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.

While Indigenous people make up just five percent of the global population, the areas they manage contain approximately 80 percent of the Earth’s biodiversity. 

In this context, there is an undeniably central role for Indigenous people to play in conservation management, but conversely, a significant risk that indigenous rights will be negatively impacted or undermined by conservation agendas. 

This panel will explore Indigenous experiences with conservation management, highlighting the opportunities and challenges faced by native title holders within this context.

PM&C commissioned SVA Consulting to understand, measure or estimate and value the changes resulting from the investment in five IPAs across Australia. The Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology was used to complete each of these analyses, which were informed by interviews with 143 stakeholders as well as desktop research canvassing relevant qualitative and quantitative data.

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.

Australian Indigenous land and sea managers have repeatedly called for an independent national Indigenous land and sea managers network. Such a network would link top down and bottom up information exchanges, promoting shared understandings of issues and opportunities. The network would provide government with a vehicle to both inform and learn from local Indigenous groups, including community rangers, on local, national and international matters of environmental significance. It also provides an opportunity for Indigenous managers to come together to develop positions on policy that affects land and sea management such as Working on Country and Indigenous Protected Areas.

The network would not do business on behalf of people or replicate existing local or regional networks or institutions, but would provide strategic support, coordinate communication and identify opportunities for group to group skills and knowledge exchange. The network aims to provide professional support through a coordinated learning environment that facilitates the identification of effective resources, research, technologies and tools for use by Indigenous land and sea managers within Australia. This workshop provides an opportunity for Land & Sea Managers to come together to discuss the purpose and scope of a national network, including governance, networking and membership.

This report is based on the workshop, Implementing native title: Indigenous leadership in land and water livelihoods, held at the 2015 National Native Title Conference, 16-18 June, Port Douglas, Queensland. It details the ways several Indigenous communities from around Australia are implementing their rights and interests following the restitution of their land and sea territories.

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.

About Indigenous Protected Areas

Overview of IPAs from Parks Australia

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.

The Native Title Information Handbooks provide a summary of resources and information relating to key areas of native title.

The Handbooks provide information about:

• Native title legislation and case law
• Federal, state and territory governments' native title policies and procedures
• Native title representative bodies, registered native title bodies corporate, government agencies and other organisations involved in native title
• Native title applications and determinations
• Indigenous land use agreements, future acts and other native title related agreements
• Land rights legislation
• Indigenous Land Corporation acquisitions, Indigenous land management and Indigenous protected areas
• Indigenous population profiles.

Our Country Our Way has been written for the managers of IPAs, IPA and Co-Management Consultation Projects, and their staff. Their primary aim is to provide practical guidance about how to achieve Management Plans that recognise the connections between Indigenous people, country, traditional law and culture, while also meeting national and international standards for protected area management. In so doing, this document invites planners and others to enter an Indigenous conceptual terrain and consider some highly innovative and at times challenging intercultural adaptations.

The Guidelines draw on examples from IPAs and Co-Management Consultation Projects around Australia to illustrate the unique cultural settings and vibrant Indigenous  management strategies on country. 

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

This strategic plan sets out our concerns and proposals regarding the use, management and governance of Mandingalbay Yidinji Country, with a particular focus on the protected areas. 

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.