Workshop on Indigenous Co-management and Biodiversity Protection. Towards a framework for evaluation in Australia's wet tropics

Full text

RESI LIENT TER RES T RIA
L BIO DIVERSI TY THEME
Workshop on Indigenous
Co-management and
Biodiversity Protection
Towards a framework for evaluation in Australia’s wet tropics
Rosemary Hill, Petina L. Pert, Julie Tsatsaros, Toni Bauman and Joann Schmider
Final submitted 22 November 2012 to:
National Environmental Research Program, Tropical Ecosystems Hub
Dr Julie Carmody

ii
Workshop on Indigenous Co-management and
Biodiversity Protection
Towards a framework for evaluation in Australia’s wet tropics
Rosemary Hill
1,2
, Petina L. Pert1
1,2
, Julie Tsatsaros
1,2
, Toni Bauman
3
and Joann Schmider
,3
1
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
2
School of Earth and Envir onmental Sciences, James Cook University
3
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
4
Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples’ Alliance
Supported by the Australian Government’s
National E nvironmental Research Program
Project 12.1 Indigenous co-management and biodiversity protection

© 2012 CSIRO, Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples Alliance (Girringun Aboriginal Corporation, Central Wet Tropics Institute for
Country and Culture Aboriginal Corporation and Jabalbina Yalanji Aboriginal Corporation) and Mandingalbay Yidinji
Aboriginal Corporation. To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by
copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO and
partner copyright holders.
CSIRO Resilient Terrestrial Biodiversity Theme
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:
XX
This report should be cited as:
Hill, R., P.L. Pert, J. Tsatsaros, T. Bauman, and J. Schmider. (2012). Workshop on Indigenous Co-management and Biodiversity
Protection. Towards a framework for evaluation in Australia's wet tropics. Report to the National Environmental Research
Program. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns, 52pp.
Published by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre on behalf of the Australian Government’s National Environmental
Research Program (NERP) Tropical Ecosystems (TE) Hub.
The Tropical Ecosystems Hub is part of the Australian Government’s National Environmental Research Program. The NERP TE
Hub is administered in North Queensland by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited (RRRC). The NERP Tropical
Ecosystems Hub addresses issues of concern for the management, conservation and sustainable use of the World Heritage
listed Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and its catchments, tropical rainforests including the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area
(WTWHA), and the terrestrial and marine assets underpinning resilient communities in the Torres Strait, through the
generation and transfer of world-class research and shared knowledge.
This publication is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, information or educational
purposes subject to inclusion of a sufficient acknowledgement of the source.
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
Australian Government or the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
While reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the
Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for
any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this
publication.
Cover photographs: None supplied.
This report is available for download from the NERP Tropical Ecosystems Hub website:
http://www.nerptropical.edu.au/research
December 2012

iv
Foreword
The Workshop on Indigenous Co-management and Biodiversity Protection was held at Whitfield
House, Botanic Gardens, Cairns on 17 October 2012.
From left:
Back row: Bruce Lawson, Nigel Hedgcock, Joann Schmider, Andrew Maclean, Alf Joyce
Second back row: Tony Hobbs, Susan Medway, Toni Bauman, Leah Talbot, Robyn Bellafquih,
Vince Mundraby, Lisa Sarago
Second row: Sarah Hoyal, Phil Rist, Judi Enoch, Hurriyet Babacan, Petina Pert
Front row: Dionie Johnson, Whitney Rassip, Sandra Levers, Ro Hill, Carla Wilson.
A full list of participants and their affiliations is provided in Appendix 2.

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page v of 50
Contents
Foreword iv
Contents v
Figures vi
Tables vi
Acronyms Used In This Report vi
Acknowledgments vii
Main Workshop Findings viii
Introductory Presentations 1
Rainforest Aboriginal people’s strategic interests in the project: Phil Rist and Vince Mundraby
presentation and discussion points ........................................................................................................ 1
Rights, responsibilities and relationship-based engagement: Joann Schmider presentation and
discussion points ................................................................................................................................... 3
Rights, Responsibilities and Relationship-based engagement: small group discussions 7
Group 1: Presentation of findings ......................................................................................................... 8
Group 2: Presentation of findings ......................................................................................................... 9
Group 3: Presentation of findings ....................................................................................................... 13
Group 4: Presentation of findings ....................................................................................................... 14
Institutional Analysis and Draft Atlas of Indigenous Engagement 16
Analysis of institutions for Indigenous co-management and biodiversity protection in the wet
tropics: Ro Hill presentation................................................................................................................. 16
Draft Atlas of Indigenous Engagement: Petina Pert presentation ........................................................ 18
Co-management pathway: small group discussions 20
Introduction to “co-management pathway”: Leah Talbot presentation .............................................. 20
Group 1: Presentation of findings ....................................................................................................... 21
Group 2: Presentation of findings ....................................................................................................... 22
Group 3: Presentation of findings ....................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion and Next Steps 26
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 26
Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix 1 Participant Information Pack 27
Appendix 2 List of Participants 39
References 40

vi
Figures
Figure 1 A continuum of contexts for being involved in managing country........................................... 4
Figure 2 Country, culture, kin and capacity ......................................................................................... 10
Figure 3 Networks and brokering through a Rainforest Aboriginal peoples one-stop shop ................. 11
Figure 4 Engagement: principles and power; responsibilities and relationships; mechanisms
and regimes ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 5: Potential spatial data for the atlas of Indigenous engagement ............................................. 19
Figure 6 Rights, responsibilities and relationship-based engagement .................................................. 35
Figure 7 Co-management pathway ..................................................................................................... 36
Tables
Table 1 Examples of institutions for Indigenous co-management and biodiversity protection
at international, national, state and regional levels.............................................................................. 17
Table 2 Examples of institutions for Indigenous co-management and biodiversity protection
at regional, sub-regional and local levels ............................................................................................. 17
Table 3: Difference in recognition of rights, culture and roles of management between the
global, national, state, regional and local institutions for Indigenous co-management and
biodiversity protection in the wet tropics............................................................................................. 18
Acronyms Used In This Report
AC……………Aboriginal Corporation
DSEWPaC .......Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Community
GBR ................Great Barrier Reef
IPA ..................Indigenous Protected Area
NERP...............National Environmental Research Program
RAN ................Rainforest Aboriginal Network
RAP.................Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples
RAPA ..............Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples’ Alliance
RRRC...............Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited
TO...................Traditional Owner
UNDRIP ..........United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People
WTWHA .........Wet Tropics World Heritage Area

