayre)

105 CHAPTER 5. GENERATINGENERATINGG A PLAN OF MANAGEMEMANAGEMENTNT FOR }ANYDJAKA 2

5.1. Journeying and Naming at }anydjaka

5.1.1 Introduction

In this chapter I present another series of episodes in the development of a plan of management for the Dhimurru Recreation Area, }anydjaka. Dhimurru developed a plan of management for }anydjaka to assist in the mobilisation of this estate as an area which required particular kinds of management actions. The development of this plan of management was a step in the efforts by Dhimurru and its members to gain ‘reserve’ status for }anydjaka. However, the work of developing the plan of management for }anydjaka would involve defining }anydjaka as an area worthy of 'reserve’ status as well as a Yol\u-owned and managed place. It would thus refuse both relativist (as for the Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park joint management agreement) and universalist (as for the Kakadu National Park joint management agreement) versions of land/sea and place in refusing the conventions of joint management in Australia, which are the government technologies of control: the lease, the Board of Management, the plan of management and the institutional structure of joint management.

In generating appropriate management action for }anydjaka, Dhimurru set out to develop its own version of a plan of management under the guidance and control of the Dhimurru management authority: the Dhimurru Committee of Yol\u landowners. This involved a particular and alternative set of technologies for translating/mobilising this estate different from those I described in Chapter 4 which are the technologies of quantification and measurement. In this chapter I will show an analogous set of technologies of translation/mobilisation which also work to mobilise }anydjaka as a management object worthy of ‘reserve’ status. These technologies are part of the work of producing Dhimurru’s first plan of management for the }anydjaka estate. }anydjaka, as the object of Dhimurru’s management, however, is both a potential ‘reserve’ and a Yol\u-owned and managed estate which participates in the ongoing development of Yol\u-driven land and sea management initiatives through Dhimurru.

In presenting a series of episodes in the development of the plan of management for }anydjaka I write about the technologies of ‘journeying’ and ‘naming’.

106 5.1.2 A First Trip to }anydjaka}anydjaka----SaturdaySaturday 28 May 1994

Dja`a`i\ba (or Old Joe as we often call him) is a senior member of the Gumatj clan and a custodian of the Yol\u estate }anydjaka. He hasn’t been working with Dhimurru for long and I have only met him briefly on a couple of occasions. It is Saturday and, as I understand it, my brief is ‘to go to }anydjaka with Old Joe’. That was it. I had no more specific instructions than this and I felt anxious when contemplating what sort of outcome I might be expected to produce from this event. What should I have to show for it all, I wondered?

We turn off the track to Port Bradshaw and onto the }anydjaka track. The four-wheel-drive troop carrier rocks and shudders over ruts and rocks, sighing into a stall as Djaàì\ba slows to a near standstill in third gear. He re-starts the engine. The pace is now set-slow and purposeful. Djaàì\ba begins talking-the silence that permeated the car in town and on the sealed track is now broken as we journey through his country. The morning coolness is dissipating rapidly and the woodlands are buzzing with the clear Dry Season heat. Jono 64 and I are privileged to be sitting in the front of the car with Djaàì\ba. Members of Djaàì\ba’s family sit behind us amongst an assortment of tools for the day ahead. These include large hunting knives, buckets, fishing reels, a billy, mugs, a limp box of tea bags and a tin of powdered milk. We move slowly through the country; along the rough track which wends its way through a myriad of vegetation communities and landscapes. This main track diverges several times to provide alternative routes around sections of the track that are damaged. There are numerous branches of this track which allow access to specific sites. Further on, a network of subsidiary tracks has proliferated where the subsoil is sandy.

I am struck by the beauty of this place. I lean out the window of the car savouring the small amount of breeze generated by the movement of the vehicle. We are sitting three across in the front seat of the four-wheel-drive troop carrier and Jono, in the middle, is perched almost on top of the gear stick. Dja`a`i\ba knows the track very well and chooses his preferred route through the more boggy or sandy sections. But, this is not a four-wheel-drive adventure trek: our vehicle is just a way of getting us there.

We travel the length of the }anydjaka peninsula, through the rocky, incised escarpment country, over the sands of the beaches and foredunes, and into and

64 Jono Wearne was undertaking a research project for the PWCNT to investigate Yol\u knowledge of the Golden Bandicoot (Isodon auratus). He was interested in finding out about the presence of this animal and others at }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem).

107 out of the occasional treacherous soak. The car moves slowly and Djaàì\ba commands the attention of all his passengers as he continues his conversation with Jono and I. This conversation ranges from stories about animals, their homes, tracks and personalities, and habits, to the meaning, names and location of various places in the landscape. Djaàì\ba stops the vehicle intermittently to gesture towards a particular place or feature, and name it or explain its significance; or to light up a cigarette or discuss a matter with his family. I have a sense that Djaàì\ba’s time is precious, and that I wouldn’t be here if he thought that this activity wasn’t useful. After all this is a Saturday and a time for family. The trip today has a sense of purpose: our movements are not mere meanderings. But, in what sense was this ‘work’ I muse, as we bounce through a glade of immense paperbarks, glowing silver in the sun.

Our conversation becomes more relaxed as our journey progresses and I realise with a degree of alarm that this ‘stuff’ we are talking about is something I should know in order to make a credible attempt at constructing the plan of management for }anydjaka. But there is so much information! I reach into my bag, pull out my notebook and start writing...

Djaàì\ba is a senior custodian and landowner of }anydjaka. He is also a Gumatj clan ceremonial leader. Djaàì\ba’s responsibilities to maintain and caretake this estate are bestowed through the systems of djalkiri and gurru=u . Together these systems relate particular people to particular places in the land and sea and thus confer ownership rights and responsibilities. Djalkiri and gurru=u are both systems of logical ordering located in the land itself (Verran 2000, p. 9).

Gurru=u is the recursive system of genealogical or kinship relations which connect people and things in the world. These connections are embodied in people and things and were set down by the Wa\arr who created the world and everything in it through their procreative acts, their journeyings, and their bestowal of names and languages. These sets of relations are both social and material. In its most basic sense gurru=u is an infinite series of names with a set of eight reciprocal name pairs and rules by which names are generated (Watson 1989, p. 37). It is a formal pattern which allows one to articulate and locate all types of relationships involving all types of things. It thus produces order in social relations and between people and the land and its various forms and inhabitants. (See Appendix J for further description of Yol\u categories in the land and sea through gurru=u .)

108

5.2 The Routine Practices of Working the World as Gurru=u and Djalkiri

Djalkiri may be translated literally as ‘the footsteps of the ancestors’ (Yirrkala Community School 1995). It is the practices of re-doing the work of the Yol\u ancestors, the Wa\arr , who created the land and sea in their journeyings through naming and marking it with their activities. Djalkiri is practised in the everyday routines of Yol\u life and in the ‘business’ of performing ceremonies ( bu\gul ), the song and dance cycles which are the making and re-making of places and people and their inter-connections. It is also done in the work of maintaining particular places in the land and the links between these places, or focal sites called w^\a, through the routine practices of naming, travelling, hunting, burning, caring for country.

}anydjaka is a Gumatj/~amamirri clan estate although other clans have certain custodial rights here too. The custodians (at 1999) are: Dji]iyi]i Gondarra, Djaàì\ba Yunupi\u, George Day\umbu, B^tja\ Burarrwa\a, Nanikiya Munu\gurritj, Ranydjupi Yunupi\u-Munu\gurr and Gayili (Banunydji) Marika (DLMAC 1999c, p. 14). At the time we were developing the plan of management for }anydjaka, the ~amamirri clan was survived by only two members. ‘Two old ladies’, Djaàì\ba explained to me, ‘Living at Galiwin’ku (Elcho Island)’. He said that he would have to go to Galiwin’ku 65 to talk to these ladies about the management planning work and to gain their authorisation to act, on their behalf, as a spokesperson for this country. Meanwhile we continued the work of producing a plan of management for the estate...

5.2.1 Placing Names At the beginning of our dealings with }anydjaka it became clear that I would need Dja`a`i\ba’s assistance and instruction in order to undertake my role as learner and scribe. This was a tacit agreement between us. The following is an excerpt from my field notes from 15 June 1994.

As we travelled, Dja`a`i\ba talked about the country and its evocations. He gave names to places or features in the landscape, some of which he repeated and spelt out for my benefit. He also told of the stories in the land that gave rise to these names and sites. He would indicate a feature in the landscape-a boulder; the crest of a hill; a tree; a worn resting place under a large Casuarina tree-and he then might give me a name or names for this entity or feature

109 and instruct me to write it down. Occasionally he would remark that a particular place or feature had other names too. Djaàì\ba explained that place names at }anydjaka are very location specific. They may refer to a small area of sand in the dune system or to a place inside the rainforest. Djaàì\ba learnt these names, ‘a long time ago and from his father’ he said. He also explained that, ‘Some young (Yol\u) people only know the name ‘}anydjaka’, the ‘big’ name for the area, and not all the little names. He would often point out what he described as ‘Yol\u tracks’ in the }anydjaka landscape. Sometimes I thought I could see these tracks-tracks that appeared as worn lines across the crest of a dune in the distance. Sometimes I couldn’t see what I thought was a track at all (see Plate 5).

I struggled to transcribe the words and names in Yol\u matha as the ink in my pen waxed and waned with the angle of my body in the car. I wrote and listened as best I could as we drove three-abreast in the front seat of the troop carrier. Dja`a`i\ba had been to school in the days of ‘the mission’ at Yirrkala he told us and had learnt to read and write his language of Gumatj.

Initially my grasp of Yol\u matha was so poor that I couldn’t ‘hear’ how to transcribe the names and words that Djaàì\ba was telling me. I was unfamiliar with the sounds of the language and misspelt or misinterpreted much of what Djaàì\ba dictated to me. I struggled to write words in a way that would help me remember or identify them later in some way-at least vaguely. I rationalised that I could then perhaps verify them with Djaàì\ba sometime later or cross- reference them with other sources. (I had no idea at this stage what these sources might be!)

As we got to know one another, Dja`a`i\ba would spell out for me many of the names he recited. I would then write the letters as he said them, one by one. He would repeat the whole word sometimes as he did this, sounding it out several times to help me learn and transcribe it. In this way I was able to learn fairly quickly the phonetics of the language and my notetaking became more efficient and more accurate.

This journeying work became names, places, people, figures and events and ‘stories’ which in turn became a collage of frantically scribbled notes and names

65 Dja`a`i\ba went to Galiwin’ku on 7 September 1995 to talk to people (including the ‘two old ladies’) about the plan of management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1995a, item 3). He made several subsequent trips to Galiwin’ku to discuss the business of managing }anydjaka.

110 (see Figures 13, 14 and 15), sketches and mud maps (see Figures 16 and 17) in my notebook. This collage was made up of versions of Yol\u stories, details about animals, descriptions of Yol\u activities, and the record of figures of long ago whose paths we were following as we loped along beaches, descended into jungles and perched on headlands watching for fish and fruits and the nests of turtles and talking. I asked Dja`a`i\ba questions not knowing if they were appropriate, redundant or just stupid!

I understand now that Dja`a`i\ba was using a technology of naming here to mobilise Yol\u knowledge about }anydjaka. This was a specific naming exercise, telling names in place for the particular purposes of generating a contemporary Yol\u plan for the management of }anydjaka.

5.2.2 Writing Stories

The second sort of thing I noted as part of this process of recording these journeyings were fragments of stories that Dja`a`i\ba told me about the presence and activities of Yol\u figures in the landscape. My field notes record one such figure:

Murrurruma-this is the name of ‘one old fellow’. A Rirratji\u man. ~amamirri is his mother clan. He is ‘sleeping around the plains area’ (near the place called Wirrmu\a). This is his mother country. (Margaret Ayre's field notes 5 June 1994)

I sometimes recognised that Djaàì\ba was talking about these figures-what I knew from popular and anthropological versions of Aboriginal life and culture, as part of ‘Dreaming Stories’. In other instances I wasn’t sure if he was talking about people he knew now or in the past, or even if the names he gave me referred only to people, but to places or animals or to all or both at once? It wasn’t until later, when I learnt the Yol\u word Wa\arr and learnt about gurru=u that I could locate these stories in Yol\u knowledge-making practices. This then helped me to identify retrospectively the nature of some of the information Djaàì\ba had shared with me. Much of this information combined Wa\arr events and figures with Djaàì\ba’s instructions about how }anydjaka should be managed by Dhimurru. For example, he told me:

There is a Wangurri dog dreaming [Wa\arr ] track which runs through the Mosquito Creek area to }anydjaka. Balku is the name of this dog which came from the south: the place called Marndi\a which is the landing area at Mosquito Creek. The marr\u possum is walking with the dog. It is looking back to Durrupulmi-to the plains area.

111 It is G^lpu country near the gate to Port Bradshaw and at the jungle near there (the boundary of the sand dune). It is a Rirratji\u area over at the sand dunes. At the tip of }anydjaka is the dreaming place of the Yirritja dog. There should be no camping here and trees should not be pulled out for firewood. (Margaret Ayre’s field notes 28 May 1994).

In retelling parts of this story Djaàì\ba gestured along the coastline sketching the movements of the Wa\arr dog. This dog turned into a ~amamirri dog when she reached }anydjaka, he said. He explained that she travelled along the }anydjaka peninsula, stopping at the place Balanda call Twin Eagles and that Yol\u know as Gay\a[a, and at the end of the peninsula where there is a large coral deposit above the beach. I made notes of the places through which the dog travelled as Djaàì\ba named and told them, in English and Yol\u matha :

Balkuwuy: the dog starts her journey here

Port Bradshaw...Mosquito Creek...

Through G^lpu country which extends from near the gate on the road to Port Bradshaw and at the jungle there to the sand ridges to the east which run along the coast towards Yala\bara...

Gumatj country-includes the open plain/swamp area at Mosquito Creek...

Ra\ura-the beach at the southern end of }anydjaka...

...up to Yukuwarra (where the guwak is singing) and then to the tip of the Cape; to Yarrayintha where the dead coral is. Or is it Wimarriwuy?

(Margaret Ayre's field notes 21 August 1994; see Figures 16 and 17)

We drove to the place called Yarrayintha, at the tip of }anydjaka, and descended from the car. This is a special place, Dja`a`i\ba told us, and we should know that. I had become aware that it was my job to know this sort of thing and to somehow make sure it was accounted for in the plan of management I was to write...

Here Dja`a`i\ba is using the integrated systems of gurru=u and djalkiri to describe and tell }anydjaka. He is articulating names in-place and drawing connections between

112 places through the re-telling of stories. These stories are the journeys (tracks) and activities of the Wa\arr which are Yol\u djalkiri . Watson writes:

For Yol\u, what provides the connections between places-bits of socialised topography that are known through being named-are the tracks of the Ancestral Beings [Wa\arr ], and the tracks are the landscape. (Watson in Turnbull 1989, p. 30)

The activities of the Wa\arr correspond to Yol\u knowledge of the land/sea. This knowledge derives from the landscape made in a time past and which is now re- made through the activities of Yol\u as they live by following in the ‘footsteps of the Ancestors’ (Yirrkala Community School 1995). For Yol\u, knowing country is knowing djalkiri and your place in it: the places from where your identity is sourced.

One way to understand this is to use the metaphor of mapping. As Dja`a`i\ba tells djalkiri , he is re-working a ‘map’ of the country for the purposes of developing a land management plan for this place. He is also re-working his own relationship and the relationships of his kin with places in the land/sea; re-generating the connections that make meaningful the contemporary work of maintaining and managing this estate. However this ‘map’ is very different from conventional maps produced within scientific domains.

But how could I begin to make sense of all this information? How could I place these stories with respect to the }anydjaka fauna survey without retreating to a condescending sort of relativism? And how was it relevant to producing a plan of management for }anydjaka? I realised, to my relief, that it wasn’t a crucial concern of Djaàì\ba’s that I record everything he told me with accuracy and complete detail. He took relatively little interest in how I recorded it. He didn’t ask me to show him my notes nor did he want to check my efforts to organise this information. I knew, however, that he did expect me to take on the stories and landscape descriptions he gave me. He also expected me to take seriously the journeying, story telling and naming episodes by giving them a context-making role in the plan of management for }anydjaka I was to write. In our everyday discussions Djaàì\ba encouraged me to recount what I had learnt, and demonstrate to him that I was making attempts to build on this knowledge. Together we would reiterate versions of the Yol\u stories and anecdotes of our journeys and others’ as we returned to particular places of particular significance at }anydjaka.

5.2.3 GayGay\\\\a[aa[a

On subsequent trips we travelled together to }anydjaka with other members of Dhimurru to discuss various management options. Dja`a`i\ba retold his stories and

113 ideas for management to non-Aboriginal members of the organisation. In this way each of us began to develop a sense of Djaàì\ba’s plans for management of the estate. A group of young Yol\u Trainee Rangers were also involved in this working the country together. They accompanied us on journeys to }anydjaka and participated in various activities including hunting sea turtle eggs and mussels, and fishing. One fishing spot become part of our ritual of stopping at particular places during our journeys. This spot is located on the southern side of the first rock outcrop known as Gay\a[a (Twin Eagles in English). Here the younger men practised their spear fishing (see Plate 6). and Mark, the CCNT ranger, also tried his hand at this work. With much perseverance Mark would occasionally spear a fish. The Yol\u rangers encouraged him enthusiastically in his fishing pursuits and dubbed him, laughingly, ‘ Djambatj !’. This means good hunter, they explained with great irony. Djaàì\ba told me the following about this place:

On the left hand side of the first ‘island’ there was an overhanging ledge that formed a cave. Yol\u people used to camp in this cave. There was an earthquake in the days when Chaseling was a missionary at Yirrkala, before World War II, and the rock ledge shattered and caved in. This happened on Christmas Day during the Wet season. No Yol\u people were hurt because the earthquake occurred in the early morning while the occupants of the cave were out hunting for mussels.

There remains a small cave up the back of this ‘island’. On the right hand bottom side of the first 'island’ Yol\u men waited at a certain time of year for the \uykul (kingfish) fish to pass. The old men only perched on the rocks at this place and speared the fish. Women were not allowed to visit these rocks. The fish were shared amongst all the family after the catch.

This was a popular place for Yol\u to camp. There is a freshwater soak back in the dunes above the beach. (Margaret Ayre's field notes 20 May 1994)

At Gay\a[a the Dhimurru Rangers and Trainee Rangers fish as Yol\u have always fished and as the Wa\arr fished at this place (see Plate 6). They laugh as Djawa, one of the Dhimurru Rangers, vibrates his lips, making the sound ‘brrrrrr’. This is what Yol\u have always done to call the fish into the shallow waters here. Dja`a`i\ba is also re-telling a story from the not-so-distant past. Reverend Wilbur Chaseling founded the Yirrkala mission in 1936 and is remembered by many of the older Yol\u in NE Arnhem Land.

This recounting of the episode on Christmas Day is framed by a discussion of place: where events happened and who was involved. The Wa\arr \uykul continues to

114 materialise this place through the names it bestowed and the fish that come to this place every year. Our ritual activity of stopping and fishing at Gay\a[a is thus a re- doing of the generative work of the Wa\arr \uykul , although as a Westerner, it can feel silly for me to say this.

Through our fishing, journeyings and ‘map’ of }anydjaka we are building up a web of interconnected places and names. This ‘map’ is also inscribed with collective activity, everyday happenings and ritualised ‘doings’.

5.2.4 Margaret’s Tree

On each consecutive trip I made to }anydjaka I realised that I was beginning to know the place. The place was also beginning to know me as my telling of the following incident shows:

A CCNT Training Officer was conducting a four-wheel-driving course with the Dhimurru Rangers. Most of the Yol\u men, including the younger ones who may not have had much formal driving instruction, were experienced bush drivers. I, however, was not, and this was the first time I had driven in sand.

I was given the honour of driving Dhimurru’s newly acquired troop carrier. We were taking it in turns to drive with the instructor sitting alongside to guide us. I was feeling self-conscious as the vehicle seemed to take on a life of its own, lurching along the deep wheel ruts which traverse the dunescape at the southern end of the }anydjaka. I instinctively decelerated in response to the unwieldy behaviour of the ‘troopie’. ‘Keep the speed up! You must keep the speed up!’ I was told.

‘Ok, ok!’ I retaliated in frustration as I wrestled with the sweaty steering wheel.

‘Don’t hold the wheel so hard,’ the instructor insisted. ‘Just let the vehicle guide itself.’

‘What?!’ I said turning to him, as we ploughed on into a large paperbark tree!

The passengers were all unharmed from this incident but the vehicle sustained a bent air intake funnel and a smashed side mirror. The tree was also marked by a large indentation. The tree I hit that day became thereafter known by all at Dhimurru as ‘Margaret’s Tree’. Each time we passed it on our trips to }anydjaka someone would remark on it and to my relief, we always shared a laugh about the episode! Years later it is still inscribed with the impact of the

115 vehicle and with the story of our collective experience of four-wheel-drive training at }anydjaka.

This episode shows how places at }anydjaka became known to us: how they became part of the work of developing a plan of management for the area, through the act of naming. This is part of gaining a shared experience of this place. The story of ‘Margaret’s Tree’ is an example of the ways in which incidents become place names. Seemingly trivial and everyday though it is, this is how place names are ‘acted into being’ by the place.

5.3 Naming as a Translation Device

The episodes I tell in this chapter show some of the strategies of ‘knowing’ }anydjaka together for the purposes of generating a Yol\u plan of management for the area. This is the work of mobilising the object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ (see Chapter 6). Due to the overt commitment to control by Yol\u through their newly formed institution of Dhimurru, the mobilisation of the object of management at this stage in the plan of management development process is generated primarily through Yol\u knowledge production processes.

The strategies and devices used to mobilise ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ within the Yol\u knowledge system are practised through the Yol\u knowledge domains of gurru=u and djalkiri. Gurru=u and djalkiri are stabilised sets of practices which ‘make it possible for people and places to be joined in a formally related yet dynamic whole’ (Watson & Turnbull 1995, p. 132). Watson, in her work with the Yol\u community, has elaborated the analogy between gurru=u and djalkiri in the Yol\u system of knowledge, and number and quantification in the West. She alerts us to the fact that number and quantification are thoroughly material and symbolic, located in particular people, places and times, and together accomplish the same ends as gurru=u and djalkiri (see Watson & Turnbull 1995).

Gurru=u is an integrative standardised form of knowledge which ‘is an infinite recursion of a base set of names patterned on family relations enabling everything to be named and related and imposing an order on the entire world’ (Watson & Turnbull 1995, p. 132). These kinship names are associated with particular people and places through the gurru=u system which imposes order on the relationships between all elements in the world. Djalkiri ‘involves sets of material practices associated through idealised narratives of journeys made by idealised ancestors that relate particular places to contemporary Yol\u people’ (Watson & Turnbull 1995, p. 133). These sets of practices can be glimpsed in the episodes told in this chapter, and

116 include the routines of particular people journeying and acting through and in country, as they do the work of re-generating place through the translation technologies of naming. This is the work of bringing the object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, ‘into discourse’. Of ‘mobilising our object of management’. This is a secular mobilising of what on other occasions is ‘sacred business’.

The telling of names in place was a strategy we used to translate knowledge about }anydjaka for the purposes of generating a plan of management. The web of names we generated in our journeyings in the country took all sorts of materialities: trees, people, rocks, fish. 66 This was a partial and specific form of naming we were using as we negotiated shared meanings of the object of management. It included a renegotiation of place as it is generated through Yol\u knowledge-making practices. The Yol\u landscape, socialised by the Ancestral Beings ( Wa\arr ) in a time past, is not immutable or unchanging: it must be maintained through ongoing intervention and negotiation by the Yol\u responsible.

Through this collective work we were producing a shared ‘map’ of the country located in a series of named sites connected by the stories of the Wa\arr activities and our own routine travels and practices of hunting, story-telling, naming. However, it is important to note that in generating this metaphorical ‘map’, we did not use names cartographically. We did not locate names in reference to points on a Cartesian grid but in reference to the narratives which locate the journeyings of the Wa\arr. Watson explains:

What the Ancestral Beings [Wa\arr ] did as they journeyed was to bestow names . In the Yol\u world few features of the perceived universe are not named. In bestowing names Ancestral Beings [Wa\arr ] created w^\a and laid down the relations between them in their journeys. Names are among the most precious items possessed by a clan. Paths were made by walking, or if the journey is by sea they might have paddled in a canoe. A path might be symbolised in other ways, the flight of a mosquito, a bird or a bee, the swimming of a fish or a shark. In social terms a journey links the groups of people in whom the Ancestral beings vested land, and it links them in particular ways. Each landowning group is linked with others by at least one major songline, two such songlines are usual and more than two, frequent. These journeys are routinely re-created in narrative song and dance in the Laynhapuy [region of NE Arnhem Land ]. The metaphors which form the foundation of the social order are

66 See Christie and Perrett (1996) for a discussion of Yol\u names and their uses.

117 common and everyday knowledge amongst the Yol\u. (Watson 1989, p. 49, original emphasis)

In this work we did not recognise the referent of our names as a fixed spatiotemporal entity, as the practices of cartography would have it. For example, the Report to the Australian Heritage Commission on the Heritage Values Assessment of Manydjarrarrnga-}anydjaka provides the following cartographic description of our referent:

The area referred to by Yol\u owners as Manydjarrarrnga-}anydjaka 67 is congruent with the Northern Territory registered Sacred Site no. 746, an area of 174.7 sq. km, registered under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 . The site centroid co-ordinate is 707100E 8630900N, Zone 53. (DLMAC 1999c, p. 13)

In contrast to this description, the Yol\u ‘map’ of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in Dhimurru’s practice, is presented as a fragile holding-together of episodes. By reworking the country in this way, through the evolving functions and negotiated work practices of Dhimurru, Dja`a`i\ba was conceiving a development plan for his land.

In the episodes which make up the Yol\u version of }anydjaka, the ‘names’ generated are a theory (a standardised set of practices) of people/place and of }anydjaka. The names translate a theory of responsible land and sea management which privileges local negotiation and locates certainty in particular times/places/people and in the performance of standardised/clotted forms of knowledge. These forms of knowledge are a standardisation or formalisation of these naming and journeying and storytelling practices which allow us to ‘go-on-in-the- world’ in knowing ways. This is an embodied certainty, located in the socio-material ruts and repetitions and clotted routines which perform ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, the object of Dhimurru’s management (see Chapter 6).

So, unlike the translation practices I elaborated in the Chapter 4, where the practices of science worked to know the object of management through the quantification and description of its biodiversity status, we can see in the episodes of naming/journeying/storytelling in this chapter that knowing }anydjaka for the purposes of developing a contemporary Yol\u plan of management requires us to escape the conventional technoscientific metaphors of ‘mapping’: to escape the

118 Cartesian grid that locates ‘place’, and accept the necessity of negotiation with/in actual places. We achieved this at Dhimurru by recognising that both ‘names’ and ‘places’ are complex and partial-they contract and expand; they are continually re- worked and reassembled-drawing the relationships between people and place. We see from the episodes of developing the plan of management for }anydjaka that names do not always symbolise places-a place can symbolise a name as much as the other way around. A name can also materialise a place.

The work of the fauna survey at }anydjaka which I presented in Chapter 4 can be contrasted with the episodes of generating a Yol\u plan of management for }anydjaka. This work was presented as a series of ‘found’ objects: specimens, figures of ‘presence/absence’, abundances, distributions, and biodiversity/conservation status. These are the inscriptions that gather up }anydjaka and ‘colour it in’ as the object of biological interest and as a ‘proposed reserve’. However, my brief ethnography has shown how the ‘results’ of the fauna survey work were generated through the social strategies and technical devices (translation/mobilisation strategies) of human observation (powers of recognition through accumulative experiences generating ‘expert’ capacity to ‘know’ animals); trap devices; animals’ telltale tracks and scats; previous records; records of information given by Dhimurru staff and other Yol\u (Gambold et al . 1995, p. 17); statistical programs and mathematical formulae (the calculation of indices), and so on. In other words, the fauna survey enterprise is a hybrid mix of researchers, technical devices, two-dimensional prescriptions, computers, paper, maps, land and animals, people and places. And these translation strategies, like the Yol\u ‘map’ of }anydjaka, are held together through embodied work. They are analogous to the Yol\u strategies of naming, journeying, and telling places: the robust technologies of translation which adapt themselves to our contemporary context, and which translate a Yol\u version of }anydjaka as a new sort of ‘reserved land’ owned and managed under the ALRA and Yol\u knowledge and law.

5.4 Working the Two Technologies of Translation/Mobilisation Together in the Development of a Plan of Management for }anydjaka

In this section I discuss my work in the Dhimurru office generating the draft plan of management document for }anydjaka, This is a telling of the working together of the two technologies of translation/mobilisation: the technology of number which mobilises }anydjaka as a ‘proposed reserve’ through the work of the fauna survey,

67 The name for the Yol\u estate which in the work of developing Dhimurru’s first plan of management we called, }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem), is given in this report as ‘Manydjarrarr\a-}anydjaka’ (DLMAC 1999c, p. 13).

119 and the technology of naming and telling place which mobilises a version of }anydjaka as a Yol\u place under Dhimurru’s management.

5.4.1 Back in the Dhimurru Office...

}anydjaka had to be transformed in particular ways in order for it to be credited within science as a legitimate object of management: an object that requires management. In order to convince the environmental technocrats of this, a plan of management, which was neither and both a Yol\u and technoscientific document, had to be produced and this was my job. But, I wondered, what was I to make of all the information I had collected? How is it relevant to the plan of management text? and, how do I get it ‘into’ a plan of management for that matter? In this section I discuss my work in the Dhimurru office generating the draft plan of management document for }anydjaka. I started with the names.

5.4.1.1 Names and ‘Maps’

After these trips into the field with Dja`a`i\ba, I went back to the Dhimurru office with my scrappy and vastly incomplete notes and tried to make some sense of them. These notes were a mixture of names, anecdotes, sketch maps and instructions for management (see Figures 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17). There was a lot of work to be done to sort and collate and re-present this information.

I had written names in my notes but in many cases I wasn’t exactly sure to what they referred. As we journeyed at }anydjaka, Dja`a`i\ba would gesture to or comment on a feature or place and cite a name or names which were associated with it. For example, he explained that a name belonged to ‘the second creek over there. This one is called Gatjirrimi’. I looked into the distance and wasn’t able to make out a first, second or third creek although I recognised the name he gave as the name of his youngest son, a Trainee Ranger with Dhimurru.

I realised now as I sat in the office and tried to learn and locate these names at }anydjaka that I was having problems ‘seeing’ what Dja`a`i\ba was explaining. I was anxious to record and locate-to get to know-these names and places correctly. I wanted to be a good learner. I often felt confused, distraught and impatient doing this learning and transcribing work.

I pored over the sketch maps I had drawn. I drew and re-drew them, adding names or changing them as I slowly built up a mental image of names and places at }anydjaka. I also sought out published texts and other representations

120 of }anydjaka to cross reference and verify these where possible. Interpreting many of these resources wasn’t easy. I gathered together existing map-a recent map made by CCNT biologists showing zones of vegetation types at }anydjaka (see Brocklehurst 1993; Figure 2); a large-scale map of NE Arnhem Land showing geological features (CCNT c.1993); coloured aerial photos of }anydjaka; black and white small- and large-scale satellite images of the }anydjaka region; a 1:100,000 scale topographical map of the region (Royal Australian Survey Corps 1990), and a photocopied version of this map with Yol\u names typed on it (see Figure 18).

Of these resources, I was most comfortable working with the aerial and satellite images. I was able to make a stronger correspondence between what I saw in these images and what I’d seen (or remembered seeing) on my various journeyings at }anydjaka. It was still difficult however to distinguish certain features from these images: the gradation of land to sea in the coastal regions of NE Arnhem Land is a swathe of mangrove forests and tidal features, such as mud and sand flats, which blur the boundary between water and land. The relatively small scale of these images also made detection of features difficult in some cases. In other cases I simply didn’t know what I was looking for anyway!

I made lists of names. I added to, deleted from and modified these lists, as I became more familiar with the Yol\u matha orthography or managed to verify spellings. It helped if I could manage to set a name to a story. I transcribed from my notes the fragments of stories that Djaàì\ba and others had told me about }anydjaka. This was a matter of drawing on the names that I had recorded from my conversations with Djaàì\ba and others, and cross- referencing them with other resources. These resources included: a dictionary of Yol\u matha (Zorc 1986) which had some of the names I was looking to verify but did not contain a majority of those relating to specific places at }anydjaka; a text published by the Yirrkala Community Education Centre (CEC) Literature Production Centre (LPC) called Ganbulapula: the story of the land around the Old Dhupuma College which is a transcription of a Yol\u story of }anydjaka told by Djaàì\ba with Rirraliny, }alpinya and Yirrinyina Yunupi\u (1986) and includes a map of }anydjaka with Yol\u place names (see Figure 19); a photocopy of a topographic map showing }anydjaka with Yol\u place

121 names typed onto it (see Figure 18), and drawings made by Wandjuk Marika 68 and recorded in an article by the anthropologist Berndt in 1964.

The ‘maps’ of Wandjuk’s were unfamiliar representations of land/sea country. Berndt describes them as individual ‘charts’ (1964, p. 269). The charts/‘maps’ locate Yol\u names and stories and features of }anydjaka in relation to each other. The article also contains extensive notes and interpretations referring to the charts/‘maps’ (see Figures 20 and 21). Yol\u matha orthography has changed several times and the spellings recorded by Berndt in his article vary from those used today-this added to my problem.

I attempted to interpret these chart/‘map’ presentations of }anydjaka on the basis of the names Djaàì\ba had told me and what I remembered of the places at }anydjaka we had visited together. I was slowly forming a picture in my ‘mind’s eye’ of the }anydjaka landscape which traced the pattern of our journeyings through the location of names, places and activities. Despite this, it was difficult for me at first to interpret the charts/‘maps’. It was difficult to discern the outline of the }anydjaka peninsula landform, let alone the various landscape features which I may have recognised from my experiences of the place. However I checked Wandjuk’s charts/’maps’ against aerial photos of the area and by this comparison was able to better orientate myself within his presentations. I could begin to see how Wandjuk’s charts/‘maps’ showed the country-cris-crossed with the tracks of Wa\arr beings, showing sites on the land and in the sea, and demarcating ownership boundaries. On several occasions I re-drew Wandjuk’s charts/‘maps’, adding and/or cross-checking information I had noted from my discussions with Djaàì\ba and the other maps and resources I had gathered. I also made a photocopy of Wandjuk’s chart/‘map’ of }anydjaka and marked names on it when I was reasonably confident that I name I had recorded and learnt was coincident with a particular location or place there (see Figure 20). This was a process of knowing the names/stories/places-trying to get a sense of how they related.

I took the copy of Wandjuk’s chart/‘map’ with my annotations on subsequent journeys to }anydjaka with Djaàì\ba and the Dhimurru Rangers. I struggled to use it to help me learn names and identify their association with landscape features at }anydjaka. I hoped that this chart/‘map’ might encourage Djaàì\ba to attempt a more ‘systematic’ approach to telling me names and places. So far, I felt like I had returned from each trip to }anydjaka more confused about

68 Berndt (1964) refers to Wandjuk as ‘Wondjug’ in this article.

122 what there was to know. There were some names and places that I was becoming familiar with, but many others, which I knew were noted on Wandjuk’s charts/‘maps’, I wasn’t able to confirm or identify from my conversations with Dja`a`i\ba and other Yol\u. I worried about being able to produce comprehensive information on the ‘sites of cultural importance’ at }anydjaka...

Another valuable resource I used in learning about }anydjaka and its names and stories is a photocopy of the standard topographical map of the region with Yol\u names typed on it (see Figure 18). This map is an enlargement of a portion of the standard 1:100,000 scale map of the region: ‘Gove’ Sheet 6273 (Edition 1) Series R 621 produced by the Royal Australian Survey Corps. Lines on the map draw a connection (reference) between the Yol\u names typed on the image and the cartographic form of }anydjaka. However, due to the small scale of the map and its poor quality it was difficult to be certain to which location/s in the land/sea exactly these lines indicated. Once again I attempted to check these names and locations with Wandjuk’s charts/’maps’ and my own lists, sketches, notes and ‘maps’ of names and places. I sometimes also tried to verify my understandings of a particular place/name with my other Yol\u co- workers. They were often helpful but I found that this exercise got in the way of achieving day-to-day management activities such as monitoring marine debris or sea turtle movements or checking permits and hosting visitors.

The metaphor I used to guide this work of generating knowledge about }anydjaka was one of ‘mapping’-I was however cartographically challenged in a way that I had never experienced before! Try as I might to pin them down, these ‘maps’ and ‘names’ and ‘places’ remained volatile and slippery-contracting, changing, shifting or alternating between times, locations, orthographic styles, texts and images. Despite this, I managed to produce a final ‘map’-a template of }anydjaka which consisted of a crude photocopy of the standard 1:100,000 topographic map for the area (‘Gove: 6273’) with Yol\u place-name labels glued on it (see Figure 22). This was an attempt to stabilise the }anydjaka I knew through the process of engineering names, places and stories: of rendering them in a form that I hoped I could somehow incorporate into the plan of management document. I seemed to have spent so much time on all this and I was conscious of a looming deadline.

In the next episode I trace further transformations that }anydjaka had to undergo to be presented as the object of management in Dhimurru’s first plan of management text.

123 5.4.1.2 Making ‘Maps’

I decided that the neither/both Yol\u/technoscientific object to be mobilised in the plan of management for }anydjaka could be best dealt with as series of overlays showing the various management considerations and elements relating to }anydjaka and Dhimurru’s work there. This was the best way I could think of to represent the multiple uses and features of }anydjaka and it is a mode of presentation often used in land management plan documents. This map-making exercise was of course far from exhaustive-I was conscious that what I was making was at its best an approximation and at worst a distortion!

I used my template }anydjaka ‘map’ (see Figure 22) I had created as the basis for the transparent overlays. Due to the small scale of this map I realised it was going to be difficult to mark things on it and show an appropriate level of detail on the overlays. However I was aware that the map and overlays had to fit inside a management plan document of standard A4-page dimensions. In my first attempt to produce a template map of }anydjaka I had tried to produce a smaller version of the vegetation map for }anydjaka generated by the CCNT (Brocklehurst 1993). (This vegetation map is of a larger scale than the 1:100,000 topographic map showing }anydjaka (‘Gove: 6273’) and therefore shows the shape of }anydjaka in greater detail.) I made a vain attempt to copy the vegetation map on the Dhimurru photocopier. Years later, when I requested a copy of this map for the purposes of this thesis, I was reminded of the hopelessness of this exercise. The Executive Officer of Dhimurru wrote: ‘The veg [vegetation ] map is more difficult to copy (locally) of course, because of the size. I’ll send you one copy of this, if you think you can get it copied in Melbourne and returned to Dhimurru asap [as soon as possible ]’ (Leitch, K., email 1998). The vegetation map for }anydjaka is reproducible only on a larger-than-normal photocopier or scanning device such as that in the specialist media department at the University of Melbourne.

The vast differences in scale between the various map resources I was using was a problem in terms of interpreting features, cross referencing locations and names, and matching locations/places to names. In producing my own template map (of unspecified scale) and overlays, I was cascading the ‘map’ types, and trying to collate the relevant information from each of them; from my jottings and field notes and from other sources, such as the Yol\u matha dictionary (Zorc 1986), the Ganbulapula publication by Yunupi\u et al. (c. 1986), the article by Berndt featuring Wandjuk Marika’s ‘charts’, and various articles from the periodicals Y^n and Yu=ana Dh^wu published by the Yirrkala LPC.

124 I produced a transparent overlay for each management category or set of management considerations or prescriptions I identified. I did this by laying a film of clear plastic over my template map of }anydjaka and then marking the relevant information on it with indelible coloured pens. There were several of these transparent overlays named: ‘Proposed camp sites and facilities at }anydjaka’; ‘Yol\u Uses of }anydjaka and Sites of Importance’; ‘Access at }anydjaka’ and ‘Recreation Zones’. I took care to try and present this information in the clearest possible way-to organise the overlays, one on top of the other, in such a way that each plastic sheet did not obscure the information on the other sheets, and at the same time together they would superimpose the relevant information onto my template }anydjaka. I used different colour pens to mark information on the overlays which included:past, present and future features in the land/sea; considerations of management, i.e. current patterns of use and proposed location of tracks and campsites and day-use areas; the location of ‘sites of importance’ such as sacred milkwood trees in the rainforest; and areas used for hunting and gathering activities such as mussel collection areas on the mud flats and freshwater sites where women collect pandanus (Pandanus spp .) leaves for weaving.

The final product of this work of assembling the information about management at }anydjaka was a very slippery, bulky insert into the plan of management document! How legible was this device, I worried. Did it reveal, or obscure, patterns of use and features of the place? 69

As I constructed my }anydjaka ‘map’ (see Plate 18) the overlays I wrote the text of the draft plan of management document. I used the format of the plan of management for Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management (UKTBoM/ANPWS c.1991) as a template for organising the information I had gathered, and for prompting what I should include in the document. I created files on my computer that corresponded more or less to the particular management categories by which I chose to organise the information, and classified my textual data according to these. These categories reflected the disciplines of geography, botany, zoology, and geology. I then iteratively collected, organised and interpreted my data according to these. I also included information from the CCNT/Dhimurru fauna survey and vegetation survey conducted at }anydjaka and a soils assessment and erosion report for }anydjaka (CCNT 1993). This was an exercise in information management-a process of making legible the messiness of }anydjaka.

69 The overlays have been lost from the original Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) that I lodged with Dhimurru in 1994. I am therefore unable to reproduce/retrace them here. (See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the traceability of objects.).

125

The Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a) needed to be recognised as a credible land management plan in the world of technoscience. In order to produce such a document I had to translate the collage of episodes I described in Chapter 4, the episodes of environmental surveying; and the episodes of ‘naming’ and ‘journeying’ I described in Section 5.1 of this chapter, into the structure and language of a plan of management document. This involved making decisions about what information was important to include, how this could be presented, and what we wanted the plan of management to record in terms of the collective activity of planning and managing for }anydjaka. This was an exercise in managing, collating and re-presenting the various information and elements of the management planning episodes at }anydjaka. I often felt myself stalling and stumbling in my efforts to achieve this. However, I had resources at my disposal: my ‘maps’ and texts relating to }anydjaka and the information contained in the CCNT survey and assessment reports. I had come to know }anydjaka through my journeying with Dja`a`i\ba and Dhimurru, and I had built up an idea of Dhimurru’s agenda from discussions with Dhimurru co-workers and members. I had also formed some of my own opinions about how management there should proceed...So I set about engineering a plan of management document for }anydjaka.

5.4.1.3 Air Conditioning

I sit in the comfort of the air-conditioned Dhimurru office where am frequently interrupted in my work as the rangers come and go. Some days are quiet here if they are out on patrol or working in one of the Recreation Areas. Other days the building is alive with activity and I am drawn into tea and discussions on the verandah. Behind me on the pinboard which lines the back wall of the building is a montage of photos from the last year or so of Dhimurru’s work. This records various episodes in the life of the organisation and is a point of reference for visitors. It now serves for me as a prompt for recalling and re- considering management activities we have undertaken: firing the island called Barrpira at }anydjaka; the miyapunu (sea turtle) research project with the Northern Territory University; Dhimurru Committee meetings and a multitude of other happenings.

The management work of Dhimurru goes on around me. The regular trips to }anydjaka continue: discussions continue about re-routing the main access track and locating some permanent camp sites at }anydjaka. Dja`a`i\ba goes there on patrol, checking for permits and monitoring the activities of non-Aboriginal visitors: maintaining the place; ‘checking up’, as he calls it. This office, however, is my place for the next two or three months as I work to produce the plan of

126 management document. My desk is littered with maps and texts and notes and photos: the diverse resources I have gathered together (elements of which I describe in the episode on ‘Making “maps”’ in Section 5.4.1.2 of this chapter) sit beside my computer.

The resources I deal with in writing the plan of management for }anydjaka are two- dimensional, mobile, combinable and superimposable inscriptions 70 of our object of management. These inscriptions are thoroughly material-they are indeed ‘things’-which are thumbed through and written on and written up and photocopied. They are also symbolic, as they mediate through the practices of reading and writing, cartography and photography: they are ‘signs’. Through the displacement of these inscriptions to my desk in the Dhimurru office, I/we accomplish a mobilisation of our object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. This allows us to possess the object of management, as Latour describes, through these delegates (1999, p. 36).

My struggle to ‘name’ and ‘know’ }anydjaka through language and graphic representation (maps etc.) was to dominate it (at a distance) and mobilise it. I chose to use names cartographically to re-assemble an image of }anydjaka that could form the basis of my (re-)presentation of the management objects recorded in the template ‘map’ and transparent overlays I created. I am able to dominate these inscriptions through my gaze as writer and crafter of the plan of management. In doing this work I necessarily lose some of the complexity of our object of management, however I also gain knowledge of it through an ability to superimpose, recombine, redistribute and dominate these inscriptions. These include inscriptions from different times and places (e.g. the various studies and reports accomplished by the CCNT and the publications of the Yirrkala LPC.) which I work to arrange in the text of the management plan document in certain new ways.

The practices of writing names, creating ‘maps’ and making texts are thus the work of stabilising the episodes of ‘journeying’ and ‘naming’ and the ordering of traces to mobilise the object of management in the plan of management document. However, in stabilising these episodes I was deleting much of the complexity and partiality of our journeying and naming work. I did what I could to try and make them ‘fit’ the plan of management, and yet remain true to the episodes out of which they arose.

70 These traces are elements including devices (three dimensional) and inscriptions (two dimensional) which possess according to Latour three necessary characteristics which allow them to operate within a technoscientific network to produce certain effects. These characteristics are: mobility, stability and combinability (1987, p. 236).

127 5.4.2 Interpreting Dhimurru’s Object of Management ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and its Draft Plan of Management

Here I interpret the work of producing the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (see Appendix M) using a typology drawn from the work of Callon (1986), Latour (1987), Law (1986; 1994) and Star and Greismer (1989). This typology assumes the analytical framework of ‘the network’ where the distinctions between ‘things/objects-in-the-world’, which include the human and non-human, are effects or outcomes. These effects and outcomes emerge in the relations between entities with other entities which are manifest in a network of material-social relations. So, those distinctions or divisions, the differences between ‘things’ and ‘objects’, are the outcomes of what Law calls ‘relational materiality’ (1994). In this chapter and in Chapter 4 I have explored how things relate in the work of developing a land management plan at Dhimurru, and the typology of terms I use below emerges from this telling. It helps to reveal further the differing translating technologies of Yol\u and technoscientific knowledge practices which effect the mobilisation of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in various ways through the heterogenous networks of doing management work at Dhimurru.

The mobile, stable and combinable characteristics of inscriptions allow them to operate within a technoscientific network to produce certain effects. One such effect is the process by which a point in a given network of heterogeneous elements is allowed to become a centre by acting at a distance on many other points (see Latour 1987, Chapter 6). This produces ‘a centre of calculation’ (Latour 1987, p. 233) or a working space inside which mobile, stable and combinable traces are gathered and which acts at a distance to dominate many other points (p. 233). The institution of Dhimurru operates as such a working space. It redistributes power in certain ways by ordering the heterogenous elements in the Dhimurru network which are the collage of management episodes I described in this chapter and the people and places which embody them. (There are others I don’t have the time and space to recount here.) The Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a) document organises these episodes; presents them in particular ways, allocates them to certain management categories, edits and reconfigures them, shuffles and harnesses them. Through this ordering work the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) asserts control over what are varied and diverse situations, times/places. In doing so it also standardises these times/places so they fit the structure and language of the plan of management. It mobilises and ‘connects up’ disparate times/places.

128 The Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a) is a robust ‘passage point’ (Callon 1986) which allows quite disparate sets of translations to proceed through it: it manages both the mobilising framework of djalkiri and gurru=u and that of technoscience. It produces evidence about }anydjaka and validates our assumption that: ‘}anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)’ requires management.’ Dhimurru, a centre of calculation, actively routes and re-routes power flows through a variety of such passage points as it achieves the social, material and political outcomes of its strategy of Yol\u-controlled land and sea management.

In crafting the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a), I was involved in particular processes of deletion, simplification and ordering. I had a specified time frame in which to produce a standardised plan of management form as it exists within the domain of environmental/technoscience in Australia. This was often a painful endeavour for me. I felt that there was too much I was leaving out; that the plan of management document did not manifest the detail or the integrity of many of our management plan development episodes, and in particular the episodes of journeying and naming I described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this chapter. I struggled with this as the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka/Cape Arnhem (DLMAC 1994a) took on a material form and structure modelled largely on other management plan documents written in Australia for co-managed Aboriginal estates. However the document does perform important work for Dhimurru. I describe it here to show how it manages two disparate sets of standardised practices by asserting protocols in both Yol\u and technoscientific knowledges.

The Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) has eight main sections which are: 1: ‘Introduction’ (DLMAC 1994a, p. 6); 2: ‘Yol\u Perceptions of the Landscape’ (p. 14); 3: ‘Management of Natural and Cultural Resources’ (p. 16); 4: ‘Management for Visitors’ (p. 21); 5: ‘Administration’ (p. 39); 6: ‘Capital Works’ (p. 52); 7: ‘Bibliography’ (p. 53); and 8: ‘The History and Importance of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)’ (p. 54).

In the section of the document on ‘Management of Natural and Cultural Resources’, technoscientific protocols are presented as the categories of management: ‘Geology and Landforms’ (p. 16); ‘Fauna’ (p. 16); ‘Flora’ (p. 18) and ‘Fire Management’ (p. 19). This section draws on the work of the fauna survey of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) undertaken by the CCNT and Dhimurru in 1994. The ‘naming-tracing’ practices of technoscience, negotiated as part of the work of developing a plan of management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (see Chapter 4) are thereby acknowledged in the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) as useful work contributing to Dhimurru’s land and sea management goals.

129

The first section of the Plan of Management, the ‘Introduction’, supplies a ‘Description of the Area’ (p. 6) and its ‘Management’ (p.8) status, including the relationship between Dhimurru and the CCNT and with other organisations. Section 2 entitled, ‘Yol\u Perceptions of Landscape’ describes the ‘ Wa\arr’ (p. 14) and other ‘Concepts in Yol\u Life’ (p. 14) and Section 8 is ‘The History and Importance of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)’ (p. 54). Together these Sections are an attempt to delineate the unique context of Dhimurru’s practice as a Yol\u-controlled organisation. They show that Yol\u land and sea management is embedded in the relationships between peoples and institutions through the protocols set down by the organising systems of djalkiri (DLMAC 1994a, p. 14) and gurru=u (p. 15) under the authority embodied in the Dhimurru Executive Committee (p. 10). These protocols produce the ‘clots’ of practices in Yol\u land and sea management which were worked-up in the development of the Plan of Management for }anydjaka: the practices of ‘journeying-naming’.

The three sections of the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) I describe above (Sections 1, 2 and 8) are incomplete; I struggled to write them as I was slowly developing my understandings of Yol\u land and sea management. I sensed however that I had to keep the ‘journeying’ and ‘naming’ episodes (some of which I describe in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this chapter) even if they didn’t ‘fit’ the process of producing a technoscientific planning document I was emulating. I created Section 8 in the Plan of Management which I entitled ‘The History and Importance of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)’ and included in it the ‘journeyings’ I tell in this chapter. I also attached all my field notes from the ‘journeyings’ as appendices to the completed draft plan of management document. 71 But, try as I might, I found no way to re-present these journeying and naming episodes in what felt like the proper way. How could the ‘journeyings/namings’ be properly credited within the process of developing a plan of management for }anydjaka?

I suggest that the multiple meanings of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ are credited through its work as a boundary object. Star and Greismer (1989) give the term boundary object to scientific objects which are constructed from the translations which occur when people occupying different social worlds use as part of their work together objects that inhabit each of these different social worlds.

Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet

71 These are not included in the version I have reproduced here as Appendix M.

130 robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use and become strongly structured in individual-site use. These objects may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognisable, a means of translation. (Star & Greismer 1989, p. 393)

‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and its management was the focus of our work together at Dhimurru. However, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ meant different things to each of us, depending on our roles in the organisation, on our histories, and on our identities and relationships with the other participants. It was variously, and at particular times and places, ‘journeyings’ and ‘namings’, ‘Hopping Mouse habitat’, a ‘Recreation Area’ and a ‘proposed reserve’, all of which are credited within our negotiated Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a). Since meanings are not embodied in boundary objects (Fujimura 1991, p. 174), but rather made in the work of mobilising these ‘objects’ in particular ways, it is through the translating work of the draft plan of management that ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ emerges as a Yol\u place under management.

‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, as a Yol\u place ‘journeyed-named’ in the development of Dhimurru’s first plan of management, and a landscape ‘measured-mapped’ through the work of the fauna survey, is a boundary object. This ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ object is done with the embodied routine practices of ‘doing naming’ and ‘doing quadrats’. I explore ‘doing’ ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ further in Chapter 6.

