Content uploaded by Sarah E Holcombe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah E Holcombe on Mar 31, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Australian approaches for managing ‘country’ using
Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge
By Emilie J. Ens, Max Finlayson, Karissa Preuss, Sue Jackson and Sarah Holcombe
Emilie Ens is an ecologist with the Centre for Aborigi-
nal Economic Policy Research (The Australian
National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia;
Tel: +61 2 6125 0672; Email: emilie.ens@anu.edu.au).
Max Finlayson is Professor for Ecology and Biodiver-
sity with the Institute for Land, Water and Society
(Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW 2640,
Australia; Tel: +61 260519779; Email: mfinlayson@
csu.edu.au). Karissa Preuss formerly worked for
the Central Land Council and is now a postgradu-
ate research student with The Fenner School of
Environment and Society (The Australian National
University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia; Tel:
+61 412 206 491; Email: karissa.preuss@anu.
edu.au). Sue Jackson is a Principal Research
Scientist with the CSIRO’s Division of Ecosystem
Sciences at the Tropical Ecosystems Research
Centre (CSIRO, Berrimah, NT 0828, Australia; Tel:
+61 8 8944 8415; Email: sue.jackson@csiro.au).
Sarah Holcombe is a Senior Research Officer at
the Healing Foundation (The Healing Founda-
tion, L2 55 Wentworth Avenue, Kingston, ACT
2604, Australia; Tel: +61 2 6124 4400; Email:
sarah.holcombe@healingfoundation.org.au).
Summary This paper synthesises the lessons learnt and challenges encountered when
applying Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge and methods in natural and cultural
resource management (NCRM) in northern and central Australia. We primarily draw on the
papers within this special issue of
Ecological Management & Restoration
, which originated
largely from the Indigenous land management symposium at the 2010 Ecological Society of
Australia conference. Many of the papers and therefore this article discuss practical experi-
ences that offer insight for enhanced on-ground cross-cultural NCRM and can inform broader
thinking and theoretical critiques. A wider literature is also drawn upon to substantiate the
points and broaden the scope of the synthesis. Four key themes for consideration in collabo-
rative cross-cultural NCRM are discussed. They are as follows: 1. The differences in environ-
mental philosophy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultures which profoundly shape
perceptions of environmental management; 2. Cross-cultural awareness of Indigenous and
non-Indigenous knowledge and methods; 3. The mechanics of two-way approaches to
ecological research and managing country (NCRM as perceived by Indigenous people) and
4. Operational challenges for Indigenous NCRM organisations. To conclude, we point out five
broad principles for managing country using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge:
(i) Recognise the validity of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous environmental philosophies;
(ii) Create more opportunities for improved cross-cultural understanding, respect and collab-
orations; (iii) Involve Indigenous people and their knowledge and interests at all stages of the
Indigenous NCRM project or research (including planning, design, implementation, commu-
nication and evaluation); (iv) Ensure that time and continuity of effort and resources are
available (to undertake participatory processes and for trust-building and innovation) and
(v) Establish high-level political support through legal and policy frameworks to maintain
continuity of government commitment to Indigenous NCRM.
Key words: community-based natural resource management, cross-cultural approaches, Indig-
enous ecological knowledge, natural and cultural resource management.
Introduction
International and regional
policy directions
Over the last 30 years, approaches for
including Indigenous people’s knowl-
edge, skills and interests in broader natural
and cultural resource management (NCRM)
have increasingly been theorised, tried and
tested around the world (e.g. Carbonell
et al. 2001; Sobrevila 2008; Nelson & Agra-
wal 2008; Berkes 2008; Ross et al. 2011;
Bohensky & Maru 2011; papers within this
special issue). This trend has been driven
by widespread recognition of the failure of
top-down approaches to Indigenous con-
servation and management; the increasing
legal rights and land ownership of Indige-
nous people; acknowledgement of existing
Indigenous NCRM achievements and
current Indigenous affairs policies of self-
determination and alleviation of Indigenous
disadvantage (Baker et al. 2001; Borrini-
Feyerabend et al. 2004; Ross et al. 2011).
The importance of combining Indige-
nous and non-Indigenous knowledge for
conservation and management is also
reflected in the widespread adoption of
international strategies that couple poverty
alleviation with sustainable development
and biodiversity conservation as exempli-
fied through four major international initia-
tives. These are the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005), the Ramsar Conven-
tion on Wetlands (see Finlayson et al.
2001), the Convention on Biological Diver-
sity and the more recent global Strategic
Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the
Aichi Targets (CBD 2011). The latter
includes the target ‘By 2020, the traditional
knowledge, innovations and practices of
Indigenous and local communities relevant
for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity, and their customary use of
biological resources, as respected, subject
to national legislation and relevant interna-
tional obligations, and fully integrated and
reflected in the implementation of the
Convention with the full and effective par-
ticipation of Indigenous and local commu-
nities, at all relevant levels.’
The definition of Indigenous ecological
knowledge is not universally accepted
(Berkes 2008). Here we will adopt the
widely utilised working definition of Ber-
kes (2008: 7) as:
…a cumulative body of knowledge, prac-
tice and belief evolving by adaptive
SYNTHESIS
ARTICLE
100 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 ª2012 Ecological Society of Australia
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00634.x
Ecological
Society of
Australia
processes and handed down through the
generations by cultural transmission about
the relationship of living beings (including
humans) with one another and with their
environment.