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page vii of 50
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by investment from the Tropical Ecosystems Hub of the Australian
Government’s National Environmental Research Program and co-investment from the CSIRO
Resilient Terrestrial Biodiversity Theme. We would like to acknowledge and thank the Rainforest
Aboriginal Peoples’ Alliance for their important role as the regional leadership group in
advancing the regional priorities of Rainforest Aboriginal peoples within the Wet Tropics region.
We would also like to acknowledge the invaluable co-investment and support from our co-
research partners: the Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples’ Alliance (including Jabalbina Yalanji
Aboriginal Corporation (AC); The Central Wet Tropics Institute for Country and Culture AC; and
Girringun AC); Mandingalbay Yidinji AC and their Djunbunji Land and Sea Program; the Wet
Tropics Management Authority; Terrain NRM; the Australian Conservation Foundation; the
Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, and the Indigenous
Protected Area and Working on Country programs of the Australian Government’s Department
of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. We thank the workshop
participants, and these partners, for useful comments on an earlier draft of this report. We
would also like to thank Dr Marcus Barber of CSIRO for his helpful review and comments
provided on an earlier draft.
Co-author contributions:
Julie Tsatsaros, Petina Pert and Rosemary Hill took workshop notes, and Julie collated the small
group butcher’s paper. Julie Tsatsaros combined her and Petina’s notes into a word document.
Rosemary Hill edited these notes, added some of her own, and wrote the first draft of the
report. Joann Schmider provided editorial input and comment on the first draft on behalf of
Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples and their Alliance (RAPA).
Toni Bauman facilitated the workshop.
Co-research team members including Shaun Barclay, Robyn Bellafquih, Ellie Bock, Nigel
Hedgcock, Vince Mundraby, Phil Rist, Lisa Sarago, Joann Schmider, Leah Talbot, Julie Tsatsaros,
Rosemary Hill and Petina Pert contributed to the development of the workshop design, and to
the Participant Information Pack.
Nigel Hedgcock, Vince Mundraby, Phil Rist, Lisa Sarago, Joann Schmider and Leah Talbot
facilitated the small group discussions.
Maclean, K., R. Hill, P.L. Pert, E. Bock, P. Barrett, R. Bellafquih, M. Friday, V. Mundraby, L.
Sarago, J. Schmider, and L. Talbot contributed to the design of the draft framework presented
at the workshop.

viii
Main Workshop Findings
The workshop considered a draft framework to underpin participatory evaluation of the status
Indigenous co-management and biodiversity protection in the wet tropics (Appendix One) (Maclean
et al. 2012). Major themes identified in response to the draft framework included:
• The aspiration for Traditional Owners (TOs) is to manage our country effectively, to do what’s
right, to look after our country, and to pass that on to our young people.
• Co-management is driven by effective TO organisations with strong governance and boards, and
principles so that people can work with us. Traditional Owners can achieve things through really
grass-roots organisations that deliver sovereignty.
• We need (institutional) vehicles and a road-map to travel towards better, more effective co-
management on country.
• It’s an (institutional) multi-lane highway with multiple destinations, and different vehicles, buses,
mini-vans, and motorbikes.
• Co-management involves co-evolution, it’s a pathway we are going down, and also a process of
where we want to get to.
• Conflict resolution is necessary within the process, to address issues like boundary
understandings across Traditional Owner groups.
• Multiple players, multiple layers are involved (e.g. international, national, state, regional, local),
which requires effective brokering.
• We need something like a brokering hub, a one-stop shop or a T-intersection where the roads
meet and we can share the learnings.
• Formal co-management and/or joint management will always involve the local-level Traditional
Owner groups with the customary-law authority and processes for decision making.
• An overarching document that recognises tribal autonomy is needed to support the framework,
including principles like Free Prior and Informed Consent, and recognition of Indigenous rights
as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
• Co-management is not linear; there are feedbacks and loops involved.
• The case for government investment highlights the connections between:
o how investment in cultural values, in protecting and transmitting Aboriginal cultural
values
o delivers outcomes in terms of health, well-being, education and employment.
• Change to mainstream organisations is required: cultural self-awareness and development of
intercultural awareness and competency.
• Greater clarity and consistency in government policy would assist to progress implementation of
co-management.
This report documents the discussions at the workshop. The primary target audience for the report is
the workshop participants and their network of interested colleagues with whom they may wish to
share the findings. The draft framework presented at the workshop will be revised early in 2013 to
take account of all the input from the workshop. This revised framework will be used to underpin
co-evaluation of the status of Indigenous co-management and biodiversity protection in the wet
tropics.

1
Introductory Presentations
The Workshop commenced with Welcome to Country by Sandra Levers. Toni Bauman from the
Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) facilitated the
meeting. The meeting started with introductions to participants and co-research team
members: roles, representations, and interests in co-management. During the introductory
session, Ro Hill from CSIRO gave a presentation focused on the material in the Participant
Information Pack (Appendix 1), outlining: the context for the workshop, role of the co-research
project, steps in the research project, how the project aims to support social learning and what
will come out of it. She also discussed the ownership of the knowledge. Ro noted that the
workshop report will be a public report, and people should check it carefully. The agenda for
the day was agreed to include all the sessions detailed in the draft (Appendix 1, p. 33).
Rainforest Aboriginal people’s strategic interests in the
project: Phil Rist and Vince Mundraby presentation and
discussion points
Phil Rist had been asked to present about Rainforest Aboriginal peoples’ (RAP) strategic interests
in the co-management project—why and how it’s important. He invited Vince Mundraby to
join him.
Phil Rist said it is important to remember that this journey has been a long one, and over time
we have lost a few people along the way:
• It’s frustrating that people have been at it so long and some people have passed
away without seeing real results.
• We want a really workable and effective co-management arrangement between
Traditional Owners (TOs) and the rest of the world, whoever that might be. Even
the bloke on the street.
• Our aspirations haven’t changed just the players. The aspiration for us as TOs is to
manage our country effectively, to do what’s right, to look after our country, and
to pass that on to our young people.
• The institutional arrangements are the nuts and bolts of it.
• We need a road map to agree on how we get to where we want to go. Which
vehicles will we use? What is effective co-management? Is it what we need?
Nothing really happens unless we have strong TO organisations with strong
governance and boards and principles so that people can work with us. In the end
if we drive it, we enforce change and also enforce legislative change.
Vince Mundraby said that aspirations are driven by self determination:
• Listing for the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area was in 1988, 1992 was the Mabo
case and 1993 was the Native Title Act and d\Determinations followed.
• In 2012, we are discussing the vehicle that can take us together for co-
management to work with three levels of Government, and how this can relate
back to land and country. How can this engagement happen? What is the vehicle
that can take us together in a bus? We don’t want a motorbike.
• Common law rights and how to engage with authorities is driving us. Self
determination needs to kick in.

2
• We had Bama Wabu, but that vehicle did not have management and ownership in
the same car. We had the concept of the Regional Agreement, but that was still
only looking at management. Ownership comes through native title and other
forms of agreement. We need management and ownership to come together.
• It is the outcome that we are looking at together. We have common aspirations
but different means of getting to these outcomes.
• What is the vehicle to go forward? Some people do not have native title. How do
we capture this in a new vehicle? How are we going to build blocks to encompass
everyone in the region when some have Prescribed Body Corporates (PBCs) and
some do not?
• How do we put a bottom line into the (co-management) framework that we all
agree?
• A draft framework needs to be tested and also tested independently. We need to
test current frameworks or form a new one. (Co-management) with or without
(native title) Determination needs to be captured. Need to get informed consent?
How do we capture non-agreements (from 20 years ago)? Do we need to
consolidate common law stuff? Some of the agenda items today will discuss this.
Phil Rist and Vince Mundraby (from left) present to the workshop

