No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Australasian Journal of Water Resources. Australian Indigenous Water Policy and the impacts of the ever-changing political cycle
Abstract
First Peoples are leading the conversation about Indigenous water rights policy in Australia. This paper reviews contemporary Aboriginal water policy and initiatives. We examine the ever-changing cycles of government action and inaction, and First Peoples' responses. Three case studies: Strategic Indigenous Reserves in the Northern Territory, the First Peoples' Water Engagement Council and the Fitzroy River Declaration illustrate: (1) First People's expressions of the right to self-determination in relation to water; (2) First Peoples' contributions to integrated water resource management principles and water governance in Australia; and (3) that State/ Commonwealth Aboriginal water initiatives are often discontinued when elected government changes, and rarely given strength through legislation. We finish the review with policy recommendations that underline the need to 'break the cycle' of inconsistent government initiatives.
... The participation and inclusion of Indigenous people's knowledge in Australian water management and decisions has been 'rare' (NWC 2009(NWC , 2011(NWC , 2014PC 2017;Ayre and Mackenzie 2013) Taylor et al. 2017). The progress that has been made is conventionally driven by a top-down approach by non-Indigenous government water agencies, that asks: "how do we engage Indigenous people?" and has culminated in the ineffective "consult" and "service delivery" processes evident in mainstream water management planning (Hemming et al. 2017). ...
... The National Water Initiative (COAG 2004) created the first high level vision for water management that incorporated Indigenous values, although there has been limited progress made against those objectives (Jackson and Barber 2013;Taylor et al. 2017). Between 2010 and 2017 the NSW government created and supported the Aboriginal Water Initiative (AWI) an Indigenous-led unit established to re-engage the NSW Aboriginal community in water management and planning (Moggridge et al. 2019;Taylor et al. 2017). ...
... The National Water Initiative (COAG 2004) created the first high level vision for water management that incorporated Indigenous values, although there has been limited progress made against those objectives (Jackson and Barber 2013;Taylor et al. 2017). Between 2010 and 2017 the NSW government created and supported the Aboriginal Water Initiative (AWI) an Indigenous-led unit established to re-engage the NSW Aboriginal community in water management and planning (Moggridge et al. 2019;Taylor et al. 2017). The focus of the AWI was to employ Indigenous water practitioners to then identify and collate Indigenous water-dependent values to enable Indigenous participation in water planning. ...
Indigenous Research Methodologies (IRMs) for considering cultural values of water are a missing component of water and wetlands management in Australia. On this dry, flat and ancient continent Traditional Knowledge has been passed on from generation to generation for millennia. The profound knowledge of surface and groundwater has been critical to ensuring the survival of Indigenous peoples in the driest inhabited continent, through finding, re-finding and protecting water. Indigenous Research Methodologies can provide a basis for the exploration of this knowledge in a way that that is culturally appropriate, and which generates a culturally safe space for Indigenous researchers and communities. The development of IRMs has been and continues to be limited in Australia in the water context, primarily due to the lack of Indigenous water practitioners, with non-Indigenous researchers dominating the sector. The intention of the paper is to shift and decolonise the research paradigm from studying Indigenous peoples through non-Indigenous research methodologies, to partnering in developing methods appropriate to Indigenous knowledge systems. Indigenous Research Methodologies are rooted in Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies and represent a radical departure from more positivist forms of research (Wilson, Can J Native Educ 25:2, 2001). This allows the Indigenous researcher to derive the terms, questions, and priorities of what is being researched, how the community is engaged, and how the research is delivered. This paper provides an overview of Indigenous engagement in water management in Australia and Aotearoa (New Zealand), with reference to case studies. These more general models are used as the basis for developing an IRM appropriate to the Kamilaroi people in the Gwydir Wetlands of northern NSW, Australia.
... Incorporating Indigenous People into water reform and management is critical from an environmental, social, economic and cultural point of view (Craig 2006;Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2017;Alexandra 2019). However, we identify six immediate challenges in implementing Indigenous water flows in the Australian context. ...
... In Australia's Northern Territory Strategic Indigenous Reserves (SIRs) were established in the late 20 th Century, largely in response to lobbying from Indigenous organisations (Barber and Jackson 2012; O'Donnell 2011) and after considerable political debate (Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2017). The policy shift was well received by the Indigenous community and underpinned production of the Indigenous Water Policy Group's (IWPG's) A Policy Statement on North Australian Indigenous Water Rights, referred to here as the 'IWPG Policy Statement'. ...
... Australia was also the host for development of the Garma International Indigenous Water Declaration (NAILSMA, 2009a), which brought together Indigenous Peoples from across the world to share their experiences on issues and opportunities arising from emerging trends in mainstream water management systems. The Mary River Statement Delegates of the Mary River Water Forum (NAILSMA, 2009b) was an influential document (Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2017) which described principles of Indigenous rights and interests in water with reference to the UNDRIP, 2007, including the need for allocations for social, cultural, ecological and economic needs. ...
Water is a critical issue for governments and community in an Australian context, and internationally. First Peoples of Australia, its Indigenous peoples, have over 65,000 years of connection and understanding of water, held by more than 250 distinct Indigenous Nations that occur from the wet tropics, through desert country and south to the temperate zone, river lands and alpine regions. The value of water is central to Indigenous peoples’ being and culture, but since European colonisation in 1788, water has been subject to pumping, storage, diversion, extraction and pollution and without Indigenous people’s council. Most recently, water has been attributed a market value to sell and trade on a market that moves up and down with availability (drought, flood or in-between). Indigenous peoples have very small water entitlements despite the high value they place on water and the strong connection water has to their sense of identity, spirituality and culture. There is both a need and a great opportunity for Indigenous people to uphold and protect their water values through Indigenous-grounded methodologies or Indigenous-led water research, and so as to integrate Indigenous water knowledge into science and policy.
... The SAWR's enactment, after a decade of deliberations, was greeted with enthusiasm by many Indigenous peoples and their allies, although not without concerns expressed about the process and outcomes (Godden et al., 2020). For some, entrenching Indigenous water rights in legislation was seen as critical for protecting these rights (O'Bryan, 2019;Taylor et al., 2016). However, water legislation is produced through political and interpretive processes that may entrench water inequity and injustice (Alatout, 2007). ...
... (p. 21) Where the legal orders of Indigenous peoples and the state interact can be the locus of conflict, struggle, advocacy and negotiation -for water, this is embodied in the goal and process of water justice (Getches, 2005;Jackson & Barber, 2013;McLean, 2007McLean, , 2007Nikolakis et al., 2016;Robison et al., 2018;Taylor et al., 2016). ...
... In her view, this dispossession requires restitution and legal recognition of water rights of First Peoples that fully accounts for their traditional custodianship of their Country, their history, their culture and practices. The constitutional or statutory recognition of Indigenous water rights (and to lands and natural resources more generally which is their 'Country') has been the focus of advocacy and negotiation, to mitigate state encroachment of these rights (Nikolakis & Hotte, 2020;O'Bryan, 2019;Taylor et al., 2016). ...
Using a policy tracing approach, we analyse the legislating of the Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserve (SAWR) in the Northern Territory, Australia. The SAWR is a share of the consumptive pool allocated to eligible Indigenous landowners in water plan areas, providing water resources for future economic development. Drawing on parliamentary and policy sources to reveal competing interests and ideologies, and the challenges of codifying water rights, this study finds that legislating water rights alone is insufficient to achieve water justice – water justice measures must respond to power imbalances and inequities by empowering people with the capabilities to implement their rights.
... However, this procedural advance has not yet increased the volume of water that traditional owners have under their control (Jackson and Langton, 2012;Hartwig, forthcoming). Numerous national assessments highlight progress in the degree of consultation towards understanding the objectives of Aboriginal nations at the local scale, and in rates of Aboriginal participation in water planning (Taylor et al., 2017), but there has still been 'no material increase in water allocation for Indigenous social, economic or cultural purposes' (NWC, 2014). The Basin's water resources are so tightly constrained that it is extremely difficult for First Nations to compete with those accessing water for either consumptive or non-consumptive uses. ...
... The Aboriginal community-based natural resource management sector is growing rapidly (Altman and Jackson, 2014) and broadening its scope as Aboriginal organisations seek greater involvement in policies and programs and seek to assume more responsibility for water management (Taylor et al., 2017 ;Jackson et al., 2015). Some groups are advocating for policy and legislative change for new water entitlement mechanisms that, if secured, would bring further management responsibilities (see Mooney and Cullen, in press;Hemming and Rigney, 2014;Hemming et al., in press;Weir et al., 2013). ...
... The inherent rights and interests in water held by First Nations was still not on the water reform agenda and advocates knew they could not rely on government agencies to address the structural grievances held by Indigenous peoples. Recall that Aboriginal rights and interests were not reflected in national water policy until 2004 a full ten years after the Mabo High Court decision recognised native title (Tan and Jackson, 2013;Taylor et al., 2017). First Nations representatives were not included in the negotiations that established the NWI, and when their native title rights and other interests were recognised in the final agreement, the treatment they were given was weak (see Marshall, 2017;Tan and Jackson, 2013). ...
For almost a century, water management and governance in the Murray–Darling Basin overlooked the interests, perspectives, knowledge, and rights of Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal engagement in land and water matters has improved substantially this century, and increasingly, models of research, collaboration, management, and decision-making developed by First Nations and their representative organisations are effecting positive change. Approaches that are more inclusive have come about through the determined efforts of First Nations and through the commitment of the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (and its predecessor) to work within a legal and policy framework that is extremely limited. This chapter describes the strategies developed to confront the historical legacies of colonisation and exclusion from the water sector. Notwithstanding signs of progress, First Nations still have unmet water needs and unresolved claims for political, economic, and cultural recognition. This chapter outlines the work remaining to empower Aboriginal community control, use, and guardianship of water and to enable the restoration of sustainable relations with the Basin's rivers, estuaries, wetlands, and floodplains.
... However, this procedural advance has not yet increased the volume of water that traditional owners have under their control (Jackson and Langton, 2012;Hartwig, forthcoming). Numerous national assessments highlight progress in the degree of consultation towards understanding the objectives of Aboriginal nations at the local scale, and in rates of Aboriginal participation in water planning (Taylor et al., 2017), but there has still been 'no material increase in water allocation for Indigenous social, economic or cultural purposes' (NWC, 2014). The Basin's water resources are so tightly constrained that it is extremely difficult for First Nations to compete with those accessing water for either consumptive or non-consumptive uses. ...
... The Aboriginal community-based natural resource management sector is growing rapidly (Altman and Jackson, 2014) and broadening its scope as Aboriginal organisations seek greater involvement in policies and programs and seek to assume more responsibility for water management (Taylor et al., 2017 ;Jackson et al., 2015). Some groups are advocating for policy and legislative change for new water entitlement mechanisms that, if secured, would bring further management responsibilities (see Mooney and Cullen, in press;Hemming and Rigney, 2014;Hemming et al., in press;Weir et al., 2013). ...
... The inherent rights and interests in water held by First Nations was still not on the water reform agenda and advocates knew they could not rely on government agencies to address the structural grievances held by Indigenous peoples. Recall that Aboriginal rights and interests were not reflected in national water policy until 2004 a full ten years after the Mabo High Court decision recognised native title (Tan and Jackson, 2013;Taylor et al., 2017). First Nations representatives were not included in the negotiations that established the NWI, and when their native title rights and other interests were recognised in the final agreement, the treatment they were given was weak (see Marshall, 2017;Tan and Jackson, 2013). ...
For almost a century, water management and governance in the Murray-Darling Basin overlooked the interests, perspectives, knowledge and rights of Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal engagement in land and water matters has improved substantially this century and increasingly, models of research, collaboration, management and decision-making developed by First Nations and their representative organisations are effecting positive change. Approaches that are more inclusive have come about through the determined efforts of First Nations and through the commitment of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (and its predecessor) to work within a legal and policy framework that is extremely limited. This Chapter describes the strategies developed to confront the historical legacies of colonisation and exclusion from the water sector. Notwithstanding signs of progress, First Nations still have unmet water needs and unresolved claims for political, economic and cultural recognition. The Chapter outlines the work remaining to empower Aboriginal community control, use, and guardianship of water and to enable the restoration of sustainable relations with the Basin's rivers, estuaries, wetlands, and floodplains.
... The many Indigenous water declarations issued over the past decade confirm that the volume and timing of river flows, and their quality, are of great concern to many Indigenous people, as is the ability to manage and control water (Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2017). The literature also contains numerous reports from Indigenous groups concerned that environmental water has not been directed to features they consider to be of the greatest significance or value, or at the appropriate time (Jackson et al. 2015;Finn and Jackson 2011;Weir 2009Weir , 2011. ...
