Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
Review Indigenous biocultural knowledge in ecosystem science and management: Review and insight from Australia ⇑ Emilie J. Ens a, , Petina Pert b, Philip A. Clarke c, Marita Budden d, Lilian Clubb d, Bruce Doran e, Cheryl Douras d, Jitendra Gaikwad f, Beth Gott g,h, Sonia Leonard i, John Locke j, Joanne Packer k, Gerry Turpin d,l, Steve Wason d a Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia b CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Cairns 4870, Qld, Australia c School of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan 4111, Qld, Australia d Tropical Indigenous Ethnobotany Centre, Cairns 4970, Qld, Australia e Fenner School, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia f iDiv-Biodiversity Informatics Unit, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena 07743, Germany g German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germany h Monash University, Clayton 2800, VIC, Australia i James Cook University, Cairns 4870, Qld, Australia j Biocultural Consulting Pty Ltd, Brisbane 4000, Qld, Australia k Indigenous Bioresources Research Group, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia l Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation, Arts, Cairns 4870, Qld, Australia article info abstract
Article history: Worldwide, environmental conservation directives are mandating greater inclusion of Indigenous people Received 20 June 2014 and their knowledge in the management of global ecosystems. Colonised countries such as the United Received in revised form 19 October 2014 States of America, New Zealand and Australia have responded with an array of policy and programs to Accepted 5 November 2014 enhance Indigenous involvement; however, balancing Indigenous and non-Indigenous priorities and Available online 1 December 2014 preferred management methods is a substantial challenge. Using Australia as a case study, we investigate past documentation and use of Indigenous biocultural knowledge (IBK) and assess the main contributions Keywords: to ecosystem science and management. Focussing on the terrestrial environment, this innovative paper Indigenous ecological knowledge presents an integrated review of IBK documentation (IBKD) by conducting a spatial, temporal and content Traditional knowledge Cross-cultural ecology analysis of the publically available literature. A spatial analysis of the place-based documents identified Biocultural diversity Australian IBKD hotspots, gaps and opportunities for further collaboration. Sixty percent of IBKD has Socio-ecological systems occurred off the Indigenous estate with only 19% of the total coinciding with current Indigenous Sustainable development Protected Areas. We also found that IBKD hotspots were different to Australia’s biodiversity hotspots sug- gesting opportunity for development of integrated biological and cultural hotspots. A temporal analysis of IBKD showed exponential growth since the 1970s and typical involvement of non-Indigenous researchers. Indigenous authorship remained negligible until the 1990s when there was an obvious increase, although only 14% of IBKD to date has acknowledged Indigenous authorship. Working through Australia’s broad biological conservation priorities, we demonstrate how IBK has and can be used to inform research and management of biodiversity, threatened species, aquatic ecosystems, fire, invasive species, and climate change. We also synthesise documented suggestions for overcoming cross-cultural awareness and communication challenges between Indigenous people and biologists, environmental managers and policy makers. Lastly, we suggest that inclusion of both tangible and philosophical engage- ment of Indigenous people in national conservation agendas may promote more holistic socio-ecological systems thinking and facilitate greater progress towards addressing the Indigenous engagement directive of international conservation agreements. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia. Tel.: +61 2 98508405. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.J. Ens). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.008 0006-3207/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 134 E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 134 1.1. Indigenous biocultural knowledge and Western ecological knowledge...... 135 2. Methodology...... 136 2.1. Spatial analyses of place-based literature ...... 136 2.2. Living knowledge case study ...... 136 2.3. Contributions of IBK to Australia’s biological conservation priorities ...... 137 3. Results...... 137 3.1. Spatio-temporal analyses of place-based literature ...... 137 3.1.1. Intersection of IBKD and the Indigenous estate ...... 137 3.1.2. Intersection of IBKD and IBRA regions ...... 138 3.1.3. Comparison of IBKD hotspots and Australia’s biodiversity hotspots...... 138 3.1.4. IBKD temporal analysis ...... 138 3.2. Living knowledge case study ...... 139 3.3. Contributions of IBK to Australia’s biological conservation priorities ...... 139 3.3.1. Biodiversity ...... 139 3.3.2. Threatened species ...... 142 3.3.3. Aquatic ecosystems ...... 142 3.3.4. Fire management ...... 143 3.3.5. Invasive species ...... 143 3.3.6. Climate change ...... 143 4. Discussion...... 144 4.1. Breaking down cultural and communication barriers...... 145 5. Conclusions...... 145 Acknowledgements ...... 146 References ...... 146
1. Introduction International Convention on Biological Diversity (Langton et al., 2003). Deeper consideration of biocultural diversity and knowl- Indigenous knowledge systems contain detailed representa- edge as a mechanism for enhanced understandings of diverse tions of the forces that have shaped the diversity and condition human perceptions and values of biodiversity, ecosystem dynam- of past and current environments (Gadgil et al., 1993; Drew and ics and natural resource use, offers a constructive approach for Henne, 2006; Berkes, 2012). The potential contribution of Indige- greater inclusion of Indigenous people (and other local knowledge nous knowledge to contemporary ecosystem science and manage- holders) in conservation pursuits. Indigenous and local knowledge ment is irrefutable; the complex challenge we face worldwide, is of a particular place, especially when it has been accumulated, how to integrate the knowledge, preferred management methods tested and adapted over generations, can make great contributions and inclusion of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples to reach to ecosystem understanding and management particularly at the local to international biological and cultural conservation objec- local level (ICSU, 2002; Raymond et al., 2010). tives (ICSU, 2002). In recognition of this significant challenge, However, Nadasdy (1999) and Agrawal (2002) caution that many international and national agencies and agreements focus- well-intentioned advocates of broader uptake and use of Indige- sing on environmental conservation, such as the 1992 Convention nous biocultural knowledge must be careful to avoid ‘‘scientising’’ on Biological Diversity, UNESCO’s 1999 Declaration on Science and or ‘‘distilling’’ Indigenous knowledge into static, transferrable and the Use of Scientific Knowledge, the United States of America Envi- non-contextual forms which remove the localised essence of Indig- ronmental Protection Authority’s Tribal Science Council (1999), enous knowledge as ‘‘a way of life’’, thereby arguably rendering it the Australian Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conserva- as non-Indigenous knowledge. Similar sentiments are asserted by tion Act 1999 and the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2000, sim- Hemming et al. (2007, 2010) and Smith (2012) who discuss the ilarly advocate for enhanced engagement of Indigenous societies in need to develop de-colonising methodologies and promote Indige- respect of their rich environmental knowledge, land ethic and the nous ways of knowing and doing rather than continually trying to need for more equitable benefit sharing (Langton and Ma Rhea, structure Indigenous knowledge around ‘Western’ pedagogical and 2005; Sachs et al., 2009). Notably, these authorities place much research frameworks. Although Agrawal (2002) notes that there responsibility upon wider society, including scientists, to create are benefits from databasing and making generalisations about inclusive approaches to biodiversity conservation and sustainable Indigenous knowledge to enhance recognition by dominant soci- use of the world’s resources. There are calls for a new ‘‘social con- ety. However, he also argues that there are substantial ethical tract’’ for science (Lubchenco, 1998; Gallopín et al., 2001)to problems associated with such syntheses, for example possible lost encourage a shift towards more applied and holistic socio-ecolog- opportunities for people whose knowledge has not been docu- ical systems thinking, also described as sustainability science mented but still exists in living forms and therefore may not gain (Kates et al., 2001; Cash et al., 2003). equitable recognition. He suggests that these issues should be Biological diversity is increasingly being linked to cultural counteracted by active lobbying for enhanced Indigenous rights diversity suggesting that combined biocultural resources are inte- and involvement in ecosystem science, management and deci- gral to the survival of life on Earth (Maffi, 2001, 2007; Loh and sion-making at local to global levels, as well as lobbying for a Harmon, 2005; Maffi and Woodley, 2010; Hill et al., 2011a; greater awareness of different knowledge systems other than those Gorenflo et al., 2012). For example, the Australian Government of dominant Newtonian and Popperian ‘Western’ science. This is reports on the state of Indigenous knowledge in Australia to the the goal of this paper. E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 135