In Australia, Indigenous ecological
knowledge has a major role to play in
NCRM. Indigenous Australians own more
than 20% of the Australian land mass and
much of this is of high biodiversity value
(Garnett & Sithole 2007; Altman & Jackson
2008). Indigenous people have a body of
environmental knowledge accumulated
over hundreds of generations of actively
caring for country (see Young 1991). Local
systems of customary law dictate that tradi-
tional land owners have a substantive role
in land and water management; therefore,
Indigenous people expect to participate
fully in environmental management deci-
sions. The significant role of Indigenous
land owners and managers is reflected in
Australia’s key piece of environmental legis-
lation, the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth),
which acknowledges ‘a partnership app-
roach to environmental protection and
biodiversity conservation’ and promotes
‘Indigenous peoples’ role in, and knowl-
edge of, the conservation and ecologi-
cally sustainable use of biodiversity
(s 3(2)(g)(iii)).
In recognition of these factors, Austra-
lian government legislation, policies, pro-
grammes and NCRM strategies and plans
increasingly recommend or require Indige-
nous engagement from local to national
levels. Increased Australian Government
support for Indigenous NCRM is evidenced
by the Caring for our Country Program.
This includes (i) the Working on Country
Program, which supports the employment
of 600 Indigenous Rangers to manage
Australia’s natural and cultural assets, and
(ii) the national Indigenous Protected Area
(IPA) programme, which financially sup-
ports Traditional Owners to develop,
declare and manage their land as part of
the National Reserve System (Australian
Government 2011a). In 2011, there were
47 declared IPAs in Australia, comprising
24 % of the National Reserve System
(Australian Government 2011b). The non-
governmental and private sectors are also
increasingly supporting Indigenous NCRM
(see Fitzsimons et al. 2012; Moorcroft
et al. 2012; Wallis et al. 2012).
Indigenous Australians are not passive
bystanders in this national effort. Indige-
nous people are investing time and initiative
in active land and sea management; collabo-
rating with government agencies and other
stakeholders; developing innovative part-
nerships with researchers to exchange
knowledge and solve identified problems
and retaining scientists as an integral part of
the development of their own management
programmes (see McGregor et al. 2010;
Jackson et al. 2011; Ens et al. 2012; Grice
et al. 2012; Muhic et al. 2012).
Notwithstanding the increased effort
dedicated to Indigenous NCRM, results
have been mixed, with many projects fall-
ing well short of both Indigenous and non-
Indigenous expectations (Nadasdy 2005;
Walker 2010; Barbour & Schlesinger
2012). International and national experi-
ence clearly shows that combining Indi-
genous and non-Indigenous ecological
knowledge, values and interests in NCRM
is considered a worthy and necessary goal,
yet these processes are frequently con-
tested, and designing and implementing
programmes to achieve this goal are far
from straightforward (Carbonell et al.
2001; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004;
Dressler et al. 2010; Hill et al. in press).
Published accounts of attempts to com-
bine Indigenous knowledge and interests
with broader NCRM and the successes, fail-
ures and lessons learnt are available (e.g.
see Finlayson et al. 1998; Walsh & Mitchell
2002; Horstmann & Wightman 2001; Smyth
et al. 2004; McGregor et al. 2010), but are
limited (Roughley & Williams 2007; Carter
2008; Bohensky & Maru 2011; Hill et al. in
press). Protocols and guidelines to assist in
the ethical dimensions of this engagement
are being developed (e.g. Holcombe 2009;
Holcombe & Gould 2010). Furthermore,
various researchers have recently devised
insightful principles and theoretical frame-
works to guide Indigenous NCRM (Rough-
ley & Williams 2007; Ross et al. 2011; Hill
et al. in press). Less common are published
accounts from those working at the cultural
interface to develop and implement Indige-
nous NCRM, particularly from Indigenous
people (but see, for example, Ens et al.
2010; papers within this issue).
This paper is a synthesis of the papers
in this special issue that demonstrate
practical ways to combine Indigenous
and non-Indigenous people’s knowledge,
methods and values for improved national
NCRM outcomes. Many of the papers are
case studies that have more of a practical
than theoretical focus. The strength of this
issue is in giving voice to Indigenous and
non-Indigenous people who are working
together on the ground in Indigenous
NCRM. This paper elucidates some of the
lessons learnt and challenges involved in
integrating two different sets of environ-
mental knowledge and skills. We review
four key themes that emerged from the
papers in this issue and suggest some spe-
cific practical actions that, if included in
future strategies, may enhance collabora-
tive or two-way efforts for improved
NCRM outcomes across Australia. We con-
clude with five broad principles for manag-
ing ‘country’ using Indigenous and non-
Indigenous knowledge.
Exploring the Themes
The main themes identified by the range of
papers in this issue are as follows:
1Differences in environmental philoso-
phy between Indigenous and non-Indig-
enous cultures and the effect of these
on perceptions of conservation and
land and sea management;
2Cross-cultural awareness of Indigenous
and non-Indigenous knowledge and
methods;
3The mechanics of two-way approaches
to ecological research and ‘managing’
country and
4Operational challenges for Indigenous
NCRM organisations.
Differences in philosophy
and their effect on
management
A number of papers in this special issue
point to ongoing tensions between the dif-
ferent world views in environmental
collaborations involving Indigenous and
SYNTHESIS ARTICLE
ª2012 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 101
non-Indigenous Australians. Indigenous
people have a much broader conception
of ‘country’ than used in mainstream
NCRM. As Rose (1996: 7) described in
her seminal book ‘Nourishing Terrains’,
country is multidimensional:
Country is not a generalised or undiffer-
entiated type of place, such as one
might indicate with terms like ‘spending
a day in the country’...Rather, country is
a living entity with a yesterday, today
and tomorrow, with a consciousness,
and a will towards life. Because of the
richness country is home, and peace;
nourishment for body mind and spirit;
hearts ease.
Indigenous people do not simply see
management as a one-way linear process
where people take specific actions to
affect the environment (Bradley 2001;
Howitt & Suchet-Pearson 2006). Rather,
terms such as ‘looking after’ or ‘caring for
country’ are often used in place of man-
agement to show the ‘two-way interaction
between people and country’ (Bradley
2001: 297). Similarly, Barbour and Schle-
singer (2012) and Vaarzon-Morel and
Edwards (2012) illustrate attitudes of
Indigenous groups to the types of plants
and animals that others have come to
define as pest species showing that cul-
tural differences can affect how (i) conser-
vation and land management activities are
defined and legitimated and (ii) research,
planning and implementation activities are
prioritised.