... Yet studies have shown that environmental water policy and practices are not sufficiently inclusive of Indigenous knowledge, values, rights and interests (Finn and Jackson 2011;Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2017;Maclean and The Bana Yarralji Bubu Inc 2015;Jackson and Barber 2013;Weir 2009;Hemming et al. 2017). In the MDB and other Australian regions, flow assessments undertaken by state agencies have made few attempts to understand the pattern and significance of Indigenous resource use or wider relationships with water (Jackson et al. 2015;Finn and Jackson 2011). ...
... Recent experimentation at a number of small localities within most states in the Basin shows that places and features of significance to traditional owner groups are receiving environmental water under collaborative partnerships between government and non-government water holders and managers. We have chosen to examine the interactions between environmental water managers and Aboriginal organisations in the MDB and no other geographic regions, such as north Australia where there are also significant water management issues (see for example, Jackson and Barber 2013;Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2017), because environmental water is most actively and intensely managed in the MDB. The MDB's well-developed institutional arrangements are quite distinct, with both public and private organisations holding entitlements for environmental purposes. ...
A complex environmental water governance system has developed in Australia over the past decade, with institutional arrangements that allow government and non-government organisations to acquire and manage substantial volumes of water for the benefit of the environment. Management of environmental water in partnership with other parties presents Aboriginal people with an opportunity to access water and restore environments, as well as reaffirm and rebuild socio-ecological relationships and water-dependent livelihoods. This article describes the emergence of collaborative partnerships between environmental water managers and Aboriginal community organisations in the Murray–Darling Basin to water country. Through case study profiles, the article shows how Aboriginal organisations and water managers are working together to improve the quality of wetlands, as perceived by traditional owners and others, and to share more equitably in the benefits from the acquisition and management of environmental water. The constraints and barriers are discussed, alongside the conditions that have laid the foundations for this emerging form of co-management of water.
... First, it relies on an imaginary of rivers without people. This essentialist naturalism is an ecohydrological equivalent of wilderness that reinforces the myth of terra nullius, yet Australian rivers, wetlands and catchments co-evolved with Indigenous people over millennia and are therefore nature -culture hybrids (Taylor et al., 2017). Awareness of this is catalysing calls for greater recognition of Indigenous peoples' rights to participate in governing water and waterways (Taylor et al., 2017;Hartwig et al., 2020). ...
... This essentialist naturalism is an ecohydrological equivalent of wilderness that reinforces the myth of terra nullius, yet Australian rivers, wetlands and catchments co-evolved with Indigenous people over millennia and are therefore nature -culture hybrids (Taylor et al., 2017). Awareness of this is catalysing calls for greater recognition of Indigenous peoples' rights to participate in governing water and waterways (Taylor et al., 2017;Hartwig et al., 2020). The second challenge is that, in practice, the natural-flows approach relies on modelling natural flow benchmarks and contrasting these with current flow regimes, using techniques that often render water-policy decisions technical and apolitical (Allouche et al., 2019), thus obscuring the complex value choices and socially determined objectives involved (Bouleau, 2014). ...
Droughts are intensifying in many mid-latitude river basins due to climate change; therefore understanding the influence of droughts on water policy is crucial. This study of the politics of water reforms in Australia's Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) analyses contrasting discourses of water security during the Millennium Drought (1996-2010). The paper traces the historical evolution, mobilisation and effects of three discourses defined as 'drought-proofing', 'higher value use' and 'river restoration'. These are broadly aligned with engineering, economics and ecological perspectives, and while all discourses were integrated into government responses to the drought, the resurgence of drought-proofing significantly altered policy settings intended to shift MDB water management onto a more sustainable path. The paper illustrates the political and physical conditioning of water policy, placing drought responses in their historical context. The analysis demonstrates how policy actors used discourses of water security to define normative goals and legitimise policies, particularly when climatic extremes provide opportunities to influence policy outcomes. The paper provides three key insights for water governance and climate adaptation: first, drought responses can have far-reaching effects for water governance and policy trajectories; second, droughts pose challenges to positive climate adaptation when they revitalise heroic drought-proofing initiatives; and third, understanding the historical roots of contemporary drought responses is vital for effective climate adaptation.
... Altered water regimes resulting from the combined effects of climatic conditions and water policies carry uneven and far-reaching implications for communities (high confidence). Acting on Indigenous Peoples' claims to cultural flows (to maintain their connections with their country) is increasingly recognised as an important water management and social justice issue (Taylor et al., 2017;Hartwig et al., 2018;Jackson, 2018;Jackson and Moggridge, 2019;Moggridge et al., 2019). Compounding stressors, such as coal and coal seam gas developments, can also severely impact local communities, water catchments and waterdependent ecosystems and assets, exacerbating their vulnerability to climate change (Navi et al., 2015;Tan et al., 2015;Chiew et al., 2018). ...
... IPAs can avoid the potential for 'nature-culture dualism' that locks out Indigenous access in some protected area legislation because they are based on relational values informed by local Indigenous knowledge (Lee, 2016) Fire management using cultural practices can achieve greenhouse gas emission targets while maintaining Indigenous cultural heritage. (Robinson et al., 2016) Indigenous Ranger programmes provide a means for Indigenous-guided land management, including for fire management and carbon abatement, fauna studies, medicinal plant products, weed management and recovery of threatened species (Mackey and Claudie, 2015) Faunal field surveys can engage local, bounded and fine-scale intuitive species location by Indigenous knowledge holders and their knowledge used for conservation planning (Wohling, 2009;Ziembicki et al., 2013) Cultural flows in waterways are a demonstration of cultural knowledge, values and practice in action as they are informed by Indigenous knowledge, bound by water-dependent values, and define when and where water is to be delivered, particularly in a changing climate (Bark et al., 2015;Taylor et al., 2017) Table 11.12 | Climate-related impacts and risks for Tangata Whenua New Zealand Māori ...
The Working Group II contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a comprehensive assessment of the scientific literature relevant to climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The report recognizes the interactions of climate, ecosystems and biodiversity, and human societies, and integrates across the natural, ecological, social and economic sciences. It emphasizes how efforts in adaptation and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions can come together in a process called climate resilient development, which enables a liveable future for biodiversity and humankind. The IPCC is the leading body for assessing climate change science. IPCC reports are produced in comprehensive, objective and transparent ways, ensuring they reflect the full range of views in the scientific literature. Novel elements include focused topical assessments, and an atlas presenting observed climate change impacts and future risks from global to regional scales. Available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
... The second is F I G U R E 1 Map of flows of water from April to June 2018 through the Barwon-Darling (Barka) River, MDB, showing dams, major towns, tributaries, and gauging stations. Source: First Class Communications to use that moment to explore the disregarded geographies of connection-the hydrosocial relations maintained by Aboriginal people that settler colonial water resource management continues to deny, sideline, or disrupt (Gibbs, 2009;Hemming et al., 2019;McLean et al., 2018;Taylor et al., 2016;Weir, 2009). The third aim is to challenge the asocial, modernist understanding of environmental flows (Anderson et al., 2019;Jackson & Head, 2020) and reveal how flows of water are always situated, contingent and emergent. ...
... For peoples who have their own long-standing practices of water control, have been dispossessed of land and water, and are today engaged in a struggle over water rights distribution and governance (Hartwig et al., 2020;Hartwig et al., 2021;Taylor et al., 2016), much work is going into resisting state endorsed patterns of water extraction and into politicising the practices that naturalise river flows. The most recent articulation being the Aboriginal campaign for cultural flows (Jackson, 2017;Mooney & Cullen, 2019;Weir, 2009). ...
In 2018, a large, coordinated environmental flow was instituted along the Barwon-Darling (Barka) River to connect ecosystems and restore public confidence in water regulation in the Murray-Darling Basin. This article examines the multiple river realities enacted by this event—environmental flow, regulated flow, unregulated flow, shut-up flow—as a conflict over what constitutes the character of water during substantial change in Australia’s settler colonial systems of water governance. Geographical analyses of event spaces from military contexts assisted in unpacking the ontological and spatio-temporal matters germane to this situation in which managers needed to heed the dynamism of the river at both material and institutional registers. The article describes the scientific and regulatory practices and visual technologies through which management of an “event-ful” river brought together some waters (but not others) into something ontologically secure and coherent, and therefore governable. It shows how the naturalising discourse constrained and enabled what could be said about the relations deserving of water and who gets to decide what socio-material connections water might make. Aboriginal leaders interviewed during the flow chose to emphasise a wider relational set of connections than did state water managers, and to accentuate dysfunctional and destructive relations, thereby inviting others to think and feel differently about environmental flows.
... Australia's First Peoples have responded to water colonialism with a range of water policy positions, actions, declarations, academic research and other outputs (Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2016). Nevertheless, research led by First Peoples on nation building and water self-governance is often overshadowed within the literature (Hemming et al. 2019). ...
... Some suggestions are provided to go beyond colonial water frameworks. This list builds on previous recommendations for progressing reform (such as Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2016;Marshall 2017;Nelson, Godden, and Lindsay 2018;Morris and Ruru 2010;O'Bryan 2019) and the ongoing work within the literature to deconstruct and reframe water governance, such as the Indigenous water quality principles developed by Moggridge and Mihinui (2018). The list is not definitive. ...
The ‘Living Waters, Law First’ water governance framework centres Living Waters, First Law and the health/well-being of people and Country. The framework is based on a groundwater policy position developed by the Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation (WAC), the Nyikina and Mangala peoples’ native title corporation, in the West Kimberley, Western Australia in 2018. This article celebrates Traditional Owner’s pragmatic decolonising strategies. It explores the emerging conceptual challenges to the status quo by comparing the Living Waters, First Law framework to Australia’s settler state water governance framework, represented by the National Water Initiative. Bacchi’s ‘what is the problem represented to be’ approach is used to interrogate the underlying assumptions and logics (2009). We find that there are incommensurable differences with First Law and the Australian water reform agenda. Yet, our analysis also suggests ‘bridges’ in relation to sustainability, benefits and responsibilities could promote dialogues towards decolonial water futures.
... Indigenous peoples have responded to these circumstances by continuing to lead strategic water policy advocacy (NAILSMA 2009;NAILSMA and UNU-IAS TKI 2008;Marshall 2017) emphasising their inherent collective rights based on use and occupation of land for thousands of years (Taylor, Moggridge Bradley, and Poelina 2016). Indigenous struggles for water rights have encompassed the establishment of self-determining groups, collectives, networks and alliances to: govern water; influence major industry development; shape government discourse and policies to counteract limiting government structures; undertake research; and strengthen legitimacy of local authority (Taylor, Moggridge Bradley, and Poelina 2016;Jackson 2018a;Marshall 2017). ...
... Indigenous peoples have responded to these circumstances by continuing to lead strategic water policy advocacy (NAILSMA 2009;NAILSMA and UNU-IAS TKI 2008;Marshall 2017) emphasising their inherent collective rights based on use and occupation of land for thousands of years (Taylor, Moggridge Bradley, and Poelina 2016). Indigenous struggles for water rights have encompassed the establishment of self-determining groups, collectives, networks and alliances to: govern water; influence major industry development; shape government discourse and policies to counteract limiting government structures; undertake research; and strengthen legitimacy of local authority (Taylor, Moggridge Bradley, and Poelina 2016;Jackson 2018a;Marshall 2017). Enabling Indigenous water rights supports widening the focus of externally driven economic expansion beyond technically focused problems and solutions to pathways that deliver outcomes of multiple water values (McLean 2007;Nikolakis and Grafton 2014;Hartwig, Jackson, and Osborne 2018;Jackson 2018a). ...
This paper documents Indigenous Traditional Owners’ water values, rights, and interests from the Mitchell catchment in North Queensland. It is the first analysis of the catchment that links Indigenous water values, rights and interests with specific water resource assessment and development considerations. The paper highlights how relational and reciprocal values frame Traditional Owner responsibilities and obligations through water across generations, across geography, to places, and with the non-human and spiritual entities living on their traditional lands. This ethos of relatedness shapes the way Indigenous peoples want to be engaged in water assessments and planning processes – such processes must focus first on local and regional relationships, where Indigenous actors are central to the coordination of a wider multi-interest governance process. Relatedness relies on building trust, continuous learning, and communication to encompass different values amongst people who are inter-dependent in their use of and relationship with water. Traditional Owners are seeking new platforms that bring multiple knowledges to water resource assessments and planning processes – where Indigenous ways of knowing are included with science, policy, industry, conservation, and community knowledges into an adaptive process focused on long-term sustainability.
... As a comparison, western institutional acceptance of Aboriginal knowledge contributions to water planning (i.e. environmental flows) has only incrementally increased over the past few decades, and only in some regions, despite government policy imperatives and Aboriginal advocacy (Taylor et al. 2017). Indeed, the prospect of fully engaging with Indigenous people and their knowledge can be daunting for non-Indigenous scientists and land managers , as it requires complex interdisciplinary effort and collaboration across different knowledge systems (Austin et al. 2019). ...
