Dr David Lawrence
Social Policy Group
Major Issues
Introduction
Protected Areas and National Parks
Joint Management: Structure and Process
The Development of Policy on Aboriginal
Owned Protected Areas
Kakadu National Park: A Case Study
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park: a different
approach
Joint Management in the Future: More of the
Same, Only Different?
Conclusion
Endnotes
Reference and Select Bibliography
The creation of protected areas in Australia is now being
determined by policies relating to biodiversity, ecologically
sustainable development and the need for a national reserve system
which is representative of the major biogeographical regions of
Australia. Joint management of protected areas is an attempt to
implement conservation and land management policies that protect
Aboriginal interests.
National parks arose from intellectual understandings of
wilderness which marginalised and then excluded indigenous people.
Historically the rights of indigenous people to resource use on
their traditional lands in national parks have been curtailed, with
little or no consultations, in favour of conservation of areas of
scenic or aesthetic value to non-indigenous people and the
protection of endangered and vulnerable plant and animal
species.
For Aboriginal park managers, who view the Aboriginal culture as
adaptable and responsive but value conservation as a means for
providing a basis for the sustainable use of resources, including
both native and introduced plants and animals, traditional European
assumptions about protected areas raise complex problems. But while
many conservation organisations support the right of Aboriginal
people to hunt, fish and collect on Aboriginal land, they reserve
the right to oppose practices that would lead to possible threats
to endangered or protected species. The 1990 Millstream
Recommendation (Recommendation 315 of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody) on Aboriginal participation in
protected area management offered a unified Aboriginal perspective
on participation in conservation area land management that was
subsequently endorsed by the Commonwealth, States and
Territories.
From the perspective of traditional Aboriginal owners, joint
management is a matter of process, not structure, and an aspect of
community development rather than a specific conservation
agreement. Their aim of control over traditional lands has been
largely determined by the need for strengthening cultural identity,
community development and economic self-sufficiency, and not
environmental protection. Control of land is seen as vital for
community and cultural survival in the face of external pressures,
and for these reasons joint management has become closely linked to
questions of land rights, self-determination, preservation of
culture, employment and skills acquisition. Aboriginal perceptions
of conservation and protected area management have been determined
by the long, bitter struggle over land rights and uranium mining,
and the need for Aboriginal people to have their role as custodians
of the land legally recognised. There is no single Aboriginal
perspective on conservation and protected area management, because
the historical experiences of Aboriginal people vary across the
country. Some Aboriginal people see conservation management as a
way in which rules and regulations are imposed over their socially
and culturally legitimate activities and a means for further
political control over Aboriginal land and land management
practices. For many, the declaration of conservation status over
Aboriginal lands is seen as an imposition and part of a continuing
process of dispossession.
There is no generic model or blueprint for successful joint
management. Each agreement must be separately negotiated and must
be responsive to the needs and aspirations of each local community.
The process of joint management is the on-going process of
consultation and negotiation leading from the foundations provided
by structural guarantees towards the publicly-stated and
identifiable goals of conservation and protection of the natural
and cultural heritage in accordance with the needs and aspirations
of the traditional owners. This long term process requires a strong
sense of commitment from the management agency and an equally
strong sense of identity and place from the traditional owners.
What gives life and meaning to joint management is working through
complex issues on a day-to-day basis, often in situations of
conflict, through conciliation and negotiation with Aboriginal
traditional owners. Failure to recognise this can result in
distrust, disharmony and dissatisfaction. In the evolution of joint
management structures, success can be seen as the degree
to which security of tenure, the existence of formal lease
arrangements, and an Aboriginal majority in decision-making enable
Aboriginal people to participate in management as equal partners.
The success of the process of joint management should be
measured in terms of Aboriginal empowerment, equity and social
justice.
Current models still place emphasis on developing acceptable
patterns of use of the physical environment and not on recognition
of social and spiritual values of land to indigenous people.
Management agencies seeking alternative forms of management that
both reflect the growing need for ecosystem conservation and the
protection of indigenous lifestyles, and conform to international
standards and guidelines, need an understanding of local economies,
cultures, history, political structures and the needs and
aspirations of the traditional owners. These complex social and
cultural values must then be incorporated into zoning structures,
management regulations and day-to-day management practice.
The principles which underlie the current joint management
arrangements in the Commonwealth national parks in the Northern
Territory, Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta, are: land rights and legal
ownership of the land in communal title, lease-back to the
Director, National Parks and Wildlife, contractual obligations
defined in a lease, and the establishment of a Board of Management
with an Aboriginal majority.
It is evident that joint management in both Kakadu and
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks will continue to be an evolving
process. Many issues still have to be resolved, not the least the
important questions of equitable power-sharing with Aboriginal
traditional owners, the strengthening of the effectiveness of the
Board of Management and the creation of a meaningful and fulfilling
role for Aboriginal rangers within the parks management service.
From a conservation perspective, problems of effective joint
management may include questions of weed management, feral animal
control and differing attitudes to 'traditional' hunting.
Aboriginal owned national parks are not a panacea for solving
the conservation and land rights issues. They establish acceptable
and increasingly recognised mechanisms for communication and
conflict resolution. The integration of traditional and western
land management principles allows for the rights and
responsibilities of Aboriginal people to be recognised within a
policy framework of self-determination. Currently, Aboriginal
opinion is that the procedures established at Uluru-Kata Tjuta and
Kakadu National Parks cover the minimum conditions required for
cooperative management of protected areas in Australia.
This paper assesses joint management arrangements in operation
in Aboriginal owned protected areas in Australia, taking Kakadu
National Park as a detailed case study and contrasting it with
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. Some broad concepts are examined,
such as the nature and use of wilderness, assumptions about
Aboriginal land management practices from a non-Aboriginal
perspective, and the principles behind the rise of the national
parks concept. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal perceptions of nature
conservation and the significance of the Millstream Recommendation,
a principal recommendation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Deaths in Custody, are examined. This assessment argues that while
managers of non-Aboriginal land and protected areas continue to
perceive joint management as a set of structures and legal
guarantees established through the legal and political framework of
the majority culture, the eventual success of joint management
depends on its acceptance as a real process of consultation and
negotiation.
Joint management in the future will be part of a wider package
of social justice, community development and the preservation of
cultural identity. Until the specific issues that have been
identified are resolved, however, the declaration of conservation
status over Aboriginal owned protected areas will continue to be
seen, by some Aboriginal people, as part of a continuing process of
dispossession and alienation.
The aim of protected areas has been the preservation of
endangered or threatened species, protection of natural phenomena
such as waterfalls, rivers, wetlands, mountains and forests, and
conservation of cultural curiosities such as art sites, rather than
the maintenance of essential ecological processes.(1) The World
Conservation Union (IUCN) in 1994 defined a protected area as:
An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the
protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural
and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or
other effective means.(2)
The six IUCN categories of protected area are: (I) Strict Nature
Reserve / Wilderness Area; (II) National Park; (III) Natural
Monument; (IV) Habitat / Species Management Area; (V) Protected
Landscape / Seascape; and (VI) Managed Resource Protected Area. In
its reclassification of types of protected areas, the World
Conservation Union has recognised the rights and interests of
indigenous people in all but the first of the six categories. The
IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas now declares
that taking account of the needs of indigenous people, including
subsistence resource use in so far as this use will not adversely
affect the other objectives of management, is a specific objective
of the creation of national parks. While indigenous people's claims
to ownership of lands, and a legally recognised position within the
management structure, are not guaranteed under the new categories,
the recognition of indigenous interests is a significant step
forward.
The long delay in official recognition of the rights of
indigenous people to land and resource use reflects fundamental
differences in indigenous and non-indigenous land management
strategies. Lack of understanding of the social and cultural
relationship of indigenous people to their land continues to be an
impediment to the establishment of protected areas and to full
participation of indigenous people in land and resource
management.