In view of these ethical issues and international pressure, Aus- such as in the United States of America and Europe (Ohl and tralia has made substantial progress in building Indigenous- Swinton, 2010). focussed conservation initiatives from local to national scales that The challenge for contemporary Indigenous people is how to aim to serve both environmental and cultural objectives. However, maintain their biocultural knowledge, customary obligations and we argue that progress has largely been in tangible forms of livelihoods in the future amidst increasing pressures from domi- engagement (such as land and jobs) rather than philosophical nant society to conform to ‘Western’ modes of living and environ- engagement of Indigenous knowledge in conservation agendas. mental conservation. Indigenous elders recognise the challenge of Currently, about 30% of Australia is legally recognised as Indige- maintaining their cultural identity in the face of these changes. For nous owned land, with another approximately 45% under land example in his book titled Gagadju Man (Neidjie, 2002), Bill Neijdje, claims, or in shared or co-management arrangements (Grech Bunitj clan elder and Traditional Owner of jointly managed World et al., 2014). The Australian Government has also provided increas- Heritage Area Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory of ing support for Indigenous land and sea management through the Australia states: national Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) (1992) and Working on People. They can’t listen for us. They just want money. Money. We Country (2007) programs. The IPA program is based on voluntary want goose, we want fish. Other men want money. Him can make declarations of Indigenous owned land to the National Reserve Sys- million dollars, but only last one year. Next year him want another tem (NRS) where the land owners are remunerated for continued million. Forever and ever him make million dollars. Him die. management of land according to IUCN guidelines (Szabo and Smyth, 2003). To date, 52 IPAs have been declared in Australia, Million no good for us. We need this earth to live because we’ll be adding over 36 million hectares to the NRS which equates to dead, we’ll become earth. This ground and this earth, like brother 4.75% of the continent (Australian Government, 2013). The Work- and mother. ing on Country program currently employs 680 Indigenous Rangers Trees and eagle. You know eagle? He can listen. Eagle our brother, across 95 Australian Indigenous land and sea management groups like dingo our brother. We like this earth to stay, because he was (Australian Government, 2013). staying forever and ever. We don’t want to lose him. We say Australia’s national biodiversity conservation strategy is strati- ‘Sacred, leave him.’ fied and assessed through the NRS’s Interim Biogeographic Region- alisation of Australia (IBRA) which was developed to ensure A major challenge for the broader population is to understand comprehensive, adequate and representative protection of the the crucial enabling factors that are required to facilitate self- nation’s biological resources. There are 89 IBRA regions, with con- determination and endogenous development – the development servation prioritised for IBRA regions that have less than 10% pro- that is generated by the community for the community (Rist tected in reserves (including IPAs). In fact, government obligations et al., 2011; Van der Ploeg and Long, 1994). To achieve this, there to meet the 10% target gave support to the IPA program as some needs to be greater recognition by non-Indigenous people of the bioregions are entirely owned by Indigenous people (Langton and value and diversity of knowledge systems other than Western sci- Ma Rhea, 2005). Therefore, IPAs offer local to international benefits ence that operate within society, as stated in the 2002 UNESCO by contributing to Australia’s international conservation commit- Declaration on Science and the Use of Science. Senior Custodians of ments and providing land management funding opportunity to Australian IBK also emphasize this: Indigenous people. At the local scale, hundreds of community-dri- ...We believe that our traditional knowledge has not been recogni- ven Indigenous natural and cultural resource management (INC- sed. However we need to be engaged and take full control of our RM) enterprises have emerged over the last few decades as a heritage. Goal is to protect our lore and custodial rights for the result of the convergence of customary obligations with increasing future generation, which has been passed down from ancestor’s legislative support for Indigenous land ownership and self-deter- knowledge. mination, so much so that INCRM has recently been described as the fastest growing sector of Australia’s conservation effort (Hill Indigenous custodian, Tropical Indigenous Ethnobotany Centre et al., 2013). The large Indigenous estate and increasing support Advisory Board (Personal communication). for INCRM in Australia make an assessment of Indigenous biocul- tural knowledge documentation (IBKD) and the contributions to 1.1. Indigenous biocultural knowledge and Western ecological the national biological conservation agenda a significant, timely knowledge and unique case study. Despite achievements in Australian INCRM generally, there are We adopt the term Indigenous biocultural knowledge (IBK) as a widespread cross-cultural tensions in the planning, governance modified version of the widely known terms Indigenous Ecological and preferred types and methods of on-ground activity on Indige- knowledge and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (see ICSU, 2002), nous controlled estates and jointly managed areas. These tensions with an emphasis on the importance of cultural connections are largely attributed to the lack of understanding of alternative between humans and what Western science identifies as the bio- Indigenous knowledge systems by mainstream society and the physical world. Gerry Turpin, Mbabaram Traditional Owner and continual privileging of ‘Western’ scientific approaches (Langton co-author of this paper, describes IBK as ‘knowledge that encom- and Ma Rhea, 2005; Barbour and Schlesinger, 2012; Hill et al., passes people, language and culture and their relationship to the envi- 2013). These tensions are correspondingly reflected in the dispro- ronment’. We found no other documented definition of the term portionately low funding and resourcing for INCRM (Hill et al., ‘‘biocultural knowledge’’ in the literature, although we note and 2013). For example, the recent Australian Government funded Ter- draw from the increasing use of the term ‘‘biocultural diversity’’ restrial Ecosystem Research Network, made of up Australia’s most defined by Maffi (2001, 2007) as ‘the diversity of life in all its man- eminent ecologists, has largely ignored the large proportion of ifestations: biological, cultural, and linguistic — which are interrelated Indigenous land ownership and wealth of Indigenous knowledge (and possibly coevolved) within a complex socio-ecological adaptive in their development of a national long-term ecological research system’. Turpin’s definition of IBK is also akin to the widely and management strategy (Ens et al., 2014). Lack of Indigenous acknowledged working definition of Traditional Ecological Knowl- involvement in long-term ecosystem science and management edge by Berkes (2000) as ‘a cumulative body of knowledge, practice planning, and social considerations more broadly, are also evident and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through in other international Long Term Ecological Research Network’s, generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living 136 E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 beings (including humans) with one another and with their and the environment, and have explicitly involved Indigenous peo- environment’. ple (either as an author, co-author or informant). Therefore, for Interconnectedness is also a feature of the ‘Western’ scientific example, archaeological work conducted by non-Indigenous discipline of ecology, which is defined as the study of the interac- researchers alone was not included. Anthropological documents tions within the environment, and includes sub-disciplines includ- that detail biocultural information provided by Indigenous people ing human and fire ecology. Considering these overlapping areas of were included. Although art and multimedia projects are rich interest in holistic and interactive knowledge systems, it is surpris- sources of IBK, the authors agreed that inclusion of these forms ing that ‘Western’ ecologists have not worked more closely with of documentation was beyond the scope of the project timeframe, Indigenous knowledge Custodians to better understand and man- although we note that this would be a worthwhile pursuit for age Country (Bohensky and Maru, 2011). For further explanation future research. on Australian Indigenous people’s use and meaning of the word To collate the documents, all the author’s literature databases Country, see Smyth (1994), Rose (1996, 2000) and Turner and were searched. We also searched Scott’s (2004) bibliography of McDonald (2010). Indigenous Ecological Knowledge in Australia, CSIRO’s Indigenous Worldwide, IBK (or its equivalent) has long been touted as valu- land and sea management database (provided by one of the able to ecosystem science, policy and management (Gadgil et al., authors) and performed Google and Google scholar searches (using 1993; Agrawal, 1995; UNESCO, 1999; Huntington, 2000; Berkes, terms: Australia AND Indigenous/Aborigin⁄/or ethno). A public call 2012). While IBK expresses localised interconnections of the bio- for contributions to known experts in the field (via email) was also physical, social, spiritual and cosmological, ‘Western’ ecological conducted. The list of references was reviewed and categorised knowledge is restricted to bio-physical entities and is rigorously based on the experience of the authors into place-based docu- bound by hypothetico-deductive methodological constraints ments, reviews, methodology and related resources (such as legal (Agrawal, 1995, 2002; ICSU, 2002; Berkes, 2000, 2012). The two issues). Place-based or localised documents that identified particu- forms of knowledge are distinct but also have many commonalities lar Indigenous clans, tribes, regions, towns or homelands were and they can complement each other if diversity in knowledge sys- attributed a ‘place-name’ and were geo-referenced (given a lati- tems and approaches is valued (Berkes, 2000, 2008; ICSU, 2002; tude/longitude) using the Australian Gazetteer (http://www.ga.go- Christie, 2006; Nakata, 2007). It is also important to note that the v.au/place-name). This subset of data enabled a spatial analysis distinctions between Indigenous and ‘Western’ science are not and display of material using ArcGIS. always clear. Neither knowledge system is static; both have been and will continue to be influenced by cultural, social, economic, 2.1. Spatial analyses of place-based literature political and environmental factors. The meanings and compari- sons of IBK and ‘Western’ science have been the subject of much The following spatio-temporal analyses were conducted on the debate and we refer the reader to these texts (e.g. Agrawal, place-based literature: 1995; Nadasdy, 1999; Bohensky and Maru, 2011; Drew and Henne, 2006; Shackeroff and Campbell, 2007; Wohling, 2009). (i) the intersection of IBKD and the Indigenous estate; We also acknowledge that use of these simplistic terms is not ideal (ii) the intersection of IBKD and Australia’s IBRA regions and but they are employed for concise delivery of our key messages. identification of IBRA regions with the highest representa- Although IBK exists largely in oral forms held by Indigenous tion of IBKD (which we define as Australia’s IBKD hotspots); custodians, in many instances, this knowledge has been docu- (iii) a comparison of IBKD hotspots and Australia’s biodiversity mented. This knowledge tends to be held in widely dispersed hotspots; and records such as artworks, private journals, linguistic dictionaries, (iv) a temporal analysis of IBKD. unpublished reports, community publications, academic journal articles, books, photos and videos. Many records are not publically For (i) we quantified the intersection of the Indigenous estate available or in accessible forms, and sometimes, Indigenous people (Native Title, Indigenous Protected Areas) and the place-based themselves cannot access archived material about their own fam- IBKD data. Indigenous estate data was sourced from the Native ilies due to author copyright or privacy laws. For more information Title register (National Native Title Register, 2013) and the Collab- about intellectual property issues and documentation of Indige- orative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD, 2012). For (iv) nous knowledge’s see Nakata and Langton (2006) and Janke we conducted a cumulative frequency of IBKD against time (year) (2009). To provide an indicative overview of IBKD to inform eco- analysis as well as a specific analysis of IBKD with clearly identifi- system science and management in Australia this paper presents: able or known Indigenous author/s.