The papers in this special issue demon-
strate that paramount in cross-cultural con-
sultation, planning, research and training
programmes is the need to recognise the
validity of both world views, particularly
Indigenous perspectives when working on
Indigenous land. Ideally, such recognition
can then lead to greater opportunities for
devising novel understandings of problems
and potential solutions that can result in
improvements to the health of ecosystems
and societies as identified by different
world views.
A collaborative way forward will
require investment in a new ‘management
and ecological’ language, philosophies,
attitudes and increased awareness of the
multiple landscape perspectives and world
views across Australian society (Robertson
et al. 2000; Rose 2005; McDonald 2008;
Barbour & Schlesinger 2012).
Cross-cultural awareness
of Indigenous and
non-Indigenous knowledge
and methods
Individuals involved in cross-cultural envi-
ronmental work must have an understand-
ing and appreciation of and respect for the
cultures of the people involved in the
work, whether it be planning, research,
management action or project evaluation.
Cross-cultural awareness goes beyond an
understanding of the differences in percep-
tions of land management to include
broader social and cultural systems within
which environmental knowledge sits.
Cross-cultural awareness can facilitate
more effective, informed and grounded
communication and interaction and has
been noted by many stakeholders as funda-
mental and essential to cross-cultural pro-
jects (see Roughley & Williams 2007;
papers within the special issue). For
example, non-Indigenous knowledge of
Indigenous kinship structures will guide
non-Indigenous understanding of why cer-
tain people want to work or cannot work
with others (see Moorcroft et al. 2012),
and where and how certain people are
allowed to work. Some Indigenous people
also tend to prioritise cultural responsibili-
ties such as ceremonies or other family
obligations that can affect the timing and
duration of work (see Brennan et al. 2012;
Moorcroft et al. 2012; Preuss & Dixon
2012). Additionally, Ens et al. (2012),
drawing on research by McRae and Gerrit-
son (2010), discuss some of the cross-cul-
tural differences in work ethic and
expectations of Indigenous and non-Indige-
nous work roles which can influence how
work is conducted and what outcomes are
achieved. Current perceptions of and atti-
tudes to work are shaped by our past,
which is very different for Indigenous and
non-Indigenous Australians. Indigenous
histories of subjugation and coercion have
resulted in a legacy of Indigenous marginal-
isation (Altman & Hinkson 2007) and in
many cases a lack of confidence in engag-
ing with mainstream Australia, including
its employment practices. Broader cross-
cultural awareness is essential to creating
change. Truly providing for such differ-
ences in collaborative efforts will not be
easy and will require a re-ordering of the
priorities and practices of the dominant
NRM sector. For example, more participa-
tory approaches will require increased re-
sourcing (more time, more money) and
there will be trade-offs in effort and
impact.
Currently, Western paradigms tend to
dominate processes because of cultural
misunderstandings and ⁄or perceived supe-
riority of Western philosophies and meth-
ods held by many mainstream resources
and funding agencies (Rose 2005; Davies
et al. 2010). Indigenous co-researchers of
cross-cultural projects throughout Australia
have noted that all too often, the values
and preferred methods of Indigenous par-
ticipants are pushed aside with preference
for faster and more efficient methods of
the dominant non-Indigenous culture
(Robinson et al. 2003; Sithole et al. 2007).
Lack of cross-cultural awareness can lead
to power struggles between Indigenous
and non-Indigenous collaborators. This
generally is an unresolved and ongoing
issue in Australia that needs to be
addressed if we are to be able to develop
truly collaborative approaches (see Rigney
2001; Barbour & Schlesinger 2012).
Recently, Muller (in press) argued that
Indigenous organisations and communities
are the institutions that are being forced to
change rather than the dominant govern-
ing institutions. As stated by Barbour and
Schlesinger (2012), there needs to be a
shift in the mindset and approaches of
non-Indigenous Australians to enable
increased involvement of Indigenous peo-
ple, knowledge and preferred methods at
management and decision-making levels.
The mechanics of two-way
approaches to research and
‘managing’ country
Globally, collaborative approaches are
invoked in informal community-based pro-
jects through to formal joint or co-manage-
ment arrangements of National Parks and
are viewed as integral to attaining sustain-
able development (Folke et al. 2002). In
Australia, the concept of ‘two-way’
approaches originated in the education
SYNTHESIS ARTICLE
102 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 ª2012 Ecological Society of Australia
sector (Harris 1990; Muller in press) and
has since increasingly been taken up to
describe collaborative NCRM research and
management methods that include Indige-
nous and non-Indigenous people, knowl-
edge, techniques, values and worldviews
(Davies et al. 2010; Preuss & Dixon 2012).
Synonymous descriptions are referred to as
both-ways or two-toolbox approaches (see
Davies et al. 2010). Muller (in press) elo-
quently described how, for Yolngu people
of north-eastern Arnhem Land, a two-way
approach is based on the Yolngu ganma
concept; a metaphor that describes the
mixing of the saltwater and freshwater to
form brackish water. According to this
concept, brackish water has a different
taste, but neither is more important nor
dominant. Two-way learning, methods and
management were highlighted as key prin-
ciples for success in all of the papers in this
special issue. A recent review of Indige-
nous land and sea management in the Top
End of the Northern Territory found that
Traditional Owners wanted to see more
Indigenous knowledge used to manage
country (Sithole et al. 2007).