Commonwealth and State Conservation Ministers in Australia in
1970 adopted the IUCN definition of a national park, as:
A natural area of land and/or sea, designated to:
(a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for
present and future generations,
(b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of
designation of the area,
(c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational,
recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be
environmentally and culturally compatible.(3)
Amendments to the IUCN definition in 1978 specifically stated,
as a criterion for selection and management, that national
parks:
contain one or several entire ecosystems that are not materially
altered by human exploitation and occupation. The highest competent
authority of the country has taken steps to prevent or eliminate as
soon as possible exploitation or occupation in the area and to
enforce effectively the respect of ecological, geomorphological or
aesthetic features which have led to its establishment'.(4)
Models for protected areas
National parks are undoubtedly the most significant category of
protected area, at least in the public perception. The national
park model evolved from three basic ideas which continue to hold
power today: preservation for conservation, preservation for
scientific research, and preservation to provide access for
tourism.(5) The myth that national parks are an unpeopled
sanctuary, almost sacred places, set apart from and unaffected by
environmental impacts, resource exploitation and the urban /
industrial society surrounding them, contains elements of
contradiction, for the first national parks were also designed as
areas for human use and recreation. National parks have always been
closely tied to the political economy of tourism, and the 'conflict
between preservation and profit lies at the heart of nature
parks'.(6)
The first protected area in the United States in the Yosemite
Valley was declared in 1864. The first national park, and the first
extensive tract of land set aside and preserved for the benefit and
enjoyment of the people, was declared at Yellowstone in 1872.(7)
Preservation of the wilderness was seen as a key to the
preservation of national cultural values. The move to reserve
protected areas for recreation began early in Australia. In 1866
the Fish River (Jenolan) Caves in New South Wales were reserved and
became a popular tourist destination. In 1879 land was set aside as
a national park near Port Hacking, south of Sydney, and used for
public recreation, acclimatisation of exotic plants and animals,
and even military exercises. The building of summer cottages within
the boundaries was also permitted. The park became immensely
popular for day-trippers from Sydney and was later expanded; in
1955 it was renamed the Royal National Park.
The first national parks were modelled on Yellowstone National
Park in the United States, which sought to preserve natural
resources from destruction, excessive development and other
impairment, while continuing to provide recreation and enjoyment
for visitors. This model has dominated the creation and development
of national parks and protected areas throughout the world, but it
has inherent contradictions, for it attempts to create protected
areas for public recreation and use without permanent human
habitation or extractive use(8) and without employing indigenous
resource management strategies. It has been unable to accommodate
the massive growth of global tourism, and the limitations of its
global application, particularly in the developing world, are only
now being realised.
The major colonial powers also excluded indigenous people from
national parks. They declared that wildlife preserves and national
parks were required in their African colonies for the purposes of
flora and fauna observation, nature preservation and public
control, and that the exclusion of human activity was the best
possible means for such protection.(9) Tourism, important to the
economies of the colonies, was not to be excluded, but the hunting,
capture and killing of fauna, and the destruction of flora, were to
be strictly prevented.
Protected areas were first established on economically
'worthless' lands. Sectional interest groups ensured that
economically valuable areas, useful for agriculture, mining,
grazing, forestry, settlement, water storage and fisheries remained
unreserved.(10) In many parts of the world this concept is being
questioned by the need for conservation of representative areas of
biogeographical and cultural importance. The challenge is to find a
solution to the problem of alternative land use while accepting
that 'substantial, sensitive, and continuing human intervention'
may be needed.(11)
The management of protected areas in Australia involves elements
of the multiple use and ecosystem models of land management. The
multiple use model is an attempt to balance the needs of
conservation with the demands of resource use, such as commercial
fishing, forestry, mining, pastoralism and tourism, within which
traditional uses have been seen as a subset. The principal
exponents of multiple use of protected areas have been governments
and the resource industries. The model is characterised by the
development of management and zoning plans. Within national parks,
the recognised place for indigenous people is prescribed by zones
in which both human land use and environmental impacts are managed,
but this is at odds with indigenous concepts of landscape and the
interrelationship between people and place. Continued indigenous
resource use is still controlled by the management agency and
resource managers' perceptions of appropriate land use.(12)
Multiple use which is now being displaced by the ecosystem model
and which seeks to preserve entire biological communities,
including humans and animals as well as natural processes such as
fire, challenges some of the assumptions behind the current system
of zoning protected areas.(13) The habitat or ecosystem model
recognises that the integrity and maintenance of ecosystems must be
the first consideration of management, and that because ecosystems
do not stop at the boundaries, management of lands both inside and
outside protected areas must be complementary.(14)
The ecosystem model has been a driving force behind the
resurgence of interest in the United Nations Man and the Biosphere
(MAB) program. Each biosphere reserve is constructed on the idea of
an ecosystem consisting of an 'aggregation of relationships, a
self-regulating community of innumerable species', including
humankind.(15) Like World Heritage status, the biosphere concept is
an overlay that extends beyond the formal tenure limits of the
protected area, but its boundaries may be altered over time with
changing conservation needs and human activities. Natural areas are
located within the core area, surrounded by a buffer zone of
disturbed or manipulated land used for research, environmental
monitoring, education, ecological rehabilitation and restoration.
Beyond the buffer zone is a transition zone in which the emphasis
is on controlling resource exploitation in an environmentally
sustainable way.(16)
The principle of preservation of biodiversity should support the
idea of maintaining the link between protected areas and people,
particularly where indigenous people have a major role in
management. The ecological role of indigenous people has only
recently begun to be recognised by management agencies and the
establishment of protected areas on lands owned and occupied by
indigenous people offers challenges to management agencies. For
Aboriginal people the environment has an intrinsic value, based not
only on its use to humans but also on its social or spiritual role
and purpose. For them, the issue is not land use management but
recognition of traditional customary rights, including the right to
own land, the use of resources and the preservation of subsistence
and ceremonial practices.
Current models still place emphasis on developing acceptable
patterns of use of the physical environment, and not on recognition
of social and spiritual values of land to indigenous people.
Management agencies seeking alternative forms of management that
both reflect the growing need for ecosystem conservation and the
protection of indigenous lifestyles, and conform to international
standards and guidelines, need an understanding of local economies,
cultures, history, political structures and the needs and
aspirations of the traditional owners.(17) These complex social and
cultural values must then be incorporated into zoning structures,
management regulations and day-to-day management practice.
European emphasis on the preservation of natural heritage, with
an additional emphasis on the value of wilderness areas as remote
places with little evidence of human use, preserved from all forms
of human exploitation, was based on the belief that before the
colonial period the landscape was unchanging and unmodified,
preserved in a pristine way by Aboriginal people who were natural
conservationists.(18) The acceptance of such a definition has
little to offer Aboriginal people seeking to assert traditional
rights to forage, hunt and fish and to reestablish traditional
Aboriginal land management practices in 'caring for country'. It
has been argued that the wilderness idea has been superimposed over
'terra nullius' to invalidate the existence of indigenous
management practices and the very presence of Aboriginal people on
the land.(19) Some conservation agencies now recognise that
Australia is largely a created landscape, and an attempt has been
made to reassess the narrow definition of wilderness with the
inclusion of the clause:
substantially undisturbed by colonial and modern technological
society, and remote at its core from points of mechanical access
and other evidence of colonial and modern technological
society.(20)
The current Kakadu plan of management defines wilderness as:
an area of land substantially unmodified by balanda
(non-Aboriginal people), or capable of being restored to such a
state where perceptions of solitude, space and wildness are readily
achieved and sustained.(21)
This is a significant change from the first plan of management,
which described Kakadu as an untamed wilderness.(22) The Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) has proposed an even
more challenging definition of a wilderness as land 'without its
songs and ceremonies', implying that wilderness only exists when
the essential land and people relationship, maintained through
ritual and ceremony, is broken:(23) wilderness is land without a
soul.
Limitations on traditional use
While there may be convergent points of view over the long-term
value of protection of areas with natural and cultural
significance, there are strongly divergent views on the way in
which these areas are declared and managed. For Aboriginal park
managers, who view the Aboriginal culture as adaptable and
responsive but value conservation as a means for providing a basis
for the sustainable use of resources, including both native and
introduced plants and animals, traditional European assumptions
about protected areas raise complex problems. There was no pressure
from Aboriginal people to establish either Kakadu or Uluru-Kata
Tjuta as wilderness national parks. The declaration of protected
area status has meant the transformation of Aboriginal land into
restricted areas under the control of national, state and territory
governments. Along with pastoral leases and other land tenure
systems, the restrictions on access to land and rights to live on
traditional lands has meant loss of livelihood, tradition and
autonomy.(24)
While many conservation organisations support the right of
Aboriginal people to hunt, fish and collect on Aboriginal land,
they reserve the right to oppose practices that would lead to
possible threats to endangered or protected species. This approach
was also considered by the House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, which supported
Aboriginal rights to maintain traditions and practices but, as a
management policy, recommended the application of the precautionary
principle. It found no proof that Aboriginal practices had resulted
in the extinction of native species, but considered that permitting
the hunting of a protected species ran an unacceptable
risk.(25)
In 1986 the Australian Law Reform Commission also found that the
interests of conservation represented a legitimate limitation on
the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to hunt
and fish.(26) In seeking to clarify the question of tradition in
relation to Aboriginal hunting and fishing of both native and feral
animals, the Commission determined that attention should focus on
the purpose of the activity, rather than on the methods or the
technologies used. However, longstanding criticism by conservation
interests of the use of modern hunting technology by Aboriginal
people remains unresolved.
