The Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country Project in the Kimberley, Western Australia Heather Moorcroft

Western University Scholarship@Western

Aboriginal Policy Research Consortium International (APRCi)

1-2012 Conservation planning in a cross- cultural context: the Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country Project in the Kimberley, Western Australia Heather Moorcroft

Emma Ignjic

Stuart Cowell

John Goonack

Sylvester Mangolomara

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/aprci Part of the Environmental Policy Commons

Citation of this paper: Moorcroft, Heather; Ignjic, Emma; Cowell, Stuart; Goonack, John; Mangolomara, Sylvester; Oobagooma, Janet; Karadada, Regina; Williams, Dianna; and Waina, Neil, "Conservation planning in a cross- cultural context: the Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country Project in the Kimberley, Western Australia" (2012). Aboriginal Policy Research Consortium International (APRCi). 212. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/aprci/212 Authors Heather Moorcroft, Emma Ignjic, Stuart Cowell, John Goonack, Sylvester Mangolomara, Janet Oobagooma, Regina Karadada, Dianna Williams, and Neil Waina

This article is available at Scholarship@Western: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/aprci/212 FEATURE doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00629.x Conservation planning in a cross- cultural context: the Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country Project in the Kimberley, Western Australia By Heather Moorcroft, Emma Ignjic, Stuart Cowell, John Goonack, Sylvester Mangolomara, Janet Oobagooma, Regina Karadada, Dianna Williams and Neil Waina

This article illustrates how a conservation planning approach combined Indigenous knowledge and Western science to support Indigenous Traditional Owners to make decisions about managing their ancestral lands and seas, and communicate more strategically with external stakeholders

Key words: conservation planning, Envi- Figure 1. Traditional Owners and project partners in the men’s group during a planning work- ronmental Non-Government Organisations, shop for the Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country Project. (Photo: Wunambal Gaambera Aborigi- Indigenous knowledge, Traditional Owners, nal Corporation). Western science.

is a Gaambera elder, a Wunambal Gaambera Tra- An Emerging Collaborative Heather Moorcroft is a conservation planner ditional Owner and WGAC Director; Sylvester Conservation Space and PhD candidate at the Australian Centre for Mangolomara is a Wunambal man, a Wunambal Cultural Environmental Research (University of Gaambera Traditional Owner and Wunambal here is growing recognition in the Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Gaambera Senior Cultural Advisor; Janet Ooba- TAustralian conservation sector that Australia; Tel: 0401 414 732; Email: hmoorcroft@ gooma is a Wunambal elder and Wunambal to address national environmental bigpond.com). Emma Ignjic is an Indigenous Gaambera Traditional Owner; Neil Waina is a challenges and achieve conservation Partnerships Ofﬁcer with Bush Heritage Australia Gaambera man, a Wunambal Gaambera outcomes, partnerships with Indige- (PO Box 329, Flinders Lane, Melbourne, Victoria Traditional Owner and Head Uunguu Ranger; nous land owners are essential (Ross 8009, Australia; Email: [email protected]). Dianna Williams is a Gaambera elder, a Wunam- et al. 2008; National Biodiversity Strat- Stuart Cowell is Conservation Programs Manager bal Gaambera Traditional Owner and WGAC egy Review Task Group 2009). with the Tasmanian Land Conservancy and was Cultural Advisor Director, [PMB 16 (Kalumburu) This recognition provides new previously with Bush Heritage Australia (PO Box via Wyndham, Western Australia, 6740, Australia]. opportunities for Indigenous land 2112, Lower Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005; Email: This article is a narrative of aspects of a conserva- owners. In 2008, the total Indigenous [email protected]). John Goonack is a Wunam- tion planning process. It is based on the views of the land estate was approximately 20% of bal man, a Wunambal Gaambera Traditional authors who were involved in the process. Tradi- the Australian continent (Australian Owner and Wunambal Gaambera Aboriginal tional Owners have approved the article and the Government 2010). Most Indigenous Corporation (WGAC) Director; Regina Karadada use of the images. held land is remote, largely intact and

