WORLD HERITAGE: PEOPLE OR PLACES?

PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL

HERITAGE IN AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AFRICA

Lee Godden, Kathleen Birrell & Alistair Webster1

Introduction

The Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (‘the

Convention’), adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

(UNESCO) in 1972 was part of a first generation of international instruments to offer legal

protection for natural and cultural heritage. In Australia, the Convention assumed major

importance as a rallying point for early conservation movements, and continues to define the

shape of environmental and biodiversity conservation laws as well as federal/state relationships

regarding the environment. Australia now has a relatively well established World Heritage

regime with eleven natural sites, two cultural sites and four mixed sites protected under the

Convention.1 These include internationally recognised areas such as Kakadu National Park and

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. Of the eleven sites in Australia listed for their natural

significance, excepting those unpopulated areas in the sub-Antarctic region, all are the subject

of varying co-management arrangements with Indigenous Australians. Despite a sometimes

turbulent history, Australia’s management of its World Heritage areas is now often regarded as

a best practice paradigm, although tensions remain in relation to the implementation of various

co-management regimes.2

1 Prof. Lee Godden, University of Melbourne; Ms Kathleen Birrell & Mr Alistair Webster, both formerly research staff, ATNS project, The University of Melbourne. This paper is an outcome of work completed as part of the Australian Research Council Linkage Project The Implementation of Agreements and Treaties with Indigenous and Local Peoples in Postcolonial States  at the University of Melbourne (Project Number: LP0561857; see http://www.atns.net.au).  Other ATNS staff have assisted in preparing the paper in various ways and their contribution is acknowledged. The authors acknowledge the assistance of the Australian Research Council and acknowledge the support of the project Industry Partners, Rio Tinto Ltd and the Australian Commonwealth Government Office for Indigenous Policy Coordination. We would also like to acknowledge the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, a Partner Investigator for the Project.

1

In South Africa, by contrast, the experience with World Heritage areas is more recent, with the

first World Heritage site declared in South Africa in 1999. Today, there are eight World

Heritage sites in South Africa. Of these, three sites are cultural, three natural and two mixed.

Though significantly less extensive than the comparative regimes in Australia, the South

African program for the management of World Heritage sites has been lauded as highly

innovative in many of its policies and laws for protected areas.3 In practice however, joint

management of World Heritage sites in South Africa has met with significant criticism, with

many pointing to a failure in co-management regimes to achieve the necessary conditions for

feasible co-management.

A key issue in the development of co-management regimes in both jurisdictions has been how

to successfully integrate natural and cultural heritage values into World Heritage management

practices and processes, and to ensure that Indigenous peoples and local communities are not

disengaged from the opportunities accorded by World Heritage designation. This article

dissects these issues and attempts to establish what effect this nature/culture dichotomy has on

the management of national parks in Australia and South Africa. Alongside this discussion, the

necessary conditions for genuine co-management regimes are identified, and their challenges in

the context of South Africa and Australia determined. The article draws on the experience of

co-management of World Heritage sites in Australia to provide an analysis of the disjunction

between natural and cultural heritage, and the ways in which South Africa may draw on this

experience to improve its own management of World Heritage sites. Consequently, the thorny

question of the integration of World Heritage areas into surrounding communities is addressed,

and the issue of community participation and benefit from the management of World Heritage

sites tackled. Throughout the article, it is argued that these issues are exacerbated by the

manner in which World Heritage areas are defined by conservation priorities that often fail to

recognise the continuing and complex interrelationship between environmental and cultural

significance.

2

World Heritage and a Nature/Culture Dichotomy

Co-management of World Heritage sites in Australia was eventually achieved following

considerable protest by Indigenous communities, lobbying and re-adjustment of prevailing

national park management paradigms. The first World Heritage sites were listed in 1981,

although typically there were separate listings on the basis of cultural and natural heritage. In

the 1990s there was a growing cognisance that world heritage concepts marginalised important

nature/cultural group interactions. Accordingly, there were moves by the World Heritage

Committee of UNESCO to integrate natural and cultural heritage values in the implementation

of the Convention.4 Since 1992, significant interactions between people and the natural

environment have been recognised as cultural landscapes.5 The changing orientation for the

preservation of heritage under the auspices of the Convention recognises the need to conserve

both natural areas that have strong cultural associations as well as minimally disturbed natural

areas.6 These trends have particular ramifications for a more integrative model of co-

management in world heritage areas.

The recognition of native title in 1992 gave great impetus to Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples’ claims to be engaged in co-management of world heritage and national park

areas. While there had been long standing models which accord significant controls to

traditional owners in land rights legislation in the Northern Territory and South Australia , this

model was not guaranteed under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Moreover seminal decisions,

such as the Ward7 and Yorta-Yorta8 cases limited the potential for interactions between native

title and national park management. Moreover, given the enormous time and investment

involved in native title litigation, there has been an increasing trend toward agreement-making

with Indigenous parties as a more expedient alternative.9 Following the High Court’s decision

in Ward, for example, native title over twenty-seven national parks and reserves was

simultaneously negotiated and settled out of court, with thirty-one Indigenous Land Use

Agreements (ILUAs) established to enable cooperative planning and co-management between

the Northern Territory government and local Indigenous communities.10 This collaborative

3

approach has seen national park co-management in Australia often described as advancing

toward ecological, economic and social sustainability.11

Contemporaneously, Australian Indigenous communities have been more successful in

negotiating co-management regimes than those in comparable nations. Langton et al assert that

co-management regimes in Australia represent a fundamental recognition of Indigenous self-

governance and an opportunity to foster traditional environmental knowledge as ‘embodied and

practiced rather than simply shared and context-free.’12 The process of voluntary negotiation

and agreement-making operates as a means of redefining future relationships,13 which may

pave the way for a broader settlement of issues between Indigenous and non-Indigenous parties.

An important development has been the adoption of Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs). IPAs

constitute one of the major initiatives in co-management. The concept of IPAs was introduced

in the 1990s with twenty-five sites presently in the scheme. To date, IPAs cover over 20 million

hectares. Additional funding for the scheme occurred in 2007, when the Indigenous Land

Corporation contributed $7 million to further develop new sites.14 The program, which is a part

of the ‘Caring for our Country initiative,’ supports Indigenous organisations in developing

cooperative management arrangements over National Parks or other protected areas with State

or Territory government conservation agencies. Short-term support is available to allow

Indigenous groups to identify management issues and to negotiate a decision-making

framework for co-management arrangements.15 Despite significant initiatives of this type in

Australia, tensions remain over how Indigenous peoples are to participate in decision-making

under co-management regimes. In part, these tensions derive from the very construct of a

‘protected area’ as a ‘natural’ area that is to be separated and protected.

Nature/Culture Divisions

Two issues remain highly contentious in the development of co-management regimes on World

Heritage sites. The first relates to the nature of the World Heritage regime itself. Borne of an

Enlightenment distinction between nature and culture, the notion of ‘heritage’ was at first

4

predominately seen as being expressed in relation to material objects and ‘natural’ locations. 16

Under this approach, heritage values are derived on the basis of conformity with the standards

adopted within a Western scientific paradigm. Heritage is ‘cultural’ or ‘natural,’ where ‘natural’

is the logical antithesis of ‘cultural’– that is, ‘empty of culture’ or ‘totally wild.’ This approach

was evident in the adoption of ecological balance and integrity principles to define outstanding

universal natural heritage values under the World Heritage Convention. These early wilderness

models gave priority to the independent functioning of the natural world – that is, a world

supposedly apart from human culture.17 Together with World Heritage constructs, these policies

were highly influential in setting the direction for early international and Australian efforts to

protect natural areas. Indeed, the way in which such significance is defined has been described

as ‘ecological imperialism,’18 which privileges Eurocentric, colonising premises about the

natural world over that of the local or Indigenous communities.