The three main non-governmental conservation organisations in
Australia (the Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness
Society and Greenpeace) have each issued Aboriginal land rights
policies.(27) All three agencies support the rights of Aboriginal
people to the ownership, occupation and management of areas of
major cultural significance and their right to own these lands
under inalienable freehold title. They acknowledge that Aboriginal
people were the original inhabitants of Australia who were
displaced by non-Aboriginal occupation of the country. The rights
to hunt, fish and gather food for subsistence and ceremonial
purposes, and the fundamental right of Aboriginal people to
determine the pace and direction of their own development, are all
supported.
At the heart of the issue is a difference in perception by
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of the criteria for
acknowledging responsibility for decisions about land and sea. For
non-Aboriginal people, owning land and managing land are two
overlapping but distinctive categories. For Aboriginal people,
traditional owners have the ultimate responsibility for making
decisions concerning the resource management. Conservation of
natural heritage and the preservation of cultural heritage,
controls over subsistence use of natural resources, permanent
Aboriginal settlement in restricted living areas within protected
areas, and the role and nature of tourism, all conflict with the
traditional relationship between land ownership and land management
by Aboriginal people.(28)
While land that has been legally granted to Aboriginal people
may be leased back through the maze of social and political
structures of the dominant society, the Aboriginal position remains
that, first and foremost, the land is Aboriginal 'country'.
Traditional owners have granted permission for the management
agency to manage the land on the condition that the agency fulfil
certain social and cultural obligations. Not only does this
position require a rethinking of the philosophy of land ownership
which is currently under examination right across Australia, it
also requires a reassessment of the nature and meaning of
relationships of power between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
people.
Conservation or Community Development?
One of the principal reasons for the acquisition of traditional
lands through the complexities of the land claim processes is that
ownership of land provides a base for development of permanent
living areas and opportunities to continue a spiritual relationship
in 'caring for country'. It also means maintaining associations
with sacred and secular sites and the continuation of cultural
practices such as seasonal burning of the land, exploitation of the
land and its resources, performing ceremonies and ensuring that
cultural obligations are maintained. The result is a desire for
privacy away from high tourist areas, and the closure of culturally
sensitive areas such as burial and art sites and areas of a secret
and sacred nature so that these roles and duties can be undertaken
without interference.
This has the potential for causing conflict with some
non-Aboriginal people who cannot see beyond the restrictive nature
of the request and cannot perceive the social and cultural reasons
behind it. The conflict here is not only between Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal perceptions of the role and purpose of land within
protected areas, but also with the acceptance of different cultural
value systems within a multi-cultural society. The values and
attitudes of non-Aboriginal Australians are the result of 200 years
of cultural dominance. For non-Aboriginal Australians there are
parallel views about Aboriginality and the environment.
Ownership of land by Aboriginal people provides a means for the
reestablishment of forms of Aboriginal land management practices
which may vary according to economic and social circumstances, and
which may also incorporate non-Aboriginal commercial activities
such as pastoralism and mining. It should not be assumed that
Aboriginal relationships to land are frozen in cultural
traditionalism.(29) The option for minimal intervention in caring
for country provides some answer for the acceptance of conservation
and protected area status by Aboriginal communities, but it should
not be assumed that Aboriginal people will value conservation above
commercial exploitation and community self-management, and be
prepared to hand over management of their land to external
agencies.
For Aboriginal people, while conservation status is seen as one
way of caring for the land, it has to be combined with traditional
access and use rights, the right to live on the land, the
maintenance of social and cultural life and community development.
The aim of control over traditional lands has been largely
determined by the need for strengthening cultural identity,
community development and economic self-sufficiency, and not
environmental protection. Control of land is seen as vital for
community and cultural survival in the face of external pressures,
and for these reasons joint management has become closely linked to
questions of land rights, self-determination, preservation of
culture, employment and skills acquisition.(30)
Protected areas and indigenous people
In 1975 the IUCN passed the Zaire Resolution on the Protection
of Traditional Ways of Life. Included in this resolution was the
request that all IUCN member governments, including Australia,
devise means by which the lands of indigenous people could be
brought into conservation areas without loss of use and tenure
rights. The resolution also called for member governments to
recognise that indigenous people have a right to live on their
traditional lands and that they should not be displaced by the
creation of protected areas, nor should protected areas be created
without consultation with traditional owners.(31) This resolution
was later re-endorsed at the IUCN meeting in Perth in 1990.
The 1992 Caracas Declaration considered that the establishment
and effective management of protected areas must be carried out in
a 'manner sensitive to the needs and concerns of local people'. The
declaration mentioned the importance of national protected area
policies being sensitive to customs and traditions and safeguarding
the interests of indigenous people. The congress recommended that
governments should recognise the needs and aspirations of people
resident in and around protected areas, ensure the continuation and
development of social and cultural values, incorporate customary
and indigenous tenure and resource use as a means for enhancing
biodiversity, and promote the participation of local communities in
planning and management of protected areas.(32)
Chapter 26 of Agenda 21, issued at the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro,
emphasised the role of indigenous communities in the management of
natural and cultural resources and their effective participation in
the achievement of sustainable development. International
agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (1966) and the International Labour Organisation's
1989 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169) now take
account of indigenous land issues at an international political
level.(33) Participation at these conferences, support for the
various resolutions and conventions, and particularly the 1991
ratification of the First Optional Protocol (1976) of the
International Covenant, means that Australia supports a strong
moral and political commitment to respect the involvement of all
indigenous people in protected area management, both within the
country and overseas.(34)
The participation of Aboriginal people in the joint management
of national parks and World Heritage Areas is supported by the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) in its
recent draft environmental policy paper. The ATSIC model for joint
management measures success on the basis of 'equity to jointly
decide, share, use and manage an area', while emphasising that one
model of joint management will not suit every situation.(35) The
ATSIC document also states that, in practice, joint management
continues to be constrained by the unequal distribution of powers,
the lack of full recognition of cultural values in legislation,
inadequate control of the pace and direction of development, and
failures to provide equal employment of Aboriginal people at every
level in protected area management.
Aboriginal perceptions of conservation and protected area
management have been determined by the long, bitter struggle over
land rights and uranium mining, and the need for Aboriginal people
to have their role as custodians of the land legally recognised.
There is no single Aboriginal perspective on conservation and
protected area management, because the historical experiences of
Aboriginal people vary across the country. Some Aboriginal people
see conservation management as a way in which rules and regulations
are imposed over their socially and culturally legitimate
activities, and a means for further political control over
Aboriginal land and land management practices.(36)
The statutory and administrative guarantees which protect the
interests of Aboriginal people are the formal structures
which characterise joint management. The success of joint
management must be measured both by the effectiveness of those
structures and by the effectiveness of the processes which
empower Aboriginal decision-making. The two main principles upon
which joint management stands are a solid legal basis specifying
rights and responsibilities, and goodwill between traditional
owners and staff of the management agency.(37) Essential components
in joint management are clear and honest communication between
parties and mutual trust based on practice and experience, not just
on 'verbal assertions of trust'.(38)
There is no generic model or blueprint for successful joint
management. Each agreement must be separately negotiated and be
responsive to the needs and aspirations of each local community.
That community must act as an equal partner in management, with
representatives trained and confident in their decision-making
capacities.(39) Aboriginal participation in the management of
national parks and conservation reserves has been described as a
formal relationship between the Government(s) and the Aboriginal
owners of protected areas, in which the owners have freehold land
title and by leasing or other means the Government obtains
authority to manage the land.
There should be a statutory requirement to produce a plan of
management detailing management prescriptions, objectives and
mechanisms to resolve conflict between the two parties. The
management agreement should specify the rights of traditional
owners to the use and occupation of the land and detail the
obligations of the lessee to protect and promote those rights.
