INDIGENOUS LAND MANAGEMENT IN URBAN AND

PERI-URBAN LANDSCAPESRachele Wilson (Honours candidate)

Dr Tristan Pearce (Supervisor), Dr Scott Lieske (Co-supervisor)

Traditional ILM

Place-specific system of practices, developed over thousands of years

To manage resources (e.g. food, water, shelter)

To maintain connections to Country and respect local customs

WHAT IS INDIGENOUS LAND MANAGEMENT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

Introduction

Painting 'Aborigines using fire to hunt kangaroos’ by Joseph Lycett, c 1820, depicting fire-stick farming in NSW

Ngadju / Marlpa peoples maintain knowledge of ‘water trees’ in WA

There were over 250 Aboriginal language groups in Australia at the time of European colonisation

Contemporary ILM

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples working in: conservation, parks management, natural resource management (NRM)…

Through over 700 Indigenous ILM groups in Australia

Using traditional and Western methods

WHAT IS INDIGENOUS LAND MANAGEMENT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

Introduction

Yurung Dhaura Aboriginal Land Management team (ACT) are recognised for their work in bush regeneration and cultural heritage management

Wunambal Gaambera Aboriginal Corporation (WA) are using new tools to monitor turtles and dugongs on seacountry

Both traditional and contemporary ILM is vital for human health and wellbeing, economic development and ecological

sustainability

ILM is over reported for places where Aboriginal peoples have rights over their traditional lands

Little is known about the role of ILM in urban and peri-urban areas (where most of the population resides)

ILM AND NATIVE TITLE

Introduction

In2012, Indigenous peoples held land rights and native title determinations for 21% of Australia, and limited responsibility for a further 39% through other registered native title claims . Source: Altman and Markham, 2013

Research aimTo examine the roles, challenges and opportunities for ILM in urban and peri-urban landscapes through a case study of Bunya Bunya Country Aboriginal Corporation (BBCAC) on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia.

Objectives

To identify and describe the roles of Indigenous land managers working in urban and peri-urban areas of the Sunshine Coast;

To document opportunities and challenges for Indigenous land managers working in urban and peri-urban areas of the Sunshine Coast; and

To draw key lessons for improving ILM in urban and peri-urban areas on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland and Australia.

RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

Introduction

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

Methods

Key stages of participatory research process enacted throughout the study (based on Pearce et al. 2009).

Descriptive case study design and participatory research approach

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AREA

Methods

Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners, custodians, South Sea Islanders and historically-connected Aboriginal people

Sunshine Coast, particularly Maroochy and Mooloolah river catchments

Urban and peri-urban land use

Semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, participant observation, and analysis of secondary sources

Transcripts returned to participants for “member checking”

7 interviews / FGDs, 80 hours of observations and field notes

DATA COLLECTION

Methods

Taking field notes during a cultural awareness tour (photo by Barry Alsop).

Observations while monitoring Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) nests.

Sample characteristics for Bunya Bunya members and other key informants. Field work was conducted with both groups, only BBCAC members were included in interviews and/or focus group discussions.

Data integrated and analysed using thematic (latent content) analysis

Classified as primary or secondary and coded to respective case nodes and in vivo into categories under “roles”, “challenges” and “opportunities” themes

Categories that did not appear across multiple and different sources of data were eliminated

DATA ANALYSIS

Methods

Data were thematically analysed and grouped into categories in Nvivo software.

ROLES

Results

Land management roles performed by BBCAC and its members.

BBCAC members: volunteering (top left; photo by N Morwood); inducting trainees (top right); monitoring habitat (bottom left); and propagating mangroves (bottom right).

BBCAC plays an active role in the Sunshine Coast community and is involved in a range of activities

Members reported urban development and population growth/change, financial barriers, governance, and cross-cultural awareness as challenges to ILM

CHALLENGES

Results

Challenges for land management experienced by BBCAC and its members.

Member observes Jet Ski user (top left); unproductive oyster farm (top right); eroded river bank (bottom left); damaged cultural heritage site (bottom right).