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 3 of 50
Discussion points from workshop participants, including Phil’s and Vince’s responses:
• Phil: We need a number of different vehicles, not just one bus. What we’re discussing
today is the actual road map, not the vehicle. Some of us might turn up in a mini-minor,
or a bus, or a motorbike. In the southern wet tropics, we have a vehicle that works but
is a bit different to others.
• Participant: The destination is a really important thing. What is the end result we desire?
And then how do we get there?
• Vince: The vehicle needs a road-worthy certificate. Free, Prior and Informed Consent
comes into this. We don’t want the engine to drop out.
• Participant: Do we need to consolidate our common-law?
• Vince: I light a fire when and where I want and that’s how we assert our common law
rights.
• How do we factor in the need for us to recognise so many different organisations that
are part of our sovereignty the whole community that we haven’t talked to.
• Phil: You won’t please everyone, we just develop the best possible model, as inclusive as
possible. Aboriginal institutional structures are so important, that recognise sovereignty
and customary law. You can achieve things through really grass-roots organisations that
achieve sovereignty. The strong governance of Girringun AC is achieving sovereignty on
our county. If we can’t do sole management, let’s do joint management, but the
institutional structure is important to force change.
• Vince: Sovereign rights can be exercised through the PBCs. We exercise our right to live
on country for 3 months in parks. We define who we are and where we’re going as
Mandingalbay Society. We have sovereign rights. Other groups we consult with.
Decision-making happens with the people.
• Participant: PBCs have a legal obligation to consult.
Rights, responsibilities and relationship-based engagement:
Joann Schmider presentation and discussion points
Joann Schmider had been asked to present the draft framework to underpin participatory
evaluation of Indigenous co-management and biodiversity protection in the wet tropics
(Appendix 1, Figure 6). This draft was developed by the co-research team prior to the
workshop. The presentation was a necessary first step to enable participants to consider the
draft and provide input and reformulation as needed.
In order to connect to the preceding discussion, Joann introduced the topic by first picking up
on the right to make decisions, and the right to have input and maintain country, as the basis of
co-management. Some Aboriginal people have greater forms of sovereignty and all have the
rights to be involved in decision-making (Figure 1).
Joann noted that when Aboriginal people exercise sovereign rights, they fully carry out all
decision making and management themselves. Native Title Determinations acknowledge who
has the right to speak for kin, culture and country in particular localities, and Agreements set
out the rights negotiated between parties to the Agreements. Besides practising sovereign and
or native title rights, Aboriginal people have the human and Indigenous right to be involved in
decision-making about any matters impacting our peoples and our countries, as set out in the
UNDRIP (Figure 1).

4
Sovereignty Native Title Right to be involved in decision-making
(management planning activities)
Figure 1 A continuum of contexts for being involved in managing country
Joann expanded on the history of Rainforest Aboriginal peoples around co-management
introduced in the previous session. While there are currently 11 Native Title Determinations in
the wet tropics, Rainforest Aboriginal peoples (RAP) have been pushing for the right to be
involved in decision making for over twenty years.
The 20 Rainforest Aboriginal peoples have been working together for over 20 years.
• Pre World Heritage listing
• 1992 Rainforest Aboriginal Network (RAN)
• 1998 Which Way Our Cultural Survival? The report by Bruce Lawson on the Review of
Aboriginal Involvement in the Management of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area
chaired by Vince Mundraby
• 1998 amendments to Native Title Act
• 2005 Aboriginal Plan (Bama Plan)—the cultural and natural resource management
agenda determined by RAP
• 2005 Wet Tropics Regional Agreement—principles and processes for working together
determined by RAP and partners
• 2010 Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples Cultural and Natural Resource Management Summit
consolidating key issues to a “5+2” agenda: culture and heritage, land (protected area
management), water, economic development and planning, supported by TO
participation and coordinated investment.
The draft framework has two parts to it. The first part of the draft framework is about: rights,
responsibilities and relationship based engagement (Appendix 1, Figure 6).
• What is co-management? Relationships and people understanding relationships (an on-
going learning process). Co-management implies equity at the table and there is a set of
legislation and policy. There is an issue around power.
• Our rights and responsibilities (TOs)—the middle of diagram is driven by TOs, knowing
about country, culture and community for people in the future. What we want to see as
outcomes for the future. What do TOs want to achieve for themselves, for elders,
adults, family groups and young people? reaching back to our knowledge (i.e. both the
content knowledge and the customary-law authority and processes for decision making)
• Country - knowing your country, knowing the story, living in contemporary society,
people being able to work on country, earn a living by working on country, or
interpretation of country.
• Culture—unique about Rainforest aboriginal peoples, tightly connected, strong
network, reaching back. How do we know the things we know (Aboriginal ways of
knowing, being and doing), lore, law and dreaming.

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 5 of 50
• Kin/Community —our ~20,000 Rainforest Aboriginal people, involving hundreds of
family groups, over 120 clan groups, 20 TO groups, 6 Rainforest Aboriginal peoples’
language groups—what connects us as people?
• Principles—include a level of scale, some contained in the Regional Agreement.
Relationships are an on-ongoing learning process.
• Power includes the right to exercise native title and common law rights. The agenda has
to be driven by TOs knowing about country, culture and kin for people now and into
the future.
• Regimes for joint management include legislation, planning tools.
Discussion points from workshop participants, including Joann responses:
• There are a number of TO groups and clan estates. The right people need to make the
decisions. The only ones who can certify that are the Land Councils. There are a number
of clan estates that have native title determined, some that don’t.
• Where are the problem areas? Are we addressing the key problem areas that we need
to address?
• Joann commented that the Rainforest Aboriginal peoples’ 2010 Summit had identified
there needs to be coordinated investment to support the capacity and involvement of
our people:
o 2010 Summit enablers: involvement of TOs and co-ordinated investment
o 9 State, 11 Federal and 11 Local Governments—all have an opportunity to invest
in support TO engagement, TO involvement in decision making, and TO
capacity.
• One issue is language: common law language and legal language. A lot of time we are
not following the same language.
• Ownership\management is overlapping through deed of grants, trusts, and land under
PBC's.

6
Joann Schmider uses a rainforest shield diagram approach to sharing how the R ainfor est
Aboriginal Peoples’ Alliance covers the 20 Rainfor est Abo riginal peoples’ groups across wet
tropics country, and where the Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) are located
Joann Schmider sharing concepts with the workshop participants

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 7 of 50
Rights, Responsibilities and Relationship-based
engagement: small group discussions
This section of the workshop focused on small discussion groups about the “rights,
responsibilities and relationship-based engagement” part of the draft co-management
framework: The focus question was: How does the draft-co-management framework,
work for you?
• What else do you need to know about the draft co-management framework?
• What works for you and why?
• What doesn’t work for you and why?
• What changes would you like to see to it?
Small group discussions underway

8
Group 1: Presentation of findings
Andrew Maclean presented for Group 1. He held up a diagram of a Rainforest Aboriginal shield
and said that 18-20 groups were relevant to the area. There are a range of different groups
and different spaces. The group discussed at some length the issues over country, joint
management and native title. Native title points to underpinning the risk of going too far down
the track before native title has been resolved. Not a one-sized fit, fits all. Issues include:
• Conflict resolution, including intra-Indigenous matters
• Government agencies that need to be involved in conversations. Who and what level?
A stronger framework of government policy needs to be in this conversation. There is
a lack of government policy. How far will they roll out policies and how can anyone
understand it.
• Obligations of Government (Federal/State/Local) to shared/co-management. Are we
clear about the pathway? A lot of effort for co-management agreements. Will it make
a difference? Will Aboriginal people within communities be strengthened?
Governments need to ask themselves these questions. Are we solving a real problem
here?
• Building blocks/internal—where is the research direction? Measuring themes, baseline
data. Are we able to show that government is putting resources into something with
genuine benefits? Have there been some positive benefits? Could we measure these
outcomes through this framework?
Ro Hill responded we can do co-evaluation in this research around perceptions of research
participants (and secondary data). Getting in place a long term monitoring program is
necessary to measure benefits. We know that Indigenous land and sea management has
positive well-being impacts, there are some good studies showing this. An Australian
Research Council project has just started to establish measures of Indigenous land
management effectiveness, including measures of health and well-being outcomes.
Phil Rist listening during the small group discussions

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 9 of 50
From left: Susan Medway, Carla Wilson, Andrew Maclean, Dionie Johnson, and Vince Mundrab y
during small group discussions.
Group 2: Presentation of findings
Joann Schmider presented on behalf of Group 2. Anyone who uses the diagram of co-
management in the framework should be able to understand it. The diagram needs to be very
simple for everyone to be able to understand what it means and be able to explain it.
Rights and responsibilities are different for different people in the relationships.
RAPA uses a “Traditional Owner business” figure in their planning and documentation which
covers Culture, Country and Community There is a new picture emerging with of what TO
businesses involves with three dimensions—Culture, Country, Kin (see Venn diagram, Figure 2,
below). This concept changes Community to Kin (to highlight tribal relationships), and adds a
middle section “Capacity”—the capacity for people to be involved in this work, skills, expertise
and knowledge.