... Traditional owners also attributed undesired physical wetland changes to deteriorations in the quality of relationships between people and wetlands, like the physical separation of custodial family members from a wetland or breaches of cultural protocols. That the health of Country relies on active, respectful relationships with traditional owners (and all people) is a message consistently communicated by Aboriginal Australians (Taylor et al. 2017;Pyke et al. 2018;. Contemporary Australian Indigenous land and sea management programs provide an important vehicle for revitalising or strengthening Aboriginal wetland management as has been revealed by oral histories, particularly if barriers to Aboriginal leadership in this field can be overcome. ...
Historical and contemporary Indigenous wetland management influences wetland ecological character and conservation in ways not well recognised by western science and mainstream natural resource management. For example, the Australian government funds Aboriginal-led management of traditional lands, but Aboriginal knowledge is rarely enabled to critique, enrich or provide alternatives to conventional wetland management theory and practice. Emerging processes like the Multiple Evidence Base approach aim to foster synergies across different knowledge systems to enrich understanding of, and solutions for, environmental challenges. A starting point for such negotiations is the mobilisation of each knowledge base to foster mutual comprehension of shared knowledge around a subject. To assist in mobilising Aboriginal knowledge around wetland ecosystem management, we offer a case study of related Aboriginal beliefs, knowledge and practice. Based on oral histories and ongoing expressions, wetland management practices undertaken by two Kimberley Aboriginal groups in northern Western Australia form this article’s focus. We describe how and why these groups manage or rehabilitate wetlands, reflecting on ecosystem generation and conservation, and convergences or divergences with western science. We also identify barriers to the mobilisation of Aboriginal knowledge systems within contemporary land management programs, and opportunities to better foster Multiple Evidence Base negotiations.
... Indigenous water justice is part of broader struggles for environmental and social justice, self-determination and sovereignty (Curley, 2019a;Estes, 2019;Hemming et al., 2019;Nikolakis et al., 2016;Prieto, 2016;Sam & Armstrong, 2013;Walkem, 2006;Wilson, 2020;Yazzie, 2013). Advocates and scholars argue for responses informed by Indigenous perspectives and priorities (McLean, 2007;Taylor et al., 2016;Weir, 2009;Wilson, 2020). One approach suggested by Robison et al. (2018) conceptualizes Indigenous water justice as integral to self-determination, the foundational concept of international Indigenous rights law (see also Hemming et al., 2007). ...
... Second, 75% of Aboriginal-owned commercial water licences across Australia are held in NSW (Altman & Arthur, 2009), with most in the MDB portion of that state. Third, NSW was one of the first Australian jurisdictions to develop legislative, policy and programme responses to Aboriginal water claims, though with mixed success (e.g., Behrendt & Thompson, 2004;Hartwig et al., 2018;Jackson & Langton, 2012;McAvoy, 2006McAvoy, , 2008Moggridge et al., 2019;Tan & Jackson, 2013;Taylor et al., 2016). Figure 1 does not attempt to depict First Nations' territories. ...
Political theorists argue that justice for cultural groups must account for socioeconomic distribution, political representation and cultural recognition. Combining this tripartite justice framework with settler colonial theory, we analyse novel data sets relating to Aboriginal peoples’ water experiences in south-eastern Australia. We construe persistent injustices as ‘water colonialism’, showing that the development of Australia’s water resources has so far delivered little economic benefit to Aboriginal peoples, who remain marginalized from decision-making. We argue that justice theories need to encompass a fourth dimension – the vitally important socio-ecological realm – if they are to serve as conceptual resources for advancing Indigenous peoples’ rights and needs.
... The springs are of great cultural significance to the Indigenous Wangan and Jagalingou peoples, for whom they represent the source of life for the region and are their most sacred cultural site 17 . The Wangan and Jagalingou peoples' traditional water knowledge and cultural practices received little formal attention during the mine's assessment, despite growing recognition of the scientific basis of Indigenous knowledge and the importance of Indigenous stakeholder input into water management decisions 18,19 . ...
... The IESC and CSIRO-Geoscience Australia reviews provided non-binding advice to ministers, who ultimately sidelined evidence of data gaps and other deficiencies in favour of pursuing political objectives. This adds to the case for reforms to formalize the role of such advice in development assessments, along with other neglected dimensions, such as more genuine incorporation of Indigenous knowledge, perspectives and priorities in land and water management 18,42 . Such reform could, for example, provide greater powers for the IESC or similar bodies to request that proponents clarify uncertainties, address data gaps and explore alternative hypotheses, before they issue their final advice. ...
State and federal governments in Australia recently approved water management plans for one of the largest coal mines ever proposed. This comes as the role of coal in the world’s future energy mix is being seriously questioned, and global concern over the climate and water implications of further fossil fuel development. Despite repeated advice from multiple independent scientists, governments did not compel the mining company to conduct the investigations required to determine its risks to important nearby groundwater-dependent ecosystems, leaving open the prospect of irreversible ecological and cultural damage. Here we show how scientific advice provided to decision makers was repeatedly ignored or dismissed, while scientists and agencies were subjected to political pressure. We argue that this echoes other examples of scientific evidence being ignored where findings clash with political or economic objectives, and warrants urgent review of decision-making processes for developments with major environmental consequences. While political interference with science is not new, this analysis of Australia’s largest coal mine being approved despite and over the objections of scientific managers provides a thorough case study in how environmental considerations are being ignored.
... Although studies show that environmental water practices are not yet sufficiently inclusive of First Nations people's knowledge, values, rights and interests (e.g., Taylor, Moggridge & Poelina, 2017), engagement and partnership with First Nations peoples is increasing in the Basin. This is led by the MDBA, the CEWH and state governments. ...
Commissioned by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority, this literature synthesis forms an important part of the growing attention in Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change for water governance, it aims to deliver a robust and contemporary evidence base on these concepts to support the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB). Understanding drivers of change and managing them where needed to build resilience and enable adaptation are important for the effective management and sustainability of dynamic socio-ecological systems such as the MDB, which is recognised as having diverse values across multiple scales, some of which are under stress.
The synthesis begins by defining the concepts of resilience, adaptation and drivers of change so that they are relevant to the MDB, drawing from the latest literature. It is clear that these concepts have differing disciplinary interpretations and are being actively developed in the scholarly literature. Importantly, they are increasingly significant in research, case study and planning applications, including concerning the management and maintenance of the environmental, community, cultural and economic factors people value about the MDB, the interdependencies and trade-offs among them and how they are affected by drivers of change.
The literature supports the emerging understanding of resilience, urging specificity in ‘resilience of what, to what and for whom’ and ensuring it is grounded in context. It identifies six critical attributes of resilience pertinent to the MDB: diversification, variability, redundancy, modularity, adaptation-orientation and the exploration of new strategies. Yet, the application of these resilience attributes in the MDB faces significant hurdles, including the integration of traditional and emerging knowledge and the practical application of resilience in real world dynamic contexts that have thresholds or tipping points and where transformation may be a likely outcome.
The report scrutinises the drivers of change impacting the MDB, emphasising that a thorough understanding of these drivers is essential for crafting effective interventions. Climate change stands out as a significant driver, influencing various environmental, social, cultural and economic values of the Basin. Nonetheless, existing knowledge gaps obstruct the assessment of the relative significance of different drivers and the accurate attribution of changes.
Adaptation is highlighted as a critical area, particularly given the substantial shifts in hydroclimate and the pronounced vulnerability of certain MDB sub-regions. Although adaptive capacity is unevenly distributed across the Basin, the report identifies a unique opportunity to forge partnerships with First Nations peoples to support both environmental and cultural objectives. The literature advocates for urgent governance reform to address climate change adaptation, challenging many existing policies and regulations that are predicated on a static climate assumption.
In conclusion, the report calls for the urgent development of adaptation pathways and a more nuanced understanding of how to utilise adaptation options in the MDB. Tackling these issues demands a concerted effort to fill existing knowledge gaps and to integrate insights across multiple, interacting drivers of change.
Recognising the living document nature of the literature review for the commissioned project on resilience, drivers of change and adaptation, this synthesis will be updated prior to the project’s completion.
... For Australia's First Nations people, it is not just a resource but a lifeblood that connects them with their ancestors, land, culture and identity. Yet, despite water's profound cultural, spiritual and economic significance to Indigenous Australians, their water rights remain limited and marginalised in Australia's legal and policy frameworks (Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2016). As we navigate the complexities of modern water governance, we must recognise the deep historical injustices surrounding Indigenous water rights and chart a path toward water justice for First Nations communities. ...
... This transformative and pluralist jurisprudence can be attributed to the enabling of the "othered" people and "alternative" voices, in most cases IPLCs, whose onto-epistemologies regard Nature as a being, made of beings, in its/their own right(s) (Dhamoon, 2021;Graham, 1999;O'Donnell et al., 2020;Rose, 2012). To enable transformative potential for a more plural and just society, one must continuously (re)search to recognize and celebrate new and old differences and similarities, (re)frame political ordering and cycles, and empower IPLC worldviews, knowledges and values to imagine new ways of living and being in the world (Blaser, 2014;DePuy et al., 2022;Dhamoon, 2021;Graham, 1999;Hunt, 2014;O'Donnell et al., 2020;Pauly, 2016;Rose, 2004;Taylor et al., 2016). ...
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) are counting on research, policy and practice to drive the paradigm shift needed to address the social and ecological threats of climate change, biodiversity loss and injustice. Despite global efforts to resolve these systemic challenges, the paradigm underpinning mainstream conservation research, policy and practice, is criticized as insufficient, marginalizing, and even oppressive - exacerbating the problems people are seeking to solve. ‘Biodiversity’, ‘conservation’, and ‘biodiversity conservation’ means different things to different people based on their distinctive worldview(s), knowledge(s) and value(s) - differences that are crucial to recognize and understand for any paradigm shift to be achievable in a way that is pluralistic, inclusive and equitable.
A paradigm is composed of a set of explicit premises and implicit assumptions that form a procedural model (e.g., theories, methodologies, postulates) used to process patterns of the world to describe realities. Paradigms can be distinguished by examining the underlying worldviews, knowledges and values from which they arise. In general terms, a worldview defines the essence of what is perceived to exist in the world and the nature of relations. Knowledge constitutes systems through which information, data, analysis and meaning is formed, to become embodied through a process of consensus. Values encompass the guiding codes-of-conduct that inform how judgements are made and weighed. Together, worldviews, knowledges and values generate paradigms of the world, how it is experienced, and how it works.
A paradigm shift from the dominant worldview, knowledge, and values - commonly referred to as ‘business-as-usual’ - has been cited by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as vital to conserve biological diversity for a sustainable future. A transformation from the business-as-usual paradigm requires the adoption of diverse worldviews, knowledges and values into conservation practices, while being pragmatic in negotiating (in)commensurabilities (i.e., measures of commonality/compatibility). The business-as-usual paradigm largely comprises a worldview that perceives reality existing as one globalized system, prioritizing objective knowledge, to realize values of individuality, freedom, and economic prosperity for all.
Relational principles sit in contrast to many aspects of business-as-usual paradigms. Relational principles assume that there are many, dynamic, realities intersubjectively defined by interconnected and interdependent relations, as demonstrated by an ethos of thinking-doing-being. For example, worldviews, knowledge and values based on relational principles are often upheld by Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), that acknowledge Mother Nature, place-based knowledge, kinship and reciprocity. IPLCs, with the GBF, IPBES, and others, are calling for relational principles to be applied to conservation research, policy and practice to assist in halting the perverse effects of the business-as-usual paradigm that threatens biodiversity and social-ecological systems. The rationale for their inclusion is the radically different paradigm of relations have been demonstrated over millenia to foster more sustainable social-ecological conditions. While increasingly recognized as crucial to research, policy and implementation, initiatives aimed at integrating relational principles into the conservation mainstream continue to fall short. This shortfall is indicative of gaps in understanding the fundamental assumptions between different worldviews, knowledge, and values that can be bridged using analytical philosophy.
Analytic philosophy approaches logic, language and ethics in a pragmatic way, using branches of philosophy such as ontology, epistemology and axiology, to methodically identify and contextualize the contents and meanings of a paradigm being expressed without altering them in the process. Metaphysical ontology examines the essence of what exists and the nature of entities, relations, space, and time. Epistemology theorizes the boundaries and body of knowledge by methodologies that delineate the justifiable limits of what is believed to be valid, known and knowable. Axiology brings into question the diversity and classification of values, the notion of worth, and the rules and consequences of judgements. Analytic philosophy seeks to understand the underlying mechanisms and patterns that dictate how relationships are made and change within and between ontology, epistemology, and axiology. This form of analysis provides insights into worldviews, knowledge and values being expressed by their underpinning logic, language, and ethic that together, formulate a paradigm. The ongoing lack of practical knowledge to identify, differentiate, and contextualize the principles underpinning paradigms, limits the capacity to shift paradigms as required to transform biodiversity conservation research, policy and practice.