The attendant erasure of Indigenous relationships to land has been described as a process of

‘deep colonising,’19 Categorisation and management of the world is understood to be a form of

continued colonisation, where: ‘the left hand [of conquest] creates the tabula rasa which the

right hand will then transform into growth and civilisation.’20 In this way, European scientific

classification renders the environment extrinsic to the colonial cultural endeavour.21 Such

categorisation has not only removed agency from the environment itself, but also from those

Indigenous peoples who have historically inhabited and cultivated the land.22

More generally, the inception and growth of the global conservation movement in its early

phases and the consequent creation of national parks as pristine spaces relied upon the denial of

Indigenous and local community occupation;23 and implicitly, the denial of an anthropocentric

division of nature and culture. By contrast, according to Gurindji Elder Daly Pukara,

Indigenous notions of ‘wilderness’ describe a landscape in neglect, ‘a man-made cattle

wilderness where nothing grows, where life is absent, where all the care, intelligence and

respect that generations of Aboriginal people have put into the country have been eradicated.’24

The inadequacy of a nature-culture divide and its erasure of Indigenous reality in the context of

5

both co-management and the World Heritage regime is now widely acknowledged.25 Formille,

for example, eschews the nature/culture division in favour of ‘the holistic world view of

Indigenous societies,’ engaged in an intimate relationship of ‘eco-kinship with the elements of

the world.’26 Indeed, many Australian Indigenous communities do consider themselves to be a

part of ‘nature’ and ‘all the things on Earth…as part human.’27 A potential risk of these

formulations however, is a romanticisation of the ‘noble savage’ – the notion of an Indigenous

1 Sites declared for their cultural importance include sites listed as: a masterpiece of human creative

genius; exhibit an important interchange of human values over a span of time or within a cultural area of

the world;… bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization

which is living or which has disappeared; be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement,

land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the

environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; to be

directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic

and literary works of outstanding universal significance. Those declared for their natural significance

must be either outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of

life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant

geomorphic or physiographic features; outstanding examples representing significant on-going

ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal

and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals; contain the most important and

significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing

threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation. 2 Rosemary Hill, “The Effectiveness of Agreements and Protocols to Bridge Between Indigenous and

Non Indigenous Toolboxes for Protected Area Management: A Case Study from the Wet Tropics of

Queensland,” Society and Natural Resources 19 (2006): 577.

3 National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 2003 (South Africa)4 Harald Plachter and Mechtild Rossler, “Cultural Landscapes: Reconnecting Culture and Nature,” in

Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value: Components of a Global Strategy, ed. Bernd von Droste,

Harald Plachter and Mechtild Rossler (Germany: UNESCO, 1995), 15-18.5 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Intergovernmental Committee for the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention UNESCO Doc WHC 08/01 (2008) at 11. For a discussion, see Sarah Titchen, ‘Changing Perceptions and Recognition of the Environment — From Cultural and Natural Heritage to Cultural Landscapes’ in Julie Finlayson, J., A. Jackson-Nakano, (eds), Heritage and Native Title: Anthropological and Legal Perspectives, (Canberra Australia: Australian Institute for Australian and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), 1996), 40- 52. 6 Ibid, 49.7 Western Australia v Ward (2000) 213 CLR 1.8 Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v The State of Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422.

9 Tony Foley, “Negotiating Resource Agreements: Lessons from ILUAs,” Environmental Planning Law

Journal 19 (4) (2002): 268.

6

community or individual existing in perfect harmony with and as a literal part of the natural

world.28 Moreover, some suggest that such romanticism may actually commodify Indigenous

peoples and culture.29

Within the context of such contested perceptions, the emergence of co-management regimes is

patently problematic.30 Although assessments of heritage generally purport to relate to the

history of an object or place, this process is contingent and negotiable. Thorley describes 10 For a discussion of ILUAS and agreement-making in general see the ATNS database located at

http://www.atns.net.au/ accessed 10 September 2008.11 Peter Thorley, “Current Realities, Idealised Pasts: Archaeology, Values and Indigenous Heritage

Management in Central Australia,” 73 Oceania (2002):110, 111.12 Marcia Langton, Zane Ma Rhea and Lisa Palmer, “Community-Oriented Protected Areas for

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities,” Journal of Political Ecology 12 (2005): 43, 43. 13 Marcia Langton and Lisa Palmer, ‘Modern Agreement Making and Indigenous People in Australia: Issues and Trends’ Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 8(1) (2003):14.14 Australian Government, Department of Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Indigenous Protected Areas and Co-management http://www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/ipa/index.html accessed 12 September 2008.15 16 Lee Godden, “Indigenous Heritage and the Environment: ‘Legal Categories are Only One Way of

Imagining the Real’,” Environmental and Planning Law Journal 19 (August 2002): 258-266; Val

Plumwood, “Decolonizing Relationships With Nature” in Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for

Conservation in a Post-colonial Era, ed. William M. Adams and Martin Mulligan, (London: Earthscan

Publications, 2003) 51-78; Richard Howitt and Sandra Suchet-Pearson, “Rethinking the Building Blocks:

Ontological Pluralism and the Idea of ‘Management,” Geografiska Annaler (Series B: Human

Geography) 88 (2006): 323-335; Peter Thorley, “Current Realities, Idealised Pasts: Archaeology, Values

and Indigenous Heritage Management in Central Australia” Oceania 73 (2002): 110-125.17 For a discussion see “National Parks and Protected Areas: Keystones to Conservation and Sustainable

Development,” Springer, 1997. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on

Contributions of National Parks and Protected Areas to Heritage, Conservation, Tourism, and Sustainable

Development, held in Krakow, Poland, August 26-30, 1996, NATO ASI series. Series G, Ecological

Sciences, No. 40.18 Marcia Langton, Burning Questions: Emerging Environmental Issues for Indigenous Peoples in

Northern Australia (Darwin: Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management, 1998),

18.

19 Deborah Bird Rose, “Land Rights and Deep Colonising: The Erasure of Women” (1996) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 28, 3 (October 1996) 6-13, 7..20 Deborah Bird Rose, “Land Rights and Deep Colonising: The Erasure of Women” (1996) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 28, 3 (October 1996) 6-13, 8.21 William M. Adams, “Nature and the Colonial Mind,” in Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for

Conservation in a Post-colonial Era, ed. William M. Adams and Martin Mulligan (London: Earthscan

7

significance assessment as a ‘social process’, whereby value is emergent rather than intrinsic

and where heritage has political function as a way of manipulating the past for present

purposes.31 In the midst of such a fraught process, the idea of co-management between

governments and Indigenous communities has not always been well received. Moreover, the

imposition of co-management models upon already dispossessed and marginalised Indigenous

societies has been regarded as programmatic.32 Further, the notion of ‘capacity building’

familiar to development discourse has been imported into co- management constructs. How

ever this association has been criticised as an assimilationist exercise, building the capacity of

Publications, 2003), 24.22 R. Poirier and D. Ostergren, “Evicting People from Nature: Indigenous Land Rights and National

Parks in Australia, Russia and the United States,” Natural Resources Journal 42 (2002): 338. 23 William M. Adams, “Nature and the Colonial Mind,” in Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for

Conservation in a Post-colonial Era, ed. William M. Adams and Martin Mulligan (London: Earthscan

Publications, 2003) 35.24 Stephen Kinnane, “Indigenous Sustainability: Rights, Obligations and a Collective Commitment to

Country,” in International Law and Indigenous Peoples ed. Joshua Castellino, and Niamh Walsh

(Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005) 195-224 25 Archaeologist Thorley writes, “[w]e cannot pretend that the Dreaming is ‘just cultural’ and without

relevant and meaning in economic, political and environmental aspects of life.” See Peter P. Thorley,

“Current Realities, Idealised Pasts: Archaeology, Values and Indigenous Heritage Management in

Central Australia,” Oceania 73 (2002): 110, 110.