10
Figure 2 Country, culture, kin and capacit y
• Need to include Principles and Power (but the words are wrong)
o Free Prior and Informed Consent
o Equality and equity considerations
o Self determination
o Highlight the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and
pick up consent, equality, equity, self determination and common law.
• Relationships and Responsibilities—where can these come in the diagram?
o Responsibilities go hand in hand with relationships. What is mutual
responsibility?
o Good relationships support Bama leadership and empowerment
o Trust, flexibility and mutual respect and mutual responsibility
o Comment from participants that conflicts between Aboriginal people and
partners need to be included in the diagram.
RAPA has identified that there is a wide variety of networks, complexity of relationships and
responsibilities, multiple players and multiple layers.
• Need something like a “one-stop shop”, it has to be easier than currently (Figure 3).
Capacity is in the centre, the
overlap zone, skills, expertis e,
knowledge and $$$
Culture
Bama ways of knowing,
being, doing.i.e.
Rainforest peoples
world views, lore and
law, language
Kin
Networks,
Relationships
Connections
Country
Tribal or traditional
knowledge and
practice
Being able to make
a living on-country
Capacity

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 11 of 50
Figure 3 Networks and brokering through a Rainforest Aboriginal peoples one-stop shop
• What is the Difference between Mechanisms and Regimes?
o Systems and processes
o Mechanisms that work well need to be identified
o Pick up tenure issues, native title, plans and documentation.
• Conflict Resolution
o This is something that needs to be discussed. Lateral violence.
Engagement side also could be three over-lapping circles (Figure 4).
Multiple players -
Governments, NGOs,
research community,
business sector
Multiple layers -
family, extended
kin, Clan, tribal
group / local,
subregional,
regional, state,
national
Society - local
wider
communities, the
public, domestic
and international
visitors
RAPA/RAP
one-stop
shop
RAPA
6 language
groups
20 tribal groups
~120 clan
groups
70+ cultural and
natural resource
management

12
Figure 4 Engagement: principles and pow er; responsibilities and relationships; mechanisms and
regimes
From left: Joann Schmider, Robyn Bellafquih (back of head) Sar ah Hoyal and Whitney Rassip in
small group discussion
Principles and
power
Mechanisms
and regimes
Responsbilities
and
relationships

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 13 of 50
Group 3: Presentation of findings
Hurriyet Babacan reported that a breadth of issues was discussed about the draft framework:
• The group were 50-50 on framework, some liked it, others didn’t.
• No directional arrows on diagram
• What is the hierarchy of relationships?
• Some things not placed as high as others
• Terms not explained in boxes
• No protocols on diagram for engagement of communities, how those processes take
place
• Framework should be flexible enough
• Discussions about—who's authority is recognised?, who is reporting back to
communities?, who's involved?, how are communities engaged?, how does
engagement take place?, what agencies are recognised as the 'groups'?, where are
meetings held?
• How is conflict managed internally and externally?
• Effective engagement and ability to mainstream legislation
• Resources for effective engagement
• Overarching document is needed, one that recognises tribal autonomy
• Uniformity of indigenous voices—and how do we recognize diversity of indigenous
people—but not every wants to be part of one group
• Issues of capacity—deficit word, means you lack something—2 way exchange, listening
• Skills development, resources and capacity to look after country, engage, take decisions,
influence. Engagement has different layers, ability to unite and co-ordinate your mob,
and determine mandate, leadership and boundaries, capacity to deal with white-fella
stuff, systems and processes etc.
• How to force high level change—what is leadership? Ideas fostering leadership,
important, honest, strong, credible, responsible, strategic, coming to an understanding
of where our collective interest is in this - address lateral conflict issues
• Cultural self-awareness of the mainstream –on other side of framework diagram on
culture, law, don’t have same equal awareness, what are cultural issues, mechanisms,
cultural self awareness in the mainstream, institutions, intercultural awareness, just
assimilate and domination still occurs.
• How do you create self awareness and permeate institutions? Change institutions,
going to build capacity (universities, CSIRO), institutional and place related (regional)
arrangements coming about due to capacity, mentorship by institutions, not assimilated,
have exchange of learning and supporting cultural aspirations.
Comments from other group participants:
• Government agencies should consult with us. Come to our place/our table, we will
invite you - you should be talking to us about management over our country. Come
to where all the people are in the community, can come down and people can hear
about government policies. Don't agree with the Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples
Alliance. Expressed concerns about expenses, no email, no mobiles or mobile run out
of credit. Agree that co-management is needed between individual organisations and
government agencies. Have a responsibility to manage areas in conjunction with us. It
needs to be done our way, we will invite you to sit down and discuss plans with you.
• This has to happen with tribal groups. Get more people if you have on a Sunday.
None of us are adequate representatives for our community and engagement has to

14
happen with the community. If we are going to do engagement, then time needs to
be allocated after hours and after work to enable people to turn up.
Group 4: Presentation of findings
Lisa Sarago presented the discussions of Group 4.
• Need to be very clear about co-management and need a definition of co-management
and distinguish it from joint management for the project to be consistent
• Actual visual presentation—swap sides in diagram (TO on left hand side and
mechanism and regimes on right hand side), and colour code or label to distinguish
between the two.
• Who are the co-managers? (native title vs. others vs. IPAs?). Taking over TO country,
don’t have a right to manage.
• Management discussions between TO groups. No co-management between
Indigenous groups—need to settle intra-conflict before going to government to
negotiate co-management. e.g. TUMRA, example of sea-country, another tribe comes
to fish on your sea country, need to have an understanding. Saltwater vs. freshwater
people, recognising this. Used to have traditional trading, no traditional trade
happening—could be replaced with co-management.
• Should there be a different diagram to depict the co-management between TO
groups?
• Education for the government. Who does govt speak to—TOs have a responsibility to
discuss with each other. TOs need to resolve conflict and learn from the past.
• Protocol in place—prepare a guideline to govt on co-management; steps
• Govt needs to resource the conflict resolution (i.e. meetings, facilitate/secretariat,
attendance, travel)
• Getting the right people on-country that knows country
• Boundaries—conflict resolution, right people sitting at the table, doing it from an
Indigenous perspective. Land council, need to listen to those with knowledge. Conflict
resolution needs to involve those that know.
• Government are not talking to mobs who don't have a native title determination.
• Girringun came together to define their boundaries, others could do that.
Discussion points from workshop participants:
• There are overlapping boundaries, conflicts all the time. Need to talk to people in that
area.
• It would be good to get a national network of negotiators who can resolve disputes
over boundaries, a whole of community approach. Pilot in Victoria, involved two
groups walking the country boundary together. Need to do the ground work with
folks and don’t begin with expectations of a resolution. Shared country and interest.
What is the benefit about co-management mapping, what is the real interest? We can
have shared country and joint interests (in NT). Examples of Indigenous dispute
resolutions are documented in “Solid work you mob are doing. Case Studies in
Indigenous Dispute Resolution. & Conflict Management in Australia.”
www.fedcourt.gov.au/pdfsrtfs_s/solid_work_report.pdf
• Village court systems are an alternate way of looking at dispute resolution. Different
structures and functions. Conflicts are nested in webs of systems and structures.
• There was a discussion that focused on:

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 15 of 50
o 70 TO organisations in the wet tropics
o 100 if you include cultural entities
o 15 land trusts in the wet tropics (Aboriginal peoples’ Trusts for holding land).
o only 2 groups are financially established - Girringun (15 years) and Jabalbina (5
years)
Lisa Sarago explaining a point

16
Institutional Analysis and Draft Atlas of Indigenous
Engagement
This section of the workshop included presentations about the institutional arrangements for
Indigenous co-management and biodiversity protection in the wet tropics.
Analysis of institutions for Indigenous co-management and
biodiversity protection in the wet tropics: Ro Hill
presentation
Ro Hill’s presentation covered three key messages from the institutional analysis recently
undertaken in the co-research project (Maclean et al. 2012):
• What are institutions, why look at them?
• International, national, State, regional, local institutions
• Differences in recognition of rights, cultural values, and roles in management.
What are institutions? Why look at them?
• Institutions are the formal and informal arrangements, rules, regulations and social
norms that shape behaviour.
o Laws, policies, plans – formal (written)
o Manners, morals, dress codes – informal (overlap)
• Identifying institutional structure is an important part of a social learning approach to
evaluating co-management (Cundill and Fabricius 2009)
o Focus on biodiversity institutions , also human rights
Institutions that affect co-management occur at international, national, state, regional, sub-
regional and local levels (Tables 1 and 2). The analysis for the co-research project looked at:
• The extent to which each institution considers
o the rights,
o cultural values and
o roles of Aboriginal people in environmental management.
• This was identified via considering excerpts from the relevant text. Where appropriate
and where possible, the co-authors summarised what each institution means for
Rainforest Aboriginal peoples in the Wet Tropics.
• We found that the biggest gaps were in the recognition of cultural values, and of roles
of Aboriginal people in environmental management, particularly State level (Table 3).

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 17 of 50
Table 1 Examples of institutions for Indige nous co-management and biodiversity protection at
international, national, state and regional levels
Table 2 Examples of institutions for Indige nous co-management and biodiversity protection at
regional, sub-regional and local levels

18
Table 3: Diff erence in recognition of rights, culture and roles of management between the
global, national, state, regional and local institutions for Indigenous co-manag ement an d
biodiversity protection in the wet tropics.
Draft Atlas of Indigenous Engagement: Petina Pert
presentation
Petina Pert presented some potential spatial layers to represent Indigenous engagement and co-
management including ranger groups, corporations, IPAs, Indigenous land use maps, native title
applications (Figure 5). Petina described how an index of engagement could incorporate all of
these things together, similar to the “level of protection” index that she developed at Mission
Beach. The atlas can show variability over space in relation to engagement (for example, some
TOs getting money, some not).
Workshop participant: Is it worth doing a survey of TO groups to get some data for the atlas?

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 19 of 50
Figure 5: Potential spatial data for the atlas of Indigenous engagement

20
Co-management pathway: small group discussions
Introduction to “co-management pathway”: Leah Talbot
presentation
Leah Talbot gave an introduction to the “co-management pathway” part of the draft
framework (Appendix 1, Figure 7). Leah first discussed the top layer of the diagram the journey
of Indigenous societies. Progress for Indigenous societies was through different stages and
aspirations (renewal) and recognized different forms (legal processes) and clan based estates,
culture and country and collaborative steps (how do we engage on-country). And the last bit is
the new pathways, equitable relationships are going to be equitable at the table. The bottom
layer of the diagram is the non-Indigenous journey, non-Indigenous process and how it has
evolved and grown along the journey. Native title recognising heritage and moving through
joint management can be right through to a neutral shared space, with mutual influence. The
challenge is how we bring this together to produce something that allows people to manage
their country.
The next section of the Workshop focused on small discussion groups: The focus question was:
How suitable is the co-management pathway as a name and focus for the draft
framework?
• What do the words ‘co-management pathway mean to you’
• How well do they describe your own journey? Why? Why not?
• Where would you like your ‘co-management’ pathway to lead?
Leah Talbot explaining the co-management pathway ideas

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 21 of 50
Leah Talbot addressing the workshop
Group 1: Presentation of findings
Phil Rist and Nigel Hedgcock presented the findings from Group 1. Phil said that co-
management is more of a process than an outcome:
• Not sure if it is ever going to get to an endpoint. Process is between people and
personalities.
• TOs and agencies need to agree on something. The framework is too linear.
• Co-evolution is a pathway we are going down, process of where we want to get to.
• Fee-for-service in itself is a form of joint management. Hancocks gives Girringun a fee
for the Rangers to work on certain things, for example roads, and fire management.
There are different scenarios of joint management.
• With our organisation, Girringun, we try to do education, justice, health, the big
picture stuff. Other organisations have different levels within the wet tropics region.
Different duty to reach in each group, different outcomes.
Nigel said there are different road maps, pathways, multiple and varieties of ways to get there.
• Joint management means different things to different people.
• It’s a spider web or a multi-lane highway with multiple destinations.
• Do people have the same destination that people want to get to or have the capacity to
get to. What is the ultimate destination?
• Government or Treasury needs to know what the benefits are investing in co-
management, show some really local benefits. Government needs an incentive. At
Stradbroke Island, for example, the benefits included the future act that government
wanted agreement to, the incentive is in terms of investments and programs.

22
• Key is there has to be benefits. We need to clearly articulate and describe the benefits.
• Co-management offers the alternative of investment in positive impacts through TOs
working on country versus investment in bandaids like prisons.
• Where do you want to put your resources? Health, rehab for prisoners, or
rangers/people on land? There are wide implications such as capacity building
• Parole board could re-direct people to co-management, to capacity-building.
• We need the project to make the connection between:
o Protecting and managing cultural values
o Health, well-being, education, employment, the COAG building blocks.
• This project needs to help people understand/appreciate how investment in cultural
values, in protecting and transmitting Aboriginal cultural values, it helps in areas of
employment, education and well-being.
Group 2: Presentation of findings
Lisa Sarago presented the findings from Group 2:
• Steps you do together (TO's & Government) to get to the desired outcome.
• Not only an emphasis on outcome, but also the process --> pathway. Has to be a
process of involvement of TOs on the ground and ownership.
• Process, pathway has a long term connotation. Ongoing—what happens if it works,
action learning.
• For TO's -> it’s the same story syndrome, circular, we are asked what our aspirations
are all the time but they haven't changed. TOs are the constant.
• Government employees change—but on the flip side some TOs may want to re-
express their aspirations at meetings.
• Acknowledge that things have changed—there have been achievements. Twenty years
ago there was no native title, made a lot of changes, still have a long way to go.
• Government targets have been blockage for TOs to achieve. For example, because
government targets for IPA targets being achieved, some mobs are not able to get an
IPA the targets were already met for that year.
• Different cars -> different roads -> different tools\levels. Every TO group is at a
different level, some don’t want to go through an IPA. Need to find out where is the
intersection, where we do all meet? Where is the t –section? Share the learnings.
• Capacity building—we would like Phil to share some of Girringun's experiences,
leadership and communication, how they interact with 9 groups, RAPA, and
management and how they have community groups and intra conflict, boundaries etc.
Suggest that Phil captures this in a research project and have some capacity building,
that would be great.
• We need to tackle conflict resolution (leadership, mediation, lateral violence) and
climate change.