This thesis applies analytical philosophy techniques to conceptually situate elements that correspond to particular worldviews, knowledge systems and values to develop practical frameworks that can be used to help identify and understand the similarities and differences between paradigms across research, policy and implementation in the context of biodiversity conservation. The frameworks developed through the research process were designed to enable more plural, inclusive and equitable practices, which are needed to improve biodiversity conservation. First, I considered the socio-political ‘landscape’ of global biodiversity conservation, with a focus on the roles of IPLCs (Chapter 1). Then, I spatially and conceptually considered the implications of Target 1 of the GBF Zero Draft that, at the time, was controversial in calling to retain all remaining “wilderness areas” (Chapter 2, Pérez-Hämmerle et al., 2021). Then, to further analyze the inclusivity of the CBD and GBF Drafts towards diverse worldviews, I co-developed a framework designed to more inclusively account for the language and structural approach of biodiversity conservation policy (Chapter 3, Moon and Pérez-Hämmerle, 2022). Building from the framework, real, relative and relational frames of the world were then conceptually situated across research, policy and implementation in the context of power to enable more plural, inclusive and equitable biodiversity conservation practices (Chapter 4, Pérez-Hämmerle et al. in review). I then continue by contextualizing the contributions of the empirical data collected over the course of the PhD that served to metamorphose the methodologies and methods used and inform the development of each Chapter (Chapter 5). The original works presented here provide essential reference points from which the transformative potential of biodiversity conservation research, policy and implementation can emerge. Reflecting on the process of how a paradigm changes through time, I analyzed my own paradigm shift as a researcher, based on principles of relationality, decolonization and diffractive analysis to examine the transformative potential that comes with re-evaluating ways of thinking-doing-being. In conclusion, this thesis shows the strengths and limitations of analytical philosophy as a pragmatic methodology to enhance plural, inclusive and equitable practices and that a paradigm shift across conservation research, policy and implementation must apply relational principles through a process of transformation (Chapter 6).
... Despite some small federal reforms to include greater provisions for Indigenous values and more Indigenous engagement in formal structures in the Murray-Darling River basin and current discussions on reforms to enhance this component of the National Water Initiative, at the NSW state level, work toward Indigenous recognition, water rights and Aboriginal-led water governance initiatives have had a rockier history. Progress was made during the time of the NSW Government Aboriginal Water Initiative (Taylor et al. 2016), but since the initiative's discontinuation and due to larger political conflicts and media attention on issues such as massive fish kills and alleged water theft (Jackson 2021), progress has been slower. Potential directions for future water reforms are in dispute; these include increasing investments in water infrastructure, including by installing new dams, higher weirs and irrigation technology upgrades, which local Barka-Darling Indigenous communities say will further impact their ability to care for the Country, including the fish traps. ...
In Australia, First Peoples have practiced sustainable forms of water management for millennia. They have done so by respectfully caring for Country through their use of engineering and maintenance processes, including sophisticated fish and eel trapping structures and weir systems. Some of the largest continuing sites of water engineering and aquaculture in the world are still visible and used by local Aboriginal groups – the Budj Bim in Victoria and Baiame’s Ngunnhu (Brewarrina Aboriginal fish traps) in New South Wales (NSW). Recent scholarship and successful heritage listings, including the World Heritage listing of the Budj Bim Cultural Landscape and work by and with traditional custodians in these river systems, are starting to bring into public discourse and knowledge these sophisticated and important places of global cultural significance. The principles used in the design of these systems, and the social and environmental contexts of their maintenance and convening power over millennia, are particularly important as we navigate new technologically mediated forms of water management today and into the future. These management challenges include communities in Australia and globally working on the importance of significant places, values, rights, justice and voice for Indigenous peoples in building sustainable futures, including through innovation and safe, sustainable and responsible cybernetic approaches to water governance and the SDGs.
... Historically, Australia was dissatisfied with the UNDRIP proposal for fear of developing an Indigenous veto power which was interpreted as being implicit within the framework of the document (Australian Broadcasting Commission, 2007;Hanna & Vanclay, 2013). Australia endorsed the UNDRIP document in 2009 (Taylor et al., 2016), but this holds little significance as Australia has not legislated FPIC, although Australia's domestic legal system has addressed issues around decision-making for Indigenous Australians and offers guidance on how some mechanisms within FPIC could operate at a domestic level (Southalan & Fardin, 2019). ...
This has been a short research initiative conducted by Curtin University for the Cooperative Research Centre for Transformations in Mining Economies (CRC TiME). The project aimed to articulate what constitutes ‘leading practice’ in post-mining and transitioning mine economies when Indigenous peoples are included in the
activities and functions of mining. In this literature review ‘Foundations for Effective Indigenous Inclusion’ the objective was to identify amongst the existing literature ideas, procedures, protocols, processes, case studies, and evidence-base practices that would inform the establishment of a ‘leading practice’ relationship between
Traditional Owners and CRC TiME. The aim was to provide CRC TiME with recommendations that support its intention to be a ‘leading practice’ facility that is founded on the principles of Indigenous inclusion and equity buttressed through co-designed research. This report has been written for adoption by CRC TiME staff and its partner organisations who engage with Traditional Owners through the institution of the CRC as well as for Traditional Owners to support their aspiration of what CRC TiME can and will do with them.
This report also provides a comprehensive, although non-exhaustive, directory (Appendix 3) of Indigenous individuals, communities, businesses, and organisations that participants in CRC TiME may wish to engage with across the seven regionally place-based hubs which have been initially identified for development, and will be the focus for investment priorities and bringing together of stakeholders.
... There have long been tangible, violent impacts on Indigenous peoples and Country from mainstream settler-colonial forms of governance starting from the inability of colonial governments to even see Indigenous peoples, their connections and belongs with/ as Country [37]. Indeed, ongoing injustices around water provisioning, and the 'development' of water resources, marginalise Aboriginal people in Australia and other Indigenous people the world over [38][39][40]. Hartwig et al [38] call this water colonialism. And, it is not just Aboriginal people but also water itself, the beings that know and live water, the relationships of all people with land and sea Country that suffer [41]. ...
In this piece, we share about gapu, water. Gapu gives life for a person and the land. Gapu nurtures and holds connection; it is knowledge and power, belonging and boundaries. We share as an Indigenous and non-Indigenous more-than-human collective, the Bawaka Collective, led by Bawaka Country and senior Yolŋu sisters Laklak Burarrwanga, Ritjilili Ganambarr, Merrkiyawuy Ganambarr-Stubbs and Banbapuy Ganambarr, who speak from our place, our Country, our homeland, Rorruwuy, Dätiwuy land and Bawaka, Gumatj land, in Northeast Arnhem Land, Australia. Our piece follows the Songspiral Wukun, Gathering of the Clouds, and shares that water has many meanings, much knowledge and Law that must be respected. People and water co-become together. There is not one water but many, that hold balance. If we come together, waters, knowledges, peoples, acknowledging and respecting our differences, we can make rain.
... The example of Gayini Nimmie-Caira adds to other examples of improved recognition of rights and access to water for First Nations people in the Murray-Darling Basin (e.g., Hartwig et al., 2018;Jackson & Nias, 2019;Jackson et al., 2017Jackson et al., , 2020Robison et al., 2018), and other parts of Australia (e.g., Taylor et al., 2016), and are important steps on the road to water justice in this region. However, many First Nations groups still lack access to land or water (Hartwig et al., 2020) and more systematic consideration needs to be given to ensuring land and water justice is improved. ...
In Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin, efforts to restore water justice for the environment have focused on environmental flows for natural values of wetlands and floodplains. But there has also been an emergence of collaborative partnerships between environmental water managers and First Nations community organizations to water ‘Country’. The A$180 million Gayini Nimmie-Caira water-saving project saw the New South Wales and Australian governments purchase 19 properties on the Lowbidgee Floodplain, together with associated water rights, with the aim of delivering environmental flows, protecting First Nations cultural heritage and ensuring long-term sustainable land management. A consortium of environmental non-governmental organizations, First Nations and scientific organizations successfully tendered for the long-term management of the 88,000 ha property, Gayini Nimmie-Caira. This case study is used here to discuss water (and land) justice from the perspective of the Nari Nari people, the Traditional Custodians of Gayini Nimmie-Caira and the applicability of this model to other regions.
... The MDB is known as 'Australia's food bowl' and is of critical importance for irrigation, environment, urban water use, tourism, and cultural heritage. In particular, 75,000 indigenous people live in the MDB (Taylor et al., 2017), and the Northern Basin is home to the Brewarrina fish traps in the Barwon river, which are the oldest man-made structures in the world. The MDB covers an area of more than 1m square kilometres, and includes 75 per cent of New South Wales (NSW), more than 50 per cent of Victoria, 15 per cent of Queensland, 8 per cent of South Australia (SA), and the entire Australian Capital Territory. ...
Water markets are promoted as a demand-management strategy for addressing water scarcity. Although there is an increasing literature on the institutional preconditions required for successful formal water markets, there has been less focus on understanding what drives participation after establishment of the basic enabling conditions. Participation can be measured in terms of either trading activity (conducting either a permanent or temporary water trade) and/or trade volumes across time and market products. Australia’s water markets in the Southern and Northern Basins of the Murray-Darling Basin provide a notable example of a ‘tale of two water markets’, offering insights about the economic policy levers that can drive participation across different hydrological, irrigation, and socioeconomic contexts. Key lessons include: distribution of initial property rights in resource allocation; the need to prepare for and seize opportunities to strengthen property rights; and robust monitoring and compliance requirements—all of which will reduce transaction costs and increase participation.
... By contrast, knowledge about Aboriginal water holdings (entitlements to extract water) has not (see Nikolakis et al. 2013). Negligible attention has been given to the far-reaching effects of the world's biggest water market on Aboriginal water holdings and wider questions about Aboriginal water access have only recently garnered interest from policymakers Macpherson, 2019;McAvoy, 2008;Tan and Jackson, 2013;Taylor et al., 2016). ...
There is significant interest in global trends in Indigenous land titling but relatively less attention given to Indigenous water tenure despite significant reform of water governance regimes in many regions of the world. This paper considers the intertwined and complex history of Aboriginal land and water tenure in the Australian State of New South Wales, within the Murray-Darling Basin. Its temporal scope encompasses the initial dispossession effected by colonization and settler water development; the re-appropriation of land and water under social justice restoration schemes from the 1970s; and the past decade in which the small water holdings in the possession of some Aboriginal organizations have significantly diminished. The paper shows that proprietary rights to land and water acquired through the colonial period strongly conditioned rights of access to water during subsequent eras, particularly when Australian governments separated land and water titles and capped water use to create the world’s biggest water market. Using empirical water entitlement data, we profile the composition, spatial distribution and value of Aboriginal water holdings in the NSW portion of the Murray-Darling Basin. We show that while Aboriginal people in this area constitute nearly 10 % of the total population, their organizations hold only 0.2 % of the available surface water. We identify changes in Aboriginal water holdings between 2009 and 2018 that are indicative of a new wave of dispossession. Almost one fifth of Aboriginal water holdings by volume were lost over 2009−18 (at least 17.2 % in standardized terms). We discuss the factors that render Aboriginal water-holders vulnerable to the loss of valuable water rights and those factors that constrain the ability of all Aboriginal people to fully enjoy the benefits of water access, including water market participation. Additionally, we identify critical omissions in Australian water rights reform and offer recommendations for redress that are of wider international relevance.
... Traditionally, a single IFR value was used as the minimum flow, below which no human influence should take place. With time, attention was shifted towards methods that consider the flow regime with some degree of variability to maintain the natural morphology, ecosystem and socio-cultural dimensions (Acreman & Dunbar, 2004;Taylor et al., 2016;Magdaleno, 2018;Anderson et al., 2019). Considering June to October as high-flow months and other months as low-flow, estimated values of IFR thresholds and medians along with coefficient of dispersions and trends (i.e., Sen's slope) are provided in Table 3 for each month of the river. ...
Explicit consideration of in-stream flow requirement (IFR) has now become almost mandatory in many rivers before irrigation withdrawal is made. Thereby, the primary objective was to evaluate the IFR through hydrological approaches and compare the condition with current flow variability and trends. Flow records were collected from five discharge stations for IFR estimation. Performance of the river was also judged with respect to nine hydraulic cross-sectional data and stage data of ten water-level monitoring stations of Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB). Results show that since 2000, the upper Karatoa was able to meet IFR, but the lowest part of the river experienced severe deterioration in addressing its dry season functionality. Also, the decreasing trend in off-stream availability is recognized as a threat to the Singra site resulting from severe aggradations of the river beds. Attention to the less off-stream availability at Singra raises concerns over sustaining the river from drying out. It is now evident that a hydrological approach of IFR is more than just an initial rough estimate. Such a precautionary method works well to provide quick technical support and decision reference for a complex system, in particular, to find specific drying out parts of a river of concern.