26 Henrietta Formille, “Indigenous peoples, the conservation of traditional ecological knowledge, and global governance” in Nicholas Low, Global Ethics and Environment (1999) 215,22.27 Silas Roberts, first Chairman of the Northern Land Council, cited in Deborah Bird Rose, Nourishing

Terrains: Australian Aboriginal Views of Landscape and Wilderness (Canberra: Australian Heritage

Commission, 1996), 26. 28 See West et al, “Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas,” Annual Review of

Anthropology 35 (2006): 256.29 West ibid., 257.

30 Peppan traditional owner in Napranum, cited in Sandra Suchet-Pearson, “‘Totally Wild’? Colonising Discourses, Indigenous Knowledges and Managing Wildlife.” Australian Geographer 33 (2002): 141-157.31 Peter Thorley, “Current Realities, Idealised Pasts: Archaeology, Values and Indigenous Heritage

Management in Central Australia,” Oceania 73 (2002): 110,113. 32 See generally, R. Poirier, and D. Ostergren, “Evicting People from Nature: Indigenous Land Rights

and National Parks in Australia, Russia and the United States,” Natural Resources Journal 42 (2002):

337; see also Sandra Suchet-Pearson, “‘Totally Wild’? Colonising discourses, indigenous knowledges

and managing wildlife,” Australian Geographer 33 (2002): 151.

8

Indigenous communities to successfully operate within Eurocentric environmental management

regimes.33

The challenge for co-management, particularly in the case of World Heritage, where sites are

often considered to be of heritage importance due to both cultural and natural characteristics, is

to reconceptualise conservation and heritage as inclusive regimes which do not seek to

artificially impose order but which are open to that which Langton describes as Indigenous

‘life-ways.’34 In this way, co-management of Indigenous land may begin to approach a form of

‘viable interdependence,’35 whereby biodiversity is managed and maintained in self-determined

communities as an expression of Indigenous cultural identity.

Co-Management in Australia and South Africa – An Overview

AustraliaIn Australia, federal environmental protection and Indigenous participation in land and

biodiversity management are principally governed by the interaction between the Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (‘the EPBC Act’) and the Native Title

Act 1993 (Cth) (‘ the NTA’), particularly those provisions relating to Indigenous Land Use

Agreements (ILUAs). Indigenous Land Use Agreements are not confined to co-management

and conservation but may cover a wide range of land-uses. Nonetheless, many ILUAs do

involve co-management regimes and in this way intersect with the broader conservation

objectives of the federal environmental protection legislation. The objects of the EPBC Act

include:

33 Richard Howitt and Sandra Suchet-Pearson, “Rethinking the Building Blocks: Ontological Pluralism

and the Idea of ‘Management’” Geografiska Annaler (Series B: Human Geography) 88 (2006): 320, 330.

34 Marcia,Langton, “The ‘Wild’, the Market and the Native: Indigenous People Face New Forms of Global Colonization” in Vertovec, Steven and Posey, Darrell, Globalization, Globalism, Environments, and Environmentalism: Consciousness of Connections (The Linacre Lectures 2000) (2003).35 Peter Mulvihill and Peter Jacobs, “Ancient Lands: new perspectives. Towards Multi-Cultural Literacy

in Landscape Management,” Landscape and Urban Planning 32 (1995): 9.

9

promotion of a cooperative approach to the protection and management of the environment

involving governments, the community, land holders and Indigenous peoples, including

assistance in implementing Australia’s international environmental responsibilities.36

Section 15B stipulates that Indigenous heritage values are now a trigger within the general

categories of matters of national environmental significance, whereby an approval is required

for activities with a significant impact on a National Heritage place, which extends to

Indigenous heritage values. Section 528 defines ‘Indigenous heritage value’ as the value of a

place that is of significance to Indigenous persons in accordance with their practices,

observances, customs, traditions, beliefs or history.37 ‘Traditional owners of Indigenous

people’s land’ is defined in section 368(4) to include a local descent group of Indigenous

persons who have a primary spiritual responsibility for that land, and are entitled by Indigenous

tradition to forage as of right over the land.

The EPBC Act also stipulates management principles applicable to Indigenous Protected Areas

and Commonwealth reserves. In respect of the latter, the Act stipulates majority Indigenous

representation on boards to manage reserves.38 Traditional usage rights such as non-

commercial hunting or cultural activities are allowed on reserves, subject to regulations made

for particular reserves in respect of biodiversity conservation. The Act also provides that

Indigenous interests must be addressed in drafting bilateral agreements, management plans,

recovery plans, wildlife conservation plans or threat abatement plans.39 In addition, the EPBC

Regulations provide that, subject to certain conditions and the agreement of the Director of

36 Other objectives include: “…recognition of the role of Indigenous people in the conservation and

ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s biodiversity; promotion of the use of Indigenous peoples’

knowledge of biodiversity…; and promotion of a partnership approach to environmental protection and

biodiversity conservation…”, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) s 3.37 Section 201 of the EPBC Act defines “Indigenous tradition” to mean the body of traditions,

observances, customs and beliefs of Indigenous persons generally or of a particular group of Indigenous

persons.

38 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), s 374F.39 Nettheim et. al., Indigenous Peoples and Governance Structures: A Comparative Analysis of Land and

Resource Management Rights (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 2002), 396.

10

National Parks and any applicable land council, Indigenous people may engage in activities

which would otherwise be offences, such as the taking of native species or entry into restricted

areas.

Prior to the EPBC Act, joint or co-management regimes were a well established means of

involving Indigenous communities in land management in Australia, beginning in the Northern

Territory with the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976 (Cth). Other states

have enacted similar, albeit less effective, legislation. The first co-management agreement in

Australia was made in 1981 over Garig Gunak Barlu National Park40 in the Northern Territory.

Since that time, several models of co-management have emerged. These range from

government ownership and an Aboriginal majority on the board of management with a lease

granted to traditional owners, to absolute Aboriginal ownership with no lease-back arrangement

to the government. There are presently several other types of co-management regimes

involving Indigenous communities which are operative in Australia. These are:

o Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) under the NTA;

o co-operative management agreements outside of the native title process, including

those relating to management of natural resources and cultural heritage; and,

o Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs).

Native title legislation (NTA) has allowed for the establishment of ILUAs, which frequently

incorporate co-management elements. However, the NTA arguably does not achieve co-

management proactively. Nonetheless, Australia now uses this agreement-making approach to

develop management regimes for World Heritage sites.41 These include the Australian Wet

Tropics World Heritage Area, over part of which the Kuku-Yalanji people resolved a native

title claim with the establishment of the Eastern Kuku-Yalanji ILUA. The subject of the

40 This was previously known as the Gurig National Park.

41 Poirier, R. Andand D. Ostergren, D., “Evicting People from Nature: Indigenous Land Rights and

National Parks in Australia, Russia and the United States,” Natural Resources Journal 42 (2002): 345.