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 23 of 50
Lisa Sarago presenting small group findings
Group 3: Presentation of findings
Bruce Lawson presented the Group 3 findings.
• Key elements of the pathway, stages and hurdles, for example around ILUAs and what
joint or co-management will deliver.
• Framework is too linear, didn’t look at feedback loops, didn't look at capacity
enhancement or ability to have greater responsibility, as people’s capacity develops,
greater say in co-management. Need clear communication around what you are talking
about, confusion brings problems.
• Understanding. In the first box in the framework, change to much more about knowing,
being, doing and undertaking. Country-based planning—understand what is going on
and can sit down and identify where their capacity needs to be enhanced, and planthe
journey.
• Also, not clear what the endpoint is??
• Model can be limiting - as intended end point is co-management. Other people may
want sole management, other outcomes such as running their own business, soul
management may occur along the way. Different levels - different tenure.
• Joann's diagram - loop process, joint management, co-management, sole management
can (and do) go simultaneously
• Terminology—a little bit too white-fella with regards to terminology, paternalistic,
what’s the alternative—putting Bama up front. Too much of a white way of thinking.
Co-management is a white-fella term.
Comments from workshop participants:

24
• TOs not involved enough in boards, not equal, e. g. only 1 representative, not enough
involvement or input in management.
• Maybe there should be some other terms such as ‘running your country with others’ or
‘running rainforest country for ourselves’.
• Use “First Australians”, as it’s a broader context rather than Indigenous or First Nation.
• What is the audience that this is aimed at? We need to take into account the language.
Need to reflect partnership in title. The challenge is to educate government to find some
ways, find the right language.
• We need to spell out rights, Indigenous rights that underpin co-management.
From left: Ro Hill, Toni Bauman and Alf Joyce limbering up during workshop wake-up session
Vince Mundraby discussing co-managemen t and rights

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 25 of 50
From left: Alf Joyce and Leah Talbot in small group discussions
Petina Pert preparing information for the workshop

26
Conclusion and Next Steps
Conclusion
The workshop review process provided invaluable feedback on the draft framework. In
particular, the discussions highlighted many aspects that are consistent with complex system
dynamics perspectives on co-management—for example, the importance of bridging/brokering
organizations, of learning-by-doing, building respect and rapport, sorting out responsibilities, of
practical engagement, and capacity-building and of the emergence of adaptive co-management
(Berkes 2009; Zurba et al. 2012). The discussions also highlighted some aspects that appear
new to the international scientific literature on co-management—in particular, the role of path-
generation, and of Indigenous-driven context-specific path selection.
The co-research team will give detailed consideration to the workshop discussions and develop
a revised version of the draft framework early in 2013 to take account of all the input from the
workshop. This review process will also involve iterations with relevant material on co-
management in the international scientific literature. The revised framework will be used to
underpin co-evaluation of the status of Indigenous co-management and biodiversity protection
in the wet tropics. This co-evaluation process will include a participatory workshop.
Next Steps
The last part of the Workshop focused on next steps. The plenary discussions identified that
more inclusive engagement with Queensland and Local Government agencies was a priority. A
Project Reference Group had been proposed as a means of developing this wider and more
inclusive engagement. It was agreed that a more effective approach to such engagement would
be achieved by:
• Providing a briefing on progress for Queensland Government agency representatives
and invitation to join the co-research team. Local governments will also be briefed and
invited to participate in the next workshops.
• Hosting a policy workshop in the final part of the co-research project, in about eighteen
months time, for high level decision-makers.
As noted above, the draft framework presented at the workshop will be revised early in 2013 to
take account of all the input from the workshop. This revised framework will be used to
underpin co-evaluation of the status of Indigenous co-management and biodiversity protection
in the wet tropics.
The next participatory workshop will focus on this co-evaluation of the status of Indigenous co-
management in the wet tropics, and will be held in April 2013:
• Genazzano Centre, available on 23/24
th
April, was preferred. Discussed holding the
meeting over a weekend so TOs can come to the Workshop? No consensus was
reached.
Meeting closed.

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 27 of 50
Appendix 1 Participant Information Pack
Workshop on Indigenous Co-management and Biodiversity
Protection: Participant Information Pack
• Date and venue: 17 October 2012 from 10:00am to 4:30pm at Whitfield
House, 50 Collins Avenue, Cairns (see Appendix One, Agenda and Venue
Details with Map).
• Co-research team: includes CSIRO, the Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples’
Alliance (Jabalbina Yalanji Aboriginal Corporation, Central Wet Tropics
Institute for Country and Culture Aboriginal Corporation and Girringun
Aboriginal Corporation), Mandingalbay Yidinji Aboriginal Corporation,
the Wet Tropics Management Authority, Terrain NRM, Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities , the
Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Institute of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
• Participants: For this workshop we are inviting attendees from the
major Indigenous co-management and biodiversity stakeholders in
Australia’s wet tropics region, including Traditional Owners and a range
of government, industry and community groups and experts (see
Appendix Two Invitation and Appendix Three List of Invitees.
• Country: Includes the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) and
surrounding areas of native ecosystems.
Overall Aim of the NERP Project
• Identify the means for engaging Indigenous knowledge and values that
can lead to effective joint management practices and biodiversity
protection including in the WTWHA
Involve governments and Rainforest Aboriginal peoples, in partnership with
communities.

28
Who will use the information from this Workshop and the
NERP project?
Rainforest Aboriginal peoples, government agencies and community
organisations in the wet tropics region will use information gained from this
project to strengthen their on-going partnerships so they can ensure there is
effective and sustainable management of these lands. This project may also be
relevant to other regions throughout Australia.
This first workshop will obtain expert technical advice and input into a draft
framework to co-evaluate the current level of Indigenous engagement in
biodiversity management in the wet tropics. During the workshop, a Reference
Group of Stakeholders will be initiated to provide on-going guidance for this
project. The co-evaluation will be conducted by Rainforest Aboriginal peoples,
government agencies and community organisations in the wet tropics. Findings
from the co-research will be shared through sharing reports on the NERP and
other web sites, journal articles and through talking at meetings and
conferences.
Steps in NERP Project 2012-14

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 29 of 50
Why Have this Workshop?
The goal of this workshop is to obtain expert technical advice and input into a
draft framework to evaluate the current level of Indigenous engagement in
biodiversity management in the wet tropics. The workshop is participatory,
and aims to promote social learning about and through the
draft
framework
.
The focus will be on:
• Linkages and parts that make up effective Indigenous co-management
and biodiversity protection in the wet tropics
• How these parts change over time and space leading towards Indigenous
co-management
• Identifying the conditions for equitable joint management
arrangements.
What Will the Workshop discuss?
The workshop will discuss:
• Rainforest Aboriginal peoples’ strategic interests in the project
• The draft framework which builds on Rainforest Aboriginal peoples’
work to date (for example through the Regional Agreement and the
Bama plan)
• Rights, responsibilities and relationship-based engagement
• Institutions (laws and policies) that affect co-management
• A draft Atlas showing Indigenous engagement
• The co-management pathway.
What Information will come from the Workshop?
A workshop report will be produced which includes the (revised)
draft framework to co-evaluate the current level of Indigenous
engagement in biodiversity management in the wet tropics.
This
workshop report will be based on notes taken during small-group discussions.