... All of this water history of the continent prior to colonisation needs to be acknowledged and celebrated publicly and often. Lessons, where possible, stemming from both the systems that were eventually destroyed through the process of colonisation and those that still persist and support community and culture need to be recognised for their ability to sustain societies across millennia (see also Taylor et al. 2016). ...
Australia’s water management futures are again under discussion as drought impacts and bushfires hit communities. Water and ecological system limits are being reached resulting in fish kills and dwindling water levels in storages. Awareness is also rising around the inequities in current water governance regimes for First Peoples across the Australian continent and beyond. Here we provide a brief overview and research on: the ingenuity of Indigenous waterscape and landscape knowledge and practices to care for country and community, including the development of agricultural systems and sophisticated fish and eel trapping systems that are thousands of years old; the devastating impacts of colonisation on First Peoples, their country and ability to maintain some cultural practices; and the ongoing contestation over water governance, right from Federation, including the eight waves of water reforms in the Murray-Darling Basin. Current challenges and needs for reform are also presented including: hydrological scientific uncertainties, such as around return flows and their adjustment due to irrigation infrastructure efficiency increases, and new design methodologies, such as for flood estimation inputs to hydraulic models; adjusting current governance regimes of sustainable diversion limits and water markets to provide alternative value to Australia, beyond economic value drivers, that better respond to the benefit of all basin communities in the face of ongoing extreme climate variability and climate change; and determining positive ways forward for truly valuing and allowing First Peoples’ knowledge, practices, culture and law to provide a basis for developing the next waves of Australia's water management reform journey.
... The appropriation of water has had, and continues to play, a central role in colonisation/invasion throughout Australia's history and continues to the present (Marshall 2017; Morgan 2015;Cathcart 2010;Langton 1999). Although Indigenous people continue to advocate for their water rights and interests, Australia's recent water reform agendas have not produced substantive changes (Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2016). ...
The Rainbow Snake is a universal Indigenous Australian living creature responsible for the creation and protection of waterways. Countless generations of traditional owners have cared for the sacred ancestral being; it is a spiritual guardian. The ancient creation songs and stories shared across the continent create meaning and purpose for our collective responsibility in managing the health and survival of the rivers, wetlands, springs, billabongs, floodplains and soaks. This chapter presents an insider view about how to promote remote Aboriginal people’s wellbeing through a co-operative regional earth-centred governance model. The story reveals a powerful policy and investment approach to the planning and development of regional governance and showcases the unique cultural and environmental values of the Fitzroy River, and its Indigenous people as having local, national and international significance. The central theme is the responsibility of Indigenous leaders to facilitate knowledge building, which requires sharing a deeper understanding of continuing colonisation and the collective responsibility, as Australians, for managing water.
... In considering how the challenges to sustainable water collaborations might be overcome within the diverse social, geographical, and institutional context of remote Australia, a number of key insights into actions, strategies, and mechanisms, e.g., opportunities and enablers, also emerged from the analysis (Table 3). Firstly, although the role of government structures and institutions in perpetuating problems of dependence and unsustainability in remote Indigenous communities is well documented [7,15,36,46,68,73,[102][103][104], governments clearly have a critical role in transforming Indigenous water governance locally and regionally because they have the authorization and resources that other actors do not. Government and associated water sector agencies, along with other key community services, could play a pivotal role through strategic investments-funding and resourcing-to initiate a positive spiral of community change [64]. ...
Collaboration between government agencies and communities for sustainable water governance in remote Indigenous communities is espoused as a means to contribute to more equitable, robust, and long-term decision-making and to ensure that water services contribute to broader considerations of physical, social, and economic prosperity. In Australia, the uptake of collaborative water governance in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island contexts has been slow and few examples exist from which to inform policy and practice. This study identifies barriers to uptake of collaborative sustainable water governance, drawing from qualitative interviews with water practitioners working in remote Indigenous Australia and analysis of key project documentation. Thematic analysis revealed discrete barriers across five key categories: (1) governance arrangements, (2) economic and financial, (3) capacity and skills, (4) data and information, and (5) cultural values and norms, with many barriers identified, unique to the remote Indigenous Australian context. The paper provides insights into how to address these barriers strategically to create transformative and sustainable change for Indigenous communities. The results contribute to the greater body of knowledge on sustainable and collaborative water governance, and they are of relevance for broader water management, policy, and research.
... There has been less progress in incorporating Aboriginal perspectives into water management, although the need has been identified in the academic literature (e.g. MacAvoy 2006;Weir 2011;Tan and Jackson 2013;Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2017) and a series of governmental reviews (NWC 2009(NWC , 2011(NWC , 2014PC 2017). A series of major water reforms in Australia in the early 2000s was guided by the National Water Initiative of 2004 (NWI), and culminated in the creation of the Commonwealth Water Act 2007. ...
Australia is the driest inhabited continent on Earth and has an acute need to manage its water resources effectively. Australian Aboriginal peoples have a profound knowledge of surface water and groundwater which has allowed them to thrive for thousands of generations even in the most arid parts of the landscape. Aboriginal peoples place a high priority on protecting water, but the challenge is to ensure that their values are integrated into water planning. The Australian New South Wales (NSW) government’s Aboriginal Water Initiative (AWI) (2012-2017) sought to include Aboriginal cultural and spiritual values in water management. The AWI operated under the NSW Government’s Water Management Act 2000, which seeks to protect the cultural and spiritual values of water and the benefits to flow to Aboriginal peoples. Speaking from the perspective of the previous leader of the AWI, this article will reflect on its inception and structure, particularly focussing on approaches of engagement and consultation. These were highly structured and included a focus on cultural training and protocols and benefited from having Aboriginal staff involved. While ultimately discontinued in 2017, a reflection on the AWI provides useful insights into how engagement and consultation can be operationalised in water management and policy.
... The appropriation of water has had, and continues to play, a central role in colonisation/invasion throughout Australia's history and continues to the present (Marshall 2017; Morgan 2015;Cathcart 2010;Langton 1999). Although Indigenous people continue to advocate for their water rights and interests, Australia's recent water reform agendas have not produced substantive changes (Taylor, Moggridge, and Poelina 2016). ...
In 2016, Traditional Owners came together to discuss their collective vision for the Martuwarra, expressed in the Fitzroy River Declaration. Traditional Owners established the Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council (MFRC) as a collective governance model to maintain the spiritual, cultural and environmental health of the catchment. Traditional Owners advocate a collaborative approach for an inclusive water governance model and catchment management plan. The MFRC advocates the need to establish a Fitzroy River Catchment Authority as a statutory body to monitor and regulate potential cumulative impacts from development. The Authority needs to be inclusive of all stakeholders and ensure that there is informed consent in decisions regarding development. This article articulates a local critique of water resource development and presents an alternative model of governance developed by Indigenous leaders of the West Kimberley.
In this article, we put forward a conceptual map for understanding the role ecocentric narratives can play in future Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). By comparing Western and Indigenous scholars' narratives of river governance, we show how this makes two different ontological narratives of the river possible. By using liminality and the rite-of-passage narrative of the learning journey associated with it, and by understanding how different river governance narratives rely on different ontological scaffolding, policymakers can gain a better understanding of alternative approaches to river governance that synthesise Western and Indigenous insights. The paper makes two contributions. First, we extend the debate of integration beyond its current centre of gravity around an anthropocentric perspective to show how an ecocentric vantage point open new understandings of IWRM. Second, we consider the river as a stakeholder in its own right and explore how ecocentric narratives and knowledge can lead to an improved role for ecosystems and Indigenous stakeholder engagement in IWRM policy design and implementation. We look at the case of Whanganui River in New Zealand-a river that was granted legal personhood in 2017-in order to reflect on the limitations and opportunities of implementing an ecocentric approach to IWRM in practice. ARTICLE HISTORY
Despite the widely acknowledged importance of involving Indigenous peoples in decision-making processes around water, no comprehensive systematic review has examined how Indigenous peoples participate in water governance processes. This paper provides the first global systematic assessment of peer-reviewed literature on Indigenous peoples’ participation and inclusion in water governance. A total of 222 peer-reviewed journal articles were reviewed, encompassing 182 case studies across 15 countries. The majority of reviewed articles (85%) focused on settler-colonial nations—Australia, Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand—while regions like Africa and Asia remain underrepresented in the literature. Findings also indicate that most Indigenous participation occurs domestically, primarily at local levels, with limited examples of Indigenous participation at the global scale. Moreover, only 18% of the studies of participation gave any consideration to Indigenous values and knowledge. Gaps include limited studies with evaluation of Indigenous participation and detailed accounts of participatory processes, highlighting priorities for future research.
Addressing complex problems like biodiversity loss and climate change will likely fail to respect diverse worldviews, knowledge systems, and values unless underlying assumptions and power are explicitly recognized, accurately situated, and carefully analyzed. Assumptions and knowledge about the world, known as onto-epistemologies, underpin all problem and solution framing. Yet, practical information about the onto-epistemological assumptions themselves, associated power dynamics, and principles to support more respectful engagement with diverse worldviews and knowledge systems remains elusive within and across research, policy, and implementation. We provide a framework that encompasses real, relative, and relational assumptions and situate them with respect to one another using worked examples with an emphasis on biodiversity conservation. Finally, we offer five principles to guide research, policy, and implementation practices by (1) situating assumptions, (2) considering power dynamics, (3) respecting (in)commensurabilities, (4) (re)framing assumptions with the intent to create space for inclusion, and (5) practicing onto-epistemological analytics often and carefully.
As Australian cities face uncertain water futures, what insights can the history of Aboriginal and settler relationships with water yield? Residents have come to expect reliable, safe, and cheap water, but natural limits and the costs of maintaining and expanding water networks are at odds with forms and cultures of urban water use. Cities in a Sunburnt Country is the first comparative study of the provision, use, and social impact of water and water infrastructure in Australia's five largest cities. Drawing on environmental, urban, and economic history, this co-authored book challenges widely held assumptions, both in Australia and around the world, about water management, consumption, and sustainability. From the 'living water' of Aboriginal cultures to the rise of networked water infrastructure, the book invites us to take a long view of how water has shaped our cities, and how urban water systems and cultures might weather a warming world.
Drinking water quality remains a persistent challenge across regional and remote Australia. We reviewed public reporting by 177 utilities and conducted a national assessment of reported exceedances against the health-based and aesthetic guideline values of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG). Four definitions of a basic level of drinking water quality were tested to quantify service gaps across regional and remote areas of each subnational jurisdiction in 2018–2019. At least 25,245 people across 99 locations with populations <1000 reportedly accessed water services that did not comply with health-based guideline values. Including larger towns and water systems, the estimated service gap rises to at least 194,572 people across more than 115 locations. Considering health parameters and the ADWG definition of ‘good’ aesthetic characteristics, the reported service gap rises further to at least 627,736 people across 408 locations. Forty percent of all locations with recorded health exceedances were remote Indigenous communities. Monitoring and reporting gaps indicate that the actual incidence of non-compliance with the guideline values of the ADWG could be much higher than our estimates. Our results quantified the divergence in the assessment of water quality outcomes between Sustainable Development Goal Target 6.1 and the ADWG, demonstrated disparities between service levels in capital cities and the rest of Australia, and highlighted the need for place-based solutions. The methods and dataset provide a ‘proof-of-concept’ for an Australian national drinking water quality database to guide government investments in water services.
This thesis – written in co-authorship with Tanzanian activist Mnyaka Sururu Mboro – examines different cases of repatriation of ancestral remains to African countries and communities through the prism of postcolonial memory studies. It follows the theft and displacement of prominent ancestors from East and Southern Africa (Sarah Baartman, Dawid Stuurman, Mtwa Mkwawa, Songea Mbano, King Hintsa and the victims of the Ovaherero and Nama genocides) and argues that efforts made for the repatriation of their remains have contributed to a transnational remembrance of colonial violence. Drawing from cultural studies theories such as "multidirectional memory", "rehumanisation" and "necropolitics", the thesis argues for a new conceptualisation or "re-membrance" in repatriation, through processes of reunion, empowerment, story-telling and belonging. Besides, the afterlives of the dead ancestors, who stand at the centre of political debates on justice and reparations, remind of their past struggles against colonial oppression. They are therefore "memento vita", fostering counter-discourses that recognize them as people and stories. This manuscript is accompanied by a “(web)site of memory” where some of the research findings are made available to a wider audience. This blog also hosts important sound material which appears in the thesis as interventions by external contributors. Through QR codes, both the written and the digital version are linked with each other to problematize the idea of a written monograph and bring a polyphonic perspective to those diverse, yet connected, histories.