11

agreement is some 30,000 hectares of land, which is divided into state owned national park

land, Aboriginal owned land managed for conservation under binding agreements and small

areas of Aboriginal owned land for community development.42 Despite the apparent success of

this negotiation, difficulties associated with financial resources and legislative recognition of

Indigenous conservation approaches have arisen.43 Shark Bay in Western Australia is another

World Heritage area over which an ILUA has been negotiated and implemented. In 1999, the

Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management, the local Shark Bay

Yadgalah Aboriginal Corporation, UNESCO World Heritage, Edith Cowan University in Perth

and James Cook University in Queensland established techniques to advance understanding of

the dugong, a marine mammal, through the use of tracking tags.44 Despite progress in reaching

agreement in relation to the co-management of World Heritage sites, often there remains a

significant disjunction between the ways in which the management plans for many World

Heritage sites conceptualise the role of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous traditional

knowledge practices. This misconception, it is argued, can be traced to the historic construction

of a division between the values of environmental and cultural heritage.

Outside the native title process other models of co-management include the establishment of

Indigenous Protected Areas and Indigenous participation in natural resource management.

Agreements relating to co-management of national parks should be distinguished from other

types of co-management, since the former are premised on the condition that the area involved

remain a national park. This imposition has caused such agreements to be described as

arrangements ‘of convenience or coercion, rather than a partnership freely entered into,’ which

should be contrasted with IPAs.45 Furthermore, the continued overall responsibility for

management of national parks by the state has been described as a constitutional limitation on

42 Rosemary Hill, “The Effectiveness of Agreements and Protocols to Bridge Between Indigenous and

Non Indigenous Toolboxes for Protected Area Management: A Case Study from the Wet Tropics of

Queensland,” Society and Natural Resources 19 (2006): 584. 43 Ibid.44 See Department of Environment and Conservation (WA), “Shark Bay World Heritage Area,”

http://www.sharkbay.org.

12

the practical effect of co-management agreements, where Indigenous parties, though owners,

lack ultimate responsibility for management.46 This issue remains to be specifically addressed.

One of the most well known but arguably still contentious co-management regime is that

governing the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. The co-management agreement between the

Commonwealth and the Anangu is held to founded upon Indigenous law – Tjukurpa, the

Pitjantjatjara word for law, which governs history, knowledge, religion and morality in Anangu

society.47 The Kakadu National Park is another frequently cited example of similar integration

of Indigenous traditional knowledge and western conservation practices, although it remains

problematic in some aspects. Thus, the range of co-management initiatives across World

Heritage areas in Australia is extensive and the involvement of Indigenous peoples has

increased significantly since World Heritage sites were first nominated in Australia.

Nonetheless, in situations where there is to be a devolution of power sharing in the decision-

making processes for co-management, the process often remains fraught. Ongoing negotiations

need to be maintained to ensure that Indigenous knowledge is effectively incorporated into co-

management regimes. More widely, if conflicts arise, the question as to whether Indigenous

management practices or western scientific paradigms prevail for heritage protection are yet to

be resolved.

South Africa

In South Africa, the interaction between local communities and the management of national

parks began only with the introduction of a comprehensive restitution of land regime in the

post-apartheid era. Although co-management existed before this time, it was generally limited

45 D. Smyth, “Joint Management of National Parks,” in Working on Country: Contemporary Indigenous

Management of Australia’s Lands and Coastal Regions, ed. Richard Baker et. al. (Melbourne: Oxford

University Press, 2001), 76.46 See Rosemary Hill, “The Effectiveness of Agreements and Protocols to Bridge Between Indigenous

and Non Indigenous Toolboxes for Protected Area Management: A Case Study from the Wet Tropics of

Queensland,” Society and Natural Resources 19 (2006): 578. 47 Information can be obtained from the ATNS database available at www.atns.edu.au

13

to contractual arrangements between government and wealthy white land owners for the joint

management of areas bordering nature reserves. The Restitution of Land Rights Act 1994

introduced a regime which provided for the restitution of land to people or communities who

were dispossessed as ‘a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices.’ 48 Consequently,

there arose a need to reconcile land restitution with the ongoing management of protected areas

as well as cultural heritage preservation.

Perhaps the most significant rationale for the development of structural co-management

programs in South Africa was the Reconstruction and Development (RAD) Programme,

developed in 1994 at the beginning of post-apartheid democracy. This macro-economic strategy

emphasised interaction between government and local community. The RAD Programme

followed strong national debate instigated by a paper written by Derek Hanekom and Louis

Liebenberg of the African National Congress, who focused attention on ‘park-neighbour issues’

by suggesting that livestock grazing in national parks may provide benefits to local

communities who had previously lost ancestral land and livelihoods by the designation of areas

as national parks.49 This debate led to the conclusion that the transformative effects of the new

South African democracy must also extend to environmental conservation, recognising that

environmental conservation itself could operate in a racially discriminatory fashion - a

conclusion which was given impetus by the land restitution initiatives following the apartheid

era.50

From the RAD Programme, the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy was

formulated in 1996. The strategy has shifted the focus away from community initiatives and

management, toward growth and entrepreneurship.51 This ‘neo-liberalisation of GEAR’ has

48Restitution of Land Rights Act 1994. This construct of dispossession is the basis for a

restitution claim.

49 See David Grossman and Phillipa Holden, “Contract Parks in South Africa”, IUCN Commission on

Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) Publications,

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/SL/David%20Grossman%20Phillipa%20Holden.pdf. 50 Ibid.

14

been described as an increasing engagement with privatisation and globalisation at the expense

of community involvement.52 Further, Isaacs and Mohamed now describe the omnipresent

tension between the short-term priorities of the private sector, namely profitability, and the long

term priorities of local communities focused on equitable and sustainable use of natural

resources.53 These trends are further compounded by a lack of capacity in local communities, in

terms of financial resources, education and social cohesion. In this context, although co-

management regimes are widely initiated, participation is more frequently governed by

external, top-down management. Critics suggest that openness to community involvement is

often disingenuous, adopted only when alternative methods fail.54

At present, co-management regimes in South Africa have been criticised as exercises in mere

political rhetoric, rather than substantive engagement with local communities. Although the

rationale and imperative for co-management regimes have been well supported, implementation

in real terms has faltered. The Richtersveld National Park for example, which is under co-

management, has been called a ‘paper park,’ principally controlled by South African National

Parks (SANParks) rather than under genuine co-management with the local community.55

Further, community-based management of natural resources has been limited and even when

attempted; it has been found difficult for conservation managers and community groups.56

51 Moenieba Isaacs and Najma Mohamed, “Co-managing the Commons in the ‘New’ South Africa:

Room for Manoeuvre?” (Paper presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association

for the Study of Common Property, Constituting the Commons, May 31 – June 4, 2000), 4. 52 Ibid, 19. 53 Ibid. 54 Reid et. al., “Co-management of Contractual National Parks in South Africa: Lessons from Australia,”

Conservation & Society 2 (2004): 380.55 Moenieba Isaacs and Najma Mohamed, “Co-managing the Commons in the ‘New’ South Africa:

Room for Manoeuvre?” (Paper presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association

for the Study of Common Property, Constituting the Commons, May 31 – June 4, 2000), 4. 56 Reid et. al., “Co-management of Contractual National Parks in South Africa: Lessons from Australia,”

Conservation & Society 2 (2004): 380.