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

Ecological Society of Australia FEATURE has high conservation value (Altman reserves jointly managed or co-man- Alcorn (1993) argued that conserva- et al. 2007). However, the natural and aged with Indigenous Traditional tion is best achieved through partner- cultural assets of this estate are facing Owners) added another 9.8% (Austra- ships between conservationists and increasing threats and pressures, many lian Government 2010). In other Indigenous peoples. With a growing that were not present in pre-European words, Indigenous held lands can be recognition of Indigenous peoples’ Australia, such as destruction of cul- considered a cornerstone of Austra- rights, particularly as owners of areas tural sites as a result of develop- lia’s protected areas. of high biodiversity, there has also ment actions (Vinnicombe 2002). A new conservation approach is been support to address the social Managing these vast and largely inac- evolving in this context, providing impacts of conservation (Springer cessible landscapes can be resource opportunities for collaborations between 2009). The recognition of the inter- intensive, and Traditional Owners and Indigenous Australians and the conserva- connectedness of biological diversity their representative bodies are seeking tion sector. Historically, ENGOs based and cultural diversity (Pretty et al. support from external organisations to their conservation efforts on cultural 2009) is driving a major paradigm shift help plan for (Fig. 1) and manage perspectives dominated by non-Indige- among Western conservationists who these areas, particularly for conserva- nous people, ‘a community of scien- accept human use and occupation of tion (Dhimurru 2008; Hoffman et al. tists’ (Brockington 2010) and a the environment as integral to finding 2012; Preuss & Dixon 2012; Wallis preservationist belief. The Western a common ground of sustainability et al. 2012). preservationist view of ‘wilderness’ (Berkes 2008: 237). A number of EN- The Indigenous estate has made a contends that there is an inverse rela- GOs in Australia have developed Indig- substantial contribution (at least in tionship between humans and the nat- enous engagement polices, employ terms of area) to Australia’s National ural environment, a dichotomy of Aboriginal people and have Indige- Reserve System (NRS), mainly nature and culture (Berkes 2008). By nous Australians on their management through Indigenous Protected Areas contrast, Indigenous Australians’ rela- boards. Many, such as WWF Australia (IPAs). IPAs are Australia’s equivalent tionship with the environment is and Bush Heritage Australia (BHA), to internationally recognised Commu- firmly based on the connectedness of have Indigenous partnership pro- nity Conserved Areas, which are humans and the natural environment, grammes. Some ENGOs further landscapes of natural or cultural sig- on ancestral association and resource acknowledge that conservation out- nificance, voluntarily managed or utilisation (Rose 2005). Reinforcing comes on a collaborative project with conserved by local communities dualistic world views in environmen- Traditional Owners can only be (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004). In tal campaigns and management has achieved if the project also supports 2008, the NRS covered 12.8% of sometimes resulted in conflict cultural, social and economic out- Australia (Fig. 2). Private reserves, between Indigenous people and the comes, such as sustainable livelihoods owned mainly by Environmental conservation sector (Herath 2002; for Traditional Owners (Fitzsimons Non-Government Organisations (EN- Adams 2008; Pickerill 2009). It has et al. 2012). GOs), contributed to over 4% of the also resulted in imposed control and Castree and Head (2008) ask NRS. In contrast, IPAs made up restrictions on Indigenous people’s whether we are reaching a time in 19.4% of the NRS and shared man- ability to use and occupy their ances- Australia when we have passed this agement protected areas (includes tral estates (Langton et al. 2005). dualism of world views, and note the importance of reporting on approaches that challenge this dualism. In this article, we describe the challenges of adapting a widely used ‘dualist’ conservation planning and prioritisation tool so that it respects and privileges Indigenous knowledge and ownership whilst maintaining the benefits of its Western science base.

Wunambal Gaambera Country and its People Wunambal Gaambera Country covers Figure 2. Diagram highlighting the importance of the Indigenous estate in Australia’s expanding approximately 2.5 million hectares of National Reserve System. the north Kimberley region of

ª 2012 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 17 FEATURE

Figure 3. Maps showing the location and area of Wunambal Gaambera Country.

Australia, including land and sea has a number of listings of Nationally Aboriginal Corporation (WGAC) as the (Fig. 3). Wunambal Gaambera Country Important Wetlands and Priority 1 and formal governance body responsible is part of the Wanjina Wunggurr Priority 2 Wild Rivers (Australian Gov- to them for management of Wunambal community. Wunambal Gaambera ernment 2011). Three of the World Gaambera Country. The Wunambal people call their ancestral estate, their Wide Fund for Nature’s Global 200 Pri- Gaambera Traditional Owners lodged ‘country’, Uunguu – their living ority Eco-regions include Wunambal their native title determination applica- home. Uunguu culture is based on Gaambera Country (World Wide Fund tion under Australia’s Native Title Act Wanjina Wunggurr Law, and it is for Nature 2010). 1993 in 1999. Subsequently, in 2001 unique to, and can only exist in, Wun- The Wunambal Gaambera people they prepared a management plan for ambal Gaambera Country, as it has for (of approximately 400) reside mainly a part of their estate, Ngauwudu,in millennia. Its ongoing contribution to in the Kimberley towns of Kalumburu, response to the Western Australian the diversity of Australian culture is Derby, Broome and Kununurra. Today Government’s declaration of four dependent on Wunambal Gaambera one family group lives permanently on conservation reserves over parts of people maintaining their natural and their family group’s ancestral estate Wunambal Gaambera Country, which cultural assets on country. Wunambal (their graa)atKandiwalonNgau- included Ngauwudu. The Traditional Gaambera people’s long-term pres- wudu (the Mitchell Plateau), and Owners believed these declarations ence is depicted in the extensive rock other families regularly visit their own were imposed without adequate con- art sites and in the wealth of Indige- graa. There are 10 graa in Wunambal sent as required by the Native Title Act nous knowledge that continues to be Gaambera Country. 1993. Despite this, the reserves maintained. Wunambal Gaambera Traditional remained and Traditional Owners have Wunambal Gaambera Country is Owners have striven to ensure that continued their efforts for proper rec- recognised for its rich cultural and they are respected and recognised as ognition and responsibility. natural assets. It is part of the area cov- the owners and managers of their Coinciding with Wunambal Gaam- ered by the West Kimberley National ancestral estate. In 1998, the Wunam- bera actions, public and private sec- Heritage Listing and the North Kimber- bal Gaambera Traditional Owners tor interest in the north Kimberley ley National Biodiversity Hotspot. It incorporated the Wunambal Gaambera region increased through tourism,