1. spatio-temporal syntheses of publically available Australian 2.2. Living knowledge case study IBKD involving Indigenous people; 2. a case study to demonstrate that IBK is ‘living knowledge’ that To highlight that IBK is living knowledge that is actively being is still being used and documented; and documented and used by Indigenous people we conducted a case 3. an overview of how IBK has informed Australia’s broad biolog- study of the work of the Tropical Indigenous Ethnobotany Centre ical conservation priorities. (TIEC) in Cairns, Australia. The TIEC was established in 2011 as a unique Indigenous-driven initiative established to engage, support, 2. Methodology and build the capacity of Traditional land owner groups to main- tain IBK, mainly in tropical Queensland (Hill et al., 2011b). The We conducted an integrated (systematic and narrative) review main aim of the TIEC is to record and utilise Indigenous ethnobio- of the publically available and accessible literature on IBK in Aus- logical knowledge for cultural use on Country. The Centre is man- tralia. A group of sixteen experienced Indigenous and non-Indige- aged by ethnobotanist Gerry Turpin (Mbabaram clan) and an nous researchers reviewed the literature over two years as part Indigenous Cultural Advisors Working Group consisting of five of the Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis members from various clans in northern Queensland (many of (ACEAS) Indigenous Biocultural Knowledge working group. To be whom are co-authors of this paper). For the present paper, the TIEC included in this review of IBKD in Australia, documents needed supplied location data for their established and emerging projects. to directly address the relationship between Indigenous people These were cross referenced with the publically available E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 137 place-based IBKD for the region to assess the contributions of TIECs (AIBK) website (www.aibk.info). This database does not include ‘‘living knowledge projects’’ to the IBKD database. all IBK documents as many IBK documents are not easily accessible or in the public domain and some may not have been captured 2.3. Contributions of IBK to Australia’s biological conservation through our literature search methodology. It is our intention to priorities try and build this database in the future through the AIBK website. We also acknowledge that the IBK content of each document var- Lastly, we conducted a narrative literature review of all collated ied in quality and quantity. This review is therefore indicative of IBK documents to assess the past and potential contributions to the available and past IBKD activity and does not suggest that all Australia’s biological conservation priorities (assets and threats) IBK for each location has been recorded. that are broadly identified in Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (NRMMC, 2010) as biodiversity, threatened species, aqua- 3.1. Spatio-temporal analyses of place-based literature tic ecosystems, invasive species, fire and climate change. The nar- rative literature review is not a definitive review of the strengths 3.1.1. Intersection of IBKD and the Indigenous estate and weaknesses of all the literature as this would be exorbitant. A spatial analysis of the place-based IBKD against Indigenous Rather, we selected outstanding examples where IBKD has contrib- owned land (under Native Title determinations and the Northern uted or has the potential to contribute to Australia’s biological con- Territory Aboriginal Lands Rights Act 1976) and declared IPAs is servation priorities. The purpose of this review is to challenge shown in Fig. 1. We found that 40% of materials originated from current thinking, which according to Green et al. (2006), is a legit- within legally recognised areas of Indigenous owned land and imate goal of narrative reviews. 19% from within areas declared as IPAs. The year of IPA declaration was not related to the quantity of 3. Results available IBKD. For example, we found the highest number of pub- lically available IBKD for the Djelk IPA that was declared in 2006, Our desktop literature search resulted in a representative list of some 14 years after the first IPA, Nantawarrina, was declared 1325 documents that contained information on Australian IBK. Of (1992), for which we found no publically available IBKD. Publica- these references, 568 were ‘place-based’, 245 contained methodo- tion of IBK appeared to be largely dependent upon partnerships logical or instructional content, 255 were review materials and 267 between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, especially were related resources (not directly containing IBK material). researchers. The top two published IPA’s, Djelk and Dhimurru, have These reference lists are available on the ACEAS Australian IBK established relationships with several University and government
Fig. 1. Map of place-based IBK material in Australia on the Indigenous and non-Indigenous estate. 138 E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 researchers (e.g. Altman, 1982; Haynes, 1985; Kennett et al., 1997; Table 1 Griffiths et al., 2003; Smyth, 2007; Hoffmann et al., 2012). The top 15 IBRA regions with the highest number of IBK materials and suggested as biocultural knowledge hotspots.
3.1.2. Intersection of IBKD and IBRA regions IBRA name Count of materials We found that 69% of the IBRA regions had at least one publical- Arnhem coast 79 ly available piece of IBKD. The IBRA regions with the highest IBKD Gulf fall and uplands 47 Cape York peninsula 29 were the Arnhem Coast, Gulf Fall and Uplands, and Cape York Pen- Darwin coastal 25 insula regions which are all in northern Australia (Fig. 2). The IBRA Murray darling depression 21 regions which were not well represented in the publically available Wet tropics 21 IBKD were mainly in Australia’s agricultural zones (south Western Central ranges 20 Australia, central Queensland and central New South Wales) and Arnhem plateau 18 Dampierland 18 Tasmania. Burt plain 16 MacDonnell ranges 16 3.1.3. Comparison of IBKD hotspots and Australia’s biodiversity Tanami 15 hotspots There was no overlap between the top 15 IBKD hotspots (Fig. 2; Table 1) and Australia’s 15 national biodiversity hotspots (Fig. 3). Australia (Cawthorne, 1926) and northern Queensland (Palmer, 1884; Roth, 1897) corresponding with early settler regions. 3.1.4. IBKD temporal analysis Following the early period of colonial ‘exploration’ by non- Temporal analysis of the place-based IBKD showed a general Indigenous authors, there was a period of early ethnography and trend for early documentation of IBK in eastern Australia moving anthropology during the first of the 20th century where much towards central and Western Australia and more recently building more concerted efforts to better understand Indigenous people, in northern Australia (Fig. 4). Many of the earliest documents con- customs and culture were evident. Much of the published material tained the observations and experiences of explorers and much of in this period came from several key non-Indigenous researchers: this material covered large geographical areas and contained snip- the detailed and comprehensive ethnographic work of Roth in pets of IBK (e.g. Eyre, 1845; Leichhardt, 1847; Orton, 1836). The north Queensland (e.g. Roth, 1897, 1910); the collaborative work most detailed pre-1900 place-based IBKD came from New South of Hale, Tindale, Cleland and Johnston in southern and central Aus- Wales (Baylie, 1843; Howitt and Fison, 1880), Victoria tralia (e.g. Cleland, 1966; Cleland and Johnston, 1937; Hale and (Beveridge, 1889; Cary, 1899; Curr, 1883; Dawson, 1881), South Tindale, 1925; Tindale, 1974); and the work of Basedow, Thomson,
Fig. 2. Density analysis of place-based IBK materials in IBRA regions, showing biocultural hotspots as darker areas. E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 139
Fig. 3. Place-based IBK materials (circles) over Australia’s national biodiversity hotspot bioregions (shaded areas).
Mountford and Specht in Arnhem Land (Basedow, 1929; Specht Indigenous communities in north Queensland through 27 estab- and Mountford, 1958; Thomson, 1939). lished or emerging projects (Fig. 6). Projects include an electronic In the 1970s there was an exponential increase in IBKD (Fig. 5) ethno-botanical database, traditional plant use of the Dulabed fam- which occurred across Australia (Fig. 4). The increase in publication ily and a seasonal information for a climate change eco-tourism rate appears to be the result of many new researchers engaging enterprise. If we consider these ‘living’ IBK projects alongside the with Indigenous people and their knowledge. The rise in documen- IBKD for this region, the TIEC has clearly made significant contribu- tation continued to the present with a clear shift towards identifi- tions in only a couple of years, especially for the IBRA region sur- able Indigenous authorship from the 1990s (Fig. 5). Some notable rounding the TIEC (Wet Tropics) and the agricultural regions of prolific publishers dominate the IBK literature of recent decades: the Mount Isa Inlier and Einasleigh Uplands IBRA regions (Fig. 7) Bradley and the Yanyuwa people (e.g. Bradley, 1988, 2005; for which there has been limited IBKD. Yanyuwa familes et al., 2013); Clarke (e.g. Clarke, 1985, 2012); Wightman and northern Australia clans (e.g. Roberts et al., 2011; 3.3. Contributions of IBK to Australia’s biological conservation Wightman and Smith, 1989); the Alice Springs CSIRO research priorities group (e.g. Baker et al., 2001; Davies et al., 1999; Dobson, 2007; Walsh and Douglas, 2011; Walsh and Mitchell, 2002; Young, Australia’s biodiversity conservation priorities (resources and 1987); and the wet tropics research group (e.g. Smyth, 1981; Hill threats) were broadly identified in Australia’s Biodiversity Conser- and Smyth, 1999; WTAPPT, 2005; Hill et al., 2011b). vation Strategy 2010–2030 (NRMMC, 2010) as biodiversity, threa- Using our search methodology, the earliest documents with tened species, aquatic ecosystems, fire, invasive species and clearly identifiable Indigenous authors were publications on bush climate change. The following section contains a narrative review medicines (Dhamarrandjai and Guyamirrilili, 1979; Henshall using key examples of how IBK has and could contribute to these et al., 1980; Nabarula et al., 1978). Although there was a clear shift contemporary ecosystem science and management priorities in in practice in the 1990s to acknowledge Indigenous co-authorship, Australia. to date only 14% of documents have done so (Fig. 5).