Agreements should be written in clear, unambiguous language, be
subjected to regular review, and be capable of future updating and
change. There should be regular contact between the local community
and the management agency at all levels to ensure good, though not
necessarily conflict free, working relationships.(40)
Formal structures such as Boards of Management, with specified
roles and responsibilities, should be established as the principal
decision-making bodies, and a majority of their members should be
Aboriginal traditional owners of the protected areas 'able to
exercise their authority to negotiate further refinements to the
model so that they are involved in a 'formal power sharing'
management arrangement'.(41) Such structures set the framework for
a model of joint management that establishes Aboriginal control and
ownership.
The process of joint management is the on-going process
of consultation and negotiation leading from the foundations
provided by structural guarantees towards the publicly-stated and
identifiable goals of conservation and protection of the natural
and cultural heritage in accordance with the needs and aspirations
of the traditional owners. This long term process requires a strong
sense of commitment from the management agency and an equally
strong sense of identity and place from the traditional owners.
What gives life and meaning to joint management is working through
complex issues on a day-to-day basis, often in situations of
conflict, through conciliation and negotiation with Aboriginal
traditional owners. Failure to recognise this can result in
distrust, disharmony and dissatisfaction.
In the evolution of joint management structures,
success can be seen as the degree to which 'security of tenure, the
existence of formal lease arrangements, and an Aboriginal majority
in decision-making enable Aboriginal people to participate in
management as equal partners'.(42) Dependence on the goodwill and
strong personal friendships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
people offers no assurance of continuing success of joint
management, nor does it mean that formalising the process of joint
management will invariably create good working relationships. But
joint management is essentially about partnership across unequal
constituencies, and for this to be successful there must be some
mutuality, not simply camaraderie, personal commitment or political
rhetoric.(43)
The success of the process of joint management should
be measured in terms of Aboriginal empowerment, equity and social
justice. In joint management arrangements which empower Aboriginal
people, traditional owners exercise rights and responsibilities for
the selection and allocation of policy values, for rationalising
and translating policy values into objectives, priorities and
guidelines, and for the day-to-day operations in which resources
are allocated to administer the protected area.(44)
Participation in management is not the sole means for the
resolution of conflicts between protected area management and local
peoples. A number of key obstacles continue to inhibit
establishment of successful joint management arrangements in
protected areas:
- the institutional environment of protected area management
- the lack of trust between conservation authorities and local
communities
- difficulties in communication; inappropriate language use and
differences in literacy and numeracy skills
- the number of stakeholder, or interest, groups involved
- the difference in power relations between conservation
authorities and the local people
- the degree of risk and uncertainty in entering discussions
aimed at resolving conflicts
- the problem with binding, contractual obligations and
- lack of understanding of alternatives to
participation.(45)
Opposition to joint management arrangements is based on
arguments that Aboriginal control of national parks will not be in
the best interests of nature conservation, or that joint management
imposes land use and land management regimes that will undermine or
sell out Aboriginal autonomy and control over land and resources,
and lead to a reliance on non-Aboriginal expertise and management
systems that devalue Aboriginal traditional knowledge and
practices.(46)
Joint management arrangements have also been criticised for
being
distinctively coercive, with the Governments falsely asserting
that they have something to offer indigenous land owners. Without
exception, the models have bargained with ownership. These
'negotiations' often result in ridiculous sacrifices of control and
autonomy for the recognition of secure title.(47)
[The] reality of the situation is that a trade-off is usually to
be effected between the two cultures, often prompted by economic
pressures such as tourism and resource development.(48)
The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody sought to
examine the social, cultural and legal issues behind the deaths of
99 Aboriginal people. The Commissioners were convinced that the
cause of the deaths, and the identification of solutions, lay in
understanding a wide range of social, economic and cultural factors
affecting Aboriginal people in contemporary Australia. They
considered empowerment of Aboriginal people through a policy of
self-determination to be the essential component in a mature
relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.
Contained within that relationship should also be a willingness to
permit Aboriginal people the right to make decisions concerning
their own lives and communities, and the right to retain their
culture and develop it according to their own concepts and
values.(49)
The Royal Commission presented the Commonwealth with a number of
recommendations on appropriate ways for Aboriginal people to
achieve self-determination. These included rights to traditional
lands, and the right of Aboriginal people with cultural, historical
and traditional associations to negotiate terms and arrangements
for the protection and management of lands considered important for
conservation purposes. Among these were full participation in the
negotiation processes conducted between Aboriginal people, their
representative organisations and national park management
agencies.
Millstream Recommendation
These recommendations, later adopted by the Royal Commission as
Recommendation 315, did not originate with the Royal Commissioners.
They had first been discussed by Aboriginal representatives at a
Conservation and Land Management meeting held at
Millstream-Chichester National Park in the Pilbara, Western
Australia in August 1990 and had become known as the Millstream
recommendation.(50)
The Millstream meeting recommended encouragement of joint
management arrangements between Aboriginal people and national park
management agencies, involvement of Aboriginal people in the
development of management plans for national parks, excision of
areas within national parks as living areas, granting of access to
protected areas for subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering
rights, and facilitating the control of cultural heritage
information by Aboriginal people. The wide ranging recommendations
called for further affirmative action policies with regard to
employment of Aboriginal people as administrators and rangers and
their full participation in the negotiation of lease-back
arrangements. The meeting also requested that policies be put in
place to support the charging of admission fees for entry by
tourists to protected areas, that areas of land within national
parks be reserved for ceremonial purposes, and that mechanisms be
established for Aboriginal custodians to maintain control of
protection and access to sites of significance.(51) These
recommendations provided a concise summary of virtually all the
current concerns of Aboriginal people with regard to conservation,
land management, empowerment in decision-making and the role of
protected area status over Aboriginal land. The Millstream
recommendation offered a unified, although essentially
conservative, Aboriginal position with clearly articulated,
feasible and achievable goals.
Government Responses to Millstream
The Commonwealth Government, in its formal response to the
recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in
Custody, supported the development of strategies for Aboriginal
self-determination and the restoration of unalienated Crown land to
Aboriginal people able to substantiate claims to the land on the
basis of cultural, historical and/or traditional affiliations. The
Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Government, together with
New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, all
supported the Millstream recommendation in principle, but it was
clear that Aboriginal rights and interests in protected areas
through the states and territories of Australia would continue to
remain subordinate to both governmental and non-governmental
economic and political interests and be seen to conflict with
tourism, resource development, mining, and conservation of natural
resources.(52)
Australian Conservation Foundation Response to Millstream
In 1994 the Australian Conservation Foundation published a
comprehensive examination of the legal and administrative
arrangements for Aboriginal participation in protected area
management in Australia in response to the Millstream
recommendation. The report, entitled Competing Interests,
was the most detailed examination of joint management structures
and Aboriginal involvement in protected areas in Australia yet
undertaken, and included case studies from all States and
Territories. The authors found that:
From a national perspective, the adoption of the Millstream
Recommendation by the Royal Commission [into Aboriginal Deaths in
Custody] has encouraged governments to support the 'soft'
principles expressed in terms of 'encouraging' and 'facilitating'
whilst effectively continuing with the status quo, defined by local
State and Territory conditions. The fundamental principle of the
right of Aboriginal people to the substantive involvement in the
control and management of reserved areas is not specifically
addressed in the Millstream Recommendation, although it was the
overwhelming theme of the Aboriginal delegates to the Millstream
Conference.(53)
Commonwealth legislation has been the main facilitator of joint
management arrangements in both Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Parks. They are not the only joint management arrangements
in operation, but they are certainly the most legally secure. The
structural framework of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu models is
now being applied in joint management arrangements with the Wreck
Bay Aboriginal Community Council for the Jervis Bay National Park
and Jervis Bay Botanic Gardens in southern New South Wales.(54)
Kakadu is an important example of the complex nature of evolving
joint management arrangements. Some of the park is Aboriginal-owned
land, and the need for settlement of land claims and appropriate
representation has complicated its development.(55) The first
Kakadu lease, signed in 1978, was a relatively simple legal
document. In 1991 the lease was renegotiated with a significantly
stronger position for Aboriginal people, more financial security,
clearly specified responsibilities for the Director, and direct
Aboriginal participation on a Kakadu Board of Management. The lease
contains three sections: the rights of Aboriginal people to use and
occupy traditional land, the terms of the agreement, and 22
specific covenants designed to promote and protect Aboriginal
interests, traditions, employment, consultation and liaison. A
termination clause means that any breach of the covenants would
constitute a breach of the lease and full control of the land would
then, by law, pass to traditional owners.