18 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 ª 2012 Ecological Society of Australia FEATURE mining, oil and gas processing, the Wunggurr Law under the direction of evident to the planning participants establishment of further reserves, and Traditional Owners (Vigilante & Mang- that the wider socio-economic well- National Heritage assessment under olomara 2007). being and Wunambal Gaambera capac- the Commonwealth’s Environment Although the WGHCP is coordi- ity is central to achieving conservation Protection and Biodiversity Conser- nated and directed by the Traditional outcomes. Biodiversity, within the vation Act 1999. Along with these Owners through WGAC, it is a collabo- Wanjina Wunggurr cultural context, increasing external pressures, the rative project involving a number of would need to include the human ele- passing of a number of Wunambal partner organisations: BHA – a national ment. The planning process and time- Gaambera elders who had the vision not-for-profit ENGO that provides framesalsohadtobeflexible.The and strength to pursue recognition funds, advice, technical support – facil- process had to respect and support Tra- and control of their ancestral estates itated the planning process; and the ditional Owners’ local priorities, gover- added urgency and significance to Kimberley Land Council (KLC) – as the nance structures, knowledge systems, the task of seeking respect and rec- regional Traditional Owner representa- capabilities and objectives. The follow- ognition as the owners and managers tive body that supports Traditional ing sections outline some examples of of their ancestral estate. Owners with technical expertise, how the planning process was adapted In 2006, the WGAC, on behalf of advice, logistics – promotes Traditional to achieve these requirements while Traditional Owners, prepared the Uun- Owner interests as paramount. Other trying to maintain the strengths of a guu Tourism Plan (WGAC 2006) to partners include the Australian ‘Western’ conservation planning tool. manage impacts and secure benefits Government’s IPA Program, which Respecting and valuing the from tourism activities on Wunambal provides funds towards the planning different social constructs Gaambera Country. Development of a and management of IPAs; the Northern ‘healthy country’ (see Rose 1996; Bur- Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Conservation Action Planning was gess et al. 2005) framework to sup- Management Alliance (NAILSMA), adapted in two key ways. Firstly, to port these activities was identified as a which provides technical advice; and support meaningful contribution by priority under the Tourism Plan. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), which planning participants, the process, Consequently, the WGAC sought provided funds in support of the plan- typically driven by conservation plan- assistance from a number of organisa- ning process. WWF Australia Program ners and facilitators, incorporated tions to help develop and then imple- funded the completion of the ethnobi- Indigenous governance structures, ment a ‘healthy country’ framework. ological project during the time of the local protocols and priorities. Sec- That framework, the Wunambal Gaam- ‘healthy country’ planning process. ondly, core CAP concepts, based on bera Healthy Country Project (the As Sylvester Mangolomara, Wunam- ecological processes and systems, WGHCP), was conceptualised in two bal man and Wunambal Gaambera were adapted so they included catego- phases: with a 2-year participatory Senior Cultural Advisor, explains: ries defined by Wunambal Gaambera planning process followed by a 10- Traditional Owners and incorporated We got to go back to country and look year implementation stage, both for- Indigenous knowledge. These after our place. That’s where we get malised by legal agreements between changes, elaborated below, reflect the more stronger – from the country and WGAC and their partners. In 2011, Karparti approach described by from the spirit in our country. We got Wunambal Gaambera native title was Horstman and Wightman (2001) when to work all together now and find determined over 25 000 km2 of land commenting on their ethnobiological somehow to protect them. Not just and sea. work with Traditional Owners of the the land but the islands too, and look same area. after the songs – keep them alive. Although the non-Indigenous facili- The Wunambal Gaambera That’s why we need others to give us tators from the partner organisations, Healthy Country Project a hand to see what to do – business who have a Western science back- way you know … When we’re help- The Wunambal Gaambera Traditional ground, were well respected by ing each other we can really go out Owners sought the right to make deci- other Indigenous groups they had and do it … I can’t do it by myself – I sions about their estates, through a worked with, they were vetted by need support too. From people who voluntary commitment to conserva- Traditional Owners. This was to maybe want to help us – how to set tion management and the use of ensure they had adequate under- up and all that. non-Indigenous planning approaches standing and respect of Indigenous in a ‘community-centric’ way. The world views, Wunambal Gaambera WGHCP identifies and articulates the circumstances and that their The Planning Process principle values of ‘healthy country’ approach would be inclusive. in modern contexts and maintains By working through the structured Wunambal Gaambera Traditional those values consistent with Wanjina CAP process (see Box 1), it became Owners and their ‘healthy country’

