Resources and publications

This paper explores how Indigenous community-based natural resource management can generate both conservation benefit and economic development opportunity. We begin by noting that much of the Indigenous estate in north Australia is either thinly populated or unpopulated. There is emerging evidence that, in situations where Indigenous people live on their country, ecological and wider benefits are generated via favourable fire regimes, control over weed infestations, and potentially through feral animal harvesting. When people are on country, they generate economic benefit for themselves by harvesting wildlife for consumption and engage with the market sector by using natural resources in commercial enterprise like arts and crafts production. We argue that there is a strong correlation between such activities and cost-effective natural resource management. Links between landcare, wildlife use and biodiversity conservation need to be recognized, celebrated and supported. The removal of many barriers to enhanced and innovative Indigenous participation in such activities, and equitable public support through programs like Landcare, will facilitate sustainable economic development options that are compatible with Indigenous priorities, while ameliorating Indigenous disadvantage.

This collection of papers examines the dilemmas and challenges involved in the Indigenous struggle for the development and recognition of systems of governance that they recognise as both legitimate and effective.

This is the second research report by the Indigenous Community Governance Project (ICGP). The ICGP is exploring the nature of Indigenous community governance in Australia - to understand what works, what doesn’t work, and why. The first report, based on 2005 fieldwork, was published as CAEPR Working Paper No. 31/2006.

This report brings together findings from the fieldwork conducted during 2006, based on evidence drawn from case studies of Indigenous governance in action within differing community, geographical, cultural and political settings across the nation.

AIATSIS completed three case studies in the joint management of conservation and Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) in partnership with the Australian Collaboration, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Poola Foundation (Tom Kantor Fund), as part of the AIATSIS 'Success in Aboriginal Organisations' Project.

Within this project, Ms Toni Bauman completed a case study of Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park. Mr Dermot Smyth carried out two case studies on the Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area and the Booderee National Park in the ACT.

On 3 and 4 April 2012, the Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport (NRETAS) and the Native Title Research Unit (NTRU) at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) convened a workshop of state, territory and Commonwealth government staff working in joint management and native title at the Alice Springs Desert Park. The workshop was titled Joint Management of Protected Areas in Australia: Native Title and Other Pathways towards a Community of Practice.

This report captures the workshop where government staff working in joint management shared information about their approach and identified practical issues in developing a community of practice.

This paper draws on interviews with leaders of successful Aboriginal organisations to understand the factors behind the successes that they are achieving in their communities.

Much of the attention paid to native title in Australia has focused on court proceedings and other legalities, but what does it actually mean to live with native title? This book presents the experiences of native title holders and the corporations they have established to look after their native title interests.

The influence of the renowned High Court Mabo case is such that there are already more than 100 Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate (RNTBCs) across Australia with responsibilities for about 18 per cent of the continent. RNTBCs operate in a profoundly intercultural context where ‘western’ and Indigenous laws are constantly interpreted and negotiated as part of a new suite of landholding and land management practices for contemporary Australia.

Through seven case studies from the Torres Strait, Far North Queensland, the Kimberley and Central Australia, Living with native title documents the experiences of RNTBCs, including those that are parties to large mining agreements. Each case study is accompanied by a short update written immediately prior to publication.

Living with native title is a product of the AIATSIS research project Prescribed Bodies Corporate: Research Action Partnerships.

One of the key aspirations of native title holders is the ability to independently make decisions about and take care of country. This aspiration is often realised through collaborative management arrangements such as joint management. For many native title groups, joint management is often the only substantive land management outcome, yet there has been little research into either its planning process or its drivers.

Between October 2013 and December 2014, AIATSIS undertook case study research in partnership with Central Desert Native Title Services and the Wiluna native title holders — Martu people — to document their land management journey and the critical success factors that have contributed to positive outcomes in Matuwa (Lorna Glen) and Kurrara Kurrara (Earaheedy). This report describes the research and planning undertaken as a part of the partnership.

This paper outlines two pilot case studies which examine how international development non-government organisations (INGOs) conduct their work with Aboriginal organisations and communities in Australia.