Star and Greismer (1989) develop the concept of boundary objects through their interpretation of the work of Grinnell and Alexander in building the Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology as ‘an object which lives in multiple social worlds and which has different identities in each’ (Star & Greismer 1989, p. 409). They argue that ‘the state of California’, the forms generated in the museum, as well as the museum itself, are all boundary objects of particular kinds. In their stories of these sites of practice, however, they do not have a context that is embodied being, which is the ‘journeying-naming’ practices of the Yol\u mobilising technologies of djalkiri and gurru=u , and the enumerating and quantifying (‘naming-tracing’) practices of technoscience. By ‘embodied being’, I mean that these routine practices are the ritualised movements of bodies in the land as they ‘do naming’ and ‘do quadrats’. ‘Doing naming’ is the patterned journeyings of members of Dhimurru continually (re-) performing the origin ‘naming’ and ‘journeying acts’ of the Wa\arr ancestral figures through djalkiri and the management planning work. ‘Doing quadrats’ is biologists and members of Dhimurru establishing, dismantling and re-establishing patterns of traps in

131 the landscape and the tracking, listening, observing, collecting, numbering and calculating of our ‘found’ faunal objects. Verran, in her account of the social lives of numbers, shows how ‘numbers become as bodies and bodies as numbers in little rituals’ (2001a, p. 105). She proposes numbers as ‘effected in the doings of series of gestures, small bodily rituals’ (2001a, p. 105) and asks us to consider numbers as located in particular presentations or performances of enumerating work and not as singular, a priori objects or things-in-the-mind.

The idea of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ we each used to translate our understandings and upon which we accordingly would act, allowed us to go on together at Dhimurru, producing useful work, including the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a) document. This document is a messy, seamy document that is neither universalist nor relativist. It sits well enough under the authority of Dhimurru and under the technoscientific regime of land and sea management in Australia. It manages a tension between the two sets or ‘clots’ of practices-the ‘journeying-naming’ practices and the ‘naming-tracing’ practices-which are the work of developing a Yol\u plan for the management of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. It does this by adhering enough to the conventions of a ‘plan of management’ in technoscience through the categories of management it presents, and by doing the work of mobilising Yol\u protocols for management through acknowledging Dhimurru’s intention and emergent methodology for a contemporary form of Yol\u land/sea management for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’.

The usefulness of the work of developing the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) was defined in terms of the Dhimurru’s land and sea management agenda within which Yol\u maintain an overt commitment to control. The ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ boundary object was a new sort of discursive object credited within the Yol\u system of knowledge. This object is credited through the authority of Dja`a`i\ba and the other custodians of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ who were involved in the planning process, and through the developing institution of Dhimurru. The object is also credited within the world of environmental science through the results of the scientific surveys at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and through adherence to a systematic and classic planning approach which emerges from the history of forest and national park management. The discursive ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ object which is the object of management at Dhimurru is therefore ‘known’ through the work of interpreting, translating and managing the practices of Yol\u knowledges and technoscience together.

In Chapter 4 I showed how the ‘naming-tracing’ practices of environmental surveying at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ mobilise the object of management as a biological

132 survey area. I then showed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this chapter how the acts of ‘journeying-naming’ mobilised the object of management ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ through the Yol\u technologies of translation; djalkiri and gurru=u. Section 5.3 of this chapter is about the ‘coming together’ of the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a). This is the process of producing a legitimate land/sea management plan and a legitimate land/sea management institution in Dhimurru. It is also an exemplification of Dhimurru’s unique and emergent methodology of land/sea management work: a methodology which employs mobilisation strategies in Yol\u knowledges and technoscience and which I call ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ (see Chapter 6).

The Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) was eventually bound and tucked away in various filing cabinets. The Draft Plan of Management itself is a form of protocol-a ‘clot’ of the multiple practices of managing }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem). In technoscience, the Draft Plan as an entity is seen as separate from the practices and peoples that produced it: it is a representation of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. I suggest, however, that the Yol\u practices of ‘journeying-naming’, which are embodied in the document and in Dhimurru, do not separate protocols from the places and peoples they refer to. In this sense, for Yol\u, the Draft Plan does not represent ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, it symbolises it: ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ itself is partially shut in the filing cabinet. This is an insistence on the partiality and distributedness of all symbolic forms.

133 Figure 131313:13 : My lists of names at }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem): YolYol \\\u\u names of w^w^\\\\aa (places in the land), moieties and WaWaWa\Wa \\\arrarr associations (source: Margaret Ayre’s field notes 13 March 1994)

134 Figure 141414:14 : My lists of names at }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem): YolYol \\\u\u place names and WaWaWa\Wa \\\arrarrarrarr associations (source: Margaret Ayre’s field notes 13 March 1994)1994)

135 Figure 151515:15 : List of Dhimurru Recreation Areas with names of YYolol\ol \\\uu custodians and landowners (source: DLMAC c. 1994)

136 Figure 161616:16 : A sketched 'map' of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (source:(source: MargMargaretaret Ayre’s field notes 24 April 1994)

137 Figure 171717:17 : A sketched 'map' of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (source:(source: Margaret Ayre’s field notes 24 April 1994)

138 Figure 181818:18 : Map of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) with YolYol\\\\uu place names (source: ?)

139 Figure 191919:19 : Map of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) from Ganbulapula (Yunupi(Yunupi\\\\uu et alal.. c. 19861986)) publication showing YolYol\\\\uu places and names and the journeys of the WaWaWa\Wa \\\arrarrarrarr dog and nightjar (Guwak) and possum

140 Figure 202020:20 : Copy of Wandjuk Marika's 'charts' of }anydjaka (C(Capeape Arnhem) from Berndt (1964, p. 273 ('Sheet A'); p. 276 ('Sheet B')) with my notes

141 Figure 212121:21 : Interpretation of Wandjuk Marika’s ‘chart’ of }anydjaka}anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) by Berndt (1964, pp. 272272----7373 (‘Sheet A’))

142 Figure 222222:22 : My template map of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)

143

Plate 555:5: Telling and learning place names at }anydjaka (Ca(Capepe Arnhem) (photo: MargaMargaretret Ayre)

Plate 666:6: YolYol\\\\uu Trainee Rangers fishing at GayGay\\\\adaada (photo: Margaret Ayre)

144

CHAPTER 6. DOING MULMULTIPLETIPLE MATERIALITIES OF PLACE

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter I show how Yol\u and non-Indigenous land and sea managers are engaged in a creative tension that exists in the negotiations and epistemic and ontic commitments of participants. These re-emerge in the mundane, day-to-day, ‘going on’ that is doing land and sea management together. In this collective life, the tension that characterised the development of first plan of management for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, is re-enacted.

The series of episodes from the plan of management work I presented in Chapters 4 and 5 elaborate an object of management in the plan of management for }anydjaka. I argued that this object of management operates as a boundary object enabling workers at Dhimurru to go on together working to produce a plan of management for the area. The object of management is a ‘common referent’, as Star and Greismer (1989, p. 411) might put it, of our work at Dhimurru. It allows us to communicate among ourselves and with other agencies and groups: it unites us in our statement of purpose: ‘“}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem” requires management’. However I want to look closer at this object of management. ‘What makes it up?’ Or, more precisely, ‘How is it made?’ I want to explore the question (as Latour (1999) might frame it), ‘To what do we refer when we speak of “}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem?”’ In other words, ‘What is the nature of this “}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem object”, the referent of our work together?’

The Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a) which was the outcome of the work I described in Chapters 4 and 5, was completed in November 1995. A copy of the draft plan of management was sent to Landcare Northern Territory as part of the grant acquittal process. A copy was held by Dhimurru and presented in a summarised form in plain English to the Dhimurru Committee for its endorsement. Further copies of the document were tucked away in various filing cabinets: at Dhimurru, in my shared office in the Old Arts Building at Melbourne University, and elsewhere. So what now? What happens in terms of the management of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and the ongoing activities of Dhimurru? How do the ongoing management activities I described in Chapters 4 and 5 relate to Dhimurru’s Plan of Management? How does the work of performing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as the object of management (in various ways) enable us to go on at Dhimurru in negotiating between two very different ways of knowing and working

145 Yol\u land and sea? Answering these questions involves examining the tensions that reside inside Dhimurru’s practice and how they are played out.

6.2 Performance anandd the Singularity and MultiplicityMultiplicity of Place

The notion of objects as performance has been developed in the social studies of science field by several people, notably Mol (1998; 1999), Mol and Law (1998), Mol and Berg (1994), Law and Singleton (2000a; 2000b) and Verran (2001a). This is a theoretical turn which draws our attention to the ways in which questions of epistemology and ontology, (questions of how and what we know of the world), are resolved and understood. It is based on the assumption that ‘reality is brought into being in the process of knowing’ (Law & Singleton 2000). Realities are thus enacted, performed as heterogenous elements linked in a more or less coherent network.

Law and Mol suggest how we might learn about the way scientific facts, principles and practices relate. They write:

Instead of staging a contest between referents, we want instead to turn to the practices of referring-and of dealing with reality in different ways. To the sites where, and the ways in which, objects are being enacted. Not interpreted-but performed . (Law & Mol 1998, p. 2, original emphasis)

The implications for this in terms of my analysis are that we can begin to see how links are, in various ways, contingent upon the very network that sustains (or dissolves) them. They are the enactment of particular elements of the network in particular ways, locations and times. This in turn allows us to see how things might be different, and indeed how ‘things’ are different-how the elements performed in multiple ways (at different times and locations) are multiple realities. This is what Mol (1998) calls the problem of ‘difference’: the problem of how to do objects as both a linkage and a separation at the same time. This problem takes objects as emerging in ways that refuse strategies of relativism and universalism. Relativism allows only separation, and universalism allows only linkage and no separation. Recognising the problem of difference requires us to keep the tension which is created when objects are linked in particular ways causing them to conjoin, disperse, separate, coalesce and co-constitute one another as they emerge in the ongoing, everyday practices of making realities and worlds.

The links are the relations between materially heterogenous elements in a network-how the elements fit together, or don’t fit together, as the case may be. These links perform elements/objects in a network in certain ways and in turn, perform relations between them. Links between elements may be strong, weak or even missing. It is the nature of the links which sustain or dissolve object/s. Links are

146 not given, they are made as the objects are made. They are enacted in the ways we make and remake and create order in the world, including our technologies of translation/mobilisation.

The ways in which materialities are organised and re-organised is the work of performing relations between entities. Materialities are thus altered as the relations between them alter-as the links are made or dissolved. The contingency of sets of relations alerts us to the fact that things could be otherwise: that relations are made, along with the objects they perform, in particular ways for particular purposes. This is work of making the realities of our worlds, or as Mol puts it, ‘the conditions of possibility we live with’ (1999, p. 75). It is political work, as she points out, because these conditions of possibility are not given, but rather created and shaped by the practices which perform them: this is ontological politics (Mol 1999, p. 74).

In some performances, the relations between material elements are strongly linked-in other words, they cohere. Law and Singleton point to these performances as being more or less regionally bounded-performed as ‘internally consistent, so to speak a region of relations which ‘naturally’ go together and cohere’ (2000, p. 9). The ‘regions’ are the places and times where these performances are made. Alternatively, other kinds of performances are more dispersed, less coherent. These performances do not enact consistency, but rather the partiality and complexity of objects that may share boundaries but differ across regions. These kinds of enactments are performances of regional heterogeneity (Law & Singleton 2000, p. 9). Objects are made in these performances. So we see that ‘Object integrity, then, is not about a volume within a larger Euclidean volume. It is rather about holding patterns of links stable...’ (Law 1999, pp. 6-7).

Performing regional heterogeneity is the work of performing different objects (things, realities, knowledges, worlds) in different times/places for particular purposes. For some purposes the object/s may be performed as a singularity (a single performance) that stiches together various practices. For other purposes, the object/s may be conjured as a multiplicity. By multiplicity I mean the multiple practices and the multiple performances that are effected through these practices. It is the links between these ‘multiple sets of practices’ that sustain an object as singular and definitive. This is shown by Mol, in her analysis of the medical condition artherosclerosis, where she describes this effect as producing a ‘virtual object’. She writes:

147 The projection of a virtual object ‘artherosclerosis’ behind the variety of ‘artheroscleroses’ performed, depends on the ability to make links, links between one local artherosclerosis and another. (Mol 1998, p. 162)

In this chapter I explore the different ways in which the object of management ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is performed in the practices of managing Yol\u estates in NE Arnhem Land through Dhimurru. I show how ‘place’ is performed as a dual singularity in the plan of management for }anydjaka. I also show how ‘place’ is also performed as a multiplicity, in the negotiated work practices of the continuing Yol\u technologies of doing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and the continuing technologies of translation in the environmental sciences. My contention is that if the complexities and subtleties of this form of contemporary Yol\u land and management are to be understood, we must learn to see ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, the Dhimurru ‘Recreation Area’, as a complex entity with several singularity/multiplicity tensions managed within its constituent practices. In attempting to show how we might achieve this ‘multi-vision’, I show some of the sets of practices that perform ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as the object of management in Dhimurru practice.

6.3 Alternative Definitive Performances of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)

6.6.6.3.16. 3.1 A Set of Routine Practices Which Perform the DeDefinitivefinitive Technoscientific Object ‘Cape Arnhem’

The following passage is from the Introduction of the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) :

}anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) is located in North East Arnhem Land on the north west coastline of the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is a narrow peninsula approximately 35 km in length and of a varying width from 1 km to 3-4 km.

The north western coast of }anydjaka encloses {aliwuy Bay and the {aliwuy Bay inlet. The section of coastline running from {aliwuy Bay north to G^rriri (Rocky Bay) consists of a series of beautiful beaches and popular recreation destinations. To the south of }anydjaka lie the seas of the Gulf of Carpentaria. The coastline south of }anydjaka extends to Port Bradshaw. Port Bradshaw is not designated for recreational use...(DLMAC 1994a, p. 6)

We might understand the }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) described above as a definitive (technoscientific) object ‘}anydjaka’ (in Yol\u matha ) or ‘Cape Arnhem’ (in English)

148 which the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a) text claims to have as its foundation. This definitive object, which I call here ‘Cape Arnhem’, is performed as the object of management by the routine practices of the technoscientific discipline of cartography as they are taken up in land and sea management practices. We can understand these routine practices that go into producing maps and texts about maps, as constituting the singular ‘object’. As Latour notes in his study of the workings of environmental sciences in the Boa Vista forest of the Amazon, such ‘objects’ require substantial work to maintain their coherence:

Remove both maps, confuse cartographic conventions, erase the tens of thousands of hours invested in making an atlas, interfere with the radar of planes, and our four scientists would be lost in the landscape and obliged to once more begin all the work of exploration, reference marking, triangulation, and squaring performed by their hundreds of predecessors. (1987, p. 254)

The definitive technoscientific ‘Cape Arnhem’ presented in the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a) as a cartographic description is therefore composed of, or performed through the unnoticed, and deleted, but large-scale, practices of cartography. These practices are strongly linked across times and locations to perform ‘Cape Arnhem’ as a singularity-a coherent, regionally bounded referent of the plan of management document. However, it is not only the maps that performed our definitive ‘Cape Arnhem’ object. There are other translating systems which perform ‘Cape Arnhem’ as a definitive technoscientific object. These are among what Latour calls the vast systems of ‘metrology’ (1987, p. 247).

The taxonomic enterprise performs our definitive ‘Cape Arnhem’ as an object of biological interest through the animal objects ‘found’ through the fauna survey work at }anydjaka. This enterprise includes the conventions of biological collections which are: the catalogues of specimens including the protocols of capture, recording, labelling and storage of specimens; and the institutions which house, order, record and assess taxonomic ‘objects’ (including specimens and species lists), and their paper and electronic inscriptions in filing cabinets and computer data bases. These are museums and herbariums and resource management institutions world wide. In the case of our definitive object, ‘Cape Arnhem’, these are the CCNT offices in Palmerston and the Museum of the Northern Territory in Darwin, Northern Territory. The ‘state of knowledge’ of plant and animal species in the Northern Territory is monitored by the PWCNT through its databases and is represented cartographically in the Northern Territory Parks Masterplan as a map of the ‘Total Number of

149 Vertebrate Records per Square Kilometre in Each Biogeographic Region of the NT’ (see PWCNT 1998?, p. 74).

The enterprise of ecology also performs our definitive ‘Cape Arnhem’ technoscientific object through the theory of biodiversity. The simplest measure of biodiversity, ‘species richness’, is the number of species in a given region. The regional assessment of biodiversity is based on criteria developed for the Northern Territory and nationally. These are the criteria of ‘comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness’ (PWCNT 1998?, p. 71). The fauna survey of ‘Cape Arnhem’ provided records of the occurrence and distribution of vertebrate species for this place. These records are used to compare ‘Cape Arnhem’ with other places through the calculation of an index of similarity (see Chapter 4). This index is used to mobilise ‘Cape Arnhem’ as the definitive technoscientific object, ‘proposed reserve’. The vertebrate records for ‘Cape Arnhem’ contribute to others created for the biogeographic region of the ‘Arnhem Coast’ which is its classificatory home in the biogeographic regionalisation of Australia (PWCNT 1998?, p. 74). Its biodiversity status depends on such records, (the products of inventory work), which are the found faunal objects required to mobilise the theories of biodiversity conservation.

Geology is another system of what we might call ‘definitivisation’; a system of technoscientific practice, made up of methods standardisation (Star & Greismer 1989), institutions, tools and techniques, which performs ‘Cape Arnhem’ as definitive. The report of the Dhimurru/CCNT fauna survey of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) recognises this place has ‘the largest expanse of Quaternary dune fields on mainland Northern Territory’ (Gambold et al . 1995, p. v). The CCNT, at the request of Dhimurru, undertook a ‘soil erosion assessment’ at Cape Arnhem in 1993 and detailed recommendations and implications for management. The report by Hadden and Hillen (c.1993) recognises that the Cape Arnhem area is sensitive to disturbance from vehicular use due to the mobility of the dunes, and describes the soils on the dunes as ‘deep siliceous sands which are well drained and have a loose, sandy surface (Hadden & Hillen c.1993, ‘General Descriptions’). In the ‘Conclusions’ section of their report, Hadden and Hillen (c.1993) recommend the rationalisation of existing access roads at Cape Arnhem, and the stabilisation of the roads where they cross the dunes, preferably through the use of board and chain accessways. They note that the accessways ‘require ongoing commitment to maintenance to be effective’ (Hadden & Hillen c.1993).

This ‘assessment’ of Cape Arnhem as a series of geological features, soils and erosion processes is based on the notion of the ‘climate’ acting on soil substrates to produce the known landscape. The ‘climate’, which shapes the dunes and the roads (with

150 increasing contributions from the impacts of vehicular traffic), provides for such phenomena as ‘blow-outs’ in the dunes, ‘run-on from the plateau’, road ‘failure’, ‘gullying’, ‘inundation’, ‘trafficability’, ‘drainage’ and the two broadscale influences of the ‘wet season’ and the ‘dry season’ (Hadden & Hillen c.1993, various pages). These phenomena are a justification for management action based on the level and impacts of vehicle use. The Hadden and Hillen report concludes with a recommendation to control levels of recreational use at Cape Arnhem via a permit system (c.1993). In 1999, years after the report was produced, Dhimurru developed a new access road and instituted a ten car per day limit at Cape Arnhem (DLMAC 2000a).

The application of the systems of cartography, taxonomy, ecology, and geology is the enterprise of metrology. This is the work of making ‘of the outside a world inside which facts and machines can survive’ (Latour 1987, p. 251). It is the work of extending the networks of technoscience from which ‘facts’ and ‘theories’ are generated, through the devices and strategies of forms of paper, field sites, instruments and tallies, to mobilise the object of management ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ through these devices and strategies. This is, of course, all quite conventional-but usually we fail to notice it. It is difficult not to notice it, however, in the work of Dhimurru because the definitive technoscientific object ‘Cape Arnhem’, which makes sense within the work of developing the plan of management, comes up against a definitive Yol\u object, which I call here ‘}anydjaka’, which is performed by sets of Yol\u routine practices.

6.3.2 A Set of Routine Practices Which Perform the YolYol\\\\uu Definitive Object ‘}anydjaka’

One of the first resources that my Yol\u employers thrust at me as important for my work when I began the task of helping to develop the plan of management for }anydjaka, were what are often known in English as ‘dreaming stories’. These were like this one, published by the Yirrkala LPC at Yirrkala in the monograph entitled: Ganbulapula: The Story of the Land Around the Old Dhupuma College: Told by Dja`a`i\ba Yunupi\u, Rirraliny Yunupi\u, }alpinya Yunupi\u and Yirrinyina Yunupi\u (Yunupi\u et al . c.1986) (see Plate 7). It tells a story about ‘}anydjaka’ and its surrounding areas.

6.3.2.1 WaWaWa\Wa \\\arrarr Guwak Story

The Wa\arr marr\u (possum) and guwak (nightjar) made a road through the point {atjala. The Wa\arr guwak calls from {atjala mourning the spirits of the deceased and signalling their passage.

151 ‘At that place the nightjar sang and cried, and it will cry and mourn again to let us know whenever a new death occurs.’ The Wa\arr guwak flew up into a tree at {atjala and stretched out the sacred string in preparation for the journey of the spirits of the dead. ‘The spirits of the dead travel along the sacred string.’ The string extends from the place at Dhupuma where there used to be a ceremonial ground. This is where the spirits used to dance. ‘From here...to {atjala, through the bush, to the point where the road goes down the escarpment.’ It takes a journey through the road dreaming to Twin Eagles (Murupa, commonly known as Gay\a[a).

A long time ago people were dancing near the billabong/swamp in the Durrupulmi area. There is a little Yol\u road here. There is a road that extends from Rocky Bay and {aliwuy through the swamp and south along the western edge of the {aliwuy inlet. The area of Ganbulapula is around Durrupulmi and ‘right up to’ Barralywuy, Matharra and Wirrmu\a (the small jungle patch where the flying foxes are). This is ceremony ground. (Adapted from Yunupi\u et al . c.1986)

This passage is part of a story which is told as part a set of routine practices that perform or compose the Yol\u object ‘}anydjaka’ which also claims to be definitive. These routine practices of Yol\u contemporary life include, among others; the everyday activities of storytelling, food gathering, and ceremony ( bu\gul ). These practices are mobilising technologies analogous to those which perform the technoscientific definitive ‘Cape Arnhem’ object. My Yol\u colleagues have often explained to me that places like ‘}anydjaka’ are performed through this work and its coordination and various presentations.

Yol\u announce the accomplishment of the work of producing and maintaining the definitive Yol\u ‘}anydjaka’ in referring to ceremonial activities as ‘business’. Ceremony is the ‘business’ of making and re-making }anydjaka.

6.3.2.2 Guwak Painting

The Yol\u text, Ganbulapula, the story of the land around the old Dhupuma College (Yunupi\u, et al . c.1986), contains a version of a Yol\u painting on bark ( dhula\) of the story of the Wa\arr guwak (see Plate 8). Such paintings connect people to places in the land ( w^\a) through the Wa\arr they manifest: these connections are encoded in the clan designs and the presentation of land/sea in these designs. This dhula\ is a Yol\u definitive performance of ‘}anydjaka’ done through the technologies of djalkiri and gurru=u : where the relations between people and places

152 are made and re-made through the accomplishment of paintings by particular clanspeople using particular, characteristic clan designs bestowed by the Wa\arr .

The painting (see Plate 8), done by Mungurrawuy Yunupi\u in the 1960s, has been evoked as a Yol\u definitive performance of ‘}anydjaka’ in Dhimurru’s cultural heritage assessment of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ (DLMAC 1999c) and at the Garma Festival in 2001. Plate 9 shows the easel on which the painting was displayed at the Festival: I regret I did not have time to take a photo of the easel with the painting on it before members of the Yirrkala CEC took the important Wa\arr guwak painting back to the school and reinstated it on the wall in the reception area there.

6.3.2.3 A Garma BuBuBu\Bu \\\gulgul

A third definitive performance of ‘}anydjaka’ is part of the bu\gul events at the Garma Festival at Gu`ku`a in 2001. Gu`ku`a is part of ‘}anydjaka’ through the travels and actions of the Wa\arr figure, Ganbulapula, who is evoked in the dancing and music performed each night of the Festival (see Plate 2).

Galarrwuy Yunupi\u explains for the benefit of the ‘visitors’ the program of dances they will experience at this year’s Garma Festival. He says that the dances will be broken up into brief performances of much longer dances. ‘This kind of presentation is packaged’, he says. Galarrwuy speaks to the audience gathered to watch the bu\gul and interprets for their benefit the movements of the dancers. I re-tell some of his interpretation here:

A tall wooden sculpture of Ganbulapula stands at one end of the bu\gul area. Galarrwuy explains that he carved it in a couple of days with a chainsaw. This bu\gul revives the spirit of Ganbulapula, he says. And the yidaki (didgeridoo) is the instrument that will carry us for the next five days of the Festival. This bu\gul , Galarrwuy continues, is telling (retelling) the story of the ‘spirit man’ ( Wa\arr) , Ganbulalpula. Ganbulapula is connected to all the Yirritja clans: this is why Gumatj and Wangurri people are dancing this evening. Ganbulapula was here at Gu`ku`a looking for sugarbag (wild honey) in the stringybark trees. He moved around this area, looking upwards into the trees in his search for bees. When you see the bees swarming, you know the nest must be close by. These actions of Ganbulapula’s can be seen in the movements of the dancers: the women hold leafy twigs of the stringybark tree, waving them rhythmically in front of them as they move from side to side, spraying sand with their

153 feet This is the action of Ganbulapula shooing the flies away from his eyes as he looks upwards for bees.

My Yol\u friends explain to me that Ganbulapula is a notorious interrupter. He shakes us from our everyday complacency and reminds us that things could be otherwise. This is a message for working together Yol\u and non-Aboriginal understandings at this particular Garma. (Margaret Ayre’s field notes 22 August 2001)

The routine practices of doing bu\gul dj^ma (ceremony work or 'business'), as Yol\u have often described it to me, is a definitive performance of ‘}anydjaka’ (through its associations with Gu`ku`a), evoked for the particular purposes of creating this Garma-a Yol\u site of negotiation (see Marika 1999). This definitive performance of place is done through the Yol\u systems of djalkiri and gurru=u which together organise the song/dance cycles which are done in the bu\gul . The doing of bu\gul is the re-making of connections between people and the land/sea through language (song and music), and the re-performance of the actions of the Wa\arr , as the embodied constitution of place.

6.3.3 The Effect of Having the Two Definitive Objects Inside Dhimurru’s Plan of Management for ‘}anydjaka/Cape ArnhemArnhem’’’’

I have described two sets of prescriptions for mobilising the object of management as a definitive object: these are the practices of the technoscientific singular object, ‘Cape Arnhem’, and the Yol\u singular object, ‘}anydjaka’. These two definitive objects are the reference for plan-making I described in Chapters 4 and 5. They lie ‘behind’ the management planning work we did together. In Chapter 4, I showed how the mobilising technologies of the fauna survey at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ produced evidence about the place as a ‘proposed reserve’. These technologies-of trapping, tallying, producing indices, collecting specimens, and so on-rely on the understanding that the object of management is a fixed space, made up of ‘found’ objects: our ‘Cape Arnhem’ object. In Chapter 5, I showed how the Yol\u mobilising technologies of journeying, naming and storytelling produced evidence about ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as a Yol\u place under management. These technologies rely on and emerge from the definitive performance of the Yol\u object ‘}anydjaka’ given in the authorised Yol\u accounts of place which I described in 6.2.2 of this chapter: the story of Ganbulapula; the painting ( dhula\) of the Wa\arr guwak ; and bu\gul at Gu`ku`a.

Revealing the two equally legitimate definitive objects-the definitive technoscientific object ‘Cape Arnhem’ and the Yol\u definitive object ‘}anydjaka’-as composed of

154 sets of routine practices, is to reveal the singularities or the ‘definitiveness’ of objects as accomplished out of multiplicities-‘multiple doings’. The links that sustain the two definitive objects, ‘}anydjaka’ and ‘Cape Arnhem’, include: song, dance, painting, storytelling, as practices of the Yol\u definitive object ‘}anydjaka’; and calculus, measurement, map drawing and use of the compass, as practices of the technoscientific definitive object ‘Cape Arnhem’. These definitive objects I call ‘}anydjaka’ and ‘Cape Arnhem’ are performances of place as a ‘singularity’. The mobilising technologies of the Yol\u practices of djalkiri and gurru=u , and the practices of numeration and quantification in technoscience prescribe these two singularities which have been massaged into the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a). The plan of management document credits both these singularities (definitive objects) in the world of technoscience and in contemporary Yol\u land and sea management.

But how does understanding these singularities as accomplishments help here? What does it mean for taking Dhimurru’s practice seriously?

6.4 The Work of Managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as a Designated Recreation Area

Within the institution of Dhimurru itself, the two definitive ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ objects, or what Mol (1998) might call ‘virtual’ representations/projections of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, sit side by side, producing a creative tension. This tension results in a specific set of negotiated practices as part of the work of generating the plan of management for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. The multiplicity of Dhimurru’s object of management, ’}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, can be glimpsed in these practices. In other words, doing the practices of ‘managing’ ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is to perform multiple ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhems’ locally. These multiple ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhems’ may be seamlessly linked in order to, for some specific purposes, establish ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as a singularity-the object of management. On other occasions the multiple performances of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ allow members of Dhimurru to go on together, doing useful work. Revealing the two definitive ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ objects is to reveal the practices and the singularities as accomplished out of multiplicities (multiple ontologies).

In Chapter 5, I suggested that }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) is a boundary object (Star & Griesmer 1989). However my turn to performance here will reveal how this concept of boundary object, although helpful in interpreting how the ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ object endures across social worlds, does not enable us to understand the complexity of translations and knowledge-making practices that are

155 the production of legitimate work at Dhimurru. The ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ object/s which is the focus of our work together does not straddle multiple social worlds as a singular object which is thrown open to interpretation by various actors in different times and places. It is literally different objects, (partial, diffuse and fractured), in different times and places-it is thus enacted by, and enacts different realities.

To understand how ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is variously performed as the object of management, I move beyond the work of other science studies workers and their interpretations of the performances of disease (Mol (1998; 1999); Mol and Law (1998); Mol and Berg (1994); Law and Singleton (2000b); and tractors (Law and Singleton 2000a), and that of Verran (2000) and her treatment of numbers. These authors argue that disease, technological and number objects are multiple-performed in certain times and places as a multiplicity and in others as a singularity (see Dugdale 1999). In my analysis, however, I examine the interactions between two definitive performances of an object. This object, Dhimurru’s object of management ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, is performed as the definitive technoscientific object I call ‘Cape Arnhem’, and the definitive Yol\u object I call ‘}anydjaka’. I ask: what are some of the multiple sets of practices which co-exist within the creative tension enabled by these two definitive ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhems’? To answer this question, we need to look again at some of the practices of managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, and at how the performances of multiple ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhems’ is a matter of negotiating the two sets of translating/mobilising technologies I discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. The short stories I present in this chapter allow us to do this.

6.4.1 Story 1: Managing Permits

From 1995 Dhimurru instituted a Recreation Permit system for visitor access to designated Recreation Areas in NE Arnhem Land. This system is as follows:

Permit system for Dhimurru (IPA) Recreation Areas:

All visitors to any recreation areas managed by Dhimurru require a permit. Permits are issued by Dhimurru under the terms of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Act 1980 . For the year ending 31 March 2001 the following charges apply:

Annual family permit: $70.00 Annual individual permit: $40.00 Visitors permit lasting for 2 months: $20.00 A 50 % discount for pensioners applies.

156 In addition to the recreation permit an additional special permit is required for visits to Ga]ami (Wonga Creek) and Gapuru (Memorial Park) in the Inland Waterways management unit and for visits to the Manydjarrarr\a-}anydjaka management unit. These special permits are issued at a cost of $10.00 per vehicle. (adapted from DLMAC 2000?, p. 21)

‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, (the ‘Manydjarrarr\a-}anydjaka management unit’ identified above), is one of the most popular destinations among the Recreation Areas, where recreation activities include: camping; fishing; four-wheel-driving; sightseeing, and boating. Dhimurru Rangers undertake regular patrols to check if visitors at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ hold a valid Dhimurru Recreation Permit. This is a time-consuming and resource-intensive job but is regarded by Yol\u landowners as a priority of Dhimurru’s land and sea management agenda. Dja`a`i\ba explains the day-to-day rigour of managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as a Recreation Area:

See? Where I can see. Like Cape Arnhem to which place they’re [recreationalists ] always going out there. I find it hard to say, and hard to check. Looking after the number plate and the registration number. I’m always running out there [at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ ]. Up and down. It’s hard work. (Margaret Ayre’s field notes 11 September 1994)

The system of permits for recreation is not without controversy, mostly among the non-Aboriginal residents of Nhulunbuy. Prior to the introduction of the Dhimurru Recreation Permit system there was relatively uncontrolled access to the ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ estate and other Dhimurru Recreation Areas (see Chapter 3). Some visitors to NE Arnhem Land are reluctant to obtain a Recreation Permit and/or acknowledge Dhimurru and Yol\u jurisdiction over land use activities and access. In a column of the local newspaper in Nhulunbuy, the Executive Officer of Dhimurru writes:

As stated in a recent edition of The Arnhem Courier, the development of a management plan for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) was one of the first tasks Dhimurru undertook when it was established. There seems to be a lot of interest amongst the public about the future of recreation access to this area. ( Arnhem Courier Thursday 21 March 1996)

And, in a subsequent edition of the Arnhem Courier he writes:

Thank you to those people who participated in the visitor survey conducted at }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) over the Easter weekend...

157 38 % of the groups surveyed did not know that }anydjaka is a Registered Sacred Site and that penalties of up to $20,000 can apply for entry without appropriate permission. This information is clearly signposted in several locations on the access road. ( Arnhem Courier 18 April 1996)

The management work at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is presented here by Dhimurru as the work of managing ‘public interest’ in the place. Together with the work of controlling access via permits, public education and patrolling, this performs ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, the object of management, as a ‘Recreation Area’.

‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as ‘Recreation Area’ is performed through the everyday, mundane practices of issuing and checking permits, of ‘running around’ patrolling the area, and of conducting visitor surveys. This version of our object of management is also performed through Yol\u ownership of the place which is asserted through the legislative mechanisms of the ARLA, the Aboriginal Land Act 1980 (NT), the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT) and Yol\u institutions of governance including djalkiri and gurru=u .

In the experiences of Dhimurru, the performance of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ the ‘Recreation Area’ as a Yol\u-owned place is not a simple or straightforward matter. On the one hand, the ARLA is a primary legal instrument which protects Yol\u land ownership interests, including the right to deny access to Yol\u lands. Monitoring the unlawful entry of non permit holders into Recreation Areas, is a focus of Dhimurru management activity, however prosecuting trespassers (non permit holders) under the legislative regime of the relevant statutes is very difficult. There must be substantive evidence in the form of photographs, corroborating statements, or material traces to prove a non permit holder was present at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. There are also the publicity aspects of this work to consider. Dhimurru does not want to undermine its public support by instigating legal battles willy-nilly-it is important for it to manage its ‘public interest’.

On the other hand, negotiations about who makes decisions about management at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and what constitutes ‘appropriate access’, are the province of the Dhimurru Committee and Yol\u landowners and custodians. This is a matter of negotiating the ‘proper’ uses and maintenance of the ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ estate (and others) according to Yol\u ownerships rights and responsibilities. Such negotiations are the work of performing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as a Yol\u-owned place through the protocols and practices of djalkiri and gurru=u . These practices can be glimpsed in the next story which I call ‘Locating People and Place’.

158 6.4.2 Story 2: Locating People and Place

Dja`a`i\ba, Botha, Mark, Greg and I travelled by boat from {aliwuy (Daliwoi Bay) to Guninyura. 72 This is the small beach just north of the Dhimurru Recreation Area, Garanhan (Macassan Beach). I understood we were trying to locate the grave of an ‘old man’.

On setting out, Djaàì\ba would not reveal any information about what exactly we were looking for, what he hoped to find, or the identity of the deceased ‘old man’. He insisted, laughing, that it was ‘a secret’ and that we would find out in good time. He explained that his mother and father had told him about the presence of a grave at Guninyura. He said that they simply, ‘pointed out this place’ to him but didn't show him the actual location of the grave of the ‘old man’. Djaàì\ba assumes from the nature of similar graves that the burial site would most likely be marked by a deliberately placed pile of rocks. He explained that he thinks ‘the grave would be half beneath the sand and with rocks on top.’

We arrived at the small beach, at the place Guninyura, and Djaàì\ba explained to us that the ‘old man's’ grave we were searching for was that of Bululu\a. He was the last male leader of the ~amamirri clan. He is a w^\a-wata\u [custodian ] for this area. Bululu\a’s connection to this place. Djaàì\ba instructed us, is through the Yothu-Yindi relationship of his clan with the Gumatj clan (see Appendix J). Bululu\a's granddaughter is the last living member of the ~amamirri clan. She has lived most of her life at Galiwin’ku (Elcho Island) where she was raised by her stepfather, Djaàì\ba said. This old lady’s biological father is Ma\gatu, the son of Bululu\a. Ma\gatu was speared and killed by a Yol\u person at the homeland of Dultji. Bululu\a’s granddaughter had two sisters who have both passed away.

Dja`a`i\ba continued to explain that his father, Mungurrawuy Yunupi\u, sat with the old man Bululu\a before he passed away and listened to his instructions and counsel. Bululu\a entrusted the custodianship of his clan country to Mungurrawuy.

Djaàì\ba remembers his father telling him that when the ‘old man’ Bululu\a felt old, and felt that he was soon going to die, he swam from Garanhan (Macassan Beach) to Guninyura. He swam, Djaàì\ba explained, so that his

72 We travelled to Guninyura on 31 August 1994. This story is my interpretation of this trip.

159 spirit would belong to the water of his country and remain there after his death. The body of Bululu\a was brought up onto the beach at Guninyura and Mungurrawuy helped to bury his body somewhere in this area. Dja`a`i\ba explained that Mungurrawuy helped, ‘to put him [his body ] in the rocks somewhere’.

Djaàì\ba told us that Bululu\a’s granddaughter, whom he has spoken to recently, remembers the words of her grandfather. She confirms that now Djaàì\ba, through his father Mungurrawuy, is to care for this country. But Djaàì\ba insisted to us in the recounting of this story that Bululu\a remains the ‘king of the country’.

We looked for the grave, climbing over the scree at the base of a headland, and fighting our way amongst the thick grasses and rainforest vegetation. I recorded this place-the ‘grave searching site’-for the purposes of Dhimurru’s Cultural Site Register. I used a proforma I had produced a couple of weeks ago in the office to do this (see Figure 23). Mark used his hand-held GPS device to get the coordinates for this place and I marked this on the form together with the name given to us by Djaàì\ba, ‘Guninyura’. I left the rest of the form incomplete. Before leaving, Djaàì\ba and Djawa lit fires which burnt fast and hot up the side of the hill.

We searched in the place, Guninyura, for the grave of the ‘old man’. But, to my knowledge, on this day the grave was not found. Since this time, the last member of the ~amamirri clan (the principal traditional owners of the }anydjaka estate (DLMAC 1999c, p. 6)) has passed away. Dja`a`i\ba is one of seven current custodians of the ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ estate.

Conferral and transferral of Yol\u ownership/custodial rights is a matter of performing place through locating the relationship between land/sea and people through the Yol\u knowledge domains of djalkiri and gurru=u . In Story 2, performances of place are made, both through the act of searching and telling the grave of one ‘old man’ and the story of the ~amamirri women, and through recording the site in a standardised format using the conventions of Cartesian space, triangulation, and satellite technology for the Register of Cultural Sites at Dhimurru. Together these performances are linked to perform a version of the object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, as a contemporary Yol\u-owned and managed estate and ‘cultural/sacred site’.

160 Dhimurru’s ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ object of management is conjured in yet another place/time as a performance of ‘sacred site’ and ‘cultural landscape’. In 1999, Dhimurru undertook a Heritage Values Assessment of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and in its report to the Australian Heritage Commission provides the following description of }anydjaka/Cape Arnhem (for which the name ‘Manydjarrarr\a- }anydjaka’ is used):

(European Name: Cape Arnhem registered Sacred Site # 756)

The area referred to by Yolngu owners as Manydjarrarrnga-Nanydjaka is congruent with Northern Territory registered Sacred Site No. 756, an area of 174.7 sq. km, registered under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sites Act 1989 . The site centroid coordination is 707100E 8630900N, Zone 53. The NT Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority reference number for this area is 6273-0031. (DLMAC 1999c, p. 13) and

Manydjarrarrnga-Nanydjaka is a cultural landscape. (p. 4)

In this process of assessing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’s ‘heritage values’ the report records ‘All material was collated and reviewed for the purpose of assessment against National Estate criteria.’ (DLMAC 1999c, p. 10) These criteria are determined by the Australian Heritage Commission. The concept of ‘cultural landscape’ is defined under the World Heritage Convention as a universal category of protected area (see Table 1.1).

So, here we see that ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is (re)-performed to fit the categories ‘sacred site’ and ‘cultural landscape’ which are defined within the technoscientific domain of land and sea management. This particular performance of ‘sacred site/cultural landscape’ underpins Dhimurru’s bid to obtain Cultural Heritage status for its object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’.

The performances of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as Yol\u-owned place/ ‘sacred site’/‘cultural landscape’ in Story 2 rest alongside the performance of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in Story 1, as part of the everyday work of ‘managing’ ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. This is the work of performing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as the object of management in Dhimurru’s practice. It is the work of doing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in multiple ways, in order to ‘go on’ doing useful work at Dhimurru. This work maintains the tension between the singular definitive ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ objects which are mobilised through the Yol\u and technoscientific technologies of doing place. These technologies overlap and engage

161 and mess with each other in accomplishing the various performances of the multiplicity ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as it resides within Dhimurru’s practice. Doing these technologies, as Dhimurru workers do, both separately and together, brings with it, its own basis for answering the questions ‘Who is an authority here?’ and ‘Who does this?’ In this way it also answers the question ‘What do Dhimurru workers do?’ Dhimurru personnel ‘go on’ in knowing ways by maintaining their familiarity with and commitment to the tensions between the mobilising technologies of djalkiri and gurru=u on the one hand, and of numeration and quantification on the other. This is the embodied certainty at the heart of Dhimurru’s practice. It is the answer to the question ‘What should Dhimurru do?’

6.4.3 Story 3: SettlinSettlingg Names on the Managed ‘}anydjaka/Cape‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’

The convoy of Dhimurru vehicles stopped at an elevated spot beside the track and we descended into the heat of the late morning, smoking and talking as we considered the landscape. To the south a long beach stretches to Port Bradshaw, and to our north, lies the coastline of the ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ peninsula and its majestic sand dunes. Straight ahead, to the west, are the seas of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Behind us in the distance is the escarpment from where the woodlands spill to meet the coastal thickets and the extensive mangroves of the {aliwuy Bay inlet.

On this trip we are standing at our vantage point, pleased to be out of the vehicles at last. Dja`a`i\ba gestures from the escarpment behind us along the coastline, sketching the movements of the Wa\arr guwak 73 being, pointing out the features in the landscape associated with this figure. He explains that the guwak cried out from {atjala at the edge of the escarpment and then travelled on to this place where we are standing which is called Yukuwurra. We regularly stop at this place as we make subsequent journeys at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. And after a few such journeys, we came to know it together as ’Guwak’ (see Plate 10).

Our nominated lookout site has another name in the Yol\u world-Dja`a`i\ba explained to me this place is called Yukuwarra. But for the purposes of learning about the country and doing the work together of generating the plan of management for ‘}anydjaka/ Cape Arnhem’, we (the Dhimurru workers) settled upon the name

73 Guwak is also the name Yol\u give to a bird known by science as the Common Koel (Eudynamis scolopacea) (Christie, M. pers. comm.). When I have spoken of guwak to Yol\u they have most often referred to this bird as a nightjar. In the text of the publication, Ganbulapula, it is also referred to as a ‘nightjar’.

162 ‘Guwak’. This story helps to show us that at Dhimurru, part of the practices of naming is that of (re)-naming, which grew out of our routines of management at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. Settling on names such as ‘Guwak’ was performing the object of management for particular purposes in ways that allowed us to ‘go on’ together. This ‘going on together’ can also be seen in the practices of surveying a new access road to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in the following story.

6.4.4 Story 44:: The Practices of Surveying a New AccessAccess Road

Dja`a`i\ba and Mark, the PWCNT Ranger, directed the pilot on our journey. There were a few things they had agreed to look at when planning this trip-I understood that these were things/features we could see ‘better’ from the comfort and perspective of the helicopter.

Djaàì\ba sat beside me pointing out of the window and I watched his lips moving, his voice inaudible above the drone of the rotor blades and the broken headphone set I had inadvertently acquired! This was a part of the management plan process; sharing together the bird’s eye view of the country. I was riding in the helicopter like an excited child marvelling at the sweep and arc of the huge sand dunes along the }anydjaka peninsula and the colourful curves of the coastal inlets with their adornments of mangroves and muddied convergence of fresh and salt waters. Djaàì\ba continued talking to Mark and the pilot, as Sharon peered for release into the depths of a plastic bag-inconsolable in her nausea.

We hovered over the place we had come to know as ‘Guwak’ and I photographed it for Dhimurru’s records (see Plate 10). We then flew to look at the spot on the end of the escarpment near Dhupuma. This place is called {atjala, the point at which the access road to ‘}anydjaka/ Cape Arnhem’ used to descend the bauxite escarpment onto the peninsula. 74 The issue of developing a new access road to ‘}anydjaka/ Cape Arnhem’ was identified as one of the important parts of the management plan work by Dhimurru.

Dja`a`i\ba Yunupi\u explained to us that the point {atjala is sacred. A Yol\u spirit goes through the ‘top’ (access) road to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and through {atjala. {atjala is the place where the access road goes down the escarpment. The Guwak nightjar sings from this place mourning the death of Yol\u and signalling the passing of their spirits.

74 This road has since been redeveloped as the main access road to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ (see Chapter 6).

163 The ELDO satellite personnel also put in another access road which descended the northerly side of the escarpment and led to down near the small patch of rainforest and the swamp area near its base. We fly above this circular rainforest patch which is distinguishable amongst the eucalyptus woodland by its vibrant, dense greenery. ‘This “jungle” is important. We must make sure that this old road is blocked off’, Dja`a`i\ba says. We should continue to use the bottom road to get to }anydjaka, he instructs us.

The ‘top’ road to ‘}anydjaka/ Cape Arnhem’ was created without permission from the Yol\u owners of the area (Lee 1983, p. 2 in DLMAC 1999b, p. 3). It was closed by Galarrwuy Yunupi\u, representing the Gumatj clan, (p. 2) in the late 1980s. The ‘bottom’ road that Dja`a`i\ba is referring to in this story is the main access road to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in use from the late 1980s to 2000. This is the road we regularly follow in our management plan work, along the base of the escarpment (bauxitic plateau) to the sand dunes at the southern end of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’.

The ‘top’ road passes through the site of the old Dhupuma College, through the place Gu`ku`a, along a ridge and to the point at the edge of the escarpment, {atjala. It then plunges down the escarpment at {atjala, a short, steep drop of approx. 100 m. In the past this was a faster, shorter route to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ than the ‘bottom’ road; however it was prone to severe erosion and ‘wash out’, exacerbated by regular vehicular traffic. It was for many drivers a dangerous route, although a welcome challenge to enthusiastic four-wheel-drive recreationialists.

As part of the work of developing a plan of management for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ we journeyed to {atjala in the helicopter. From the air we could see a maze of unauthorised roads meandering over the ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ landscape. Although the trajectory of the ‘top’ road is blurred now by the re-growth of the woodlands, it is still possible to make it out, if one looks carefully and in the right place. The ‘bottom’ road however, at least to some, has become an obstacle and an eyesore. It is badly eroded in many places, with deeply incised gullies and vertical failure in some places. Wet season access is hampered by several creek crossings and recreationalists often complain about its condition. Could we consider therefore re-opening the ‘top’ road?

To help answer this question, Dhimurru consulted the CCNT. Personnel of the Soil Conservation Section of the CCNT conducted a soil assessment and erosion survey for ‘Nanydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in 1993. The report of this survey work details recommendations for the rehabilitation of sections of the current access road (the

164 ‘bottom road’) and suggests reopening the ‘top road’ as the main access road to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’:

Because the top road is currently stable and located on more appropriate soils for road location, it should be used as the only vehicular access into Cape Arnhem. The steep jump-up [elevation of the escarpment ] should be re-engineered with particular attention to drainage. It may be that sealing offers the most stable solution.

The bottom road should be closed as soon as possible after the top road is opened. (Hadden & Gillen 1993, p. 2)

Despite these seemingly straightforward recommendations for management, access to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is not a simple matter. Dja`a`i\ba insisted to us during the work of managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ (from 1994 onwards), that the ‘top’ road was not to be used or re-opened at this time. ‘It passes through {atjala’, he repeated, ‘This is a sacred place’ (Yunupi\u, D. pers. comm.)

We therefore went about exploring options for a new alternative access road to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. The construction of a new road would require the mobilisation of a lot of resources. Dhimurru doesn’t have the capacity to undertake this work and must seek further advice and assistance from representatives of the mining company Nabalco. There is a chance Dhimurru may be able to negotiate the use of labour and earthmoving equipment from Nabalco. Firstly however, Dhimurru workers agree to ‘walk’ a possible route for the new road together:

We set out from the top of the escarpment-from Gu`ku`a, inland from {atjala. The aim is to survey a possible route for a new access road to }anydjaka/Cape Arnhem. We want to keep this road as high as possible on the plateau of the escarpment-it will drain better if we can avoid the sandy soils around the escarpment base. However, we are also conscious that the gradient of the road must be maintained such that it is not too steep and hence prone to erosion from water run-off. I remember an engineering convention from my forestry training: if the road is built up in the middle by two degrees in relation to its sides then water will run off it and channelling due to water action will be minimised (although I’m not sure if it’s two degrees or three). I discuss this figure with the CCNT Rangers and we agree that we need to check it later. We hope that Nabalco will offer to help construct the road and their engineers and grader drivers will, we assume, know about such things.

We mark out the possible route of the new road as we go using pink flagging tape. This will help us to retrace our steps next week. The CCNT Rangers take

165 the lead in this exercise, judging ‘by eye’ the best trajectory for the proposed road, avoiding large trees and discussing the compromise between staying high on the slope of the plateau to avoid poor drainage, and the anticipated high efforts and costs of constructing a long section of new road at a milder gradient. The rangers have organised to bring some Nabalco personnel out here next week to survey the possible new road. Dja`a`i\ba will come too and they can discuss the road feasibility together.

The route we surveyed was never developed as a road and Djaàì\ba maintained his position for several years regarding the disused Dhupuma/{atjala road. In the course of discussions in 1998/9, regarding the consultation process for investigating the desirability and feasibility of an IPA in NE Arnhem Land, Djaàì\ba spoke about ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, his responsibilities in caring for this place, and the work Dhimurru had been doing there. He confirmed that he didn’t want people using that ‘Dhupuma/{atjala road’ to get to ‘}anydjaka/ Cape Arnhem’-he says he wants people to use the ‘bottom’ road (Yunupi\u, D. pers. comm.).

However , as the NT News reports, in 2000 Yol\u landowners decided to re-open the ‘top’ road to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’:

Cape Arnhem Road Open

Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers, working with local rangers and Yirrkala Business Enterprises teams have completed work on the Cape Arnhem Road.

The new road will reduce the trip to Cape Arnhem by between 15-20 minutes.

The original road was closed in the early 1980’s.

(‘NT Business Review’, NT News , November 2000, p. 15)

Negotiations and discussions in the Yol\u community settled on a decision to re- open the ‘top’ road to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. The erosion hazard that is the ‘bottom’ road is now closed to vehicle traffic. The re-construction of the ‘top’ road has enrolled others in this management enterprise: a band of Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers, and the large Yol\u contracting firm, Yirrkala Business Enterprises (YBE) through Nabalco. This ‘new’ road benefits Dhimurru Recreation Permit holders by reducing travel time to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. It is also ideally positioned to facilitate access to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ from the site of the Garma Festival at Gu`ku`a. At certain times this site is host to hundreds of visitors and trips to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ are offered as part of the Festival activities.

166

The episodes which make up Story 4 show the collage of work practices that members of Dhimurru and the Yol\u communities engage in negotiating infrastructure for recreational use at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. The practices of surveying a new road are partially those of assessing erosion hazard, the behaviour of soils and the mobilisation of earthmoving equipment. These practices are linked to other practices of surveying at ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ which are those of Yol\u ownership, and the travels and embodiment of the Wa\arr guwak and its stories in the land. Together, these practices conjure ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as a series of partially connected objects performed in different times and places for particular purposes.

We can see from Story 4, for example, how the practices of a soil and erosion assessment for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ perform the object of management as a sort of survey area. The report of the survey describes this survey area:

The survey area covered the two main roads into the area (the ‘top’ road and the ‘bottom’ road), and the roads and roads from Oyster Beach in the south to Cape Arnhem in the north, including Policeman’s Beach to the west (see accompanying aerial photographs). (Hadden and Gidden 1993, p. 1)

This is different from the survey area described in the fauna survey which performs ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as the object of biological interest (see Chapter 4). Here ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is performed as a network of roads with various erosion features and implications for management. The report describes and defines this network and uses aerial photographs as a referent and validation its text. This performance of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as a soils assessment and erosion ‘survey area’ (Hadden & Gidden 1993, p. 1) does particular work for Dhimurru the institution. Recommendations made in the report help to mobilise Yol\u practices of controlling access to this place. For example, Dhimurru writes:

A Soil Erosion Assessment undertaken by the NT Government indicates that this problem (of erosion) urgently needs to be addressed. The Assessment recommended ‘restricted access via a permit system to control levels of usage, and that a monitoring program be developed to intervene at critical times’. ( The Arnhem Courier 18 April 1996)

Since the completion of the ‘new’ access road to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in early 2000, Dhimurru has instituted a ten-car-per-day limit on access to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ (DLMAC 2000a, p. 3).

