Resources and publications

This is a preliminary research report from the first year of fieldwork conducted by the Indigenous Community Governance Project (ICGP). The Project is exploring the nature of Indigenous community governance in diverse contexts and locations across Australia through a series of diverse case studies—to understand what works, what doesn’t work, and why. A comparative analysis of the Project’s case studies is revealing that governance and decision-making in Indigenous community governance is shaped by multiple historical, cultural and political relationships. Family and governance histories associated with particular communities and sets of regionally-linked communities are central features in community governance dynamics and arrangements. Strengthening Indigenous community governance requires negotiating appropriate contemporary relationships among the different Indigenous people within a region or community, and adapting or creating structures and processes to reflect important relationships. Several dimensions are being identified as being fundamental to building stronger, sustainable governance at the community and regional levels. These are the impact of the wider ‘governance environment’, cultural match and cultural geography, modes of leadership and representation, institutional capacity, organisational design and relationships, representation, decision-making processes, and human resource issues. Capacity development for governance needs to be considered within a systems framework and should be a process that actively strengthens Indigenous decision-making and control over their core institutions, goals and identity, and that enhances cultural match and legitimacy. The report concludes with some emerging issues and implications for policy makers and for Indigenous organisations and their leaders.

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.

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 fact sheet provides information about Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and best practice for engagement with Traditional Owners. The fact sheet explains what FPIC means and how you can get in contact with PBCs, land councils, registered Aboriginal parties, native title representative bodies and service providers in Australia.

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.

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.

Vimeo page by Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa. Includes videos about their,

• Leadership program
• Partnerships
• Land management

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.

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.

Under the Native Title Act 1993, the Social Justice Commissioner is required to prepare a Native Title Report each year for federal Parliament. Through these reports the Commissioner gives a human rights perspective on native title issues and advocates for practical co-existence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups in using land.

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).

AIATSIS is at the forefront of community-led research and projects, and collaborates with numerous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander partners across the country. In this guide, we outline foundational principles for meaningfully engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The guide is written for non-Indigenous policymakers who have none or limited experience working with Indigenous peoples. It is a starting point for further learning and capability building.

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. 

Indigenous land and sea management in Australia is an example of how partnerships between Traditional Owners, governments, industry and NGOs can produce positive outcomes for both people and Country. There are now over 700 Indigenous people employed as Indigenous rangers across Australia. These jobs are producing positive environmental, social, cultural and economic outcomes. However, it is acknowledged that for continued growth increased effort is required in two primary areas:

1. further empowerment of Indigenous partners to participate in intercultural governance; and
2. better ways of measuring returns on investment.

Bush Heritage Australia is partnering with Traditional Owners, the CSIRO and Charles Darwin University to collaboratively design mechanisms for strengthening partnerships by empowering Traditional Owners to better articulate knowledges-practices-beliefs that underpin their success. Increased awareness of this ‘logic’ will assist the development of multiple knowledge-based mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and reporting outcomes to investors.

These mechanisms will strengthen existing partnerships, open pathways for diversified investments, and realise conservation goals through the effective management of Country as complex social-cultural-environmental systems.