ª 2012 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 19 FEATURE

Box1.ConservationActionPlanning

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) is a process for planning, implementing and measuring results for conservation projects developed over the last 25 years by the US-based TNC (http://www.nature.org). CAP guides project teams to prioritise strategies through a consistent process that links targets (assets) to actions and outcomes. CAP is supported by Excel-based software and an extensive global network of practitioners and coaches. CAP is gradually becoming synonymous with three other tools and approaches used for conservation planning globally – the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (http://www. conservationmeasures.org), the Miradi planning software and the ConPro database. The Open Standards were prepared to ‘bring together common concepts, approaches, and terminology in conservation project design, management, and monitoring in order to help practitioners improve the practice of conservation’ (http://tinyurl.com/ 67rzxve). They were developed by the Conservation Measures Partnership, a collaboration of 13 NGOs, including WWF, TNC and Conservation International together with the World Commission on Protected Areas and International Union for the Conser- vation of Nature. Miradi (http://tinyurl.com/5r8yd7a) is a software tool developed to support the Open Standards. Miradi helps to manage the information relationships between the many objectives, strategies and actions that ultimately go to make up a conservation plan, rather than having to try and do many of these tasks manually. ConPro (http://conpro.tnc.org/) is a web-based database that records the outputs of either the CAP Excel tool or Miradi and allows other teams ⁄ individuals to search those projects based on a range of criteria. Both CAP and Miradi are increasingly being used in landscape and property conservation planning projects throughout Austra- lia, including well-known landscape projects (e.g. Gondwana Link), and as the primary planning tools for a number of ENGOs. The tools are also increasingly being adapted to support Indigenous community use (http://tinyurl.com/683gedb).

partners recognised that Wanjina constructs brought to the process and participants. Four of these are dis- Wunggurr needed to be inherent in adapted the process to incorporate cussed below. the process. This presented some both ways. challenges as Wanjina Wunggurr Adaptations for supporting Planning on country and the chosen planning approach of meaningful contribution CAP are very different constructs, as Location was an important part of the illustrated in Fig. 4. Traditional Own- We developed adaptations to the typi- planning process, as such, workshops ers and the partners respected and cal conservation planning process to were held on Wunambal Gaambera valued the differences that these two support meaningful contribution by Country. Several large workshops were run with representatives from all the Wunambal Gaambera family groups. These workshops were held at the dry season ranger camp at Gar- mbemirri, on the Anjo Peninsula (Fig. 1). Following these, a smaller workshop was held at Kalumburu to speciﬁcally work on developing objectives, strategies and actions. The ﬁnal planning workshop was a ‘travelling road show’, with meetings in Kalumb- uru, Kandiwal and Derby and visits to country at Munurru (King Edward Crossing), Wandadjingari (Port War- render) and Punamii-Uunpuu (Mitch- ell Falls). The larger workshops and the travelling workshop provided people with the opportunity to visit country and Figure 4. Diagram illustrating the different constructs of Conservation Action Planning and supported the Indigenous protocol of Wanjina Wunggurr. ‘being on country in order to speak for