Board of management
The creation of the Board of Management was part of the key
management objective which sought to give Aboriginal people a major
voice in the management of Kakadu National Park, and follows the
model established within the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Board
of Management and defined in the 1985 amendments to the National
Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The functions of the Board of
Management include preparation of plans of management for the park,
decision-making consistent with those plans of management,
monitoring the management of the park and advising the Minister for
the Environment on the future development of Kakadu National
Park.
The Board has 14 members, 10 of whom represent the Aboriginal
traditional owners of the region, two the Australia Nature
Conservation Agency, one the tourist industry and one the interests
of nature conservation.(56) Aboriginal Board members can be
employees of the Australian Nature Conservation Agency. This is not
so at Kata Tjuta, where it is felt that if Board members were also
park employees then the meetings would take on the appearance of
staff meetings, and members who were also employees would be
constrained in what they said.
As proposed by the traditional owners, of the ten Aboriginal
members of the Kakadu Board, three come from the southern Jawoyn
country, three from the central Gundjeyhmi / Mayali country, three
from the north-eastern Gaagudju country and one from the
north-western Limilngan area. Currently, one Aboriginal member of
the Board of Management represents the Gunbalanya (Oenpelli)
community, whose people also have traditional and historical
interests in the northern part of Kakadu National Park.
Delays in constituting the Board indicate the need to understand
the role of representation and rights to speak for particular areas
that are inherent in Aboriginal relationships between people and
their country. Western decision-making structures such as boards of
management cannot hope to succeed unless Aboriginal people have
direct and meaningful input into the form, purpose and structure of
those essentially non-Aboriginal creations.
Lease Arrangements
The lease arrangement, renegotiated in 1991, gave traditional
owners an annual rent together with 25% of the receipts from
entrance and camping fees and 25% of any charges, fees or penalties
made with respect to commercial activities within the park. The
lease can be terminated by the traditional Aboriginal owners of the
Kakadu National Park if they consider there is a case of
substantial detriment to their interests with regard to the
administration, management or control of the park.(57) The Northern
Land Council demanded that the termination of lease clause be
included following the precedent set in the newly signed Uluru-Kata
Tjuta lease. The covenants and conditions of the new lease, and the
1991 plan of management, consolidated the rights of traditional
owners and clarified, in detail, the roles and responsibilities of
the management agency. The rights of traditional owners to the use
and occupation of the park, and to a power sharing role in planning
and management, were reconfirmed. In addition, the provisions of
the lease call for increased Aboriginal management responsibility
and for the development of an employment and training
strategy.(58)
The 1991 plan of management, the third management plan of Kakadu
National Park,(59) reflected more of the aspirations of the
Aboriginal traditional owners, as it was developed through long
consultations with the Northern Land Council and the various
Aboriginal community associations. The distinctive feature of the
1991 plan of management, in comparison with the 1980 and 1986
plans, is the 'focus on Aboriginal input'. A criticism of the
earlier Kakadu plans of management was that they focussed on
consultation rather than negotiation, and there was a conscious
attempt to reverse this situation.
Although the current lease details rights and obligations, and
emphasises a commitment to the principles of negotiation rather
than consultation, successful joint management also requires a
commitment to the process of effective communication, conflict
resolution, and empowerment of Aboriginal people in decision-making
and participatory management. For this reason the 'legal and
practical adequacy of the lease needs continual review',(60) for
the review process provides a mechanism for renegotiation of
Aboriginal land owners' rights and management responsibilities
within a continually evolving park management framework. Continual
review of joint management agreements is both a symbolic and a
practical affirmation of the principles of negotiation.
Development of joint management agreements
It is instructive to look at the nature and development of joint
management arrangements in Kakadu National Park in some detail. In
Kakadu, inter-community relations and relationships between the
Aboriginal community and park management have been recognised as
dynamic and, at times, volatile. The need for an evaluation of the
effectiveness of joint management arrangements has been
acknowledged by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, and this
paper is based on the findings of a study into the social and
political contexts which led to the establishment of Kakadu, and
the current joint management arrangements.(61)
In the early period, the real feeling of external political and
developmentalist pressure served to bond Aboriginal people and
national parks staff. This strengthened informal management
networks but delayed the development of formal structures. The
second and third plans of management, written between 1986 and
1991, were constructed in different social environments.
The strong relationships between Aboriginal owners and national
parks staff changed with the growth of the park and the movement of
influential staff away from Kakadu. The political climate in the
Northern Territory, strongly antagonistic to continued Commonwealth
management of national parks within the Territory, worsened, and
this created a highly charged atmosphere both inside and
surrounding Kakadu. The growth of the park and the heavy political
atmosphere meant that management was increasingly subject to
external demands, and less able to devote time to strengthening
informal relationships which had meant so much to traditional
owners. As a result, conflicts emerged between the management
agency and Aboriginal owners over the delivery of promised training
programs, employment levels, promotion of Aboriginal people and a
growing awareness of the complexities of the development of a
national park of international standard. The Australian National
Parks and Wildlife Service came to recognise that the success of
joint management in Kakadu National Park depended as much on the
formal, statutory arrangements as on informal liaison between
Aboriginal people and park managers.
The continuing commitment of the Commonwealth Government to
effective joint management was fundamental to the process of
building strong relationships between Aboriginal land owners and
national parks staff. The long process of negotiations over the new
lease and the current plan of management, concluded in 1991, placed
Aboriginal interests before natural and cultural heritage
protection for the first time. Craig noted positive features of the
joint management arrangements in Kakadu National Park.(62) The
Australian Nature Conservation Agency had become more responsive to
Aboriginal aspirations with regard to employment, decision making,
the role of cultural advisers and the recognition of the value of
Aboriginal land management practices. In the districts, there is a
significant Aboriginal presence in the day-to-day management of the
park. There appears to be a genuine desire on the part of
management to have Aboriginal people participate as full and equal
partners, though in practice this has not yet been achieved.
The very conflicts which have been so instrumental in shaping
the political history of Kakadu have helped to shape the nature of
joint management in the park. One of the strengths of the Kakadu
experience has been the creation of a favourable climate for
evolution and experimentation. This is the key to the successful
process of joint management. In the early period of the
establishment of Kakadu, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife
Service selected staff who were chosen for their experience in
working with Aboriginal people and who were sympathetic to an
Aboriginal position which saw a national park as a way of
protecting both the land and Aboriginal culture from the then
unknown impacts of uranium mining and tourism. A few
fundamentalists among the conservation movement opposed the notion
of an occupied Aboriginal-owned national park, but their position
was challenged by the success of the informal arrangements of the
early period.
The pressures of this earlier period have lessened, but have
been replaced by others as the park has increased in size and
complexity. Management accepts that Kakadu National Park is to be
managed as if it were Aboriginal land. It remains to be seen if
non-Aboriginal managers and staff accept that joint management
requires a devolution of responsibilities to Aboriginal people who
remain unskilled in professional or technical capacities, who
continue to have considerable literacy and numeracy problems, who
are poorly trained in management and who find the bureaucratic
processes baffling. The stress and tension for Aboriginal people is
that these professionally 'unskilled' people are often the very
people who are culturally and ecologically knowledgable, have
status within the community and have a strong desire to participate
in park management at a senior level.
A positive move was the permanent appointment of senior
Aboriginal cultural advisers with extensive knowledge and
understanding of land and culture. The Jawoyn Association provides
advice on cultural matters in the southern section of the park on a
contractual basis and other respected, senior members of the
Aboriginal community are also consulted regularly. The cultural
adviser positions are important, but were created in the formative
days of the park's establishment to give status and position to
senior traditional owners who had once been employed as labourers
and gardeners, and in practice they appear to have a nebulous
position within the park hierarchy.
Power and Effectiveness of the Board of Management
The establishment of an executive role for traditional owners
defines the Aboriginal participation as an active role, not just as
a participatory or advisory one, and so it is considered the key
policy in support of successful joint management of protected
areas. The formal establishment of the Board does not guarantee its
effectiveness, nor does the presence of the Board mean that
Aboriginal decision-making determines the direction of park
management. Despite its formal role, considerable discretionary
power still rests with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife
in Canberra. The Australian Nature Conservation Agency would take
considerable effort to resolve any contentious issues well before
arbitration was requested, but the potential for conflict and
dissent at the Board table does exist.