Ideally, two-way projects should
involve Indigenous and non-Indigenous
participants in all stages of the project
including conceptualisation, design, imple-
mentation, interpretation, monitoring,
evaluation and dissemination stages
(Carter & Hill 2007). In practice, various
combinations of Indigenous and non-Indig-
enous involvement at each of these stages
are likely to occur. Strategies to increase
the use of Indigenous knowledge and
values in landscape management from the
planning to implementation, monitoring
and evaluation stages are described in
papers throughout the special issue and in
the literature. The need for respectful
Indigenous involvement in the planning
phase of Indigenous NCRM projects, and
therefore enhanced Indigenous owner-
ship, was highlighted in the influential
book by Walsh and Mitchell (2002) titled
‘Planning for Country: Cross cultural
approaches to decision-making on Aborigi-
nal lands’. Insight from this book was put
into practice and further explored by
Preuss & Dixon (2012) and Moorcroft
et al. (2012) during the respective devel-
opment of regional management plans for
the proposed Southern Tanami IPA in the
Northern Territory and Wunambal
Gaambera country in the north Kimberley,
Western Australia. These and numerous
other case studies cited on-country partici-
patory workshops and discussions as
crucial for the developmental stage.
Time was also seen as crucial to the par-
ticipatory planning process – making time
for conversations among participants,
digestion of ideas and information, and
exploration of different options and cul-
tural imperatives (Preuss & Dixon 2012).
Likewise, Hoffmann et al. (2012) noted
that time is important for development of
mutual understanding, respect, trust and
effective communication, which are also
considered as key elements for ongoing
mutually beneficial collaborations (Horst-
mann & Wightman 2001; Storrs et al.
2001; Davies et al. 2011). As many projects
have tight timelines that impose opera-
tional constraints on all project phases,
there is a danger that the essential element
of setting aside adequate time for participa-
tory processes, which engage and
empower Indigenous people, can be lost
(Woodward et al. 2012). In this regard, the
federal governments’ IPA programme is
laudable as it funds a consultation phase
that enables lengthy participatory planning
processes prior to IPA declaration and
ongoing management (Baumann & Smyth
2007; Preuss & Dixon 2012).
Indigenous project participants are
being increasingly involved in specific pro-
ject design and implementation, particu-
larly at local levels and on Indigenous
owned land. For example, Grice et al.
(2012) describe the process leading to the
development of the Nywaigi wetland reha-
bilitation project, where initially CSIRO sci-
entists approached the Nywaigi Aboriginal
Land Council seeking research sites for
aquatic Weed of National Significance
(Hymenachne amplexicaulis). This inter-
action sparked further collaboration that
was driven by the Nywaigi people’s desire
to reconnect with their recently re-acquired
country, develop a management plan and
restore degraded wetlands using Indige-
nous knowledge and ways of managing
country with fire combined with Western
weed control methods. Muhic et al. (2012)
described how a two-way management
plan was applied to conserve warru (Petro-
gale lateralis) in the Anangu Pitjanjara
Yankunytjajara lands of South Australia fol-
lowing concern about declining abundance
by Anangu Traditional Owners. Similarly,
the seasonal calendars described by Wood-
ward et al. (2012) were nominated as a pre-
ferred model for representing traditional
ecological knowledge by Traditional Own-
ers of the Daly River.
Generally speaking, non-Indigenous
tools and management methods still tend
to be used to execute and frame projects.
As discussed by Ens et al. (2012), the cur-
rent non-Indigenous authority over how
projects are managed, run and adminis-
tered is the result of our socio-political his-
tory and current funding environment. As
long as Indigenous initiatives have to rely
on national priority and outcome-driven
funding (where outcomes are often defined
externally), there will be constraints on
what activities Indigenous NCRM organisa-
tions can undertake (Altman & Whitehead
2003). The lack of stable, adequate and
appropriate funding was flagged by numer-
ous papers in this special issue as a substan-
tial obstacle to the long-term sustainability
of projects and successful partnerships
(e.g. see Hoffmann et al. 2012; Wallis et al.
2012; Weston et al. 2012).
Enhanced Indigenous interpretation
and communication of project outcomes
and challenges are needed to inform the
cross-cultural awareness and learning pro-
cess. Communication of projects does
occur using both Indigenous and non-
Indigenous preferred methods including
verbal (presentations at conferences and
community conversation; e.g. Ens et al.
2012), audio-visual (e.g. Ens et al. 2012;
Moorcroft et al. 2012) and written com-
munication (e.g. papers in this issue).
However, the analysis of and communi-
cation about projects, as well as the
challenges involved and appropriate
development strategies, is often domi-
nated by non-Indigenous voices. It is also
pertinent here to recognise that Indige-
nous knowledge is under threat from
severe social and economic changes, and
as a result, communities may wish to pri-
oritise knowledge transfer within the
community over external publication and
promotion.
SYNTHESIS ARTICLE
ª2012 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 103
Operational challenges for
Indigenous NCRM
organisations
All of the papers in this special issue iden-
tify organisational challenges that Indige-
nous NCRM organisations face, particularly
in the planning phases (Fitzsimons et al.
2012; Moorcroft et al. 2012; Preuss &
Dixon 2012; Vaarzon-Morel & Edwards
2012; Yen 2012) and operational phases
(Barbour & Schlesinger 2012; Brennan
et al. 2012; Ens et al. 2012; Hoffmann
et al. 2012; Muhic et al. 2012; Wallis et al.
2012; Weston et al. 2012). These chal-
lenges are largely congruent with issues
raised in the literature (Jackson & Morrison
2007; Roughley & Williams 2007; Sithole
et al. 2007; Davies et al. 2010). The two
most obvious challenges relate to the size
of the Indigenous managed land and sea
base, particularly those in remote Australia,
and the lack of funding to adequately sup-
port management of these areas. Remote
areas have the extra challenges of limited
service delivery (such as shops, medical
and education facilities) as well as trans-
port and travel constraints.
Many if not all, Indigenous NCRM
organisations want to collaborate with
external stakeholders who can offer skills
and expertise that complement their own
expertise and aspirations (e.g. Ens et al.