3.3.1. Biodiversity 3.2. Living knowledge case study Due to the intimate, life-sustaining and enduring connections of Indigenous people to their ancestral clan estates, Indigenous The previous spatial analyses suggest that for many areas of knowledge custodians often hold rich knowledge of local biodiver- Australia, IBK has not been documented, although it certainly is sity, especially species that were useful or essential to survival not absent. Indigenous knowledge is customarily transmitted (Rose, 1996, 2000). IBK is an oral tradition (Ross, 1986) and orally and is still retained, modified and used by many Indigenous although some of this knowledge has been written about, as the people. The TIEC offers a unique case study on living knowledge as previous spatial analyses show, much has not been documented the only active Ethnobiology Centre in Australia that is run in written forms and is at great risk as senior knowledge holders by Indigenous people. To date, the TIEC has engaged with 11 pass away and traditional culture is influenced by modern 140 E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149
Fig. 4. Map of documented place-based IBK material sorted by time period.
societies. Although we note again here that much IBK has been groups occurred across Australia (McConvell and Thieberger, 2001, documented in artistic, audio-visual and musical forms and is also 2006). Surprisingly, with the exception of the productive Northern ‘‘written in the land’’ (e.g. Field and McKenzie, 2008; Ayre and Territory Herbarium, the ethnosciences (biology, ecology and phar- Mackenzie, 2013). There is anecdotal evidence suggesting that macology) have not featured prominently in any other Australian the prevalence of cross-cultural biological surveys involving Indig- state or territory government institution until very recently, such enous and non-Indigenous people has recently risen since the as through the TIEC (Hill et al., 2011b), Nura Gili at the University advent of the Australian Government Indigenous Protected Area of New South Wales, and Macquarie University (e.g. Packer et al., (1992) and Working on Country (2007) programs of the; however, 2011). From our literature search it also evident that the ethno- most of this research is not publically available (due to Intellectual sciences tended to be documented for cultural posterity rather Property rights and sensitive cultural information, for example) than an exploration of biocultural values that could be monitored and has only been conducted with some of Australia’s Indigenous and managed as part of active biological conservation strategies language groups. Much of this data is contained within local and (Horstman and Wightman, 2001). However, we suggest that the government databases which duly serve local needs; however, also latter would offer substantial gains towards philosophical and result in apparent data ‘‘gaps’’ or underestimations of biodiversity practical engagement of Indigenous knowledge systems in ecosys- value. Unknown or underestimated biodiversity value can trans- tem science that could inform Indigenous focussed adaptive man- late to lower biodiversity conservation funding allocations of gov- agement of Country. ernment and non-government agencies. From a ‘Western’ science perspective, biodiversity surveys can Biodiversity surveys that target species significant to Indige- encompass a range of forms from species inventories and system- nous people (those that are totemic and/or used for material cul- atic spatial ecological monitoring to repeat monitoring of particu- ture, bush tucker and bush medicine), were the earliest IBK lar species through time. A recently documented example of the documents produced by Indigenous authors (Nabarula et al., benefits for ‘Western’ science from cross-cultural biodiversity sur- 1978; Dhamarrandjai and Guyamirrilili, 1979) and have become veys was illustrated by a group of Western Australian Government more common (e.g. Clarke, 1985, 2007, 2012; Wightman and biologists who worked with the Pila Nguru (Spinifex people) of the Smith, 1989; Latz and Green, 1995; Dobson, 2007; Packer et al., Great Victoria Desert (Brennan et al., 2012). This research greatly 2011; Roberts et al., 2011); although, are still considered vastly contributed to the documented biodiversity knowledge of the under-prescribed considering that about 250 Indigenous language region and included the ‘‘discovery’’ of several new species to E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 141
Fig. 5. Cumulative frequency curve for all collated IBK materials (black line) and those with an identifiable Indigenous author/s (dashed line).
Fig. 6. Living knowledge projects of the TIEC in relation to documented publically available literature (1. Mt Isa Inlier region; 2. Einasleigh Uplands region). 142 E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149
40 Some linguists have also conducted research into threatened 35 TIEC projects fauna when building Indigenous language dictionaries. For exam- 30 IBK publica ons ple, when compiling a dictionary for the Adnyamathanha People 25 of the Flinders Ranges, Tunbridge became interested in Indigenous 20 knowledge of the mammal fauna which had largely disappeared following European settlement in the late 1800s. Tunbridge’s 15 book ‘The story of the Flinders Ranges mammals’ (1992) records 10 detailed information on the habit, diet and behaviour of 58 species. 5 Living and documented IBK In a review of this book in Australian Mammalogy, Burbidge (1992) 0 commented on the significant range extensions of many species as South Wet Tropics Cape York Einasleigh Mount Isa Gulf Plains Eastern Peninsula Uplands Inlier well as the ‘amazing ability of Aborigines to identify mammals Queensland from skins, and to relate information about animals and places that they have never seen but which had been passed onto them by ear- IBRA region lier generations.’ He concluded the review by stating that he hoped Fig. 7. Number of TIEC Living knowledge projects and documented IBK materials the book ‘would encourage others to record Indigenous knowledge for Queensland IBRA regions. in other parts of the country, particularly knowledge of extinct and threatened species of mammals, before it is too late.’ Twenty years science and of conservation interest. Notably, these authors reiter- on there has been some continuation of this work; however, such ated that such projects can be more productive when both local collaborations are far from reaching their potential with progress Indigenous and ‘Western’ knowledge and survey methods are warranting even more urgency as feral animals, altered fire employed. They also drew attention to the paucity of publically regimes, disease and habitat destruction continue to threaten Aus- available documentation on cross-cultural biodiversity research tralia’s small mammals and reptiles (e.g. Woinarski et al., 2007). which was suggested as stifling progress towards development of In terms of pro-active management of threatened species, the best practice methods that promote cross-cultural biological Anangu People of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) conservation. Lands offer an outstanding example. They have shared knowledge A rare example of documented comprehensive and collabora- and developed management approaches for the threatened Black- tive ethnoecological research was published by Telfer and Garde footed Rock Wallaby (warru, Petrogale lateralis) with scientists (2006) who conducted a review of Indigenous knowledge of sev- since the first biological survey in the region in 1985 (Muhic eral species of rock kangaroos in western Arnhem Land. Again, this et al., 2012; Read and Ward, 2011). When a rapid decline was work greatly expanded the ecological literature for several species detected in populations from 1999, Anangu have worked alongside of conservation interest, including information on diet, habitat use, scientists to try and protect this species. In 2007, the Anangu War- distribution, behaviour and predation. A feature of this work was ru Recovery Team was established as part of the Threatened Spe- that it involved a linguist who ensured that the nuances of local cies Recovery Plan for the warru. The team, including Anangu Indigenous knowledge were correctly documented. This document Warru Rangers, established a breeding colony at the Monarto Zoo also cited the importance of recording Indigenous knowledge of in southern South Australia and have recently translocated joeys species to respect the millennia of accumulated knowledge that back to the APY Lands into large feral animal exclosures. The Warru is embedded in language and provide meaningful employment. Rangers monitor the fence, conduct traditional burning, predator Our review of the literature revealed that there are enormous baiting and monitor warru populations. In 2011, the warru team underexplored opportunities for collaborative biodiversity surveys won the National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observerance Com- across Australia, especially on the Indigenous estate and in little mittee (NAIDOC) Caring for Country Award for their work on this documented remote parts of Australia where multiple benefits threatened species. Anangu have played critical roles in this project for conservation, cultural maintenance and socio-economic out- through their use of traditional knowledge of warru behaviour, pre- comes are possible (Altman et al., 2007; Moritz et al., 2013). ferred habitat and spiritual connections and practices (including song) to facilitate project success (Muhic et al., 2012). 3.3.2. Threatened species There have been some significant, albeit few, long-term docu- 3.3.3. Aquatic ecosystems mented partnerships where Indigenous people have worked with Indigenous people have long had a spiritual and vital connec- ‘Western’ scientists to better understand the distribution, ecology tion to aquatic ecosystems (Bayly, 1999; Humphries, 2007; and status of threatened species, and they all focussed on fauna. Clarke, 2009a; Ayre and Mackenzie, 2013), which according to We suggest there is great potential here for future collaboration Humphries (2007), is not well understood and appreciated by considering the well-known animal tracking skills of Indigenous mainstream aquatic ecologists. An outstanding example of IBKD people (e.g. Southgate and Moseby, 2008). contribution to aquatic ecosystem research and policy in Australia One of the first and most publicised collaborative studies is the demonstration of Indigenous occupation, understanding and between Indigenous people and ‘Western’ scientists was that of use of the land and waters in the Murray-Darling Basin (e.g. Weir, the declining mammals of the central Australian deserts 2009; Clarke, 2009a; Birckhead et al., 2011). This work has resulted (Burbidge et al., 1988). Indigenous people were shown museum in landmark contributions of Indigenous perspectives in large- skins and provided information about local names, the biology scale water management strategies (Birckhead et al., 2011), such and ecology and the current and past status of the animals. During as the National Water Initiative (Jackson and Morrison, 2007); this research new data were collected on the distribution, biology although controversy and calls for greater Indigenous involvement and ecology of many species. Recently, Ziembicki et al. (2013) rep- continue (Weir, 2009; Birckhead et al., 2011; Bark et al., 2012). licated this method and supplemented it with on-Country trips and Similarly, Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders have mammal trapping with Indigenous people in northern Australia to made substantial headway into promoting Indigenous water expand the knowledge of declining species. This ‘expert knowl- rights, planning and customary water uses in northern Australia edge’ research has been used to inform collaborative management (e.g. Jackson et al., 2005; Altman et al., 2009; Kennett et al., and planning in the region, especially for fire and feral animals (e.g. 2010). Socio-economic studies on the contributions of freshwater Moorcroft et al., 2012). resources to the Indigenous customary economy (e.g. Jackson, E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 143