The Australian Nature Conservation Agency is seen, particularly
by some Jawoyn leaders, as centralised and controlling, and the
position of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife is seen as
a means of preventing or limiting direct access to the Minister.
Under the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park agreement the
Jawoyn Association has direct access to the Chief Minister of the
Northern Territory. It has been suggested by both park staff and
traditional owners that the Kakadu Board is essentially weak,
dominated by the non-Aboriginal minority of members of skilled,
articulate, powerful bureaucrats and appointed officials and
constrained by formalised, non-Aboriginal administrative procedures
and lack of pre-meeting consultations. The establishment of a
Secretariat to support the Board is a positive move towards
strengthening Aboriginal decision making.
Communication problems have also been identified at Uluru-Kata
Tjuta, and these are considered major sources of tension in the
joint management arrangements. In Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park a
Community Liaison Officer has been appointed, with duties including
advising the Board of Management, assisting Aboriginal Board
members, providing advice to the park management on matters of
importance to traditional owners, and liaison with members of the
Mutitjulu Aboriginal community.(63)
The position is considered essential to day-to-day joint
management operations. This arrangement works well in Uluru-Kata
Tjuta, because the Mutitjulu community is a relatively discrete and
homogeneous group, but it would not work in Kakadu The internal
dynamics of the Aboriginal community in Kakadu would make it
impossible to establish one community liaison position in Kakadu,
and establishing more than one position would simply increase the
distance between Aboriginal people and park management. The
dynamics of each Park are different, and each new joint management
arrangement needs to be assessed and developed within the social
and cultural dynamics of the local Aboriginal community and the
history of interactions with non-Aboriginal land managers.
Employment and Training
A barrier to the effective participation of Aboriginal people in
the management of Kakadu National Park is their lack of literacy
and numeracy skills and poor comprehension of bureaucratic and
legal processes. The original proposal in the 1970s was for Kakadu
to have senior Aboriginal management staff within ten years, but
this has not occurred. There appears no way in which traditional
ecological and cultural knowledge can be adequately recognised
within a public service staffing hierarchy which requires
documentary proof of knowledge attainment. The first Aboriginal
ranger training program was strongly criticised. Despite nearly
twenty years of recruitment and training, the majority of
Aboriginal rangers remain within the bottom levels of the staffing
table, and some have been at these levels for over ten years,(64)
and a natural response has been apathy and disenchantment with park
service. Because Aboriginal rangers remain at the lower levels for
long periods, the staff blockage hinders recruitment. This creates
further resentment, for it may take a keen entrant two to three
years to even enter the park service, complete training
requirements and then progress to the base grade ranger level.
The lack of literacy skills has been documented in a 1994 report
on adult literacy by Wignell and Boyd, but the lack of literacy
skills is only one reason for the limited promotional opportunities
for Aboriginal people. Wignell and Boyd also comment that the use
of 'secret' or 'big' English (essentially academic or technical
English as used in the public service) also inhibits Aboriginal
people more used to speaking a form of English embedded in action
rather than reflection.(65) Aboriginal rangers with poor literacy
skills, particularly poor writing skills, are at a distinct
disadvantage in terms of promotional opportunities, job
satisfaction and career status. In contrast, ranger training at
Uluru-Kata Tjuta is seen as positive and on the 'right track',
because the training officer is expected to work at all times with
the community. Aboriginal people at Mutitjulu consider their input
into training has been considerable and that the result has been a
training program designed around community needs and aspirations.
Training at Uluru-Kata Tjuta is also considered to be an essential
part of joint management arrangements.(66)
Growth of the Park Bureaucracy
The growth in size of Kakadu National Park has led to
considerable structural growth and a subsequent change in
management philosophy away from the informal, on-the-ground
operations of the formative years towards more procedural, office
based management with a corresponding increase in bureaucratic
procedures and regulations governing staffing operations,
employment conditions, financial management and accountability, and
the formalisation of internal meetings.
The role of the Director of the Australian Nature Conservation
Agency is still crucial, but there is a conscious effort to move
decision-making away from Canberra and locate it in Darwin and
Jabiru. Control of the planning process is now exercised from
within the park itself, and this process will continue with the
development of the fourth plan in 1996, though the Board of
Management has yet to take full control over the planning process.
The fourth plan will be a significant step for the Board and a
chance for the Board to exert effective control over park planning
and management.
Management of Research
Considerable research into natural and cultural heritage has
been undertaken in Kakadu National Park, but much of this material
remains unpublished. Important language studies undertaken by
Evans,(67) Harvey(68) and Merlan(69) are not readily accessible,
and yet Aboriginal people are concerned about the loss of language
and cultural heritage as a result of the increased westernisation
of life within the park area. Concerns over use of unpublished
material and unanswered questions of intellectual property rights
remain. It is a community priority to document the social history
and the life histories of older Aboriginal people, and to record
songs and stories in language, and this could provide an
opportunity for Aboriginal rangers to participate in cultural
heritage research.
In May 1995 a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding the
control of Aboriginal cultural material in Kakadu was formulated.
It encompasses all aspects of cultural research on archaeological
and rock art sites and includes photographs, videos, audio
recordings, unpublished printed material, notes, maps and computer
data relating to Aboriginal traditional use and occupation of
Kakadu as well as controls over human and animal remains regarded
as significant by Aboriginal people. Although the agreement does
not have the same legal status as the lease arrangements and the
covenants to the lease, it is the first formal memorandum of
understanding on cultural heritage research between Aboriginal
people and a management agency in Australia, and involves the first
Aboriginal cultural heritage management committee established in a
national park in Australia.
Weed Management
Aboriginal people are concerned about the impact of introduced
tropical weeds such as Mimosa pigra, salvinia and para
grass in Kakadu. Because infestations have occurred during the
working life of many senior Aboriginal rangers, weed control is
considered a high priority. The continued emphasis on weed
management by Aboriginal people reflects a concern that the
'country' passed on to the next generation should be clean and well
managed. A long-term weed management strategy is being developed to
complement and coordinate the tactical weed control measures
currently being undertaken.
Feral Animal Control
Conflicting attitudes towards feral animals continues to be a
source of debate within the park management. Aboriginal people see
the role of rangers as protecting animals, and consider that feral
animals have a legitimate place in nature and belong to the
country,(70) but there are sound conservation principles that
support the removal of any feral animals and the protection of
endangered or vulnerable species within national parks. Aboriginal
people support the removal of wild pigs and the control of domestic
animals around outstations, but the culling of buffalo and the
removal of wild horses in Kakadu remains a contentious issue. At
the centre of the debate remain unresolved differences of opinion
between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people over the relationship
between land and people, and the place of animals within a cultural
landscape.
Tourism
Tourism remains the largest single issue of concern to both park
management and traditional owners. Until recently, mass tourism was
unknown to most Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
The impersonal nature of modern tourist activities and the way in
which it is highly organised and controlled provides little means
for personal interaction between Aboriginal people and
non-Aboriginal visitors. The substantial increase in numbers
resulting from vigorous and highly successful marketing campaigns
in recent years places increasing stresses on staffing, residents
and resources, and there is a constant demand for increased access
to new cultural and natural heritage sites. The heavily visited
sites in Kakadu are seen as 'sacrificial' areas, and there is a
reluctance by Aboriginal people and park management to approve
access to other significant cultural sites.
Aboriginal people are not anti-tourism, but they have concerns
about protection of privacy, lack of control over access to art
sites and the need to maintain high visitation sites in a good
condition. Large numbers of tourists at high density sites during
the wet season have the potential to degrade sites and damage roads
and infrastructure. Considering the financial significance of
tourism and the potential impact of tourism on the natural and
cultural heritage of the park, it is important that more research
into park visitation be undertaken and that accurate visitor
statistics be kept. Aboriginal ownership of national parks does not
imply restrictions on non-Aboriginal use, but management and
tourism development agencies need to ensure that traditional owners
are fully consulted about future proposals and development
projects.
The history of the establishment of Uluru-Kata Tjuta contrasts
with the long history of conflicts in Kakadu.
Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park was established
under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975.