Co-production across scientific and Indigenous knowledge systems has become a cornerstone of research to enhance knowledge, practice, ethics, and foster sustainability transformations. However, the profound differences in world views and the complex and contested histories of nation-state colonisation on Indigenous territories, highlight both opportunities and risks for Indigenous people when engaging with knowledge co-production. This paper investigates the conditions under which knowledge co-production can lead to improved Indigenous adaptive environmental planning and management among remote land-attached Indigenous peoples through a case study with ten Traditional Owner groups in the Martuwarra (Fitzroy River) Catchment in Western Australia’s Kimberley region. The research team built a 3D map of the river and used it, together with an interactive table-top projector, to bring together both scientific and Indigenous spatial knowledge. Participatory influence mapping, aligned with Traditional Owner priorities to achieve cultural governance and management planning goals set out in the Fitzroy River Declaration, investigated power relations. An analytical framework, examining underlying mechanisms of social learning, knowledge promotion and enhancing influence, based on different theories of change, was applied to unpack the immediate outcomes from these activities. The analysis identified that knowledge co-production activities improved the accessibility of the knowledge, the experiences of the knowledge users, strengthened collective identity and partnerships, and strengthened Indigenous-led institutions. The focus on cultural governance and management planning goals in the Fitzroy River Declaration enabled the activities to directly affect key drivers of Indigenous adaptive environmental planning and management—the Indigenous-led institutions. The nation-state arrangements also gave some support to local learning and decision-making through a key Indigenous institution, Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council. Knowledge co-production with remote land-attached Indigenous peoples can improve adaptive environmental planning and management where it fosters learning together, is grounded in the Indigenous-led institutions and addresses their priorities.
Indigenous Research Methodologies (IRMs) for considering cultural values of water are a missing component of water management in Australia. On this dry, flat and ancient continent Traditional Knowledge has been passed on from generation to generation for millennia. The profound knowledge of surface and groundwater has been critical to ensuring the survival of Indigenous peoples in a dry landscape, through finding, re-finding and protecting water. Indigenous Research Methodologies can provide a basis for the exploration of this knowledge in a way that that is culturally appropriate, and which generates a culturally safe space for Indigenous researchers and communities. The development of IRMs has occurred slowly in Australia over the past decades with the intention of shifting the research paradigm away from studying Indigenous peoples through non-Indigenous research methodologies, to partnering in developing methods appropriate to Indigenous knowledge systems. Indigenous Research Methodologies are rooted in Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies and represent a radical departure from more positivist forms of research (Wilson 2001). This allows the Indigenous researcher to derive the terms, questions and priorities of what is being researched, how the community is engaged, and how the research is delivered. Here, a brief overview is provided of Indigenous engagement in water management in Australia and Aotearoa or New Zealand, with reference to local case studies. These more general models are used as the basis for developing an IRM appropriate to the Kamilaroi people in the Gwydir Wetlands of northern NSW, Australia.
Drinking water security has been a neglected issue in Australian water reform. This article considers Australia’s chief water policy of the past two decades, the National Water Initiative, and its aim to provide healthy, safe, and reliable water supplies. Taking the Northern Territory as a case study, we describe how despite significant policy and research attention, the NWI has failed to ensure drinking water security in Indigenous communities in the NT, where water supply remains largely unregulated. The article describes shortcomings of legislated drinking water protections, the recent history of Commonwealth water policy, and areas where national reforms have not been satisfactorily undertaken in the NT. We aim to highlight key regulatory areas that require greater attention in NT water research and, more specifically, in the Productivity Commission’s ongoing inquiry process.
Extract
At the end of the 2015 Academy Award-winning film The Big Short, which explores the origins of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, a caption notes that the Wall Street investor protagonist of the film who predicted the collapse of the United States (US) housing market would now be ‘focused on one commodity: water’. Water is sometimes described in popular culture as ‘the new oil’ or ‘more valuable than gold’. It is predicted to be the subject of increasing uncertainty, competition, conflict, and even war, as increasing demand from a growing human population and development meets reduced supply as a result of poor management, overuse, and climate change.
Water has a unique importance as the basis of life, and the ethical ramifications of managing water are correspondingly complex. Values about water constitute the building blocks for ethical guidance. Modern interest in developing a practical field of water ethics began with a UNESCO initiative (1998-2004) which analyzed best ethical practice in various water sectors (e.g., irrigation, domestic water supply, ecosystem health, etc.). A complementary approach has been to focus on particular normative values borrowed from the field of Human Rights such as Integrity, justice, and solidarity. A water ethics framework helps to integrate diverse and sometimes conflicting values through rendering the values about water visible and creating ethical space for dialogue and mediation. There is growing interest in approaching water policy decisions on the basis of normative values that can be diverse and mutually supportive. The widespread acceptance of agroecology as an alternative to mono-crop industrial farming, and corporate support for water stewardship initiatives, illustrate a societal turn towards valuing a broader range of spiritual, environmental, and social benefits of water. We are undergoing a transformation in how we perceive the water around us. The need for clarifying the ethical foundations of water management decisions has never been greater.
The purpose of this chapter is to sythesise current knowledge and understanding of river basin management and governance in the context of water resilience. In particular, the chapter explores the politics and socio-ecological conditions that enabled or challenged policy responses to deal with major changes occurring in a basin using the case studies of the Mekong, Colorado and Murray-Darling rivers. The chapter focuses on the way institutions evolve to address uncertainties and the role of stakeholders and their use of knowledge and learning. It is shown that river basin development occurs over time with varying opportunities for institutionalising water resources management and governance across these three basins. It is found that water resilience is contested by multiple stakeholders, highlighting the power laden ways in which institutions evolve. Insights from the cases inform policy lessons on water resilience that emphasise scrutiny on an institution’s suitability to support continual processes of deliberation and stakeholder engagement.
In Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates, groundwater is the only natural freshwater resource. This resource is under great stress due to high extraction rates, low precipitation/recharge rates, and increasing levels of salinity. This is comparable with groundwater issues in Western Australia, which also faces water challenges. Just like Western Australia, Abu Dhabi is heavily dependent on groundwater to support agricultural irrigation, which uses nearly 70% of the groundwater extracted. Unlike Western Australia, however, agriculture in Abu Dhabi relies heavily on governmental subsidies, despite its negligible contribution to the economy. This study aimed to fill the gap in understanding about Abu Dhabi farmers’, and Western Australian farmers’, knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations concerning groundwater management. A comparison of the findings related to these factors among both populations was used to develop ideas for future groundwater awareness programs targeting Abu Dhabi farmers. The theoretical framework of this research was based on the fifth step of Bennett's Hierarchy model, which is a popular method for measuring the effectiveness of extension programs. Twelve Abu Dhabi farmers were interviewed regarding groundwater management in Abu Dhabi. The interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis, and the findings were compared to Western Australian farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations concerning sustainable agricultural practices, which were synthesized from relevant literature. The study revealed that the interviewed Abu Dhabi farmers realized the importance of agriculture and groundwater. However, they viewed agriculture more as a hobby than a source of income and had cultural and social ties to farming. They also possessed limited knowledge regarding agriculture's environmental impacts. A trust or communication problem between the farmers and the Abu Dhabi Agriculture and Food Safety Authority, the governmental authority in charge of irrigation and agricultural extension, was also identified. Abu Dhabi farmers chose basic measures to preserve groundwater, and most were unwilling to adopt additional practices. Western Australian farmers, on the other hand, possessed more detailed knowledge about agriculture's environmental impacts and were willing to adopt sustainable practices so long as they did not affect their income. The following recommendations are made for extension programs targeting Abu Dhabi farmers: Focus on developing a shared vision regarding groundwater conservation; include a farm laborers’ extension program; foster trust between extension agents and farmers; use demonstration farms for new technologies; and link governmental farmers’ subsidies to the adoption of water efficiency. This study calls for future research on the objectives of the Abu Dhabi Agriculture and Food Safety Authority's water conservation extension programs, as well as on the effect of demographic factors on Abu Dhabi farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, skills, and aspirations.
Aboriginal representative organisations collaborated with the Murray Darling Basin Authority to develop the Aboriginal Waterways Assessment (AWA) tool. We consider the AWA as part of an evolving toolkit of methodologies designed to elevate First Nations’ objectives in water planning, in the context of national water reform and implementation of the Murray Darling Basin Plan. We describe the adaptation of the AWA from an approach developed in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the Maori Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways. We review the delivery and outcomes of seven AWA projects undertaken in Victoria between 2017 and 2018, demonstrating that the AWA is an effective and culturally safe mechanism for First Nations to document water-related values and influence waterway management. The article identifies improvements in water management resulting from the use of data generated through AWA projects, as well as project outcomes at the individual and broader political scale, including the social benefits of First Nations’ data collection and the importance of data sovereignty. We highlight the value of waterway assessments undertaken by First Nations as a tool to address their widespread exclusion from water planning and management.
Risks and uncertainties arising from climate change are increasingly recognized as significant challenges for water governance. To support adaptive approaches, critical examinations of water policy practices and rationalities are needed. This paper focuses on the treatment of climate change in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) reforms over the past decade. While the MDB faces potentially significant drying trends due to climate change no reductions in future water availability due to climate change were formalized in the 2012 Basin Plan — a regulatory instrument agreed to by Australia’s National Parliament. The background, key dimensions and possible reasons for this decision are examined. Possible reasons for not formally reducing water deemed available in the future include the complexity and uncertainty of climate science, the cultural construction of “climate normal” based on long-term averages, and institutional settings that reinforce dominant “hydro-logical” approaches and rationalities. Minimizing the political, legal and financial consequences of attributing reductions in water allocations to climate change are also potential reasons. The case of the MDB, as outlined in this paper, demonstrates some of the ways climate change is causing systemic challenges for adaptive water governance, and that innovative approaches need to be embraced, including better processes for institutionalizing science/policy integration.
The concept of institutional path dependence offers useful ways of understanding the trajectories of water policy reforms and how past institutional arrangements, policy paradigms and development patterns constrain current and future choices and limit institutional adaptability. The value of this concept is demonstrated through an analysis of environmental water recovery in Australia's Murray-Darling Basin, where while significant water volumes have been reallocated to the environment, the costs have also been significant. While there are significant lessons from the Australian experience, attempts to emulate the approach involve substantive risks and may be prohibitively costly for less wealthy nations. Context-specific institutional analysis is emphasised as fundamental to water reform and critical for reform architecture and sequencing. A key finding is that while crisis can provide powerful catalysts for institutional innovation, institutional path dependence in the absence of active and disruptive policy entrepreneurs fosters a strong tendency to reinforce the status quo and limit innovation, potentially exposing social-ecological systems to greater shocks due to climate change and other sources of escalating uncertainty.
Despite provisions in the National Water Initiative (NWI) to the effect that Indigenous Australians should have greater participation in water planning, they are still excluded from participating in management involving water governance and economic development. This article examines the success or otherwise of State legislation and policy and of native title claims in the overall context of fulfilling the goals of the NWI. It argues that the implementation of the NWI gives a low priority to Indigenous needs in over-allocated catchments, that its goals are prejudiced by delay and difficulties in native title determinations, that consultations with Indigenous peoples are either lacking or outdated, and that outcomes generally preclude economic development. It is argued that the adoption of co-management models, especially in northern Australia, where the Indigenous land estate is substantial, may better satisfy the goals of the NWI.
In this article, we analyze the disparity in access to water resources between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, the regional differences in the effectiveness of indigenous strategies to assert and negotiate their interests in this reform process and the consequent regional disparity in indigenous water rights recognized or contemplated in policy and at law. We provide a case study of New South Wales' (hereafter NSW) only Cultural Access Licence held by the Nari Nari Tribal Council of Hay to exemplify trends in the recognition of indigenous water rights. This case study raises questions not only about the efficacy of 'cultural' entitlements but also matters of equity, particularly the transaction costs that indigenous groups may bear when accessing water under this special measure. In light of these limitations, we ask whether a group like the Nari Nari Tribal Council could satisfy their diverse and evolving water management strategies by alternate means or must they and other indigenous groups rely upon an obscure and restrictive form of entitlement that privileges pre-colonial practices? Two distinct possibilities are environmental water allocations and commercially valuable tradeable licences. For either to work, governments would need to commit to reallocating entitlements to indigenous people with direct purchase of entitlements from willing sellers being the least contentious. Strategies that seek indigenous participation in mainstream environmental water management along with substantive water property rights to underpin economic activity are more likely to result in a reallocation of water to meet the needs of indigenous populations than 'cultural' entitlements.
Policy makers will increasingly have to turn to water demand management in the future to respond to greater water scarcity. Water markets have long been promoted as one of the most efficient ways to reallocate water by economists, but have also been subject to much criticism due to their possible social, economic and environmental impacts. We engage with common critical perceptions of water markets by presenting first-hand evidence of their effects in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB), Australia. Water markets in the MDB, as developed within an appropriate institutional framework and coupled with comprehensive water planning, have: (1) helped deliver improved environmental outcomes; (2) assisted irrigators’ adaptation responses to climate risks, such as drought; (3) increased the gross valued added of farming; and (4) been regulated in ways to meet social goals. If water markets are embedded within fair and effective meta-governance and property right structures, the potential exists for marketisation to increase efficiency, promote fairness in terms of initial water allocations, and to improve environmental outcomes.