20 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 ª 2012 Ecological Society of Australia FEATURE country’. As Dianna Williams, Gaam- people. As Neil Waina, Head Uunguu Adapting the concepts bera elder, stated: Ranger and Gaambera man, noted: In addition to supporting meaningful The most important thing is for most of the time some women too … contribution during the actual plan- people to get in contact with the shy and that encouraged them to ning process, the concepts within land – the soil. All them young ones. speak up… broken into the two the CAP were also adapted in various To take care of country you need to groups feel comfortable with that … ways – from definition of the project sit on it. group so more willing to talk even … area, inclusion of tangible and intangi- our young people had a bit more Convening large group meetings on ble cultural targets and threats to cul- thing to say too. I don’t like talking country is logistically challenging and ture, as well as the incorporation of over our old people… I take advice costly. Some Wunambal Gaambera social and cultural indicators. These from them. Traditional Owners are quite elderly adaptations enabled an Indigenous and immobile, and some require regu- world view and respect for Wanjina lar medication. However, despite Wunggurr to be combined with a Adopting flexible timeframes and provid- these challenges and the cost, the non-Indigenous world view and Wes- ing regular feedback large workshops held at the early tern science. stages of the project made it easier for The process for developing the plan Identifying the project area as the people to understand issues and relate was not hurried and it respected peo- whole of Wunambal Gaambera Coun- non-Indigenous, relatively abstract ple’s obligations and priorities. Meet- try, including both land and sea, planning concepts to Indigenous ing dates changed several times reflected cultural responsibilities and knowledge. Concurrent flora and because of cultural responsibilities relationships, rather than bio-geo- fauna survey work and recording such as ‘sorry business’ (mourning graphical or other non-Indigenous spa- Indigenous knowledge as part of the and funeral practices). This resulted in tial boundaries. ethnobiological project helped to extensions to the initial planning time- Conservation Action Planning tar- inform workshop discussions, as well frame. gets are usually natural assets such as as supported transfer of knowledge Regular feedback was given to par- ecological systems. However, the within the Wunambal Gaambera com- ticipants throughout the process. This value of an asset for Traditional Own- munity. Conducting workshops over a included revisiting what had been dis- ers reflects resource utilisation few days also meant that people could cussed and agreed to during previous and ⁄ or cultural significance and cus- visit nearby cultural sites, go hunting workshops, summing up at the con- tomary obligations as well as the or fishing, collect bush foods or paint. clusion of each workshop, and prepar- biodiversity value. Animals such as As discussed by Walsh and Mitchell ing regular pictorial reports for jebarra (emu, Dromaius novaehol- (2002), such gatherings are viewed as participants to read between work- landiae), aamba (kangaroos and critical in Indigenous society today shops. wallabies), mangguru (marine tur- where the process can be just as signif- tles) and balguja (dugong, Dugong icant as the outcome. dugon) are valuable food species and Using appropriate terms and language were therefore identified as targets One of the first steps in any participa- (WGAC 2010). Utilising Indigenous governance tory planning process is to ensure For Wunambal Gaambera people, structures that participants understand and are customary practices passed down Local governance structures were familiar with the process. CAP has its through generations honour ancestral supported in numerous ways, includ- own language with terms such as crit- obligations. Traditional Owners ing establishing a steering group ical threats, situation analysis and believe that if such practices are not made up of a majority of senior Tradi- stressors. These terms are technical maintained, then this will impact neg- tional Owners and convening a work- jargon derived from the Western sci- atively on the ‘health’ of the country, ing group representing each family ence disciplines of ecology and con- as these activities interconnect group, to develop objectives, strate- servation planning. Such terms had with everything – with Uunguu.In gies and actions, some of which were little meaning to Traditional Owners. addition to identifying tangible tar- specific to each graa. Breaking into To address this issue, a plain language gets such as valuable food species, men’s and women’s groups during glossary was developed and referred Traditional Owners also identified workshops encouraged free discus- to throughout the process (http:// customary obligations, which have sion and accommodated avoidance tinyurl.com/683gedb). Local Indige- intangible benefits such as ‘Wanjina relationship restrictions (see Fig. 1). nous language terms were also used, Wunggurr Law’ and ‘right way fire’, Issues about particular cultural mat- particularly for places, plants and as described below. The conservation ters were referred to relevant senior animals. targets became simply the ‘really

ª 2012 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 21 FEATURE important things about country’. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, a number of the ‘really important things’ identified by Traditional Own- ers had parallels to what would be considered standard or usual conservation targets in a non-Indigenous context. The main threats identified were threats to the ‘really important things about country’, such as ‘loss of traditional knowledge’, ‘not being secure on country’ and ‘visitors not being respectful’. These were combined with the more standard ecological threats, such as invasive species, that Traditional Owners recognise as important. Similarly, as well as the usual biological indicators, social and cultural indicators were identified to monitor the health of country.