15

Today, local community participation in the management of protected areas is governed

primarily by the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 2003. The

objectives of the Act include:

to provide, within the framework of national legislation, for the declaration and

management of protected areas;

to provide for co-operative governance in the declaration and management of protected

areas;

to effect a national system of protected areas in South Africa as part of a strategy to

manage and conserve its biodiversity;

to provide for a representative network of protected areas on state land, private land

and communal land;

to promote sustainable utilisation of protected areas in a manner that would preserve

the ecological character of such areas; and,

to promote participation of local communities in the management of protected areas

where appropriate.57

Section 38 of the Act provides for the establishment of management authorities to manage

declared protected areas under the Act. This role is currently played by SANParks, which

manages national parks in South Africa, including World Heritage sites. Section 39 outlines the

requirements placed on the management authority to develop a management plan, and

specifically requires management authorities to consult with local communities in the

development of such a plan.

Section 42 deals explicitly with co-management of protected areas, stating that the management

authority may enter into an agreement with another organ of state, a local community, an

individual or other party for the co-management of the area by the parties; or, the regulation of

human activities that affect the environment in the area. The parameters of the agreements are

set out in the legislation.58 These provisions have established what is referred to as the 57 Section 2, The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 2003. 58 See s 42 ( 2) The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 2003.

16

contractual national parks regime, whereby government and landowners enter into negotiated

agreements for management of a property as a national park.59 This structure has formed the

basis upon which co-management regimes are instigated. This includes lands reclaimed by

formerly dispossessed peoples, such as the Makuleke, Kalahari and Nama speaking people,

who claimed and received full title to traditional lands. These groups then entered into

agreements as landowners with government to establish contractual national parks under the

National Parks Act 1976.60 Significantly, the agreements are to provide for the harmonisation

and integration of the management of cultural heritage resources in the protected area by the

management authority. Whether such integration of cultural heritage aspects is being achieved

is problematic.

In other contexts as well, the contract national park model has been criticised as a type

of ‘ecological apartheid,’ whereby private landowners are privileged over local

communal owners.61 Individual property ownership is often afforded greater respect, in

terms of tenure and commercial opportunity, than is communal ownership.62

Furthermore, parties to co-management agreements frequently approach management

with differing objectives; a similar experience occurs in Australia. Büscher and Dietz

remark that in Africa co-management has been dominated by western notions of

conservation that privilege the intrinsic value of species and ecosystems, as opposed to

economic perspectives which value the utilitarian aspects of conservation.63 Where

59 David Grossman and Phillipa Holden, “Contract Parks in South Africa”, IUCN Commission on

Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) Publications,

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/SL/David%20Grossman%20Phillipa%20Holden.pdf, 1. 60 See also agreements under National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 2003.61 Hector Magome and James Murombedzi, “Sharing South African National Parks: Community land and

conservation in a democratic South Africa” in Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a

Post-colonial Era, ed. William M. Adams and Martin Mulligan, (London: Earthscan Publications, 2003),

119. 62 Ibid., 130.63 Bram Büscher and Ton Dietz, “Conjunctions of Governance: The State and the Conservation-

development Nexus in Southern Africa,” The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 4

(2005): 3.

17

objectives have appeared to differ, it has been suggested that the assumed precedence

of biodiversity conservation frequently abrogates local community needs and values.

Magome and Murombedzi maintain that development via different uses of land

consistently receives low priority.64

These differing approaches and objectives, specifically with respect to biodiversity

conservation and development, create ‘management puzzles’ which defy idealised expectations

of co-management.65 These differences are further compounded by the false view that local

communities are homogenous or cohesive, functioning with ‘common interests and purpose.’66

Rather than focusing on points of difference, other commentators have emphasised the need for

local communities to embrace the economic opportunities offered by the co-management model

in order to be full participants in future development planning. This is problematic, however,

where communities lack the capacity for full and coordinated engagement.67 Positive

engagement with local communities where it is emerging can be illustrated by examples where

there is an underpinning land claim basis. Similar to experience in Australia, land claims

provide a particular impetus for co-management.

64 Hector Magome and James Murombedzi, “Sharing South African National Parks: Community land and

conservation in a democratic South Africa” in Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a

Post-colonial Era, ed. William M. Adams and Martin Mulligan, (London: Earthscan Publications, 2003):

131. See also Hector Magome, “Biodiversity Conservation, Development and Local People: Politics,

Puzzles and Potentials” in Towards Best Practice: Communities and Conservation (Conference

Proceedings, Berg en Dal, Kruger National Park, South Africa, South African National Parks, Social

Ecology, 15-19 May 2000): 14-18.65 Hector Magome and James Murombedzi, “Sharing South African National Parks: Community land and

conservation in a democratic South Africa” in Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a

Post-colonial Era, ed. William M. Adams and Martin Mulligan, (London: Earthscan Publications, 2003):

129.66 Ibid.67 See Moenieba Isaacs and Najma Mohamed, “Co-managing the Commons in the ‘New’ South Africa:

Room for Manoeuvre?” (Paper presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association

for the Study of Common Property, Constituting the Commons, May 31 – June 4, 2000), 18.

18

Land Claims and Co-Management

At the end of 2007, it is believed that there are at least twenty-six verified land claims brought

under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 1994 in South Africa’s twenty-one national parks.

Four of these are now settled, two of which cover areas which include World Heritage sites.

Perhaps the most well known is the Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape that covers

160,000 hectares of mountainous landscape in northwest South Africa. In December 1998, the

community of Richtersveld lodged a claim with the Land Claims Court claiming restitution of

land on the basis that they had been dispossessed of their land as a result of past racially

discriminatory laws or practices, namely the granting of title by the government to Alexsor Ltd,

a diamond mining enterprise. Following appeals to the Constitutional Court of South Africa,

which referred some matters back to the Land Claims Court, final agreement was reached

between the parties conferring communal ownership to the claimant group over the

Richtersveld Area. The area is confined by the Orange River and the Nababiep mountains to the

east, and the Vandersterrberg Mountains to the north. It is buffered by the Richtersveld

National Park, Nababiep Provincial Nature Reserve and designated grazing areas owned by the

Sida !Hub Community Property Association. The Nama people, goat and cattle pastoralists,

mainly live in three villages which were established as mission settlements. Those Nama people

who have not entered work as migrant labourers in other parts of the country tend to be elderly

and few in number – no more than 300. Many of the villages however still practice traditional

forms of environmental management.

The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) found that the Richtersveld

Cultural and Botanical Landscape demonstrates outstanding universal value in terms of

integrated natural and cultural heritage values.68 Prominent among the outstanding universal

values were the extensive communal grazed lands under a system of transhumance, which has

maintained highly diverse succulent-type Karoo vegetation. As a cultural landscape it has

particular pertinence in providing the context for the long-established traditions of the Nama-

Khoi, the Indigenous community.69 There is a participative Management Plan in place to

19

manage the identified World Heritage Area.70 Notably, one of the key goals is to support the

traditional management system rather than to displace it.

The Richtersveld conservancy is owned by the local community through a Community Property

Association.71 EcoAfrica, an environmental consultancy firm, is contributing to the skills

transfer. Conservation International has funded the Community Based Natural Resources

Management Programme. The site manager is a Nama person. The management plan outlines a

strategic approach instead of setting out how its objectives might be achieved. It was developed

over two years and includes management structure, infrastructure development, awareness

raising, tourism development, and monitoring and evaluation. The local community was

involved in its development, and it has successfully managed to have the Richtersveld

Community Conservancy included in a Local Government Integrated Development Plan.