167 6.5 The Stabilised Work Practices Which Perform Dhimurru’s Object of ManagManagementement

The ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ evoked in sets of practices I describe in the stories in Sections 6.4.1-6.4.4-the work practices of journeying, negotiating a new access road, checking permits and naming and re-naming place-can be understood as sitting within those more standardised practices of doing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ which include cartographic practices (see Story 1), and so-called ‘dreaming story’ practices (see Story 2). We have seen through these stories how the object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, is performed in particular times and places and for particular purposes through these practices as a survey area; an object of ‘public interest’; an erosion hazard; a sacred site; a Recreation Area; a cultural landscape; as ‘Guwak’; and as Gumatj/~amamirri place. Dhimurru’s object of management is thus a multiple performance of place-a multiplicity. This multiplicity is held in tension as the (multiple) singular ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ objects I have shown-as ‘the survey area’, the ‘Recreation Area’, as ‘Guwak’ etc. These singular objects are themselves a tension of singular and multiple performances of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. Dugdale (1999) describes how such objects are performed in an oscillation between singularity and multiplicity as the effects of particular times/places, relations and agendas.

So, having seen that ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, the object of management at Dhimurru, is dual singularities/multiplicities, we need to ask ‘What does seeing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in this way achieve?’ Why confuse things by telling such a complex story? The move shows that work is needed to keep the multiple performances together-to sustain the links between performances, to coordinate them-to allow them to cohere enough to maintain the object of management for Dhimurru. This work is the outcome of the stabilised sets of work practices negotiated by members of Dhimurru as they ‘go on’ together doing the work of managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. We can also see that at Dhimurru, the object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, is denied the privileged status of a singular, pure, consistent technoscientific object as multiple ‘Yol\u’ objects are forced to oscillate with multiple ‘technoscientific’ objects. What we know as ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is diffuse and distributed and unstable and contingent, and it needs active work to remain as the object of management.

In order to understand how these stories of managing the ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ object at Dhimurru can help us to find ways of talking and writing and thinking about how disparate knowledge practices work together, we need to attend to metaphor. Law (1999) draws our attention to the importance of metaphor in the consideration of network relations-that is, the links between socio/material entities.

168 He notes that topological understandings such as Euclideanism and regionalism dominate the way we know objects in the world. Their particular logic of spatiality performs space regionally and volumetrically as ‘such alternates as human and non- human, or material and social’ (Law 1999, p. 6). Alternative understandings of topology deny object integrity as regionally and volumetrically bound space. Within such understandings the boundaries between objects are shared links rather than shared space-objects hold together, not as a given, immutable spacialities or networks but as mobile and changeable shapes, as ‘mutable mobiles’ (Law & Mol draft, p. 7).

Law and Mol (draft) propose an alternative topological metaphor to help understand objects that move outside network and Euclidean space-that of fluid space. In fluid space, an object ‘retains its shape as it flows, in different network configurations, into different Euclidean locations’ (p. 4): it maintains a ‘shape constancy’ (p. 4). However this shape is not invariable. It is reconfigured as it is performed locally. It thus changes and yet retains a ‘sameness’ which allows it to do certain work across a variety of times/places. Work that could not be achieved if the object was located in a network of fixed relations.

In fluid space, the volubility of objects is a result of flow between different times/places. Objects change and are displaced through gradual changes in the connections-the heterogeneous links-between multiple objects. Such objects are fluid objects and are adaptable and flexible. They may be alternately performed as ‘different’ (they do different ‘work’) or continuous. Our object of management at Dhimurru, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, is such an object; it is performed in multiple ways in particular times and locations to achieve particular work. This object is a fluid technology analogous to the Zimbabwe Bush Pump described by Mol and de Laet: an object with multiple identities each with its own boundaries (2000, p. 252). Such objects/technologies, Mol and de Laet contend, may be mobilised and translated to achieve work in ‘so-called intractable places’ (2000, p. 253) as the links that define them change, coalesce, break, reform or disappear. These links draw and re-draw the boundaries of fluid objects such as ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and the Zimbabwe Bush Pump, and perform the material differences between the multiple versions of the object/s. These links are partial, local and decentred. Work must be done to create and maintain them. This work is the strategy of our collage of work practices at Dhimurru which perform our ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ object of management as multiplicity.

A collage is a melange of different materials arranged to form a picture. These materials may be fixed in ways that reveal an image, a scene, or perhaps a pattern.

169 A particular composition may illuminate the textures and differences and synergies between materials through juxtaposition or alignment-through producing particular relations between materials. A collage has endless possibilities and yet careful work must be done to produce an object that has appeal or meaning. As we have seen, Dhimurru’s work practices are a collage of events, smokos, stories, maps, mapping, people, places, episodes, vehicles and vistas. This collage of work practices we generated at Dhimurru is stabilised as it is verified by participants in practice. In other words, it ‘works’, as the stories I have told in this chapter show.

At Dhimurru we used our collage of work practices contingently. However these routine practices were coherent enough to get the management work done. This ‘way of going on’ was the process of making and re-making the institution of Dhimurru, our multiple ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhems’, and the management plan itself. In doing so we maintained the tension between the two definitive objects, ‘}anydjaka’ and ‘Cape Arnhem’. This had the effect of us doing things and creating understandings that in a relativist or universalist working of the two traditions of Yol\u knowledge and technoscience would not be done or articulated. The multiplicity of our object of management does not in any way detract however from the singular and definitive ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhems’ that must, sometimes, be evoked. We chose to evoke certainty-particular, strongly clotted routine performances of }anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ such as the object of management as ‘Dhimurru Recreation Area’-for particular political and practical purposes such as consolidating the Yol\u right to control access to their estates under the ALRA and Yol\u institutions of law. This is the political work of performing multiple materialities of place.

How could we be certain, however, in our knowledge of our object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’?

Certainty is located in the clotting of our collage of work practices. It is the routine and ruts of our knowing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ together-through our day-to-day dealings with it-that allow us to produce certainty. This certainty is not absolute. It is partial and fractured. However, we are certain enough to allow us to ‘go on’ in productive ways because of our familiarity with our two definitive objects, ‘}anydjaka’ and ‘Cape Arnhem’, which are mobilised through the practices of Yol\u knowledges and technoscience respectively. Dhimurru is not stranded or mired in endless ongoing negotiation on a day-to-day basis. We know how to ‘go on’ being Dhimurru; certain enough, through our expertise in managing the two sets of disparate mobilising technologies, of how to go about achieving Dhimurru’s goal of

170 achieving successful contemporary Yol\u land and sea management. And for Dhimurru to have itself taken seriously by non-Aboriginal Australia.

6.6 A Methodology of ‘Journeying‘Journeying----NamingNamingNaming----Tracing’Tracing’

Ontologies always go along with methodologies-methods of knowledge making: ways of forming ‘clots’. A methodology is an explicit story about what we are doing as we go-on-together performing the realities of our worlds. In doing the work of managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ at Dhimurru the methodologies we employed are two different sets of practices. These are the sets of practices I describe in the preceding two chapters of this thesis: the ‘naming-tracing’ methodology of the environmental sciences in Chapter 4; and the ‘journeying-naming’ methodology of the development of the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (DLMAC 1994a) in Chapter 5.

I contend that the methodology of the environmental sciences I call ‘naming-tracing’ ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, is a foundationalist methodology of knowledge making. It is representationalist in that it mobilises a version of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ which is a known, disembodied object of management: a ‘proposed reserve’ (Gambold et al . 1995, p. v). In contrast to this, the methodology of Dhimurru’s working of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, through travelling in the landscape, evoking names in place and massaging this into a draft plan of management (the story of Chapter 5), is a non-representationalist methodology of knowledge making. It is an idealist methodology which does not separate knowledge and the world-known. The object of management ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ in this methodology is performed in both the technoscience-inspired methodology of ‘naming-tracing’ and in the Yol\u inspired methodology of ‘journeying-naming’. I call this unique methodology ‘journeying- naming-tracing’. This methodology is performative as well as representationalist. It mobilises both technoscientific and Yol\u knowledges in Dhimurru’s emergent, tension-maintaining ontology.

In this chapter I have shown how managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is the performance of multiple ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ objects which reside in a creative tension that is the negotiated practices of going-on-together at Dhimurru. This creative tension is Dhimurru’s ontological strategy (ontology) for achieving its vision of contemporary Yol\u land and sea management. This ontology is a theory of how to conceive reality which is neither a separation, nor a simple combination of, ‘technoscientific’ and ‘Yol\u’ ontologies and methodologies. Rather, Dhimurru’s ontology/methodology of doing land and sea management is both/neither ‘Yol\u’ and ‘technoscientific’. It expresses, and in turn is expressed in, the work of doing management planning for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’.

171

At Dhimurru we were able to go on living with the tension between the sets of practices in technoscientific and Yol\u ways of knowing by managing and avoiding the need for logical consistency in our shared understandings of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. Through a negotiated set of routine, but often quite different practices within Dhimurru, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as the object of management is continually performed as partial, messy, contingent and local. For example, negotiating the appropriate location for a new access road to ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is the work of negotiating multiple performances of place. It is learning to live with often very disparate sets of practices and objects as they clot and dissolve and cohere and disperse; as they are variously performed to produce certain outcomes and effects. The work of managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is therefore the work of managing partially connected realities. These realities are the multiple performances effected through Dhimurru’s practices and its methodology of ‘journeying-naming-tracing’.

172 173 Figure 232323:23 : Dhimurru Cultural Site Register proforma (source: DLMAC 1994d)

174 Plate 777:7: Cover of Ganbulapula publication

175 Plate 888:8: PaintiPaintingng by Mungurrawuy YunupiYunupi\\\\uu in Ganbulapula publication showing the WaWaWa\Wa \\\arrarrarrarr Guwak (nightjar)

176 Plate 999:9: Display board with text describing the painting bbyy Mungurrawuy Yunupi\Yunupi \\\uu of the WaWaWa\Wa \\\arrarrarrarr Guwak painting at the Garma Festival 2000 (p(photo:hoto: Margaret Ayre)

Plate 101010:10 : Aerial view of the place 'Guwak' (photo: Margaret Ayre)

177

CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIOCONCLUSION:N: TOWARDS APPROPRIAAPPROPRIATETE CURRICULUM/PEDAGOCURRICULUM/PEDAGOGYGY IN YOL|U RANGER TRAITRAININGNING

7.1 Introduction

The 1996 Dhimurru Annual General Meeting was held on 7 February at the Yirrkala Homelands Schools Resource Centre at Yirrkala. I ended up here by default, having arrived at the Dhimurru office earlier this morning to find all the Yol\u Rangers occupied with finding various Dhimurru Committee members to attend the meeting. They were busy picking people up; from their homes, the shops, the airport. I was told the meeting was due to start more than an hour ago. However, a delayed start had been anticipated and catering was provided for early-comers. One of the senior Committee members told me laughing with a mouthful of scrambled egg: ‘The meeting’s an hour late. That’s Yol\u time, eh?!’ The Yol\u Rangers eventually arrived with several more people and the meeting got under way.

Dja`a`i\ba makes an inspired speech at the meeting. He speaks in Yol\u matha but I can understand bits. I understand that he is announcing his imminent retirement to the Committee. This is not entirely unexpected but it still saddens me. He explains that he is an old man and that he wants to go back to his homeland ({aliwuy) to live. He impresses strongly upon everyone the need to consider very, very carefully who might replace him at Dhimurru. He then continues, explaining something I understand to be very important. I hear him say that he knows the ‘truth’: that he ‘feels it, right from his feet all the way up to his head’. As he explains this he gestures to various parts of his body. He stands in the middle of the room and speaks with powerful conviction. We listen respectfully. The address finished, he turns and strides calmly out of the room and leaves the group sitting in silence.

In this thesis I have tried to tell a story that stays true to the serious endeavour Djaàì\ba spoke of as he handed over his responsibilities for Dhimurru: the work of contemporary Yol\u land and sea management. It is a story of partial, messy, always local truths. Djaàì\ba shows us here (above) that truths are embodied. He shows how they are held and performed, distributed in/as people as they perform the realities of their worlds. These truths/realities are not given, but made and verified in practice, through the ongoing collective acts of people and things in the world. I

178 have told about these knowledge-making practices by examining how people and place are emergent in the doing of contemporary Yol\u land and sea management.

The emergence of people and place in particular times and locations is also the emergence of ‘objects’ which participate in organising our worlds through the systems of classification in which they are embedded, and which help define what is ‘real’ and ‘true’. I have suggested in this thesis that this is the sort of knowledge landscape in which we can best understand Dhimurru’s work. This is the knowledge landscape accompanied by the methodology of ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ I identified in Chapter 6.

My proposal about how we should understand the knowledge landscape in which Dhimurru works has policy implications for Dhimurru’s work projects. One of the most important of these is the training of Dhimurru personnel, in particular Yol\u Rangers. Thus I conclude my thesis by asking about appropriate curriculum/pedagogy in training Yol\u Rangers. As a way of working up to that, I summarise below some relevant features of Dhimurru’s knowledge landscape.

7.2 A Knowledge Landscape

7.2.1 Objects as Emergent

In my telling of sets of practices in contemporary land and sea management through the Yol\u organisation, Dhimurru, I have sought a new way of telling practices and objects in Yol\u and technoscientific approaches to land and sea management, not as either ‘the same’ or, as ‘different’, but as both ‘the same’ and ‘different’. In doing so I have struggled to escape the foundationist ontological framings which have traditionally had Aboriginal (Yol\u) and scientific knowledge either, stranded across a gulf of communication, seeking a universalist’s bridge of mutual intelligible language or theory or, mired in their respective and inescapable domains of ‘culture’, the relativist’s conundrum of alternative interpretations. I have shown that telling stories about practices allows us to see that objects and the realities of worlds are performed through these practices, and that the ‘realness’ of objects lies in their being ‘emergent’ in collective acts, not in their being given, either as ‘material objects (as the universalists would have it), or as established practice (as the relativists would have it)’ (Verran 2001b).

I explore the generative nature of the practices of working together Yol\u and technoscientific knowledges and in doing so I pay attention to acts. In paying attention to acts, we can begin to see that things are not always and already decided-that the future is made in collective acts and that what counts as the ‘real’

179 and the ‘true’ is emergent in these acts. This is to resist the notion that the future can be ‘planned’ through objective analysis and prediction. Addelson makes this distinction between judging and acting and notes: ‘in acting, the future isn’t simply open to a range of alternative actions or consequences already categorised, as the planning outlook says’ (1996, p. 140). In the process of acting, things-in-the-world are ordered and meaning is made, through the collective and simultaneous performance of objects and realities. This shift, to seeing objects as emergent in sets of practices, denies the objective status of knowledge promulgated through the representation strategies of technoscience. Latour (1993; 1999) and Callon (1986) alert us to these strategies which I call mobilising technologies: a chain of substitutions which mobilise embodied object/s into discursive object/s. This has the effect of redistributing power relations as these mobilising technologies ‘locate power and action in “objects” divorced from polluting contextualisations and named by formal abstractions’ (Haraway 1992, p. 313). The mobilisation of object-things is therefore political work.

7.1.2 Managing Complexity

In this thesis I have shown how ‘objects’ are mobilised in certain ways through the practices of Yol\u and technoscientific systems of classification. The enterprise in environmental science which is the fauna survey of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) (Gambold et al . 1995) employed the mobilising technologies of the environmental sciences. These technologies, which include trapping, naming and collecting specimens, perform the ‘found’ faunal objects of the fauna survey which are the standardised taxonomic signifiers (names and numbers) stored in a database managed by the CCNT/PWCNT at Palmerston in the Northern Territory. This information archive or database is part of a classification system in biodiversity science (see Bowker 2000) which perform ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as ‘representative’ (Gambold et al . 1995. p. v). The biodiversity status of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as ‘representative’ 75 relies on this database, as much as it does on the assemblages of plants and animals living in the land/sea. ‘Representative’ status for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is important to Dhimurru as it provides the basis for a claim to resources. It brings with it recognition and power through its justification of ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ as ‘proposed reserve’. However, Bowker alerts us to the historicity and contingency of such databases, revealing the spatial and temporal packaging of the ‘partial objects’ (2000, p. 667) they contain and the political nature of their production and use as working infrastructures. These working infrastructures are

75 }anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’s ability to ‘represent’ its faunal and floral assemblages helps determine its ability to accede as a ‘reserve’ area under the Commonwealth Government’s CAR system of protected areas under the NRS. (The Northern Territory Government through its PWCNT also endorses this system (see PWNCT ?1998, p.13; Chapter 4). ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ became a part of the NRS with the declaration of the Dhimurru IPA in 2000.

180 performative (p. 675): they shape the world in particular ways through their acts of inclusion, deletion, manipulation, naming and description of certain kinds of objects. They are neither innocent nor neutral.

Bowker and Star remind us that ‘to classify is human’ (1999, p. 1) and point to fact that everyday classifications in our lived worlds are ‘embodied in a flow of mundane tasks and practices and many varied social roles’ (p. 2). Classifications manage complexity and they are useful and productive. However, I have shown that they are necessarily contingent, messy, partial and political: that they are not given, but made in the everyday, mundane practices of living in the world. By contrasting the mobilising strategies of the environmental sciences and Yol\u knowledges, we see that the category-making work of these alternative strategies is the ontological frame within which truth claims and the ‘realness’ of things is defined and interpreted. It is through reflexive recognition of these strategies and the ontological framing that they engender that we begin to see and explore possibilities for the creation of liveable worlds within which we can provide negotiated answers to the moral questions ‘How should we live?’ and ‘How should we live and work together in cooperative management of Aboriginal (Yol\u) land and sea?’ This reflexivity is the work of making transparent the order-of-things as produced by ontological commitments which Haraway explains as ‘queering’: ‘Queering what counts as nature is my categorical imperative. Queering specific normalised categories is not for the easy frisson of transgression, but for the hope of liveable worlds’ (Haraway 1994, p. 60).

7.1.3 Multiplicity and Certainty

My telling of doing a plan of management for a Yol\u estate and Dhimurru Recreation Area reveals the emergence of the object of management in Dhimurru’s practice: ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. This object of management ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ is mobilised as a definitive technoscientific object I call ‘Cape Arnhem’ (the object of ‘biological interest’) through the technologies of trapping, collecting and collating specimens, quantification and report-writing in the work of the fauna survey. It is also mobilised, through the Yol\u technologies of ‘naming’ and ‘journeying’, as a definitive Yol\u object I call ‘}anydjaka’. By telling the negotiated practices of developing a plan of management for the }anydjaka/Cape Arnhem estate, we can see that the object of management in Dhimurru’s practice is a multiple ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ object; a multiplicity.

Like the Zimbabwe Bush Pump described by Mol and de Laet (2000), the multiplicity that is ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ allows us to do particular kinds of work at Dhimurru. It is enacted in the routine practices of doing land and sea management at

181 Dhimurru and at the same time, it enacts Dhimurru as legitimate in the domain of environmental/technoscientific land and sea management through its status as ‘proposed reserve’ (Gambold et al . 1995, p. v), as ‘cultural landscape’ (DLMAC 1999c, p. 4) under Australian Heritage Commission criteria, and most recently, as the first IPA in the Northern Territory under the NRS. This ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ entity also participates in the formation of Yol\u land care and management strategies. As Yol\u Rangers emerge as particular kinds of ‘land carers’ through their work and training at Dhimurru, so the objects of management at Dhimurru emerge as particular kinds of entities. ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, for example, emerges as a particular entity-a Dhimurru Ranger-managed place. The ontological status of this ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ object is one that allows it to perform and organise useful and appropriate work at Dhimurru. It resists the conventional technoscientific ontological framing of ‘reserve’ land/sea as public land/sea or ‘common good’, and presents the notion of place as ‘Yol\u-owned and managed reserve’.

Yol\u and non-Aboriginal workers at Dhimurru ‘go on’ together in knowing ways as they manage complexity through the negotiated, mutable, contested and generative objects of management which are emergent in Dhimurru’s practice. The methodology they use to generate understandings in this knowledge landscape, which is neither/both technoscientific and Yol\u, is what I call ‘journeying-namingtracing’. This methodology is ‘going-on-together’ at Dhimurru, working together the conventional technoscientific methodologies of ‘naming-tracing’, and the conventional Yol\u methodologies of ‘journeying-naming’ which I described in Chapter 6.

Using the ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology, people, places and things together perform the ‘objects’ in Dhimurru practice as multiplicities. It is the multiplicity of these objects that allows workers to manage complexity because it refutes the need to settle on understandings of ‘objects’ or to achieve consensus about which interpretations are ‘true’ and ‘accurate’. This is not to say there is no consensus, or that people proceed adherent exclusively to their own understandings, or mired in endless confusion. But rather, as we have seen in the stories of doing the work of managing ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, the embodied certainty that is the negotiated sets of practices of doing land and sea management at Dhimurru, allows workers to go on together, certain enough, as they perform the object of management in particular ways and in particular times and locations for particular purposes.

How does all this help us to take Yol\u understandings of land and sea management seriously? To manage }anydjaka? Or to develop a curriculum for Yol\u Rangers? It helps us to escape universalist and relativist interpretations of alternative knowledges

182 and ways of knowing and the incumbent ontological problem of ‘which/whose version of reality should prevail?’ It allows us to see that this ontological problem needs an ontological solution. We can begin to see possibilities for this solution in Dhimurru’s practice; which is the practical politics of doing Yol\u and technoscientific land and sea management together in ways that engender trust, mutual benefit, positive exchange, reflexivity and the ongoing negotiation of a methodology of cooperative land and sea management through which people, place and objects are performed together as multiple. By examining practices in Yol\u and technoscientific knowledges and translation/mobilisation devices, I show how a methodology of ‘journeying- naming-tracing’ allows us to see new ways of how people, place, and Yol\u and technoscientific ways of knowing the land and sea are done together. This is Dhimurru’s struggle: it is the struggle, as Haraway puts it, ‘to re-configure what counts as knowledge in the interests of reconstituting the generative forces of embodiment’ (1994, p. 62) It is the struggle of reconstituting the relationship between Yol\u and technoscientific ways of knowing and being in the world.

What counts as knowledge is determined and verified by participants in Dhimurru’s practice. However, what of the larger institutions of land and sea management policy formation and technoscience? How can they be made to take Yol\u understandings seriously; to re-configure their moral legislation on what is ‘true’ and ‘real’? Part of this answer lies in the persistence of Dhimurru in its determination to stay true to its Yol\u ontology, honouring and celebrating the embodied certainty of its workers through the institutions of Yol\u governance and education that embed it. This persistence and faith enabled Dhimurru to stand firm in its commitment to a new form of Yol\u-controlled land and sea management and to resist the ontological imperatives of classical modes of cooperative management of Aboriginal land/sea. It did so by enrolling particular people and institutions in its pursuit of the Dhimurru Committee’s agenda in ways that were often canny, sometimes fraught, but fundamentally underpinned by a conviction in their right to provide a negotiated answer to the question ‘How should we live?’.

7.3. Inventing the ‘Yol‘Yol\\\\uu Ranger’ Role

In Chapters 4, 5 and 6 I examined some work practices of Dhimurru, the Yol\u land and sea management agency, in the context of the development of a plan of management for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. These work practices effect a mobilisation of the object of management, ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’. They are also the everyday acts of ‘going on’ at Dhimurru-the development of this unique institution and the people and things which constitute and perform it. I now want to look at the work of managing Yol\u estates, through an exploration of the Yol\u

183 Ranger role at Dhimurru. As I have shown in Chapter 6, this work involves managing the ontological tensions which emerge in Dhimurru’s practice. As a way of further exploring these ontological tensions, in this chapter I tell of four episodes in ranger training at Dhimurru involving members of Dhimurru and Yol\u communities of NE Arnhem Land, Batchelor College (now BIITE) and the PWCNT. I critique each of these episodes of teaching/learning at Dhimurru to show how making an explicit commitment to a methodology of ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ would make a subtle change in focus within these episodes, and therefore better fit them for developing the sensibilities of the Trainee Yol\u Rangers to the both/neither technoscientific/Yol\u knowledge landscape in which they will be working.

The traditional role of the ranger in environmental management is tied to the notion of land/sea as protected area or ‘reserve’ as it emerges from the domain of national park and protected area management in the United States and Australia. Although Dhimurru escapes the conventional notion of land/sea as ‘reserve’ or ‘national park’, it still employs the title ‘ranger’ to mobilise the idea of Yol\u land/sea manager/worker. I show here how this ‘ranger’ work is located in particular knowing people, times and places, and mobilises Dhimurru’s particular vision of land/sea as Yol\u-owned ‘reserved land’ under the NRS.

7.4. The History of Ranger Training at Dhimurru

The training and professional development of rangers at Dhimurru forms part of the long-term strategic development of the organisation. The Yol\u Ranger role is pivotal to Dhimurru’s success in fulfilling the Yol\u land and sea management agenda. It is the main focus of epistemological inquiry at Dhimurru as it seeks to achieve the Committee’s ‘view that effective management now requires a synthesis of Indigenous and scientific knowledge, skills and understandings’ (DLMAC 1994b, ‘The Land Management Role’, para. 1). The development of the Yol\u Ranger role is also an important part of the story of the negotiation between members of Dhimurru and Yol\u communities and the Northern Territory government’s CCNT/PWCNT over cooperative management of Yol\u lands and sea estates. The distinctive Yol\u Ranger role emerged as a result of Dhimurru’s innovative ranger training program involving Batchelor College and the CCNT/PWCNT.

Dhimurru was formed in 1992 and Mark Stevens was seconded by the CCNT to Dhimurru and his salary paid from an ATSIC Training and Development Grant. As Ranger/Trainer, under the guidance of the Dhimurru Committee, Mark coordinated the professional development and training program at Dhimurru from 1992-94. This arrangement was enshrined in an MoU between the CCNT and Dhimurru which

184 committed the CCNT to assist in the delivery of training for students undertaking tertiary training through Batchelor College (Greg Wearne pers. comm.). These students were Yol\u Rangers and Yol\u Trainee Rangers enrolled in the Batchelor College course: Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM)). A local innovation of this course developed over the following four to five years in response to the Dhimurru land and sea management agenda.

The development of the training program at Dhimurru is inextricably linked to the history of the organisation and the role significant individuals have played in its conception. Here, ~^\ani Marika, an elder of the Rirratji\u clan and a Dhimurru Committee member, speaks about the involvement of her kin in contemporary resource management initiatives on Yol\u land.

When Dhimurru first started off we had already started a Landcare program while Nanikiya was training in Batchelor College. That time Old Man, Bakamumu’s father, was very sick and Glenn Wightman and his mob [PWCNT personnel ] came and we talked at Ra\i (Beach Camp, Yirrkala) and they thought it was a good idea to establish a land management organisation because one Yol\u (Nanikiya) was already doing a land management course at Batchelor College. When Nanikiya finished doing the course, then we started Dhimurru Land Management Organisation. (Marika, L. in Ayre 1998. p. 84)

This Old Man referred to above was the leader of the Rirratji\u clan and an important and revered man whose death in 1993 was a profound loss to his family and friends (Ayre 1998, p. 84). It is his concerns and words about caring for Yol\u estates and those of other old Yol\u people which reverberate in the actions and minds of Yol\u involved with Dhimurru today.

Nanikiya Munu\gurritj enrolled in 1989 in the Batchelor College Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) course in a mixed-mode delivery. This was negotiated on an individual basis between Nanikiya and lecturers in the Environmental Management Education Centre (EMEC) at Batchelor College. He was employed as a Yol\u Ranger with Dhimurru in 1992-93 and continued as a full-time student in the course from then until 1995-96 when he changed to part-time status. Nanikiya’s involvement in the course was the beginning of a series of negotiations between Dhimurru and Batchelor College which led to the Dhimurru Committee in 1993 setting successful completion of Stage 1 of the Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) course as a pre-requisite to ongoing employment as a Yol\u Ranger at Dhimurru DLMAC 1994c). These negotiations were formalised in an MoU between Dhimurru and Batchelor College.

185

From 1993, seven Dhimurru personnel were enrolled part-time in Stage 1 of the NCRM course. Four were senior men 76 and three were young men and recent school- leavers. 77 The course was delivered through a combination of means which included; workplace-based training negotiated as on-the-job tasks with the Dhimurru/PWCNT Training Officer Mark Stevens; formalised practical skills workshops delivered through the Dhimurru workplace by staff of the PWCNT Training and Development Unit and the Dhimurru/PWCNT Training Officer; and workshops delivered by Batchelor EMEC unit staff at Batchelor and at Yirrkala/Nhulunbuy. Assessment of students’ performance against the criteria stipulated in the Course Accreditation document was made by EMEC staff in negotiation with the Dhimurru/PWCNT Training Officer.

In 1994, Dhimurru’s organisational structure developed to include: three full-time Yol\u Ranger positions held by Botha Wunu\murra, Djawa Yunupi\u and W^pit Munu\gurr; a Senior Ranger-Cultural Adviser, Dja`a`i\ba Yunupi\u; a Senior Ranger- Operations Manager, Nanikiya Munu\gurritj; and a group of five Yol\u Trainee Rangers. During this time it became apparent to the Dhimurru Committee that there were too many people working in the organisation to undertake its works program effectively and they made a request to Batchelor College to support a full-time community-based Stage 1 NCRM program at Yirrkala/Nhulunbuy (Wearne, G. pers. comm.). The prospective students in this course were the current Yol\u Trainee Rangers and others who had approached Dhimurru interested in training to be rangers.

It was agreed between Batchelor College, Dhimurru and the prospective students that the trial Nhulunbuy/Yirrkala, community-based Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) Stage 1 would take place over eighteen months from the beginning of 1995. Nine men enrolled full time in this course. This group of students were constituted from the group of existing Yol\u Trainee Rangers (three) at Dhimurru, other Yirrkala/Nhulunbuy community members approved by the Dhimurru Committee, and one student from Milingimbi and one from Ramingining. This group of students were viewed by Dhimurru as apprentice Yol\u land and sea managers training under the authority and direction of senior Yol\u community members, the Dhimurru Committee and Yol\u communities of NE Arnhem Land, as appropriate. The three full-time Yol\u Rangers employed at Dhimurru continued in the course in 1995-96 as part-time Stage 2 students.

76 These men were paid through ANCA’s Contract Employment Program for Aboriginals in Natural and Cultural Resource Management (CEPANCRM) (see Breckwoldt, Boden & Williams 1997). 77 These men received benefits from the Commonwealth Government’s Aboriginal Study Grants (Abstudy) Scheme.

186

From 1995, as students of Batchelor College, the Stage 1 group no longer required day-to-day supervision and organisation by Dhimurru's permanent staff. I was appointed in 1995 as a Lecturer in the EMEC based at Yirrkala/Nhulunbuy to assist in development and delivery of the community-based Stage 1 Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) program. How the course and the students in the new program could be involved with the activities of Dhimurru remained something to be explored in practice. Learning in the Dhimurru workplace was however intended to continue through the involvement of the Stage 1 students in work experience and other negotiated activities with the organisation.

Between 1992 and 1995, Dhimurru developed job descriptions for its Yol\u Ranger staff, including the PWCNT Ranger staff working with Dhimurru. These job descriptions were considered by the Dhimurru Committee and staff to be in evolution and provided a means by which Yol\u knowledges and skills in particular were formally recognised and legitimised within the structure of the organisation. The Yol\u Ranger training program at Dhimurru was integral to the development of Dhimurru and ranger work within the organisation. It involved a complex, locally negotiated series of elements which emerged according to the Dhimurru management agenda, the participants involved, and the resources available, including curricula and opportunities for workplace learning.

I suggest that negotiating a curriculum/pedagogy for land and sea management that takes both Yol\u knowledges and technoscientific knowledges seriously is the work of negotiating various mobilising technologies, acknowledging them as both ‘the same’ and ‘different’. These technologies are ‘the same’ in their imperative to make the realities of livable worlds. They are ‘different’ in their strategy, method and claims to truth. A just and legitimate curriculum for Yol\u Trainee Rangers is embedded in the practices of knowledge making through the people, institutions and locations it serves. It must be reflexive, performative and emergent in the connections between people and place. At Dhimurru, there is an active engagement with the tensions that exist between disparate ways of knowing and mobilising land/sea. To a greater and lesser extent these tensions are played out in the episodes of ranger training that are being developed within the organisation. I show some of these episodes in the remainder of this chapter and provide a critique of them in light of their contribution to a pedagogy/curriculum for Aboriginal rangers.

In Chapter 6 I suggested that the methodology I call ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ characterises Dhimurru’s work. Here I propose that developing an explicit methodology of ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ in both technoscience and Yol\u inspired

187 teaching/learning episodes can prepare Yol\u Trainee Rangers for working in the unique knowledge landscape that Dhimurru is working-up. In doing this I am asking: how does understanding Dhimurru’s work as a methodology of ‘journeying-naming- tracing’ make a difference? In other words, if our work is framed within a unique ontology that is Dhimurru’s knowledge landscape, then we might ask ‘What are the consequences for curriculum/pedagogy in training Aboriginal rangers?’

7.5. Teaching/Learning Episodes with Technoscience Objects

7.5.1 Towards ResearchResearch----BasedBased Curriculum/Pedagogy

The Yol\u Ranger training program at Dhimurru is linked to the history of Yol\u teacher education and training in NE Arnhem land through BIITE and members of the Yol\u community who have been engaged for over twenty years in the struggle to develop contemporary Yol\u-controlled education and Yol\u pedagogy for teachers and students. From the early 1970s, Yol\u people began to insist on gaining control of education for their people. This was in part a response to Government policies of self determination and bilingual education for Indigenous peoples and to Yol\u experiences of a history of oppressive, colonialist schooling methods and institutions. Yol\u peoples in the 1970s also began to make permanent settlements on their traditional estates, an action sometimes known as the homeland movement. Until this time, primary/post-primary formalised Western education for Yol\u students was provided by the Northern Territory Department of Education (NTDE) only at the ex-mission settlement of Yirrkala. With their move to resettle their homelands, Yol\u people campaigned to establish government-funded schools in the homelands. The Yol\u Homelands Schools of NE Arnhem Land were thus incrementally established over the next decade.

In the early 1980s, Yol\u people initiated a major educational reform process in the Yirrkala and Yirrkala Homelands schools. This work was framed within the context of a vision and a five-year plan, the Aboriginalisation Program, developed by the Yol\u schools’ communities and accepted by the NTDE (Marika 1999, p. 112). It involved the development of a pedagogy for ‘both ways’ education which has a curriculum incorporating both Yol\u and non-Aboriginal knowledges. This pedagogy/curriculum development work is characterised by a research-based approach to educational reform based on a participatory or action research model of inquiry (see Marika- Munu\giritj, Maymuru, Munu\gurr, Munyarryun, Ngurruwutthun & Yunupi\u 1990). It involves several important elements which aim to consolidate and maintain Yol\u control over Yol\u education at Yirrkala and in the homelands: these are Yol\u

188 mechanisms of governance (decision making and authorisation) and epistemological and ontological management.

In 1984, the Nambara Schools Council was formed with representatives from sixteen Yol\u clans, the Yirrkala community council and homelands centres (Yunupi\u 1989, p. 2) and claimed for the first time the power to make decisions concerning the administration and pedagogy at the Yirrkala School and in the homelands (Marika- Munu\giritj et al . 1990, p. 33). The constitution of this body was formally endorsed in 1988 by the Northern Territory Minister for Education (p. 34). Also in 1984, the Yol\u Action Group at the Yirrkala School, consisting of all Yol\u staff members at the school, was established to make decisions about curriculum, staffing, events and other matters (Marika-Munu\giritj et al . 1990, p. 2) at the Yirrkala School. However, the Nambara Schools Council remains the final authority on school policy (p. 4).

In 1986, the Action Group began working towards a ‘both ways’ 78 curriculum for Yol\u education (Yunupi\u, M. 1989, p. 4). This group was instrumental in developing a Yol\u ‘both ways’ pedagogy/curriculum through a participatory action research process. This research-based approach to pedagogy/curriculum development drew inspiration, in part, from the work of Paolo Freire who articulated an emancipatory role for reflexive inquiry and research-driven change (see Freire 1972; 1974). However, importantly, it explored and employed Yol\u epistemologies and teaching/learning methodologies through the explicit use of Yol\u metaphors and protocols in an interrogation of the ‘both ways’ concept of education. The word Yol\u initially gave to this research process was Ganma, and in 1988, it was further developed and given the name Garma (Yunupi\u 1991).

The Garma curriculum/pedagogy project which began in 1986 (Yunupi\u 1991) explicitly acknowledged principles for an appropriate ‘both ways’ Yol\u-controlled education which included the goals of negotiation and integration. Educators in this project explain:

It is our belief that a garma curriculum can be negotiated, and that it will maintain a balance between the Yol\u and Balanda traditions. A garma curriculum will find ways to integrate these two traditions and the diverse ways of knowing within each tradition. (Marika-Munu\giritj et al . 1990, p. 48)

78The term ‘both ways’ is used to describe an approach to curriculum/pedagogy development based on the idea that generative cross- cultural knowledge production is achieved through open negotiations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal knowers. It denies a ‘bi- cultural’ model of education which assumes an intractable ‘difference’ between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ways of knowing (see Kemmis 1988).

189

Marika, Ngurruwutthun and White further explain that integration allows for diverse knowledges (of participants) to be treated as equal and legitimate and for teaching/learning to be a collective endeavour (Marika et al . 1990, p. 10). This aspect of a Yol\u pedagogy/curriculum is given in djalkiri , which as Marika-Munu\giritj writes, is an integration of the social and material: ‘djalkiri shows us that the curriculum must be integrated, because people cannot exist independently of their environment’ (1991, p. 18).

Negotiation, as a principle of Garma (research-based) pedagogy/curriculum, allows for flexibility and openness as the views of the various participants/researchers are considered and discussed and appropriate collective action is planned. Marika- Munu\giritj explains: ‘The key to negotiation is balancing the gurru=u (kinship) and the w^\a (land), and our knowledge and background of all the community elders’ (1991, p. 21). Garma is a site of negotiation: it is both a place (where ceremony (bu\gul ) is ^performed) and a forum where Yol\u gather to discuss and plan events in the proper way. This negotiation must have an appropriate starting point; attained in this context through the principles of the Yol\u metaphor of galtha . Galtha embeds the development of a unique methodology of ‘workshop-driven’ collective learning/teaching episodes in the Garma curriculum/pedagogy process (Munu\giritj 1990). This methodology of what have been called galtha rom workshops has been developed by the Yol\u/Balanda research communities through the Yirrkala CEC and Yirrkala Homelands Schools and Yol\u communities (see Section 7.6.1 this chapter).

This negotiation and integration which accompany the working up of an appropriate Yol\u ‘both ways’ curriculum/pedagogy are achieved via specific methodological processes guided by Yol\u metaphors of knowledge making. Garma and ganma are two such metaphors (see Marika et al . 1990). These metaphors guide the research process within an ontological framework that celebrates the difference/sameness of Yol\u and non-Aboriginal knowledges. Wunu\murra elaborates:

The two way [‘both ways’ ] idea of negotiating meanings is not new to Yol\u culture, there is a Yol\u way of planned learning and the same principles that apply to it can be applied to the negotiation of meaning between Yol\u and Balanda. In Yol\u society there is a negotiation of meanings between the two moieties, Dhuwa and Yirritja, which can be applied to negotiation between Yol\u and Balanda cultures to find the common ground that makes up the two ways [‘both ways’ ] curriculum. (1999, p. 13)

190

The Yol\u community-driven pedagogy/curriculum project I describe here involved the formation of Yol\u teachers: individuals working under the authority of the Nambara Schools Council and other senior Yol\u, who were engaged in the struggle to answer the question, ‘How to re-imagine a teacher?’, in the context of contemporary Yol\u polity and education. This struggle began in 1976 with an initial teacher education program for Yol\u trainee teachers provided by the NTDE at Yirrkala through the Aboriginal Teacher Education Centre (later to become Batchelor College and then BIITE). Known as the Remote Area Teacher Education program (RATE), Batchelor College developed in 1986 an adjunct program, the Homeland Centre Remote Area Teacher Education program (HLC RATE), for homelands-based Yol\u teachers. 79 At the same time, Deakin University staff working with Yol\u community members and educators, negotiated the establishment of the Deakin- Batchelor Aboriginal Teacher Education program (D-BATE) for a Bachelor of Arts (Education) (Marika et al . 1990 p. 9). The participants in these various programs, including RATE, HLC RATE, D-BATE students, Yol\u community members, Yol\u elders and leaders (through the Nambara Schools Council), and staff of Deakin University and Batchelor College, engaged together in the research-based process of developing appropriate Yol\u pedagogy/curriculum (Kemmis 1988, p. 10).

In theorising the development of the RATE program and the accreditation of a Diploma of Teaching, Stewart argued that the focus of the program was an approach to Aboriginal (Yol\u) teacher education whereby: ‘Graduates should be equipped to assist in the overall development of their communities, both through their work as Aboriginal classroom teachers, and also as skilled and informed community members.’ (Stewart 1989?, p. 4). He identifies the structure of the course which is organised around community research tasks that are negotiated with the students and by the students with their communities (p. 5). These tasks are thus developed as relevant to both the students and their communities where, ‘while content is not neglected, greater importance is attached to the students’ reflections on, and judgements about, the applicability of that content to their own situations, and their conclusions about how schooling should be approached in their own communities’ (p. 5). This curriculum/pedagogy, which includes the negotiation of tasks, and the location of these tasks in sites/situations relevant and appropriate to the student and his/her communities, is thus moving away from specifying content. It emphasises methodology: the acts of learning/teaching embodied in the students, collectives and places where Yol\u pedagogy/curriculum is worked and lived.

191 In the development of these programs, Yol\u teachers-in-training/research practitioners worked as mediators/translators in an ongoing process of negotiation between participants, \alapal (Yol\u elders) and students, and aspects of Yol\u and non Aboriginal ways of knowing (see D-BATE students 1988). They were engaged in a reflexive process of generating ontological framings which are neither/both Yol\u and technoscientific ways of knowing. These framings are enacted through particular aspects of the teacher education and pedagogy/curriculum and in the Nambara Schools’ communities at Yirrkala and in the Yirrkala Homelands, in particular through the unique workshop-driven methodology developed in the Schools’ curricula as ‘galtha rom ’ workshops.

The galtha rom workshops are an exemplar of the methodology of ‘journeying- naming-tracing’ which I identify as characterising the knowledge landscape in Dhimurru’s practices of land and sea management. I contend that this ‘journeying- naming-tracing’ methodology must be incorporated in an appropriate curriculum/pedagogy for Yol\u rangers. In developing such a ‘Yol\u Ranger’ curriculum/pedagogy, there needs to be a change of emphasis away from specifying content and a move towards specifying methodology (practices). This emphasis on a ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology of neither/both Yol\u and technoscientific Yol\u ranger education and training implies a commitment to openness, flexibility and placed curriculum/pedagogy. In the past, this has been identified as a research- based curriculum (Marika-Munu\giritj et al . 1990; Marika et al . 1990; McTaggart 1988; Batchelor College 1985; Kemmis 1988).

In the next section I tell of two episodes in ranger training at Dhimurru. The first episode is part of a Dhimurru/PWCNT ranger training workshop at {aliwuy Bay in NE Arnhem Land in 1996. The second episode is an ‘Introduction to Plant Ecology’ workshop which I ran at Yirrkala in 1995 as part of the Batchelor College course, the Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) (see Appendix K for a description of this course). I critique these episodes in terms of their role in providing appropriate curriculum/pedagogy for trainee Yol\u rangers. In doing this I am asking ‘If the technoscience inspired aspects of an Aboriginal ranger training curriculum/pedagogy are to incorporate a “journeying-naming-methodology”, then what things should we emphasis in teaching/learning episodes such as these?’

7.5.2 Episode One: A Ranger Training Workshop at {aliwuy

79 For a thorough interpretative study of the RATE programs see Kemmis (1998).

192 The ranger training workshop at {aliwuy Bay 80 ran over eleven days from 20-29 May 1996. It was organised by the PWCNT and Dhimurru and involved Dhimurru Rangers and PWCNT Rangers from various parts of the NT, as well as PWCNT Botanists, Park Planners and Wildlife Research personnel who instructed participants in their relevant areas of expertise. The main activities of the training camp were the development of a walking trail linking four major recreational destinations along the East Arnhem Coast (PWCNT c.1996, p. 2); the completion of a flora and fauna survey for each of the major plant communities along the trail (p. 2); and, the development of a Recreational Plan for each of the three Dhimurru-managed Recreation Other workshop activities included a clean-up of marine debris at }anydjaka and teaching/learning sessions with students groups from the local Nhulunbuy and Yirrkala Schools.

The camp site which was the base for the workshop was located at {aliwuy Bay. This is Gumatj land and Dja`a`i\ba is a senior custodian for this place. The camp was set up to the north of the boat ramp on a sandy, grassy site not far from the water. The more formal parts of the training program were conducted under a large marquee adorned by the PWCNT and Dhimurru flags-these included group discussions, report drafting, and the identification and manipulation of floral and faunal specimens. This was also the dining area. Nearby was a cluster of smaller tents for sleeping and a fleet of four-wheel- drive vehicles were scattered amongst them. These Toyota Landcruisers were all adorned with the emblem of the PWCNT. The Dhimurru management vehicles had the Dhimurru emblem of the same dimension also presented on their front doors. The training camp had the air of something well organised and thoroughly planned (see Plate 11).

There was a senior PWCNT member employed as logistical support officer for this workshop and the other similar camps which are held in various parts of the NT (see PWCNT c.1996). This officer travelled with the camp gear from workshop site to workshop site in a large four-wheel-drive OKA bus (modified for transporting the camp materials etc.) with a cooking trailer in tow. He was responsible for managing the camp and its materials and prepared the daily meals. He warrants a special mention from one of the senior PWCNT personnel in the ‘Support Staff and Participant Comments’ section of the report of the workshop:

A very special thankyou to Laurie Davidson who kept the home fires burning through sometimes adverse weather conditions and still

80 {aliwuy Bay is a Dhimurru Recreation Area. See Figure 1.

193 coming up with the goods at each meal time which was great and fully appreciated by all. (PWCNT c.1996, p. 25)

An enormous amount of effort had gone into resourcing and implementing this ranger training camp. 81 Over ten days, fourteen or more PWCNT staff, numerous Dhimurru personnel, and local school groups and other community members participated in this training and professional development exercise. About fourteen of these training camps were held between 1995-96 and 1997 inside and outside national parks at a variety of sites throughout the territory, allowing almost all of the PWCNT’s rangers to attend at least one (PWCNT 1997, p. 29).

I attended part of the training camp at {aliwuy: a two-day recreational site planning exercise. This exercise was designed to provide recommendations and a site plan to Dhimurru for each of the Dhimurru-managed Recreation Areas of: {aliwuy Bay, Garanhan (Macassan Beach), |umuy (Turtle Beach), Bari\ura (Little Bondi Beach) and Yarrapay (Rocky Point) (see Figure 1). We were each given a workbook with the course aims, course program, and templates of the various site assessment sheets we were required to complete as part of the planning exercise. The workbook also contained some information about the planning tool we were to use. In this case it was the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum, known as ROS. I was familiar with ROS from my training in forestry. It is widely used by land management planners in Australia and its principal aim is to provide a continuum of sustainable recreational activities for visitors based on management constraints, site characteristics and levels and type of visitation. In planning for recreational use, the handbook reminds us, the main question to answer is: ‘How do I develop the best possible recreational opportunities at this site?’ (PWCNT 1996a, ‘Site Planning Considerations’).

We spent the two days of this course applying the ROS planning principles to the Dhimurru Recreation Areas. Working in small groups we discussed the status of each Recreation Area, deliberated about its existing features, and made recommendations for future use and management of each site. The Yol\u Dhimurru Rangers participated in some of this group work, PWCNT Rangers from Watarrka (Kings Canyon), Simpson’s Gap, Alice Springs Telegraph Station,

81 The PWCNT Annual Reports use both ‘training camp’ (1996, p. 12), ‘training/survey camp’ (1997, p. 120) to describe these training episodes. I will use ‘ranger training camp’ here to refer to the {aliwuy Bay episode following the final report of the camp by the PWNCT.

194 Bullita, Litchfield, Darwin and Nhulunbuy made up the rest of the participants, along with myself and a land care worker from the Yol\u organisation Gamwarra Nuwal at Yirrkala.

On the first day the planning officer instructed us on the features and applications of ROS in the assessment and planning of recreational sites. As part of this the workshop participants familiarised themselves with the factors important to site planning for a proposed recreational site. These included factors of the ‘physical environment’ (PWCNT 1996, ‘Site Assessment Checklist’): ‘topography’, ‘soils’, ‘geology’, ‘hydrology’, ‘climate’ and ‘scenic qualities’; and ‘ecological factors’ which are ‘vegetation’ and ‘wildlife’. Together, the ‘physical’ and ‘ecological factors’ in site assessment are classified as ‘land units’. Our site assessment workbook notes: ‘Land units are areas of similar landscape type (topography, soils, hydrology, geology, climate, vegetation). These can be mapped and their physical and biological characteristics described’ (PWCNT 1996a, ‘Site Assessment Checklist’).

The whole of the Northern Territory has been divided up into land units and mapped. It is these units, reproduced in the back of our workbooks, that we now refer to and use as a basis for assessing the sites we are considering (see Figure 25). For each of our sites the workbook provides us with a template ‘Recreational Site Assessment Sheet’ (see Figure 24). On this sheet we note ‘Site Location’ by name and by latitude and longitude. We then fill in a description of the site according the appropriate ‘Land Unit’ classifications which are provided in our site assessment workbook (see Figure 25). Each site may represent more than one ‘land unit’ so there is space under the sections ‘Land Unit 1’, ‘Land Unit 2’ and ‘Land Unit 3’ and ‘Land Unit 4’ to record our observations. The sheet also provides space for each participant to note additional factors on a checklist of site characteristics which includes ‘visitor numbers’, ‘visitor access’ and ‘visitor impacts’ under the heading ‘Visitor Characteristics’; and ‘sensitive/rare/threatened species or habitats’, ‘scenic highlights’, ‘erosion hazards’ and ‘undesirable use’ under the heading ‘Planning Issues’ (PWCNT 1996a).

Each group (there were five, one for each of the sites) was required to plan visitor facilities for one of the recreational sites under consideration (see Plate 12). This planning was based on the ROS theory and took account of existing and proposed site uses and features. Each group member drew and noted these plans in the appropriate sections of their personal recreational site planning

195 booklet. A delegate from each group then presented each of the recreational site plans to the other workshop participants and we discussed and critically analysed the features of each group’s plan. By the end of the two and a half day workshop we had achieved the ultimate goal of the planning exercise as recorded in the worksheet document: ‘By lunch on Day 3 you should ...Have produced, as a group, a regional recreational site plan for the Cape Arnhem/Dalywoi Bay area’ (PWCNT 1996, ‘Day 3-Wednesday 29 May 1996’). This regional recreational site plan was subsequently re-drafted and the final version produced in the final report of the ranger training camp at {aliwuy Bay (see PWCNT c.1996).

Fourteen of these PWCNT ranger training camps were held in 1995-96. The ‘major objective’ of the camps is cited in the 1996 PWCNT Annual Report. It relates to the consolidation of the PWCNT’s human resources, knowledge base and organisational structure as the following statement reveals:

The camps have also, of course, fulfilled their major objective of team building between disciplines and regions, as well as expanding our scientific knowledge. (PWCNT 1996b, p. 12)

The 1996 PWCNT Annual Report also acknowledges the role the training camps played in providing a forum for the interaction of Aboriginal landowners and knowers and PWCNT staff:

A highlight of the year, particularly in terms of consolidating relationships with Aboriginal groups has been our series of scientific training camps which have proved a huge success. (PWCNT 1996b, p. 12)

We see that the PWCNT ranger training camps are a vital part of the Commission’s work which in its Northern Territory Parks Masterplan sees itself as holding ‘Nature in Trust’ (PWCNT 1998?, p. 3) for a ‘secure future’ (title page). This document also recognises that: ‘Park Rangers are the Commission’s frontline ambassadors’ (PWCNT 1996b, p. 129). The metaphor of ‘frontline’ is one which invokes a sense of a contingent, unified, in defence of some territorial or political ideal. I want to suggest that this unnamed entity is Nature, or ‘the environment’ out there, and that the ambassadorial role bestowed on rangers by society allows them to speak for, and even stand-in-for, this Nature. In this scheme, rangers and society are separate and distinct from Nature as the universal object of technoscientific management.

How do the training camps help to achieve and maintain this distinction between people (rangers) and society? In asking this I am suggesting that the boundaries

196 which circumscribe the categories/entities of ‘society’ and ‘Nature’ are not given but rather made in the everyday, mundane practices of collective acting. Here I am drawing on the move within the social studies of science to recognise how objects are made or performed in practice (see Chapter 6; Verran (2001a); Law & Singleton (2000); Mol (1998); Mol & Law (1998)).