‘Wanjina Wunggurr Law’ as a Figure 5. Uunguu Rangers Elton Waina and Raymond Waina checking cultural sites while conservation ‘target’ doing a ‘firewalk’. Carrying out field activities such as ‘firewalks’ during the planning process Wunambal Gaambera people believe informed workshop discussions. (Photo: Robert Warren). that if they are not on their graa,passing on their Indigenous knowledge and privileging biodiversity conservation. got to teach them, they got to know following traditional Wanjina Wung- It clearly demonstrated the cultural how to burn right way … Long time gurr Law, then the Country, including reality of Traditional Owners con- ago a person had a job – that was to its people, will not be healthy. As Syl- nection to their Country. It sup- burn country. They had their own vester Mangolomara explains: ported Traditional Owners’ expertise people who went and light up the Traditional knowledge makes us and primary aspirations to maintain fire. So they were looking after their stronger and shows that we belong to control and ownership of the pro- animals and plants too – that was their the land. Keeping our culture strong, cess and the plan. food. It has to be done at certain time that makes us the person we are – you know so you have the right vege- Wunambal. If we don’t look after tation for the animals – and the peo- ‘Right way fire’ as a conservation ‘target’ country – that makes us nobody. We ple. Our old people passed that on need to hang onto that and teach our ‘Right way fire’ refers to burning and we got to keep it going. according to customary responsibilities younger generations so they can fol- During the planning process, a (including who can burn, when to low our footsteps. We got to keep it number of ‘right way fire’ activities burn and where to burn) to ensure that alive all the time. were undertaken, including Uunguu cultural sites are maintained and so that During the planning process, Rangers doing multi-day ‘firewalks’ there are resources available to hunt Wanjina Wunggurr Law was impli- with Traditional Owners from the rele- and collect, such as animals and bush cit to all decisions made about the vant graa, walking through country, foods from plants, and so that these ‘really important things about coun- checking and maintaining sites and foods taste good. When asked how to try’. However, it was not until after carrying out ‘right way fire’ (Fig. 5). tell if the Country is healthy, Regina the second workshop that it Karadada, Gaambera elder, responded: became evident that ‘Wanjina Wung- ‘Loss of traditional knowledge’ as gurr Law’ needed to be the number look around you – there’s more ani- athreat one conservation target. ‘Wanjina mals … if you’re not burning right Wunggurr Law’, as the most impor- there’s no food up that way … you The CAP process identifies critical tant target, anchored the plan to an don’t see them anymore. This last year threats to targets. For Wunambal Indigenous world view, rather than nothing – too much late burning. Gaambera people, threats to culture that of a non-Indigenous perspective Burn it anytime just hot, hot, hot. We are as relevant as threats to

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

Owners and knowledge holders as well as experienced ecologists trained in Western science.

Planning Outcomes Although the WGHCP is ongoing, the finalisation of the first phase, the planning process, has proven to be a pow- erful tool for the Traditional Owners. The Uunguu Indigenous Protected Area Stage 1 has been declared (Fig. 6). The Australian Government has included the planning process and the resultant plan as an example of a participatory planning model for other IPAs (Hill et al. 2011). TNC is also using the planning process as a tem- plate to support other IPA consultative projects in northern Australia. Funds from the private and public sector have been secured to assist with the project and the WGAC has entered Figure 6. Uunguu Rangers Terrence Marnga (left) and Neil Waina (right) with Senior Cultural into a 10-year partnership agreement Advisor Sylvester Mangolomara (centre) installing a sign for the Uunguu Indigenous Protected Area. with BHA to assist with implementing (Photo: Robert Warren). the plan, providing a measure of long- term security for the project. biodiversity. Subsequently, ‘loss of and water quality were comple- The Healthy Country Plan itself, traditional knowledge’ was identified mented by social and cultural indica- now being implemented, has also as one of the key threats because tors such as amount of time spent been used in negotiations with other the ‘health’ of the cultural and on country, amount of Indigenous stakeholders such as the Western Aus- social aspects of people’s lives will knowledge being passed on, the tralian Government and the business impact on achieving ‘healthy coun- availability and taste of certain sector, with the engagements being try’. As Wunambal elder Janet Ooba- foods, the amount of fat on some defined by Traditional Owner aspira- gooma explained, contemporary animals, the number of visits to cul- tions, as articulated and structured in practices are important but it is also tural sites, who is making decisions the plan, rather than those being important to make sure that Indige- about management and who is car- imposed externally. nous knowledge and customs are rying out the management (see Fitz- As John Goonack, Vice Chair of maintained and passed on. simons et al. 2012). For example, if WGAC, explains: the bush apple is sweet and juicy, There’s lots of new ways – sometimes or if there is a good amount of tail That Healthy Country Plan is a good it’s good. Some young ones try to fat on a kangaroo, then this can be thing – we know what direction we learn the old ways too but they see an indication that burning is being are heading in – seen as having one it’s too hard. The Western things carried out in the right way and group, all pointing in right direction. come across their mind – like they that the country is ‘healthy’. Everyone real happy about it. Changed brushing it and they put a different Some of the cultural and social a lot from when we didn’t have [part- view of things there. They see new indicators identified were based on ners] helping us. All good now. Got things and they more interested in the subjective measurements, such as the this IPA set up. Bit more meeting yet. new things than the old things – that taste of foods and the amount of of the land. Indigenous knowledge being passed Implications for Other on. At the time of writing, an expert Applying social and cultural indicators Collaborative Conservation panel advising on research and moni- Planning Projects Measures such as species abundance toring of biological, social and cul- and distribution, species range and tural indicators was being established Historically, conservation planning in diversity, number of hectares burnt and will include senior Traditional Australia has been embedded in a