Legislative amendments in 1985 provided for the preparation of
plans of management for Aboriginal land within Commonwealth
national parks and for the establishment of Boards of Management
with an Aboriginal majority. The role of the Board is to work in
conjunction with the Director, Australian Nature Conservation
Agency, to prepare plans of management, to make decisions
consistent with the plan of management in respect of the park, to
monitor the management of the park, and to advise the Minister on
all aspects of the future development of the park.(71) The current
management arrangements are determined by a lease agreement, signed
in 1985 but substantially renegotiated in 1991. There is only one
community, Mutitjulu, in the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, and
all Australian Nature Conservation Agency staff live in the
community. The social and cultural fragmentation and administrative
decentralisation which characterises Kakadu National Park does not
exist at Uluru-Kata Tjuta, and this affects the
dynamics of joint management operations considerably.
Ayers Rock (Uluru) was, until the 1940s, a remote location
seldom visited by non-Aboriginal people. Today, over 250 000
non-Aboriginal people visit Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park
annually. In 1958, Ayers Rock was declared a national park. It was
later enlarged and in 1977 the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga)
National Park was established. A claim for title to land including
the park was disallowed in 1979,(72) as the park was judged to be
alienated Crown land, but title to the remaining land was
subsequently transferred to the Katiti Land Trust.
Aboriginal traditional owners rejected Northern Territory
freehold title and a joint management agreement covering the park,
and lobbied successive governments for Commonwealth freehold title.
The early 1980s was a period of open hostility between the Northern
Territory and Commonwealth Governments and the conflict was
conducted on many fronts the most important being Aboriginal land
rights and Commonwealth control of national parks. In 1983 the
Federal Labor Government announced an intention to return ownership
of Uluru to the traditional owners a decision made outside the land
claim process and without consultation with the Northern Territory
Government and in 1985 the Hawke Government granted freehold title
to Aboriginal people. The Northern Territory Government opposed the
terms of the agreement and boycotted the handover ceremony. As part
of the negotiations for Commonwealth lease-back of Uluru and Kata
Tjuta the traditional owners requested Commonwealth freehold title,
a Board of Management with an Aboriginal majority, detailed
covenants to the lease specifying the responsibilities of the
Director of National Parks and Wildlife, an annual rental payment
and a proportion of the entrance fees to the park. The land is now
owned as inalienable freehold title by the Uluru-Kata Tjuta
Aboriginal Land Trust.
The 1985 amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation legislation strengthened Aboriginal power-sharing
arrangements in all aspects of park policy, planning and
management. This was the first public affirmation of Aboriginal
rights to decision-making in protected area management on
Aboriginal land. The Uluru agreement was substantially more
advanced than the management agreement in place at Kakadu at that
time, and became the basic set of principles for the renegotiation
of the Kakadu agreement finalised in 1991.
In 1994 the Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism
and Territories renominated Uluru-Kata Tjuta as a cultural
landscape in recognition of the changing nature of the World
Heritage criteria for nomination and to more fully reflect the
cultural importance of Uluru-Kata Tjuta to Aboriginal people.
Cultural landscapes reflect the combined works of nature and of
humankind.(73) UNESCO considers that the protection of cultural
landscapes assists in the maintenance of biodiversity, and that the
continuation of traditional land management techniques supports the
preservation of cultural landscapes. Declaration of Uluru-Kata
Tjuta as a cultural landscape extends the nomination from natural
landscape to the full range of cultural values represented in the
landscape. The cultural landscape of the Anangu Tjukurpa
(Aboriginal Law) has been declared an outstanding example of
traditional human settlement patterns and hunting-gathering land
use. The landscape is directly and tangibly associated with events,
living traditions, ideas and beliefs of outstanding universal
significance, and it is a potent example of imbuing the landscape
of Australia with values and creative powers of cultural history
through the phenomenon of sacred sites.(74)
Joint management schemes are now being applied across a variety
of jurisdictions, and with varying degrees of Aboriginal
involvement, but always subject to Commonwealth, State or Territory
legislative controls. There is no coordination of joint management
arrangements across the country and little understanding of the use
of the term and the application of principles of joint management.
Joint management operates under Anglo-Australian principles of law
and not under any recognition of traditional land tenure patterns
or traditional land ownership. Lesley Head has written:
Aborigines continue to have to conform to definitions and
perceptions of Aboriginality imposed by the colonising culture in
order to legitimise access to their land and ... without Aboriginal
control, national parks can be an instrument of dispossession as
much as any other type of European land use.(75)
The spiritual relationship of Aboriginal people to the land, and
the essential character of a socially and geographically contained
Aboriginal law, is still not fully understood by non-Aboriginal
people. Aboriginal land tenure patterns are inadequately fitted
into the dominant cultural and legal model. Challenge to joint
management will come not only from within the management
arrangements but also from new legal structures which now recognise
native title rights under the common law. This is vulnerable to the
whim of the Crown. It has been said that native title 'gave
Aboriginal people a seat at the table' but that it is 'yet to be
seen whether they would be allowed to eat'.(76)
As has been indicated, there can be no single, easily adopted
and easily instituted model of joint management in Aboriginal owned
national parks. Consideration has to be taken of separate
Aboriginal cultural identities, practices and aspirations. The
corporate culture of the management agency may also change. The
internal culture of the Australian Nature Conservation Agency has
adapted and responded to internal structural changes, to external
political and industry pressures and to social developments within
Aboriginal communities. The most significant change has been a move
away from the symbolic recognition of abstract notions of
'traditional ownership' to the formal recognition of the rights to
active participation in the decision-making processes and control
by Aboriginal traditional owners.(77) Informal personal liaison and
communication between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff and
communities has been replaced by more formal, prescribed and
bureaucratic processes more in keeping with the demands of a
developing, more impersonal management agency.
It is important to see joint management, particularly in light
of the native title debate and the progress made by the Aboriginal
Social Justice Commissioner, as operating within the broad range of
contemporary social justice issues in Australia, and not simply as
a solution to the problems of competing land management interests.
Aboriginal owned national parks are not a panacea for solving the
conservation and land rights issues. They establish acceptable and
increasingly recognised mechanisms for communication and conflict
resolution. The integration of traditional and western land
management principles allows for the rights and responsibilities of
Aboriginal people to be recognised within a policy framework of
self-determination. Currently, Aboriginal opinion is that the
procedures established at Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu National
Parks cover the minimum conditions required for cooperative
management of protected areas in Australia.(78)
The cooperative nature of joint management has been identified
as an important feature that provides for 'cross-cultural
development of management processes and conflict resolution'.(79)
The lease agreements provide the basis for negotiating the joint
management process and do not form a rigid basis within which joint
management is codified, but the negotiation processes are
influenced by powerful political actors such as the Northern Land
Council and the Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Individuals,
or even collective groups of traditional owners, have limited power
to affect major changes to the leasing agreement without support
from these players.
ATSIC Environmental Policy Paper
An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission draft policy
proposed guiding principles for the implementation of an
environmental policy acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people. The ATSIC principles supported the need for
effective Aboriginal and Islander participation in the development
of environmental policies, the recognition of traditional
dependence on the management of natural resources and ecosystems,
and the encouragement of greater recognition, by governments and
the community, of the value of traditional knowledge and management
practices.(80) The principles listed self-determination as the
determining principle, followed by ecological sustainability,
conservation in support of sustainability, the application of the
precautionary principle of evaluation, and assessment of potential
risk. In addition, regionality, or implementation and control at
the local and regional level, was to be achieved by sharing
ecological knowledge in exchange for appropriate benefits. These
principles are supported by Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration and
Chapter 26 of Agenda 21 (the Earth Summit).
The strongly worded policy also encouraged the initiation of,
and participation in, regional recovery strategies and joint
management of national parks and world heritage areas in order to
secure and preserve native title rights and interests in relation
to areas of land and sea.(81) This policy determined that native
title rights should accord Aboriginal and Islander people the right
to the sustainable use of the environment for cultural, social and
subsistence purposes. Recognition of native title in common law
emphasises the importance of joint management in protected areas
and the involvement of indigenous people in resource management and
conservation strategies as part of progress towards equitable
participation in the development of joint management schemes and in
decision-making processes at local, state and federal government
levels.