The notion of ‘team building’ used by the PWCNT exemplifies the role of the camps in the formation of a collective of ranger knowers which has knowledge about the world located in particular times and places and people. It recognises these locations, as we can see from the official commentary on the camps above, in a series of categories which organise the world into the non-human, ‘regions’ and ‘disciplines’, and the human, which includes ‘scientists’ and ‘rangers’ and ‘Aboriginal’ knowers. As the Commission sees it, being a ranger is the work of knowing and making/re-making these categories, as well as ordering or managing the interactions between them. Nature is thus maintained as the non-human world ‘out there’, or ‘the environment’, which is apprehended through the rigorous application of the practices of ecology and land/sea management planning the camps teach.

The work of producing the regional recreation plan developed at the {aliwuy Bay training camp is the work of producing a particular presentation of Nature/‘the environment’ as an object of human activity, in this case recreation. The collective of rangers at the camp are being trained in making the boundary between themselves (and ‘us’) and the world-out-there as ‘recreation site’ (or Nature/'the environment’) through this planning exercise and the other activities of the camp. The recreational site planning exercise and the camp in general is therefore the work of making and re-making the institution-Nature/‘the environment’ boundary. This is doing ranger work in the PWCNT.

The ranger training camp at {aliwuy is the work of producing knowledge about places in the world so that management decisions regarding visitor use can by made by Dhimurru. This work is achieved using a methodology I identify as ‘naming- tracing’, with objects in the land/sea mobilised through the particular category- making practices of technoscientific land and sea management including the use of workbooks and maps and theories such as ROS, and through organising concepts such as group work and ‘land units’. Together, these tools from the technoscientific discipline of land/sea management planning enable the rangers in this exercise to work up a comprehensive regional recreational plan. These sorts of plans are pivotal to the work of the PWCNT and form part of the plan of management for any area under its jurisdiction. Through their participation in this camp the Yol\u Rangers are being sensitised to and disciplined in this way of ‘managing and doing nature’.

197

However, the Yol\u Rangers, in their evaluative comments on the {aliwuy camp, identify their own interest in this education/training endeavour as the ‘sharing of two knowledges’:

It was not the first time that the Botanist getting plants were [sic ] new to us, because we have worked alongside other botanists as well. We had fun pronouncing the scientific names of the plants, tongue twisters but we were able to pronounce them properly, also we taught the Balanda Rangers what the plants are used for, e.g. medicine etc...We would like to see more of these workshops happening in the future, so we could invite the young Trainee Rangers to participate.

Working with the other Rangers was very helpful, [it was ] also very good to teach them things from our side of culture. It was just like sharing two knowledges together. We would like to see more of these sharing two knowledges together. (PWCNT c.1996, p. 28)

We can see from these comments that the Yol\u Rangers recognise and celebrate the ‘sharing of two knowledges’ (above) in the socialisation of the world through the technology of naming. They are interested in the ‘scientific names’ being learnt and practised at the camp. Their comments reveal how these names, as classificatory devices, are mobilised through the camp and are an important part of the boundary- making work it accomplishes. The Yol\u Rangers do not experience this naming as an opaque (blackbox) theory which, through the grand organising system of taxonomy, orders and reveals the world as named (found) objects or ‘species’. Rather, they recognise this naming as a material/social device, mobilised through languages, the acrobatics of tongues in mouths, and the interactions between speaking, listening and laughing actors, as an embodied, material/social tool for understanding the realities of our worlds. Here the Yol\u rangers are giving us the basis of how ranger training episodes might be developed to explicitly incorporate a ‘journeying-naming’ methodology to supplement the ‘naming-tracing’ aspects of the PWCNT ranger training camp. They emphasise the practices of telling both Yol\u and technoscientific names through collective work and in the rangers’ encounters with the plants and animals in the land/sea.

I suggest that in order to incorporate a ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology (the methodology of land/sea management in Dhimurru’s practice) in this episode in ranger training, we need to take heed of the Yol\u rangers comments, and pay attention to the acts of naming and telling the land/sea through the practices of using site planning proformas, standardised theories (ie ROS) and classification

198 devices (ie ‘land unit’ descriptions), and species identification and collection methods in place . That is, we need to explore ways to tell, name and travel in the land/sea together that allow Yol\u practices of naming and journeying to sit alongside the traces and signifiers worked up through the plant and animal and land/sea survey exercises of the camp. This might involve, for example, the construction of a very different sort of ‘Site Evaluation’ proforma for the students’ workbooks which includes appropriate Yol\u knowledge about places and events and their significance. It might also include alternative ways of ‘tracing’ the practices of the camp such as video recordings of Yol\u naming and telling the land/sea, and of participants acting- out the ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ together. I suggest that an explicit negotiation of how rangers will participate in and contribute to the group recreation site plan should occur. Rather than organise separate groups of contributors, we might have everyone working together on one plan which is designed through negotiation with Yol\u landowners who are invited to the camp as senior instructors. What might a recreation site plan look like in the context, we might wonder. And what sort of information would it contain? By incorporating and valuing, as the Yol\u rangers suggest, elements of a ‘journeying-tracing’ methodology, this plan would necessarily be quite different from the one produced through the predominantly ‘naming-tracing’ practices of the {aliwuy camp. It would be a plan which emerges from a recognition of Dhimurru’s unique knowledge landscape and forms part of the process of producing knowing Yol\u and non Aboriginal rangers who have skills, sensitivities and understandings which allow them to live and work together in the cooperative management of Yol\u land/sea.

The {aliwuy ranger training camp is an answer to the question ‘What is a ranger?’ in the contemporary management of lands and seas in the Northern Territory. So, what of being a Yol\u Ranger? In the remainder of this chapter I show how Dhimurru, through the development of its the ranger training program, is working towards an answer to this question through the messy making and re-making of ontological domains and boundaries.

7.5.3. Episode Two: ‘Doing Ecology’

I organised a two-week ‘Introduction to Plant Ecology’ workshop held at the Yirrkala Homelands Schools Resource Centre at Yirrkala and on Yol\u lands from 31 July to 11 August 1995. This workshop formed part of the Stage 1 unit, ‘Introduction to Ecology’, in the Ass. Dip. of Applied Sci. (NCRM) course. This was the first workshop I had organised and run on my own. It was a daunting task! I had spent the previous two months at Batchelor participating in workshops which other staff members in the land management (EMEC) unit were running. I had assisted in the preparation and presentation of materials for these other workshops but this workshop was now

199 my sole responsibility. The Course Accreditation Document for the Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Natural and Cultural Resource Management) (Batchelor College c.1992) document was my guide to which topics were to be covered in the ‘Introduction to Ecology’ unit. 82 The unit covers aspects of plant and animal ecology, usually organised into separate workshop blocks. 83 This document clearly states what the students ‘will be able to do’ upon successful completion of the unit. These are noted as the unit ‘Objectives’ (Batchelor College c.1992, p. 25) and include for example the following:

‘define in simple terms ecological concepts such as ‘niche’, ‘habitat’, ‘community’, ‘ecosystem’, ‘species’ etc.’ (p. 24) and ‘provide examples of the diversity of life and the range of habitats in the Australian environment’ (p. 24)

The overall ‘Aim’ of the unit according to the Course Accreditation Document is: ‘Introduction to Ecology provides students with the background necessary to support ecological studies in areas of vegetation and wildlife management’ (Batchelor College c.1992, p. 25). The ‘Unit Outline’ (p. 3) in the Course Accreditation Document also details some learning strategies for the ‘Introduction to Ecology’ unit which include: presentation of unit material in the form of lectures, small group workshops, field work, field excursions, videos and practical laboratory sessions (p. 26).

I drew up a plan for the workshop and allocated activities to each day of the ten- day exercise. This was modified as the workshop progressed and as I sought to fit in with Dhimurru’s works program. I spent the week before the workshop writing an expansive set of notes which I intended to use as prompts for the group information and discussion sessions throughout the workshop. I used the recommended text for the unit to help develop these notes, a book entitled A Natural Legacy: Ecology in Australia (Recher, Lunney & Dunn eds 1986), as well as a number of other sources including some old lecture notes from my degree in forest science. I also looked through a number of copies of the Yirrkala LPC periodical Yu=ana Dh^wu and found a simple diagram of a tree with Yol\u matha words for its different parts which I photocopied to try and learn. With these notes and materials in front of me I felt I

82 The course curriculum is set out in the Course Accreditation document (see Batchelor College 1995). This curriculum document is a statement of the knowledge and skill or competency standards which students are expected to attain in the course. The curriculum is written in unit modules with specified unit objectives, content, learning strategies, and assessment methods. The objectives for each unit of the course prescribe the intended learning outcomes for that unit. Assessment of student performance in the course is the responsibility of the Batchelor College lecturer in charge of a particular course unit. Methods of assessment may be varied for different units. 83 The ‘Introduction to Animal Ecology’ part of the unit was delivered at Batchelor College in May 1995.

200 would be better able to ‘handle’ the workshop-if I had planned it well, if I made sure I had plenty of things to say (information at my fingertips!); I hoped I would then be less likely to flounder in the workshop delivery. The senior lecturer in the NCRM program at Batchelor College suggested that I could base my delivery of the workshop at Yirrkala on an archival folder of materials he lent me. This folder contained a collection of assessment sheets, notes, images, transparencies and references. There were similar folders for many of the units in the NCRM course stored on his bookshelf at Batchelor. These folders were a resource which made it easier for teaching staff-it was more time efficient to follow a unit plan that had already been researched and written by someone else. Although it was my painful experience that simply ‘applying’ the unit material (content and evaluation tasks) was neither appropriate nor particularly successful in many situations.

Here I tell of the ‘Introduction to Plant Ecology’ workshop using my personal notes. This workshop was held at the Yirrkala Homelands Schools Resource Centre, Monday 31 July-Friday 11 August 1995.

WEEK ONE

Monday 31 July

The workshop was planned to start at 9 am this morning. Two of the students arrived with the senior Dhimurru rangers at 10 am. This was an opportunity for me to have an informal discussion and review session with Michael and Danny. The other students did not arrive and I decided to start the workshop tomorrow, hoping there would be better attendance from amongst the group of eight students enrolled in the unit.

Tuesday 1 August

I organised for myself and the students to visit }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) with Dhimurru staff and Glenn Wightman and Michael Barrett of the Ethnobotany Task of the PWCNT. Glenn agreed to talk to the students about various plant communities we encountered along the way. Three students only attended this field day which was disappointing as it was intended to be an introductory practical and discussion session on various plant communities. I planned that this would set the scene for the rest of the workshop and the group experience would serve as a reference point for its content.

Wednesday 2 August

201 In the morning we were invited by Dhimurru to attend a briefing session by Nabalco’s environmental section about a problem of ground water contamination due to seepage of caustic solution from the plant site. This is a problem that the Dhimurru community has been aware of for some time. It has stimulated concern within the organisation about the ecological effects of such pollution and raises issues of control and independent assessment of impacts of mining and other resource use on Yol\u estates.

After the Nabalco briefing, I travelled with the students to the classroom at the Yirrkala Homeland Schools Resource Centre. I gave a general introduction to the workshop, its structure and content, and the work and attendance requirements. I then initiated the first theory/discussion session which was an introduction to the parts and functioning of plants.

In this first session we covered some of what are widely recognised as ‘basic’ concepts of ecology: ‘ecosystem’, ‘environment’, ‘niche’, ‘habitat’, ‘adaptive features’, ‘competition’, etc. I had made a list of definitions of these terms for my own reference but wasn’t sure how I was going to present these to the students. My intuition was to make this a collective exercise. I placed a large piece of paper with some marking pens on the table around which we were all sitting. We then proceeded through the words/names together. I explained them as best I could in English using examples, and then asked the students to tell me how they understood these ideas and terms. As we settled upon an agreed meaning or definition through our discussion one of the students wrote this on our group list.

We did not achieve shared understanding of all the terms in ecology-there were a great many to address as stipulated in the unit content prescriptions. However, we achieved some mutual understanding of these concepts and produced our own definitions of some of them. For example, the list recorded our collective definition of ‘habitat’ translated as the Yol\u idea of ‘ w^\a’:

Habitat-a place where an organism lives. Its address. It’s w^\a.

And the definition of ‘niche’ as ‘ dj^ma ’:

Niche-what an organism does. Where it lives. It’s job. The dj^ma it does.

202 The Yol\u words/concepts of ‘ w^\a’ and ‘ dj^ma ’ are defined respectively in a dictionary of Yol\u matha as: ‘w^\a: place, camp; house, hut, home (land), nation, country (side), area’ (Zorc 1986, p. 254); and, ‘dj^ma: work, make, do’ (Zorc 1986, p. 94).

That evening, I made a list of the definitions of the terms in ecology. I then copied it and distributed it to the students the following day. This list included our generative definitions (see Appendix L). I reiterated these definitions/concepts throughout the workshop as we discussed the characteristics and adaptive features of each of the vegetation community types of: tropical open woodland; coastal monsoon vine forest; and mangroves.

This afternoon we had a theory/discussion session about the open woodland plant community, its features and adaptations. I presented some of the ecological features of this particular community and we then drove together to the woodland community along the Rocky Bay road. We continued our discussion in this place. We noted the shape and texture of the leaves of the Eucalyptus species, talked about the relative height of the plants, and noted the dryness and rockiness of the soil. We also looked at the thickness of their bark and plant regrowth after fire, observing the coppice of some species. I suggested to the students that in ecology these features are understood as ‘adaptation’ of plants to fire.

Thursday 3 August

In the morning we visited a coastal monsoon vine forest at G^rirri (Rocky Bay) with a PWCNT botanist, Glenn Wightman. As a group we observed and discussed the features and adaptations of this plant community and talked about Yol\u use of plants. We observed the effect of fire on the monsoon vine forest, noting the charred plants on one edge of the community where a mild burn had swept over the grassy dunes and made a brief intrusion into the monsoon forest.

In the afternoon I introduced the students to a workbook I had created. I drew up this workbook based on those used previously by teaching staff in the NCRM course and contained in the folder of materials I had borrowed from my colleague at Batchelor College. This workbook contained worksheets for each of the plant communities we considered in the workshop. The format of each of these worksheets was similar. The first section asked students to identify the ‘Site Location’ and then describe in

203 words and/or pictures its characteristic features. The ‘Site Location’ was the place which we visited together in ‘the field’-our exemplary plant community. The second section of the worksheets gave room for the students to describe in words the ‘Environmental Conditions’ characteristic of the particular plant community under the subheadings: ‘Water’, ‘Soil and Nutrients’, ‘Space (room to grow) and light’, ‘Fire’ and ’Other things that affect the plants in this community’. The third section was dedicated to ‘Adaptations’ of the particular community in question. This section varied for the three different plant communities and prompted written and illustrated responses from students on ‘Adaptations’ characteristic of each of them. For example, the adaptations students were required to examine for monsoon vine forests were organised under the subheadings: ‘The bark’; ‘The leaves’; ‘The seeds/fruit’; and, ‘The above-ground root system’. The worksheets were designed to ask students to relate observations of the ‘the field’, the real-world plant communities that we had visited together, to theories of ecology. For example, under the subheading ‘The bark’ the worksheet for ‘Monsoon Vine Forest’ (see Figure 26) asks:

‘Examine the bark of a vine forest tree. Would it provide protection from fire? Explain.’

A standard response to this question might be:

‘The bark is not well adapted to provide protection from fire. It is thin and scaly or smooth and not fibrous.

The students and I sat together in the classroom and worked on completing the sections of the workbook for the ‘open woodland’ and ‘monsoon vine forest’ plant communities.

Friday 4 August

In the morning the students and myself walked from the Homelands Schools Resource Centre to the local Yirrkala creek, at the place sometimes called Ra\i, to look at the mangrove plant community and discuss its features. We then returned to our classroom space and talked more about what we had seen and about ecological features of the mangroves. The students then completed the relevant sections in their workbooks.

WEEK TWO

Monday 7 August

204

Picnic Day/Arafura Festival Public Holiday.

Tuesday 8 August

In the morning students continued with their workbooks. In the afternoon we returned to G^rirri (Rocky Bay) to look at adaptations in mangrove communities. We observed examples of adaptations in root and leaf structure and the transition zones between coastal plant communities.

Wednesday 9 August

Today day was dedicated to learning about ecological issues surrounding the activities of Nabalco. We spent the morning visiting and discussing the ground water seepage from the Nabalco plant and travelled with the Dhimurru rangers to the seepage site near the place called Bukbukpuy. We observed the dark stain of the contaminant in the seawater and the numerous dead Casuarina trees near this site. We inferred that their cause of death may have been due to the pollution of the fresh water reservoir from which their roots extract moisture.

In the afternoon we visited the Nabalco mine site for an information session on the rehabilitation process the company has developed. We were given a personal tour of the mine site revegetation by the mine manager.

Thursday 8 and Friday 9 August

Students completed their worksheets for this workshop and some mounted herbarium specimens as part of an ongoing task from a previous unit in the course.

The ‘Introduction to Plant Ecology’ workshop inducts the students into a particular way of telling/knowing the world through ecology. In this telling/knowing, the worksheets reveal ‘Site Location’ as the primary mobilisation of land/sea as ’plant community’. Secondarily, the category, ‘Environmental Conditions’, mobilises land/sea as ‘plant community’ through the (implied) categories of ‘biophysical factor’, ‘biological factor’ and ‘climatic factor’ into which the subheadings of the worksheet-‘Water’, ‘Soil and Nutrients’, ‘Space (room to grow) and light’ and ‘Fire’-fall. Together these sets of mobilising categories perform ‘plant community’ as a ‘natural’ and universal entity, defined along with all other plant communities in the world, by its characteristic ‘adaptations’ to ‘location’, and the ‘biophysical’, ‘biological’

205 and ‘climatic’ elements (e.g. fire) which produce its particular species assemblages, structure and form.

The theory of the ‘adaptation’ of an organism, caused by interactions between it, its characteristic ‘location’ and associated ‘biophysical’, ‘biological’ and ‘climatic’ elements, is pivotal to the ways in which ecology does place. Local variations in Nature/’the environment’ are accounted for in ecology by the ‘adaptations’ that plant and animal communities demonstrate at particular locations. These adaptations are the ‘natural’, or Nature-driven, responses to the interactions of ‘physical’, ‘climatic’ and ‘biological’ factors which produce viable communities of organisms. Such adaptations account for the differences between objects in Nature (such as ‘plants’, ‘animals’) and help perform the land/sea as a particular ‘community’ or ‘a group of interacting populations of organisms sharing a common environment’ (as defined in the handout of ‘Ecological Definitions’ which I produced for the ‘Introduction to Plant Ecology’ workshop (see Appendix L).

I have shown through my presentation of the workshop that the performance of the land/sea as ‘plant community’ is a performance of ecological place achieved through the mobilisation of particular definitions, and concepts which trace the relationships between known (and named) plant ‘objects’ and their ‘environment’. This is a methodology of ‘naming-tracing’. The ‘Introduction to Ecology’ workshop is an induction into doing ecological place and is a valued part of the ranger training program negotiated through Dhimurru, the PWCNT and Batchelor College. However the workshop also evolved as a methodology of knowing about the land/sea and the science of ecology which incorporated a Yol\u methodology of ‘journeying-naming’. These two sets of practices-’naming-tracing’ and ‘journeying-naming’-were intuitively worked together in the workshop as a ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology.

The ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ practices of the workshop were the combination of methods we generated for learning/teaching ‘plants’ together. These included: the visits we made to local sites where the students and I talked in-place about the plants and their ‘adaptations’, sharing ecological and Yol\u terms and concepts; the negotiations over Yol\u and technoscientific names and meanings we did together in working up our unique definitions of concepts/terms in ecology; and the use of standard definitions and terms in ecology as labels for the plant ‘objects’ and processes (e.g. ‘adaptation’) we encountered in the workshop. This emergent ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology was exemplified in the stabilisation of these journeys, names and traces in the form of the completed worksheets. In this way, we did not simply use the workbooks as an repository of ‘facts’ and information, or as evidence of our ‘learning outcomes’ as per the Unit objectives, although they were

206 an important part of ‘tracing’ our collective practices. Rather, the workbooks were the means by which we let the ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology predominate as they stabilised our activities of visiting, describing, telling and performing places and their plant objects.

The Trainee Yol\u Rangers regularly attended the two-week ‘Introduction to Plant Ecology’ workshop. They participated with enthusiasm and completed their workbooks as a ‘tracing’ of our collective, generative pedagogy/curriculum. All of the students successfully completed the workshop with assessment based on criteria including attendance, effort and work completed. However, given the understandings I have now of the need to explicitly emphasise the unique ontology that is the working knowledge landscape of Dhimurru Yol\u Rangers, I would have run this ‘Introduction to Plant Ecology’ workshop differently.

I would have begun by negotiating with the students about what they thought a teaching/learning episode about ‘plants’ might involve. From this I might expect the students to locate senior Yol\u people, including the Dhimurru Rangers, as a primary source of Yol\u learning/teaching about ‘plants’. I would have spoken also to the Dhimurru Rangers about finding an appropriate starting point, and suggested that we might, together with the students, identify some specific activities around which the concepts in ecology and Yol\u knowledges of plants could be explored. I suggest that such activities would involve senior Yol\u and other community members and be embedded in the everyday works program at Dhimurru and within the life of the Yol\u community. As one of the facilitators of such an activity-orientated workshop, I would use both the activities themselves and the understandings generated through them, along with the Batchelor College course documents, to guide our ‘working-up’ of a curriculum which explicitly emphasises a ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology for teaching/learning about ‘plants’.

To some degree we achieved the development of a ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology in the ‘Introduction to Plant Ecology’ workshop. For example, I organised with the Dhimurru Rangers to integrate our workshop activities with their works program over the two-week period of the workshop and the students approved the format of the workshop through their participation and focused completion of the workbooks. However, there are significant constraints on generating an explicit ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology through the approaches I have outlined here. These are the high costs of community-based delivery of education and training programs including costs of physical and economic resources (e.g. availability of vehicles; transport costs; and the payment of senior Yol\u workshop/curriculum consultants), and social resources including the availability

207 and expertise of senior Yol\u and others who might contribute to a collective Yol\u curriculum/pedagogy for Yol\u Rangers (see Ayre 1998; Marika & White 1999, p. 6). The possibilities for integrating the NCRM course delivery with Dhimurru’s works program were also constrained by Dhimurru’s ability to organise and efficiently deploy a large number of people. Despite this, Dhimurru has invested in research and development of curriculum/pedagogy for its rangers through the initiative of a series of Yol\u driven workshops, one of which I describe in the following section.

7.6. Teaching/Learning EpiEpisodessodes with YolYol\\\\uu Objects

In this section I tell of two more episodes in ranger training at Dhimurru. Episode Three is part of an Yol\u workshop called worrk dj ^ma (‘burning the land’) which was organised by Dhimurru and the Yothu Yindi Cultural Studies Institute (YYCSI) at the Yol\u homeland of Dh^linybuy in 1995. Episode Four is a description of a galtha rom workshop held at the Yol\u homeland of Y^\unbi in 1991.

7.6.1 Galtha Rom Workshops 848484

From 1995 to 1997, Dhimurru, the YYCSI (now the GCSI) collaborated in the conduct of four Yol\u-designed workshops: three were about worrk dj ^ma (‘burning the land’ as part of Yol\u land and sea management practice), and one was about miyapunu (‘sea turtle’). The concept of the workshops is modelled on the galtha rom workshops developed by the Yirrkala Schools and Yol\u communities of NE Arnhem Land over the last fifteen or so years. These workshops form part of a research- based pedagogy/curriculum based on mutual interrogation of Yol\u and Western knowledge traditions which recognises the paramount importance of Yol\u control of education for Yol\u students. They are one important way in which Yol\u community members, educators and students have worked to develop ‘both ways’ education in the Yirrkala CEC and Yirrkala Homelands Schools communities. The 1990 bilingual evaluation report for the Yirrkala School (later Yirrkala CEC) recounts:

When the community elders met for the first time to discuss Yol\u curriculum, they told us that the workshops would be called Galtha rom . The name they chose made it immediately clear to all Yol\u that the community members were insisting that they be consulted in the development of any Yol\u curriculum. In Yol\u matha, Galtha represents the initiation of any sort of ceremonial activity that that has been

84 The name ‘galtha rom’ was not used explicitly to describe the Yol\u-driven workshops in land/sea management and ranger training that I describe in this chapter. This was due to a decision by Yol\u to cease official use of this name for some indeterminate period. However, the Worrk workshop I describe in Section 7.6.1.2 was inspired by the galtha rom methodology.

208 thoroughly negotiated, with all the relevant contributors. (Yirrkala CEC 1993, p. 12)

The galtha rom workshops as pedagogical methodology grow out of a tradition of action research or participatory research (Kemmis & Carr, 1989; Marika et al . 1990) articulated by Shumsky (1956) and Freire (1972; 1974). The elements which characterise this are: the centrality of the element of negotiation, the view of researchers as working participants in the community, and the notion that knowledge is made in the tensions of collective life. The metaphor of galtha represents the importance of negotiating how to proceed ‘in the proper way’. Negotiation in this context means paying attention to the centrality of place as the mobilisation of particular people/things in particular times/locations. Marika-Munu\giritj writes:

I feel that the rules that govern Galtha should be taken into account when we plan for learning to occur... Galtha is a Yol\u matha term used for gathering together ideas as a starting point for sorting out important issues and problems, ceremonies and individual roles in participating in these ceremonies. Galtha literally means-the starting point. (1990, p. 33)

Through the negotiation of a particular form of what have been called galtha rom workshops, Dhimurru, the YYCSI and Yol\u landowners and managers are determining new relationships between Yol\u and other institutions with interests in land and sea management. Yol\u thereby assert control over how their relationships with these institutions might be constructed and seek to challenge existing power relationships. This process opens up a new negotiation about the relative positions of technoscientific and Yol\u knowledges and how they are perceived and accommodated by various institutions. Marika, Ngurruwutthun and White, long-term members of a community of senior educators at Yirrkala, explain that ‘The process of change that we are engaged in involves contesting existing power relationships and organisational structures to achieve the changes we envisage’ (Marika et al . 1990, p. 12).

In their relationship with Batchelor College, Dhimurru challenged the power of the existing Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. NCRM curriculum to control the learning/teaching in the program and determine the perceived training outcomes. Through the Yol\u Ranger role and galtha , Yol\u have insisted that aspects of the Ranger training program at Dhimurru should be negotiated from a Yol\u ‘starting point’ and that any formal course which Yol\u use to help fulfil aspects of their Ranger training agenda must be flexible enough to accommodate principles of a Yol\u pedagogy. Galtha is the process whereby Yol\u insist that the curriculum must explicitly reflect and

209 acknowledge Yol\u learning through community involvement, as Mandawuy Yunupingu explains: ‘If we allow for community participation we get more solid involvement: that means Yol\u control’ (Yunupi\u in Ayre 1998, p. 104). The process of galtha recognises the varied interests of Yol\u stakeholder groups through an explicit negotiation of the relationships between the relevant parties.

It [Galtha ] ensures that the knowledge which is developed through the workshop reflects the contribution of all the different clan groups and reflects the make up and interrelatedness of the group of learners. (Marika-Munu\giritj in Ayre 1998, p. 104)

Galtha rom workshops were first run in 1989 at the Yirrkala Schools as an explicit means of centralising Yol\u control of knowledge production in the schools communities. The workshops are designed according to the particular issue they address and it is the principles of galtha which determine, as a basis for negotiation between the appropriate people, who the participants will be, what roles they have, where the workshop will be located, and from this place, the workshop task or activity (Marika-Munu\giritj 1991, p. 33). The methodology of these workshops is drawn from these principles which are ‘journeying-naming’ practices determined by the particular peoples and places associated with the galtha rom episode. However, the galtha rom methodology also incorporates practices of ‘tracing’ through a modification of its Yol\u ‘journeying-naming’ methodology. This is accomplished through the use of a particular set of technologies and pedagogical strategies which Yol\u have adapted as appropriate to their curriculum/pedagogy research and development endeavour. These are notably the production and use of workshop booklets as curriculum resource documents, personal and group journal writing and reflection by participants, written and oral evaluation presentations by groups and individuals as responsible knowledge makers, and in the case of a program of Yol\u mathematics education, the production of four workshop videos (see Yirrkala CEC 1995).

7.6.2. Episode Three: A Garma Living Maths Workshop at Y^Y^\\\\unbiunbi

In this section I use the documentation from a galtha rom workshop as part of the ‘both ways’ maths curriculum at the Nambara Schools as an inspiration for the continued development of pedagogy/curricula in ranger training. I describe this workshop from a video entitled ‘Living Maths: Video 1-Djalkiri-Space Through Analogs’ produced by the Yirrkala CEC in 1995. I also present some evaluative comments from the workshop as recorded in the workshop booklet produced by the Yirrkala LPC. This workshop is located at the Yol\u homeland of Y^\unbi and involves Yol\u

210 students, Yol\u and Balanda teachers and Yol\u trainee teachers studying through Batchelor College from the Yirrkala CEC and Y^\unbi community members.

The ‘journeying‘journeying----naming’naming’ practices of the workshop at Y^Y^\\\\unbiunbi

The workshop begins with a talk by a senior |aymil man. He gestures to an area explaining: ‘This is a yati -a common ceremonial ground. In the past we all stayed here. Dhuwa clans sang-}aymil, G^lpu and Rirratji\u. Yirrtja clans are dancers-Gumatj, Dha`wa\u, Wangurri...’

The elder then takes the group of students and teachers on a walk locating exact places. He points to a depression in the soil and the workshop participants move amongst some paperbark trees to have a closer look. The narrator of the video explains: ‘This is a ri\gitj : a sacred waterhole dug by the special spear of an ancestor, Wonggu. It represents an excision of land for one clan within the land of another: a clan embassy.’

The group move into a sandy clearing, with patchy, short, dry grass. The elder tells everyone: ‘It’s the Banhamarr track-my track.’ To the undiscerning eye, it is hard to see where this track is.

The narrator explains, ‘this is the way to the Makarra=a place, a place for settling disputes. The way was for two disputing parties to throw spears at the accused. After a while, someone could take his place if he got tired of dodging the spears. ‘As the group continues to follow the elder, we see that the route they are taking forms a more obvious ‘track’, a worn path which leads to a waterhole. ‘We use this [waterhole ] to survive,’ the elder tells the group. This is the water source for the Y^\unbi homeland community. People move through mangrove trees, to the water.

The elder leads another workshop walk. He is carrying a stick in his hand and shows the group following him a circular patch of sandy soil surrounded by dry leaves. He instructs: ‘This grave belongs to my two fathers Gurritjirri and Garrin.’

‘When my father died,’ he continues, ‘They took the body from the camp and took it away on a bala’pala -a bark stretcher. Everyone carried it because he was a big fellow.’

The students stand and listen, holding their workbooks. The elder draws a design of the stretcher he has described in the sand with his stick. He then

211 stands and adds ‘This area is a sand model of the stingray’. He moves across the open sandy area and sits. The workshop participants follow and then stand facing him, listening. He places the stick he is carrying on the ground beside him. ‘This is where the old people sat down if seeking revenge and only show the woomera. The stingray does this in the water so the sand covers it.’ He demonstrates with the stick showing how the spear-thrower (woomera) is concealed by the sand. He then stands and moves on-the group follow him.

The ‘naming‘naming----tracing’tracing’ practices of the Y^Y^\\\\unbiunbi workshop

The workshop participants are now back at the Y^\unbi community. They are sitting as a group surrounding a large sheet of brown paper (made of up several smaller sheets of paper joined together) spread on a sheet on the ground. People watch as the elder draws on the paper: the Makarra=a spear. Senior Yol\u women are also present and they are painting on other pieces of paper. One of these women explains ‘With this stick we women used to inflict wounds on one side of our heads to express our sorrow.’ The women laugh and someone demonstrates the motion of using the stick as described. Another person comments, ‘This type of stick is also used to pick cashew nuts’.

After another workshop walk, the students and teachers sit and stand around the edges of a tarpaulin with the same large piece of paper as before in its centre. The elder is leaning over and drawing on the paper. He realises: ‘This is upside down.’ And the paper is rotated with several people helping.

The elder draws in black pen on the paper. He instructs the group: ‘This is how the shark outline should be.’ He consults with one of the Yol\u women who has a piece of smaller paper which I assume she has used to note the details of the walk. Some of the students have clipboards with paper which I also assume they are using to record aspects of the workshop. Someone says ‘Come on boys, help each other!’ Someone else adds, ‘Move it that way so we can draw it.’

It is the next day and the workshop participants are again working on their drawing of the workshop. This drawing now shows many details some of which can be made out from the video: outlines traced by thick black pen including the more obvious shape of a shark; smaller circles, dots, forms of trees; labels of Yol\u names and English words and arrows. Many of the students participating in this drawing and telling exercise are marking their own smaller pieces of paper with notes and drawings. The group continue to discuss the ‘map’ drawing: ‘Who will draw the marpin , the tail?’

212 ‘What is a marpin ? A tree, or a fight, or an area?’ ‘Who will draw the teeth?’ ‘I will.’

In this episode, Yol\u teacher education students (teachers-in-training) organised the workshop in negotiation with senior Yol\u, including the elder who hosts the workshop walks, as part of their course of study at Batchelor College. The workshop was incorporated into their study program as a ‘practicum’: a practical research-based activity which students perform as part of their teaching practice. The trainee teachers reflect in their evaluative comments of the workshop how they worked to plan the activities of the workshop as reflexive, negotiable and collective teaching/learning episodes where the students as learners were valued as responsible knowledge makers. Banbapuy Maymuru writes:

Each afternoon they (Dh^\gal and Merrikawuy) reflected back and then did the planning with the elders. Reporting back was very good because everybody was there, the elders, teachers and the Y^\unbi community, and that’s where the students did their reporting back so that everybody was listening to what they learnt and in the eyes of elders too. (Banbapuy Marika in Yirrkala CEC 1992, p. 16)

The Y^\unbi galtha rom workshop develops a methodology of ‘journeying-naming- tracing’ in a more explicit way than in the first two episodes of ranger training through Dhimurru (in Sections 7.5.2 and 7.5.3). It is a forum where contesting knowledges and interests are negotiated under the authority of senior Yol\u. It forms part of a Yol\u pedagogy/curriculum which sits within a neither/both Yol\u and Western ontology.

The students and the teachers-in-training participated equally as active participants in the Y^\unbi workshop which the ‘Living Maths: Djalkiri-Space Through Analogs’ video shows is a Yol\u working of a ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology. I have separated out the practices of the workshop to show the elements of ‘journeying- naming’ and ‘naming-tracing’ which are developed explicitly through the workshop methodology. These elements are integrated through the iterative group telling and making of the collective ‘map’ of the workshop. This ‘map’ stabilises the workshop ‘walks’ (‘journeyings’) and the elder’s tellings of djalkiri and gurru=u in the land/water (‘namings’): it is both a record and an exemplification of the methodology of the workshop as it materially ‘traces’, with symbolising language and designs on paper, the collective learning/teaching episode. The individual journals of the workshop participants, the workshop booklet (see Figure 27) and the video from which I have

213 drawn this account are also stabilised forms of the ‘tracing’ elements of the methodology of the workshop. This is a generative, negotiated pedagogy/curriculum development process where the workshop is an exemplar of the ‘journeying-naming- tracing’ methodology. This methodology is vital in achieving the Yol\u pedagogical principles of negotiation and integration as Marika explains:

If we are going to take seriously the notion of negotiating with learners and living the curriculum we develop we have no option but to integrate all parts of the curriculum. (1992, p. 7)

This integration involves negotiating ’a Yol\u/Balanda balance; A Dhuwa/Yirritja balance and a teacher/learner balance’ (Marika 1992, p. 7; see also Marika-Munu\giritj et al . 1990, pp. 46-48)) through the workshop forum. And it is the particular and specific practices of locally negotiated workshops, and the ‘journeying’, ‘naming’ and ‘tracing’ acts performed in this negotiation/integration, that are the serious attempt to develop an appropriate ‘both-ways’ maths curriculum for Yol\u students and a curriculum for Yol\u teachers-in-training.

In the video of the Y^\unbi galtha rom workshop we see the Yol\u practices of ‘journeying-naming’ are the participants’ collective walks to the specific areas and sites that the elder leads them to as he explains and demonstrates in place, the associated activities of Wa\arr and the names and meanings of events in history which mark the land. 85 The group learnt of events in the land/sea and their embodiment in the literal markings of these events on the land/sea. For example, the depression made by Wonggu’s special spear and the camping sites of Yol\u land owning groups are the circular ri\gitj which the elder names and tells for the workshop participants. As in the worrk dj^ma workshop at Dh^linybuy that I described in section 7.6.2, this way of working and telling the land/sea is a mobilisation of the land/sea as Yol\u place through the technologies of gurru=u and djalkiri -in this case, as ri\gitj .

The ‘naming-tracing’ elements of the Y^\unbi workshop are the video and booklet of the workshop and the writing, telling and drawing activities which record and represent the performance of place that is a living maths pedagogy/curriculum. In the video of the workshop, we see the making of the collective ‘map’ of the names, places and events which are being learnt through the journeying and narratives taught by Larrtjan\a and others, and the notes being taken by individual students. As the booklet of the workshop produced by the Yirrkala LPC (Yirrkala CEC 1992) tells, these students were required to report to the group on what they had learnt

85 See Christie 1993 for a discussion of Yol\u naming practices.

214 throughout the workshop. These performances by the students, as Christie (1995) notes, are an important part of learning to be responsible knowledge makers, and learning to understand and love their homeland through understanding the knowledge-making acts of the ancestors (Marika-Munu\giritj & Christie 1995).

The ‘naming-tracing’ elements of the galtha rom methodology are integral to the Yol\u struggle to have their emergent pedagogy/curriculum taken seriously in the institutions of education and training which include the NTDE and Batchelor College. The ‘tracings’ produced provide a form of ‘evidence’ and are a record and archive of the ongoing research effort which is the production of a Yol\u pedagogy/curriculum for maths and teacher education.

7.6.3. Episode Four: A ‘Worrk Dj^ma’ Workshop at Dh^linybuy

From Tuesday 19 to Thursday 21 September 1995, a Yol\u workshop entitled worrk dj^ma’ (translated for the purposes of the workshop as ‘burning the land’) was held at the homeland community of Dh^linybuy in NE Arnhem Land. The focus of the worrk dj^ma workshop was the burning practices of Yol\u and the implications of fire for contemporary management of Yol\u estates. This workshop was part of Dhimurru’s agenda to develop ways of working and doing research on Yol\u lands and seas which involves a productive and mutually beneficial exchange of knowledges and practices. As the evaluation document for the workshop explains, the workshop is seen as a further step in the development of a long term project to develop a community of Yol\u and Balanda who can work together on fundamental issues involving land care in NE Arnhemland, within the framework set by Yol\u knowledge structures (YYCSI 1995, p. 4).

The Dh linybuy worrk dj^ma workshop was largely funded through a Northern Territory Landcare grant to Dhimurru. The newly established YYCSI was engaged as the consulting body to organise and run the event. The New Project Application by Dhimurru to the National Landcare Program (NLP) in 1995/6 was to support a ‘Trial Workshop’ entitled ‘Gathering traditional ecological knowledge’. The project summary in the application document is:

Conduct a trial workshop of Aboriginal Traditional Owners, Non Aboriginal and Aboriginal land managers and Aboriginal land management students to acquire and interpret traditional Aboriginal knowledge regarding the use of fire in the NE Arnhem landscape. This knowledge aims to inform contemporary land management practice by providing a record of proceedings in text and video form. (DLMAC 1995b, p. 1)

215 The ‘land management students’ referred to in the NLP application are the group of Dhimurru Trainee Yol\u Rangers who were full-time students in the Batchelor College Assoc. Dip. (NCRM) course from 1995-96. 86 These students were viewed by Dhimurru staff as vital participants in this workshop event which brought together many other different people and institutions including myself as the community-based lecturer in the NCRM course; staff of Dhimurru, members of the YYCSI, members of the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Melbourne, the PWCNT Ranger working with Dhimurru, senior Yol\u consultants and members of the Dh^linybuy homeland community. 87

The location for the worrk dj^ma workshop was chosen as a place called Djurrpunbuy near Dh^linybuy. Several families live at Dh^linybuy, a Yol\u homeland community established in the 1970s, which is situated on Wangurri clan land approximately eighty km by road from the township of Nhulunbuy and near a large freshwater river. This river flows into Arnhem Bay several kilometres downstream from Dh^linybuy. At this time of year, late in the Dry Season, it skirts a large, seasonally inundated floodplain before spilling into the Bay. This area is the proposed focus of the worrk dj^ma.

Evening: Day One

The workshop participants sat in a group on the ground near the school building their faces lit by the nearby camp fires. The babble of talk was soon replaced by an expectant silence as we waited for the introductory session of the workshop to start.

Participants were welcomed to Dh^linybuy and to the workshop. Mandawuy, a senior Yol\u workshop facilitator, explained the events of the workshop in English: tonight was for learning about the context and some history of worrk ; tomorrow we would be doing the burning work at the place Djurrpunbuy, and the third day we would plan to do hunting. Other workshop activities would include journal writing and in the morning we would begin a collective map of the worrk event.

Following this introduction, senior Yol\u instructors told of various aspects of worrk dj^ma . One of the senior Yol\u women spoke to the group in the Yol\u matha language of Gumatj. I struggled to follow what she was saying but was able to pick out the familiar names of Yol\u clans: Dha`wa\u, Warramiri,

86 Seven of the people enrolled in the full-time Batchelor College Assoc. Dip. NCRM course were considered Dhimurru Trainee Rangers. These people were: Dwayne Watson, Daniel Bromot. Mirrit\a Yunupi\u, Gatjirrimi Yunupi\u, Rr^wu] Maymuru, Michael Maymuru and Grant Gambley.

216 |aymil, {^=iwuy, Gumatj, Wangurri. I understood from my experience of working and learning with Yol\u people that she was instructing our group on the particular Yol\u clan affiliations to this homeland and the places we would encounter through this particular worrk dj^ma . She then told us other lists of names. I heard the word w^\a: I knew that w^\a meant a place, or ‘home’. I then understood that these names referred to places in the land. Animals, plants and people all belong to certain w^\a. I listened for the animals and plants we would be hunting. She listed these, including: nyiknyik (small marsupial); biyay (goanna); minhala (long-necked tortoise); djurrpun (water chestnuts found in this place); r^kay (edible bulbs)...

We all slept near the school building-men and women in separate areas. It was a cold Dry Season night. I huddled in my sleeping bag and felt excited and somewhat worried about the following day. This was the first time an activity such as this workshop had been included in the NCRM course program. My colleagues at Batchelor supported the inclusion of the workshop in the course, recognising it as part of our attempts to deliver the community-based course in a ‘culturally appropriate’ and flexible mode. I had discussed with senior lecturing staff at Batchelor how the worrk dj^ma episode might be credited within the current syllabus for the Grad. Cert. NCRM. We had not yet decided how we would do this but I hoped we would find a way.

Morning: Day Two: ‘Map making’

We ate breakfast together on the first morning at Dh^linybuy, catered by Djawa. Helen and Mandawuy and I then discussed how we might formalise and re-work the instruction session of the previous night as part of the student’s program of learning/teaching. (Helen and Mandawuy have worked together for many years in the development of ‘both-ways’ pedagogy/curriculum in the Yirrkala Schools’ communities. They have extensive experience in facilitating galtha rom workshops.)

We decided together to encourage the students to work with the names that had been told to them last night. The senior Yol\u instructors, Mandawuy indicated, had made it clear that knowing the names for the places where the worrk dj^ma is to be conducted is fundamental to understanding the event and learning worrk dj^ma in the ‘proper way’. There was muttered agreement amongst the students about drawing a map. It was, I gathered, an appropriate

87 See Yirrkala LPC (1996, pp. 6-7) for the full list of participants.

217 way of representing the worrk dj^ma to be performed today-the places, people and events. I remembered from looking at documents and texts from previous galtha rom workshops that such ‘maps’ were often a product of the workshops.

Helen wielded a large ‘glue stick’ and cemented an ominous tableau of butchers’ paper from several separate sheets of paper. A group, including the students, assembled to take part in the map-making, and cleared a way for it to be shifted amongst them on the verandah of the school building at Dh^linybuy. The edges of the paper were secured by items from the nearby stock of food, marking pens were distributed and then raised tentatively, and the storyboard/ map-making began.

Initially there was much discussion about the depiction of the worrk dj^ma -the orientation of the tableau was crucial to a proper representation. It was twirled ninety degrees, the tin mugs and salt shaker securing the paper repositioned, and Grant, one of the Batchelor College students and Dhimurru Yol\u Trainee Rangers was directed by members of the group to start drawing. The other students sat close on the verandah-some people stood and pointed to make their contributions. The discussion was in Yol\u matha but I was able to follow from my limited grasp of the language and the body language of participants that the debates about scale and location involved questions like: ‘Which side should the river be drawn on?’ ‘Where is Djurrpunbuy?’ ‘Dh^linybuy is here’. ‘The sea is on this side!’ And so the record of our collective experience of the worrk event was being created. This was a style of topographic representation-it included landscape features such as the river and its tributaries and the plains area where the burning would take place. Some Yol\u place names we had been given were also drawn on the ‘map’. The students were prompted by the Yol\u instructors to recall the names told in the instruction session last night. A selection of these was also recorded by the students on a separate piece of paper under a heading I had written: ‘Place Names-W^\a’:

Nyiknyikbuy Djurrpu] Yamawuy Gililwuy Mulum?ulwuy Gaymala Yurrawuy Baduwatpuy Gar\gulkpuy Dindhawuy Rolkuwuy

After the morning session of map-making and learning and placing names, we gathered together our gear and travelled in several vehicles to the place, Yorraywuy, which is the boat landing on the bank of the Cato river. It was

218 mid-morning. The group divided into three smaller groups amid discussion and direction by the Yol\u facilitators. The three parties then set out by alternative routes: a group of Yol\u and Balanda men, armed with spears and plastic bottles of water by foot; several of the younger Yol\u men by boat; and a group of mainly older Yol\u women plus myself, my supervisor from Melbourne University, a non-Aboriginal woman working at the Yirrkala LPC, and the two senior Dhimurru Yol\u Rangers, Dja`a`i\ba and Nanikiya, also by foot.

At this stage I didn’t know exactly where or what our group’s destination or role was. I understood from our discussions the previous evening that we were going to burn a floodplain area (the name of which I had not yet learned properly) and that this worrk dj^ma is the work of maintaining this place through the ritualised use of fire. This place had not been burnt for a long time our Yol\u instructors had explained. I had glimpses of another purpose to this event from comments from Yol\u participants. It was not clear to me, but it was something to do with the relationship between clans with ownership interests in this area: the Wangurri clan and the Gumatj clan. A reconciliation of past differences perhaps?

Our party walked in single file through the woodlands. A plodding stride eased me into a sense of being in the group. I wondered and followed. I had questions to ask but felt that they would have been inappropriate or obtrusive. I was faced with a new way of learning: a quiet way of listening and watching as we moved through the country and the activities associated with worrk dj^ma . I felt confident that I would be guided in my interactions within the group and participation in the event by the Yol\u instructors. It was strange to be amongst mostly women. Until now, I have spent most of my time in ‘the bush’ with Yol\u men.

I concentrated on our journey. Everything was vivid and I had a strong sense of anticipation. This journey had not been planned the way I was used to things happening. I didn’t know where exactly we were going or what we were aiming to do. I didn’t know how long it would take, or who was going to do what.

After we had been walking for some time, (what I guess to be several kilometres), we came to the edge of what appeared to me to be the floodplain. We walked along its periphery in a belt of Melaleuca (paperbark) trees interspersed with clumps of Pandanus. From our position, the dry floodplain was a wall of yellowed grass, perhaps two metres high. Dja`a`i\ba soon stopped, stooping to tear a bunch of shorter grass stalks. He lit these

219 with a cigarette lighter and then used this grass torch to ignite a thicket of taller grass along the edges of the floodplain. Soon the flames were licking high, stretching along the boundary between the floodplain and our area of refuge, the paperbark forest. Smoke whirled overhead and the convection currents caused a blast of hot wind to whip the grass stalks and trees. Ash blew around us, fine filaments of blackened grass which wedged themselves in my hair and on my clothing.

We watched the fire recede into the floodplain and continued walking. Soon we stopped to rest at a spot in the shelter and quiet of the paperbarks, some one hundred metres from the edge of the floodplain. I asked Nanikiya what this place was called. ‘Nyiknyikbuy’, he answered. ‘A place for nyiknyik ?’, I asked, recognising the Yol\u matha word referring to a small mammal. ‘Yo (yes)’, he replied

We rested at Nyiknyikbuy for some time. The women hunted minhala , freshwater tortoise, extricating them from their hibernation amongst the mud and buttress roots of the paperbarks. The ground underfoot was spongy and moist, a lattice of fine roots and leaf debris. Our footfalls were muffled as we moved around searching for firewood and turtles and the silence was cool and peaceful. The crackling of the grass fire to our west was faint and non- threatening.

We built a small fire and cooked the minhala . The women shared the fruits of their hunting and we sat together eating. Once our meal was finished it was time to move on. We walked several hundred metres further along the edge of the paperbarks and then turned onto the floodplain. Once clear of the shelter of the trees we could see the devastation of the fire. The grass was razed and burnt! There were unburnt patches here and there but most of the area was blackened and covered with fine ash and stubble. Further in the distance, an enormous, billowing cloud indicated what I assumed to be the front of the fire. We had arrived at the place Djurrpunbuy. (I learnt later that there are many other names relating to specific sites in this area.)

Our group set out slowly across the burnt area. The ash-covered soil was dry and lumpy like a ploughed field after harvest. The stalks of the burnt grass rubbed our legs and those of us in thongs were wary of smouldering logs! The Yol\u women caught goanna and found several dead water snakes that they declared unfit to eat. We traversed the floodplain, walking in our group and surveying with some satisfaction our worrk dj^ma (see Plate 13).

220

We arrived at the edge of the floodplain which was marked by a curve in the river: at the place called Rulkuwuy. Here a tributary, Batawatpuy, met the larger flow of water and I realised that our vehicles were located somewhere on the other side of these two waterways! I was alarmed now to think that we might have to retrace our steps, not a pleasant prospect given the waning daylight and our depleted energy. I now realised that the Yol\u instructors were expecting to find members of the other parties awaiting us here with the boat. Apparently this had been a part of the day’s plan. They were disappointed not to find our transport here and we wondered, where were the other parties? And, how were we going to make it back to Dh^liny now?

Our party ended up by camping the night at Rulkuwuy, making our beds on flattened, unburnt stalks of grass and eating the remainder of our day’s catch. We were ‘rescued’ in the early morning by helicopter and later learnt of the series of problems and incidents which led to our overnight stranding. We saw this come into focus through the map telling and drawing later in the morning and back at the Dhimurru office the following day.

Morning: Day Three: ‘More Map Making’

As some members of the group marked lines and words on the ‘map’, others re-told their experiences of the previous day. This revealed information such as: where each of the groups had travelled, what they had hunted along the way, where they had stopped to rest and the ignition points of the separate fires. These events were duly recorded on our ‘map’ (see Plate 14). A separate, expanded list of names was written out on a piece of white paper. These names were then cut out individually and positioned on the larger ‘map’ before being glued into place as the group reached consensus about their location. A couple of times a name was affixed wrongly to the ‘map’ and then had to be delicately peeled off and re-positioned according to its ‘proper’ location. When a person tired of his/her job as scribe others took over the ‘map’ construction. Some people wandered away to continue recording their personal journals.

The Day After the Workshop: Back at the Dhimurru OfficeOffice

The day following our return from Dh^linybuy we assembled at the Dhimurru office. I had collected the Trainee Yol\u Rangers from their various residences and we arrived in the troop carrier to join the Dhimurru Rangers and other workshop participants from Dhimurru, the Yirrkala LPC and the University of Melbourne in time for morning tea. We were here to produce a video and

221 written record of the workshop as part of the NLP grant conditions. This was also at the direction of Mandawuy and other senior Yol\u participants-a continuation of the students’ training in worrk dj^ma -and thus another aspect of achieving the Yol\u pedagogical goals of the workshop.

The students worked in small groups or individually to re-tell their knowledge and experience of the worrk event and Jono (University of Melbourne student) and I videoed these presentations. Our collective ‘map’ was once again spread out on the verandah (this time weighted down with plates from the Dhimurru ‘smoko’ room) and used to stimulate these tellings. It was traced and re-traced by voice and by hand, by thong and grimace as the students articulated with confidence their reflections and understandings of the worrk event: place names, stories of hunting, Yol\u ownership, and the trajectories of Wa\arr (ancestral animal figures) and people. They also gave their renditions of how our party was stranded due to a mishap with boat fuel and other logistical failures! (see Plate 14).

The students completed their written journals (see DLMAC 1998). Individual students engaged their literacy skills with an enthusiasm and confidence that I had not seen before. These video, audio and written recordings of the students’ work were to be included in the report of the workshop and as part of Dhimurru’s multimedia CD rom product entitled ‘ Worrk’ (DLMAC 1998).