ª 2012 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 23 FEATURE specific cultural context that privi- Ensuring the process was controlled Alcorn J. B. (1993) Indigenous peoples and conser- leges Western science, linear views by Traditional Owners and incorpo- vation. Conservation Biology 7, 424–426, in Berkes (2008) Sacred ecology, pp. 234. of time and bounded notions of rated Indigenous language and core Routledge, New York. space, and asserts particular assump- concepts respected and supported Altman J. C., Buchanan G. J. and Larsen L. (2007) tions about the separation of nature community integrity. This affirms the The Environmental Significance of the Indige- nous Estate: Natural Resource Management as and culture, resource management assertion that Indigenous-controlled Economic Development in Remote Australia. and human intervention (Howitt & planning can shape a more equitable CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 286 ⁄ 2007. Cen- Suchet-Pearson 2004). Application of intercultural conservation space (Hill tre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University,Canberra. such planning approaches into an 2011). The WGHCP planning process Australian Government (2010) Australia’s Strategy Indigenous context risks impacting supported local governance structures. for the National Reserve System 2009 – on Indigenous governance structures, The success of the planning process 2030. Australian Government, Canberra. Australian Government (2011) Conservation of by constructing and imposing exter- was also dependant on open communi- Australia’s Biodiversity. Available from URL: nal frameworks that undermine local cation between the partners, and a will- http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ authority, expertise and knowledge ingness to take a flexible and adaptive index.html [Accessed 3 October 2011]. Berkes F. (2008) Sacred Ecology, 2nd edn. Routl- systems. Structural constraints to par- approach in terms of timelines for edge, New York. ticipatory planning processes, such reporting and funding. Results of Borrini-Feyerabend G., Kothari A. and Oviedo G. as the organisational systems of part- research into other aspects of the pro- (2004) Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and ners, funding program requirements ject, including analysis of the engage- Enhanced Conservation. IUCN, Gland, and accountability, can also impede ment between the Traditional Owners Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. on delivering outcomes (Trickett and and the project partners, will be pre- Brockington D. (2010) Conservation NGOs in sub-Saharan Africa. Antipode 42(3), 551– Ryerson Espino 2004). sented in the future. 575. Although conservation planning The WGHCP has shown that the Burgess C., Johnston F., Bowman D. and White- processes in post-settler nation states success of a collaborative conservation head P. J. (2005) Healthy country: healthy people? Exploring the health benefits of Indig- such as Australia have in the past planning process in a cross-cultural enous natural resource management. Austra- often resulted in the marginalisation context requires support of Traditional lian and New Zealand Journal of Public of Indigenous groups, planning can Owners’ interpretations of ‘healthy Health 29, 117–122. Castree N. and Head L. (2008) Editorial. Culture, achieve positive outcomes for Indige- country’ as well as the recognition of nature and landscape in the Australian region. nous groups if it is community-based, cultural, social and economic out- Geoforum 39, 1255–1257. and centred on community objec- comes. Most significantly, the WGHCP Dhimurru (2008) IPA Plan of Management 2008 to 2015. Prepared by Dhimurru Aboriginal Cor- tives, capabilities and knowledge demonstrates that Indigenous Tradi- poration, Wearne Advisors and Samantha systems rather than those imposed tional Owners’ aspirations to drive the Muller, Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory. by another party (Lane 2006). The conservation planning agenda for their Fitzsimons J., Russell-Smith J., James G. et al. (2012) Insights into the biodiversity and social Wunambal Gaambera Traditional ancestral estates can be achieved. benchmarking components of the Northern Owners view Western science as one Australian fire management and carbon abate- of the key contributions ENGO part- ment programmes. Ecological Management & Restoration 13, 51–57. ners can offer. Using Western science Acknowledgements Herath G. (2002) The economics and politics of provides validity to external stake- This project has involved the participa- wilderness conservation in Australia. Society holders, it supports articulation of & Natural Resources 15(2), 147–159. tion of many dedicated people. The Hill R. (2011) Towards equity in Indigenous co- ‘healthy country’ principles to a wider authors wish to acknowledge first and management of protected areas: cultural plan- audience and it provides for contem- foremost the Wunambal Gaambera Tra- ning by Miriuwung-Gajerrong people in the porary management in dealing with Kimberley, Western Australia. Geographical ditional Owners who always have been, Research 49(1), 72–85. new threats. and always will be, the key contribu- Hill R., Walsh F.,Davies J. and Sandford M. (2011) The challenge with the planning tors. We would also like to acknowl- National Guidelines for Indigenous Protected process for the WGHCP was adapting Area Management Plans in Australia. CSIRO edge the assistance of the WGAC, in Ecosystem Sciences and Australian Govern- a widely accepted conservation plan- particular the Directors and Bevan Stott, ment Department of Sustainability, Water, ning approach so that it continued to as well as Bush Heritage Australia staff, Environment, Population and Communities, be informed by Western science Cairns. Draft report presented for consider- especially Lyndall McLean, and KLC ation at Indigenous Protected Areas manager’s whilst respecting and complementing staff Tom Vigilante, Frank Weisenber- meeting, Booderee National Park, 21-24 Indigenous knowledge. As Jacobson ger and Robert Warren. March 2011. and Stephens (2009) stated, this meant Hoffman B. D., Roeger S., Wise P. et al. (2012) Achieving highly successful multiple agency respecting and valuing the differences collaborations in a cross-cultural environment: in the knowledge systems of the part- References experiences and lessons from Dhimurru Abori- ners ‘without compromising their ginal Corporation and partners. Ecological Adams M. (2008) Foundational myths: country and Management & Restoration 13, 42–50. independence or distinctiveness’ (Jac- conservation in Australia. Transforming Cul- Horstman M. and Wightman G. (2001) Karparti obson & Stephens 2009: 161). tures eJournal 3(1), 291–317. ecology: recognition of Aboriginal ecological