2004; Barber and Jackson, 2011; Woodward et al., 2012) provide approaches by Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders substantial evidence for the imperative to honour Indigenous peo- (Rose, 1995; Robinson et al., 2005; Edwards et al., 2008; Trigger, ple’s rights to use their ancestral Country to support wellbeing and 2008). These studies clearly demonstrated differences in world livelihoods, especially in the absence of adequate essential service views and are very useful for building cross-cultural awareness. delivery to Indigenous communities by governments. Few publicly available documents went on to offer practical Our literature review suggested that the majority of IBKD con- suggestions or guidelines for working with different perceptions tributions to aquatic ecosystem research and management have and values of Invasive species, which is particularly necessary to primarily centred on Indigenous water rights and involvement in inform management in co-managed areas and the Indigenous planning. However, by international standards, recognition of estate where management is often funded by non-Indigenous Indigenous water rights in Australia is considered poor (Durette, agencies. Three exceptions to this were evident: the lengthy collab- 2008; Bark et al., 2012). Therefore, there is substantial potential orative work to control invasive ants in north eastern Arnhem Land to further document and expand public awareness of IBK of aquatic (Hoffmann et al., 2012), multi-agency feral camel management in environments, which would certainly have positive implications central Australia (Edwards et al., 2008; Vaarzon-Morel and for more holistic understanding and management of aquatic natu- Edwards, 2012; Ninti One Limited, 2013), and buffalo, pig and ral and cultural resources as well as Indigenous-driven socio-eco- horse exclusion fencing around culturally significant billabongs nomic development opportunities related to the customary by Indigenous Rangers in south eastern Arnhem Land (Ens et al., economy and eco-tourism (Altman et al., 2007). 2012). Perhaps the most thorough explorations of management options have been researched and documented by a consortium 3.3.4. Fire management of 20 government, University, private sector, non-government The IBKD of fire is an outstanding example of how IBK has and Indigenous organisations to manage feral camels over 1.3 mil- informed conservation and ecosystem management in Australia lion km2 of remote and culturally significant central Australia. This (e.g. Jones, 1969; Gill and Groves, 1981), particularly in northern extensive collaborative research and management project was lar- Australia over the last few decades (e.g. Haynes, 1985; Russell- gely funded by an Australian Government grant ($15 million) from Smith et al., 1997; Yibarbuk et al., 2001; Hill et al., 2004; Russell- 2010 to 2013 which allowed for a structured and inclusive study Smith et al., 2009). Thirteen percent of the collated IBKD material into management options and stakeholder perceptions of feral in this review directly related to fire. One of the earliest and most camels over the vast multi-tenure management area. The extensive influential examples of IBK use in fire management is the innova- research was used to develop best-practice decision making tools tive Western Arnhem Land Fire Abatement (WALFA) project in that defined a range of management suitability areas for camels northern Australia. For over 20 years, Northern Territory Govern- which significantly reduced the feral camel population (Ninti One ment scientists and bushfire staff, the Northern Australian Indige- Limited, 2013). nous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA) and For invasive plants there was far less IBKD, and for microbial Indigenous land and sea management (Ranger) groups have collab- invaders, we found nothing. Of the limited IBKD on invasive plants orated to promote early-dry season burns to prevent intensive most focussed on management and eradication (Storrs et al., 1996; late-dry season fires, protect fire sensitive species, community CSIRO, 2012; Grice et al., 2012). Several materials contained infor- infrastructure and concurrently abate carbon emissions (Russell- mation on the positive values and uses of invasive plants by Indig- Smith et al., 2009). This project hinges on recreating customary enous people, species that ‘Western’ science view as damaging and mosaic burning practices which have been shared with scientists having negative impacts (e.g. Wightman et al., 1994; Smith, 2000; by senior knowledge custodians of the region (e.g. Garde et al., Packer et al., 2011; Clarke, 2012). Again, there is ample opportunity 2009). The collaboration inherent to this project was recognised to expand our understanding of different world views in relation to with a prestigious national Banksia Award in 2011 and was the invasive species and development of integrated management basis for the first formal carbon–offset agreement in Australia approaches that serve alternate views. (Russell-Smith et al., 2009). Recently, there has also been a wealth of collaborative research 3.3.6. Climate change and application of Indigenous fire management practices in the Climate change is expected to have significant social, economic wet tropics region of northern Queensland (e.g. Hill et al., 1999, and environmental impacts, particularly for Indigenous communi- 2004). Here, senior knowledge custodians have worked with Indig- ties who are least resourced to adapt (Green et al., 2009; Low-Choy enous Rangers and researchers to record Indigenous burning prac- et al., 2013). The predicted effects of rising sea levels and changing tices using audio-visual technologies and multi-disciplinary seasonality include: a loss of community and environmental techniques to promote the benefits of customary Indigenous fire assets, loss of cultural heritage sites, a significant downturn in management. Participatory action research has been a key feature the human quality of life, and the establishment of potential of this work which aims to build the capacity of Indigenous and favourable conditions for the spread of invasive weeds, pests and non-Indigenous participants to better understand and manage fire plant diseases (Green et al., 2009). using both knowledge systems. A key product of this work is ‘Yal- Recently, many Indigenous groups across Australia have begun anji-Warranga Kaban: Yalanji people of the rainforest fire manage- to document their seasonal knowledge (e.g. Hoogenraad and ment book’ (Hill et al., 2004). Following from the successes of these Robertson, 1997; Clarke, 2009b; Green et al., 2010; Woodward projects, many other Indigenous groups across Australia aspire to et al., 2012).There is a growing body of published literature dis- initiate collaborative cross-cultural fire management projects. cussing the importance of IBK and differing worldviews in the cli- mate change debate (e.g. Green and Raygorodetsky, 2010; 3.3.5. Invasive species Petheram et al., 2010; Alexander et al., 2011; Leonard et al., There was relatively limited publically available IBKD related to 2013), although there has been limited documented use of this invasive species, despite great potential for Indigenous insight into knowledge by Australian climate scientists. However, we note that their historical distributions, impacts and ecology, particularly the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology has recently where Indigenous people have had enduring connection to Coun- promoted the IBK of weather on their high-use website (see try. The relatively limited IBKD about invasive species has primar- www.bom.gov.au/iwk). Indigenous communities have long ily focused on large exotic animals (e.g. camel, buffalo and pig) and observed and recorded the phenology of flora and the seasonal comparisons of perceptions and preferred management behaviour of fauna through biocultural knowledge systems. IBK 144 E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 paradigms, as described earlier in this paper, have high levels of and methods used to manage these areas (May, 2010; Muller, socio-ecological complexity that help explain the changing rela- 2012; Kerins, 2012); accountability constraints (Muller, 2008); tionships between cycles of inter-annual weather patterns, water and governance structures (Hill et al., 2012). This paper aimed to availability and the subsequent response of flora and fauna in the collate documented IBK and conduct spatial, temporal and content landscape. The use of illustrative Indigenous seasonal calendars analyses of this literature to challenge current thinking around has the potential to highlight culturally meaningful bio-temporal these tensions, particularly around the value and uses of IBK in indicators of landscape response to climatic change and provide contemporary biological conservation research and management. a basis for developing detailed climatic monitoring and evaluation We note that the review of Australian IBKD presented in this programs (e.g. Leonard et al., 2013), particularly for the growing paper does not include the entire body of IBK in Australia as Aus- extent of Indigenous owned and managed lands. tralian Indigenous knowledge is an oral tradition, with documenta- tion only occurring since colonisation of Australia in 1788. Documentation also includes audio and visual forms which this 4. Discussion review does not include, although such sources would undoubt- edly offer rich contextual insight into traditional methods of com- Langton and Ma Rhea (2005) assert that ‘the documentation of municating, interpreting and using IBK. It is also likely that the traditional or Indigenous knowledge is fundamental to the capacity methodology deployed here did not capture all IBKD as many doc- of traditional knowledge holders to promote, protect and facilitate uments may not be publically available (often relating to informa- the proper use of their knowledge’. As Foucault (1980) discusses, tion sensitivities, property rights and limited resources). However, knowledge and power are inseparable. For continued documenta- an examination of the publically available IBKD is beneficial as this tion and use of IBK to occur, IBK custodians and non-Indigenous is what is likely to shape broader community perceptions about people must see the value in documenting IBK and understand IBK, unless people have or establish close connections to Indige- and respect Intellectual Property rights (see Janke and Frankel, nous people and communities themselves. 1998; Janke, 2009). From our collective experiences and evidence In our systematic literature review, we found that Indigenous from the literature as this paper attests, many Indigenous Austra- land ownership clearly offered a stable platform for enhanced col- lian people are keen to document their biocultural knowledge laboration and mobilisation of IBK resources. However land owner- and maintain cultural traditions. To facilitate the funding and sup- ship has not prevented IBKD on other land tenures as 60% of IBKD port for IBKD, arguably a great impediment is the hegemonic atti- occurred off the Indigenous estate. For example, we illustrated that tude of dominant non-Indigenous society and the resultant values the TIEC works with many Indigenous groups on pastoral leases and priorities of funding bodies. Therefore, a shift in society’s val- and private non-Indigenous owned land in Queensland, signifi- ues towards more inclusive, diverse and equitable (decolonising) cantly contributing to maintenance and use of IBK in the region. approaches to knowledge documentation and use is required In some cases there has been great incentive to maintain and doc- (Barbour and Schlesinger, 2012; Ens et al., 2014). In ecosystem sci- ument Indigenous knowledge for the Native Title process where ence and management this will require broadening the acceptance legal determination of Indigenous land ownership is dependent of different knowledge systems, values and priorities to facilitate on demonstration of continuous occupation. There are also clear greater cross-cultural or two-way learning approaches (Marika benefits to raising public awareness of the biocultural value of et al., 2009; Yunupingu and Muller, 2009; LaFlamme, 2011; Ens, Indigenous owned land (including government supported IPAs) 2012). We suggest that a focus on biocultural knowledge in broad as