The worrk dj^ma workshop at Dh^linybuy is an induction into the work of being a Yol\u Ranger for the Batchelor College students/Trainee Yol\u Rangers and other participants. Dja`a`i\ba comments on how the workshop is an innovation in Yol\u land and sea management pedagogy which produces knowing Yol\u Rangers:

I’m happy with the workshop. Because they learned (Batchelor College students and others) and they were trained in things they don’t know and they will learn a proper understandings within our culture under that worrk [dj^ma ], under that country here. It’s an important area and they picked this place and we remembered the past Yol\u walking around this country. We showed them the traditional way. Before it was always done as part of making ceremony, but now are doing it different. (YYCSI 1995, p. 10)

~^\ani Marika, a senior member of Dhimurru, spoke to me about the role the workshops play in the formation of Yol\u Rangers:

It is like two worlds that these trainees [Trainee Yol\u Rangers ] are living in: the Yol\u world and the Balanda [non-Aboriginal ] world. What the land

222 is holding for us and what they [Yol\u Trainee Rangers ] can learn from it by listening to and understanding the [Yol\u] elders. I know that this ranger training [Dhimurru ranger training program ] has gone on for a long time and I think that it is good in the way that I look at it, but these guys [Trainee Yol\u Rangers ] must learn more through these galtha rom workshops...In the workshops the trainees learn about the land, and the life it makes and the songs and dance and tradition it keeps. It gives you understandings, priorities, values and so on. (From an interview with ~^\ani Marika 1996 translated by Djawa Yunupi\u)

The naming and teaching and doing activities of the workshop which Dja`a`i\ba and ~^\ani identify are constituted through the Yol\u practices of djalkiri and gurru=u . Gurru=u is the exhaustive system of Yol\u kin relations and djalkiri is the working of the world as gurru=u . Verran explains:

Djalkiri is the practices and justifications involved in working the world as gurru=u which hinge on the understanding that the world manifests itself as particular places linked in particular ways. Particular groups of people are linked in differential ways with specific sites. (2000, p. 305)

The practices of djalkiri are the re-doing of the work of the Yol\u Ancestors (Wa\arr ) who created the land and sea in their journeys through naming and marking it with their activities (see Chapter 5). In bestowing names they created w^\a and laid down the relations between them in their journeys (Watson 1989, p. 49). The w^\a are a series of focal sites in the land connected to people and to each other in particular ways. These sites are constituted only in relation to other sites and the Yol\u clan collectives with responsibility for their maintenance. In other words, a particular clan w^\a is set within and constituted by its relations with other clan w^\a. Episode Four is the working of clan w^\a, in particular the working of ‘Wangurri w^\a’. (Wangurri is the name of the clan on whose land Dh^linybuy is located), that was emergent in the practices of the worrk workshop.

In the worrk dj^ma workshop, the separations between people and place were actively deleted with the focus being on the differing sorts of relations between the genealogically related ‘people-place’ entities. The arrangements and processes of the workshop continually reminded the Trainee Yol\u Rangers of the oneness of people- place by elaborating the ways in which various people-places related to the Wangurri w^\a. As I understand it, Wangurri w^\a was thus worked as a material- symbolic/human-non-human entity. This is the work of making and re-making boundaries between the clan collectives and the places in the land to which they

223 relate. In this way of doing or working the world, the clan collective (people) and the land are in no way differentiated or separated from one another.

This working of Yol\u place as w^\a locates certainty in knowing people and knowing places. This located certainty is a way of going on that embeds practice in a community of knowers and in particular places and times as one of the senior Yol\u worrk workshop facilitators, Mandawuy Yunupi\u, explains:

Just by being here at Dh^liny [Dh^linybuy ] and being able to share in the discussions that took place, I was able to pick up on history, and the patterns in the song cycles and so forth. When I next sing Wangurri songs I will be able to picture where I have been and where I am in the song. I will perhaps pass the stories, the history to my family and other relations who haven’t been to Bulukami. (Yirrkala LPC 1996, p. 24)

The worrk dj^ma workshop at Dh^linybuy is an exemplification of how place is done in contemporary Yol\u life and land and sea management. This particular ‘doing’ of place is one which celebrates place as partial, contingent and messy. It has people as knowers/doers involved in the ongoing work of re-making the connections between place and people in ways which co-constitute them. This performance of place thus acknowledges and celebrates the locatedness of knowledge making. As Turnbull points out: ‘knowledge is fundamentally about making connections, linking things that are separate. Knowledge is also spatial because it is collective. It depends on the linking of people, places and practices’ (1998, p. 4).

We can see from Episode Four that working the clan collective/ w^\a boundary is knowing gurru=u and ‘knowing place’. Knowing gurru=u for the workshop participants is knowing your position in relation to those in the collective. The Yol\u knowledge authorities at the workshop gave instruction on the relations between clans and their estates and particular w^\a. Particular people with a particular relation to the land area to be burnt invoked and taught lists of names, thus asserting and re-making the land and clan as a co-constituting entity. The telling and teaching of names of sites and relations in the land is also the practice of knowing place and this was what the Trainee Yol\u Rangers hesitantly capture in the map-making and telling. In a reflection on the workshop at Dh^linybuy, the morning after the fire event, Dja`a`i\ba describes these naming practices:

There would be bapurru , manikay, bu\gul there together at the same time as worrk dj^ma . Every single name of the country where we go to get the animals, every yaku , is known and that’s visited to get the animals and nuts.

224 and Every Yol\u has knowledge and to learn the proper way of the dreamtime [Wa\arr ] you gotta know all the names of the country. That’s why we are teaching our young people. (YYCSI 1995, p. 10)

The Trainee Yol\u Rangers were also being trained to work the human-non-human entity, w^\a, at the worrk dj^ma workshop. W^\a is worked through particular people and clan collectives and the making and re-making of the relations between these collectives and their w^\a. This is an approach to pedagogy/curriculum development which refuses the Nature-society/institution boundary which I identified as emergent in the PWCNT/Dhimurru ranger training camp in Episode One. It also contrasts with the ecological performance of place which was mobilised in the ‘Introduction to Plant Ecology’ workshop in Episode Two.

The worrk dj^ma workshop, a Yol\u-inspired episode of ranger training, is inducting the Trainee Yol\u Rangers into a ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology as a basis for contemporary Yol\u land and sea management. The practices of the workshop, which are the embodied journeys of participants in the land/sea and the mobilisation of the land/sea through the production of narratives constituted from naming and tracing our collective selves and acts, are this methodology of an emergent Yol\u pedagogy/curriculum for Yol\u Rangers. The methodology of the worrk dj^ma workshop is an explicit attempt by Yol\u to alter the way Yol\u do land and sea management in the light of the emergent ‘knowledge landscape’ that is Dhimurru’s ontology. It incorporates ‘naming-tracing’ practices such as the students’ telling and writing of the workshop, and the learning and working of names/places to produce a ‘map’ of the worrk event, together with the ‘journeying-naming’ practices of the collective hunting, navigating, firing activities of worrk dj^ma . The combination of these practices is the ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ methodology through which the Yol\u Trainee Rangers are being taught to mobilise places in the land/sea both as socio-material entities constituted in the relations between people and the world-as w^\a-and as Yol\u-managed places in contemporary Yol\u land and sea management.

In order to take Yol\u understandings seriously in land and sea management we must attend to the ontological framework which embeds the institutions and knowledges which are the contemporary technoscientific land and sea management enterprise. I show in this thesis that this framework is typically one by which Yol\u knowledges are marginalised through universalist or relativist strategies which take knowledge as emerging from knowing individuals. The subject of this knowledge is the universal object of management, Nature or ‘the environment’. However, by examining the

225 mobilisation devices and strategies of technoscience and Yol\u knowledges in the working of Yol\u land and sea, I have shown that places, people and ‘objects’ are performed together in multiple ways to effect multiple realities. These collective performances are the multiple practices that make up Dhimurru’s emergent ontology which is a neither/both technoscientific and Yol\u knowledge landscape. This ontology is born in Dhimurru’s work practices. Understanding this work as a methodology of ‘journeying-naming-tracing’ helps us to see that productive and equitable negotiations between Yol\u and technoscientific knowledges is possible.

In paying attention to practices, we begin to see possibilities for how Yol\u and technoscientific understandings of land/sea can be worked together; and how conventional land/sea management practices can both work with and be open to being changed by Aboriginal (Yol\u) practices in the cooperative management of Aboriginal (Yol\u) land/sea. These practices are exemplified in the ‘journeying- naming-tracing’ which is the methodology of Dhimurru’s plan of management for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’ and the emergent pedagogy/curriculum for Dhimurru Trainee Yol\u Rangers.

226 Figure 242424: 24 : Recreational Site Assessment Sheet used in the {a{aliwuyliwuy Bay ranger training camp (source: PWCNT 1996)

227

Figure 252525:25 : Landform/unit descriptions used in the recreationrecreation site assessment exercise at the {aliwuy Bay ranger training camp (source:(source: PWCNT 1996)

228

Figure 262626:26 : Batchelor College/Dhimurru Plant Ecology workshopworkshop worksheetwor ksheet (source: Batchelor College/Dhimurru Plant Ecology workshop workbook compiled by Margaret Ayre, 1996)

229

Page 2 goes here

230 Figure 272727:27 ::: Y^Y^Y^\Y^ \\\unbiunbi Galtha Rom workshop booklet contents page (source: Yirrkala LPC 1991)

231 Plate 111111:11 : {aliwuy Bay ranger training camp (photo: Margaret Ayre)

Plate 121212:12 : {aliwuy ranger training camp recreational site plplanninganning (photo: Margaret Ayre)

232 Plate 131313:13 : Journeying as part of the DhDh^^^^linybuylinybuy worrk dj^ma workshop (photo: Margaret Ayre)

Plate 141414:14 : YolYol\\\\uu Trainee Rangers telling and tracing the collectivcollectivee 'map' of worrk dj^ma (From left to right (foreground): Gatjirrimi YunupiYunupi\\\\u,u, Nalkuma 2 BurrawaBurrawa\\\\aa and RrRr^^^^wuwuwuwunn Maymuru (photo: Margaret Ayre)

233 CHAPTER 8. TRACING MMYY RESEARCH AT DHIMURDHIMURRURURURU

We wait outside the Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Council (Dhanbul) office. I sit with Djaàì\ba, and Djawa and Mandaka on a bench under a tree. Balu Palu, who has been with Dhimurru as a ranger for the last year or so, arrives with Rarriwuy and Gaymala in the Dhimurru bus. It is past 2.30 pm which is the nominated starting time for the Dhimurru Executive Committee meeting. However, we wait a little longer, expecting that a few more people might turn up. The men smoke and Djawa comments on Djaàì\ba’s new hat: we all laugh and admire it.

I enjoy sitting and waiting. It’s a chance to catch up. Rarriwuy who is a teacher at the Yirrkala CEC and Nhulunbuy High School and my adoptive yapa (sister) through gurru=u , greets me warmly and asks me what I’m doing here. I tell her I’m attending the meeting to talk about my thesis: the research I have been doing about Dhimurru. Gaymala asks Rarriwuy in Yol\u matha who I am and Rarriwuy explains to her that I used to work for Dhimurru. I remind Gaymala in English that we have met before; at the Dhimurru worrk dj^ma workshops. ‘Yo , yo (yes, yes)!’ she remembers now. Gaymala is a Dhimurru Executive Committee member and senior Gumatj woman.

We agree that no else is likely to turn up and proceed inside the Dhanbul office to begin the meeting. Everyone sits together around the long table. I set my tape recorder down. It’s going to be important to record the meeting. I have the recorder ready and only need to press the record button to start it. Steve, Dhimurru’s new Executive Officer, is here now too. He distributes copies of the minutes from the last Dhimurru Executive Committee meeting and the Agenda for this meeting. Steve has warned me that there are quite a few things to discuss in today’s meeting and my item is lower down the list: it might take a while to get to it. I have been invited however to attend all of the meeting.

The Dhimurru Rangers, Steve and the Committee members agree that there is no quorum at this meeting: at least five Dhimurru Executive Commitee members must be attendance to vote on behalf of the Committee and there are only four here today. Despite this, the members present decide to discuss most of the Agenda items. I am relieved that the meeting will continue. I am also grateful that most of people with whom I worked with on a day to day basis at Dhimurru are here. And importantly, Dja`a`i\ba is here; now as the Chairperson of the Dhimurru Executive Committee. Djawa suggests a change to

234 the meeting Agenda: that the meeting should start with my presentation of my research. ‘It’s important that Margaret gets to talk’, he says. I am glad that I now have the chance to speak early in the meeting, as I had been concerned that in the event of a long meeting my item may have been postponed.

I stand at the end of the table and address the Dhimurru Executive Committee members. I am nervous and probably speak too fast. I first tell people that I am here to talk about my research and to check that it is ‘ok with’ Dhimurru members for me to submit my thesis for examination to Melbourne University. I use four large colour posters I have made to organise my talk. These contain some text (mostly in English with some words in Yol\u matha ), images (photos, maps and sketches) and diagrams. They are titled: ‘My Research and Dhimurru’, ‘Doing Dhimurru’s Plan of Management for }anydjaka’, ‘Managing }anydjaka’ and ‘Dhimurru’s Ranger Training Program’. I use these posters to tell my story of my involvement with Dhimurru.

In my talk I give examples of the Dhimurru stories and work that I have used in my thesis. The members contribute to this: ‘ Yo ,’ Djawa agrees, ‘That place we all call Guwak. The name of that place is really Yukuwarra’ (see Chapter 6, Section 6.4.3). I explain that I have written in my thesis about doing the plan of management work for ‘}anydjaka/Cape Arnhem’, and how I learnt to do this Yol\u land/sea management work from Dja`a`i\ba and the other rangers. I have reproduced on one of the posters, a sample of my field notes from this work. ‘Here,’ I say as I indicate to the sketch map, ‘I had to write and re-write the names and places you were all telling me; to try and learn them. For example: ‘B^tala.’

‘That should have an ‘h’ in it,’ Djawa comments.

‘Oh. Well you see, I’ve still got a lot to learn!’ Everyone laughs.

This feels like a kind of reminiscing, although I know Dhimurru continues to make similar stories and work every day! As I take my seat, I notice the tape recorder’s record button is not depressed: no trace of the meeting on the tape!

The members of Dhimurru agree that I can submit my thesis to Melbourne University for examination. I tell them that I will spend time this week talking to particular people about parts of the thesis in more detail; Dja`a`i\ba agrees to see me tomorrow to talk about it. I also mention I have left a draft copy of the document with Nanikiya (now Dhimurru’s Senior Cultural Adviser) which he

235 left in his ‘in-tray’ yesterday before leaving to go to Kakadu National Park for a fire management workshop. This version of the thesis (and later a final version) will end up in a filing cabinet along with the Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) in the Dhimurru office; although the Draft Plan of Management survives only in part in its original form, with the maps and overlays I created all missing! These are the enduring traces of myself I leave at Dhimurru-just as Dhimurru and }anydjaka remain forever traced in me.

236 REFERENCES

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission 1995, ATSIC Environment Policy , ATSIC, ACT.

Addelson, K.P. 1994, Moral Passages: Toward a Collectivist Moral Theory, Routledge, New York.

Advyz 1991, Draft minutes of a meeting of Yolngu with interests in areas around Nhulunbuy being used for recreation: Dhupuma lookout: 26 September 1991, Advyz, Darwin.

Altman, J.C. and Allen, L.M. 1991, Living off the land in national parks: issues for Aboriginal Australians , Discussion Paper No. 14/1991, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra.

A National Conservation Strategy for Australia 1984 (2nd edn), Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development , proposed by a conference held in Canberra June 1983, AGPS for the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, Canberra.

ANCA see Australian Nature Conservation Agency

An Indigenous Marine Protection Strategy for Manbuynga ga Rulyapa, 1999?, prepared by senior lawmen of the Indigenous peoples of NE Arnhem Land, MGR Strategy, Online: http://www1.taunet.net.au/profile/Mgrstrategy.htm Accessed 30 June 1999.

ANPWS see Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service

ANZECC see Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

ATSIC see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

Australia ICOMOS 1999, The Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance , Australia ICOMOS Inc., Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria.

Australia, Parliament, House of Representatives, Debates , 2000, 29 June, p. 18596.

237 Australia, Senate 1999, Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999 ], 17 March, Darwin, p. 374.

Australia and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council, Working Group on National Parks and Protected Areas Management Benchmarking and Best Practice Program 2000, Best Practice in Protected Area Management , prepared by Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania, ANZECC, Canberra.

Australian Academy of Science 1980, Scientific Research in National Parks and Nature Reserves: a statement by the Australian Academy of Science Standing Commitee on National Parks and Conservation , prepared for publication by Turner, J.S., Australian Academy of Science.

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Biological Diversity Advisory Commitee 2001, Biodiversity Conservation Research: Australia’s Priorities , Commonwealth of Australia, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Australian Committee for IUCN 1996, Australian Natural Heritage Charter: Standards and Principles For The Conservation Of Places Of Natural Heritage Significance, Australian Heritage Commission in association with the Australian Committee, Sydney, NSW.

Australian Committee for IUCN 1999, Natural Heritage Places Handbook: Applying The Australian Natural Heritage Charter To Conserve Places of Natural Significance , Cairnes, L., Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra.

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service 1986, Nomination of Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Parks For Inclusion on the World Heritage List , Canberra Publishing & Printing Co., Fyshwick, ACT.

Australian Nature Conservation Agency c.1997, ‘Indigenous Protected Areas’, information brochure, ANCA, Canberra.

Australian Soil Conservation Council, 1990?, Decade of Landcare Plan , n.p.

Ayre, A. 1998, ‘Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation’, in Djama and VET?: Exploring Partnerships and Practices in the Delivery of Vocational Education and Training in Rural and Remote Aboriginal Communities: a collaborative research

238 project between vocational education and training providers and remote Aboriginal communities , 1998, vol. 2, Northern Territory University Press, Darwin.

Baker, R., Davies, J. and Young, E. (eds) 2001, Working On Country: Contemporary Indigenous Management of Australia’s Lands and Coastal Regions , Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria.

Batchelor College 1985, Reaccreditation Proposal for a Program of Teacher Education Leading to the Award of the Associate Diploma of Teaching (Aboriginal Schools), (unpub. report), Batchelor College, Batchelor.

Batchelor College c.1992, Course Accreditation Document for the Associate Diploma of Applied Science (Natural and Cultural Resource Management) , Environmental Management Education Centre, School of Community Studies, Batchelor College, Batchelor.

Batchelor College c.1995, Strategic Plan, Batchelor College, Batchelor.

Bates, G.M. 1995 (4th edn.), Environmental Law in Australia , Butterworths, Sydney.

Bates, G. 2001, A Duty of Care for the Protection of Biodiversity on Land , Consultancy Report, Report to the Productivity Commission, AusInfo, Canberra.

Beltr àn, J. (ed.) 2000, Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies , IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, and WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

Benterrak, K., Muecke, S. and Roe, P. 1996 (rev. edn), Reading the Country: Introduction to Nomadology, Fremantle Arts Centre Press, Fremantle, Western Australia.

Berndt, R.M. 1964, ‘The Gove dispute: the question of Australian Aboriginal land and the preservation of sacred sites’, Anthropological Forum, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 258-259.

Birckhead, J., de Lacey, T. and Smith, L. 1992 (eds), Aboriginal Involvement in Parks and Protected Areas, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

Blackburn, Mr. Justice 1971, Milirrpum vs Nabalco Pty. Ltd ., Judgement, see Australia, Northern Territory Supreme Court.

239 Bowker, G.C. 2000, ‘Biodiversity Datadiversity’, Social Studies of Science , vol. 30, no. 5, October, pp. 643-683.

Bowker, G. and Star, S. 1999, Sorting Things Out , MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Breckwoldt, R. (ed.) 1995, ‘Approaches to bioregional planning: Part 1’, Proceedings of the Conference on Approaches to Bioregional Planning , 30 October-1 November 1995, Melbourne, Dept of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.

Breckwoldt, R., Boden, R., and Williams, R. 1997, Contract Employment Program for Aboriginals in Natural and Cultural Resource Management , Evaluation for Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Brennan, F. 1998, The Wik Debate: its impact on Aboriginies, pastoralists and miners , University of New South Wales Press Ltd., Sydney.

Brocklehurst P. 1993, Vegetation Communities Cape Arnhem: North-east Arnhemland Northern Territory, (draft map), CCNT, Darwin.

Callon, M. 1986, ‘Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay’, in Law, J. (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? , Sociological Review Monograph 32, Routelege & Kegan Paul, London.

Callon, M. 1986, ‘The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle’, Callon, M., Law, J. and Rip, A. eds, Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World , Macmillan, Houndmills, pp. 19-34.

Commonwealth of Australia 1998, Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation: Consultation Paper , issued by Senator the Hon. Robert Hill, Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Department of the Environment, Canberra.

Carruthers, J. 1997, ‘Nationhood and national parks: comparative examples from the post-imperial experience’, in Griffiths, T. and Robin, L. (eds), Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler Societies , Melbourne University Press, South Carlton, Victoria.

CCNT see Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory

240 Central Land Council c.1997, ‘Ulu ru handback 10th anniversary’, Online: http://www.clc.org.au/about_clc/land.htm Accessed 5 December 2001,

Chikumbol, O., Spencer, R.D. Turner, B.J. and Davey, S.M. 1999, Planning and Monitoring Forest Sustainability: An Australian Perspective, unpub draft.

Christie, M.J. 1991, ‘Aboriginal Science for the Ecologically Sustainable Future’, Australian Science Teachers Journal , March, vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 26-31.

Christie, M.J. 1993, ‘Yolngu Linguistics’, Ngoonjook: A Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues , June, pp. 58 -77.

Christie, M. 1995, ‘The Purloined Pedagogy: Aboriginal epistemology and maths education’, presented at the Maths Education Research Group of Australia, Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers Conference , Darwin, July.

Christie, M.J. and Perrett, B. 1996, ‘Negotiating resources: language, knowledge and the search for “secret English” in northeast Arnhem Land’, in Howitt, R., Connel, J. & Hirsch. P. eds, Nations, Resources and Indigenous Peoples: Case Studies from Australiasia, Melanesia and Southeast Asia , Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 57-65.

Clark, R. c.1992, Gaining Ground: Landcare in Australia , Australia’s Heritage in Stamps series, Australia Post, Melbourne.

CLC see Central Land Council

CoA see Commonwealth of Australia

COAG see Council of Australian Governments

Commonwealth of Australia, 1984, National Conservation Strategy for Australia: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development, proposed by a conference held in Canberra in June 1983, AGPS for the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1990, Ulu ru (Ayers Rock/Mt Olga) National Park: Visitor Guide , ANPWS, Canberra.

241 Commonwealth of Australia 1991, Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups: Final Report-Executive Summaries , AGPS, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1992, Women and the Environment , a Statement Prepared by the Office of the Status of Women, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia for the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia and each of its States and Territories 1997, Decade of Landcare Plan: National Overview , AGPS, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1998a, Australia's Oceans Policy : Caring Understanding Using Wisely , v. 1, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1998b, Australia’s Oceans Policy : Caring Understanding Using Wisely : Specific Sectoral Measures , v. 2, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1998c, Reform of Commonwealth Environment Legislation: consultation paper , issued by the Hon. Robert Hill Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Department of the Environment, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1999a, Australian Guidelines for Establishing the National Reserve System , Environment Australia, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1999b, National Principles and Guidelines for Rangeland Management: Managing Australia's Rangelands , Australian and New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture & Resource Management Council of Australia & New Zealand (ARMCANZ). Canberra.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation c.1976, Review of the Five Year (1970 to 1975) Program For Forestry Operations and Development in the Northern Territory , a report to the Department of the Northern Territory by Day, M., Division of Forest Research, Dickson, ACT.

Connors, G., Oliver, B. and Woirnarski, J. 1996, Bioregions in the Northern Territory: conservation values, reservation status and information gaps , final report to ANCA, PWCNT, Darwin.

242 Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory c.1993, Geomorphology of Arnhem Land, (draft map), CCNT, Darwin.

Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory 1990, Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory Annual Report for the Year Ended June 30 1990 , Northern Territory Government Printer, Darwin.

Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory 1991, Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 1991 , Northern Territory Government Printer, Darwin.

Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory 1992, Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 1992, Northern Territory Government Printer, Darwin.

Corbett T., Lane, M. and Clifford C. 1998, ‘Achieving Indigenous Involvement in Management of Protected Areas: Lessons from Recent Australian Experience’, Aboriginal Politics and Public Sector Management Research Paper No. 5, Centre for Australian Public Sector Management, Griffith University, Online: http://www.cad.gu.edu.au/capsm/corbet Accessed 2 November 1999.

Cotter, B. and Hanna, K. 1999, Our Community Our Future: A Guide to Local Agenda 21 , Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Council of Australian Governments 1997, Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth/State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment , COAG, Canberra.

Council of Australian Governments 1992, Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment , COAG, Canberra.

Cresswell, I.D. and Thomas, G.M. 1997, Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas in Australia (1997) , Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Cronon, W. (ed.) 1995, Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.

Cronon, W. 1995, ‘The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong nature’, in Cronon, W. (ed.), Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature , W.W. Norton & Company, New York.

243

Cunneen, C.C. c.1997, The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: an overview of its establishment, findings and outcomes , Monitoring and Reporting Section, ATSIC, Canberra.

Dargarvel, J. 1995, Fashioning Australia’s Forests , Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

D-BATE students 1988, ‘Thinking about an Aboriginal teaching style’, Ngoonjook: Batchelor Journal of Aboriginal Education , July, pp. 33-5.

DEH see Department of Environment and Heritage

De Lacey, T. and Lawson, B. 1997, ‘The Ulu ru-Kakadu Model: joint management of Aboriginal-owned national parks in Australia’, in Stevens, S. (ed.) Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas , Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs 1985?, Background Notes: the history of Aboriginal land rights in Australia , AGPS, Canberra.

Department of the Environment and Heritage 1999a, An Overview of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act , Environment Australia, Canberra.

Department of the Environment and Heritage 1999b, Australia's World Heritage , Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories c.1997, Benefits for the Environment: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act , Environment Australia, Canberra, pamphlet.

Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1991, Australian National Report to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development , AGPS, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1994b, Renomination of Ulu ru- KataTjuta National Park by the Government of Australia for Inscription on the World Heritage List , DEST, Canberra.

244 Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories c.1995, Our Sea Our Future: The State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia , Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for Ocean Rescue 2000 Program, Townsville, Qld.

Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1995, Living on the Coast: The Commonwealth Coastal Policy, DEST, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1996, The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity , AGPS, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1996?, Guide to The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biodiversity, (brochure), AGPS, Canberra.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 1990, Ecologically Sustainable Development: a Commonwealth Discussion Paper , AGPS, Canberra.

DEST see Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation c.1993, Liaison with funding and other agencies and the preparation of funding submissions, unpub. report to the Director of the Northern Land Council.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation c.1994, Recreation Areas, list of Yol\u names and custodians.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1994a, Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem), (unpub.), DLMAC, Nhulunbuy.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1994b, Co-Management in NE Arnhemland: Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation and the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, attachment to ‘Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation Review and Development Plan 95/96, 96/97’, DLMAC, Nhulunbuy.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1994c, ‘Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation Review and Development Plan 95/96, 96/97’, DLMAC, Nhulunbuy.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1994d, Dhimurru Cultural Site Register, (proforma).

245

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1995a, Dhimurru Executive Committee Meeting 14/09/95, minutes of the DLMAC Executive Committee held 14 September 1995 at the Yirrkala Homelands Schools Resource Centre, Yirrkala.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1995b, Trial Workshop-Gathering Traditional Ecological Knowledge, National Landcare Program New Project Application 1995/96-Community Groups,(internal document).

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation c.1996, Management Agreement Draft Terms, (internal document).

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1996, Dhimurru Annual General Meeting at Laynhapuy Schools 2 February 1996, Yirrkala.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1998, ‘Worrk: Dh^linybuy 1995; Wathawuy 1996; Garrithiya 1997’, (CD Rom) draft, DLMAC, Nhulunbuy.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation c.1999, Collaborative Management, (internal document).

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1999a, Towards Stewardship and Establishment of Indigenous Protected Areas on Dhimurru Recreational Areas and Adjacent Seas: Final Report, report to Environment Australia, DLMAC, Nhulunbuy.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1999b, Supplementary Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to the Inquiry into the Reeves Report on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 , 10 March.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1999c, Manydjarrarr\a-}anydjaka Heritage Values Assessment: A Report for the Australian Heritage Commission, DLMAC, Nhulunbuy.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1999d, ‘Manydjarrarr\a-}anydjaka Heritage Values Assessment: A Report for the Australian Heritage Commission’, (CD rom) DLMAC, Nhulunbuy.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 2000a, Agenda for the Dhimurru Annual General Meeting at Gu`ku`a, 6 September.

246

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 2000b, Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area Management Plan , prepared by Tallegalla Consultants Pty Ltd, EDAW (Aust) Pty Ltd, October, DLMAC, Nhulunbuy.

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 2001, Dhimurru Website, Online: http://www.octa4.net.au/dhimurru/about.html Accessed 3 April 2001.

Dhimurru...looking after Yol\u land’, c.1992, Y^n , no. 3, pp. 22-23.

Djama and VET: Exploring Partnerships and Practices in the Delivery of Vocational Education and Training in Rural and Remote Aboriginal Communities: a collaborative research project between vocational education and training providers and remote Aboriginal communities , 1998, vol. 2, Northern Territory University Press, Darwin.

DLMAC see Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation

Dovers, S. (ed.) 1994, Australian Environmental History: Essays and Cases , Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Dugdale, A. 1999, ‘Materiality: juggling sameness and difference’, in Law., J. and Hassard, J. (eds), Actor Network Theory and After , Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, Oxford, UK.

Ecological Definitions, prepared by Margaret Ayre for the Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM), Plant Ecology workshop, 31 July-9 August, Yirrkala.

Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee 1992, National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development , AGPS, Canberra.

Edmunds, M. (ed.) 1999, Regional Agreements in Australia: Volume 2 Case Studies , Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra.

EA see Environment Australia

Environment Australia c.1997, ‘Indigenous Protected Areas Program: Advice to Applicants 1997/98’, information package, DEST, Canberra.

247 Environment Australia 1997, Incentives for the Conservation of Biological Diversity , paper for the Secretariat Convention on Biological Diversity, prepared by the Biodiversity Conservation and Strategy Section, Environment Australia, October.

Environment Australia 2000?, Reconciliation Action Plan June 2000: Summary: Key Elements , Online: http://www.ea.gov.au/library/pubs/pubs_subject.html Accessed 18 November 2000.

Environment Australia 2001a, ‘Indigenous Protected Areas’, (brochure) in Indigenous Land Management: the land needs its people , series, Canberra.

Environment Australia 2001b, ‘About the Environment and Heritage Portfolio’, Online: http://www.ea.gov.au/about/index.html Accessed 23 November 2001.

Environment Australia 2001c, ‘Intergovernmental Unit’ homepage, Online: http://www.environment.gov.au/psg/igu/ Accessed 20 May 2001.

Environment Australia 2002, ‘Indigenous Protected Areas Projects’, Online: http://www.ea.gov.au/Indigenous/ipa/currentprojects/index.html Accessed 2 April 2002.

Figgis, P. 1999, ‘Protected areas of the 21st century’, Habitat Australia, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 24-26.

Finlayson, J.D. 1997, ‘Indigenous heritage protection, native title and regional agreements: the changing environment’, Discussion Paper No. 145/1997, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University,, ANU, Canberra.

Foster, D. 1997, Gurig National Park: The First Ten Years of Joint Management, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

Frawley, K. 1994, ‘Evolving visions: environmental management and nature conservation in Australia’, in Dovers, S. (ed.), Australian Environmental History: Essays and Cases , Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Freire, P. 1974, Education: The Practice of Freedom , Writers & Readers Publishing Cooperative, London.

Freire, P. 1972, Pedagogy of the Oppressed , trans. by Ramosm, M. Penguin, London.

248 French, R.S. 1995, ‘Pathways to Agreement’, in Meyers, G.D. (ed.), The Way Forward: Collaboration and Cooperation ‘In Country’ , Proceedings of the Indigenous Land Use Agreements Conference, 26-29 September, Darwin.

Fujimura, J. 1992, ‘Crafting science: standardized packages, boundary objects, and “translation”’, in Pickering, A. (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture , University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Furze, B. De Lacy, T. and Birckhead J. 1996, Culture, Conservation and Biodiversity: the Social Dimension of Linking Local Level Development and Conservation Through Protected Areas , John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Galligan and Fletcher 1993, New Federalism, Intergovernmental Relations and Environment Policy , Federalism Research Centre, Australian National University for the Resource Assessment Commission, Canberra.

Gambold, N.J., Woirnarski, J.C.Z., Brennan, K., Jackson, D., Munungguritj, N., Wunungmurra, B., Yunupingu, D., Burarrwanga, N. and Wearne, G. 1995, Fauna survey of the proposed Nanydjaka Reserve (Cape Arnhem Peninsula) with reference to the fauna of northeastern Arnhem Land , report to the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory and Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation, CCNT, Darwin.

Griffiths, T. and Robin, L. (eds) 1997, Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler Societies , Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, Victoria.

Hacking, I. 1983, Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hadden, K. and Hillen, G. c.1993, Cape Arnhem (}anydjaka) Erosion Assessment and Implications for Management , CCNT, Darwin.

Hall, M.C. 2000, ‘Tourism and the establishment of national parks in Australia’, in Butler, R.W. and Boyd, S.W. (eds), Tourism and National Parks: Issues and Implications , John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England.

Haraway, D. 1992, ‘The promises of monsters: a regenerative politics for inappropriate/d Others’, in Grossberg, L., Nelson, C., and Treichler, P. (eds), Cultural Studies , pp. 295-337, Routeledge, New York.

249 Haraway, D. 1994, ‘A game of cat’s cradle: science studies, feminist theory, cultural studies’, Configurations , no. 1, pp. 59-71.

Hawke, R.J.L. 1989, Our Country Our Future Statement on the Environment, by the Prime Minister of Australia, AGPS, Canberra.

Hess, D.J. 1997, Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction , New York University Press, New York.

Hill, R. 1999, A National Strategy for Australia’s Heritage Places: A Commonwealth Consultation Paper , issued by Senator the Honourable Robert Hill, Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage, April, AGPS, Canberra.

Hill, R. 2001, ‘Dhimurru Protected Area Declared in Arnhem Land’, media release for Senator the Honourable Robert Hill, Online: http://www.ea.gov.au/minister/env/2001/mr16mar01.html Accessed 20 March 2001.

Hill, T. and Press, T. 1993, ‘Kakadu National Park: An Australian experience in joint management’, paper prepared for Liz Claiborne/Art Ortenberg Foundation Community-based Conservation Workshop, Airlie, Virginia, 18-22 October.

HoRSCERA see House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts

House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts c.1993, Biodiversity: The Role of Protected Areas, report to the HoRSCERA, AGPS, Canberra.

Hiatt, L.R. (ed.) 1984, Aboriginal Landowners: Contemporary Issues in the Determination of Traditional Land Ownership , University of Sydney, Sydney.

Howitt, R., Connell, J. and Hirsch, P. (eds) 1996, Resources, Nations and Indigenous Peoples: Case Studies from Australasia , Melanesia and Southeast Asia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

ILC see Indigenous Land Corporation

ILO see International Labour Organisation

250 Indigenous Land Corporation c.1996, Indigenous Land Corporation Regional Indigenous Land Strategy 1996-2001: Northern Territory Regional Area , ILC, Adelaide.

Indigenous Land Corporation 1997, Indigenous Land Corporation Guide to the First Land Management Strategy 1997-1999, ILC, Adelaide, South Australia.

Indigenous Land Corporation 1999, Annual Report 1998-99 , ILC, Adelaide, September.

Indigenous Land Corporation 2001, National Indigenous Land Strategy 2001-2006 , ILC, Adelaide, South Australia.

Industry Commission 1998, A Full Repairing Lease: Inquiry Into Ecologically Sustainable Land Management , Report No. 60, Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnen, ACT.

International Labour Organisation 1989, C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989, adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation on June 27, 1989, Geneva, Online: http://ilolex.ilo.ch:1567/scripts/convde.pl?querytC169&query0t169& Accessed 28 November 2001.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, United Nations Environment Program-World Wide Fund for Nature c.1980, World Conservation Strategy , IUCN-UNEP-WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources-United Nations Environment Program-World Wide Fund for Nature 1991, Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living , IUCN-UNEP-WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1994, Guidelines for protected area management categories, IUCN, Gland.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1997, Indigenous Peoples and Sustainability: Cases and Actions , International Books, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Jackson, S. 1995, ‘Sea country: Indigenous people’s sea rights in northern Australia’, Arena , no. 17, pp. 24-27.

251 Johnson, D.H. 1964, ‘Mammals of the Arnhem Land expedition’, in Specht, R.L. (ed.), Records of the American-Australian Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land: Zoology, vol. 4 , Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Kakadu Board of Management and Parks Australia 1998, Kakadu National Park Plan of Management. Consisting of: Description of the Park, Plan of Management , Parks Australia, Jabiru.

KBoM see Kakadu Board of Management

Keen, I. 1996, Knowledge and Secrecy in an Aboriginal Religion , Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Kemmis, S. 1998, A Study of the Batchelor College Remote Area Teacher Education Program 1976-1988 , Deakin Institute for Studies in Education, Geelong, Victoria.

Kennedy, M. 1992, Australian marsupials and monotremes: An Action Plan for their conservation , ANPWS, Canberra in Gambold, N.J., Woirnarski, J.C.Z., Brennan, K., Jackson, D., Munungguritj, N., Wunungmurra, B., Yunupingu, D., Burarrwanga, N. and Wearne, G. 1995, Fauna survey of the proposed Nanydjaka Reserve (Cape Arnhem Peninsula) with reference to the fauna of northeastern Arnhem Land , report to the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory and Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation, CCNT, Darwin.

Kennett, R., Webb, A., Guinea, M. and Hill, G. (eds) 1998, Marine Turtle Conservation and Management in Northern Australia , Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Northern Territory University, Darwin 3-4 June 1997, CINCRM & Centre for Tropical Wetlands Management, Northern Territory University, Darwin.

Krebs, C.J. 1989, Ecological Methodology , Harper & Row, New York.

Kuhn, T.S., 1970 (2nd edn), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Landcare Northern Territory 1992, Northern Territory Decade of Landcare Plan , CCNT, Darwin.

Langton, M., Epworth, D. and Sinnamon, V. 1998?, Indigenous Social, Economic and Cultural Issues in Land, Water and Biodiversity Conservation: A scoping study for

252 WWF Australia, vol. 1, report prepared on behalf of CINCRM, Northern Territory University, Darwin.

Langton, M. 1998, Burning Questions: Emerging Environmental Issues for Indigenous Peoples in Northern Australia , NTUniprint, Northern Territory University, Darwin.

Latour, B. 1987, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society , Open University Press, Milton Keynes, England.

Latour, B. 1993, We Have Never Been Modern , trans. Porter, C., Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.

Latour, B. 1999, Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Law, J. 1986, ‘On the methods of long-distance control: vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India’, in Power Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? , Law, J. (ed.), Sociological Review Monograph 32, Routeledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Law, J. 1994, Organizing Modernity , Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.

Law, J. 1999, ‘After ANT: complexity, naming and topology’, in Law, J. and Hassard, J. (eds), Actor-Network Theory and After , Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, Oxford, UK.

Law, J. and Hassard, J. (eds), 1999, Actor-Network Theory and After , Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, Oxford, UK.

Law, J. and Mol. A. (draft), ‘Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatiality’, Centre for Science Studies and the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, and the Department of Philosophy, University of Twente, Online: http://www.comp.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/soc052jl.html Accessed 5 October 2000.

Law, J. and Singleton, V. (2000a) (draft), ‘This is not an object’, 14 February 2000, Centre for Science Studies and the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University. Online: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/soc032jl.html Accessed 28 February 2000.

253 Law, J. and Singleton, V. (2000b) (draft), ‘Performing technologies stories’, 29 February 2000, Centre for Science Studies and the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Online: http://www.comp.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/soc036jl.html Accessed 5 October 2000.

Lawrence, D. 1996, Managing Parks/Managing 'Country': Joint Management of Aboriginal Owned Protected Areas in Australia . Social Policy Group, Department of the Parliamentary Library Research Paper No. 2, 1996/7.

Lawrence, D. 2000, Kakadu: The Making of a National Park , Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, Victoria.

Lee, A. 1995, The Action Plan for Australian Rodents , ANCA, Canberra.

Leitch, K. ‘Re: Message to Kelvin’, 6 August 1998, personal email.

Lines, W.J. 1991, Taming the Great South Land: A History of the Conquest of Nature in Australia , Allen & Unwin Pty. Ltd. Sydney.

Mackellar, D. 1945, My Country and Other Poems , Honey, Sydney.

Managing Miwatj, unpub. draft report for the Go\-Walu Working Group, Yirrkala, Northern Territory.

Map showing }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) with Yol\u place names, n.p.

Margules, C.R., and Pressey, R.L. 2000, ‘Systematic conservation planning’, in Nature , vol. 405, no. 6782, pp. 243-253

Marika, R., Ngurruwutthun, D. and White, L. 1990, Always Together, Yaka Gana: Participatory Research at Yirrkala as Part of the Development of a Yol\u Education , Yirrkala LPC, Yirrkala.

Marika, R. 1999, ‘Milthun Latju W^\a Romgu Yol\u: Valuing Yol\u Knowledge in the Education System’, Ngoonjook: A Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues , December, pp. 107-120.

Marika-Munu\giritj, R., Maymuru, B., Munu\gurr, M., Munyarryun, B., Ngurruwutthun, G. and Yunupi\u, Y. 1990, ‘The history of the Yirrkala Community School: Yol\u

254 thinking about education in the Laynha and Yirrkala area’, Ngoonjook: Batchelor Journal of Aboriginal Education , September, pp. 32-52.

Marika-Munu\giritj, R. 1991, ‘How can balanda (white Australians) learn about the Aboriginal world?’, Ngoonjook: Batchelor Journal of Aboriginal Education , July, pp. 17-25.

Marika-Munu\giritj, R. and Christie, M. 1995, ‘Yolngu metaphors for learning’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language , no. 113, pp. 59-62.

Marika, R. and White, L. 1999, ‘Preparing teachers for communities-basing initial teacher education in context’, presentation at Postcolonial Pedagogies for Community Based Indigenous Teacher Education Conference, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, August 12-13.

Maser, C. 1994, Sustainable Forestry: Philosophy, Science and Economics , St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, California.

Mathews, R.L. (ed.) 1985, Federalism and the Environment , Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, Australian National University, Canberra.

McTaggart, R. 1988, ‘Pedagogical principles for Aboriginal teacher education’, Ngoonjook: Batchelor Journal of Aboriginal Education , July, pp. 36-47.

Milton, K. 1993, ‘Introduction: Environmentalism and anthropology,’ in Milton, K. (ed.), Environmentalism: The View From Anthropology, Routledge, London.

Mol, A. 1998, ‘Missing links, making links: the performance of some atheroscleroses’, in Berg, M. and Mol, A. (eds), Differences in Medicine: Unravelling Practices, Techniques and Bodies , Duke University Press, Durham.

Mol, A. 1999, ‘Ontological politics: a word and some questions’, in Law, J. and Hassard, J. (eds), Actor Network Theory and After , Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, Oxford, UK.

Mol, A. and Berg, M. 1994, ‘Principles and practice of medicine: the co-existence of various anaemias’, Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry , no. 18, pp. 247-265.

Mol, A. and de Laet, M. 2000, ‘The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: mechanics of a fluid technology’, Social Studies of Science , vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 225-63.

255

Mol, A. and Law, J. 1998, Situated bodies and distributed selves: on doing hypoglycaemia, paper presented to Netherlands Graduate School of Science, Technology and Modern Culture/Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation Conference on the Body, Paris, September.

Monsoon Vine Forest, worksheet prepared by Margaret Ayre for the Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM), Plant Ecology workshop, 31 July-9 August 1995, Yirrkala.

Mueller, F. von 1890, Inaugural Address, Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science , Melbourne Meeting, 1890, no. 2, pp. 1-26 in Powell, J.M. 1976, Environmental Management in Australia: 1788-1914 , Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Munu\giritj, R. and Stockly, T. 1985, Yol\u matha : an introduction to Gumatj and related languages in NE Arnhemland , Yirrkala Community School Literature Production Centre, Yirrkala, Northern Territory in Watson 1989, Singing the land, signing the land: a portfolio of exhibits , with the Yol\u community at Yirrkala and David Wade Chambers, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria.

Munu\giritj, R. 1992 (reprinted), Workshops As Teaching Learning Environments , Yirrkala LPC, Yirrkala.

Nabalco Pty. Ltd. c.1995, Technology in a Timeless Land , (brochure), Nabalco Pty. Ltd., Nhulunbuy.

Nabalco 2001, Online : http://www.nabalco.com.au/about/about2.htm Accessed 17 November 2001.

Nader, L. (ed.) 1996, Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power and Knowledge , Routledge, New York, NY.

Nambara Schools 1998, Yirrkala Homelands: Yirrkala Homelands Education Resource Centre, Leon White, 8 June 1998, Online: http://www1.octa4.net.au/easchool/schools/yirrkakahs.html Accessed 28 April 1999

National Forest Policy Statement: A New Focus for Australia's Forests 1992 (2nd edn), jointly developed by the Commonwealth States and Territories through the

256 Australian Forestry Council and the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, AGPS, Canberra.

Nazarea, V.E. (ed.) 1991, Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Lives , The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

NLC see Northern Land Council

Northern Land Council c.1998, Submission by the Northern Land Council to the Senate Committee of Inquiry: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 , unpub.

Northern Land Council 1990, ‘Government tricks stop Arnhem Park’, Land Rights News , October, p. 2.

Northern Land Council 1992a, ‘Conservation Commission incompetent in Gurig’, Land Rights News , December, p. 9.

Northern Land Council 1992b, Northern Land Council Annual Report 1991-92 , NLC, Darwin.

Northern Land Council 1993, Northern Land Council Annual Report 1992-93 , NLC, Darwin.

Northern Land Council 1995, ‘The development of the proposed Caring for Country Strategy: a strategy for implementation’, draft report by Darryl Pearce, 24 March 1995, NLC, Darwin, Northern Territory.

Northern Land Council 1995, Northern Land Council Annual Report 1995-95 , NLC, Darwin.

Northern Land Council and Kimberley Land Council 1997, ‘Native title, pastoral leases and models for co-existence: A discussion paper by the Northern Land Council and Kimberley Land Council, January 1997, Online : http://www.ozemail.com.au/nlc95/co-existence Accessed 2 November 1999.

Northern Land Council c.1998, Submission to the Senate Committee of Inquiry: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998, NLC, Darwin.

257 Northern Territory Government 1994, Northern Territory Tourism Development Masterplan: ‘A Commitment to Growth’, Northern Territory Government Printer, Darwin.

Northern Territory Government c.1999, Tourism Development Masterplan 2000-2005: ‘A Commitment to Excellence’ , Department of Industries and Business, Northern Territory Government Printer, Darwin.

NTG see Northern Territory Government

NTLA see Northern Territory Legislative Assembly

NTU see Northern Territory University

Northern Territory University 2001, ‘Dhuwa and Yirritja, Yothu and Yindi’, NTU Yol\u Studies , Online: http://www.ntu.edu.au/yol\ustudies Accessed 8 September 2001.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 1990, Parliamentary Record, Debates , 22 February, p. 8722.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 1991a , Parliamentary Record, Debates, 7 May, p. 1010.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 1991b, Parliamentary Record, Debates , 13 August, p. 1402.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 1991c, Parliamentary Record, Appropriation 1991-1992 (Serial 88) , 1 October, p. 2499.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 1991d , Parliamentary Record, Ministerial Statement, 14 November, p. 3173.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 1991e, Parliamentary Record , Debates , 14 November, p. 3163.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 1993, Parliamentary Record , Debates , Adjournment, 17 August, p. 9028.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 1994, Parliamentary Record, Debates , 5 October, p. 1281.

258

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 1997, Parliamentary Record, Debates, 3 December, p. 413.

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 1998, Parliamentary Record, Appropriation Bill 1998-1999 , 18 June, p. 1508.

O’Loughlin, G. 2000, ‘The spirits of the rains dance in our heartland’, Weekend Australian , 26-27 February, p. 1.

Osherenko, G. 1988, Sharing Power with Native Users: Co-management Regimes for Native Wildlife , Canadian Artic Resources Committee, Ottawa in Lawrence, D. 2000, Kakadu: The Making of a National Park , Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, Victoria.

O’Riordan, T. 1981 (2nd edn), Environmentalism, Pion Limited, London.

Ovington, D. 1986, Kakadu: A World Heritage of Unsurpassed Beauty , AGPS, Canberra.

Page c.2000, Protected Area Management and Operations (NR 217) , University of Queensland, Griffith.

Papers prepared by two independent working groups for consideration by the Prime Minister’s Science Council at its sixth meeting, c.1992, Scientific Aspects of Major Environmental Issues: Biodiversity , AGPS, Canberra.

Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory c.1996, Ranger Training Camp: Dalywuy Bay (Gove), 20-29th May 1996 : Final Report , unpub. report.

Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory 1996a, Recreational Site Planning: Ranger Training Course, Daliwoi Bay, 27-29 May 1996 , unpub. (workshop workbook).

Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory 1996b, Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 1996 , Northern Territory Government Printer, Darwin.

Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory 1998? Northern Territory Parks Masterplan: Towards A Secure Future , Government Printer of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

259

Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory 1999, Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory Annual Report for year ended 30 June 1999 , Government Printer of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory 2000, Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory Annual Report 1999/2000 , For the Year Ended 30 June 2000, Government Printer of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

Polanyi, M. 1966, The Tacit Dimension , Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London.

Powell, J.M. 1976, Environmental Management in Australia, 1788-1914, Guardians, Improvers and Profit: an Introductory Study , Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Press, T., Lea, D., Webb, A. and Graham, A. (eds) 1995, Kakadu: Natural and Cultural Heritage and Management, Australian Nature Conservation Agency & North Australian Research Unit, Australian National University, Darwin.

Productivity Commission 1998, Implementation of Ecologically Sustainable Development by Commonwealth Departments and Agencies , Issues Paper, Productivity Commission, Canberra.

Productivity Commission 2001, Constraints on Private Conservation of Biodiversity, Commission Research Paper, Ausinfo, Canberra.

PWCNT see Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory

Pyne, S.J. 1997, ‘Frontiers of fire’, in Griffiths, T. and Robin, L. (eds), Ecology and Empire : Environmental History of Settler Societies , Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, Victoria.

QDEH see Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage

Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage 1997, ‘Draft Management Planning Manual’, in Page 2000, ‘NR 217: Protected Area Management and Operations’, unit study guide, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

RAC see Resource Assessment Commission

260 Recher, H.F, Lunney, D. and Dunn, I. (eds) 1986, A Natural Legacy: Ecology in Australia , Permagon Press, Sydney.

Reid, D. 1995, Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide , Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.

Resource Assessment Commission 1993, Coastal Zone Inquiry: Final Report, AGPS, Canberra.

Rettie, D.F. 1995, Our National Park System: Caring for America’s Greatest Natural and Historic Treasures, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.

Reynolds, H. 1998, This Whispering in Our Hearts . Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards.

Robin, L. 1993, ‘Of desert and watershed: the rise of ecological consciousness in Victoria, Australia’, in Shortland, M., Science and Nature: Essays in the History of the Environmental Sciences , British Society for the History of Science, Stanford in the Vale.

Robin, L. 1993, ‘Ecology: a science of empire?’, in Griffiths, T. and Robin, L. (eds), Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler Societies , Melbourne University Press, Carlton South, Victoria.

Rouse, J. 1987, Knowledge and Power: Towards a Political Philosophy of Science , Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Rousseau, J.J. (Fr) 1755, ‘On the Origin of the Inequality Among Men’, essay written for the Academy of Dijon, France.

Royal Australian Survey Corps 1990, ‘Gove’, Australia 1:100,000 Topographical Survey, Sheet 6273 (Edition 1), Series R 621, map.

Royal Commission Government Response Monitoring Unit, ATSIC, 1997a, Five Years On: Implementation of the Commonwealth Government Responses to the Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: Annual/Five Year Report 1996-97 , ATSIC, ACT.

Royal Commission Government Response Monitoring Unit, ATSIC, 1997b, Implementation of the Commonwealth Government Responses to the

261 Recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: Annual Report 1995-1996 , vol. 2, ATSIC, ACT.

Sadghi-Rad Hassall, K. 2001, Difference, Generalisation and Responsible Critique: Papua New Guinea's Village Courts, PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Parkville.

Saunders, D. Margules, C. and Hill, D. c.1998, Environmental Indicators for National State of the Environment Reporting: Biodiversity, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Schebeck, B. 1970?, Dialect and Social Groups in North-east Arnhem Land, n.p.

SEAC see State of the Environment Advisory Council

SECITAC see Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee

Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee 1999, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 and Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 , report, April, Commonwealth of Australia.

Shumsky, A. 1956, ‘Cooperation in Action Research: a rationale’, Journal of Educational Sociology , vol. 30, December, pp. 184-185.

Sitarz. D. (ed.) Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet , Earthpress, Boulder, Colorado.

Smyth, D. and Sutherland, J. 1996, Indigenous Protected Areas: conservation partnerships with Indigenous landholders , report to the Indigenous Protected Areas Unit, Environment Australia, DEST, Canberra.

Smyth, D. 2001, ‘Joint management of national parks’, in Baker, R., Davies, J. and Young, E. (eds), Working On Country: Contemporary Indigenous Management of Australia , Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria.