2012; Grice et al. 2012; Hoffmann
et al. 2012; Moorcroft et al. 2012; Muhic
et al. 2012; Woodward et al. 2012), but
there are challenges associated with
cross-cultural collaboration. Throughout
the issue, it was evident that for much of
central and northern Australia, non-Indige-
nous people play an important role in
facilitating, brokering and generally assist-
ing to ameliorate challenges in Indige-
nous NCRM. Many Indigenous people,
particularly in remote Australia, speak
English as a second or more language and
have limited Western education and
research-based technical skills (e.g.
Brennan et al. 2012; Ens et al. 2012;
Hoffmann et al. 2012). This places a par-
ticular constraint on local Indigenous
capacity to acquire and report on main-
stream funding, which is often full of
non-Indigenous management jargon and
requires computer skills. Therefore, non-
Indigenous coordinators or assistants are
often employed to administer organisa-
tions. In addition to funding directives,
this can lead to non-Indigenous control
over work activities if not handled sensi-
tively (Barbour & Schlesinger 2012).
Most two-way collaborations in Austra-
lia have been short term, executed oppor-
tunistically and reliant on the enthusiasm
of one or few individuals rather than
supported by consistent and long-term
institutional commitments, although this
situation is changing with increasing gov-
ernmental and non-governmental support,
especially through the IPA programme
(Baumann & Smyth 2007). Some other
well-known examples where Indigenous
knowledge, expertise and involvement
have been incorporated into longer-term,
large-scale projects include the fire man-
agement programmes of Kakadu National
Park and western Arnhem Land (Russell-
Smith et al. 2009) and marine fauna moni-
toring across northern Australia (Kennett
et al. 2004). There have also been a num-
ber of shorter-term projects where success-
ful partnerships were formed and
developed to produce useful and influen-
tial results such as Indigenous flora surveys
(Marrfurra et al. 1995), where Indigenous
names of species were documented
and have been later applied in broader land
management contexts (e.g. Woodward
et al. 2012).
There are, however, numerous inst-
ances where collaboration has not resulted
in mutually satisfactory outcomes. Many
Indigenous communities recount cases
where Indigenous knowledge has been
offered, particularly to researchers, but
insufficient attention is given to the legacy
for Indigenous participants: the ‘sharing’
stops there and researchers go back to their
institution (Sithole et al. 2007; Barbour &
Schlesinger 2012). Similar poor results have
been seen in on-ground NCRM (Nadasdy
2005; Walker 2010). Nadasdy (2005), for
example, demonstrated how co-manage-
ment of Indigenous owned land can actu-
ally disempower Indigenous people and
simply extend the ideology and dominance
of mainstream NCRM agendas into Indige-
nous communities. Of these failed associa-
tions, there are a variety of causal
explanations offered by non-Indigenous
participants, such as lack of funding, incon-
sistent institutional support, limited cul-
tural awareness, burn-out from working in
a cross-cultural environment and, in some
cases, difficulty in retaining suitable people
who can work in remote and cross-cultural
situations. We believe that today’s non-
Indigenous practitioners should seek to
overcome the historical legacy of poor and
often unethical research practice and imbal-
anced power relationships in Indigenous
NCRM (see Holcombe & Gould 2010) by
strengthening cross-cultural knowledge
exchange and developing mutually benefi-
cial, innovative approaches.
Interestingly, although arguably neces-
sarily, much support for Indigenous
NCRM is restricted to providing Indige-
nous employment. As a result, many or-
ganisations have a large number of
Indigenous staff (many of whom may not
have had much NCRM training) and a
disproportionately low amount of opera-
tional funding and allowance for essential
non-Indigenous or external stakeholder
support – this was particularly noted in
the special issue papers from northern
Australia (e.g. see Ens et al. 2012; Wallis
et al. 2012; Weston et al. 2012). To
address this gap we recommend that
Indigenous NCRM groups need to commu-
nicate the reality of on-ground challenges
to researchers and decision and policy
makers who in turn need to listen to and
respond accordingly by targeting funding
where it is needed – and these needs are
likely to change over time as groups
become more established. In attempt to
address this shortfall, some Indigenous
NCRM groups have been creating innova-
tive and collaborative institutional struc-
tures to support local aspirations to care
for country and culture while also meeting
national and international conservation tar-
gets (e.g. Fitzsimons et al. 2012; Grice
et al. 2012; Moorcroft et al. 2012; Preuss
& Dixon 2012; Wallis et al. 2012). We,
therefore, reinforce the need for policy
and decision makers to recognise the
evolving nature of Indigenous NCRM and
the new institutional structures that Indig-
enous communities and their external col-
laborators are creating and work with
these entities to develop a new way for-
ward.
SYNTHESIS ARTICLE
104 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 ª2012 Ecological Society of Australia
Cross-Cultural Collaboration –
Principles for the Future
Indigenous Australians are increasingly
regaining ownership of their ancestral
estates and are engaging in NCRM to pro-
vide local employment opportunities and
maintain customary obligations to care for
country, particularly in northern and cen-
tral Australia. This burgeoning sector of
Australian NCRM cannot be ignored. These
sentiments are also highlighted in several
international biodiversity conservation
strategies and linked poverty alleviation
goals, as outlined in the introduction.
This paper outlines what we see as the
key elements for successful cross-cultural
collaboration in support of Indigenous
NCRM aspirations and practice – elements
that we have drawn from the papers
assembled in this special issue and the liter-
ature. While the detail in individual cases
vary, sometimes greatly, we have used this
information to devise a wider commentary
on approaches that may enhance collabo-
ration between Indigenous and non-Indige-
nous NCRM practitioners.
Five broad principles for managing
‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indige-
nous knowledge are presented below.