30
Use of names: Small group facilitators will be asked to include a list of names
with their notes. All participants’ names will be removed from the data after
analysis and before writing the draft report. Names are important in the
analysis stage because of the need to consider how different values and
perspectives of stakeholders can inform the draft framework.
Photographs: During the workshop, people will take some photographs to use
in reports and articles. Photographs of participants, together with their names,
will be included in the workshop report where they have given their
permission on both the Workshop Permission Form and the Photograph
Permission Form.
Comments on draft workshop report: The draft workshop report will be sent
out to all participants for their review. You will have around two weeks to
make comments on the report. We will endeavour to include your comments
in the final copy of the workshop report. We may send your comments on to
the other people in the co-research team unless you tell us you do not want
this to happen. Your comments will not be available to any other people. If you
do not send any comments, we will just use other people’s comments to make
the final workshop report.
Distribution: A copy of the Final Workshop Report will be emailed to all
workshop participants in December 2012. This report will be submitted to
NERP as part of the Milestone Report due on 1 December 2012. NERP may
make this available on their web-site in due course.
Final report submitted to NERP with Milestone Report 1 December 2012
Revised workshop report approved by co-research team on 22 November
Comments sent to CSIRO by 15 November 2012
Draft workshop report sent for review by 2 November 2012
Workshop 17 October 2012

NE RP TR O P IC AL ECO SYS TE MS H UB
Page 31 of 50
Who will own the knowledge produced at the Workshop?
CSIRO has collaboration agreements in place with
• Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples’ Alliance (including Jabalbina Yalanji
Aboriginal Corporation, Central Wet Tropics Institute for Country and
Culture Aboriginal Corporation and Girringun Aboriginal Corporation),
• Girringun Aboriginal Corporation and
• Mandingalbay Yidinji Aboriginal Corporation.
This means that copyright in the Workshop Report will be shared between
CSIRO and these organisations.
These agreements mean that Rainforest Aboriginal peoples retain ownership
of their existing Intellectual Property and any improvements thereto.
Ownership of new Intellectual Property that is jointly produced through the co-
research is shared equally between CSIRO and the above organisations.
What are the risks of participating in the Workshop and
this NERP Project?
The co-research follows the principle of ongoing negotiation of informed
consent. All participants are free to cease participating in the co-research at
any time. Participants are free to withdraw from the workshop at any time
until the time the data has been analysed and written up into the final
workshop report. This is because it will be very hard to identify individual’s
contributions at this stage, when all identifying information will have been
removed.
There is a risk that the framework may cause conflict and be contested by
others who favour different approaches. The co-research design ensures that
transparency in the publications and public release of information about the
sources of data, methods of analysis, participants involved, so that readers can
independently assess the potential for bias and reliability of the research
findings.
There is a risk of culturally sensitive information being included in the draft
workshop report. Participants should check the draft workshop report carefully
to make sure no culturally sensitive information or information that should
remain private, is included. Participants should check to make sure that all the

32
information in the workshop report is appropriate for release into the public
domain. The main risks for participants in this co-research are social and
psychological risks from the sharing of the information.
It is your decision to be involved or not. The decision of people to be involved
or not to be involved in this co-research or workshop will not change CSIRO’s
attitude to working with those people on other projects now or in the future.
Ethics Approval Details and Contact Information
This study has been cleared in accordance with the ethical review processes of
CSIRO within the guidelines of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Human Research. If you have any questions concerning your participation in
the study feel free to contact the researchers on ro.hill @csiro.au or
0418188958. Alternatively any concerns or complaints about the study can be
raised with CSIRO’s Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee by email
at csshrec@csiro.au or by contacting the Manager of Social Responsibility and
Ethics on (07) 3833 5693.
CSIRO:
Dr Ro Hill
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
Ro.hill@csiro.au
0418188958
Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples:
Ms Lisa Sarago
Coordina tor
Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples Alliance
rapacoordinator@g mail.com
Project co-research team:

33
Workshop Agenda
Our current draft framework to evaluate the current level of Indigenous
engagement in biodiversity management in the wet tropics has been
developed by the co-research team. The draft framework is supported by
literature review and an institutional analysis
1
. It is represented in Figures 6
and 7
• Rights, responsibilities and relationship-based engagement
• Co-management pathway.
10:00
Welcome to Country
Traditional
Owners
10:30
Introductions to the Project Partners: all co
-
research team members to
briefly introduce themselves
Workshop
Facilitators
10:40
Rainforest Aboriginal peoples strategic interests in the project
10:50
Overall research plan, aims and goals. Permissions fo
rms.
Ro Hill
11:00
Introduction to the
rights, responsibilities and relationship
-
based
engagement in the draft framework.
Joann Schmider
Small discussion groups on
rights, responsibilities and relationship
-
based engagement.
Small Group
Facilitators
12:30
Lunch
1:30
Institutional analysis and draft Atlas of Indigenous Engagement
Ro Hill & Petina
Pert
1:45
Introduction to the
co
-
management pathway
in the draft framework.
Small discussion groups on the
co
-
management pathway
as a focus for
the draft framework.
Small Group
Facilitators
3:00
Afternoon tea
3:30
Report back
Groups
4:00
Next steps, meeting close
Workshop
Facilitators
1
Maclean, K., R. Hill, P.L. Pert, E. Bock , P. Barre tt, R. Bellafqui h, M. Friday, V. Mundrab y, L. Sa ra go, J. Schmider, and L.
Talbot. 2012. Fra mework and institu tional analysis: Indi genous co-manage ment and biodi ve rsity protecti on in the we t
tropi cs. Cai rns: Reef and Rainfo rest Research Centre on behalf of the Australian Government's National Environmental
Research Program (NERP) Tropical Ecosystems (TE) Hub. This report is currently bein g prepared for web publication on
the NERP site . Copies are available on request.

34
Venue
Address:
Whitfield
House
PO Box 900
50 Collins Avenue
Edge Hill, QLD 4870 Australia
Phone:
+61 7 4032 2732
Fax:
+61 7 4053 5284
Email:
sales@whitfieldhousecairns.com.au
Parking is on Collins Avenue or some limited parking space is available at the
end of the driveway up to Whitfield House

35
Figure 6 Rights, respons ibilities and relationship-based engagement
Indigenous
societies:
Strategic
vision and
intent, on the
front foot,
people,
culture,
country
Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples
Indigenous leadership &multi-level
governance;
Family, Traditional Owner Group,
Language Group Alliances, Regional
Alliance
Culture
Indigenist ways of knowing,
doing, believing;
Lore, law and dreaming
Country
Story places, fire, totems,
plants, animals, hunting,
fishing, collecting.
Fine-scale, intense local level
organisation driving
management on country;
economic development, making
a living from country,
Power
Right to exercise native
title, "big-stick", common
law rights
Principles
Fluid movement, TO
group's own trajectory;
Self-determined level of
involvement in shared
space; Recognise scale
Rights, responsibility and
relationship-based
engagement
Mechanisms
Roundtable of stakeholders
who follow-up with actions
Strategic and practical plans
and documents
Relationships
Good ones enable
Indigenous roles
Flexible approach
Regimes for joint
management
legislation, policy

36
Figure 7 Co-management pathway
Indigenous societies'
path
Renewal through
recognition of rights,
culture on country
First steps
Indigenous societies'
path
Collaborative
engagement with non-
Indigenous people on
country.
Co-management
Indigenous societies '
path
New, equitable
relationships between
Indigenous and non-
Indigenous societies
about country
Joint management
• Native title, ILUAs
• "Natural" world
heritage site
Wet Tropics managed
by governments in
partnership with
communities, including
Indigenous peoples
• Recognision of cultural
values
• Support for Indigenous
management roles
• Steps along the journey
Wet Tropics joint
management vision •Shared space
•Stewardship
responsibility
•Mutual influence
•Legal co-governance
regimes
Joint Wet Tropics
new relationship