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

knowledge and its application to management Pickerill J. (2009) Finding common ground? Vigilante T. and Mangolomara S. (2007) Wunambal in north-western Australia. Ecological Man- Spaces of dialogue and the negotiation of Gaambera Healthy Country Project Brief. agement & Restoration 2(2), 99–109. Indigenous interests in environmental cam- Unpublished report for Wunambal Gaambera Howitt R. and Suchet-Pearson S. (2004) Rethink- paigns in Australia. Geoforum 40, 66–79. Aboriginal Corporation and Bush Heritage ing the Building Blocks: Management and Preuss K. and Dixon M. (2012) ‘Looking after Australia. Indigenous Epistemologies. Paper presented country two-ways’: Insights into indigenous Vinnicombe P. (2002) Petroglyphs of the Dampier to ‘Processes for cross-cultural engagement’, community-based conservation from the Archipelago: background to development and a special session in the Remote Southern Tanami. Ecological Management & descriptive analysis. Rock Art Research Regions ⁄ Northern Development Session of Restoration 13, 2–15. 19(1), 3–27. the Western Regional Science Association Rose D. B. (1996) Nourishing Terrains: Australian Wallis R., Wallis A. and Picone A. (2012) After 80 Meeting, Wailea, Maui, February 2004. Aboriginal Views of Landscape and Wilderness. years absence, Wuthathi people plan for the Jacobson C. and Stephens A. (2009) Cross-cul- Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra. return and management of ancestral home- tural approaches to environmental research Rose D. B. (2005) An Indigenous philosophical lands on Cape York Peninsula. Ecological and management: a response to the dualisms ecology: situating the human. The Australian Management & Restoration 13, 81–84. inherent in Western science? Journal of the Journal of Anthropology 16(3), 294–305. Walsh F. and Mitchell P. (eds) (2002) Planning for Royal Society of New Zealand 39(4), 159– Ross H., Grant C., Robinson C. J., Izurieta A., Country. Cross-cultural Approaches to Deci- 162. Smyth D. and Rist P. (2008) Co-management sion-Making on Aboriginal Lands. Jukurrpa Lane M. (2006) The role of planning in achieving and Indigenous protected areas in Australia: Books, Alice Springs. Indigenous land justice and community goals. achievements and ways forward. Paper in spe- World Wide Fund for Nature (2010) Ecoregions Land Use Policy 23, 385–394. cial issue: Selected papers from the Australian WWF’s Global 200. Available from URL: Langton M., Ma Rhea Z. and Palmer L. (2005) Protected Areas Congress 2008. Hockings M. http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/ Community-oriented protected areas for and Garven I. (eds). Australasian Journal of global200.html [Accessed 14 June 2011]. Indigenous peoples and local communities. Environmental Management 16(4), 242– Wunambal Gaambera Aboriginal Corporation Journal of Political Ecology 12, 23–50. 252. (2006) Uunguu Tourism. Tourism and Healthy National Biodiversity Strategy Review Task Group Springer J. (2009) Addressing the social impacts Country Business Plan. Wunambal Gaambera (2009) Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation of conservation: lessons from experience and Aboriginal Corporation, Kalumburu, Western Strategy 2010–2020, Consultation Draft. Aus- future directions. Conservation and Society Australia. tralian Government, Department of the Envi- 7(1), 26–29. Wunambal Gaambera Aboriginal Corporation ronment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Trickett E. J. and Ryerson Espino S. L. (2004) Col- (2010) Wunambal Gaambera Healthy Country Canberra, ACT. laboration and social inquiry: multiple mean- Plan – Looking after Wunambal Gaambera Pretty J., Adams B., Berkes F. et al. (2009) The ings of a construct and its role in creating Country 2010–2020, Wunambal Gaambera intersections of biological diversity and cul- useful and valid knowledge. American Journal Aboriginal Corporation, Kalumburu, Western tural diversity: towards integration. Conserva- of Community Psychology 34(1 ⁄ 2), 1–69. Australia. tion and Society 7(2), 100–112.

ª 2012 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 25