While these are largely drawn from experi-
ences in northern and central Australia,
they are considered more widely applica-
ble and resonate with the key messages
from the broader literature:
1Recognise the validity of both Indige-
nous and non-Indigenous environmen-
tal philosophies;
2Create more opportunities for
improved cross-cultural understanding,
respect and collaborations;
3Involve Indigenous people and their
knowledge and interests at all stages of
the Indigenous NCRM project or
research (including planning, design,
implementation, communication and
evaluation);
4Ensure that time and continuity of effort
and resources are available (to under-
take participatory processes and for
trust-building and innovation); and
5Establish high-level political support
through legal and policy frameworks
to maintain continuity of government
commitment to Indigenous NCRM.
Increasing awareness and inclusion of
Indigenous NCRM in broader Australian
NCRM goals and strategies has proven to
be a complicated task that necessitates a
commitment in resources, time and new
ways of thinking from all stakeholders, as
described throughout this special issue.
Given the innate Indigenous connection to
country and desire to live and work on
their ancestral estates, the inclusion of
Indigenous NCRM in broader NCRM is
inevitable, whether it unfolds in an ad hoc
way or is strategically crafted on a range of
levels to promote efficient use of limited
resources and achieve more effective inno-
vations. Innovative approaches are needed
to produce workable outcomes and to
decipher what direction is needed to sup-
port Indigenous perspectives and aspira-
tions for NCRM. Carefully considered
approaches could also expedite local
socio-economic and environmental out-
comes, particularly for those Indigenous
Australians whose well-being and health
are interconnected with the fulfilment of
cultural obligations to care for country.
Such achievements will bring positive out-
comes for all Australians through greater
social cohesion and promotion of a
uniquely Australian way of proudly manag-
ing country and culture using Indigenous
and non-Indigenous knowledge.
References
Altman J. and Hinkson M. (2007) (eds) Coercive
Reconciliation: Stabilise, Normalise, Exit
Aboriginal Communities. Arena, Melbourne.
Altman J. and Jackson S. (2008) Indigenous land
and sea management: recognise, respect and
resource. In: Ten Commitments: Reshaping
the Lucky Country’s Environment. (eds D. Lin-
denmayer, S. Dovers, M. Harriss Olson and
S. Morton) pp. 207–214. CSIRO Publishing,
Melbourne.
Altman J. C. and Whitehead P. J. (2003) Caring
for Country and Sustainable Indigenous
Development: Opportunities, Constraints and
Innovation. CAEPR Working Paper 20.
Australian National University, Canberra,
ACT.
Australian Government. (2011a) Indigenous Aus-
tralians Caring for Country. Available from
URL: http://www.environment.gov.au/indig
enous/index.html. Accessed 4 September
2011.
Australian Government. (2011b) About Indigenous
Protected Areas. Available from URL: http://
www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/ipa/
background.html. Accessed 10 October 2011.
Baker R., Davies J. and Young E. (2001) Managing
country: an overview of the prime issues. In:
Working on Country: Contemporary Indige-
nous Land Management of Australia’s Lands
and Coastal Regions. (eds R. Baker, J. Davies
and E. Young) pp. 1–23. Oxford University
Press, Melbourne.
Barbour W. and Schlesinger C. (2012) Who’s the
boss? Post-colonialism, ecological research
and conservation management on Australian
Indigenous lands. Ecological Management &
Restoration 13, 36–41.
Baumann T. and Smyth D. (2007) Indigenous Part-
nership in Protected Area Management in
Australia: Three Case Studies. The Australian
Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islan-
der Studies and the Australian Collaboration,
Canberra, ACT.
Berkes F. (2008) Sacred Ecology: Traditional
Ecological Knowledge and Management
Systems. Taylor and Frances, Philadelphia and
London.
Bohensky E. L. and Maru Y. (2011) Indigenous
knowledge, science, and resilience: what have
we learned from a decade of international lit-
erature on ‘‘integration’’? Ecology and Society
16, Article 6.
Borrini-Feyerabend G., Pimbert M., Farwar M. T.,
Kothari A. and Renard Y. (2004) Sharing
Power: Learning by Doing in Co-management
of Natural Resources Throughout the World.
IIED and IUCN ⁄CMWG, Cenesta, Tehran.
Bradley J. (2001) Landscapes of the mind, land-
scapes of the spirit. In: Working on Country:
Contemporary Indigenous Management on
Australia’s Lands and Coastal Regions. (eds
R. Baker, J. Davies and E. Young) pp. 295–
304. Oxford University Press, South Mel-
bourne.
Brennan K. E. C., Twigg P. J., Watson A. et al.
(2012) Cross-cultural systematic biological
surveys in Australia’s Western Desert. Eco-
logical Management & Restoration 13, 72–
80.
Carbonell M., Nathai-Gyan N. and Finlayson C. M.
(eds) (2001) Science and Local Communities:
Strengthening Partnerships for Effective Wet-
land Management. Ducks Unlimited Inc,
Memphis, TN, USA. Available from URL:
http://www.wi.ducks.org/media/Conservation/
Conservation_Documents/_documents/lac_
quebec_proceedings.pd.
Carter J. (2008) Thinking outside the framework:
equitable research partnerships for environ-
mental research in Australia. The Geographi-
cal Journal 174, 63–75.
Carter J. and Hill G. J. E. (2007) Critiquing envi-
ronmental management in Indigenous Austra-
lia: two case studies. Area 39, 43–54.
CBD (Convention for Biological Diversity). (2011)
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020.
Available from URL: http://www.cbd.int/deci
sion/cop/?id=12268. Accessed 3 December
2011.
Davies J., Campbell D., Campbell M. et al. (2010)
Livelihoods in Land: Promoting Health and
Wellbeing Outcomes from Desert Aboriginal
Land Management. Desert Knowledge Coop-
erative Research Centre, Alice Springs.