Based on findings from participatory action research, we describe a process for the development of a Strategic Indigenous Reserve (SIR) in water for Indigenous groups in the Northern Territory, Australia. In the first case study at Mataranka, we show how a 'top-down' process initiated by the Northern Territory Government (NTG) was characterised by inadequate engagement and a failure to deliver water justice or an outcome accepted by the traditional owner groups. In a second case study at Oolloo, the traditional owner groups were engaged by the NTG in a consultation process, but it commenced with a unilateral offer of a water allocation to the SIR that was not formulated in a collaborative way. As a result, traditional owners considered the process unfair, and in turn, the allocation offer was perceived as 'unfair'. Using insights from these two cases we outline an alternative and collaborative process to support engagement by decision-makers with Indigenous groups that promotes water allocations and outcomes that are just, sustainable and have broad-based community support.
This paper details indigenous Australian water values and interests, highlights progress towards improved distributive outcomes from water planning and analyses the remaining challenges in meeting indigenous aspirations for cultural recognition. It describes the significance of water to indigenous people living in the Roper River area of Australia's Northern Territory, reports on innovations in water allocation planning processes aimed at accommodating that significance, and analyses the implications of this case study for water planning generally. We describe rich cultural and historical connections with water places, protocols governing human conduct towards water, custodial assertions regarding the need for “water for the country”, distinctive values relating to riparian vegetation, and claims of ownership and economic rights in contemporary water allocations. Current water planning objectives such as sustainable development, protection for groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and protection of indigenous values accord with contemporary indigenous perspectives in the Roper, and in a national first, the local water plan specifically proposes reserving a significant water allocation for commercial use by indigenous people. Yet that allocation is seen as unjust from a local perspective, and further analysis demonstrates a range of other limitations: the scale and boundedness of the demarcated plan area, the neglect of riparian vegetation management, insufficient resourcing of local indigenous capacity, mismatches in planning and local governance structures, and the broader question of whether a rationalist planning process can simultaneously advance indigenous claims for recognition, equity in distributions and parity in participation.
In Australia's Murray-Darling Basin the Australian and state governments are attempting to introduce a system of water management that will halt ongoing decline in environmental conditions and resource security and provide a robust foundation for managing climate change. This parallels similar efforts being undertaken in regions such as southern Africa, the southern United States, and Spain. Central to the project is the Australian government's Water Act 2007, which requires the preparation of a comprehensive basin plan expected to be finalized in 2011. This paper places recent and expected developments occurring as part of this process in their historical context and examines factors that could affect implementation. Significant challenges to the success of the basin plan include human resource constraints, legislative tensions within the Australian federal system, difficulties in coordinating the network of water-related agencies in the six jurisdictions with responsibilities in the Murray-Darling Basin, and social, economic, and environmental limitations that restrict policy implementation.
This review of budgeting in Australia concentrates on the national government only. The article first discusses Australia’s recent economic and fiscal performance and then focuses on the budget formulation process. After a discussion of the role of the Parliament, the article reviews various aspects of budget implementation and management. The article concludes with a special section on Australia’s efforts to eliminate “red tape” within government. This review was undertaken in September 2007; following the election of a new government in Australia in November 2007, some new policies are highlighted, encompassing budget formulation, processes, accounting and management.
Although environmental flow assessments and allocations have been practiced in Australia for nearly 20years, to date they
have not effectively incorporated indigenous values. In many cases, even though indigenous people rely substantially on aquatic
resources, environmental flows have been assumed to be an acceptable surrogate for the protection of indigenous interests.
This paper argues that the need to adapt flow assessments to account for linkages and dependencies between people and rivers
is equally applicable to developed world indigenous contexts such as Australia as it is to developing countries where there
has been some attempt to address indigenous or subsistence water requirements. We propose three challenges to conventional
environmental flow assessments that, if met, will improve the ability of water resource planning to address indigenous interests.
The first challenge is to recognize that in an indigenous context a different suite of species may be considered important
when compared to those valued by other stakeholders. Although conservation status or rarity may be important, it is common
and widespread species that make substantial contributions to indigenous household incomes through customary use. The second
challenge is to accommodate a different set of management objectives in environmental flow allocation. Environmental flows
will need to meet the requirement of hunting and fishing activities at rates that are socially and economically sustainable.
The third and arguably most theoretically challenging task is for environmental flow assessments to take into account indigenous
worldviews and the quality of people–place relationships that are significant in indigenous cultures. Meeting these three
challenges to environmental flow assessment will assist water management agencies and other practitioners to protect indigenous
interests as water allocation decisions are made.
Key wordsEnvironmental flow–Northern Australia–Indigenous–Water–Values–ELOHA
Cropping plays an extremely minor role in north-west Australia, barely contributing to economic production. Since colonisation however, broad-acre cropping regularly appears in the political and public discourse about northern development, often in an optimistic light. I label this the 'circular conundrum' - a cycle of publically expressed expectation for northern Australia to produce food and fibre through broad-acre cropping, and the failure of this to occur at the scale envisaged despite many attempts, significant investment and much research. This circular conundrum begins with high expectations, moves to cropping attempts, then usually to failure, and back around to high expectations. This thesis is a response to my curiosity about this phenomenon. What is this cycle? Why does it continue when many cropping attempts fail? What does this tell us about Australia's relationship with northern Australia? It is through reawakening the stories of cropping attempts and collecting them in one place in some detail that a broader and deeper picture can emerge, revealing both shared and unique features of the attempts, and patterns through time and across locations. The drivers become visible as do the variables that lead to failure, impacting at a range of scales from the individual farm to national policy. Additionally the narratives reveal emerging and persistent themes, including race, learning and relationship with place. The three parts of the thesis address portions of the circular conundrum: Part I 'Ideas of North' (Chapters 2-5) explores changing perceptions of northern Australia, the high expectations of cropping, and the drivers of the circular conundrum; Part II 'Stories of Northern Cropping' (Chapters 6-10) describes a suite of cropping attempts over the last 150 years; while Part III 'Caught in a conundrum' (Chapters 11-12) explores the variables that contribute to these failures, and the relationship between failure and continuing high expectations - the mystery of the continuing circular conundrum. This final step reveals how the cycle is perpetuated through hindered learning. This is expressed through our slow and intermittent journey in developing landscape literacy, reliant upon acknowledging the north as a cultural landscape; and our even slower journey to developing complex systems literacy, including a capacity to deal with variability and complexity. Place does have power, and remains the fundamental agent in these narratives. The concept of 'A Circular Conundrum' provides useful insights more generally on what hinders learning and how barriers to learning can be seeded in the situation itself.
With prolonged drought and climate change, water has once again come into focus in national, state and territory policy development, prompting the review of water planning and management. As part of this, policy makers have revisited the complexities of establishing large-scale industrial agriculture in Australia’s tropical monsoon country (Ross, 2009). Water planning in Karajarri country in the West Kimberley of Western Australia is occurring within this context. For Karajarri, they hope that the planning process will help ensure that water is treated the ‘right way’ for country (Mulardy Jnr cited in Mathews, 2008). This paper describes the successful local opposition to a major cotton proposal, however, this paper is not set around this event. Rather, the event is a meaningful prompt for discussions about how water decisions are being made, how they could be made, and how water planning could be better designed to support development aspirations of the communities within the Basin.
Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) recognize that "country" constitutes land and waters that have enduring cultural, social, and economic linkages for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that extend over millennia, and which are critical to sustainable Indigenous futures. Within Australia's conservation system, IPAs become part of the National Reserve System (NRS) when Indigenous peoples voluntarily announce their intention to manage "country," in accordance with their law, custom, and culture, and consistently with national and international conservation guidelines. The NRS requirement is that land is managed "in perpetuity" which highlights a potential tension between with the conservation goals and the voluntary character of IPAs. Ecological restoration in IPAs also raises contested ideas about what is "natural," the relevant "baseline" for restoration, and what are the objectives to be achieved-ecological or cultural sustainability? Experience from Healthy Country Planning in IPAs indicates that restoration of traditional owner decision-making, as well as respectful use and valuing community knowledge, is central to the sustainability of outcomes. Ecological restoration is most effectively achieved by restoring governance processes that support Indigenous peoples given the inseparability of cultural, social, economic, and ecological objectives.
It is widely recognised that Aboriginal perspectives need to be represented in historical narratives. Sourcing this material may be difficult if Aboriginal people and their organisations do not publish in formats that are widely distributed and readily accessible to library collections and research studies. Based on a search for material about a 30-year-old Aboriginal health organisation, this paper aims to (1) identify factors that influenced the distribution of written material authored by the organisation; (2) consider the implications for Aboriginal people who wish to have their viewpoints widely available to researchers; and (3) assess the implications for research practice. As part of researching an organisational history for the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, seven national and regional collections were searched for Congress's published and unpublished written material. It was found that, in common with other Aboriginal organisations, most written material was produced as grey literature. The study indicates that for Aboriginal people and their organisations' voices to be heard, and their views to be accessible in library collections, they need to have an active program to distribute their written material. It also highlights the need for researchers to be exhaustive in their searches, and to be aware of the limitations within collections when sourcing Aboriginal perspectives.
The law of native title in Australia now commonly recognises Indigenous rights to take and use water for personal, social, domestic and cultural purposes. A native title right to take and use water for commercial purposes has not been recognised to date. While it is clear that a native title right to trade as a matter of law can be recognised, the proof and recognition of commercial native title rights is at the moment proving a bridge too far in Australian native title jurisprudence. This is ameliorated to some extent by the future act provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA). These provisions provide an important link into commercial outcomes for Indigenous peoples in certain circumstances. The National Water Initiative is an agreement between the federal, state and territory governments to implement reforms to the management of water throughout Australia. The advocacy of Indigenous people has led to the allocation of water to Indigenous people for commercial purposes - a Strategic Indigenous Reserve in northern Australia in some recent statutory water plans. This is a significant advance in the recognition of Indigenous rights to water for commercial purposes. The extent and utility of this outcome will take some time to play out and be realised. This article describes existing native title rights to water, analyses the reasons for the lack of recognition of commercial native title rights, especially a right to trade. The article then explains the recent recognition of Indigenous commercial rights in the form of a Strategic Indigenous Reserve and proposes some further ways forward.
Innovations are being proposed in many countries in order to support change towards more sustainable and water secure futures. However, the extent to which they can be implemented is subject to complex politics and powerful coalitions across multi-level governance systems and scales of interest. Exactly how innovation uptake can be best facilitated or blocked in these complex systems is thus a matter of important practical and research interest in water cycle management. From intervention research studies in Australia, China and Bulgaria, this paper seeks to describe and analyse the behind-the-scenes struggles and coalition-building that occurs between water utility providers, private companies, experts, communities and all levels of government in an effort to support or block specific innovations. The research findings suggest that in order to ensure successful passage of the proposed innovations, champions for it are required from at least two administrative levels, including one with innovation implementation capacity, as part of a larger supportive coalition. Higher governance levels can play an important enabling role in facilitating the passage of certain types of innovations that may be in competition with currently entrenched systems of water management. Due to a range of natural biases, experts on certain innovations and disciplines may form part of supporting or blocking coalitions but their evaluations of worth for water system sustainability and security are likely to be subject to competing claims based on different values and expertise, so may not necessarily be of use in resolving questions of “best courses of action”. This remains a political values-based decision to be negotiated through the receiving multi-level water governance system.
We consider the implementation of Australian water reform over the last two decades and into the future. Reform was to provide security for consumptive users and adequate rights for the environment. Overallocation, a key threat to both these aims, continues to challenge planners particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin and cannot be addressed without community support. We draw from four major studies to provide insights on how implementation needs to be underpinned by theory. From the perspective of institutional design for collaborative and sustainable water planning, seven major improvements are required: (1) Provision of detailed policy guidelines to support general legal requirements, particularly practical advice for interpreting and applying the precautionary principle. (2) Tools to identify and engage unorganised or neglected community sectors, for example Indigenous peoples and youth. (3) Procedural fairness and transparent decision making, to build confidence in reform; use of independent experts and visual tools to improve the quality of discussion and increase the acceptability of trade-offs. (4) Clearer documentation and language in planning, as more litigation is likely. (5) In accord with international literature, the development of comprehensive policy and legislative framework allowing a systems approach to consensus building, especially when the science is contested. (6) Information on exactly how much water is required and where, by capturing societal choices on environmental assets. (7) Planning for sustainable contraction where cutbacks to water use is required, as an additional strategy to the current emphasis on buying water or building infrastructure. In summary we advocate collaborative water planning processes to engender community confidence in planning.