a perceived higher value by the public and funding bodies can biological conservation agendas and use of decolonising methodol- leverage greater investment in these areas (Fitzsimons et al., ogies (see Smith, 2012) offer practical ways of promoting the 2012; Moritz et al., 2013). In support of this supposition, a recent involvement of Indigenous people and their cultural values. How- study by Hill et al. (2013) showed that between 2002 and 2012 ever, as Agrawal (2002) cautions, Indigenous people and their the Dhimurru and Djelk IPAs received the highest income of all social and political context must be kept in the foreground so that IPA’s which corresponds with our finding that these two IPAs also their knowledge does not become a detached commodity for gen- had two of the highest records of publically available IBKD, and eral use by the public. Discussions between Indigenous and non- therefore public awareness and arguably perceived value. This cor- Indigenous people about culturally specific and more holistic relation between IBKD availability and income may not be causal; development aspirations in relation to the environment is required nevertheless, it is an interesting co-occurrence when considering to devise approaches that meet local needs (endogenous develop- collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people ment; see Rist et al., 2011) as well as national and international and their communities. obligations. This review clearly demonstrated that there have been hotspots These issues of Indigenous knowledge appreciation, use and of IBKD and these have largely occurred in parts of northern Aus- appropriation are not unique to Australia. Worldwide, Indigenous tralia, central Australia and the Murray-Darling Basin. Most docu- peoples have struggled to assert their right to maintain and use mentation has occurred since the 1970s, off the Indigenous their knowledge and preferred ways of managing and using natural estate and in collaboration with non-Indigenous people. There resources in the face of increasing pressure from dominant colon- were clear gaps in documentation in Australia’s agricultural zones ising societies (Smith, 2012). This situation is reflected in many and in Tasmania, areas which have experienced devastating International to national conservation agreements, such as the human and cultural impacts since colonisation (McConvell and UN Convention on Biological Diversity, and indeed human rights Thieberger, 2006). The difference in IBKD hotspots to Australia’s agreements, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous top 15 biodiversity hotspots opens up the potential for dialogue peoples. Progress towards greater recognition of Indigenous socie- about the priorities and focus of conservation agendas. ties and their right to maintain their chosen knowledge systems, If we are to move beyond simple biodiversity conservation and practices and Laws differs across the globe. In Australia, ‘‘progress’’ accept a new ‘‘social contract’’ for environmental conservation by has come largely in the form of Indigenous land ownership, land incorporating socio-ecological systems thinking (e.g. Sachs et al., management rights and corresponding financial support from gov- 2009) that serves to promote more inclusive conservation practice, ernment and non-government sources (albeit proportionally less decision-makers could contemplate our IBKD hotspot concept as a than non-Indigenous conservation sectors; see Hill et al., 2013). preliminary way of quantifying ‘‘surviving’’ (living or retrievable) However, there are cross-cultural tensions over: the knowledge biocultural knowledge. A similar concept was developed by Loh E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 145 and Harmon (2005) through their Global Index of Biocultural project and funding frameworks that tend to work against Indige- Diversity. Loh and Harmon measured cultural diversity as an aver- nous investment. age of the summed linguistic, religious and ethnic diversity of a In Australia, key principles for effective collaboration between particular country. This assumes that these cultural elements are Indigenous and non-Indigenous people have been widely docu- still either practiced or retrievable from documented sources, mented (e.g. Janke and Frankel, 1998; Davies, 2007; Desert which may not necessarily always be the case. We acknowledge Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, 2008; Marika et al., that our measure of biocultural knowledge also has flaws for exam- 2009; Davies et al., 2011; Ens et al., 2012; Hoffmann et al., 2012). ple, the quantity and quality of IBK that is recorded in each docu- In summary they are: ment varies. However, we suggest that quantification of documented knowledge does offer an indicative measure of ‘‘sur- 1. cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity; viving’’ cultural knowledge that can be measured across space 2. respectful consultation and partnerships from project concep- and time and added to. Further research to explore these concepts tion to completion and communication; is suggested, particularly in collaboration with the owners and 3. enough time and adequate resources to discuss, consult and practitioners of IBK in a respectful ‘‘both-ways’’ methodology for conduct the work; new knowledge production. 4. legal advice on Intellectual Property rights; Nevertheless, as a conceptual argument, broadening the biolog- 5. prior informed consent of all people involved; ical hotspot targets to include IBK offers a practical and meaningful 6. equitable remuneration and acknowledgement of Indigenous way of enhancing the role of Indigenous people, knowledge and collaborator’s time and knowledge; and land into the national conservation agenda. IBKD hotspots could 7. that the principles of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indig- be targeted for conservation, or alternatively, the gaps in IBKD enous peoples and the Australian Institute for Indigenous and could be considered a priority for funding and work as in these Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) guidelines for research areas IBK may be critically endangered. This line of decision mak- with Indigenous people’s be followed. ing could be considered similar to the debates about ecosystem services, biodiversity and threatened species conservation – do Indigenous land and sea management corporations are increas- we conserve the richest ‘intact’ areas, try and maintain or increase ingly seeking collaborations with non-Indigenous scientists, man- richness in less ‘intact’ areas, or adopt a blend of approaches agers and policy makers to fulfil their own research questions (Kareiva and Marvier, 2003)? We acknowledge again that the ‘gaps’ and organisational needs (Hoffmann et al., 2012; Marika and identified in this study may simply be an artefact of the methodol- Roeger, 2012). Hemming et al. (2007) comment that government ogy as we only used publically available and accessible IBKD and programs and support institutions come and go which ‘...means we encourage expansion of this work to include other forms of that universities are even more important as partner organisations documentation. However, we believe that this foundational work for capacity building, knowledge development and knowledge clearly challenges current thinking and processes beyond the focus exchange for Indigenous communities seeking social transforma- on biodiversity and Indigenous engagement being just about land tion.’ Development of respectful partnerships with long-term com- and work. Considering the increasing interest and effort in Austra- mitment has proven to deliver mutual, nationally significant and lian IBKD shown in Fig. 6, it is timely to assess the content and geo- transformative benefits for ecosystem science and management, graphic spread of the baseline IBKD data and look to develop a such as for the Djelk and Dhimurru IPAs and the outstanding threa- more holistic approach to managing Australia’s biocultural tened species and fire management projects previously described. resources, importantly, in collaboration with Indigenous people.
4.1. Breaking down cultural and communication barriers 5. Conclusions
Globally, the value of ‘cultural brokers’ for negotiating divergent Over the last few decades, international mandates for enhanced knowledge systems and understanding has been recognised when engagement of Indigenous people and their knowledge in national working in complex cross-cultural or cross-disciplinary spaces conservation agendas have solidified. Australia offers a unique case (Guston, 2001). Use of cultural brokers is of particular relevance study based on increasing Indigenous land ownership and govern- for work on Indigenous land, with Indigenous people or when ment support for Indigenous natural and cultural resource man- using IBK (Maru and Davies, 2011; Robinson and Wallington, agement. As a world first, this paper presents a foundational 2012). Drawing on ‘champions’ that may be individuals or larger analysis of the documented Australian IBK that exists in the public groups or agencies who have the power to drive institutional domain which has been conducted to inform broader public under- change may also strengthen efforts to raise awareness of the value standing of what IBK is and what it can offer contemporary envi- of IBK in national conservation decision-making. ronmental conservation. Our analysis showed that there has been It is clear that we need to move beyond tangible participation widespread documentation of IBK, particularly in northern Austra- (people and land) to more active and philosophical engagement lia, since the 1970s, in collaboration with non-Indigenous people of Indigenous knowledge and preferred methods in environmental and off Indigenous land tenure. There have been significant contri- conservation initiatives (Colchester, 1996; Howitt, 2001; Hill et al., butions to national biological conservation priorities, especially 2012; Walsh and Mitchell, 2002). There are many examples of around fire management, threatened fauna and water rights and tokenistic and limited collaborations between Indigenous people planning; however, there are substantial opportunities for further and environmental scientists and managers (Sithole et al., 2007; engagement that would deliver benefits to both Indigenous people Roughley and Williams, 2007). Generally, in Australia and likely and broader ecosystem science and management. From our review in other colonised countries, the reasons for limited Indigenous of Australia, we suggest that globally, inclusion of biocultural val- involvement can be distilled down to a poor understanding of ues in broader biological conservation agendas necessitates Indigenous history and culture by the wider populous and a gen- enhanced engagement of Indigenous people and their knowledge eral failure to appreciate alternate knowledge systems as a result in new knowledge construction and decision-making that of Eurocentric education structures. The result of dominant colo- incorporates multiple perspectives. A shift towards inclusion of nial histories has been the development of rigid environmental IBK in environmental conservation could enable more holistic 146 E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149 socio-ecological systems approaches to managing the earth’s Bradley, J.J., 2005. ‘Same time poison, same time good tucker’: the cycad palm in the resources that moves beyond tokenistic Indigenous involvement. south west gulf of Carpentaria. J. Aust. Stud. 29, 119–133. Brennan, K.E.C., Twigg, P.J., Watson, A., Pennington, A., Sumner, J., Davis, R., Jackson, J., Brooks, B., Grant, F., Underwood, R., 2012. Cross-cultural systematic biological Acknowledgements surveys in Australia’s Western Desert. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 72–80. Burbidge, A.A., 1992. Book review: Dorothy Tunbridge 1992. The story of the Flinders Ranges mammals. Aust. Mam. 15, 179–180. We acknowledge and respect all Indigenous people and IBK cus- Burbidge, A.A., Johnson, K.A., Fuller, P.J., Southgate, R.I., 1988. Aboriginal todians past, present and future. This work was supported by the knowledge of the mammals of the central deserts of Australia. Wildlife Res. Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS), a 15, 9–39. CAPAD, 2012.