Davies J., Campbell D., Campbell M. et al. (2011)
Attention to four key principles can promote
SYNTHESIS ARTICLE
ª2012 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 105
health outcomes from desert Aboriginal land
management. The Rangelands Journal 33,
417–431.
Dressler W., Buscher B., Schoon M. et al. (2010)
From hope to crisis and back again? A critical
history of the global CBNCRM narrative.
Environmental Conservation 1, 5–15.
Ens E. J., Daniels C., Thompson W. et al. (2010)
Combining Aboriginal knowledge and Western
science to investigate possible explanations
for the decline in fruit production of a bush
tucker shrub, Djutpi, near Ngukurr, Northern
Territory. Ecological Management & Restora-
tion 11, 146–148.
Ens E. J., Towler G. and Daniels C. the Yugul
Mangi Rangers and the Manuwrrk Rangers.
(2012) Looking back to move forward: collabo-
rative ecological monitoring in remote Arnhem
Land. Ecological Management & Restoration
13, 26–35.
Finlayson C. M., Thurtell L., Storrs M. J., Apple-
gate R., Barrow P. and Wellings P. (1998)
Local communities and wetland management
in the Australian wet-dry tropics. In: Wet-
lands in a Dry Land: Understanding for
Management. (ed. W. D. Williams) pp. 299–
311. Environment Australia, Canberra,
ACT.
Finlayson C. M., Carbonell M., Alarco
´nT.and
Masardule O. (2001) Analysis of Ramsar’s
guidelines for establishing and strengthening
local communities’ and Indigenous peoples’
participation in the management of wetlands
(Resolution VII.8). In: Science and Local
Communities: Strengthening Partnerships for
Effective Wetland Management.(edsM.
Carbonell, N. Nathai-Gyan and C. M. Finlay-
son) pp. 51–56. Ducks Unlimited Inc, Mem-
phis, USA.
Fitzsimons J., Russell-Smith J., James G. et al.
(2012) Insights into the biodiversity and social
benchmarking components of the Northern
Australian fire management and carbon abate-
ment programmes. Ecological Management &
Restoration 13, 51–57.
Folke C., Carpenter S., Elmqvist T., Gunderson L.,
Holling C. S. and Walker B. (2002) Resilience
and sustainable development: building adap-
tive capacity in a world of transformations.
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment
31, 437–440.
Garnett S. and Sithole B. (2007) Sustainable
Northern Landscapes and the Nexus with
Indigenous Health: Healthy Country. Healthy
People, Land & Water Australia, Canberra,
ACT.
Grice A. C., Cassady J. and Nicholas D. M. (2012)
Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge
and values combine to support management
of Nywaigi lands in the Queensland coastal
tropics. Ecological Management & Restoration
13, 93–97.
Harris S. (1990) Two-Way Aboriginal Schooling:
Education and Cultural Survival. Aboriginal
Studies Press, Canberra, ACT.
Hill R., Grant C., Robinson C., Jackson S. and Abel
N. (in press) A typology of Indigenous engage-
ment in Australian environmental manage-
ment: implications for knowledge integration
and social-ecological system sustainability.
Ecology and Society.
Hoffmann B. D., Roeger S., Wise P. et al. (2012)
Achieving highly successful multiple agency
collaborations in a cross-cultural environment:
experiences and lessons from Dhimurru
Aboriginal Corporation and partners. Ecologi-
cal Management & Restoration 13, 42–50.
Holcombe S. (2009) Guidelines for Indigenous
Ecological Knowledge Management (includ-
ing archiving and repatriation). Report
commissioned by the Natural Resource Man-
agement Board (NT), Darwin.
Holcombe S. and Gould N. (2010) A preliminary
review of ethics resources, with particular
focus on those available online from Indige-
nous organisations in WA, NTand Qld. Austra-
lian Aboriginal Studies 2, 107–125.
Horstmann M. and Wightman G. (2001) Karparti
ecology: Recognition of Aboriginal Ecological
Knowledge and its application to management
in north-western Australia. Ecological Man-
agement & Restoration 2, 99–109.
Howitt R. and Suchet-Pearson S. (2006) Rethink-
ing the building blocks: ontological pluralism
and the idea of ‘management’. Geografiska
Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 88,
323–335.
Jackson S. and Morrison J. (2007) Indigenous per-
spectives on water management, reforms and
implementation. In: Managing Water for Aus-
tralia: The Social and Institutional Challenges.
(eds K. Hussey and S. Dovers) pp. 23–41.
CSIRO, Melbourne.
Jackson S., Pusey B. and Douglas M. (2011) Indig-
enous community-based management of
tropical freshwater systems. In: Aquatic Biodi-
versity in Northern Australia: Patterns, Threats
and Future. (ed. B. Pusey) pp. 191–202.
Charles Darwin University Press, Darwin.
Kennett R., Robinson C., Kiessling I., Yunupingu
D., Munungurritj M. and Yunupingu D. (2004)
Indigenous initiatives for co-management of
Miyapunu ⁄Sea turtle. Ecological Manage-
ment & Restoration 5, 159–166.
Marrfurra P., Akanburru M., Wawul M. et al.
(1995) Ngan’gikurunggurr and Ngan’giwumir-
ri ethnobotany: Aboriginal plant use from the
Daly River area. Northern Territory, Botanical
Bulletin No. 22 Conservation Commission of
the Northern Territory, Darwin.
McDonald T. (2008) Is new language – or a new
attitude – needed for innovations that inte-
grate conservation and development? Eco-
logical Management & Restoration 9, 85.
McGregor S., Lawson V., Christopherson P. et al.
(2010) Indigenous wetland burning: conserv-
ing natural and cultural resources in Austra-
lia’s world heritage-listed Kakadu National
Park. Human Ecology 38, 721–729.
McRae E. and Gerritson R. (2010) Mutual incom-
prehension: the cross-cultural domain of work
in a remote Australian Aboriginal community.