Another recent example of co-management in South Africa is the !Ae Kalahari Contract Park in

the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTFP). Formerly dispossessed, the ‡Khomani San and Mier

communities now share ownership of the KTFP. Proclamation of the Park as a contract national

park took place in August 2002. The park was to be co-managed by a joint management board

comprising three SANParks officials and three to five representatives of the San and Mier

communities respectively, in accordance with the Master Plan for the Management and

Development of the Kgalagadi Contract National Park. Decisions are to be by consensus, but

68 ICOMOS and IUCN have responsibilities for ascertaining the heritage values of nominated areas. For

the Operational Guidelines that determine heritage values see The World Heritage Guidelines at

discussiohttp://www.international.icomos.org/world_heritage/index.html accessed 12 September 2008.69 See for example, the Richtersveld Community Conservancy http://www.richtersveld-conservancy.org/history.htm accessed 12 September 2008. See also World Heritage listing criteria Criterion (iv): The rich diverse botanical landscape of the Richtersveld, shaped by the pastoral grazing of the Nama, represents and demonstrates a way of life that persisted for many millennia over a considerable part of southern Africa and was a significant stage in the history of this area. Criterion (v): The Richtersveld is one of the few areas in southern Africa where transhumance pastoralism is still practised; as a cultural landscape it reflects long-standing and persistent traditions of the Nama, the indigenous community. Their seasonal pastoral grazing regimes, which sustain the extensive bio-diversity of the area, were once much more widespread and are now vulnerable. The Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape has full legal protection. The process of declaring the property as a Heritage Area was completed in early 2007. UNESCO World Heritage List Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical landscape http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1265 accessed 12 September 2008.70 Ibid.71 The Richtersveld community were successful in claiming a form of indigenous community title, under the South African Land Restitution Act.

20

some conflicts have arisen.72 This situation is complicated by fundamental differences between

the San and Mier communities. The Mier community is considered to be ‘more cohesive,

institutionally functional (a Local Council is in place),’ with greater capacity, experience and

empowerment, and fewer expectations and reliance,73 whereas the San community has been

described as having ‘great tensions.’74 Furthermore, reticence by SANParks to take a lead in

implementation of co-management, combined with a lack of resources from Land Affairs and

corruption within the management committee have hindered success. Funding and support for

the community from NGOs also has not been achieved. The relevant NGOs that might typically

be involved include the Southern African San Institute, focused on cultural and linguistic

issues; and Farm Africa, focused on land care projects and livestock on farms owned by the

San.75

The appointment of a San Liaison Officer based in the park, which may have assisted matters,

was hindered when the parameters of the role were confused between SANParks and the San

community. Such discordance was also evident in the lack of consultation with the San and

Mier during negotiations with Botswana for the formation of the KTFP.76 Further, it has been

reported that the elements of the KTFP Management Plan77 relating to communities and

education for wildlife management have not been implemented.78 Despite the apparent

feasibility of this co-management model, it has been suggested that its implementation, along

with other similar co-management regimes in South Africa, is complex and long-term.

Implementation will not be effected without a ‘concerted effort at capacity building and the

72 See David Grossman and Phillipa Holden, “Contract Parks in South Africa”, IUCN Commission on

Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) Publications,

http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/SL/David%20Grossman%20Phillipa%20Holden.pdf, 2,

8-9.73 Ibid., 13. 74 Ibid., 12. 75 Ibid.

21

empowering of all parties as well as the will to work constructively and cooperatively in the

spirit of the agreement.’79

Comparative Perspectives

Co-management models in South Africa have been compared with those in Australia, where

this type of management model is more entrenched. In Australia, with the benefit of more

long-standing experience, a number of successful current management principles have been

adopted. These principles include: the powers and responsibilities of joint management boards

are established in legislation, management plans are ratified by parliament and the operation of

prominent co-managed national parks is subsidised by government.80 For many current

managed areas however tensions remain over the extent to which indigenous people take

responsibility for management directions. Further, emerging issues include the extent to which

biodiversity protection can be consistent with indigenous community economic sustainability.

Similar debates about conservation and economic development of prominent in South Africa.

However, despite the shortcomings of co-management regimes in South Africa to date, some

commentators maintain that abandonment of this approach would be premature. As part of a

broader development project, co-management has been described as unique in its ability to

simultaneously address environmental conservation and poverty.81 Where the relocation of

groups with a history of occupation in particular areas created ‘ “border communities” living in

poverty,’ the return of those lands to such groups and the advent of community-based

conservation potentially furthers the goals of both conservation and development.82 Such

76 Ibid., 13.77 Kagaldi Transfrontier Park Management Plan, 1997, SANParks, South Africa & DWNP, Botswana78 Ibid., 13. 79 Ibid., 13.80 Reid et. al., “Co-management of Contractual National Parks in South Africa: Lessons from Australia,”

Conservation & Society 2 (2004): 400.

22

regimes provide the potential for ‘key principles of management,’ including ‘power sharing,

empowerment, organisational capacity building and improved natural resource management.’83

Accordingly, there appears to be considerable attention devoted to ensuring the viability of co-

management regimes in high profile World Heritage sites and associated parks in South Africa,

despite acknowledged difficulties of fully effective integration of local communities. Interviews

conducted in South Africa in November 2006 with authorities developing the planning for the

Maloti TransFrontier Park, a joint South African-Lesotho venture, indicated a keen awareness

of the need to develop community participation in a comprehensive and meaningful manner. 84

Innovative strategies adopted by community liaison officers sought to deal with the

complexities of the varying aspirations of local communities and to ‘balance’ these against

protection of biodiversity values. Nonetheless, community participation, while celebrated, was

still largely driven as a ‘top-down’ process. Ultimately, further research is needed to assess the

success of these initiatives as they have been progressively implemented.

By contrast, in less prominent park areas and in the ‘nature reserve’ system, including private

game parks, there is a very limited degree of inclusion of local communities in the management

of parks and reserves. Typically such involvement may include employment, as rangers and

guides, but even then, priority will not necessarily be given to local communities. Interviews

conducted with local communities, whose ‘homelands’ were adjacent to game reserves/

national parks indicated negligible involvement, limited employment opportunities and little

prospect in the foreseeable future of inclusion within the management/ decision-making

structures for these areas.85 Other interviews with parks and wildlife authorities in Kwa-Zulu

Natal indicated that while there was a strong acknowledgment of the need for greater

81 Ibid., 402. 82 Bram Büscher and Ton Dietz, “Conjunctions of Governance: The State and the Conservation-

development Nexus in Southern Africa,” The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 4

(2005): 2.83 Moenieba Isaacs and Najma Mohamed, “Co-managing the Commons in the ‘New’ South Africa:

Room for Manoeuvre?” (Paper presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association

for the Study of Common Property, Constituting the Commons, May 31 – June 4, 2000), 4.84 Interview A, November 19 2006, copies on file with Godden.85 Interview B, November 22 2006, copies on file with Godden.

23

engagement with local communities, there was little institutional ‘architecture’ to assist, even

though the relevant legislation and policy clearly supported closer integration. 86 These

empirical findings support the need to more clearly embed the potential for ‘power sharing,

empowerment, organisational capacity building and improved natural resource management.’ 87

While these ‘capacity building’ approaches might be critiqued as overly instrumental, they can

provide a scaffold for the development of more inclusive forms of co-management that do not

privilege western ecological or cultural paradigms over the objectives of local communities.