Specht. R.L. (ed.) 1964, Records of the American-Australian scientific expedition to Arnhem Land: Zoology, vol. 4, Melbourne University Press, Parkville.

Specht, R.L. 1958, 'The climate, geology, soils and plant ecology of Arnhem Land, American-Australian Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land', in Specht R.L. and

262 Mountford, C.P. (eds) Records of the American-Australian scientific expedition to Arnhem Land : Botany and Plant Ecology, vol. 3, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, in Turner 1973, Gove land use: study of the conservation aspects, consolidated report to the Department of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

Star, S. and Greismer, J. 1989, ‘Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39’, Social Studies of Science , vol. 19, pp. 387-420.

State of the Environment Advisory Council 1996a, Australia, State of the environment 1996 : an independent report presented to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment , CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.

State of the Environment Advisory Council 1996b, Australia: State of the Environment 1996: Executive Summary , CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.

Stevens, S. (ed.) 1997, Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous people and protected areas , Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Stevenson, B. 1998, Cape York Heads of Agreement, Research Bulletin No. 3/98, Queensland Parliamentary Library, Brisbane.

Stewart, I. 1989? Community Based Teacher Education: The Logic of Restructuring the Batchelor College Teacher Education Program , restricted draft for discussion, School of Teacher Education, Batchelor College, Batchelor.

Strathern, M. 2000, ‘Afterword: accountability...and ethnography’, in Strathern, M. (ed.), Audit Cultures, Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy , Routledge, London.

Suchman, L. 1987, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sullivan, P. 1997, ‘Regional agreements in Australia: an overview paper’, Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title , Issues Paper No. 17, April, Native Title Research Unit, AIATSIS, Canberra.

Sutherland, J. 1996, Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples: studies, policies and legislation , DEST, Canberra.

263 Sutherland, J. and Muir, K. 2001, ‘Managing country: a legal overview’, in Baker, R., Davies, J. and Young, E. (eds) Working On Country: Contemporary Indigenous Management of Australia’s Lands and Coastal Regions, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria.

Tansley, A.G. 1935, ‘The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms’, Ecology , vol. 16, pp. 284-307 in Corona, P. and Zeide, B. (eds) 1999, Contested Issues of Ecosystem Management , Journal of Sustainable Forestry series 9, nos. 1/2, Food Products Press, New York.

Thackway, R. 1996?, ‘A background to Australia’s systems of reserves: approaches taken in identifying and selecting terrestrial and protected areas in Australia as part of the National Reserve System’, in Thackway, R. (ed.) 1996? Developing Australia's Representative System of Marine Protected Areas: Criteria and Guidelines for Identification and Selection , Ocean Rescue 2000 Workshop Series; no. 2, DEST, Canberra, 22 April 1999, Online: http://www.ea.gov.au/coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/development/number24.html Accessed 5 February 2002.

Thackway, R. 1999, The National Reserve System-Towards a Representative System of Ecologically Based Reserves , Reserve Systems Section, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I.D. (eds) 1995, An Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia: a framework for establishing the national system of reserves, Version 4.0. ANCA, Canberra.

Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I.D. (eds) 1998, Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia: An Ecosystem-Based Classification for Marine and Coastal Environments , Reserve Systems Section, Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia, Commonwealth Department of the Environment.

Thoreau, H.D. 1965 (1854), Walden , Dent, London.

Tjamiwa, T. 1991, ‘Nganana Wirrinya Tjunguringkula Waakarinyi: We're working well together’, Habitat Australia , vol. 19, pp. 4-7.

Turnbull, D. 1989, Maps are Territories: Science is an Atlas: A Portfolio of Exhibits , Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria.

264 Turnbull, D. 1998, ‘GIS and Indigenous Knowledge: Conflicting Ways of Place and Space Making’, Technology in the Making: Shaping Artefacts, Building Australian Society Sociology Program Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, 2-3 July.

Turner, J.S. 1979, Gove land use: study of the conservation aspects, consolidated report to the Department of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

Turning the Tide: Conference on Indigenous Peoples and Sea Rights , 1993, conference proceedings, Faculty of Law,, Northern Territory University, Darwin.

Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a Board of Management and Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service c.1991, Ulu ru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management , ANPWS, Canberra.

Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a Board of Management and Parks Australia 2000, Ulu ru-Kata Tju=a National Park Plan of Management , Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

UNCED see United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNEP see United Nations Environment Program

UNESCO see United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

United Nations 1992, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, opened for signature at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

United Nations Conference on the Human Environment 1972, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration) , UNESCO, Stockholm, Sweden.

United Nations Commission on Human Rights 1993, United Nations Draft Declaration on the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples , United Nations, 23 August, Online: http://www.cwis.org/drft9329.html Accessed 15 May 2002.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1993a, Agenda 21: programme of action for sustainable development: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: Statement of Forest Principles: the final text of agreements

265 negotiated by Governments at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 3 -14 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil , United Nations, New York, NY.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) 1993b, The Earth Summit: the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development , introduction and commentary by Johnson, S.P., Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, London.

United Nations Environment Program 1992, Convention on Biological Diversity , Online: http://www,unep.ch/bio/conv-e.html Accessed 13 April 2001.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 1972, World Heritage Convention (Convention for the Protection of World Natural and Cultural Heritage), UNESCO.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 1992, Operational Guidelines for the World Heritage Convention (Convention for the Protection of World Natural and Cultural Heritage), UNESCO, Online: http://www.unesco.org/whc/opgu.htm Accessed 20 November 1999.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 2002, ‘The Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves’, The MAB Programme , Online: http://www.unesco.org/mab/docs/stratframe.htm Accessed 21 May 2002.

United Nations Environment Program, Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 1996, Sharing of Experiences on Incentive Measures for Conservation and Sustainable Use, Third Meeting, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 4-5 November, 1996, Item 15.1 of the provisional agenda: UNEP/CBD/COP/3/24.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 1999, World Heritage, homepage. Online: http://www.unesco.org/whc/index.htm Accessed 4 August 2000.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1997, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2002, ‘Status of Signatories to the Protocol’, The Convention and the Kyoto Protocol , 29 May 2002, Online: http://www.unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html Accessed 29 May 2002.

266 Verran, H. 1998, Dealing with complexity: possibilities for a postcolonial ecology, paper presented to Institute of Postcolonial Studies, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 15 September 1998.

Verran, H. 1999, ‘Staying true to the laughter in Nigerian classrooms’, in Law, J. and Hassard, J. (eds), Actor Network Theory and After , Blackwell Publishers/ The Sociological Review, Oxford, UK.

Verran, H. 2000, ‘A mapping of disparate mathematics of land ownership, and possibilities for its use in negotiations between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Australians’, in Mathematics Across Cultures: The History of Non-Western Mathematics , Selin, H. (ed.), Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.

Verran, H. 2001a, Science and an African Logic , The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Verran, H. 2001b, ‘Realising firings as generalisations: linking and separating critique and justification’, paper presented at the Australian Association of History and Philosophy and Social Studies of Science conference, 26 June 2001, History and Philosophy of Science Department, University of Melbourne, Parkville.

Verran, H. (forthcoming), ‘Transferring" Strategies of Land Management: The Knowledge Practices of Indigenous Land Owners and Environmental Scientists’, Research in Science and Technology Studies , Vol 13, pp. 153-179.

Watson, H. 1989, Singing the Land Signing the Land: A portfolio of exhibits , with the Yol\u community at Yirrkala and David Wade Chambers, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria.

Watson, H. and Turnbull, D. 1995, ‘Science and other Indigenous knowledge systems’, in Jasanoff, S., Markle, G., Peterson, J., and Pinch, T. (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

WCED see World Commission on Environment and Development

White, L.J. 1991, Aboriginal secondary education: from Yol\u aspiration to thwarted realisation: A study of appropriate forms of secondary education for Yolngu students in the North-east Arnhem area of the Northern Territory, Ma thesis (unrevised edition), School of Education, Deakin University, Geelong.

267 Williams, N.M. and Baines, G. (eds) c.1993, Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development , Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

Williams, N.M. 1986, The Yol\u and Their Land: A System of Land Tenure and the Fight for its Recognition , Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Williams, N.M. 1998, Intellectual Property and Aboriginal Environmental Knowledge , CINCRM Discussion Paper No. 1, CINCRM, Northern Territory University, Darwin, Northern Territory.

Woenne-Green, S., Johnston, R. Sultan, R. and Wallis, A. 1994, Competing Interests: Aboriginal Participation in National Parks and Conservation Reserves in Australia , Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne.

Woodward, A.E. 1973, Aboriginal Land Rights Commission, First Report, Parliamentary Paper No. 138/1973, AGPS, Canberra.

Worboys, G., Lockwood, M. and De Lacy, T. 2001, Protected Area Management: Principles and Practice , Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Australia. Wordsworth, W. and Coleridge, S. 1968, Lyrical Ballads, 1805 ; Roper, D. (ed.), Collins, London.

World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our Common Future , Oxford University Press, Oxford.

World Heritage Convention (Convention for the Protection of World Natural and Cultural Heritage) 1972 adopted by the UNESCO General Conference, Online: http://whc.unesco.org/nwhc/pages/doc/main.htm Accessed 10 July 2000.

World Wide Fund for Nature 2002, ‘About WWF’, WWF International, Online: http://www.panda.org/aboutwwf/ Accessed 7 June 2002.

Wunu\murra, W. 1989, ‘Dhawurrpunaramirri: finding the common ground for an Aboriginal curriculum’, Ngoonjook: Batchelor Journal of Aboriginal Education , September.

WWF see World Wide Fund for Nature

Yirrkala Community Education Centre 1992, Galtha Rom Y ^\unbi

268 Workshop November 1991 , Yirrkala LPC, Yirrkala.

Yirrkala Community School 1993, (2nd edn.), A Report on the Bilingual Program for the 1990 Bilingual Evaluation , Yirrkala LPC, Yirrkala.

Yirrkala Community School 1995, Living Maths: Video 1-djalkiri-space through analogs , (video recording), Boulder Valley Films.

Yothu Yindi Cultural Studies Institute 1996 (draft), Worrk Dj^ma: Burning the Land: Evaluation of the Workshop held at Dh^linybuy, Northeast Arnhem Land, Australia, September 1995 , prepared for the Yothu Yindi Cultural Studies Institute by Helen Verran, Yirrkala LPC, Yirrkala.

Yothu Yindi Foundation c.1993, Yirrnga Cultural Studies Centre: a proposal, YYF, Darwin.

Yothu Yindi Foundation c.1998, ‘Newsletter No. 1’, YYF, Darwin.

Yothu Yindi Foundation 2001, Garma Festival: Gu`ku`a August 21-25 2001, (poster), YYF, Darwin.

Young, E., Ross, H., Johnson, J and Kesteven, J. 1991, Caring for Country: Aboriginies and Land Management , ANPWS, Canberra.

Young, M.D., Gunningham, N., Elix, J., Lambert, J., Howard B., Grabosky, P. and McCrone, E. 1996a, Reimbursing the Future: An Evaluation of Motivational, Voluntary, Price-based, Property-right, and Regulatory Incentives for the Conservation of Biodiversity: Part 1 , report to the Biodiversity Unit, Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 9, DEST, Canberra.

Young, M.D., Gunningham, N., Elix, J., Lambert, J., Howard B., Grabosky, P. and McCrone, E. 1996b, Reimbursing the Future: An Evaluation of Motivational, Voluntary, Price-based, Property-right, and Regulatory Incentives for the Conservation of Biodiversity: Part 2 : Appendices, report to the Biodiversity Unit, Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 9, DEST, Canberra.

Yunupingu, D., Yunupingu, R., Yunupingu, N., and Yunupingu, T. 199?, Ganbulapula: The Story of the Land Around the Old Dhupuma College , Yirrkala Community School LPC, Yirrkala, Northern Territory.

269 Yunupi\u, G. 1998, We know these things to be true, The Third Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture delivered by Galarrwuy Yunupi\u AM, Chairman of the Northern Land Council, 20 August 1998, Online: http://www.ntu.edu.au/cincrm/events/lectures/lingiari/galarr.html Accessed 17 September 2001.

Yunupi\u, M. 1989, ‘Language and power: the Yol\u rise to power at Yirrkala School’, Ngoonjook ,: Batchelor Journal of Aboriginal Education , September, pp. 1-7.

YYCSI see Yothu Yindi Cultural Studies Institute

YYF see Yothu Yindi Foundation

Zann, L.P. 1995, Our Sea Our Future: Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia , Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Zorc, R.D. 1986, Yol\u-Matha Dictionary , Darwin Institute of Technology, Batchelor, Northern Territory.

Legislation

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth)

Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984? (Cth)

Aboriginal Land Act 1980 (NT)

Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT)

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (Cth)

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975 (Cth)

National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Act 1985 (Cth)

270 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

Public Service Act 1922

Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act

Legal

Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141 (Milirrpum)

Mabo and others v Queensland (No. 2) [1991-1992 ] 175 CLR 1 (Mabo)

271 APPENDICES

Appendix A. YolYol\\\\uu Matha Orthography and Pronunciation

In this thesis I use Yol\u matha orthography. I take the following explanation of this orthography and pronunciation of Yol\u matha from Watson (1989, pp. 64-5).

Yol\u matha translates literally as ‘the tongue of the Yol\u people’. It is a generic term describing the sixteen mutually intelligible clan languages of the Laynhapuy region of NE Arnhemland. In this text three of these clan languages have been used: Gumatj, Rirratji\u and Wangurri.

The orthography used to write Yol\u matha differs from the orthography used for English since many of the sounds found in Yol\u matha are not found in English. In pronouncing words in Yol\u matha the emphasis is always on the first syllable. The following sounds are represented by letters in Yol\u matha.

vowel sounds

a as in mud

^ as in far

e as in fact

i as in tin

o as in pore

u as in put

consonant sounds

b as in boy

d as in dog

[ retroflexed: retroflexed sounds are pronounced while the tip of the tongue curls back to roof of mouth

dh pronounced with the tip of the tongue between the teeth

dj pronounced with the tip of the tongue curled behind lower teeth and top of tongue touching palate

g as in ragged

k as in bucket

l as in lump

` retroflexed

272 m as in man n as in net

] retroflexed nh ‘n’ with tongue between teeth ny ‘n’ with tongue curled behind lower teeth

\ as in singing p as in rapid r as in the American pronunciation of car with tongue retroflexed rr rolled sound common in Scottish pronunciation t as in tar

= retroflexed th ‘t’ with tip of tongue between teeth tj ‘t’ with tip of tongue curled around behind lower teeth w as in way y as in yellow

‘ apostrophe: indicates a stop in a word

This list is taken from Raymattja Munu\giritj and Trevor Stockly 1985, Yol\u matha : an introduction to Gumatj and related languages in NE Arnhemland , Yirrkala Community School Literature Production Centre, Yirrkala, Northern Territory.

(Watson 1989, pp. 64-65).

273 Appendix B. List of YolYol\\\\uu Clans and Languages

The names of Yol\u clans and their languages from NE Arnhem Land are:

Gumatj Guypapuy\u Wangurri Ritharr\u Ma\galili Munyuku Ma[arrpa Warramiri Dha`wa\u Liyalanmirri Rirratji\u G^lpu Golumala Marrakulu Marra\u Djapu {^=iwuy |aymil Djarrwark Djambarrpuy\u

(source: YYF 2001)

(NB: This is not an exhaustive list.)

274 AAAppendixAppendix C. Descriptions of Collaborating InstitutioInstitutionsns

Environment Australia (EA) is part of the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage. It advises the Commonwealth Government on policies and programs for the protection and conservation of the environment. It also manages environmental programs including the major national environmental management funding initiative, the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), administers environmental laws and is responsible for Australia’s involvement in international agreements relating to the environment. Environment Australia has eleven divisions including the Parks Australia Division which has prime responsibility for protected area management and administration for areas under Commonwealth jurisdiction. The vision of EA is: ‘A natural and cultural environment, valued enhanced and protected in harmony with the nation’s social and economic goals.’ (EA 2001b)

The Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern TerriTerritorytory (PWCNT) (known prior to 1995 as the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (CCNT)) is the Northern Territory environment conservation management agency. It is charged with the prime responsibility for the conservation of nature, including the management of over 90 parks and reserves (PWNCT 2000, p. 2). It provides land management assistance and services to landowners including Indigenous peoples, develops and implements flora and fauna conservation and management programs, and undertakes fire management for the protection of people and the environment in the Northern Territory. The mission statement of the PWCNT is: ‘Work with the community to manage and conserve the Northern Territory’s natural and cultural heritage while providing for their use and enjoyment by present and future generations’ (PWCNT 2000, p. 11).

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international conservation foundation. It’s mission is to’ stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature. (WWF International 2002) Through its Tropical Wetlands of Oceania program based in Darwin, WWF has collaborated with Dhimurru on research into sea turtles and marine management issues on Yol\u lands and seas.

275

Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary EducEducatioationn (BIITE) (also known as Batchelor Institute and formerly as Batchelor CollegeCollege)College is an Indigenous tertiary institution. It provides higher education and vocational education and training to Indigenous people, many of whom live in remote communities on their traditional lands. The Institute is governed by a council with a majority of Indigenous members and is responsible for the management of the institution and its programs. The central campus of the Institute is located at the township of Batchelor in the Northern Territory approx. 100 km south of Darwin. The Institute has other staff and resources based in regional centres to deliver educational services to rural and remote Indigenous people. The Institute advocates a ‘both ways’ philosophy of education which ‘is an approach where two traditions of knowledge meet to negotiate meaning and understanding which can be applied to teaching and learning’ (Batchelor College ?1995, p. 7).

Batchelor Institute is a nationally accredited provider of the Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM). Funding provision to administer, deliver and develop the Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) course is from resource allocations from the Australian federal government Higher Education sector budget through Batchelor Institute. Dhimurru is an informal provider in the program in collaboration with the PWCNT. Both of these organisations contribute expert staff and other resources to the delivery and development of the program, however they are not accredited training providers of the Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) course.

The Northern Territory University (NTU) is the major provider of tertiary education in the Northern Territory. It offers higher education and vocational education and training courses across a wide range of professional and para-professional areas.

276

The Nambara Schools Council (also known as the Yirrkala Schools Council Inc.) was established in 1989 as an incorporated body under Northern Territory legislation. It controls educational affairs on Yol\u lands in NE Arnhem Land. The Council manages the Yirrkala Community Education Centre (Yirrkala CEC) and the Yirrkala Homelands Schools.

The Nambara Schools Council, through its Yol\u Action Group of educators and researchers, pursues a ‘both ways’ (Yunupi\u 1989, p. 4) philosophy of teaching and learning which involves negotiating ways in which Yol\u knowledges and technoscience can be worked together in appropriate and productive ways for the development of contemporary Yol\u pedagogy and curricula. This involves an ongoing process of research within the Yol\u schools’ communities relating to curriculum development and pedagogy.

The Yirrkala CEC is a primary and post-primary school of approximately 250 pupils and 20 Yol\u and non-Aboriginal staff located at Yirrkala.

The Yirrkala Homelands Schools are smaller schools in the Yol\u homelands of the NE Arnhem Land region staffed by Yol\u teachers. These homeland learning centres at Baniyala, Gangan, Wandawuy, Biranybirany, Garrthalala, Dhambaliya, Dh^linybuy and Gurrumuru are supported by the Yirrkala Homelands Resource Centre at Yirrkala. Together, the Homelands Schools have approximately 150-200 students and 20 staff (Nambara Schools 1998).

The Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management (CINCRM) at the NTU is a research institution which aims to be a national and international focal point for research which meets the needs of Indigenous Australians and which facilitate career opportunities for Indigenous researchers (CINCRM 2001). Dhimurru is a partner organisation of CINCRM and members of Dhimurru have been engaged with CINCRM as CINCRM Board members and Research Fellows.

277 Melbourne University is one of the largest and most prestigious universities in Australia. Its main campus is located in Melbourne in the state of Victoria. The History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) Department is in the Arts Faculty of the University of Melbourne. The University of Melbourne (through the HPS Department) is a partner in a collaborative research project involving Dhimurru, the Nambara School Council, the GCSI, and Yol\u communities of NE Arnhem Land. The project entitled Revealing Yol\u Aboriginal Theories of the Environment for Ecologists was supported by the Australian Research Council in 1997-2000.

The Garma CulturaCulturall Studies Institute (GCSI) is an initiative of the Yothu Yindi Foundation (YYF). The YYF is an incorporated Aboriginal Association established in 1990 by elders from five of the Yol\u clans: the Gumatj, Rirratji\u, Djapu, G^lpu and Wangurri clans. Its aims are to support and further the maintenance, development and teaching and enterprise potential of Yol\u cultural life and activity and to seek the resources and facilities for these to be realised (YYF 1993. p. 5) The GCSI aims to develop educational and knowledge making practices through collaboration and negotiation with other education institutions, through engaging in collaborative research projects, and through the provision of formalised education and training programs. The GCSI is governed by the Garma Cultural Studies Institute Board of Studies which includes Yol\u and non- Aboriginal academics and custodians of knowledge.

The Northern Land Council (NLC) is a statutory body established under the ALRA and has the responsibility to represent Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory in the administration and management of their lands/seas, and lands/seas in which they have interests. Its functions under the ALRA include: the protection of Aboriginal sites of significance; processing applications for permits to enter Aboriginal land; assisting Aboriginal people in the processes of land and sea claims; and to hold in trust and distribute to Aboriginal representative bodies statutory payments from mining operations on Aboriginal lands.

278 Appendix D. List of Dhimurru Commitee Members and TheirTheir Clans

Dhimurru Committee at 2 February 1996

(Note: Yol\u clan names are in capitals)

BARRARR|U LAMAMIRRI Djawulu Marika Daisy Ba\arrapa Rarriwuy Marika D^tji\ Burarrwa\a

{%+IWUY MADARRPA |uliny Mi]iyawany Marawili Djilipa Garrawurra Bakula\ay Marawili

DHA~WA|U MA|GALILI W^li Wunu\murra Mu\urrapin Maymuru Banambi Wunu\murra Naminapu White

DJAMBARRPUY|U MARRAKULU Mayaka\u 2 Dhamarra]dji {u][iwuy Wa]ambi Gundimuk

DJAPU MUNYUKU Marritj\u Munu\gurr {ula |urruwutthun |alawurr Munu\gurr Nalwarri |urruwutthun

GALPU |AYMIL Djalu Gurriwiwi Larrtjan\a Ganambarr Dh^\ga` Gurriwiwi Merrkiyawuy

GOLPA RIRRATJI|U Barripa\ Bukulatjpi ~^\ani Marika M^mburra Marika

GOLUMALA WANGURRI Da\ata\a Gondarra Mathulu Munyarryun Djawanytjawany Gondarra Mu\andjiwuy Munyarryun

GUMATJ WARRAMIRRI Dja`a`i\ba Yunupi\u Dhurritjini Yumbulul Nanikiya Munu\giritj Banyalil

(source: DLMAC 1996)

279 Appendix E. Regional Agreements in Australia

The notion of Regional Agreements (RAs) in Australia is inspired by examples of negotiated settlements between Indigenous and non Indigenous interests in Canada. It has gained currency in Australia as a means of resolving native title claims in the legislated response to the findings of the Mabo land rights case-the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) (see Chapter 1). As the NTA was developed to deal with native title claims in law, it was evident to stakeholders that the courts did not necessarily offer the best solution to achieving resolution and clarity on rights to land/sea. The NTA in its Section 21 provides for regional agreements as an alternative to litigation. Aboriginal people with potential ownership of, or claim to land/sea under the NTA, may therefore negotiate with other parties as to the disposal of those lands/seas. Such negotiations may include settlements involving the surrender of native title rights and interests over a defined territory or area in the place of a legislative land use and/or management agreement. The concept of regional agreements is in principle a flexible one with the only precondition being a defined ‘region’ (Craig & Jull 1995, p. 9).

Regional agreements in Australia are potentially extremely diverse in their application and outcomes (see NLC & KLC 1997). However, most regional agreements involve state or territory government agencies such as land administration, mining, and environmental management and protection agencies (Sullivan 1997). Generally speaking they cover issues of land ownership, land title and management, economic processes including funding provision and mechanisms, and social services. Regional Agreements provide opportunities for Indigenous and other stakeholders to negotiate about the uses of land/sea including its management for ecologically sustainable development and other objectives.

A prominent example of a RA is the Cape York Peninsula Heads of Agreement where Indigenous interests, through the Cape York Land Council and the ATSIC Regional Council, the Cattlemen’s Union, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society are signatories to an agreement which commits the parties to develop a ‘management regime for ecologically, economically, socially and culturally sustainable land use’ (NLC & KLC 1997, p. 5). The agreement is supported by the Federal and Opposition governments but not by the Queensland State Government (Stevenson 1998).

To further facilitate opportunities for negotiated settlements on native title and land use, amendments to the NTA in 1998 stipulate detailed provisions for Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) which provide a more specific set of procedures for

280 reaching agreement on particular land use and management activities while not precluding the negotiation of more comprehensive Regional Agreements (Sutherland & Muir 2001, p. 39).

281 Appendix F. IUCN Protected Area Categories

The IUCN system of protected area management categories was first published in 1978. A revised version of the guidelines was adopted at the IUCN General Assembly in Buenos Aires in 1994 and published the same year (IUCN/WCPA/WWF 1999).

The following information is taken from IUCN (1994, Part II, pp. 1-8)

AI Strict Nature Reserve: Protected Area managed mainly for science.

Ib Wilderness Area: Protected Area managed mainly for wilderness protection.

II National Park: Protected Area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation.

III Natural Monument: Protected Area managed for conservation of specific natural features.

IV Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected Area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention.

V Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected Area managed mainly managed for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation.

VI Managed Resource Protected Areas: Protected Area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems.

282

Category Ia

Strict Nature Reserve: Protected Area managed mainly for science.

Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring.

Category Ib

Wilderness Area: Protected Area managed mainly for wilderness protection.

Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land and/or sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition.

Category II

National Park: Protected Area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation.

Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to a. protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for this and future generations; b. exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area: and; c. provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.

Category III

Natural Monument: Protected Area managed for conservation of specific natural features.

Area containing one or more specific natural or natural/cultural feature which if of outstanding value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance.

Category IV

Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected Area managedmanaged mainly for conservation through management intervention.

Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species.

Category V

Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected Area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation.

Area of land, with coast and seas as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, cultural and/or ecological value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area.

283

Category VVIIII

Managed Resource Protected Areas: Protected Area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems.

Area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of products and services to meet community needs.

284 Appendix G. Dhimurru’s Functions and Guiding Principles

1. Broad Functions of Dhimurru

• In concert with relevant Traditional Owners, develop appropriate management plants for the environs of Nhulunbuy, the Gove Peninsula and the Laynhapuy Region including sea estates, with particular focus on recreational destinations and access corridors

• To investigate lease arrangements with the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust covering recreational destinations and access corridors.

• Manage these areas.

• Implement and operate an appropriate visitor access system.

• Manage the rehabilitation of areas degraded by previous land use.

• Employ and train land and resource management staff with a priority on the employment and training of Aboriginal staff.

• Co-ordinate, licence and monitor commercial developments in recreation destinations under its management.

• Assist individual clan groups develop management plans and implement land and natural resource management activities on their estates.

• Provide a formal point of contact for individuals, corporations and government agencies regarding land management issues.

• Seek funds for Dhimurru’s operations.

• Promote information and awareness of environmental management issues with Yol\u and non Aboriginal people.

• Encourage and support scientific research, particularly of a collaborative nature.

• Monitor environmental pollution resulting from mining and refining operations.

• Encourage appropriate use of land and natural resource for Aboriginal owners and users.

• Minimise conflict between various interest groups.

• Utilise Indigenous and academic knowledge in developing management strategies.

285

2. Guiding Principles of Dhimurru

• A commitment to the maintenance and protection of Aboriginal cultural and traditional rights.

• A commitment to the conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural values of the region while ensuring future management reflects the landowners’ aspirations.

• A commitment to a representative Aboriginal controlled, sustainable, collective form of land management, which incorporated appropriate non Aboriginal land management practices and strategies.

• A commitment to the continued development of positive interactions with the non Aboriginal world and the sponsoring of co-operative, respectful, educative and mutually beneficial relationships.

(source: Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation Review and Development Plan 95/96, 96/97 (DLMAC 1995, pp. 1-2).

286 AAAppendixAppendix H. Dhimurru’s Organisational Structure

287 Appendix I. Dhimurru’s Vision of Collaborative Management

The information below is taken from a discussion and planning document by the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation (c.1999, original emphasis)

COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT

We say collaborative management to give a different meaning than joint management.

In joint management decisions are made by a board [Board of Management ], as a group. A board is usually made up of representatives of traditional owners and representatives of government or other land management agencies or Non Government Organisations (NGO’s) [sic ].

In collaborative management representatives of traditional owners work with representatives of government or other land management agencies or NGO’s to discuss issues and make recommendations or present options to a traditional owner group who make the final decisions.

These decisions can be reviewed only by a special general meeting of traditional owners. Any of the members of the Collaborative Management Planning Group can put up, through the Dhimurru Executive Officer, items for discussion by the group.

288 Appendix J. Description of YolYol\\\\uu Categories in the Land and Sea

Everything in the Yol\u world, all people and all places. is divided into two spheres, or moieties: Yirritja and Dhuwa . These two universal categories are complementary yet different and an object of Yol\u life is to maintain balance between them. Every Yol\u person is either Yirrtja or Dhuwa , and in family relations, belongs to the same moiety as his/her father and to the different moiety as his/her mother and his/her husband or wife. Land/sea is either Yirritja or Dhuwa and rights and responsibilities of Yol\u people to land/sea is determined through both the organising systems of Yirritja -Dhuwa (the moieties) and gurru=u (the pattern of genealogical relations).

The set of relationships (genealogical pattern) which connects up Yol\u people, places and things in the world is gurru=u . (see Schebeck (1970) and Keen (1996) and for a detailed account of Yol\u kinship). Gurru=u is a set of names with a pattern organised by eight reciprocal name pairs which alternate across three generations of people in the m^ri -gutharra (grandparent-grandchild) cycle. In gurru=u the base set of rules and names by which names and the relationships they draw are generated provides for ongoing certainty and reasoned action in Yol\u life (see Verran 2000). Gurru=u links people across moieties and across the land/sea, by mapping out links called Yothu-Yindi (‘mother-child’ name pair), in long chains (see NTU 2001), or recursions. These links provide the connections between people (clans) and places and areas in the land/sea such that a person/group’s relationship and obligations to land/sea is as, for example, mother ( yindi ), or grandmother ( m^ri ) or child ( waku ) or grandchild ( gutharra ) or sister ( yapa ).

Together the universal categories of Yirrtja and Dhuwa and gurru=u locate Yol\u people, places and things in relation to one another and provide the formal, ongoing basis for living in the world. The known world is performed and re-performed as a coherent set of connections or links between identified (named) people-places-things as set down by the creating beings, the Wa\arr .

Land/sea in Yol\u life is enacted through the narratives which are the actions and bestowals of the Wa\arr (Ancestral beings) (see Williams 1986; Marika-Munu\giritj 1991). The Wa\arr produced the known land/seascape through their acts. These acts included the creation of language, named places, people and knowledges as they went about their business of travelling, hunting, having sex, singing, and forming relationships. Yol\u refer to these acts and their manifestations as Djalkiri which can be translated as ‘the footsteps of the Ancestors’ (Yirrkala Community School 1995).

289 Djalikiri is the acts of socialising and ordering the world. Together, djalkiri and gurru=u are the basis of the Yol\u system of land/sea tenure.

290 Appendix K. Description of the Batchelor CollegCollegee NCRMNCRM Course

The Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) is a three year full-time (or equivalent part-time) course of study offered by the Environmental Management Education Centre (EMEC) within the School of Community Studies at Batchelor College. The Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) course has been offered at Batchelor College campus in a full- time (three year) and part-time mixed (six year) mode and campus-based mode since 1991. It is organised in three stages of study units. Mixed mode delivery is a flexible form of delivery of educational programs which can include delivery of programs in two or more of the following ways: at home, in the community, on a central or regional campus, in the workplace or by distance education strategies. (Batchelor College c.1995).

Students may choose to exit the Assoc. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) course at the completion of the Stage 1 program (equivalent 1 year full-time). These students will be awarded a Statement of Attainment in Natural and Cultural Resource Management from Batchelor College.

The aims of the Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) as given in the Course Accreditation document for the course are to:

• encourage participants to maintain and utilise Aboriginal cultural and ecological knowledge

• foster a 'two-way' ('both-ways') learning approach which complements traditional knowledge with contemporary scientific thought in the management of natural and cultural resources

• respond to demand from Aboriginal communities for a more active role in self-management of natural and cultural resources

• provide training for Aboriginal people in urban and non-urban situations, Aboriginal Land Agencies and Aboriginal employees of Government Conservation Agencies leading to employment as outlined in Section 4. (Batchelor College c.1992 , p. 12)

291 Appendix L. Ecological Definitions Worked Up in the Batchelor College/ Dhimurru Plant Ecology Workshop

Ecological Definitions

Organism - a living thing including plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, protozoa.

Ecology - the study of organisms in relation to the places where they live (i.e. their environment). This includes interaction with living and non-living things.

Environment - the surrounding influences affecting an organism or community.

Population - a group of individuals of one species.

Community - a group of interacting populations of organisms sharing a common environment.

Habitat - a place where an organism lives. Its address. Its’ w^\a’.

Niche - what an organism does where it lives. Its job. The ‘dj^ma’ it does.

Adaptation - an inherited characteristic of form, function and behaviour that makes an organism suited to live in its environment.

Distribution - where a species occurs, defined by a geographic range.

Competition - where two or more organisms have a need for the same resource, e.g. food, water, minerals, light, space, etc.

Succession - the orderly change in composition of a community during the development of vegetation in an area.

Species diversity - the number of species a community contains.

Topography - the shape and height of the land.

Community structure - the structure of a plant community is the different layers of vegetation in the community.

(Source: prepared by Margaret Ayre for the Ass. Dip. of App. Sci. (NCRM) Plant Ecology workshop, held 31 July-9 August 1995, Yirrkala).

292 Appendix M. Draft Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)Arnhem )))

293

Draft Plan of Management

for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)

Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation 1994

294 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONABBREVIATIONSSSS...... 298298298298

LEGISLATIONLEGISLATION...... 298...... 298298298

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 300 1.1. Description of the AreaArea...... 300 1.1.1. Location...... 300 1.1.2. The Landowners ...... 300 1.1.3. Yol\u Interpretations of Landscape (incomplete) ...... 300 1.1.4. History of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)...... 301 1.1.5. Land Tenure in Arnhem Land...... 303 1.2. Management ...... 303 1.2.1. Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation...... 303 1.2.2. Functions of Dhimurru...... 304 1.2.3. Guiding Principles of Dhimurru ...... 305 1.2.4. Structure of Dhimurru...... 305 1.3. CoCo----ManagementManagement Between Dhimurru and the Conservation CoCommissionmmission of the Northern Territory ...... 305 1.3.1. The Need for a Co-Management Arrangement...... 305 1.3.2. A Co-Management Model ...... 306 1.3.3. The Management Area...... 307 1.4. Dhimurru's Relationship with OtheOtherr Relevant OrganisationsOrganisations...... Organisations ...... 307 1.4.1. Relations With and Assistance from the Northern Land Council...... 307 1.4.2. Relations With and Assistance from Nabalco Pty. Ltd...... 307 1.4.3. Relations With and Assistance from Yol\u organisations:...... 308 1.4.4. Relationships With Mainstream Land Management and Conservation Agencies308 1.4.5. Relations with and Assistance from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission...... 309 2. YOL|U PERCEPTIONS OF LANDSCAPE (SECTI(SECTIONON INCOMPLETE) ...... 310 310310310 2.1. WA|ARR ...... 310310310310 2.2. Concepts in YolYol\\\\uu life ...... 310310310310 2.2.1. Ma[ayin' ...... 310 2.2.2. Rom ...... 311 2.2.3. Djalkiri...... 311 2.2.4. Notion of Balance ...... 311 2.2.5. Gurru=u...... 311 2.2.6. Continuity and Connectedness ...... 311 2.2.7. Traditional Ecological Knowledge ...... 312 2.2.8. Traditional Yol\u Marine Estates...... 312 3. MANAGEMENT OF NATNATURALURAL AND CULTURACULTURALL RESOURCES ...... 313 313313313 3.1. Geology and Landforms (incomplete) ...... 313313313313 3.1.1. Background ...... 313 3.1.2. Previous Management (to be completed)...... 313 3.1.3. Management Prescriptions (to be completed)...... 313 3.1.4. Implementation...... 313 3.2. FaunaFauna...... 313313313313 3.2.1. Background...... 313 3.2.2. Previous Management...... 314 3.3.3. Management Prescriptions ...... 315 3.3.4. Implementation...... 315 3.3. Flora (incomplete) ...... 316316316316 3.3.1. Background...... 316 3.3.2. Previous Management...... 316 3.3.3. Management Prescriptions ...... 317 3.3.4. Implementation...... 317 3.4. Fire Management (incomplete)(incomplete)...... 317317317

295 3.4.1. Background...... 317 3.4.2. Previous Management ...... 317 3.4.3. Management Prescriptions...... 317 3.4.4. Implementation ...... 317 4. MANAGEMENT FOR VIVISITORSSITORSSITORS...... 319...... 319319319 4.1. Access ...... 319319319319 4.1.1. Background ...... 319 4.1.2. Previous Management...... 321 4.1.3. Management Prescriptions ...... 322 4.1.4. Implementation...... 323 4.2. Visitor Use ...... 326326326 4.2.1. Background...... 326 4.2.2 Previous Management ...... 327 4.2.3. Management Prescriptions...... 328 4.2.4. Implementation...... 328 4.3. Recreation Provisions ...... 331331331331 4.3.1. Background...... 331 4.3.2. Previous Management ...... 331 4.3.3. Management Prescriptions...... 332 4.3.4. Implementation ...... 333 4.4. Information, Education and InterpretationInterpretation...... 335335335 4.4.1. Background ...... 335 4.4.2. Previous Management ...... 335 4.4.3. Management Prescriptions...... 335 4.4.4. Implementation...... 335 4.5. Commercial OperationsOperations...... 337337337337 4.5.1 Background...... 337 4.5.2. Previous Management ...... 337 4.5.3. Management Prescriptions...... 338 4.5.4. Implementation ...... 338 5. ADMINISTRATION ...... 340 5.1. StafStaffingfing ...... 340 5.1.1. Background ...... 340 5.1.2. Previous Management ...... 340 5.1.3. Management Prescriptions...... 342 5.1.4. Implementation...... 343 5.2. Staff TrainingTraining...... 344 5.2.1. Background...... 344 5.2.2. Previous Management...... 344 5.2.3. Management Prescriptions ...... 345 5.2.4. Implementation...... 346 5.3 Routine OperationsOperations...... 347 5.3.1 Background...... 347 5.3.2. Previous management...... 349 5.3.3. Management Prescriptions ...... 349 5.3.4. Implementation...... 350 5.4, Law Enforcement ...... 350350350 5.4.1 Background...... 350 5.4.2 Previous Management ...... 350 5.4.3. Management Prescriptions...... 351 5.4.4 Implementation ...... 351 5.5. Research ...... 352352352352 5.5.1. Background...... 352 5.5.2 Previous Management...... 352 5.5.3 Management Prescriptions ...... 353 5.5.4 Implementation...... 353 5.6. Environmental Evaluation and Monitoring ...... 354354354 5.6.1. Background...... 354

296 5.6.2. Previous Management...... 354 5.6.3. Management Prescriptions...... 354 5.6.4. Implementation ...... 354 6. CAPITAL WORKSWORKS...... 356356356 6.1. Rubbish ManagementManagement...... 356356356 6.1.1. Background ...... 356 6.1.2. Previous Management...... 356 6. 1.3. Management Prescription ...... 356 6.1.4. Implementation...... 356 7. BIBIBLIOGRAPHYBLIOGRAPHYBLIOGRAPHY...... 357..... 357357357

8. THE HISTORY AND IIMPORTANCEMPORTANCE OF }ANYDJA}ANYDJAKAKA (CAPE ARNHEM) (INCOMPLETE)(INCOMPLETE)...... 358...... 358358358

297 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONABBREVIATIONSSSS

AAPA Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority

ANCA Australian Nature Conservation Agency

ATCV Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers

ATSIC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

BRR Bureau of Rural Resources

CCNT Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory

CEPANCRM Contract Employment Program for Aboriginals in Natural and Cultural Resource Management

CDEP Community Development Employment Program

DEET Department of Employment, Education and Training

DME Department of Mines and Energy

DPIF Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries

NLC Northern Land Council

PWCNT Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory

YBE Yirrkala Business Enterprises

YDC Yirrkala Dhanbul Council

LEGISLATION

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cwlth)

298

Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976

Aboriginal Land Act 1980 (NT)

Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT)

Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act

299

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Description of the Area

1.1.1. Location

}anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) is located in Northeast Arnhem Land on the north-west coastline of the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is a narrow peninsula approximately 35 km in length and of a varying width from 1 km to 3-4 km.

The northwestern coast of }anydjaka encloses {aliwuy Bay and the {aliwuy Bay inlet. The section of coastline running from {aliwuy Bay north to GXrriri (Rocky Bay) consists of a series of beautiful beaches and popular recreation destinations. To the south of }anydjaka lie the seas of the Gulf of Carpentaria. The coastline south of }anydjaka extends to Port Bradshaw. Port Bradshaw is a not designated for recreational use and is an important living and food gathering area for Yol\u people.

}anydjaka is located approximately 30 km from the township of Nhulunbuy and 16 km southeast from the Gove Airport on the Gove Peninsula. The community of Yirrkala is situated approximately 15 km Southeast from Nhulunbuy and 650 km east of Darwin.

Road access to the Gove Peninsula is via the Katherine to Gove track. This track runs northeast from Katherine across Arnhem Land to the Gove Peninsula.

1.1.2. The Landowners

The Aboriginal people of Northeast Arnhem Land were called 'Murngin' by Warner (1937) and members of the 'Wulamba (cultural) bloc' by Berndt (1951), and are now generally known as 'Yol\u', after the word for Aboriginal human being in the mutually intelligible dialects they speak. (Williams, 1989). 'Balanda' is the word used by Yol\u to refer to non-Aboriginal human being. Some 3000 Yol\u are the traditional owners of lands in Northeast Arnhem Land consisting of approximately 8,500 km 2. Since the passage of the Land Rights Act in 1976 they are also owners of this land under Australian law.

}anydjaka is Aboriginal Freehold Estate managed on behalf of Yol\u traditional owners by the Dhimurru Aboriginal Land Management Corporation. It is a designated Recreation Area available for use by visitors and residents of Nhulunbuy holding a Recreation Permit issued on behalf of the Yol\u landowners by Dhimurru.

}anydjaka is a very important area to Yol\u people for many reasons. They have lived in and used the area of }anydjaka for many thousands of years.

At certain times of the year Yol\u people would travel on foot and by dug out canoe to }anydjaka in family groups to hunt and gather food, to live and to practise art and ceremony. They moved around the country according to the distribution and abundance of subsistence foodstuffs and the social and cultural dictates of their traditional lifestyles.

1.1.3. YolYol\\\\uu Interpretations of Landscape (incomplete)

Wa\arr refers to a time in the long distant past and the ancestral spirit beings that

300 emerged from that era. There was nothing before the Wa\arr . It is a time when the world began. The Wa\arr created ‘the order and shape of the world’ (Christie 1989, p. 28)

The Wa\arr were responsible for creating the physical environment. Mountains were uplifted, valleys forged, the landscape etched and folded and the plants and the animals and human came into being as part of the Wa\arr . The Wa\arr provided the rules and precedents from which the pattern of life was established. ‘Patterns of hunting, distribution of resources, routes taken while moving across the land, connections and relationships between people are all the result of actions and characteristics of the Wa\arr.’ (see Christie 1989, p. 28)

Wa\arr is a religious philosophy that gives meaning to life, explaining all aspects of the natural and spiritual world. It defines reality and truth and determines social and economic rites which serve to affirm and sustain relationships between Wa\arr and all living and non-living things, past, present and future. It also defines the law ( rom ) which governs all aspects of Yol\u life on earth.

Yol\u people identify the traces of 'Yol\u tracks' in the landscape at }anydjaka. These were the paths family groups wore as they travelled across the country and through which the Wa\arr pass. The routes the Wa\arr followed as they roamed to }anydjaka and surrounding areas are marked by significant or sacred sites. These are often represented by a feature of the physical landscape created by the Wa\arr on their journeys. These sites provide a spiritual connection between the past activities of the Wa\arr and the implications of those for Yol\u life today and in the future.

Survival is inconceivable for Yol\u without a continuous and intimate relationship with the land and the sea. Affiliation with the Wa\arr is maintained and celebrated through relationships with every aspect of the natural environment.

Clan ownership of land is derived from stories told by the Wa\arr.

The traditional owners of }anydjaka are the Wangurri, ~amamirri and Gumatj clans.

Other Yirritja clan groups have links to this land and sing to this land. These are the: Dha`wa\u; Ma\galil; Ma[arrpa; ~iya`anmirri; Ritharr\u; Warramiri; and Gupapuy\u clans (see Yunupi\u et al. 199?).

1.1.4. History of }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)

The Bayini are mysterious pre-Macassan beings now associated with the Yol\u mythical or creation era. They came to the coast of Arnhem Land in sailing ships and built houses and planted rice. Bayini women are spoken of in many Yol\u songs and traces of the journeys of the Bayini are recorded in Yol\u mythology as various landscape features along the Northeast Arnhem Land coast. The Bayini visited the area around }anydjaka, making camp and harvesting trepang (beche-de-mer or sea slug) at {aliwuy.

301 For approximately two centuries, Macassan fishermen from Indonesia visited the coast of Northern Australia to collect and cure trepang. The term Macassan refers to the crews of the annual fleet of sailing praus that came to the Northern Territory coast, it does not imply any specific ethnic or cultural group (Macknight, 1972).

The seasonal visits of the Macassans and their influences on Yol\u culture are recorded in Yol\u language, oral history, art and song. Trade relations between the Macassans and the Yol\u were amicable. Among many of the useful and practical objects introduced by the Macassans were the long Macassan smoking pipe, the dug- out canoe, harpoons and metal weapons.

The cured trepang was transported back to the trading port of Macassar. The Macassans departed from northern Australia for the last time due to Australian Government policy in 1906/07.

A Dutch explorer, Jan Van Carstens, is the first European believed to have seen Eastern Arnhem Land in 1629. Van Carstens gave }anydjaka its European name after that of his ship. Twenty-one years later, Abel Tasman also sailed along the western shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria and between Groote Eylandt and Blue Mud Bay.

In 1803, the English explorer Captain Matthew Flinders sailed the Investigator along the coast of Northeast Arnhem Land, naming }anydjaka Cape Arnhem. He observed Cape Arnhem as ‘a smooth, grassy projection which rises gently from the water’s edge, but is no where of much elevation; a broad rock lies near the south-eastern extremity...’ (1774-1814, p. 220)

The Yirrkala mission was established by the Reverend Wilbur Chaseling on behalf of the Methodist Missionary Society in 1934. Its purpose was to 'provide a buffer' between the Yol\u and the occasional non-Aboriginal visitor to remote Northeast Arnhem Land. This was prompted by numerous reports of attacks on Macassan trepangers (between 1870-1903) and tense relations between the Yol\u and Japanese trepangers who visited the north Australian coast from the early 1900's.

The Yol\u population at Yirrkala increased from approximately 100 at the end of 1936 to nearly 800 in 1970. Living at the Yirrkala mission were Yol\u of clans whose countries were located within a 250 km radius of the new settlement. Socio- economic impacts of the mission on Yol\u included restricted seasonal movements and alienation from traditional clan estates and decreased economic dependency on hunting and gathering of foodstuffs.

The establishment of a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base on Drimmie Peninsula during the Second World War brought Yol\u into still closer contact with Western society. Up to 4000 service personnel were stationed on the Gove Peninsula between 1942-1945. The Australian Airforce was responsible for the development of infrastructure services and provisions such as roads and the Gove Airfield.

A communications centre, part of the European Launcher Development Program (ELDO), was built and operated between 1954 and 1970, at a site approximately 48 kilometres south of the Gove airfield. The function of this centre was to track and transmit command signals to rockets launched at Woomera in South Australia. Thirty- five people were based permanently at the station, with up to 100 present at the time of rocket launchings.

The Dhupuma Aboriginal Residential College was established at the abandoned site of the ELDO tracking station in February 1972. Dhupuma College was an initiative of the Northern Territory Education Department which aimed to assimilate young Yolngu into the mainstream education system.

The Nabalco Pty. Ltd. bauxite mining operations commenced from 1963. Nabalco Pty. Ltd. brought with it to remote Northeast Arnhem Land approximately 3,000

302 employees and their families. These people were principally accommodated within the bounds of the Nhulunbuy town lease area.

The Nabalco Pty. Ltd. bauxite mining operation on the Gove Peninsula dominates the economic landscape of the region.

1.11.11.1.5.1.1 .5. Land Tenure in Arnhem Land

Prior to 1931 Arnhem Land estates were Crown Land status. Some implications of this included the unrestricted access to areas on the Gove Peninsula for recreation by Balanda and the 'ad hoc' development of access and recreational provisions without consultation with the traditional custodians of the land.

The Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve was declared in 1931. The Gove Peninsula is part of the Reserve which consisted of an area of some 95,800 km 2.

Communal freehold title to their land in perpetuity was granted to the traditional Aboriginal owners of estates in Arnhem Land on Australia Day 26th January, 1977. The former Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve thus became Aboriginal land under the Northern Territory Land Rights Act 1976 .

1.2. Management

Yol\u landowners have identified areas available for recreation by Balanda on the Gove Peninsula. Access to Yol\u estates for recreation has been provided by Yol\u landowners since Balanda settlement in Northeast Arnhem Land.

The CCNT have had a presence in Nhulunbuy since 1986. Activities of the CCNT have included initiation of the Crocodile Management Program in Eastern Arnhem Land and provision of technical support and advice to the Aboriginal and non Aboriginal communities regarding matters of land use and deXgradation, wildlife and vegetation management and feral animal and weed control.

The NLC is responsible for providing technical, legal and scientific advice and support to the traditional owners of estates in Northeast Arnhem Land concerning land and resource use. An important part of this role is to control and negotiate access to Aboriginal estates.

1.2.1. Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation

On April 8, 1992, after extensive consultations facilitated by the NLC the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation was formed at a meeting of traditional Yol\u owners from Northeast Arnhem Land. This organisation was formally incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 on September 8, 1992.

Dhimurru represents seventeen landowning clans in Northeast Arnhem Land. An Executive Committee of representatives from these clans controls the activities of Dhimurru. In initiating Dhimurru, traditional Yol\u landowners recognised the urgent need for planned and sustainable management of their land and natural resources as the township of Nhulunbuy develops and visitor numbers increase. They strongly asserted that access to their land will in the future be contingent upon such management.

The need for urgent management is confirmed in advice received from the NLC, the CCNT and ANCA.

Effective management in this context insists on Yol\u control and a 'community

303 based' approach to planning. It embraces a range of land and sea management considerations, including:

• traditional Yol\u resource use and landscape perceptions;

• sustainable and appropriate development of commercial operations;

• demands and provision for recreational use;

• endangered species and habitat protection;

• land rehabilitation and protection;

• feral animal and noxious weed control;

• environmental evaluation and monitoring;

• education and interpretation initiatives;

• control of access to Yol\u estates.

1.2.2. Functions of Dhimurru

The primary function of Dhimurru on behalf of the traditional owners of land and sea estates in Northeast Arnhem Land is to ensure the protection, conservation and sustainable management of natural and cultural resource values, concentrating on those areas which receive recreational use.

Important responsibilities of Dhimurru are:

• in collaboration with relevant traditional owners to develop and implement management plans for the environs of Nhulunbuy, the Gove Peninsula and the Laynhapuy Region including sea estates, with particular focus on recreational destinations and access corridors;

• to investigate lease arrangements with the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust as appropriate;

• to ensure the sustainable management of areas under its jurisdiction;

• to implement and operate an appropriate visitor access system;

• to undertake with traditional owners a practical investigation of how environmental science and Yol\u knowledge traditions can work together for devising strategies for the management of Yol\u land and sea estates;

• to manage the rehabilitation of areas degraded by previous land use;

• to employ and train land and resource management staff with a priority on the employment and training of Yol\u staff;

• to co-ordinate, licence and monitor commercial developments affecting designated Recreation Areas and other areas on Yol\u estates;

• to provide a formal point of contact for individuals, corporations and government agencies regarding land and sea management issues;

• to seek funds for Dhimurru operations;

• to promote information and awareness of environmental management issues amongst Yol\u and Balanda people;

• to encourage and support research, particularly of a collaborative nature;

• to undertake environmental evaluation and monitoring with respect to pollution, mining activities and developmental proposals.

304 1.2.3. Guiding Principles of Dhimurru

The guiding principles of Dhimurru are:

• a commitment to the maintenance and protection of Yol\u cultural and traditional rights;

• a commitment to the conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural values of the region while ensuring future management reflects the aspirations of Yol\u landowners;

• a commitment to a representative, Yol\u-controlled, sustainable and collective form of land and sea management, which seeks to devise strategies from a mutual interrogation of scientific and Yol\u systems of knowledge production;

• a commitment to the continued development of positive interactions with the non-Aboriginal world and the sponsoring of co-operative, respectful, educative and mutually beneficial relationships.