Page 37 of 50
Australia n Tropical Forest Institute (ATFI)
James Cook University, Divisi on of Research & Innova tion
Smithfield Campus, E2 Bui lding, McGregor Road, Smit hfiel d, QLD 4870
PO Box 12 139, Cairns QLD 4870, Australia
Telephone: (07) 4059 5013 • Facsimile: (07) 4055 7338 • ABN 41 687 119 230 • Mobile: 0418188958 •
18 September 2012
Dear Colleagues
CSIRO is co-hosting a workshop about Indigenous engagement in biodiversity co-management in the wet
tropics region on 17 October 2012 in Cairns. The title of the workshop is “Indigenous engagement and
biodiversity co-management: A framework for evaluation”. The workshop is part of co-research project
supported by the Tropical Ecosystem Hub of the Australian Government’s National Environmental Research
Program. We have attached a Fact Sheet about the project, which continues until December 2014.
We would like to invite you and/or nominees of your organisation to attend and contribute your invaluable
experience and expertise to this important research.
For this workshop we are inviting attendees from the major Indigenous co-management and biodiversity
stakeholders in Australia’s humid tropical forests, including Traditional Owners and a range of government,
industry and community groups and experts.
The purpose of the workshop is obtain expert technical advice and input to our draft framework for
evaluation of the current status of Indigenous engagement in biodiversity management in the wet tropics.
This workshop is the first of three planned for the research project, with the second and third more major
events scheduled for 2013 and 2014 respectively.
We will also be seeking to form a Project Reference Group of participants from the workshop. We have
attached a draft Terms of Reference. The Draft TOR would be on the agenda for the consideration of the
first meeting of the Reference Group once it is formed.
I have previously discussed this co-research project with many of you, who advised your interest and
willingness to be part of a Project Reference Group. Please feel free to contact me if you would like further
information or discussion about the workshop, proposed Reference Group, or research project.
We ask that organisations nominate people to attend the workshop who have skills and knowledge
relevant to the topic. The co-research project is using a social learning approach—working together to
generate and share knowledge that is mutually beneficial.
The Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples’ Alliance (Jabalbina Yalanji Aboriginal Corporation, Central Wet Tropics
Institute for Country and Culture Aboriginal Corporation and Girringun Aboriginal Corporation),
Mandingalbay Yidinji Aboriginal Corporation, the Wet Tropics Management Authority, Terrain NRM,
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities , the Australian
Appendix Two: Workshop Invitation
Note: Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples’ Alliance invited Traditional
Owners through their networks using a different format

38
Conservation Foundation and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies are
the core co-research partners together with CSIRO.
We are asking workshop participants to cover their own travel and accommodation costs for attendance.
We do have a (very) small amount of funds available for priority cases, so please let us know if you need
assistance. The workshop will be catered.
The workshop venue is currently being finalised (Cairns or possibly Mossman area); we will notify you as
soon as this is finalised. We will send the workshop agenda and papers on 8 October.
RSVP to Zoe Andolfatto (WTMA) by 1 October 2012. We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Ro Hill and the co-research team.
Research Team Leader, Geogra phy, Hu man Ecology & Sus tainability Research Group; CSIRO Cairns Site Leader
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
Acting Stream Leader, Pl anning & Prioritisation, Bi odiversi ty Theme
Adjunct Associate Professor, James Cook University School of Earth & Envi ronmental Science

Page 39 of 50
Appendix 2 List of Participants
Name
Organisation and/or Traditional Owner group
reported on the sign
-
in sheet. Many
of the participants have other affiliations.
Alf Joyce
Mamu
Andrew Maclean
Wet Tropics Management Authority
Bruce Lawson
Queensland Government Department
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and
Multicultural Affairs, Cape York Tenure Resolution Branch
Carla Wilson
Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
Clive Murray
Wanyurr
-
Majay
Dennis Ahkee
Dionie Johnson
Tablelan
d Yidinji Aboriginal Corporation
Hurriyet Babacan
Cairns Institute, James Cook University
Joann Schmider
Mamu, Central Wet Tropics Institute for Country and Culture Aboriginal
Corporation, Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples’ Alliance
Julie Carmody
Reef and
Rainforest Research Centre
Judi Enoch
Yalanji and Mona Mona Bulimba
Julie Tsatsaros
CSIRO
Leah Sarago
Rainforest Aboriginal Peoples’ Alliance, Tablelands Yidinji
Leah Talbot
Australian Conservation Foundation, Kuku Yalanji
Lisa Buchanan
Australian Gov
ernment Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities
Nigel Hedgcock
Wet Tropics Management Authority
Petina Pert
CSIRO
Phil Rist
Girringun Aboriginal Corporation
Robyn Bellafquih
Jabalbina Yalanji Aboriginal Corporation,
Eastern Kuku Yalanji
Ro Hill
CSIRO
Sandra Levers
Djabugay. Sandra Levers Consultancy
Sarah Hoyal
Cairns and Far North Environment Centre
Seith Fourmile
Gimuy Yidinji
Susan Medway
Mandingalbay Yidinji Aboriginal Corporation
Tony Hobbs
Djunbunji
(Mandingalbay Yidinji Aboriginal Corporation)
Vince Mundraby
Mandingalbay Yidinji Aboriginal Corporation
Whitney Rassip
Terrain NRM

40
References
Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations
and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (5):1692-1702.
Cundill, G., and C. Fabricius. 2009. Monitoring in adaptive co-management: Toward a learning based
approach. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (11):3205-3211.
Maclean, K., R. Hill, P.L. Pert, E. Bock, P. Barrett, R. Bellafquih, M. Friday, V. Mundraby, L. Sarago, J.
Schmider, and L. Talbot. 2012. Framework and institutional analysis: Indigenous co-
management and biodiversity protection in the wet tropics. Cairns: Reef and Rainforest
Research Centre on behalf of the Australian Government's National Environmental Research
Program (NERP) Tropical Ecosystems (TE) Hub.
Zurba, M., H. Ross, A. Izurieta, P. Rist, E. Bock, and F. Berkes. 2012. Building Co-Management as a
Process: Problem Solving Through Partnerships in Aboriginal Country, Australia. Environmental
Management 49 (6):1130-1142.

42
CONTACT US
t 1300 363 400
+61 3 9545 2176
e enquiries@csiro.au
w ww w.csiro.au
YOUR CSIRO
Australia is founding its futu re on
science and innovation. Its na tional
science agency, CSIRO, is a powerhouse
of ideas, te chnologies and skills for
building prospe rity, growth, health an d
sustainability. I t se rves governments,
industries, business and communities
across the nation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATI ON
Ecosystem Sciences/Social and Economic Sciences
Program
Dr Ro Hill
t +61 7 40595013
e ro.hill@csiro.au
w ww w.csiro.au/Organisation-
Structure/Divisions/Ecos ystem-Sciences/Biodiversity-
Portfolio .aspx
Ecosystem Sciences/Social and Economic Sciences
Program
Dr Petina L. Pe rt
t +61 740595006
e petina .pert@csi ro.a u
w ww w.csiro.au/ Organisation-
Structure/Divisions/Ecos ystem-Sciences/Biodiversity-
Portfolio .aspx