In order to achieve more inclusive forms of co-management it will be necessary to integrate

two opposing models. At present, Isaacs and Mohamed describe opposing trends in co-

management in South Africa: co-management based upon local community responsibility and

ownership of resources, and co-operation with central state agencies or exercise of delegated

responsibilities.88 These models of management exist along what has been described as a

continuum of involvement – a ladder of participation.89 The extent of respective government

and community involvement in management is specific to different parks, ranging from

‘philanthropy and coerced relationships to organic partnerships.’90 In order to move beyond the

former into the category of the latter, the challenge for local communities is to utilise the

paradigm shifts created by macro-economic policy change as an opportunity to engage fully

and meaningfully in the formulation and implementation of local development objectives – to

‘move beyond coercion and consultation to full participation.’91 Despite the political

complexity of biodiversity conservation, the problems of the competing priorities for scarce 86 Interview C, November 22 2006, copies on file with Godden.87 Moenieba Isaacs and Najma Mohamed, “Co-managing the Commons in the ‘New’ South Africa:

Room for Manoeuvre?” (Paper presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association

for the Study of Common Property, Constituting the Commons, May 31 – June 4, 2000), 4.88 Ibid.89 Moenieba Isaacs and Najma Mohamed, “Co-managing the Commons in the ‘New’ South Africa:

Room for Manoeuvre?” (Paper presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association

for the Study of Common Property, Constituting the Commons, May 31 – June 4, 2000), 2. 90 Moenieba Isaacs and Najma Mohamed, “Co-managing the Commons in the ‘New’ South Africa:

Room for Manoeuvre?” (Paper presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association

for the Study of Common Property, Constituting the Commons, May 31 – June 4, 2000), 4. 91 Ibid., 18.

24

funding, and the complexities of local community participation, the potential benefits of co-

management remain in South Africa, spurring the ‘quest for best practice.’92

Perhaps, then, rather than abandoning co-management in favour of a return to top-down

paternalistic models, critics suggest that the longer experience with co-management in Australia

may be a viable model for South Africa. Indeed, Reid et al propose several ways in which

92 Hector Magome and James Murombedzi, “Sharing South African National Parks: Community land

and conservation in a democratic South Africa” in Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a

Post-colonial Era, ed. William M. Adams and Martin Mulligan, (London: Earthscan Publications, 2003),

131.

25

South African co-management regimes may learn from Australian examples, including an

increased emphasis upon cultural conservation and non-western management; flexibility in

relation to habitation and resource use; and, increased empowerment of community groups via

joint management board structures, employment strategies and conflict resolution

mechanisms.93 In turn, Australia may use the comparative experience of co-management

regimes in South Africa to critically interrogate its own co-management practices in terms of

the enhanced involvement of community practices for building economic sustainability for 93 Reid et. al., “Co-management of Contractual National Parks in South Africa: Lessons from Australia”

Conservation & Society 2 (2004): 402.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles/Books/Reports

Adams, William M and Martin Mulligan, eds. Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-colonial Era. London: Earthscan Publications, 2003.

Adams, William M. “Nature and the colonial mind.” In Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-colonial Era edited by William M. Adams and Martin Mulligan, 16-50. London: Earthscan Publications, 2003.

Baker, Richard, Jocelyn Davies and Elspeth Young. Working on Country: Contemporary Indigenous Management of Australia’s Lands and Coastal Regions. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, Pimbert, Michel, Farvar, M. Taghi, Kothari, Ashish and Renard, Yves, Sharing Power: Learning-By-Doing in Co-Management of Natural Resources Throughout the World (2004).

Bright, April, “Burn Grass” in Rose, Deborah (ed), Country in Flames: Proceedings of the 1994 symposium on biodiversity and fire in North Australia, 59-62.

Büscher, Bram and Ton Dietz. “Conjunctions of Governance: The State and the Conservation-development Nexus in Southern Africa.” The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 4 (2005): 1-15.

Fabienne Bayet, ‘Indigenous People and Wilderness’ in Baird Callicott, J, and Nelson, Michael P (eds) The Great New Wilderness Debate (1998) 314, 318.

26

local communities, and in facing the coming challenges of widespread structural change as co-

management regimes respond to the impacts of climate change and the increasing pressures of

global tourism.

ENDNOTES

27

Foley, Tony. “Negotiating Resource Agreements: Lessons from ILUAs.” Environmental Planning Law Journal 19 (4) (2002): 267-275.

Formille, Henrietta, “Indigenous peoples, the conservation of traditional ecological knowledge, and global governance” in Low, Nicholas, Global Ethics and Environment (1999) 215.

Gibbs, LM, “Decolonising, Multiplicities and Mining in the Eastern Goldfields, Western Australia” (2003) 41(1) Australian Geographical Studies 17-28.

Godden, Lee. “Indigenous Heritage and the Environment: ‘Legal Categories are Only One Way of Imagining the Real’.” Environmental and Planning Law Journal 19 (August 2002): 258-266.

Hanekom, Derek and Liebenberg, Louis, “Livestock grazing in National Parks” (1993) ANC Occasional Paper, ANC, Luthuli House, Johannesburg.

Hill, Rosemary. “The Effectiveness of Agreements and Protocols to Bridge Between Indigenous and Non Indigenous Toolboxes for Protected Area Management: A Case Study from the Wet Tropics of Queensland.” Society and Natural Resources 19 (2006): 577 – 590.

Howitt, Richard, Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Indigenous Peoples (2001).

Howitt, Richard and Sandra Suchet-Pearson. “Rethinking the Building Blocks: Ontological Pluralism and the Idea of ‘Management’.” Geografiska Annaler (Series B: Human Geography) 88 (2006): 323-335.

Isaacs, Moenieba and Najma Mohamed. “Co-managing the Commons in the ‘New’ South Africa: Room for Manoeuvre?” (Paper presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Constituting the Commons, May 31 – June 4, 2000).

Kinnane, S. “Indigenous Sustainability: Rights, Obligations and a Collective Commitment to Country.” In International Law and Indigenous Peoples edited by Joshua Castellino, and Niamh Walsh, 195-224. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005.

28

Langton, Marcia. Burning Questions: Emerging Environmental Issues for Indigenous Peoples in Northern Australia. Darwin: Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management, 1998.

Langton, Marcia, “The ‘Wild’, the Market and the Native: Indigenous People Face New Forms of Global Colonization” in Vertovec, Steven and Posey, Darrell, Globalization, Globalism, Environments, and Environmentalism: Consciousness of Connections (The Linacre Lectures 2000) (2003).

Langton, Marcia, Zane Ma Rhea and Lisa Palmer. “Community-Oriented Protected Areas for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.” Journal of Political Ecology 12 (2005): 23 – 50.

Low, Nicholas, Global Ethics and the Environment (1999).

Magome, Hector and James Murombedzi. “Sharing South African National Parks: Community land and conservation in a democratic South Africa.” In Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-colonial Era edited by William M. Adams, and Martin Mulligan, 108-131. London: Earthscan Publications, 2003.

Magome, Hector. “Biodiversity Conservation, Development and Local People: Politics, Puzzles and Potentials.” In Towards Best Practice: Communities and Conservation (Conference Proceedings, Berg en Dal, Kruger National Park, South Africa, South African National Parks, Social Ecology, 15-19 May 2000): 14-18.