1.2.4. Structure of Dhimurru

Dhimurru's organisational structure takes seriously a commitment to Yol\u control and seeks a degree of flexibility that will recognise and accommodate the dictates of Yol\u life, by:

• decision making and control residing in the Dhimurru Corporation of traditional owners through the Dhimurru Executive Committee;

• non Aboriginal positions (Executive Officer/Training Coordinator, Ranger/Trainer) being located outside the chain of command, with roles emphasising the provision of expert advice, support, coordination and training;

• all staff positions being selected by the Dhimurru Executive Committee and approved by the Dhimurru Corporation.

The proposed Dhimurru Board of Management will be appointed as part of Phase 1 of the development of a Dhimurru-CCNT co-management relationship. (See Section 1.3 for details of the proposed co-management agreement).

Refer to Section 6.1 for a description on staff position profiles.

1.3. CoCo----ManagementManagement Between Dhimurru and the ConservaConservationtion CommissionCommission of the Northern Territory

1.3.1. The Need for a CoCo----ManagementManagement Arrangement

Pressures from the contemporary use of Yol\u land and sea estates are such that the effective and sustainable use of this country is beyond the resources of Dhimurru. There are two major reasons for this. They relate to the availability of resources and the land management role.

(i) Management Resources

There is an expectation that in the management of Aboriginal land there are sufficient resources dedicated to Aboriginal development to enable community groups to achieve the task.

While the Commonwealth’s Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET), Community Empoyment Program for Aboriginals in Natural and Cultural Resource Management (CEPANCRM), LANDCARE and BRR all

305 have valuable programs, all are 'soft' funding. All are transitory in nature; all require considerable administrative expertise to acquire and administer; all expect some community contribution and organisational infrastructure.

ATSIC have some funds but are difficult to access. Their land management agenda has a priority on land acquisition and its development towards economic viability.

Dhimurru has benefited from the programs mentioned but core funding is secured primarily from traditional landowners' funds, who have dedicated $150,000 per year from their Royalty equivalent stream.

Nabalco Pty. Ltd. provide $50,000 per year to Dhimurru (reviewable in 1995). The application of a management fee to the issuing of recreation permits yields $30,000 per annum. The administrative costs of collecting these fees are high.

From such a funding base Dhimurru has insufficient resources to sustainably manage land and sea estates under increasing pressure from recreational use and commercial development.

(ii) The Land Management Role

It is the view of the Dhimurru Executive Committee that effective management of their land and sea estates now requires a synthesis of Yol\u and scientific knowledge, skills and understandings.

Traditional ecological knowledge and management strategies have, until non Aboriginal intrusion ensured the long term care and management of the land and sea, and the sustainability of natural and cultural resources. Such management however is no match for contemporary impacts and pressures and is certainly no match for those illegally exploiting those resources.

Supported by experience to date with Yol\u Rangers working with the CCNT's Mark Stevens as a Ranger/Trainer, a co-operative dual ranger system is identified as a realistic option.

The organisational structure of Dhimurru has been developed to accommodate this view.

Dhimurru is successfully developing a Yol\u Ranger role based on traditional knowledge and the recovery, maintenance and practice of Yol\u natural and cultural resource management strategies.

Dhimurru Yol\u Rangers confirm that the fulfilment of a 'mainstream' ranger role, focussed more on the day-to-day management of visitors, recreation provisions, site works and control of feral animals and noxious weeds, is an unrealistic expectation in addition to their more traditional role.

In summary, the expectation that the traditionally oriented Yol\u people of Northeast Arnhemland can on the one hand access the required resources and on the other fulfil the range of roles necessary to effectively address the contemporary land management agenda is unrealistic.

1.3.2. A CoCo----ManagementManagement Model

The following elements are proposed in a model for co-management between Dhimurru and the CCNT:

306 • an evolutionary or developmental model where the starting point is not major agreements but rather smaller short term 'trial' arrangements or 'phases' which can be advanced as collaborative practice is developed and confirmed;

• no 'lease back' or rental arrangements;

• to build on the work of Yol\u Rangers and Mark Stevens (CCNT Senior Ranger/Trainer) in developing a mutually acceptable form of interaction and working relationships;

• ongoing evaluation of the co-management relationship using Dr. Nancy Williams as a consultant.

Phase 1 of the co-management model in 94/95 would trial the provision of one CCNT Ranger (T2).

1.3.3. The Management Area

The management area considered for the proposed co-management agreement includes: all designated Recreation Areas and Yol\u estates on the Gove Peninsula, the Bremer Islands, }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem), Port Bradshaw and adjacent islands, Ga]ami (Wonga Creek) catchment, and the Cato and Peter John Rivers.

1.4. Dhimurru's Relationship with Other Relevant Organisations

1.4.1. Relations WWithith and Assistance from the NorthernNorthern Land Council

Dhimurru has close working relationships with the Northern Land Council (NLC) which has:

• sponsored Dhimurru's development through consultancies, funding committee meetings and travel;

• provided interim administrative and clerical support;

• conducted negotiation for Dhimurru's incorporation;

• agreed to process permits and provide a public point of contact in Nhulunbuy in 1992/93;

• worked jointly with Dhimurru staff on some projects;

• provided technical, scientific and legal advice.

1.4.2. Relations With and Assistance from Nabalco Pty. Ltd.

Dhimurru is actively developing positive and formal relations with Nabalco in place of Nabalco's informal 'good neighbour' approach to dealing with the Yol\u community.

There are many crucial and important issues to be addressed in the relationship between Nabalco and Yol\u, as Richard Howitt (1991) canvasses in his detailed study. Dhimurru seeks to negotiate in a formal and productive way which maximise Nabalco's commitments to land management and conservation.

Major renegotiation of the Gove (mining) Agreement struck in 1963 is desired by some land owning clans but not Nabalco or the Commonwealth. This would raise land use, rehabilitation and pollution control as central issues.

307 1.4.3. Relations With and Assistance from YolYol\\\\uu organisations:

The three associations which receive statutory royalties from bauxite mining have committed $150,000 each year to Dhimurru from 1995. The percentage contribution will be the same for each association. Without renegotiation of the Gove Agreement, or a significant shift in Government funding commitments, this contribution by traditional owners of their own funds will be essential for Dhimurru's success.

(i) Laynhapuy Homelands Association

The Laynhapuy Homelands Association is the association of the homeland centres or 'outstations' of the Laynhapuy region of northeastern Arnhem Land. This association is essential to Dhimurru's successful operation as it is the means of ensuring close contacts between Dhimurru and traditional owners. Dhimurru Cultural Advisers may be funded as Laynhapuy Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) positions.

(ii) Gumatj, Rirratji\u and Mawalan (No.1) Gamarrwa Nuwal Associations

These are associations of Yol\u family and clan groups.

Dhimurru will when requested sponsor, actively assist and coordinate natural and cultural resource management activities which Yol\u associations or member clans choose to pursue. It is these associations which will provide the likely vehicle for Yol\u involvement in the development of commercial operations.

(iii) Yirrkala Business Enterprises

Dhimurru does not intend to duplicate the resources of existing Aboriginal organisations, but rather to work cooperatively with them. YBE has expertise, labour and equipment in a range of areas, including construction, maintenance, gardening, tree planting, road construction and drainage. Dhimurru contracts work to YBE when possible including a number of CEPANCRM funded initiatives.

(ix) Yirrkala Dhanbul Council

Yirrkala Dhanbul is the community council at Yirrkala.

Wherever possible supplies such as fuel and vehicle repairs will be obtained from Dhanbul outlets. The Dhimurru Office building was constructed by Dhanbul's prefabricated building section. Earthmoving, construction and maintenance services can also be contracted to Dhanbul where appropriate.

1.4.4. Relationships With Mainstream Land Management and Conservation Agencies

(i) Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (CCNT)

Dhimurru has established a formal and cooperative association with the CCNT as follows:

• provision of a Ranger/Trainer on secondment to Dhimurru and his availability to fulfil a complementary role to Dhimurru Yol\u Rangers by addressing wildlife issues in the urban area and oversight of the crocodile management program;

• although Dhimurru has secured funding for the base salary from ATSIC, this agreement provides access to equipment and the training facilities of the CCNT;

308 • technical and scientific advice and assistance, currently this includes ethnobotanical, botanical, wildlife research, soil conservation and landcare assistance;

• the possibility of co-management agreements may develop. Such agreements the Northern Territory Minister for Conservation advises would see the commitment of additional staff and resources.

(ii) Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA)

ANCA are providing Dhimurru with valuable assistance through the 'Contract Employment Program for Aboriginals in Natural, Conservation and Resource Management' (CEPANCRM). Staff at Kakadu National Park have offered support in a range of areas including: provision of advice on ranger training; staff interchange arrangements; and technical advice and assistance. Dhimurru may also seek through ANCA support for research initiatives. iii) Bureau of Rural Resources, Australian Heritage Commission, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and the Northern Territory Department of Primary Production and Fisheries

All have programs Dhimurru could access in the future. Negotiations are proceeding to determine levels of support. The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (DPIF) have assisted with the destruction of feral pigs, helicopter inspections and photography.

1.4.5. Relations with and Assistance from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) Regional Council has strongly endorsed Dhimurru's establishment and has included a commitment to land and cultural resource management in the Regional Plan of the Miwatj Council.

Officers of ATSIC's Nhulunbuy office have been extremely helpful and supportive of Dhimurru's establishment. ATSIC have funded: an information and awareness tour for Dhimurru committee members and staff (1992/93); office building and equipment (1992/93); Ranger/Trainer salary (1993/94); and Executive Officer salary (1992/93).

Advice to Dhimurru from ATSIC officers confirms the observations of Young, Ross, Johnson and Kesteven (1991, p. 101) that ATSIC'S involvement in land management has been primarily concerned with land acquisition and enterprise development. Dhimurru is essentially concerned with issues of natural and cultural resource management although potential for enterprise development may arise as Yol\u people consider opportunities for commercial operations particularly in relation to tourism.

The employment of Cultural Advisers through the CDEP scheme provides an avenue for active involvement of senior Yol\u community members and leaders in planning and management in a flexible and culturally appropriate way. Dhimurru is guided by experiences at Kakadu and Ulu®u National Parks where involvement of senior Aboriginal people is regarded as a central ingredient of joint management.

The Senior Yol\u Rangers are identified from the Yol\u Ranger positions allowing interchange at the discretion of the Dhimurru Executive Committee.

CDEP is a useful and important program available to assist Dhimurru's operations and is identified as the mechanism to part fund Cultural Advisers and Yol\u Community Ranger positions. Involvement of senior members of the Yol\u community and traditional owners currently on CDEP as Cultural Advisers is an important feature of Dhimurru's operation.

309 2. YOL|U PERCEPTIONS OF LANDSCAPE (SECTI(SECTIONON INCOMPLETE)

2.1. WA|ARR

All things of the Yol\u world derive from the Wa\arr .

Wa\arr is a religious philosophy that gives meaning to life, explaining all aspects of the natural and spiritual world. It defines reality and truth and dictates social and economic rites which serve to affirm and sustain relationships between Wa\arr and all living and non-living things, past, present and future. It also defines the law ( rom ) which governs all aspects of Yol\u life on earth.

Wa\arr refers to a time in the long distant past and to the spirit beings that emerged from this era.

There was nothing before the Wa\arr . It is a time when the world began. The ancestral beings created the order and shape of the world. They were responsible for creating the physical environment. Mountains were uplifted, valleys forged, the landscape etched and folded and the plants and the animals and human came into being. The Wa\arr provided the rules and precedents from which the pattern of life was established. ‘Patterns of hunting, distribution of resources, routes taken while moving across the land, connections and relationships between people are all the result of actions and characteristics of the Wa\arr .‘(Christie 1989, p. 28)

The life force prescribed by the Wa\arr is a conception of the world that unifies and connects all aspects of the physical and natural environment with the spiritual and mythical. Human existence is part of this all encompassing pattern and is therefore not distinct from the natural environment and the species within it. The most important representation of man/woman's place in this scheme of things is the land itself. It is the country through which the great spirit beings wandered. The tracks of their journeys are marked by significant or sacred sites ( wX\a)Xthese sites are usually identified by a physical feature of the landscape created by the Wa\arr on their travels. These sites provide a spiritual connection between the past activities and dictates of the Wa\arr, and the implications of those for life today and in the future.

Survival is inconceivable for Yol\u without a continuous and intimate relationship with the land and the seaXthe physical world and the Wa\arr by which it was created are the natural heritage of Yol\u.

Affiliation with the Wa\arr is maintained and celebrated through relationships with every aspect of the environment. Living and non-living aspects of the natural world are to Yol\u real and true manifestations of the Wa\arr .

Clan ownership of land is derived from stories told by the Wa\arr . Connections with the Wa\arr are sustained and affirmed through song and ceremonial ritual.

‘Songs ( manikay ) recall in detail the events which occurred as the creating ancestors travelled along their dreaming tracks. The manikay retells and preserves the unity of all elements of Yol\u life.’ (Christie 1989, p. 29)

2.2. Concepts in YolYol\\\\uu life

2.2.1. Ma[ayin'

310 ‘The collection of songs, designs and sacred objects which belongs to one clan is called in Yol\u matha the ma[ayin' (Christie 1989, p. 29) of that clan.

2.2.2. Rom

‘The word rom is generally translated as meaning ceremonial law or the customs of everyday life. The traditional day to day activities of Yol\u could be classified as religious acts since all the travelling routes, hunting practices, places for sitting and resting, social rituals and norms have been set in place by the Wa\arr and are continuously represented and reaffirmed in ceremony’ (Christie 1989, p. 28)

2.2.3. Djalkiri

‘Djalkiri literally means foot, or footprint, or the roots of a tree. Yol\u use this word to describe the very basis of their culture; the foundation of what they see and know about the world.’ (Christie, 1989)

2.2.4. Notion of Balance

‘The Yol\u universe is exhaustively divided into two halves or sections and it is the ideal of Yol\u life to keep the two sides balanced.’ (Verran- Watson 1992, p. 11)

The people themselves are broadly divided into two sections or moieties called Yirritja and Dhuwa and each clan falls into one of the two categories.

Through the system of knowledge production life is made predictable and ongoing (Verran-Watson 1991).

2.2.5. Gurru=u

Gurru=u is the practical material pattern of Yol\u family relationships which is the basis of social order (see Verran-Watson 1992, p. 11)

The system of kinship in Yol\u culture is a manifestation of the theory of connectedness fundamental to the philosophy of Wa\arr . It provides the rules, sets precedents to guide: behaviour; determine leadership; ensure survival. The structured relationships defined by kinship carry economic, social and religious rights and responsibilities.

2.2.6. Continuity and Connectedness

The physical landscape to Yol\u represents a record of all activities of the Wa\arr throughout their travels.

The network of tracks present in the landscape provides linkages and connections between inhabitants of the environment and geographic areas. The relationship of }anydjaka with other areas is traceable by sites along these tracks. The meaning attributed to a place consists of its relationship with other places in the known land/seascape.

These connections have implications for: gurru=u (kinship relationships and responsibilities); decision-making; land ownership and obligations.

311 Contemporary management must recognise that an area of Yol\u owned land is not discrete: it contributes meaning to and derives meaning from other parts of the physical landscape over which their traditional estates extend.

2.2.7. Traditional Ecological KKnowledgenowledge

Ecological knowledge is considered to be derived from the Wa\arr .

Traditional ecological knowledge refers to the classification of natural phenomena and a people's perceptions of environmental causes and effects. It thus affects subsistence and adaptation.

2.2.8. Traditional YolYol\\\\uu Marine Estates

There is no evidence to suggest that the principles of land tenure in Northeast Arnhem Land are different for land or sea territory (Christie 1989).

Yol\u resource management techniques are based on an intimate knowledge of the marine environment and its biological resources. Resource use follows seasonal patterns.

312 3. MANAGEMENT OF NATNATURALURAL AND CULTURAL RERESOURCESSOURCES

3.1. Geology and Landforms (incomplete)

3.1.1. Background

(NOTE: The Australian Geological Survey are currently (1994) preparing a description and assessment of the geology and landforms of }anydjaka. This information will be used to complete this section.)

Cape Arnhem and the adjoining Port Bradshaw area are of significant biological interest as they are the eastern most extremity of the vast and poorly known Arnhem Land region of the Northern Territory (Gambold et al. 1995). Biological research in Northeast Arnhem Land has shown the region to be distinctive. Perhaps the most unique feature of the Cape Arnhem Peninsula area are the impressive and extensive Quaternary dune fields (Gambold et al. 1995, p. 4), a landform presently unrepresented in existing Northern Territory reserves. Cape Arnhem Peninsula encompasses the primary occurrence of this landform in mainland Northern Territory (Shulmeister, 1991 in Gambold et al. 1995, p. 4).

3.1.2. Previous Management (to be completed)

3.1.3. Management Prescriptions (to be completed)

3.1.4. Implementation

Bird observed (pers. comm. in Turner 1973, p. 33) that:’ One would expect the dunes of Cape Arnhem to have a much better percentage cover of scrub and woodland. Possibly fire and more recently grazing (we saw evidence of the presence of buffalo) may be the cause of this.’

The dune fields of }anydjaka pose difficult management issues as they are fragile and potentially unstable landforms prone to rapid degradation through human processes such as fire and vehicle activity (see Gambold et al. 1995).

The role of fire in the natural and cultural landscape of }anydjaka will be investigated.

3.2. Fauna

3.2.1. Background

The Cape Arnhem Peninsula Wildlife Survey performed by Dhimurru and the CCNT in 1994 provides an initial inventory of the fauna species present at }anydjaka. As the survey was conducted over a period of one month (coinciding with highest average monthly rainfall for the region) it is unlikely that the species inventory provided is complete. Many taxa, particularly wading birds and some nectivorous birds are absent or scarce within the region during the tropical monsoon season (Gambold et al. 1995).

Detailed information is provided in the report of the fauna survey of the Cape Arnhem Peninsula. It records a total of 73 bird, 11 native mammal, 4 introduced mammal, 27 reptile and 11 amphibian species from the survey area (Gambold et a. 1995, p. 19). The survey identifies the Cape Arnhem Peninsula area as offering a suitable location for the conservation of species associated with the Quaternary dune

313 fields landform. These include the Northern Hopping Mouse Notomys aquilo , of indeterminate conservation status (Lee 1995, p. 39) and the poorly reserved taxa, Lerista stylis, Glaphyromorphus arnhemensis, Glaphyromorphus nigricaudis and Ramphotyphlops yirrikalae (Gambold et al. 1995, p. 32).

Gambold et al. (1995, p. 33) note that to date no definite scientific records for marine turtles exist from the Cape Arnhem Peninsula area though no doubt many if not all the Australian species currently classified as vulnerable occur there.

Species of conservation concern known to occur in the area of the Cape Arnhem Peninsula are the Beach Thick-knee Esacus magnirostris , the Partridge Pigeon Geophaps smithii , the Northern Hopping Mouse Notomys aquilo , the Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa , the Ghost Bat Macorderma gigas , the Red-cheeked Dunnart Sminthopsis virginiae , and the marine turtle species; the Olive Ridley Lepidochelys olivaces , the Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata, the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas , the Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta and the Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea . Characteristics and the conservation status of these species are given in the Wildlife Survey of the Cape Arnhem Peninsula (Gambold et al. 1995). The Golden Bandicoot Isodon auratus has not been recorded in mainland Northeast Arnhem Land since 1939 but is known to still occur on Marchinbar Island in the Wessel group. It is listed nationally as endangered.

Seventeen of the bird species recorded for the Cape Arnhem Peninsula are included on International treaties covering the conservation of migratory species (see Gambold et al. 1995).

3.2.2. Previous Management

Since the early 1930s and the arrival of Europeans in Northeast Arnhem Land, local fauna species have been documented by anthropologists and people associated with the mission communities in the region. Notable amongst these are the young anthropologist Donald Thompson and the Rev. Wilbur Chaseling. In early 1950s, the Australian Government, the Smithsonian Institute and the United States National Geographic Society jointly funded a major scientific exploration of Arnhem Land. Led by Adelaide anthropologist Charles P. Mountford, the American-Australian Scientific Expedition was the largest investigation of its kind ever to occur in Australia. Gambold et al. acknowledge that ‘the resulting collection and published records contributed considerably to the scientific understanding of the region's biota’ (1995, p. 121).

With the establishment of the Nabalco Pty. Ltd. bauxite mine in 1966 and the construction of the supporting township of Nhulunbuy, the non-Aboriginal population in Northeast Arnhem Land swelled dramatically and access to the local environs likewise increased. Surprisingly small advances have been made in the recorded scientific knowledge of the local fauna since this time. No inventory of the terrestrial fauna was associated with the environmental impact assessment process for the Nabalco Pty. Ltd. mine (Gambold et al. 1995, p. 122).

Gambold et al. (1995, p. 122) recognise that there has been minimal formal documentation and interpretation of Yol\u knowledge with regard to fauna although it probably offers the greatest chance for rapid inventory of species within Arnhem Land.

Introduced species

Officers of the Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (DPIF) have shot buffalo at }anydjaka as part of the B-Tek eradication program.

314 The weed species Hyptis suaveolens which occurs throughout the woodlands and the open forests and is likely to be spread through the activities of buffalo and wild cattle. Buffalo and wild cattle are likely to be the vector for other weed species. These hard hoofed animals also damage the environment by creating wallows in wet areas and erosion on the fragile dune fields. It is likely that grazing exacerbates the loss of dune vegetation at }anydjaka.

Gambold et al. (1995) in the report of the fauna survey of }anydjaka acknowledge that the terrestrial environments at }anydjaka have been disturbed by the introduction of feral cats and dogs. The report suggests that some native fauna species appear to have suffered from the impact of feral cats which now seem to be in reasonably high densities throughout the Gove area (see Gambold et al. 1995, p. 44-45).

Officers of the CCNT have on occasion shot wild pigs at }anydjaka. Wild pigs cause damage particularly in wet areas by digging up plant tubers.

Research by the CCNT and Dhimurru

In 1988, John Woinarski of the CCNT gathered a deal of information on the local avifauna of the Gove Peninsula. Two years later he instituted a survey of the fauna of the monsoon rain forests of the NT which included sites at Rocky Bay near Yirrkala, Rirrawuy (on the road to Port Bradshaw) and an inland site near the Buymarr turnoff. Several significant records were obtained for species previously thought to be confined to northern Queensland and New Guinea. CCNT personnel undertook further study of these rain forest species in 1992 with the help of the newly established Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation (see Gambold et al. 1995, p. 122).

A Wildlife Survey of the Cape Arnhem Peninsula was conducted by research staff of the CCNT in collaboration with Dhimurru in February 1994 and a draft report of the findings received by Dhimurru in September 1994. This work provides valuable information including a preliminary inventory of wildlife species, habitat descriptions, ecology of local species, recommendations for management, and some initial documentation of traditional Yol\u knowledge about animal species in the landscape of }anydjaka (see Gambold et al. 1995).

3.3.3. Management Prescriptions

Objective

To conserve the fauna at }anydjaka.

3.3.4. Implementation

Introduced species

The presence and activities of feral animals at }anydjaka will be monitored by Dhimurru rangers and management action taken as necessary. Assistance with feral animal control programs may be sought from the DPIF and the CCNT.

Research (to be completed)

Collaborative wildlife research between Dhimurru, Yol\u landowners and Yol\u and Balanda resource management experts will be supported and encouraged by Dhimurru.

In 1995 Dhimurru rangers with guidance from the Wildlife Research Unit of the CCNT will conduct an investigation into marine turtles in northeastern Arnhem Land.

315 The development of joint research projects such as this is an important aspect of Dhimurru's role in the management of the natural and cultural environment. These projects must explicitly recognise Yol\u knowledge traditions as well as the interpretations of environmental science and aim to explore ways in which the two can work together to devise strategies for management of Yol\u estates.

Dhimurru rangers will continue to assist research staff of the CCNT to monitor and assess sea bird nesting colonies in Northeast Arnhem Land.

There is an urgent need to address the level of harvest of various marine resources by Yol\u and Balanda at }anydjaka and throughout Northeast Arnhem Land. Little data is available on the effect of exploitative activities on the distribution and abundance of marine life.

3.3. Flora (incomplete)

3.3.1. Background

Coastal land forms predominate at }anydjaka with a progressive trend in the vegetation cover, ranging from sparse grasslands covering the primary dunes to tall open eucalypt forests on the sand plains and plateaux further inland. Monsoon vine thickets occur frequently through the dune systems, paperbark or pandanus swamps occur in the low lying soaks. Mangrove forests and saline flats are extensive in and around {aliwuy (Daliwoi Bay) and Port Bradshaw, while tall monsoon rain forests are found at several sites where ground water is close to the surface. Eucalyptus tetrodonta forests cover the majority of the uplands and dune hinterlands. ‘Tussock grasses (and in places Casuarinas) generally colonise the fore dunes while hummock grasses predominate slightly inland.’ (Gambold et al. 1995, p. 5). Acacia thickets are also common on the dunes further inland, as are various other shrubland communities

Gambold et al. (1995, p. 10) attest that the spread of weeds at }anydjaka is an obvious result of uncontrolled vehicle access.

Introduced species

Weeds are not a major problem at }anydjaka at present although undesirable natives such as Tribulus spp. have become established in many of the more popular camping areas where disturbance has occurred. The weed species Hyptis suaveolens occurs throughout the woodlands and open forests (Gambold et al. 1995, p. 11). The spread of Cinnamon fungus, if proven to be the cause of local episodes of die-back, may also be aided by uncontrolled vehicle access.

Mangrove vegetation is affected by die-back around the upper reaches of {aliwuy Bay. This may be due to the fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi. Gambold et al. find that ‘[v]ehicles are the most probable vector of this pathogen’ (1995, p. 11).

Vegetation offers little hindrance to cross-country driving at }anydjaka and tracks have proliferated for this reason. Gambold et al. (1995, p. 10) suggest that the dune fields which often rely on scant vegetation cover for their present stability and form are at greatest risk from uncontrolled vehicle access and subsequent damage to vegetation.

3.3.2. Previous Management

(To be included: a brief history of botanical research in Northeast Arnhem Land and at }anydjaka.)

Ethnobotanical research has been carried out in the }anydjaka/Port Bradshaw area by Dr. Glenn Wightman since the late 1980s.

316

In 1993 staff of the CCNT Botanical Research team in collaboration with Dhimurru conducted a comprehensive survey of the flora of }anydjaka. A vegetation map of }anydjaka was produced as part of this survey (see Brocklehurst 1993).

3.3.3. Management Prescriptions

Objective

To conserve the flora of }anydjaka.

3.3.4. Implementation

Management actions will be implemented in light of results and recommendations of the CCNT/Dhimurru flora survey of }anydjaka in 1993. Dhimurru is yet to received the comprehensive report of this survey from the CCNT.

3.4. Fire Management (incomplete)

3.4.1. Background

Fire is an important resource management tool to the Yol\u and has been used by them to manipulate the natural environment for many thousands of years. Fire was used: to assist in hunting; to provide warmth, smoke and light; for cooking; to stimulate plant growth and food production; in the production of utensils and artwork; as an important part of ceremony and ritual.

For various social and practical reasons the pattern of fire use and occurrence in Northeast Arnhem Land has changed since the settlement of Europeans. These include increased sedentism; use of modern transport; altered resource utilisation; development of roads and population centres; alienation from traditional clan estates; influences of a cash economy. The consequent impacts on the biota are as yet largely unknown.

Fire is a regular occurrence at }anydjaka. Gambold et al. (1995. p. 11) observe that many of the coastal vegetation associations on the Cape Arnhem Peninsula such as monsoon vine thickets are relatively non-flammable and thus avoid the periodic scorching which is a major ecological determinant within the more open environments.

3.4.2. Previous Management

Fire at }anydjaka has been managed by the traditional owners. The environment has been burnt at their discretion and according to traditional and adapted practice.

3.4.3. Management Prescriptions

Objective

To investigate the role and effects of fire in the natural and cultural landscape of }anydjaka.

3.4.4. Implementation

Gambold et al. (1995, p. 44) suggest that in anticipation of the high frequency of non-Aboriginal burning likely to occur in the northern sector of the }anydjaka Peninsula, it is desirable that a fire management program be established for this area which will aim to mitigate the potential impact of unplanned, hot, late season fires.

317 This may require prescribed burning where appropriate as soon after the wet season as possible to reduce fuel loads.

Any planned use of fire in the }anydjaka landscape will be implemented with the approval and under the guidance of traditional owners. Dhimurru rangers will provide assistance and resources to implement fire management strategies.

Information on the use and importance of fire will be collected by Dhimurru Rangers as part of the ongoing process of recovering, documenting and implementing traditional ecological knowledge and resource management practice.

318 4. MANAGEMENT FOR VIVISITORSSITORS

4.1. Access

4.1.1. Background

Roads

Access to }anydjaka is by road or by boat .

The currently used access to the area consists of a road coming off the Port Bradshaw road. This is the 'bottom' road referred to in the report, ‘Erosion Assessment and Implications for Management - }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem)’ prepared by Hadden and Gillen (1993, p. 1)) of the Land Conservation Unit of the CCNT. Hadden and Gillen note that the road ‘follows the base of a bauxitic/lateritic plateau. Soils in this area are generally deep, unconsolidated sands. Although the slopes are not steep, the area receives significant runoff from the plateau’ (1993, p. 1) The track crosses two creeks which can be very difficult to cross and prevent access at peak flow periods.

The soils and location of the 'bottom' track make it a fragile area, extremely prone to erosion if disturbed. Almost constant evidence of gully erosion and old failed tracks attest to this.

Hadden and Gillen report that: ‘The 'top' road is currently unused, and follows the top of the bauxitic/lateritic plateau. Soils in this part of the landscape are well drained, gravely red earths, and slopes are minimal (less than 3%). The only exception is the section of road from the top of the plateau to the base, which is very steep and eroded’ (1993, p. 1) due to poor drainage control.

Walking tracks

There are no formal walking tracks provided at }anydjaka and pedestrian access has until the implementation of this plan of management been unrestricted. This has been largely due to low levels of visitation, the relatively low perceived threat of this activity to environmental and cultural values, the disinclination of many visitors to explore the area on foot because of high seasonal temperatures, difficult terrain and long distances, and the absence of a formal management agency and resources to investigate and evaluate the impacts of access and implement appropriate measures to control it.

Boating

Small boats are launched and docked on the beaches at }anydjaka. There is relatively easy access from {aliwuy (Daliwoi Bay), where there is a boat ramp, to the northern coast of }anydjaka and (Policeman's Beach) is a popular boating destination.

Visitor Destinations

The choice and development of visitor destinations at }anydjaka was largely uncontrolled until the establishment of Dhimurru. An 'ad hoc' system of vehicle tracks providing access to day and overnight destinations has been created primarily as a function of convenience to visitors, provision of access to certain areas and resources, aesthetic and functional preference of visitors, vehicle capabilities and landscape features and attributes.

Yol\u and Balanda visitors demonstrate preferences for the use of different areas at }anydjaka. This occurs as a function of the choice of activities by users and the

319 cultural and social imperatives which determine these choices.

The level of conflict between competing interests of the users of }anydjaka is generally low. This may be due somewhat to the displacement of Yol\u user groups and their traditionally-orientated activities as a result of: increased settlement; other demands on their time; a tendency to visit areas outside the system of designated recreation areas for the pursuit of land-based activities; and the perceived changes in distribution and abundance of resources at various sites.

Camping Areas

Visitation to certain camp sites has been recently encouraged by the maintenance of selected access tracks and use of directional signs. There are no other provisions for camping or day use.

Existing problems with the ad hoc system of camp site identification include:

• some camping locations are in culturally important and/or sensitive areas;

• indiscriminate camping is causing environmental damage to some areas and is a potential threat to sensitive ecosystems, rare plants or animals and cultural sites of significance;

• competition between the interests of Yol\u owners and users and Balanda visitors.

Access Restrictions to Areas on Aboriginal Land

The area south of Lurrupukurru (Oyster Beach) is not included in the area available for recreation at }anydjaka and it is prohibited to travel inland and along Seven Mile Beach from here. (See overlay no. ?)

Port Bradshaw is not on the Dhimurru Recreation Permit. Visitors are not permitted to travel past the turn off to }anydjaka along the road to Port Bradshaw.

Helipads

There are no helipads at }anydjaka.

General

There are concerns that with improved access increased visitor numbers could exacerbate the following existing problems at }anydjaka:

• damage to soils and vegetation- a soil erosion assessment of }anydjaka was performed by research scientists of the CCNT in 1993. (See section 1.1.4 for management responses to recommendations and information provided in this report.)

• damage to the fragile ecology of the coastal dune fields;

• damage and uncontrolled access to significant historical and/or cultural sites;

• competition between user groups which relates to: expectations and perceptions of landowners and visitors; resource utilisation; spatial distribution of user group activities and facilities.

Human impacts on the ecosystems at }anydjaka are relatively minor and largely connected with the proliferation of vehicular tracks. Gambold et al. confirm: ‘Erosion, the disruption of the local hydrology and the spread of weeds are the most obvious consequences of uncontrolled vehicle access.’ (1995, p. 10)

320

Potential problems arising from increased visitation to }anydjaka may include:

• unsustainable harvesting of natural resources;

• damage to fragile and/or significant ecosystems due to density of use;

• threat to rare or endangered plants, animals and/or biological systems;

• competing interests of visitors causing disturbance and annoyance to other people and animals in the form of noise and visual pollution and habitat degradation;

• increased range of visitor perceptions and expectations based on previous experiences, cultural background and past use of the area;

• achieving the current aim of management to maintain }anydjaka as a wilderness or semi-wilderness destination;

• inadequate resources to ensure the environmentally and culturally sustainable management of }anydjaka in light of increased visitor impacts.

4.1.2. Previous Management

From 1975 visitors to designated Recreation Areas, including residents of Nhulunbuy, required an annual Recreation Permit issued free of charge by the Northern Land Council (NLC). The designated Recreation Areas were negotiated between traditional owners and the management of Nabalco. Nabalco played no part in the management of the designated Recreation Areas other than provision and upgrading of some access tracks, which contributed to the problems of control of access and impacts of recreational use due to increased visitation.

Supervision of this permit system was all but non existent as neither the NLC nor the NT Police had the resources to effectively monitor and supervise access and visitor use levels.

Dhimurru assumed responsibility for the administration of the Recreation Permit system and introduced payment of a fee for recreation from 1993. A Recreation Permit issued by Dhimurru entitles the holder to visit nominated areas on Yol\u land for the purpose of recreation. Permits are issued under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Act NT 1980 , and are subject to general and special conditions. Persons found trespassing on Aboriginal Land without an appropriate access permit are contravening the Act.

History of Access to }anydjaka

Holders of a Dhimurru Recreation Permit only are allowed to visit }anydjaka.

Prior to the establishment of Dhimurru access to some of the areas used for recreation since European settlement in Northeast Arnhem Land were maintained by various agencies including the Nhulunbuy Corporation, and the Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works. Nabalco Pty. Ltd. contributed resources to the development and maintenance of the 'top' access road to }anydjaka which was created around the time of Balanda settlement at the site of the ELDO tracking station.

Access to }anydjaka was closed for a period of two weeks in 1990 in response to the concerns of traditional owners regarding environmental damage to dunes and accumulation of litter sustained due to recreational use. This action received a substantial amount of publicity and caused inconvenience and some angst amongst

321 Balanda recreationalists.

It has become apparent to Dhimurru that the development of the 'top' access road to }anydjaka was negotiated without due consultation with all the relevant traditional owners. In 1991/2 the decision was made to stop access to }anydjaka via this route due to the cultural importance of the ridge along which it passed and in particular the point, Datjala, at which the road descended the escarpment. The 'bottom' road was subsequently re-established as the only access track available to }anydjaka.

In seeking to abate the effects of recreational use of areas on Yol\u land and the problems associated with uncontrolled access to these areas, traditional owners created their own land management agency, Dhimurru in 1992. Dhimurru aims to prevent circumstances arising such as those which lead to the closure of }anydjaka in 1990 by directing visitor use and behaviour and managing the competing interests of user groups recreating on Yol\u estates.

4.1.3. Management Prescriptions

The objectives in relation to access for }anydjaka are:

• to control and monitor traffic in such a way as to preserve and maintain the natural and cultural values of }anydjaka;

• to provide for the continued and undisturbed use of the area by Yol\u;

• to provide for visitor safety;

• to provide quality of visitor experience as defined by the 'wilderness' of 'semi- wilderness' nature of the recreational opportunity offered to Balanda visitors at }anydjaka;

• to eliminate the destructive impact of some current road alignments on fragile areas and those of cultural and/or historical significance;

• to abate the visual impacts of current and future road alignments;

• to ascertain and then monitor and regulate a critical use level for }anydjaka;

• to develop a zoning system for land use at }anydjaka which protects the multiple use values of the area and the interests of different user groups.

It is recognised that as visitor numbers increase, more active management may be required at certain locations. Management options may include:

• the implementation of a booking system which limits the maximum number of visitors at camping and day use destinations;

• the restriction of visitor numbers subject to weather conditions;

• an assessment of the impacts of large 4WD vehicles and the need to limit the number and/or the permissible routes and destinations of such vehicles;

• a revision and re-assessment of the range and nature of recreational opportunities provided at }anydjaka;

• the development of further recreation provisions in accordance with revised specifications for the range and nature of recreational opportunities offered;

• the development of a public awareness campaign aimed at interpreting access control measures in terms of Yol\u perceptions of landscape;

• increased ranger presence and patrols to regulate, monitor and control visitor

322 impacts and behaviour.

Recreation Permit fees will be increased as necessary and when appropriate.

Additional fees for recreational use at }anydjaka may be visitors introduced to supplement existing management resources. This will depend on the future demands of visitors for access and recreation provisions and/or at the discretion of traditional owners.

Any decisions on visitor access will only be taken with the complete accordance of the relevant Yol\u landowners.

4.1.4. Implementation

Roads

Hadden and Gillen report that the majority of the 'top' access road into }anydjaka is ‘relatively flat and well drained, and shows no sign of failure’ and ‘ [s]oils and current road alignment make this area well suited to access’ (1993, p. 2). They recommend that this should be used as the only vehicular access to }anydjaka (p.2).

Access to }anydjaka via the ridge of the escarpment which runs east from the old Dhupuma College site will be renegotiated with the relevant traditional owners. The feasibility of re-routing the road to descend the escarpment at a point suitably removed from the culturally important site known as Datjala will be investigated. A substantial portion of the 'top' road may have to be re-engineered to achieve this and major resources for road works and survey will be sought from Nabalco Pty. Ltd.

The ‘bottom' road will be closed as soon as possible if a newly established 'top' road to }anydjaka is opened.

The following measures will be implemented in relation to roads at }anydjaka:

The existing network of tracks will be rationalised. Specific recommendations for the management and rehabilitation of access tracks at }anydjaka are given in a report by the Land Conservation Unit of the CCNT (1993). These recommendations will be assessed according to the availability of management resources, the cultural impacts of alternatives, and the perceived priorities of various actions. Approved recommendations will be implemented as soon as possible or as appropriate.

Disused tracks will be rehabilitated with a priority being given to those tracks that are an actual or potential cause of erosion and those tracks that provide access to sites which have been identified for closure to the Balanda public.

Signs will be provided where appropriate to assist visitor safety, direct use, control access and facilitate education and interpretation.

Tracks may be temporary or permanently closed and/or new tracks opened where appropriate and in response to either requests from Yol\u landowners;

• damage to environmental and/or cultural values;

• weather conditions;

• the availability of new technologies and/or resources to assist and improve track development.

Impacts of roading and vehicle use and rehabilitation of disused tracks will be monitored in order to assess alternative management strategies.

323

Further assistance will be sought from specialist advisers including CCNT Land Conservation Officers as required.

Visitors who do not adhere to the identified access tracks will face having their Recreation Permit revoked and/or being prohibited from obtaining a Recreation Permit.

The following access control measures will also be taken:

The point Datjala will be registered with the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and identified at the base of the escarpment by a sign. Any tracks leading to Datjala will be cut off and rehabilitated.

Tracks providing access to the areas known as Durrupulmi, Wirrmu\a, Matharra and the tidal salt and mud flats at the upper reaches of the {aliwuy inlet will be rationalised and signposted as directed by traditional owners. The same strategy will be adopted in the management of other areas of economic and/or cultural importance to which Yol\u wish to restrict vehicle access.

Balanda visitors will no longer be permitted to travel along the beach south of the creek known as Birritjala. A sign will be erected to indicate this and direct visitors.

Access to the small island of the Wa\arr whale dreaming, Wuthu\thurra, will be prohibited and warning signs erected on the island.

Access to the island called Balbira is permitted however visitors will not be allowed to land ashore the small islet of (?) next to Balbira.

Culturally significant sites will where appropriate be recorded and protected by registration with the AAPA. Access restrictions to these sites and other sites of historical, cultural and/or economic significance may involve the rationalisation of existing tracks and use of signs to indicate and/or interpret management directives.

Members of the armed forces carrying out field exercises in the vicinity of }anydjaka will be briefed on which areas they cannot enter due to their cultural and/or economic importance to Yol\u.

Due to the dispersive nature of soils in the area of }anydjaka rehabilitation and track maintenance will be carried out using small machinery and manual labour.

Walking Tracks

A system of walking tracks will be developed. Tracks will be designed to perform an educative and interpretative function and provide, where appropriate, access to culturally and/or environmentally sensitive sites. Minimum impact walking track designs will be favoured and interpretative materials will emphasise Yol\u perceptions of landscape. The tracks will be used to explore and interpret a range of environmental and cultural features represented by the diverse ecosystems and vast spiritual significance of }anydjaka.

In some instances walking tracks may be used to provide access to areas which have been previously degraded or threatened by vehicle tracks.

Visitor Destinations

Visitor access policies will be developed through continued and ongoing consultation

324 with Yol\u owners and users. In siting visitor destinations, primary attention will be given to the maintenance and preservation of areas which are of cultural and/or economic importance to Yol\u and which are culturally and/or environmentally sensitive. Consideration will also be given to:

• level and type of visitor use and demands;

• the expectations and perceptions of Balanda visitors;

• visitor safety;

• providing, where appropriate, a range of recreational settings and opportunities.

The Recreation Permit system may be reviewed and revised where appropriate and in response to changes in levels of visitation or at the request of the traditional owners.

A survey of visitors to the Recreation Areas may be used to provide information on the nature and level of use at }anydjaka and the

Camping Specifications

The 'wilderness' or 'semi-wilderness' type experience provided at }anydjaka will be maintained at present by creating a series of recreation opportunities with minimal provisions for recreation. Further provisions may be developed as required and in response to changes in the level and/or type of use of the area as determined by the traditional owners.

A formal system of designated camp sites will be developed. Camping outside of designated areas will not be permitted. The number of campsites will be enough to accommodate current perceived levels of visitor use and initially will have no provisions for recreation other than possible minor maintenance works. Maintenance of campsites will be subject to available resources and may if appropriate include slashing and clearing of long grass, drainage, signposting, establishment of fireplaces, clearance of dead trees and improved road access.

Impacts of recreation activities on the environment will be minimised through limiting visitor numbers to the carrying capacity of the camp sites and track system. A booking system may be introduced to enforce this.

325 4.2. Visitor Use

4.2.1. Background

Arrangements for Access to Recreation Areas Around the Gove Peninsula

Access to various recreation destinations on Aboriginal Reserve land between 1931 and 1975 was developed through an 'ad hoc' system of vehicle tracks created by intrepid residents and visitors in Northeast Arnhem Land. Prior to the passage of the Northern Territory Land Rights Act 1976 Yol\u traditional owners had no legal jurisdiction over use of their estates by Balanda.

As of 17th November, 1975, and at subsequent meetings, the clan leaders of the Yirrkala area and the Gove Joint Liaison Group representing the interests of Nabalco Pty. Ltd. and community members and associations came to an understanding upon entry permits for the purpose of recreation to areas on the Gove Peninsula. This involved the designation of Recreation Areas and the system of Recreation Permits administered by the NLC.

The Recreation Permit system administered by the NLC was poorly monitored and enforced due to scarce resources. The establishment of Dhimurru in 1992 was intended to address this problem along with the following issues of concern raised by the traditional owners;

• the increasing use, over use and unauthorised use of areas of their estate made available for recreational use;

• disturbance to sacred sites;

• severe localised damage in some areas including soil erosion, loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat interference, feral animal damage and pollution;

• an increasing perception that a minority of non Aboriginal residents regard unrestricted access as a right and that the area is indeed available for their private recreational use;

• illegal fishing in estuarine and inshore waters.

Dhimurru assumed responsibility for the administration of the Recreation Permit system in 1993. Permits are now issued from the office of the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation at the Captain Cook Shopping Centre, Arnhem Road, Nhulunbuy.

Dhimurru has begun recently to charge a land use and management fee to visitors to certain recreation destinations which are managed according to a Special Recreation Permit system. Revenue from the use of these areas is collected by Dhimurru on behalf of the relevant traditional owners and paid to them in full.

Tourism

Opportunities for the development of tourism in Northeast Arnhem Land are extensive. The area has a large number of attractions for people seeking to recreate in a beautiful natural setting with a rich ecology and cultural history. The potential for developing recreation provisions which improve accessibility and provide a wider range of recreation opportunities within a variety of settings is also great. The extent to which this is desirable will depend on the aspirations and desires of Yol\u landowners and users.

The extent of any changes in management strategies, provision of facilities and

326 opportunities for recreation, as well as potential for increased visitor use and the ability of the environment to sustain this use, largely depends upon the availability of resources for management and access provisions for visitors to Northeast Arnhem Land.

There is the potential for vast increases in visitors to Northeast Arnhem Land if the maximum load limit of the Katherine-Gove track is increased. This may allow the use of the track by tourist coaches and other heavy commercial transport vehicles. The improved condition of the track will also promote an increase in visitor numbers.

The most likely scenario for the future pattern of tourist visits to the Recreation Areas managed by Dhimurru will be a function of a combination of the following factors:

• the characteristics and evolution of the Nhulunbuy population as a result of employment opportunities and the situation of the mine;

• the development of commercial tourist ventures, tourist facilities and recreation opportunities;

• the nature and condition of access provisions to Northeast Arnhem Land by road, air and sea;

• the nature and extent of recreation opportunities available as determined by the Yol\u landowners.

4.2.2 Previous Management

Dhimurru employs a full time clerical and administrative officer to process applications for Recreation Permits.

Sale of Recreation Permits has allowed some estimate to be made of numbers of visitors to designated recreation areas under the jurisdiction of Dhimurru. The number of Recreation Permits issued in 1993 was approximately 3,000.

A Recreation Permit entitles the holder to unlimited use of the designated Recreation Areas. There are no estimates available for the number, duration or purpose of individual visits to particular recreation destinations including }anydjaka.

Patrols by Dhimurru officers of the Recreation Areas reveal there is unauthorised use of these areas by Balanda. The level of unauthorised use is difficult to estimate however general observations suggest that since the advent of Dhimurru and the introduction of a regularly enforced Recreation Permit system this problem has abated considerably.

In 1973 the Department for the Northern Territory commissioned a land use study of the Gove area by Turner. Turner made recommendations in his report for the development of a Coastal Reserve encompassing the area from the mouth of {aliwuy (Daliwoi Bay), south to Wanyanmera Point in Port Bradshaw. He recommended the appointment of Aboriginal Rangers and the establishment of a land use advisory council for the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve (see Turner 1973). The proposals for a Coastal Reserve were foregone with the passage of Northern Territory land rights legislation in 1976.

Yol\u landowners exercise the right to control land and resource use on their estates and have established Dhimurru whose goal it is to ensure the ecologically and culturally sustainable management of recreational use on areas under its jurisdiction.

327 4.2.3. Management Prescriptions

The primary objective in relation to visitor use is to maintain and preserve the cultural and environmental values of }anydjaka as an Yol\u owned and managed area.

The objectives of Yol\u landowners in relation to allowing continued use of areas on their estates for the purpose of recreation by Balanda are:

• to control the management of designated Recreation Areas through the Yol\u owned and governed land management agency, Dhimurru;

• to control access to areas on Yol\u estates for recreation through the system of Recreation Permits administered by Dhimurru;

• to allow visitors to develop an appreciation and understanding of Yol\u culture through learning and experience of Yol\u interpretation of landscape;

• to allow Balanda to use and enjoy Yol\u land by developing management strategies which ensure that recreational use of areas on Yol\u land is ecologically and culturally sustainable;

• to develop co-operative management partnerships which aim to share the responsibility of ecologically and culturally sustainable use of areas on Yol\u estates for recreation by Balanda and which do not erode Yol\u control of management.

4.2.4. Implementation

Decisions on applications for use of }anydjaka, or activities and developments within the area, will be based on the objectives for management of }anydjaka, as outlined in this plan of management, including the following considerations:

• the paramount need to protect and conserve the cultural and natural heritage of }anydjaka;

• the desires and aspirations of traditional owners;

• the fragility of the coastal ecosystems;

• the availability of management resources;

• the demands of visitors and the potential for the development of commercial operations on Yol\u estates.

The scenario for the pattern of visits to }anydjaka and other designated recreation areas is dependant upon several factors including:

• access provisions into Northeast Arnhem Land;

• the opportunities for accommodation and employment at Nhulunbuy;

• the availability of increased facilities and infrastructure services for temporary residents and visitors to Nhulunbuy;

• the nature of recreation opportunities and settings offered;

• the aspirations and desires of Yol\u landowners regarding the development of commercial tourism operations on areas of their estates including }anydjaka.

Changes and associated pressures caused by an increase in visitor numbers must be anticipated and strategies for management of natural and cultural resources made flexible and designed for ongoing review and revision at the discretion of Yol\u landowners and/or as required.

328

Dhimurru considers that activities, access and developments at }anydjaka should be strictly limited to those that:

• are consistent with the desires and aspirations of the Yol\u owners and users;

• concentrate on developing an understanding of Yol\u culture and interpretation of landscape among Balanda visitors;

• offer Yol\u the chance to participate in potential benefits from controlled use of their land by Balanda;

• are consistent with the sustainable management of the cultural and environmental values of the area.

Scope for the development of recreation opportunities and facilities designed to attract tourists is large. The potential for the establishment of commercial operations which cater to the demands of tourism is also vast.

A strategic approach to issues of tourism and the likely levels and nature of visitor use must consider the following:

• the impacts of any developments on the natural and cultural environment;

• the potential for ecotourism developments to promote low impact use • and do not adversely affect natural and cultural resource values;

• the impacts of any developments on the socio-economic status of the Yol\u community including potential for employment and training, direct economic return and financial implications for the future;

• the decision to limit visitor numbers and target tourist cliental;

• assessment of the range and nature of recreational opportunities and settings offered at }anydjaka.

The role of Dhimurru in addressing these issues will be to provide expert advice regarding the environmental and cultural evaluation of developments to relevant Yol\u landowners and organisations. (See Section 6.6.6).

Appropriate use and behaviour guidelines for visitors will be developed at the discretion of Yol\u landowners and determined by the range of permissible activities and recreation provisions available.

Dhimurru will seek to advise Yol\u landowners and users about potential implications of provisions for a range of recreational uses and their impacts.

There will be an emphasis on baseline visitor data acquisition, interpretation and review.

Visitor management options for the future and visitor behaviour and perceptions will be explored and addressed though:

• the use of social survey methods to examine visitor perceptions, expectations and experiences;

• the development of a public awareness program which aims to reconcile competing interests of Yol\u owners and users and Balanda visitors to recreation areas;

• the refinement of the current Recreation Permit system to accurately record levels of visitor and vehicle use and estimate the current and potential levels of

329 use at }anydjaka.

Dhimurru will continue to address the problem of unauthorised entry onto Yol\u estates. It will achieve this through:

• the implementation of regular patrols to Recreation Areas including }anydjaka and other areas on Yol\u estates where unauthorised access is a problem;

• the use of public education programs and development of interpretative materials emphasising Yol\u perceptions of landscape and ownership rights of traditional custodians;

• the erection of signs to direct visitor use.

Dhimurru aims to ensure to adequate enforcement of the Recreation Permit system through an ongoing process of resource allocation and position re-structuring within the organisation. This will provide the necessary staff and vehicles to perform regular and effective patrols concentrating on those areas which receive recreational use.

Dhimurru officers have powers to control access to Yol\u estates under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Act (Northern Territory) 1980 . The possible conferral of further enforcement powers to Dhimurru officers will depend on the outcomes of negotiations between Dhimurru and the CCNT about the development of a co-management agreement. During the first phase of the Dhimurru-CCNT relationship the appropriateness and viability of applying by-laws under the Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (Northern Territory) 1976 would be investigated.

330 4.3. Recreation Provisions

4.3.1. Background

Activities undertaken by Yol\u at }anydjaka are wholly integrated in terms of their practical and economic utility and their cultural and religious significance. They include;

• hunting and foraging for food;

• collection of materials for art and craft work;

• performance of religious rites which sustain and affirm Yol\u relationships with the land and sea, including significant and/or sacred cultural sites;

• camping and temporary residency;

• shooting;

• fishing (by boat and offshore);

• use of fire;

• four-wheel driving.