In recent decades, various forms of co-management of national parks and other protected areas1 by governments and Indigenous people have come to the fore. This has occurred as Indigenous peoples have progressively demanded greater access to and decisionmaking power over their traditional lands. The response of governments has also seen the aligning of a number of policy approaches that have contributed to an increase in attention to co-management. In the first instance, there has been a rapid rise in the number of protected areas in Australia since the 1960s, and this is continuing as the Commonwealth Government aims to increase the size of the Australian National Reserve System (NRS) by 25 per cent and Australia’s network of terrestrial protected areas to 125 million hectares by 2013 (Caring for Our Country 2013a).2 In addition, at least 16 per cent of Australia’s land area is now held by Indigenous peoples under a range of tenures, with much of this land being of high biodiversity value (Altman & Kerins 2012). As a mechanism for adding new protected areas to the NRS, the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) has an Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) program that supports traditional owners of lands or seas who voluntarily dedicate their lands as protected areas to promote biodiversity and cultural resource conservation. IPAs now form the second largest component of the National Reserve System, covering over 3 per cent of Australia and making up 23 per cent of the NRS (SEWPaC 2013b).

This paper sets out the methodological and conceptual framework for the Indigenous Community Governance (ICG) Project on Understanding, Building and Sustaining Effective Governance in Rural, Remote and Urban Indigenous Communities. The paper describes the Project’s research aims, questions, and techniques; explores key concepts; and discusses the ethnographic case-study and comparative approaches which form the core components of the methodological framework.

As an applied research project, the paper also considers the methodological issues inherent in participatory research, and for the dissemination and application of research findings within Indigenous and policy arenas. The framework draws on the multi-disciplinary expertise of the project team in areas such as anthropology, political science, demography, policy and legal studies, linguistics, and community development.

This paper presents a case study of an exercise in Aboriginal community governance. It sets out the background events that led the Yawuru Native Title Holders Aboriginal Corporation to secure information for its own needs as an act of self-determination and essential governance, and it presents some of the key findings from that exercise

The Indigenous Community Governance Project (ICGP) is an Australian Research Council Linkage Project between the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) at the Australian National University, and Reconciliation Australia (RA). The Project is exploring the nature of Indigenous community governance in diverse contexts and locations across Australia through a series of case studies—to understand what works, what doesn’t work, and why.

This document presents some key messages emerging from a summary of the comparative analysis of the Project’s 11 current Indigenous case studies, after the first phase of a longer study.

This paper explores the critical role that data can play in development scenarios when Aboriginal people are in control of collecting, managing and interpreting data. It was first presented as a pleniary paper at the conference Social Science Perspectives on the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, held at The ANU on 11–12 April 2011.

The papers in this collection reflect on the various social effects of native title. In particular, the authors consider the ways in which the implementation of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth), and the native title process for which this Act legislates, allow for the recognition and translation of Aboriginal law and custom, and facilitate particular kinds of coexistence between Aboriginal title holders and other Australians.

Short factsheet about joint ventures.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community governance can be greatly impacted by the nature of the land tenure held or managed by the community. The fragmented system of national and state regimes which provide grants or titles of land to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people has enabled a governance landscape where there are often overlapping rights to land. This creates a situation where relationships within an Indigenous community – and even within a traditional owner group – are competing for power and control. This is most notable with respect to how different community organisations compete for community funding, the durability of culturally appropriate governance structures and the taking of natural resources.

The ability of an Indigenous community to resolve potential conflicts, created by the recognition of native title and adapt to the post-determination landscape also impacts upon a communities’ ability to respond to external pressures such as land use planning, water management and government initiated tenure reform processes. Often these conflicts appear between Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate and community or local shire councils – who have historically played the role of land manager and program administrator. This paper looks at the role of cultural governance in supporting the recognition of Indigenous landholdings and the reasons that Indigenous landholdings, in their current form, have failed to be effective in adequately mobilising economic, social and cultural resources to achieve social, cultural, environmental and health benefits in remote Indigenous communities in Western Australia and Queensland.