Muller, S, “Towards Decolonisation of Australia’s Protected Area Management: the Nantawarrina Indigenous Protected Area Experience” (2003) 41(1) Australian Geographical Studies 29-43.

Mulvihill, Peter and Peter Jacobs. “Ancient Lands: New Perspectives. Towards Multi-Cultural Literacy in Landscape Management.” Landscape and Urban Planning 32 (1995): 7-17.

Murphree, M.W., “Community-based Conservation: Old Ways, New Myths and Enduring Challenges” `(Key address at the conference on African Wildlife Management in the New Millennium, 13-15 December 2000, Mweka, Tanzania, College of African Wildlife Management).

29

Nettheim, G., Gary D. Meyers and D. Craig. Indigenous Peoples and Governance Structures: A Comparative Analysis of Land and Resource Management Rights. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 2002.

Plachter, Harald and Rossler, Mechtild. “Cultural Landscapes: Reconnecting Culture and Nature.” In Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value: Components of a Global Strategy, edited by Bernd von Droste, Harald Plachter and Mechtild Rossler, 15-18. Germany: UNESCO, 1995.

Plumwood, Val. “Decolonizing relationships with nature.” In Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-colonial Era edited by William M. Adams, and Martin Mulligan, 51-78. London: Earthscan Publications, 2003.

Poirier, R. and D. Ostergren. “Evicting People from Nature: Indigenous Land Rights and National Parks in Australia, Russia and the United States.” Natural Resources Journal 42 (2002): 331-352.

Porter, L, “Unlearning One’s Privilege: Reflections on Cross-Cultural Research with Indigenous Peoples in South-East Australia” (2004) 5(1) Planning Theory & Practice 104-109.

Posey, DA, ‘Indigenous peoples and traditional resource rights: A basis for equitable relationships?’ in Sultan et al, Ecopolitics IX Conference: Perspectives on Indigenous Peoples Management of the Environment Resources (Darwin, 1995, Northern Land Council).

Reid, Hannah, David Fig, Hector Magome and Nigel Leader-Williams. “Co-management of Contractual National Parks in South Africa: Lessons from Australia.” Conservation & Society 2 (2004): 377 – 409.

Rose, Deborah Bird. “Land Rights and Deep Colonising: The Erasure of Women” Aboriginal Law Bulletin 3 (October 1996) 6-13.

Rose, Deborah Bird, Nourishing Terrains: Australian Aboriginal Views of Landscape and Wilderness. Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission, 1996.

Rose, Deborah, ‘Indigenous ecologies and an ethic of connection” in Low, N (ed) Global Ethics and Environment (1999) 175-187.

30

Shaw, WS, Herman, RDK and Dobbs, GR, “Encountering Indigeneity: Re-Imagining and Decolonizing Geography” (2006) 88(3) Geografiska Annaler (Series B: Human Geography) 267-276.

Smyth, D. “Joint Management of National Parks.” In Working on Country: Contemporary Indigenous Management of Australia’s Lands and Coastal Regions, edited by Richard Baker, Jocelyn Davies and Elspeth Young. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2001: 75-91.

Suchet-Pearson, Sandra. “ ‘Totally Wild’? Colonising Discourses, Indigenous Knowledges and Managing Wildlife.” Australian Geographer 33 (2002): 141-157.

Szabo, S and Smyth, D, “Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia: Incorporating indigenous owned land into Australia’s National System of Protected Areas” in Jaireth, H and Smyth, D, Innovative Governance: Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and Protected Areas (2003) 145-164.

Thorley, Peter. “Current Realities, Idealised Pasts: Archaeology, Values and Indigenous Heritage Management in Central Australia.” Oceania 73 (2002):110-125.

Usher, PJ, “Comanagement of Natural Resources: Some Aspects of the Canadian Experience” in Peterson, DL and Johnson, DR, Human Ecology and Climate Change: People and Resources in the Far North (1995) 197-206.

West, Paige, James Igoe, and Dan Brockington. “Parks and Peoples: The Social Impact of Protected Areas.” Annual Review of Anthropology 35 (2006): 251-277.

Legislation

Commonwealth:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth)

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (Cth)

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

31

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)

Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (Cth)

Victoria:

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic)

Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972 (Vic)

Conservation Trust Act 1972 (Vic)

Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic)

Environment Effects Act 1978 (Vic)

Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic)

Heritage Act 1995 (Vic)

Heritage Act 1995 (Vic)

Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)

Wildlife Act 1975 (Vic)

Queensland:

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld)

South Africa

Land Restitution Act 1994 (South Africa)

National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 2003 (South Africa)

Cases

Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.

Western Australia v Ward (2000) 213 CLR 1.

Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v The State of Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422.

32

Other Sources

Internet Materials:

Agreements Treaties and Negotiated Settlements Database at www.atns.net.au as at 21 February 2007.

Co-operative Management Agreement between Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation and the State of Victoria (14 October 2004) at

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenlwm.nsf/fid/-7FA349BEAE0F5A3FCA256E8D00210309/$file/Agreement2004.pdf as at 2 February 2007.

Department of Justice and Department of Sustainability and Environment, Yorta Yorta Co-operative Management Agreement (Fact sheet, May 2004) at

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenlwm.nsf/LinkView/7FA349BEAE0F5A3FCA256E8D00210309A4AD52AC7C448F1A4A256DEA0024EDD2 as at 2 February 2007.

Department of Environment and Heritage, Indigenous Heritage Programme Guide for Applicants, at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/programs/ihp/pubs/guide.pdf as at 14 February 2007.

Friends of the Earth, Melbourne, Riverine Red Gum Forests Investigation Discussion Paper

(Submission to the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, July 2005) at

http://www.melbourne.foe.org.au/barmah/resources/FoEsubmission_veacredgumdp.pdf as at 20

February 2007.

Gilligan, B, The Indigenous Protected Areas Programme: 2006 Evaluation at http://www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/publications/ipa-evaluation.html as at 20 February 2007.

Grossman, David and Holden, Phillipa. “Contract Parks in South Africa.” IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) Publications. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/SL/David%20Grossman%20Phillipa%20Holden.pdf (accessed January 24, 2007).

33

Guide to Australian Government Funding Sources, National Native Title Tribunal Research Unit, October 2006 at http://www.nntt.gov.au/research/reports.html#Specificissuereports as at 20 February 2007.

Strategy for Aboriginal Managed Lands in Victoria (SAMLIV) Project Team Draft Report 2003 at http://home.vicnet.net.au/~samliv/ as at 15 February 2007.

Szabo et al, Indigenous Engagement in Natural Resource Management: Case Study 1, North Central Catchment Management Region, Victoria (Report for the Natural Heritage Trust, May 2004) at http://www.nrm.gov.au/indigenous/publications/case-studies/case-study-1/index.html as at 16 February 2007.

Tyrendarra Indigenous Protected Area Fact Sheet at http://www.deh/gov.au/indigenous/ipa/declred/tyrendarra.html as at 1 February 2007.

Department of Environment and Conservation (WA). “Shark Bay World Heritage Area.” http://www.sharkbay.org (accessed at September 1, 2008).

Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Management Plan, 1997, SANParks, South Africa & DWNP, Botswanahttp://www.botswanatourism.co.bw/attractions/kgalagadi.html

Other Materials:

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Intergovernmental Committee for the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention UNESCO Doc WHC 08/01 (2008).

Useful websites:

www.whc.unesco.org

www.iucn.org/themes/spg/resources.html

www.deh.gov.au/indigenous/ipa

www.atns.net.au

34