A range of activities are frequently undertaken by Balanda visitors to }anydjaka:

• fishing ( by boat and offshore);

• walking;

• appreciation of natural and cultural features;

• scenic four-wheel driving;

• photography;

• shellfish collection;

• swimming;

• bird watching;

• crabbing;

• boating;

• picnicking and barbeques;

• viewing from the air;

• camping.

4.3.2. Previous Management

Until the establishment of Dhimurru in 1992 there were virtually no restrictions in relation to choice and type of recreation activities and destinations at }anydjaka other than those imposed by the recent legislative measures: the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Cwth) 1976 , the and Land Act (NT) 1980 , the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT) and through direct communication between Yol\u and Balanda using the area.

The 'ad hoc' system of vehicle tracks and day and overnight destinations created through contemporary use of the area by Yol\u and Balanda serve to some extent to

331 direct visitor use. There are a limited number of well established areas used for camping and visitors tend to use these rather than pioneer new sites. There have been no formal recreational provisions other than the 'top' and 'bottom' access tracks at }anydjaka. (See Section 1.3).

Motorbikes were banned at }anydjaka from March 1994. Damage is caused by bikes moving off existing tracks, destroying coastal vegetation and promoting the erosion of the unconsolidated sands of the fragile sand dune environment.

Signs have recently been erected to direct visitors to }anydjaka and campsites at RX\ura (Caves Beach) and Lurrupukurru (Oyster Beach). The sign located at the main turnoff to }anydjaka informs visitors of the fragility and cultural importance of the area and indicates that firewood is to be collected within the next 7 kilometres.

Problems associated with the largely indiscriminate and unplanned past use of }anydjaka include:

• a perception amongst a small minority of Balanda residents of Nhulunbuy who regard unrestricted access to Yol\u estates as a right;

• conflict between visitor perceptions, expectations and estimations of appropriate visitor behaviour;

• concern about recreational activities and provisions threatening and/or damaging sacred or significant cultural sites and/or areas of ecological importance;

• actual and potential environmental health hazards such as:

• effects of recreation on vegetation and wildlife;

• degradation of fragile areas and those sites receiving high impact recreational use such as campsites, and tracks;

• contamination of drinking water and pollution of the environment and waterways;

• human waste disposal;

• uncontrolled use of fire;

• effects of litter;

• the absence of any formal management framework and presence to direct and monitor appropriate visitor use and behaviour.

4.3.3. Management PrescriptionPrescriptionssss

Objectives

The objectives of management in relation to provisions for recreation at }anydjaka are:

• to provide for appropriate recreational use as determined by the Yol\u landowners;

• to provide facilities and information to increase visitor awareness and enjoyment of the natural and cultural values of }anydjaka emphasising Yol\u perceptions of landscape.

332 4.3.4. Implementation

Decisions to accommodate specific recreation activities or to provide specific facilities or access will be based on the provisions of Section 2.

Visitor use is to be determined:

• primarily according to the desires and aspirations of Yol\u owners and users;

• by the level and type of land use capable of being sustained by the environment without damaging or threatening natural and cultural resource values.

A program of walking track development will be implemented. Tracks created will provide a range of standards and settings. Whenever possible or where appropriate tracks will be of an interpretative and educational nature. (See Section 1.4).

Levels and patterns of visitor use will be monitored and surveyed by the use of Recreation Permit statistics and social survey methods as resources are made available.

The following activities will not be allowed at }anydjaka:

• the riding of two- or four-wheel motorbikes;

• dogs and cats(check?);

• rock climbing(check?);

• prospecting and/or removal of cultural artefacts;

• the use of uncontained fires by Balanda.

Work will be undertaken to construct, maintain and upgrade access tracks as appropriate and in accordance with the management prescriptions set down in Section 2.

Access will be restricted to areas of cultural and religious significance as by the Yol\u landowners. These areas are identified in Section 2. Where appropriate the importance of these sites will be recorded and registered with the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA) to ensure their legal protection.

Dhimurru Rangers will work with important Yol\u informants to record and learn oral history and traditional ecological and cultural knowledge. Dhimurru will assist in developing programs which address the problem of the loss or deterioration of aspects of the Yol\u knowledge tradition in response to contemporary influences on the Yol\u natural and cultural environment. This may include facilitating and organising resource management workshops or seminars involving Yol\u Rangers and community members of various ages.

Vehicle access to the lookout at Yukuwarra will be cut off. Visitors will be able to enjoy this vantage point via an interpretative walking track.

Visitors will be encouraged to experience }anydjaka on foot. This will reduce the impact of four-wheel drive use on the environment and provide in certain cases a appropriate means of access to culturally and/or ecologically sensitive and/or important areas.

The northern portion of }anydjaka belongs to several important Wa\arr and is culturally very significant. The northern portion of }anydjaka from below the bauxite shelf will therefore be cut off from vehicular use. A carpark will be developed at an appropriate site and signs and interpretative materials provided for visitors wishing to

333 explore restricted areas on foot. A camping area will be maintained at Policeman's Beach. Access to this site will be via a walking track or by boat.

A walking track which explores the northern portion of }anydjaka will be developed as resources are made available. This will transect a range of habitats and provide access to several important cultural sites including stone arrangements which record the Macassan contact, and the dreaming places of the Wa\arr whale, Lightning Snake and Yirritja dog/s. Signs and written materials interpreting the natural and cultural landscape of the area will be produced for visitors. Interpretative information will also extend the message of minimal impact bushwalking and recreational use as part of the aim of maintaining the }anydjaka environment in a near as possible pristine state.

Air tours over }anydjaka may continue, but where this activity conflicts will other objectives, regulatory measures will be taken.

Camp sites will be designated. Camping outside of designated areas will not be permitted. The number of campsites will be sufficient to accommodate current levels of visitor use and will, for the present, have no provisions for recreation other than possible minor maintenance works.

Maintenance of camp sites will be subject to available resources and may, if appropriate, include slashing and clearing of understorey vegetation, maintenance of firebreaks, drainage, signposting, development of fireplaces and improved road access.

Impacts of recreational use on the natural and cultural environment at }anydjaka will be minimised through limiting visitor numbers to the carrying capacity of the designated campsites and track system.

A booking system for visits to }anydjaka may be introduced to regulate and monitor day and overnight use to that level capable of being sustained by the environment without deterioration of or threat to natural and cultural resource values.

The main vehicular access to }anydjaka may be cut off temporarily in wet weather thereby preventing traffic exacerbating erosion due to increased run off.

Access to any particular area or site at }anydjaka may be restricted at any time either temporarily or permanently at the discretion of the traditional owners. The reasons for restricted access to an area may include:

• inadequate resources to ensure environmentally and culturally sustainable management of the area for recreation or other traditional and/or contemporary uses of the land by Yol\u;

• the inability of the natural and/or cultural environment to sustain a particular type and/or level of land use;

• aspirations of Yol\u owners and users of }anydjaka regarding changes in use of the area;

• the practice of ceremonial or religious rites.

(Include here: Provisions for visitor safety ?)

Visitor impacts on recreation destinations and facilities will be monitored over time to ensure that environmental and cultural values do not suffer from recreational use. Appropriate action will be taken to address problems that arise due to the nature and level of visitor use at }anydjaka.

334 4.4. Information, Education and Interpretation

4.4.1. Background

To date there has been no specific information about }anydjaka available to visitors.

4.4.2. Previous Management

Funding provided by a grant from ANCA in 1993 allowed Dhimurru to signpost many of the Recreation Areas it manages. Signs display the Yol\u and Balanda names for the areas.

Dhimurru Rangers perform regular patrols of the recreation areas, offering interested persons a chance to discuss with them and ask questions about Yol\u land and other matters.

Interpretative pamphlets have been produced for most of the Recreation Areas managed by Dhimurru. These are the results of an ongoing collaborative project between Yol\u and Balanda staff at Dhimurru and traditional owners which involves the recovery, recording and use of traditional knowledge in the management of Yol\u land and sea estates and its interpretation to Balanda visitors.

4.4.3. Management Prescriptions

The principal objectives of interpretation at }anydjaka are:

• to provide information to visitors which emphasises Yol\u control in the role of management, the cultural significance of }anydjaka, and Yol\u perceptions of appropriate behaviour and activities for visitors;

• to provide information to visitors about the role and functions of Dhimurru in the management of }anydjaka and other designated Recreation Areas, as well as its wider role in maintaining and preserving cultural and natural resource values on Yol\u estates;

• to publicise and explain the system of Recreation Permits issued by Dhimurru;

• to provide information about specific management actions and priorities in relation to control of visitor access to areas for recreation on Yol\u land.

4.4.4. Implementation

The primary focus of interpretation will be Yol\u perceptions of landscape.

Interpretative pamphlets will be produced which emphasise and explain the spiritual and cultural significance of }anydjaka. Interpretative materials will also be developed which inform visitors about Yol\u perceptions of appropriate visitor behaviour and activities.

Interpretative displays at the Dhimurru Office will provide information of natural and cultural resource management issues on Yol\u estates in Northeast Arnhem Land. Dhimurru staff are available to answer any questions from the public.

As resources become available Dhimurru will develop where appropriate self-guided interpretative walks in a range of representative natural and cultural environments at }anydjaka.

Dhimurru Rangers will assist in providing information to school and other interest

335 groups about the management of Yol\u estates. This will include participation in the development of curricula and delivery of programs about natural and cultural resource management with the Yirrkala Community Education Centre and the Laynhapuy Homelands Education Resource Centre.

336 4.5. Commercial Operations

4.5.1 BackgrouBackgroundndndnd

The burgeoning Northern Territory tourist industry and increase in visitor numbers to Northeast Arnhem Land are expected to provide numerous opportunities for development of commercial operations. A major part of the stimulus for setting up Dhimurru was the anticipated pressures associated with increased commercial interest in the region and the marketing potential of recreation opportunities on Yol\u land and sea estates.

Yol\u organisations are in a position to explore the potential opportunities for the planned development of commercial operations on Yol\u estates. These include the Gumatj and Rirratji\u Associations, Yirrkala Business Enterprises (YBE), YDC and the Laynhapuy Homelands Association.

The Gove Regional Tourist Association is a body which has been actively promoting the tourist potential and opportunities for economic development through tourism activity in Northeast Arnhem Land since ?.

Dhimurru considers the coordinated and integrated management of the marine environment as an urgent priority including the commercial exploitation of marine resources. This must involve the legal recognition of Yol\u interests in marine estates and resources. An integrated marine management strategy will recognise explicitly the multiple use values of sea estates and seek to investigate levels of sustainable resource use. Dhimurru believes that an essential part of this strategy must see Aboriginal people as full and equal partners in decision making and management.

It is the responsibility of the NLC to provide legal, technical and scientific advice to Yol\u people and organisations regarding commercial developmental proposals which affect themselves and their estates.

4.5.2. Previous Management

There have been no regular intermittent or permanent land-based commercial operations at }anydjaka which provide organised recreation opportunities for visitors.

Commercial fishing boats exploit marine resources in {aliwuy Bay and the Gulf of Carpentaria and are often visible off-shore from }anydjaka. The activities of members of the commercial fishing industry are controlled under Northern Territory and Commonwealth legislation.

There are two or three local organised tour operators who bring paying visitors to }anydjaka on demand only. No commission is sought by Yol\u land owners from these operators who have been asked only to ensure that their clients obtain a Dhimurru Recreation Permit.

Scenic helicopter and light aircraft flights may be chartered from local airlines operating from the Gove Airport and tours on request will include }anydjaka and the surrounding country.

The Northern Territory Tourist Commission have used photos of the }anydjaka landscape on promotional posters for the Northern Territory tourism industry.

Yol\u people continue to collect traditional natural materials for the commercial production of arts and crafts at }anydjaka.

337 Dhimurru has participated in discussions with the East Arnhem Business Association regarding the role of tourism in the Economic Strategy for the region. On behalf of the traditional owners Dhimurru has expressed conditional Yol\u interest in considering development of commercial operations on their estates. The nature of these proposals however must fulfil the criteria of Yol\u approval, involvement and equity and appropriate standards of environmental and cultural care.

4.5.3. Management Prescriptions

Objectives

To ensure that commercial operations at }anydjaka are developed and conducted in such a way that:

• is approved by and of benefit to Yol\u people;

• ensures the natural and cultural values of the area.

Vehicle-based tours

Objectives in relation to vehicle-based tours are:

• to encourage and assist tour operators to provide a quality of environmental, cultural and safety information to visitors with an emphasis on Yol\u heritage values;

• to monitor the cultural and environmental effects of organised tours with a view to determining regulations and standards for such tours;

• to ensure that the auxiliary services provided by tour operators such as camp site selection, harvesting of marine molluscs, etc. and the activities they promote at }anydjaka accord with management guidelines for }anydjaka.

Scenic flights

Objective: To investigate the effects of aircraft in the area of }anydjaka and in particular their impact on nesting bird colonies.

Research by the CCNT in 1993/94 on islands north of Nhulunbuy indicates that breeding of sea birds in the region may be severely disrupted by proximity to noise and interference by aircraft.

4.5.4. Implementation

It is the responsibility of Dhimurru to provide assistance and advice to the Yol\u community and Yol\u organisations concerning the desirability, feasibility and implications of the development of commercial operations at }anydjaka and in other areas on Yol\u estates. Whenever possible or appropriate Dhimurru staff will provide such advice and assistance. Dhimurru will seek specialist advice on matters which are beyond the responsibility, resources and/or expertise of the organisation and facilitate the communication of all relevant information to traditional owners. The decision to accommodate commercial operations on Yol\u estates remains entirely at the discretion of traditional owners.

The management emphasis on maintaining }anydjaka as a 'wilderness' or 'semi- wilderness' area may be reviewed according to the wishes and aspirations of traditional owners and their desire to develop land use activities and provisions inconsistent with a 'wilderness' type recreation experience.

338 Dhimurru will continue to provide a formal point of contact between individuals and organisations wishing to consult with Yol\u landowners about development proposals and commercial operations on their estates. Liaison with the tourist industry will also be mediated through Dhimurru.

The activities of existing tour operators at }anydjaka will be evaluated and monitored. Recommendations for the negotiation of specific conditions for these commercial operators will be developed and implemented as necessary. These may include the following considerations:

• negotiation of a special permit requirements and land use fee;

• provision of visitor statistics;

• visitor safety standards;

• restrictions on access and activities;

• regulation of visitor numbers and tour operators;

• conditional requirements for commercial operations including Yol\u approval, involvement and equity;

• development of environmental and cultural standards.

The collection of natural materials for the commercial production of Yol\u art and craft will continue. Where necessary collection from a range of identified sites may be recommended to ensure the sustainable use of specific materials.

Commercial filming and photography

Filming and photography for advertising will only be permitted where this advertising provides opportunities for benefits to the Yol\u land owners in accordance with their aspirations and desires.

Restrictions on photography may be developed as sites of significance are identified and documented and consultation with Yol\u landowners reveals their desire for particular areas not to be photographed.

Television, newspaper and radio reporting and filming will only be permitted with the consent of the relevant traditional owners.

339 5. ADMINISTRATION

5.1. Staffing

5.1.1. Background

From 8 September 1992 Dhimurru, on behalf of the traditional owners of Yol\u estates, assumed the responsibility for the management of }anydjaka and other designated Recreation Areas in Northeast Arnhem Land.

The number of Yol\u Rangers working within Dhimurru has grown since 1992 from 7- 8 to 9-10. The individuals who fill these positions are considered and chosen by the Dhimurru Committee.

As part of the ongoing development of the structure of Dhimurru and with the securing of funds from ANCA under the CEPANCRM scheme, a formal hierarchy of positions within Dhimurru was formulated from July, 1994. This is the outcome of the experiences and collaborative review of Dhimurru staff, the Dhimurru Executive Committee, and traditional owners.

Dhimurru now employs a Senior Yol\u Ranger-Cultural Adviser; Senior Yol\u Ranger- Operations Supervisor; Yol\u Ranger-Cultural Liaison Officer; eight Yol\u Community Rangers; an Executive Officer; a Clerical/Administration Officer; and a Senior Ranger/ Trainer on secondment from the CCNT until June 1995.

Dhimurru is seeking to develop a Yol\u Ranger role which recognises explicitly the Yol\u knowledge tradition and perceptions of landscape.

Dhimurru seeks to explore a new and creative partnership with Balanda where, under Yol\u control, there can be Yol\u and Balanda Rangers working together, sharing knowledge and each doing what they are good at. Implicit in this is the development of the Yol\u and Balanda Ranger roles.

A co-management agreement between Dhimurru and the CCNT is currently under negotiation. The first phase of such an agreement will involve the collaborative development and ongoing review of Yol\u and Balanda Ranger roles.

5.1.2. Previous Management

Until the formalisation of Ranger positions within Dhimurru in July 1994, there was one fully paid Senior Yol\u Ranger position funded through CEPANCRM and 7-8 other Yol\u Ranger positions supported by Aboriginal Study Grant benefits program and benefits under the CDEP.

There have been discussions and agreement within the Dhimurru Executive Committee regarding the development of a Homeland Yol\u Community Ranger network to address management of country outside of the Recreation Areas under the jurisdiction of Dhimurru. Yol\u Community Rangers would be employed under the CDEP in the Homeland Centres and draw on occasional and appropriate support from Dhimurru's main body of resources including: expertise, guidance and assistance from trained Yol\u Rangers; logistic support involving transport and materials; training opportunities organised through Dhimurru.

A Dhimurru Yol\u Community Ranger has been stationed at Bremer Island since the beginning of 1994. He has received regular visits from other Dhimurru staff offering assistance and resources and has been encouraged to commute in order to attend training seminars and workshops. As the first Yol\u Community Ranger stationed in a Homeland Centre, the evolution of the relationship of the Bremer Island Yol\u

340 Community Ranger with Dhimurru will serve as a developmental model for the Homeland Yol\u Community Ranger program.

The potential number of Yol\u Community Rangers working in Homeland Centres will depend on recurrent funding of Dhimurru, the support of Homeland communities and the Homeland resource agencies, and the successful development of current employment structures and duty statements within Dhimurru.

The development of employment conditions and Yol\u Ranger profiles within Dhimurru has received attention from other Arnhem Land Aboriginal communities seeking to establish land and sea management and/or employment programs which address cultural and natural resource management issues. Dhimurru has offered advice and will where possible provide support to these communities in terms of facilitating access to information and training opportunities and where appropriate assisting with labour and equipment.

In February 1994 Dhimurru engaged the assistance of the Australian Conservation Trust for Volunteers (ATCV) to undertake a dune rehabilitation and tree planting project at Wirrwawuy (Cape Wirawawoi) funded by a Landcare Northern Territory grant.

A grant from Landcare Northern Territory allowed Dhimurru to employ a Research Assistant in 1994 to work with Dhimurru staff and traditional owners in developing this Plan of Management for }anydjaka.

Dhimurru has been involved in several collaborative research and community based environmental projects. These are:

• survey of fauna of monsoon rainforests in Northeast Arnhem Land with the CCNT in 1992;

• Wessel Islands fauna survey with the CCNT in 1993;

• }anydjaka vegetation survey with the CCNT in 1993;

• }anydjaka fauna survey with the CCNT in 1994;

• oral history survey of the Golden Bandicoot with the CCNT in 1994;

• collection of ethno botanical information with the CCNT in 1994;

• survey of sea bird breeding colonies with the CCNT in 1994;

• preliminary investigation of sinkholes for potential substrate analysis with the CCNT and the Australian National University in 1994;

• rehabilitation and tree planting at Gay\aru (Town Lagoon) with the Nhulunbuy Primary School and the Nhulunbuy Corporation in 1994;

• dune rehabilitation and tree planting at GXluru (East Woody) and Wirrwawuy (Cape Wirawawoi) with the ATCV;

• setting up of a community Waterwatch program with the Northern Territory Power and Water Authority and the Nhulunbuy community in 1994.

Dhimurru has employed contract labour form the Yol\u owned and run organisation Yirrkala Business Enterprises (YBE) to erect recreational signposts and undertake landscaping tasks.

An anticipated increase in visitor numbers to }anydjaka will necessitate more active visitor management strategies. These strategies may involve:

341 • the introduction of a booking system for certain Recreation Areas including }anydjaka;

• the development of interpretation programs to direct visitor use and behaviour;

• the increased presence of rangers in Recreation Areas to monitor and control visitor use and behaviour;

• the development of provisions and restrictions which minimise the impacts on the natural and cultural environment of recreational use.

The introduction of such strategies and the decision to accommodate other cultural, environmental and visitor management initiatives will contribute to determining the appropriate level and development of staffing within Dhimurru. Staffing will depend primarily however on funding resources within Dhimurru and in particular on the future support received from government agencies including the proposed co- management agreement currently in negotiation with the CCNT.

5.1.3. Management Prescriptions

Objectives

The primary objective in terms of staffing is to emphasise the employment of Yol\u staff with the overall goal of Dhimurru being to employ Yol\u in all positions within the organisation.

The other objectives in the area of staffing are:

• to provide for a level of staffing which allows for the sustainable management of the natural and cultural resources of Yol\u estates including }anydjaka;

• to ensure that Balanda staff possess the skills and understandings which will enable them to carry out professional, technical and management tasks while demonstrating an interest in and willingness to learn about Yol\u culture. They must also demonstrate commitment to working in a collaborative and cooperative way with Yol\u staff and the wider Yol\u community;

• to encourage and facilitate collaborative projects between Dhimurru staff and specialists from various fields of expertise relating to the sustainable management of natural and cultural resources on Yol\u estates;

• to provide employment structures and conditions which explicitly recognise and accommodate the recovery, maintenance and use of indigenous knowledge in contemporary management of Yol\u estates as part of the development of the Yol\u Ranger role and which do not undermine or de-value the legitimacy of Yol\u knowledge traditions before those of western science;

• to develop a Yol\u and Balanda Ranger role within Dhimurru;

• to provide through the development of the Yol\u and Balanda Ranger roles a framework for the co-operative development and implementation of integrated indigenous and western scientific land management practices and priorities;

• to continue to employ contract labour for some operations with the aim of not investing Dhimurru's time and resources into duplicating specific skills and resources provided by other Yol\u organisations such as YBE;

• to continue to participate in collaborative research which benefits the Yol\u community and seek specialist advice on natural and cultural resource management issues where appropriate. • •

342 5.5.5.1.4.5. 1.4. Implementation

Dr. Nancy Williams has been engaged as a consultant to Dhimurru from 1994 to provide ongoing evaluation of the development of a co-management agreement with the CCNT. An important part of this ongoing collaborative review process is the development of the Yol\u and Balanda Ranger roles.

The evolution of the Yol\u Ranger role is identified as being a major factor contributing to the sustainable development of Dhimurru and the negotiation and implementation of Yol\u-controlled land and sea management strategies and initiatives. This will continue to be a focus of discussion and collaborative planning, implementation and review within the Dhimurru community particularly with regards to the importance, role and use of local indigenous knowledge.

The following staff duty statements are proposed in the model co-management agreement between Dhimurru and the CCNT.

Duties - CCNT Rangers

Under the direction of the Dhimurru Executive Committee and Management Board and the supervision of the Senior CCNT Ranger and in collaboration with Yol\u Rangers the CCNT Rangers will be required to:

• Undertake mainstream ranger duties in the jurisdiction including regular patrol, monitoring, supervision of users, public education, oversee and manage access, camping and recreational activity and sacred site protection.

• Conduct the crocodile management program in the region.

• Respond to inquires regarding, wildlife, feral animal and feral weed issues.

• Co-ordinate the CCNT 'Junior Ranger' program in the region.

• Represent the CCNT as necessary.

• Facilitate CCNT research activities.

• Undertake environmental evaluation and monitoring as appropriate.

• Assist the Dhimurru Management Board develop management plans for recreation areas.

• Offer advice to outlying Aboriginal communities.

• Assist with ongoing, collaborative training and development initiatives.

Duties - Yol\u Rangers

Under the direction of the Dhimurru Executive Committee and Management Board and the supervision of the Senior Yol\u Rangers and in collaboration with the CCNT Rangers the Yol\u Rangers will be required to:

• Maintain regular contact with traditional owners, all Yol\u Associations and Cultural Advisers to report on Dhimurru's activities and plan projects.

343 • Collect and record traditional ecological and cultural knowledge and skills from senior Yol\u and to implement the management of country as directed.

• Perform regular patrols to Recreation Areas

• Collaborate in the management of Recreation Areas.

• Collaborate with traditional owners, the Dhimurru Executive Officer, CCNT Rangers and Cultural Advisers in the development of management plans for Recreation Areas.

• Assist CCNT Rangers with the crocodile management program.

• Assist CCNT Rangers with other wildlife activities as necessary.

Duties - All Staff

Yol\u and CCNT Rangers will be required to:

• Explore and develop the partnership of Balanda and Yol\u Rangers working together as a team.

• Facilitate the exchange and mutual interrogation of Yol\u and western scientific knowledge, skills and understandings.

These duty statements will be expected to evolve as the Yol\u and CCNT Ranger roles undergo practical and collaborative development.

The initial phase of the proposed co-management agreement between Dhimurru and the CCNT is the trial employment of a ranger a T2 CCNT Ranger position.

The employment of Cultural Advisers through the CDEP scheme provides an avenue for active involvement of senior Yol\u community members and leaders in planning and management in a flexible and culturally appropriate way. Dhimurru is guided by the Kakadu and Ulu®u experiences where involvement of senior Aboriginal people is regarded as a central ingredient of joint management.

5.2. Staff Training

5.2.1. Background

Staff training and development is integral to the functioning and future success of Dhimurru and will depend in part on the evolution of the proposed co-management agreement between Dhimurru and the CCNT.

Dhimurru seeks to investigate a co-operative cross-cultural interpretation of land management practice and behaviour. Yol\u make the point strongly in their governance of Dhimurru that effective management of their estates must recognise, embrace and employ an integration of indigenous and western scientific land management strategies and perceptions in the contemporary social and ecological context.

5.2.2. Previous Management

The structure of Dhimurru developed over the first eighteen months of its operation. 'On-the-job' training has been in place since July 1993 and Yol\u staff (excluding the Cultural Advisers) have successfully completed a range of units within the Associate Diploma of Applied Science in Natural and Cultural Resource Management at Batchelor College. These span the areas of plant and animal ecology; land, people and

344 politics; field skills; emergency response; communications; cross-cultural studies; wildlife and pest management; and resource planning and management.

The current training of Yol\u Rangers organised by Dhimurru is tailored to the day- to-day cultural and operational demands of the organisation and the education resources of Batchelor College. Training aims to provide Yol\u resource managers with the skills and knowledge which will enable them to achieve the effective and sustainable contemporary management of their estates.

Dhimurru has a commitment to training at all levels and acknowledges that training is not a one way process. Training arrangements reflect therefore:

• a recognition and mutual interrogation of traditional Yol\u and mainstream land management practice;

• an 'on the job' emphasis, with a mixed mode of delivery;

• formal accreditation with articulation to further study.

It is recognised that some Yol\u Rangers have skills in advance of certain sections of this course, exemptions are negotiated as appropriate. It is also recognised that some learning activities or workshops will centre on traditional land management activities and involve traditional owners and Dhimurru Executive Committee members, this will assist Dhimurru's objective of developing and maintaining strong, ongoing linkages with Yol\u leaders. At these times the Executive Officer and Ranger Trainer would join the workshop as learners.

Management training for Yol\u Rangers and Dhimurru Executive Committee members is incorporated as a component of the certificate course where possible or as discrete units drawn from the 'Certificate in Community Management' at Batchelor College.

Informal training and development occurs as the result of the input and involvement of senior members of the Yol\u community. This contribution is a vitally important part of providing a training environment which involves

Staffing will depend primarily on funding resources within Dhimurru and in particular on the future support received from government agencies including the proposed co- management agreement currently in negotiation with the CCNT.

The development of job descriptions and duty statements for Ranger positions within Dhimurru are the result of an ongoing process of collaborative review and evaluation involving Dhimurru staff, the Dhimurru Committee, traditional owners and the CCNT. This includes the evolution of the Yol\u Community Ranger role.

5.2.3. Management Prescriptions

The overall objective of staff training and development will be for Yol\u staff to develop the skills and understandings necessary for the effective management of their country.

The objectives of management regarding staff training are:

• to continue to offer and develop opportunities for training which accommodate the cultural context within which Dhimurru operates;

• to provide and develop Yol\u and Balanda Ranger roles which explicitly recognise different cultural imperatives, duties, perceptions, skills and understandings and therefore preclude the implementation of different training and development priorities and needs.

345 5.2.4. Implementation

Ongoing staff development and training within Dhimurru will involve ensuring that liaison with traditional owners and Yol\u clan leaders continues regarding the development of ranger roles and the ranger training program;

Formal 'on-the-job training' opportunities will continue through Batchelor College for Yol\u Rangers and the development and training section of the CCNT for both Yol\u and Balanda Rangers.

A regular and routine feature of Yol\u and Balanda interaction in the Dhimurru workplace will be the explicit recognition of the need to develop mutually accessible forms of cultural and ecological knowledge and understandings.

Dhimurru staff will continue to participate in collaborative research where appropriate with government and academic institutions and independent consultants.

346 5.3 Routine Operations

5.3.1 Background

Dhimurru is responsible on behalf of the traditional owners of the country for the day-to-day management of Yol\u estates in Northeast Arnhem Land concentration on those areas used for recreation by Balanda. The routine operations of Dhimurru are outlined in the following table:

Dhimurru Operations Staff Duties

Maintenance Coordinating the maintenance and development of roads

Rubbish management

Maintenance of visitor and service facilities and recreation provisions

Law Enforcement Surveillance patrols of recreation and non-

recreation areas

Monitoring of visitor use and behaviour

Dealing with infringements

Surveillance of fishing operations and activities

Liaison with responsible agencies such as the NLC, Northern Territory Police, the DPIF, the CCNT, the AAPA, and Commercial and Recreational Fishing Associations

Permit Administration Processing applications for Recreation Permits. Booking camp sites and processing applications for Special Recreation Permits

Planning and Development Formulation and assessment of management plans for Recreation Areas in collaboration with traditional owners

Implementation of management strategies

Evaluation of management strategies

Monitoring visitor impacts and behaviour

347

Supervision of contractors

Planning and implementation of capital works

Information and interpretation Liaison with traditional owners, clan leaders, Yol\u Associations and the Yol\u community

Assisting visitors with response to inquiries and interpretative information

Development of interpretative and educational materials

Liaison with local schools and assistance with resource management curriculum

Guiding official and important visitors

Monitoring visitor activity and behaviour

Ecological and cultural Fire management

Collection, recording and implementation of

Yol\u knowledges

Feral animal control and surveillance

Weed control and surveillance

Erosion control

Biological surveys and monitoring

Assisting, facilitating, authorising and participating in collaborative research projects

Identification, recording and protection of sites of significance

Participation in the crocodile management

program

Participation in special rehabilitation projects

348 Tourism

Representing the interests of the traditional

owners regarding tourist activity and the

development of commercial operations

Environmental monitoring Liaison with Nabalco Pty. Ltd, relevant

government agencies, DPIF, CCNT and

Department of Mines and Energy (DME) etc.

regarding mining and refining activities

Participation in community environmental

health, monitoring and care programs i.e.

Waterwatch

Miscellaneous General administration

Publicity

5.3.2. Previous management

The routine operations of Dhimurru have developed with the evolution of the organisation, its staffing arrangements, the ongoing identification and negotiation of management issues and demands and the acquisition of resources.

The initial experiences of Dhimurru staff and the Dhimurru Committee clearly demonstrated the need to reassess and renegotiate expectations regarding the performance and nature of routine operations. Dhimurru is currently developing the Yol\u and CCNT Ranger roles within the organisation which implies on ongoing negotiation of responsibilities in the performance of routine operations.

5.3.3. Management Prescriptions

Objectives

The objectives in managing routine operations within Dhimurru are:

349

• to provide through the definition and development of the Yol\u and CCNT Ranger roles a formal framework for the recognition of those routine operations which cultural dictates reveal are generally associated with each of these roles;

• to formalise management procedures through a process of planning and discussion to ensure efficient and regular performance of routine operations.

5.3.4. Implementation

The successful implementation of the routine operations outlined in Section 6.3.1 is largely dependent upon the availability of management resources and the successful negotiation and development of the Yol\u and CCNT Ranger roles.

Some routine operations may where appropriate be carried out by contract to Dhimurru.

Management policy including routine operations will continue to be developed under the control and guidance of the Dhimurru Executive Committee and clan leaders and in response to changes in land and resource use.

5.4, Law Enforcement

5.4.1 Background

Yol\u estates in Northeast Arnhem Land are held under communal freehold title by the traditional Aboriginal custodians of the land.

Authorised officers of Dhimurru on behalf of the traditional owners of the land may exercise the powers and functions conferred on them by the relevant Acts and Regulations relating to the use and ownership of Aboriginal land.

5.4.2 Previous ManagemeManagementntntnt

Dhimurru issues permits to enter specific areas of Aboriginal land under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Act 1980 for the purpose of recreation.

Dhimurru staff perform regular routine surveillance of Recreation Areas and non- recreation areas on Yol\u estates to monitor visitor use and permit compliance. Person/s found on Aboriginal land without the appropriate authorisation are contravening the Aboriginal Land Act 1980 .

Dhimurru has undertaken to issue letters of warning to person/s found on Aboriginal and without the appropriate authorisation. Repeating offenders may be liable for prosecution under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Act 1980 .

Dhimurru advocates a positive rather than coercive approach in seeking compliance to the Acts governing access to Aboriginal land. Legal sanction is reserved as a last resort.

Where the conditions of the Recreation Permit are broken Dhimurru reserves the right to revoke a person/s' permit thereby confining them to the town and mine lease areas.

There has so far been no prosecution of person/s entering onto Aboriginal land without appropriate authorisation by Dhimurru.

Matters relating to protection of registered sites of significance, environmental regulation and monitoring, control of liquor, search and rescue and police matters are

350 addressed with the co-operation of the relevant Northern Territory and Commonwealth authorities.

5.4.3. Management Prescriptions

Objective

To ensure that authorised officers of Dhimurru have an understanding of the relevant Acts and Regulations and that the Act and Regulations are enforced as necessary.

5.4.4 Implementation

The control of access to Yol\u estates remains a major focus of Dhimurru's land and sea management responsibility.

Dhimurru relies essentially on good will and understanding in seeking compliance to conditions of access to and use of Yol\u estates.

Authorised officers of Dhimurru will receive appropriate training in relation to law enforcement issues and procedures.

It is expected that CCNT officers would exercise appropriate authorities under the Heritage Conservation Act, the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and the relevant fisheries legislation.

During the first phase of the Dhimurru-CCNT relationship the appropriateness and viability of applying by-laws on Yol\u estates under the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act will be investigated.

Dhimurru supports and advocates the legal recognition of the rights of Yol\u people in the management of marine estates and resources.

351 5.5. Research

5.5.1. Background

The following research and monitoring programs have been identified as being important in developing appropriate management strategies for }anydjaka:

• provision of an inventory of the presence and location of natural and cultural features and resources, and wildlife and plant species;

• obtaining information on the activities, behaviour, expectations and perceptions of visitors;

• development of educational and interpretation programs and materials to provide information about and experience of Yol\u perceptions of landscape and Yol\u cultural heritage to visitors;

• a research emphasis on the recovery, recording and use of traditional ecological and cultural knowledge including Yol\u perceptions of past, present and future use of }anydjaka, identification and recording of sites of significance;

• the collaborative development, implementation and review of the Yol\u and Balanda Ranger roles within Dhimurru which will affect the nature and distribution of management resources and the ongoing development of appropriate strategies for management;

• investigating and obtaining expert advice on issues such as the mitigation of erosion problems, the identification and control of introduced animals and weed species, the appropriate development and nature of recreation provisions including roads, tracks and camp sites.

5.5.2 Previous Management

The following research has been conducted in the area of }anydjaka in collaboration with Dhimurru:

• investigation of local avifauna and vegetation species with the CCNT and the NT Herbarium (1988);

• fauna survey of monsoon rain forests in the area of the Cape Arnhem Peninsula with the CCNT (1990-1992);

• botanical investigation of monsoon rain forests in Northeast Arnhem Land with the CCNT (1991);

• vegetation survey and mapping of }anydjaka with the CCNT (1993);

• fauna survey of the Cape Arnhem Peninsula with the CCNT (1994);

• field checks of geological mapping and description with the Australian Geological Survey (1993/4).

• a Rainforest Fauna Survey was undertaken in 1990 by the CCNT.

Traditional knowledge about }anydjaka and the surrounding areas has been collected as part of the development of this plan of management. Dhimurru staff in consultation with traditional owners and the Yol\u community are involved in an ongoing process of documenting Yol\u sites of significance, landscape perceptions, and traditional ecological knowledge.

352 5.5.3 Management Prescriptions

Objective

To support, develop, carry out and encourage research and monitoring which is of relevance to the goals and aspirations of Yol\u owners and users of }anydjaka.

This research will provide information which will contribute to devising strategies for the ecologically and culturally sustainable development of Yol\u estates from a synthesis and mutual interrogation of western scientific and Yol\u systems of knowledge production.

5.5.4 Implementation

The primary focus of research resources and energies will be the documentation and use of traditional cultural and ecological knowledge. This will concentrate on the areas of:

• Yol\u traditional and contemporary knowledge of resource use, distribution and abundance;

• recovery, documentation and implementation of Yol\u strategies for management of land and sea country;

• Yol\u cultural and natural landscape perceptions.

Dhimurru is pursuing a collaborative investigation into devising natural and cultural resource management strategies through the cooperative interrogation of Yol\u and western scientific knowledge traditions. Other research to be undertaken includes:

• survey, monitoring and control of weeds and feral animals in collaboration with DPIF;

• survey of visitor use, behaviour, expectations and perceptions;

• rehabilitation and monitoring of eroded sites and the development of erosion control methods and strategies.

Dhimurru recognises the urgent need to facilitate and assist in the transfer of traditional knowledge to younger Yol\u via the curricula of the Yirrkala Community Education Centre and the Laynhapuy Homelands Schools. Yol\u Rangers will participate in the development and delivery of education programs which focus on natural and cultural resource management issues.

Dhimurru is committed to supporting the CCNT-Dhimurru developed project; 'Research and Management of Marine Turtles in eastern Arnhem Land'. During 1995 CCNT rangers would work with Yol\u rangers to undertake Phase 1, the gathering of extensive oral history concerning turtles. Phase 2, the intensive survey of representative sites would be supported by ranger staff.

In 1995 and beyond Dhimurru will participate in an important seabird assessment and monitoring project commenced by the CCNT.

353 5.6. Environmental Evaluation and Monitoring

5.6.1. Background

The evaluation and monitoring of user impacts and resource values is an important part of developing and implementing strategies for the ecologically and culturally sustainable management of Yol\u estates.

5.6.2. Previous Management

The following collaborative assessment of recreation provisions and introduced agents has been undertaken by Dhimurru in the area of }anydjaka;

• environmental evaluation and monitoring of existing road and track alignments with the Land Conservation Unit of the CCNT (1993);

• environmental evaluation and monitoring of feral plant and weed intrusion with the CCNT (1993 and 1994) and DPIF (1994).

In response to concerns about the effects on the local environment of mining and refining activities Dhimurru has begun to formalise monitoring and assessment programs relating to pollution and environmental health. Dhimurru has sought advice and assistance from government agencies and academic institutions in relation to such issues.

Staff of Dhimurru and the CCNT have offered advice and assistance to Nabalco Pty. Ltd. on various aspects of mine site revegetation.

5.6.3. Management Prescriptions

Objectives

The objectives with regard to environmental evaluation and monitoring are:

• to ensure that any development proposals at }anydjaka are fully assessed in terms of their impacts on the natural and cultural environment;

• to provide expert advice to traditional owners at their request about the impacts of development proposals on the natural and cultural environment of }anydjaka. •

5.6.4. Implementation

Dhimurru has a commitment to assist and support such development on Yol\u land that:

• has the approval of relevant land owners;

• is ecologically and culturally sustainable;

• ensures the protection of cultural values and Yol\u heritage;

• wherever possible promotes Yol\u involvement at all levels and appropriate cross- cultural partnerships.

Dhimurru will act in an advisory role to traditional owners about the desirability, feasibility and implications of development proposals in terms of their effects on the cultural and natural resource values of }anydjaka and surrounding areas.

354 Dhimurru will continue to address issues of environmental health and pollution through the development of assessment and monitoring programs.

Dhimurru will participate in a community-based Waterwatch program starting 1994/1995.

355 6. CAPITAL WORKS

6.1. Rubbish Management

6.1.1. Background

Rubbish is generated at }anydjaka by Yol\u and Balanda visitors and by commercial fishing operations such as prawn trawlers.

6.1.2. Previous Management

Dhimurru supports and advocates a 'bring your rubbish back' policy. This applies to all designated recreation areas.

Territory Anti Litter Campaign (TALC) signs have been erected at recreation destinations and Dhimurru has participated in planning activities of the Nhulunbuy TALC Committee.

Dhimurru has received funding from ANCA in 1994 to contribute to the cleaning up of local Nhulunbuy beaches. Dhimurru seeks to participate in the planning and implementation of an integrated, community-based approach to the problems of rubbish.

Dhimurru has developed an interpretative display which demonstrates the threat to marine wildlife of rubbish produced by commercial fishing operations.

6. 1.3. Management Prescription

Objective

To minimise the effects of rubbish at }anydjaka and other Recreation Areas on the natural and cultural environment by encouraging visitors and commercial operations to responsibly dispose of their own rubbish.

6.1.4. Implementation

Dhimurru will distribute large rubbish bags to overnight visitors to the more remote recreation areas such as }anydjaka. Visitors will be responsible for bringing these bags back with them and disposing of the rubbish. Funding for this initiative will be sought in part from the resources of TALC.

Dhimurru will continue to participate in community initiatives to address problems of rubbish.

356 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brocklehurst, P. 1993, Vegetation Communities Cape Arnhem: North-east Arnhemland Northern Territory, (draft map), Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

Christie, M 1989, Yol\u Matha: notes for language learners at Yirrkala , Yirrkala Community School Literature Production Centre, Yirrkala, Northern Territory.

Flinders, M. 1774-1814 (1996), A Voyage to Terra Australis , Libraries Board of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.

Gambold, N., Woirnarski, J, Brennan, K., Jackson, D., Munu\giritj, N., Wunu\murra, B., Yunupi\u, D., Burrawa\a, N. and Wearne, G. 1995, Fauna Survey of the proposed }anydjaka Reserve (Cape Arnhem Peninsula) with reference to the fauna of northeastern Arnhem Land , Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

Hadden, K. and Gillen, G. 1993, Cape Arnhem (}anydjaka) Erosion Assessment and Implications for Management , Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

Lee, A. K. 1995, The Action Plan for Australian Rodents , Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.

MacKnight, C. C. 1972, ‘Macassans and Aboriginies’, Oceania , Vol. XLII, No. 4, pp. 283-321.

Turner, J. S. 1973, Gove Land Use: Study of the Conservation Aspects , Consolidated report. Department of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

Verran-Watson, H. 1992, Science and Other Indigenous Knowledge Production Systems, Paper presented at the 4S/EASST Joint Meeting in Gothenburg, August 12-15.

Williams, N, 1989, Two Laws: Managing Disputes in a Contemporary Aboriginal Community , Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Young, E., Ross, H., Johnson, J. and Kesteven, J. 1991, Caring for Country: Aboriginies and Land Management, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra.

Yunupi\u, D., Yunupi\u R., Yunupi\u }. and Yunupi\u Y. 199?, Ganbulapula: The Story of the Land Around the Old Dhupuma College , Yirrkala Community School Literature Production Centre, Yirrkala, Northern Territory.

357 8. THE HISTORY AND IIMPORTANCEMPORTANCE OF }ANYDJA}ANYDJAKAKA (CAPE ARNHEM) (INCOMPLETE)

Notes taken by Margaret Ayre as part of the process of the collaborative development of a Plan of Management for }anydjaka (Cape Arnhem) by Dhimurru staff and YolYol\\\\uu tratraditionalditional owners

NB. Many of the place names ( of wX\a) mentioned in the text are located on the accompanying map of }anydjaka.

General

}anydjaka is a very important area to Yol\u people for many reasons.

The dreaming tracks of many W a\arr pass through }anydjaka and the presence of these beings is felt and expressed in aspects of the physical landscape and as part of the Yol\u cultural landscape.

Yol\u people continue to regularly visit }anydjaka for camping, hunting and the collection of bush materials.

In the past Yol\u people visited }anydjaka by foot as they moved around the country according to the distribution and abundance of subsistence foodstuffs and the social and cultural dictates of their traditional lifestyles. Older Yol\u people today still identify the traces of 'Yol\u tracks' in the landscape at }anydjaka. These were the paths family groups wore as they travelled across the country and through which the Wa\arr pass.

Features of the natural and cultural landscape at }anydjaka

}anydjaka appears to be an important area for the collection of turtle eggs for the Yol\u. Nests rarely escape attention and are often systematically raided as groups travel along the beaches and fore dunes.

There is series of stone arrangements located on a shelf overlooking the seas of the Gulf of Carpentaria. These are associated with the Macassans and Yol\u informants offer alternative suggestions for the subjects depicted. Now partly obscured by grass and sand the site requires further detailed investigation to explore and record the arrangements and the cultural history associated with them. Measures to protect this site have been discussed and include: re-routing the access track which passes adjacent to the stone arrangements; and, erecting a fence to separate the present access track vehicles from the stone arrangements;

This site is registered with the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. Traditional owners may wish to identify it with a sign provided by the Authority and/or an interpretative sign or written material developed by themselves and Dhimurru staff.

Yol\u people remember seeing 'whales' from the northern section of }anydjaka. There is a small, rocky island located just south of the northeastern coastline of }anydjaka. The island is whale dreaming and called Wutu\thurra. When the sea is rough a blow hole amongst the rock of the island creates the soaring spout of the great Wa\arr. Yol\u people say that this island 'moves'. (Balanda may interpret this 'movement' as the rise and fall of the sea tides).

The small rocky island located approximately 500 m south of the island called Balbira is associated with the sighting of a 'walrus'. The apparition of a 'walrus' is likely to have been evoked by the interpretation of the island landscape as the body of a large marine mammal.

358 The land and the sea are crisscrossed by the tracks of the Wa\arr revealing where they moved and persist in the landscape.

The call of the ‘guwak’ echoes in the jungle area at the west end of }anydjaka. (See Ganbulapula: The Story of the Land Around the Old Dhupuma College by Yunupi\u et al. (1999?)). There are milkwood trees found in these rain forest patches called YXn or Mawalan. If the sacred trees are chopped down then people get sick and die. Some of these are used for carving. The same kind of trees are found at Port Bradshaw.

The white cliffs at the northern portion of }anydjaka belong to the dreaming of the Lightning Snake. The white ochre of the cliffs is the excrement of the snake. This sort of white ochre is unique to this part of northeastern Arnhem Land and is used in the preparation of materials for basket weaving. Red ochre is also collected from this site.

The area around Gay\a[a or Muru\a (Twin Eagles) was used for camping. Shelter was sought in the caves and overhangs of the Gaingara 'islands' which provided a good view of the surrounding area. The soak behind the fore dunes was a year-long source of freshwater and fragments of marine molluscs are the evidence of dinner camps where Yol\u feasted on the fruits of the tidal mangrove salt flats and mud flats collected from the {aliwuy inlet. Women collected cashew nuts from the rain forest in September/October and prepared them at the camp site at Gay\a[a/Muru\a (Twin Eagles).

On the left hand side of the first 'island' at Gay\a[a/Muru\a there was a overhanging ledge that formed a cave. Yol\u people used to camp in this cave. It was a shelter. There was an 'earthquake' in the days when Chaseling was a missionary at Yirrkala and the rock ledge shattered and caved in. This happened on Christmas Day during the Wet Season. No Yol\u people were hurt because the 'earthquake' occurred in the early morning while the occupants of the cave were out hunting for mussels. There remains a small cave 'up the back' of this 'island'.

On the right hand bottom side of the first Gay\a[a/Muru\a 'island' Yol\u men waited at a certain time of year for the Wa\arr \uykul (kingfish) fish to pass. The old men perched on the rocks at this place and speared the fish. Women were not allowed to visit these rocks. The fish were shared after the catch.

Yol\u people camped at the mouth of Birritjala under the shade of the Casuarina trees.

The dreaming place of the sacred stingray with the white tail is in the sea offshore from the area around Duybamuy (creek).

At BXtala there is a sacred freshwater spring which emerges from under rocks. Only old Yol\u men know of the exact location of this spring and are allowed to go there.

Djalali\ba Yunupi\u remembers swimming as a boy across from Binydjarr\a (the boat ramp at the end of the {aliwuy access track) to the point of the }anydjaka peninsula. He muses that there may have been less crocodiles in this stretch of water than today and that the inlet may also have been narrower at this point. In the sand dunes just behind Gay\a[a, Yol\u people dug to create wells of fresh water. The depressions of these wells can still be seen. Yol\u camping in this area exploited the rich resources of the mangrove estuaries and tidal salt and mud flats in the upper reaches of the {aliwuy inlet.

Datjala is the sacred point at the edge of the escarpment which runs eastward from the site of the old Dhupuma College. The escarpment forms a ridge between the places called Barraya and Wirrmu\a.

359

The following is adapted from the publication Ganbulapula by Yunupi\u et al. (c.1986):

The Wa\arr mar\u (possum) and nightjar ( guwak ) made a track through the point Datjala. The Wa\arr guwak calls from Datjala mourning the spirits of the deceased and signalling their passage.

‘At that place the night jar sang and cried, and it will cry and mourn again to let us know whenever a new death occurs.’ (Yunupi\u et al. c. 1986?)

The Wa\arr guwak flew up into a tree at Datjala and stretched out the sacred string in preparation for the journey of the spirits of the dead. ‘The spirits of the dead travel along the sacred string.’ (Yunupi\u et al. c. 1986) The string extends from the place at Dhupuma where there used to be a ceremonial ground. This is where the spirits used to dance.

‘From here...to Datjala, through the bush, to the point where the track goes down the escarpment...It [ guwak ] takes a journey through the track dreaming to Twin Eagles (Murupa, commonly known as Gay\a[a).’ (Yunupi\u et al. c. 1986)

The Wa\arr guwak flew from Datjala across to Bultjumurru and on to Gaingara or Muru\a/Gay\a[a (Twin Eagles).

The area of land extending from Dhupuma (Gu`ku`a) north to the Gove Airport and east to the coast south of Yirrkala and }anydjaka belongs to the spirit man, Ganbulapula, also known as ‘YX\u]itji or Murayana. Through this land he travelled, looking upwards, following the stringybark flowers looking for guku' (native honey). This land is ceremonial ground.’ (Yunupi\u et al. 1999?)

And the dog dreaming track exists through Yukuwarra, from the place called Balkuwuy he [Ganbulapula] made his journey. Balkuwuy is also known as Rerrwuy and is a billabong full of lily roots. (This is the billabong at 'Mosquito Creek'). The dog, called Balku, being of Wangurri clan, changed to a ~amami dog (called |ama`iya of WXwuluma) when she reached Cape Arnhem. (Yunupi\u et al. 199?)

The Yirritja Wa\arr dog journeyed along the southeastern coastline of }anydjaka.

The country around the Dhupuma area and }anydjaka belongs to the Gumatj, ~amami and Wangurri clans. Other Yirritja clan groups have links to this land. The text of the publication, Ganbulapula explains:

Why do we sing to this land? Because the singing of Ganbulapula is from all of us: Gumatj, Ma\galili, Ma[arrpa, ~iya`anmirri, Ritharr\u, ~amami, Wangurri, Waramirri and Gupapuynu. And the saltwater and the freshwater Gumatj, this is the way we cooperate and make decisions, that's the way our law stands. (Yunupi\u et al. c. 1986)

Djalali\ba Yunupi\u explains: Muraru\a (?) is the name of 'one old fellow', a Wa\arr being and a Rirratji\u man. ~amami (~amamirri) is his mother clan. He is sleeping around the plains area (near the jungle patch called Wirrmu\a). This is his mother country. A long time ago people were dancing near the billabong/swamp in the Durrupulmi area. There is a little Yol\u track here. This is a track that extends from GXrriri (Rocky Bay) near Yirrkala and {aliwuy through the swamp (called Matharra) and south along the western edge of the {aliwuy inlet. (Margaret Ayre’s field notes 5 June 1994)

Knowledge

360

Djalali\ba explains that place names at }anydjaka are very location specific. They may refer to a small area of sand in the dune system or to a certain place inside the rainforest. Djalali\ba learnt these names from a long time ago and from his father. He recognises that much of this knowledge is not being passed on to younger generations of Yol\u today. "Some young (Yol\u) people only know the name 'Nanydjaka', the 'big' name for the area, and not all the little names", he says. MXmburra Marika adds that the old women, Gulumbu and Gaymala, (Djalali\ba's sisters), are important custodians of traditional knowledge and also refer to specific places at }anydjaka by their individual names. She agrees however that younger Yol\u must receive instruction from the old people to pass on the wealth of traditional culture and ecological knowledge they possess.

361

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s: Ayre, M

Title: Yolngu places and people : taking aboriginal understandings seriously in land and sea management

Date: 2002

Citation: Ayre, M, Yolngu places and people : taking aboriginal understandings seriously in land and sea management, 2002

Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/222423

File Description: Complete thesis