Indigenous methodologies are an alternative way of thinking about research processes. Although these methodologies vary according to the ways in which different Indigenous communities express their own unique knowledge systems, they do have common traits. This article argues that research on Indigenous issues should be carried out in a manner which is respectful and ethically sound from an Indigenous perspective. This naturally challenges Western research paradigms, yet it also affords opportunities to contribute to the body of knowledge about Indigenous peoples. It is further argued that providing a mechanism for Indigenous peoples to participate in and direct these research agendas ensures that their communal needs are met, and that geographers then learn how to build ethical research relationships with them. Indigenous methodologies do not privilege Indigenous researchers because of their Indigeneity, since there are many ‘insider’ views, and these are thus suitable for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers. However, there is a difference between research done within an Indigenous context using Western methodologies and research done using Indigenous methodologies which integrates Indigenous voices. This paper will discuss those differences while presenting a historical context of research on Indigenous peoples, providing further insights into what Indigenous methodologies entail, and proposing ways in which the academy can create space for this discourse.
Budgeting in Australia Accessed http://www.oecd. org/gov/budgeting/oecdjournalonbudgeting Money Set to Flow from Commonwealth's $2 Billion Water Loan Scheme Indigenous Freshwater Rights Topic Guide
- J R Blöndal
- D Bergvall
- I Hawkesworth
- R Deightonsmith
Blöndal, J. R., D. Bergvall, I. Hawkesworth, and R. DeightonSmith. 2008. " Budgeting in Australia. " OECD Journal on
Budgeting 8 (2). Accessed May 16, 2017. http://www.oecd.
org/gov/budgeting/oecdjournalonbudgeting.htm
Brann, M. 2017. " Money Set to Flow from Commonwealth's
$2 Billion Water Loan Scheme. " ABC Rural. Accessed April
27, 2017. <http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-02-10/
government-loans-for-australian-water-infrastructureprojects/8259230>
Bulloch, H. 2009. Indigenous Freshwater Rights Topic Guide.
Canberra, A.C.T: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy
Research, Australian National University.
The Water Dreamers: The Remarkable History of Our Dry Continent. Melbourne: Text Publishing. Commonwealth Government
- M Cathcart
Cathcart, M. 2010. The Water Dreamers: The Remarkable
History of Our Dry Continent. Melbourne: Text Publishing.
Commonwealth Government. 2011. Inclusion of a Place in
the National Heritage List: The West Kimberley. Canberra,
A.C.T: Commonwealth of Australia.
National Water Infrastructure Development Fund – Department of Agriculture and Water Resources – Department of Agriculture and Water Resources National Water Infrastructure Development Fund The Recognition and Protection of Aboriginal Interests in NSW Rivers
- Australian Government
- P Thompson
Australian Government. 2017. " National Water Infrastructure
Development Fund – Department of Agriculture and
Water Resources – Department of Agriculture and Water
Resources. " National Water Infrastructure Development
Fund. Accessed April 27, 2017. <http://www.agriculture.
gov.au/water/national/national-water-infrastructuredevelopment-fund>
Behrendt, J., and P. Thompson. 2004. " The Recognition and
Protection of Aboriginal Interests in NSW Rivers. " Journal
of Indigenous Policy 3: 37–140.
Indigenous Perspectives in Water Management, Reforms and Implementation In Managing Water for Australia: The Social and Institutional Challenges
- S Jackson
- J Morrison
Jackson, S., and J. Morrison. 2007. " Indigenous Perspectives
in Water Management, Reforms and Implementation. " In
Managing Water for Australia: The Social and Institutional
Challenges, edited by K. Hussey and S. Dovers, 22–41.
The Impact of Social Justice on Economic Performance Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis
- A S Kavuri
- H Shao
Kavuri, A. S., and H. Shao. 2017. " The Impact of Social
Justice on Economic Performance. " Centre for Applied
Macroeconomic Analysis. 18. https://cama.crawford.anu.
edu.au/publication/cama-working-paper-series/9290/
impact-social-justice-economic-performance.
news-media/newsroom/newsdetailkimberley-traditional-owners-unitefor-the-fitzroy-river Kwaymullina Living Texts: A Perspective on Published Sources, Indigenous Research Methodologies and Indigenous Worldviews Water Rights: The New Frontier in Northern Australia
- Kimberley Land Council
- B Kwaymullina
- L Butterly
Kimberley Land Council. 2016. 'Fitzroy River Declaration',
Kimberley Land Council Newsroom: Kimberley Traditional
Owners Unite for the Fitzroy River. Accessed May 8, 2017.
http://www.klc.org.au/news-media/newsroom/newsdetail/2016/11/15/kimberley-traditional-owners-unitefor-the-fitzroy-river
Kwaymullina, A., B. Kwaymullina, and L. Butterly. 2013.
" Living Texts: A Perspective on Published Sources,
Indigenous Research Methodologies and Indigenous
Worldviews. " International Journal of Critical Indigenous
Studies 6 (1). Accessed September 7, 2016. http://www.isrn.
qut.edu.au/publications/internationaljournal/documents/
volume6_number1_13-Kwaymullina.pdf
Langton, M. 1999. Water Rights: The New Frontier in Northern
Australia. Darwin, N.T: Centre for Indigenous Natural
and Cultural Resource Management.
North Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, National Water Commission (Australia) & Charles Darwin University. 2012. Facilitators' Guide to Indigenous Water Planning: Handbook
- J Mackenzie
Mackenzie, J., Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge
(Program), North Australia Indigenous Land and Sea
Management Alliance, National Water Commission
(Australia) & Charles Darwin University. 2012. Facilitators'
Guide to Indigenous Water Planning: Handbook. Darwin:
Charles Darwin University.
Reconciliation Action Plan
- Department
- Water
Department of Water. 2015. Reconciliation Action Plan 2015-2017;
A Review of Indigenous Involvement in Water Planning: Submission to the 2011 Biennial Assessment of the National Water Initiative (NWI). Canberra, A.C.T.: First People's Water Engagement Council
- N Duff
- K Delfau
- M Durette
Duff, N., Delfau, K., and Durette, M. 2010. A Review of
Indigenous Involvement in Water Planning: Submission
to the 2011 Biennial Assessment of the National Water
Initiative (NWI). Canberra, A.C.T.: First People's
Water Engagement Council. http://nwc.gov.au/__data/
assets/pdf_file/0019/22564/A-review-of-Indigenousinvolvement-in-water-planning-Sept-2010.pdf.
Mardoowarra's Right to Life. Broome: Madjulla Association
- A Poelina
- M Mcduffie
Poelina, A., and M. McDuffie. 2017. Mardoowarra's Right
to Life. Broome: Madjulla Association. https://vimeo.
com/205996720Password:Kimberley>.
Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Accessed December 1, 2016. http://www.prres.net/papers/
Sheehan_Small_Aqua_Nullius.pdf>
Social Justice Commissioner. 2009. 2008 Native Title
Report. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission. Accessed August 5, 2016. http://www.
humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_
justice/nt_report/ntreport08/word/ntr2008.doc>
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service
Provision. 2016. Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key
Indicators 2016 : Report. Canberra, A.C.T.: Productivity
Commission.
Paris: Éditions A. Pedone
- Schulte-Tenckhoff
Schulte-Tenckhoff. Paris: Éditions A. Pedone, 171–186.
Running Out? Water in Western Australia
- R A Morgan
Morgan, R. A. 2015. Running Out? Water in Western Australia.
Crawley, W.A: UWA Publishing.
Indigenous Rights to Water in the Murray Darling Basin In support of the Indigenous Final Report to the Living Murray Initiative. Canberra, A.C.T: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
- M Morgan
- L Stelein
- J Weir
Morgan, M., L. Stelein, and J. Weir. 2004. Indigenous Rights
to Water in the Murray Darling Basin In support of the
Indigenous Final Report to the Living Murray Initiative.
Canberra, A.C.T: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Studies.
MLDRIN Echuca Declarationpdf> National Native Title Council Recognising Indigenous Interests in Water Law: A Submissions by the National Native Title Council to the 2014 Review of the Water Act Position Statement: Indigenous Access to Water Resources
- Lower Murray
- A C Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations Canberra
Murray and Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations.
2007. " MLDRIN Echuca Declaration. " <http://www.
environment.sa.gov.au/files/sharedassets/public/
corporate/about_us/aboriginal_partnerships/mldrinechuca-declaration-2009.pdf>
National Native Title Council. 2014. Recognising Indigenous
Interests in Water Law: A Submissions by the National
Native Title Council to the 2014 Review of the Water Act
2007. Melbourne: National Native Title Council.
National Water Commission. 2014. A Review of Indigenous
Involvement in Water Planning, 2013. Canberra, A.C.T.:
National Water Commission
National Water Commission. 2012. " Position Statement:
Indigenous Access to Water Resources. " Canberra, A.C.T.:
Australian Government. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://
www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/22869/
Indigenous-Position-Statement-June-2012.pdf.
Aboriginal Water Initiative – NSW Office of Water Accessed <http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/water-management/watersharing/aboriginal-communities> New South Wales Government Water Yarning Department of Primary Industries
- New South
- Wales Government
New South Wales Government. 2016a. " Aboriginal Water
Initiative – NSW Office of Water. " Accessed April 29, 2017.
<http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/water-management/watersharing/aboriginal-communities>
New South Wales Government. 2016b. " Water Yarning:
June 2016. " Department of Primary Industries, Aboriginal
Water Initiative Newsletter (7). http://www.water.nsw.gov.
au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/663790/AWI_newsletter_
issue_7-June-2016.pdf>.
Water Yarning Newsletter Department of Primary Industries
- New South
- Wales Government
New South Wales Government. 2013. " Water Yarning
Newsletter: October 2013. " Department of Primary
Industries, Aboriginal Water Initiative Newsletter (1).
An Overview of Indigenous Rights in Water Resource ManagementT: Northern Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance The National Water Initiative, Native Title Rights to Water and the Emergent Recognition of Indigenous Specific Commercial Rights to Water in Northern Australia
Northern Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Management
Alliance & Lingiari Foundation. 2008. An Overview
of Indigenous Rights in Water Resource Management.
Darwin, N.T: Northern Australian Indigenous Land
and Sea Management Alliance. Accessed September 5,
2016. <http://www.savanna.org.au/nailsma/publications/
downloads/NAILSMA_WaterResManag_web_Aug09.
pdf>
O'Donnell, M. 2013. " The National Water Initiative, Native
Title Rights to Water and the Emergent Recognition
of Indigenous Specific Commercial Rights to Water in
Northern Australia. " Australasian Journal of Natural
Resources Law and Policy 16 (1): 83–100.
Money Set to Flow from Commonwealth's $2 Billion Water Loan Scheme
- M Brann
Brann, M. 2017. "Money Set to Flow from Commonwealth's
$2 Billion Water Loan Scheme. " ABC Rural. Accessed April
27, 2017. <http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-02-10/
government-loans-for-australian-water-infrastructureprojects/8259230>
Indigenous Freshwater Rights Topic Guide. Canberra, A.C.T: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research
- H Bulloch
Bulloch, H. 2009. Indigenous Freshwater Rights Topic Guide.
Canberra, A.C.T: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy
Research, Australian National University.
Indigenous Peoples Kyoto Water Declaration
Delegates of the Third World Water Forum. 2003. Indigenous
Peoples Kyoto Water Declaration. Kyoto: Third World
Water Forum.
Indigenous Water Advisory Committee -Community Input to Government Decisions -Water in Australia
- N T Darwin
Department Environment and Natural Resources. 2017.
Strategic Indigenous Reserves Stakeholder Discussion
Paper. Darwin, N.T.: Northern Territory Department
Environment and Natural Resources.
Department of Environment. 2014a. Indigenous Advisory
Committee Bulletin No.4: Meeting 28, April 2-3, 2014.
Canberra, A.C.T: Australian Government. Accessed May
19, 2017. http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/advisorycommittees/iac
Department of Environment. 2014b. "Indigenous Water
Advisory Committee -Community Input to Government
Decisions -Water in Australia. " Department of Environment
[archived].
Public Submissions to Securing Western Australia's Water Future: Position Paper (Community Groups)
- Accessed
Accessed May 19, 2017. http://webarchive.nla.
gov.au/gov/20160106102109/http://www.environment.gov.
au/topics/water/australian-government-water-leadership/
community-input-government-decisions/indigenous
Department of Water. 2013a. Public Submissions to Securing
Western Australia's Water Future: Position Paper (Community
Groups). Western Australia: Department of Water. Accessed
May 22, 2016. http://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0018/3681/Community-groups.pdf
Department of Water. 2013b. Securing Western Australia's
Water Future. Position Paper: Reforming Water Resource
Management. Perth, W.A.: Department of Water.