Fitzsimons, J., Russell-Smith, J., James, G., Vigilante, T., Lipsett-Moore, G., Morrison, Horstman, M., Wightman, G., 2001. Karparti ecology: recognition of Indigenous J., Looker, M., 2012. Insights into the biodiversity and social benchmarking ecological knowledge and its application to management in north-western components of the Northern Australian fire management and carbon abatement Australia. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 2, 99–109. programmes. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 51–57. Howitt, A.W., Fison, L., 1880. Kamilaroi and Kurnai. Robertson, Melbourne. Foucault, M., 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Writings 1972–1977. Harvester Howitt, R., 2001. Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Press, Brighton. Indigenous Peoples. Routledge. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity Humphries, P., 2007. Historical Indigenous use of aquatic resources in Australia’s conservation. Ambio 22, 151–156. Murray-Darling Basin, and its implications for river management. Ecol. Manage. Gallopín, G.C., Funtowicz, S., O’Connor, M., Ravetz, J., 2001. Science for the twenty- Rest. 8, 106–113. first century: from social contract to the scientific core. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 53, Huntington, H.P., 2000. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods 219–229. and applications. Ecol. Appl. 10, 1270–1274. Garde, M., Nadjamerrek, B.L., Kolkiwarra, M., Kalarriya, J., Djandjomerr, J., ICSU, 2002. International Council for Science (ICSU) series on science for sustainable Birriyabirriya, B., Bilindja, R., Kubarku, M., Biless, P., 2009. The language of development No. 4: Science, Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable fire: seasonality, resources and landscape burning on the Arnhem Plateau. In: Development. ICSU and UNESCO. Russell-Smith, J., Whitehead, P., Cooke, P. (Eds.), Culture, Ecology and Economy Jackson, S., 2004. Preliminary Report on Indigenous perspectives on Land-use and of Fire Management in North Australian Savannas. CSIRO Publishing, Water Management in the Daly River Region. CSIRO, Northern Territory. Collingwood, pp. 85–164. Jackson, S., Morrison, J., 2007. Indigenous perspectives in water management, Gill, A.M., Groves, R.H., 1981. Fire and the Australian Biota. Australian Academy of reforms and implementation. In: Hussey, K., Dovers, S. (Eds.), Managing Water Science, Canberra. for Australia: The Social and Institutional Challenges. CSIRO Publishing, Gorenflo, L.J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R.A., Walker-Painemilla, K., 2012. Co- Collingwood, pp. 22–41. occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and Jackson, S., Storrs, M., Morrison, J., 2005. Recognition of Indigenous rights, interests high biodiversity wilderness areas. PNAS 109, 8032–8037. and values in river research and management: perspectives from northern Grech, A., Pressey, R., Marsh, H., Ens, E., 2014. Conservation Planning and the Australia. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 6, 107–110. Maintenance of Cultural and Natural Heritage: An Australian Case Study (in Janke, T., 2009. Report on the Current Status of Indigenous Intellectual Property. preparation). Terri Janke and Company Pty Ltd, National Centre for Indigenous Studies Green, B.N., Johnson, C.D., Adams, A., 2006. Writing narrative literature reviews for Australian National University and Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J. Chiro. Med. 5, 101–117. University of Technology Sydney, Canberra. Green, D., Billy, J., Tapim, A., 2010. Indigenous Australians’ knowledge of weather Janke, T., Frankel, M., 1998. Our Culture our Future: Report on Australian Indigenous and climate. Climatic Change 100, 337–354. Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights. Michael Frankel, Sydney. Green, D., King, U., Morrison, J., 2009. Disproportionate burdens: the Jones, R., 1969. Fire-stick farming. Aust. Nat. Hist. 16, 224–228. multidimensional impacts of climate change on the health of Indigenous Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., 2003. Conserving biodiversity coldspots: recent calls to Australians. Med. J. Aust. 190, 4–5. direct conservation funding to the world’s biodiversity hotspots may be bad Green, D., Raygorodetsky, G., 2010. Indigenous knowledge of a changing climate. investment advice. Am. Sci. 91, 344–351. Climatic Change 100, 239–242. Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Grice, A.C., Cassady, J., Nicholas, D.M., 2012. Indigenous and non-Indigenous Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., 2001. Sustainability science. Inter. knowledge and values combine to support management of Nywaigi lands in the Inst. Appl. Syst. Anal.. Queensland coastal tropics. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 93–97. Kennett, R., Jackson, M., Morrison, J., Kitchens, J., 2010. Indigenous rights and Griffiths, A.D., Philips, A., Godjuwa, C., 2003. Harvest of Bombax ceiba for the obligations to management traditional land and sea estates in north Australia: Indigenous arts industry, central Arnhem Land. Aust. Biol. Conserv. 113, 295– the role of Indigenous rangers and the I-tracker project. Policy Matter 17, 135–142. 305. Kennett, R., Yunupingu, D., Wunungmurra, B., Munungurritj, N., Marika, R., 1997. Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an Nhaltjan Nguli Miwatj Yolngu Djaka Miyapunuwu: Sea Turtle Conservation and introduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 26, 399–408. the Yolngu People of North East Arnhem Land. Australia. Sinauer Assoc. Inc., Hale, H.M., Tindale, N.B., 1925. Observations on Aborigines of the Flinders Ranges Massachusettss. and Records of Rock Carvings and Painting. Hassell Press, Adelaide. Kerins, S., 2012. Caring for country to working on country. In: Altman, J.C., Kerins, S. Haynes, C.D., 1985. The pattern and ecology of munwag: traditional Indigenous fire (Eds.), People on Country, Vital Landscapes, Indigenous Futures. Federation regimes in north-central Arnhem Land. Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust., 203–214. Press, Sydney, pp. 26–44. Hemming, S., Rigney, D., Berg, S., 2010. Researching on Ngarrindjeri Ruwe/Ruwar: LaFlamme, M., 2011. A framework for sustainable rangeland livelihoods. Rangeland methodologies for positive transformation. Aust. Aborigin. Stud. 2, 92–106. J. 33, 339–351. Hemming, S., Rigney, D., Wallis, L., Trevorrow, T., Rigney, M., Trevorrow, G., 2007. Langton, M., Rhea, A., Ayre, M., Pope, J., 2003. Composite Report on the Status and Caring for Ngarrindjeri country: collaborative research, community Trends Regarding the Knowledge, Innovations and Practices of Indigenous and development and social justice. Indig. Law Bull. 6, 6–8. Local Communities-Regional Report: Australia. Asia and the Middle East, UNEP Henshall, T., Jambijinpa, D., Kelly, F., Bartlett, P., Granites, L., Price, J., Coulshed, E., Secretariat, Montreal. Robertson, G., 1980. Ngurrju Maninja Kurlangu. Yapa Nyurnu Kurlangu. Bush Langton, M., Ma Rhea, Z., 2005. Traditional Indigenous biodiversity-related Medicine. Warlpiri Literature Production Centre, Yuendumu, NT. knowledge. Aust. Acad. Res. Libr. 36, 45–69. Hill, R., Baird, A., Buchanan, D., Denman, C., Fischer, P., Gibson, K., Johnson, J., Kerry, Latz, P.K., Green, J., 1995. Bushfires and Bushtucker: Indigenous Plant Use in Central A., Kulka, G., Madsen, E., 2004. Yalanji-Warranga Kaban: Yalanji people of the Australia. IAD Press, Alice Springs. Rainforest Fire Management Book. Little Ramsay Press. Leichhardt, L., 1847. Journal of an overland expedition in Australia, from Moreton Hill, R., Buchanan, D., Baird, A., 1999. Aborigines & fires in the wet tropics of Bay to Port Essington, a distance of upward of 3000 miles, during the years Queensland, Australia: ecosystem management across cultures. Soc. Nat. 1844–1845. T. & W. Boone, London, reprinted 2000, Adelaide, Corkwood Press. Resour. 12, 205–223. Leonard, S., Parsons, M., Olawsky, K., Kofod, K., 2013. The role of culture and Hill, R., Cullen-Unsworth, L.C., Talbot, L.D., McIntyre, S., 2011a. Empowering traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation: insights from East Indigenous peoples’ biocultural diversity through world heritage cultural Kimberley, Australia. Global Environ. Change 23, 623–632. landscapes: a case study from the Australian tropical forests. Int. J. Heritage Loh, J., Harmon, D., 2005. A global index of biocultural diversity. Ecol. Indic. 5, 231– Stud. 17, 571–590. 241. Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, C.J., Jackson, S., Abel, N., 2012. A typology of Low-Choy, D., Clarke, P.A., Jones, D., Serrao-Neumann, S., Hales, R., Koschade, O., Indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management: 2013. Aboriginal reconnections: understanding coastal urban and peri-urban implications for knowledge integration and social–ecological system Indigeous people’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate chamnge. sustainability. Ecol. Soc., 17 (Article 23). National Climate Change Facility, Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, Hill, R., Pert, P.L., Davies, J., Robinson, C.J., Walsh, F., Falco-Mammone, F., 2013. Queensland. Indigenous Land Management in Australia: Extent, Scope, Diversity, Barriers Lubchenco, J., 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract and Success Factors. CSIRO Ecosystem Services, Cairns. for science. Science 279, 491–497. Hill, R., Smyth, D., 1999. Collaborative environmental research with Kuku-Yalanji Maffi, L., 2001. On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge and the people in the wet tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area, Australia. In: Environment. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Posey, D. (Ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. United Nations Maffi, L., 2007. Biocultural Diversity and Sustainability. The SAGE Handbook of Environment Programme. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. Environment and Society, pp. 267–277. 227–232. Maffi, L., Woodley, E., 2010. Biocultural Diversity Conservation: A Global Hill, R., Turpin, G., Canendo, W., Standley, P.-M., Crayn, D., Warne, S.-J., Keith, K., Sourcebook. Earthscan/James & James. Addicott, E., Zich, F., 2011b. Indigenous-driven tropical ethnobotany. Aust. Plant Marika, M., Roeger, S., 2012. Dhimurru wind bringing change. In: Altman, J., Kerins, Conserv. 19, 24–25. S. (Eds.), People on Country, Vital Landscapes. Federation Press, Sydney, Hoffmann, B.D., Roeger, S., Wise, P., Dermer, J., Yunupingu, B., Lacey, D., Yunupingu, Indigenous futures, pp. 119–131. D., Marika, B., Marika, M., Panton, B., 2012. Achieving highly successful multiple Marika, R., Yunupingu, Y., Marika-Mununggiritj, R., Muller, S., 2009. Leaching the agency collaborations in a cross-cultural environment: experiences and lessons poison – the importance of process and partnership in working with Yolngu. J. from Dhimurru Indigenous Corporation and partners. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, Rural Stud. 25, 404–413. 42–50. Maru, Y., Davies, J., 2011. Supporting cross-cultural brokers is essential for Hoogenraad, R., Robertson, G.J., 1997. Seasonal calendars from central Australia. employment among Indigenous people in remote Australia. Rangeland J. 33, Windows on meteorology. Aust. Perspect., 34–41. 327–338. 148 E.J. Ens et al. / Biological Conservation 181 (2015) 133–149
May, K., 2010. Indigenous Cultural and Natural Resource Management and the Ross, M.C., 1986. Australian Indigenous oral traditions. Oral Tradition 1, 231–271. Emerging Role of the Working on Country Program. CAEPR, Canberra. Roth, W.E., 1897. Ethnological Studies among the North–West–Central Queensland McConvell, P., Thieberger, N., 2001. State of Indigenous Languages in Australia – Aborigines. Brisbane and London. 2001. Environment Australia. Canberra, Department of the Environment and Roth, W.E., 1910. North Queensland Ethnography. Bulletin No. 16. Huts and Heritage. shelters. Records of the Aust Museum. 8, 55. McConvell, P., Thieberger, N., 2006. Keeping track of Indigenous language Roughley, A., Williams, S., 2007. The engagement of Indigenous Australians in endangerment in Australia. In: Cunningham, D., Ingram, D.E., Sumbuk, K. Natural Resource Management: Key Findings and Outcomes from Land and (Eds.), Language Diversity in the Pacific: Endangerment and Survival. Water Australia Funded Research and the Broader Literature. Land and Water Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK. Australia, Canberra. Moorcroft, H., Ignjic, E., Cowell, S., Goonack, J., Mangolomara, S., Oobagooma, J., Russell-Smith, J., Lucas, D., Gapindi, M., Gunbunuka, B., Kapirigi, N., Namingum, G., Karadada, R., Williams, D., Waina, N., 2012. Conservation planning in a cross- Lucas, K., Giuliani, P., Chaloupka, G., 1997. Indigenous resource utilisation and cultural context: the Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country Project in the fire management practice in western Arnhem Land, monsoonal northern Kimberley, Western Australia. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 16–25. Australia: notes for prehistory, lessons for the future. Hum. Ecol. 25, Moritz, C., Ens, E., Potter, S., Catullo, R., 2013. The Australian monsoonal tropics: a 159–195. unique opportunity to secure biodiversity benefits and secure benefits for Russell-Smith, J., Whitehead, P.J., Cooke, P., 2009. Culture, Ecology and Economy of Indigenous communities. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 19, 343–355. Fire Management in Northern Australian Savannas: Rekindling the Wurrk Muhic, J., Abbott, E., Ward, M.J., 2012. The warru (Petrogale lateralis MacDonnell Tradition. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Ranges Race) reintroduction project on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Sachs, J.D., Baillie, J.E.M., Sutherland, W.J., Armsworth, P.R., Ash, N., Beddington, J., Yankunytjatjara Lands, South Australia. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 89–92. Blackburn, T.M., Collen, B., Gardiner, B., Gaston, K.J., Godfray, H.C.J., Green, R.E., Muller, S., 2008. Accountability constructions, contestations and implications: Harvey, P.H., House, B., Knapp, S., Kampel, N.F., Macdonald, D.W., Mace, G.M., insights from working in a Yolngu Cross-Cultural Institution, Australia. Geog. Mallet, J., Matthews, A., May, R.M., Petchey, O., Purvis, A., Roe, D., Safi, K., Turner, Compass. 2, 395–413. K., Walpole, M., Watson, R., Jones, K.E., 2009. Biodiversity conservation and the Muller, S., 2012. Crazy ants: finding ‘two ways’ to bring Indigenous and non- millennium development goals. Science 325, 1502–1503. Indigenous knowledges together. In: Weir, K. (Ed.), Country, Native Title and Scott, G., 2004. A Bibliography of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge in Northern Ecology. ANU ePress, Canberra. Australia. Charles Darwin University, Darwin. Nabarula, A.D., Nabarnardi, C.F., Nambijimba, E.R., Nungari, S.P., 1978. Bush Shackeroff, J.M., Campbell, L.M., 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge in medicines used at Warrabri. Ab. Islander Health Worker J. 2, 12. conservation research: problems and prospects for their constructive Nadasdy, P., 1999. The politics of TEK: power and the ‘‘integration’’ of knowledge. engagement. Conserv. Soc. 5, 343–360. Arctic Anthrop., 1–18. Sithole, B., Hunter-Xenie, H., Williams, L., Saegenschnitter, J., Yibarbuk, D., Ryan, M., Nakata, M., Langton, M., 2006. Australian Indigenous Knowledge and Libraries. Campion, O., Yunupingu, B., Liddy, M., Watts, E., Daniels, C., Daniels, G., UTSePress, Sydney. Christophersen, P., Cubillo, V., Phillips, E., Marika, W., Jackson, D., Barbour, W., Nakata, M.N., 2007. Disciplining the Savages, Savaging the Disciplines. Indigenous 2007. Aboriginal Land and Sea Management in the Top End: A Community Studies Press, Canberra. Driven Evaluation. CSIRO, Darwin. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC), 2010. Australia’s Smith, N., 2000. Not from here: Plant invasions on Indigenous lands of the Top End. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2030. Australian Government, Tropical Savannas CRC, Darwin. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Smith, L.T., 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, Communities, Canberra. 2nd ed. Zed books, London. National Native Title Register, 2013.
Walsh, F., Mitchell, P., 2002. Planning for country: cross-cultural approaches to WTAPPT, 2005. Caring for Country and Culture – the Wet Tropics Indigenous decision making on Indigenous lands. Jukurrpa Books/IAD Press, Alice Springs. Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan. Wet Tropics Indigenous Plan Weir, J.K., 2009. Murray River Country an Ecological Dialogue with Traditional Project Team, Rainforest CRC and FNQ NRM Ltd., Cairns. Owners. Indigenous Studies Press, Canberra, Australia. Yibarbuk, D., Whitehead, P.J., Russell-Smith, J., Jackson, D., Godjuwa, C., Fisher, A., Wightman, G.M., Brown, J., Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, Cooke, P., Choquenot, D., Bowman, D.M.J.S., 2001. Fire ecology and Indigenous Jawoyn Association, 1994. Jawoyn Plant Identikit: Common Useful Plants in the land management in central Arnhem Land, northern Australia: a tradition of Katherine Area of Northern Australia. Conservation Commission of the Northern ecosystem management. J. Biogeog. 28, 325–343. Territory, Darwin. Yanyuwa familes, Bradley, J., Kirton, J., MacDonald, E., 2013. Wuka Nya-nganunga Wightman, G.M., Smith, N.M., 1989. Ethnobotany, Vegetation and Floristics of Li-Yanyuwa Li-Anthawirriyarra: Language for us, the Yanyuwa Saltwater Milingimbi, Northern Australia. Darwin. People. A Yanyuwa Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Australia Scholarly Publishing, Wohling, M., 2009. The problem of scale in Indigenous knowledge: a perspective Melbourne. from Northern Australia. Ecol. Soc., 14 (Article 1). Young, E., 1987. Resettlement and caring for the country: the Anmatyerre Woinarski, J.C.Z., Pavey, C., Kerrigan, R., Cowie, I., Ward, S., 2007. Lost from our experience. Ab Hist. 11, 156–170. Landscape: Threatened Species of the Northern Territory. Northern Territory Yunupingu, D., Muller, S., 2009. Cross-cultural challenges for Indigenous sea Government, Palmerston, Northern Territory. country management in Australia. Aust. J. Environ. Manage. 16, 158–167. Woodward, E., Jackson, S., Finn, M., McTaggart, P.M., 2012. Utilising Indigenous Ziembicki, M., Woinarski, J., Mackey, B., 2013. Evaluating the status of species using seasonal knowledge to understand aquatic resource use and inform water Indigenous knowledge: novel evidence for major native mammal declines in resource management in northern Australia. Ecol. Manage. Rest. 13, 58–64. northern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 157, 78–92.