The International Indigenous Policy Journal 1,
Article 2.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005) Eco-
systems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Moorcroft H., Ignjic E., Cowell S. et al. (2012)
Conservation planning in a cross-cultural
context: the Wunambal Gaambera Healthy
Country Project in the Kimberley, Western
Australia. Ecological Management & Restora-
tion 13, 16–25.
Muhic J., Abbott E. and Ward M. (2012) The warru
(Petrogale lateralis MacDonnell Ranges Race)
reintroduction project on the Anangu
Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands, South
Australia. Ecological Management & Restora-
tion 13, 89–92.
Muller S. (in press) Crazy ants: finding ‘two ways’
to bring Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowl-
edges together. In: Country, Native Title, and
Ecology. (ed. J. Weir) pp. 299–311. ANU
EPress, Canberra, ACT.
Nadasdy P. (2005) The anti-politics of TEK: the
institutionalisation of co-management dis-
course and practice. Anthropologica 47,215–
232.
Nelson F. and Agrawal A. (2008) Patronage or par-
ticipation? Community-based natural resource
management reform in sub-Saharan Africa.
Development and Change 39, 557–585.
Preuss K. and Dixon M. (2012) ‘‘Looking after
country two-ways’’: combining Indigenous and
non-Indigenous knowledge in the Southern Ta-
nami Indigenous protected area development
project. Ecological Management & Restora-
tion 13, 2–15.
Rigney L.-I. (2001) A first perspective of Indige-
nous Australian participation in science: fram-
ing Indigenous research towards Indigenous
Australian intellectual sovereignty. Available
from URL: http://www.flinders.edu.au/yung
gorendi-files/documents/Paper%20no2%20
lirfirst.pdf.
Robertson M., Nichols P., Horwitz P., Bradby K.
and MacKintosh D. (2000) Environmental nar-
ratives and the need for multiple perspectives
to restore degraded landscapes in Australia.
Ecosystem Health 6, 119–133.
Robinson C., Baker R. and Liddle L. (2003) Jour-
neys through an Australian sacred landscape.
Museum 55, 74–77.
Rose D. B. (1996) Nourishing Terrains: Australian
Aboriginal Views of Landscape and Wilder-
ness. Australian Heritage Commission, Canb-
erra, ACT.
Rose D. B. (2005) An Indigenous ecological philos-
ophy: situating the human. The Australian
Journal of Anthropology 16, 294–305.
Ross A., Pickering Sherman K., Snodgrass J. G.,
Delcore H. D. and Sherman R. (2011) Indige-
nous Peoples and the Collaborative Steward-
ship of Nature: Knowledge Binds and
Institutional Conflicts. Left Coast Press, Wal-
nut Creek.
Roughley A. and Williams S. (2007) The engage-
ment of Indigenous Australians in natural
resource management: Key findings and out-
comes from Land & Water Australia funded
research and the broader literature.Land&
Water Australia, Canberra, ACT.
Russell-Smith J., Whitehead P. and Cooke P. (eds)
(2009) Culture Ecology and Economy of Fire
Management in North Australian Savannas:
rekindling the Wurrk Tradition. CSIRO Pub-
lishing, Canberra, ACT.
Sithole B., Hunter-Xenie H., Williams L. et al.
(2007) Aboriginal Land and Sea Management
in the Top End: A Community Driven Evalua-
tion. CSIRO, Darwin.
Smyth D., Szabo S. and George M. (2004) Case
studies in Indigenous engagement in natural
resource management in australia. Report pre-
pared for The Australian Government Depart-
ment Environment and Heritage.
Sobrevila C. (2008) The Role of Indigenous
Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation. World
Bank, Washington, DC.
SYNTHESIS ARTICLE
106 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 ª2012 Ecological Society of Australia
Storrs M. J., Yibarbuk D. M., Whitehead P. J.
and Finlayson C. M. (2001) The role of wes-
tern science in wetland management by
Aboriginal communities in the ‘Top End’ of
Australia. In: Science and Local Communi-
ties: Strengthening Partnerships for Effective
Wetland Management. (eds M. Carbonell, N.
Nathai-Gyan and C. M. Finlayson) pp. 299–
311. Ducks Unlimited Inc, Memphis, TN,
USA.
Vaarzon-Morel P. and Edwards G. (2012) Incorpo-
rating Aboriginal people’s perceptions of
introduced animals in resource manage-
ment: insights from the feral camel project.
Ecological Management & Restoration 13,
65–71.
Walker J. (2010) Processes for Effective Manage-
ment: Learning from Agencies and Warlpiri
People Involved in Managing the Northern Ta-
nami Indigenous Protected Area. PhD thesis,
Charles Darwin University, Darwin.
Wallis R., Wallis A. and Picone A. (2012) After
80 years absence, Wuthathi people plan for
the return and managementof ancestral home-
lands on Cape York Peninsula. Ecological
Management & Restoration 13, 81–84.
Walsh F. and Mitchell P. (2002) Planning for
Country: Cross Cultural Approaches to
Decision-Making on Aboriginal Lands.IAD
Press, Sydney.
Weston N., Bramley C., Bar-Lev J., Guyula M.
and O’Ryan S. (2012) Arafura three:
Aboriginal ranger groups protecting and man-
aging an internationally significant swamp.
Ecological Management & Restoration 13,
84–88.
Woodward E., Jackson S., Finn M. and Marrfurra
McTaggart P. (2012) Utilising Indigenous sea-
sonal knowledge to understand aquatic
resource use and inform water resource man-
agement in northern Australia. Ecological
Management & Restoration 13, 58–64.
Yen A. L. (2012) Edible insects and management
of country. Ecological Management & Resto-
ration 13, 97–99.
Young E. A. (1991) Caring for Country: Aborigines
and Land Management. National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Canberra, ACT.
SYNTHESIS ARTICLE
ª2012 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 13 NO 1 JANUARY 2012 107