Members are interested in opportunities to develop a more Indigenous-driven approach to land management on Country and developing a more organised eco-cultural tourism experience that is of benefit to local Aboriginal peoples

OPPORTUNITIES

Results

Opportunities for land management suggested by BBCAC and its members.

“We could probably hand a bit more of this work over to some other Murri people who want to learn about this, and teach them up, so we can empower ourselves and teach young fellas in how they can work the land too.” (Kerry)

“I would like to have our own cultural centre, a keeping place, where we can have a permanent display. Where my brother can have his Gubbi Gubbi dance group. Like in Cairns, their cultural centre, I'd really like that here. We could have an environmental section. We could have those bush tucker gardens. We could have those workshops and audio recordings playing, all being active on Country.” (Bridgette)

MULTIPLE ROLES AND COLLABORATION FOR COMPLEX MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Roles respond to land management issues typical of urban and peri-urban landscapes in addition to responsibilities as Traditional Owners

Multiple sources of threats require collaboration and engagement with other land users and stakeholders

Collaboration requires good cross-cultural engagement and adequate funding

Discussion

BBCAC operate in a catchment that is known to have poor nutrient cycling due to increased sediment loads. Collaboration with pastoralists and farmers through the FarmFLOW project aimed to reduce soil erosion and nutrient run-off from these sources. But more is needed to engage other land users. Source: Healthy Waterways and Landcare

Lack of stable, adequate and appropriate funding is recognised as a barrier to long-term sustainability of ILM projects and partnerships

Majority of ILM groups are under-resourced, and rely on several small funding sources to cover project costs

A hybrid economy provides a means for more stable, appropriate funding

BARRIERS TO ADEQUATE, LONG-TERM FUNDING AND RESOURCES

Discussion

Ideal model for hybrid economy. ILM is more productive and resilient in a hybrid economy where funding sources cross sectors. Source: Altman 2009.

ATSI peoples’ knowledge, values and responsibilities to Country are often marginalised from decision-making processes

As a “boundary object”, the “TO Terms and Conditions” could to reverse decision-making processes, and enable a more Indigenous-driven approach to engagement

This could facilitate cross-cultural awareness between groups and place a greater onus on non-Indigenous partners to meet Aboriginal expectations of effective engagement and associated financial costs

BOUNDARY OBJECTS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL ENGAGEMENT

Discussion

The “boundary object” developed and used by Girringun peoples (N Qld) to communicate their knowledge and values in decision-making processes with other TO groups and non-Indigenous agencies (Zurba and Berkes 2014).

This research examined the roles, challenges and opportunities for ILM on the Sunshine Coast

Members fulfil a diverse set of roles through community engagement, ecological restoration, cultural heritage conservation, and enterprise development

Most pressing challenges stem from insufficient, short-term funding and resource limitations (i.e. access to land and basic infrastructure, poor engagement)

Opportunities to improve include drawing on public and private economies for a more systematic yet localised approach to ILM

Key to improving ILM on the Sunshine Coast and in general is the need for bottom-up, Indigenous-driven approaches that deliver socio-economic and cultural co-benefits to local Aboriginal peoples

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

Conclusions and recommendations

Kerry Jones, Sean Fleischfresser, Bridgette Davis, Genevieve Jones, Loretta Algar, Anne Miller, Arnold Jones and Helen Jones, Dr Tristan Pearce, Dr Scott Lieske, Dr Jennifer Carter, key informants and helpful persons of the Kabi Kabi and Jinibara nations, the University of the Sunshine Coast (Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering) and the Vice Chancellor for scholarships, the Sustainability Research Centre, Dr Maria de Lourdes Melo Zurita, Dr Roy Sidle, Dr Erin Smith, Dr Chris Jacobs, Dr Pedro Fidelman, Luke Verstraten, Yolanda Arkesteijn, Jo Nicholls, Bonnie Killip, Elektra Grant, Michael Dan and Kelly Chambers.

THANK YOU

Acknowledgements