The IUCN Congress at Caracas in 1992 reported that example after
example of protected areas around the world had failed to achieve
satisfactory conservation outcomes because indigenous people were
not given meaningful roles in the establishment, management and
monitoring of protected areas. The linking of traditional ownership
patterns with social and economic development and with conservation
and the establishment of protected areas was a critical issue. For
joint management to work, it requires 'committed, sensitive and
culturally aware players in the cooperating conservation
agencies'.(82)
Sultan, Craig and Ross(83) caution against an uncritical
acceptance of joint management. Lease-back agreements have all been
the result of compromises made by traditional owners which have
involved the imposition of layers of non-Aboriginal laws and
institutions on Aboriginal people. In Australia there are now a
number of diverse joint management proposals, particularly in the
northern States and Territories.
It is evident that joint management in both Kakadu and
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks will continue to be an evolving
process. Many issues still have to be resolved, not the least the
important questions of equitable power-sharing with Aboriginal
traditional owners, the strengthening of the effectiveness of the
Board of Management and the creation of a meaningful and fulfilling
role for Aboriginal rangers within the parks management
service.
National Reserves System
It is appropriate that the Commonwealth should now institute an
integrated approach to Aboriginal participation in the management
of national parks in Australia. The Australian Nature Conservation
Agency is actively seeking a means for the voluntary inclusion of
significant areas of Aboriginal land and sea country within a
managed resource protected area system, the sixth of the IUCN
categories.(84) These protected areas would have a lesser status
than national parks, but would be managed directly by Aboriginal
people in consultation with the Australian Nature Conservation
Agency.
Across the nation the issues of ownership, models of agreement,
subsistence rights and employment opportunities for Aboriginal
people are being debated, but adequate resourcing for protected
area management and a clear definition of Aboriginal protected
areas is needed.(85) Voluntary agreements may strengthen Aboriginal
bargaining power in negotiating land management agreements, but
empowering Aboriginal people in the decision-making process is part
of a more complex process of community development, social justice
and equity.
Moves towards the establishment of a national reserves system by
the year 2000 were confirmed as a policy commitment of the
Commonwealth Government in 1995.(86) The preliminary process
requires a survey of all major ecosystems. The report by Sutherland
and Smyth(87) is a product of the need to consult widely with
Aboriginal land owners across the country and to identify the
resource management issues relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander involvement in protected area management. Similarly, the
needs and aspirations of Aboriginal and Islander people with
coastal marine affiliations is being considered as part of the
strategy for conservation of the marine environment prepared by the
Australian Committee of the IUCN.(88)
National Parks in the Northern Territory
The Northern Territory Government continues to press for control
of all national parks within the Northern Territory and maintains
its opposition to Commonwealth control of national parks. The
Northern Territory Government would expect that all title to land
held by the Director of National Parks and Wildlife for the
purposes of national parks would be handed over to the Conservation
Commission of the Northern Territory or similar body on Statehood,
and a review of the plan of management would be required to take
account of the new governing legislation and to bring Commonwealth
managed protected areas into line with the policy of multiple land
use provisions operating in other parts of the Northern Territory.
Leases would continue to be governed by existing terms with
'appropriate guarantees of Aboriginal ownership', but new or
renegotiated leases would be under terms 'relevant to the
utilisation of mineral resources' and subject to the existing
exploration and mining provisions currently applying to parks and
reserves in the Northern Territory.(89)
Tourism has become a major economic base for the Northern
Territory. Upon Statehood, tourism in the park would be integrated
into the tourism marketing strategies of the Northern Territory
Tourism Commission. In 1993 the Northern Territory Government
issued a discussion paper on directions for tourism development
aimed at providing a comprehensive tourism development strategy
along with 'appropriately regulated resource use within a multiple
use framework'.(90) The long term goal is to create three major
national parks in the Northern Territory: Greater Katherine to
Gurig National Park encompassing Kakadu National Park, Gurig
National Park and Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Parks with a
possible extension to Murgenella and Elsey National Park; the
Greater MacDonnell Ranges National Park with Alice Springs at its
centre; and the Central Australia Desert Ranges National Park
including Watarraka and Finke Gorge National Parks and the
potential extension of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park across Lake
Amadeus. The paper acknowledges that management of the greater
national park system would be complex but justifies the proposal on
the grounds that 'the concept is simple, marketable and makes good
sense in terms of conservation management and tourism
development'.(91)
Nomination and declaration of World Heritage status for Kakadu
and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks has been a continuing source of
political conflict between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory
Governments. The conflict is embedded in two arguments: first, the
need for a secure economic base for the development of a separate
Northern Territory removed from Commonwealth financial and
political control and, secondly, the use of constitutional powers
by the Commonwealth in relation to environmental matters.
International environmental conventions have served to accentuate
the conflict. Developmentalists are opposed to the 'locking up' of
economically important natural resources, and see economic
self-sufficiency as a means to withstand centralist economic
control and exert State sovereignty rights. Environmentalists,
activists in support of the preservation of natural and cultural
heritage from exploitative human activity, oppose any extractive
economic development in protected areas, regardless of
environmental safeguards.(92) There is little understanding of the
Aboriginal position.
Regional Agreements
Regional agreements may be established under the native title
legislation. This will empower Aboriginal and Islander communities
in determining the nature, speed and direction of protected areas
management in Australia. Regional agreements are seen as a way in
which indigenous people in a defined territory can organise
policies, administration and public services. Included within this
arrangement is a wide range of land use, management and
conservation issues.(93) Aboriginal reluctance to allocate land for
conservation will continue until the processes of negotiation and
empowerment are tested through meaningful policies and real
empowerment of Aboriginal land owners. Obstacles to regional
agreements continue to be the multiplicity of conservation
agencies, lack of coordination between agencies at the Federal,
State and Territory levels, inadequate funding for long-term
conservation projects involving Aboriginal and Islander people,
management and skills training, and the need to involve whole
communities rather than just individuals in the negotiation
processes.
The rise of environmentalism in Australia since the 1970s at
first appeared to offer a means for linking Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal values and attitudes to land, but this has not been
achieved. Values and perceptions of land and the conservation of
natural resources in Australia continue to divide Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal people. For Aboriginal people, 'country' is more
than just an exploitable economic resource; it is the basis of
cultural identity. For non-Aboriginal people, land is more
generally seen as a commodity, to be exclusively owned and traded.
Joint management of protected areas is an attempt to implement
conservation and land management policies that protect Aboriginal
interests. However, the declaration of
conservation status over Aboriginal land is widely regarded by
Aboriginal people as an imposition and a further means of political
control over socially and culturally legitimate Aboriginal land
management activities.
Finding ways in which Aboriginal and Islander people can be
fully integrated into decision-making processes, establishing means
for advancement and employment, and creating the means for the
resolution of conflicts within a framework of administration that
acknowledges that it is an imposition, and not a model, is critical
if the double tragedy of ecosystem loss and cultural loss is to be
avoided. Successful adaptation of management systems will only be
achieved if Aboriginal people see joint management as a means for
reestablishing control over traditional lands, view the process as
assisting in the maintenance of cultural and community identity,
and consider it to be part of a wider social justice package.
Joint management is not simply a conservation agreement, it is
part of the wider issue of social justice, community development
and preservation of cultural integrity. This is not fully
understood nor recognised by management agencies and the
conservation community. If this broader focus is not recognised
then the declaration of more protected areas in Australia will
continue to be seen as paternalism, at best, and internal
colonialism, at worst.(94)
In planning future joint management arrangements policy makers
need to be aware that although Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National
Parks offer acceptable management models, they are models which can
be improved upon.
- Machlis, G.E. & Tichnell, D.L., The State of the
World's Parks: an international assessment for resource management,
policy and, research, Boulder, Westview, 1985, p. 19.
- IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas,
Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories,
Gland, IUCN, 1994, p. 7.
- Ibid., p 19.
- Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1986a,
Kakadu National Park: plan of management, Canberra, ANPWS,
1986, pp. 1-2.
- Jackson, P.B., 'National parks and indigenous peoples',
Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and
Policy, 4(2), 1993, p. 504.
- Wilson, A., 1992, The Culture of Nature: North American
landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez, Cambridge,
Blackwell, 1992, p. 227.
- Stevens, S., Inhabited National Parks: indigenous peoples
in protected landscapes, Canberra, Centre for Resource and
Environmental Studies, Australian National University, 1986, p.
6.
- Lowry, W.R., 1994, The Capacity to Wonder: preserving
national parks, Washington, Brookings Institution, 1994, p. 4;
and Kemf, E. (editor), The Law of the Mother: protecting
indigenous peoples in protected areas, San Francisco, Sierra
Club Books, 1993, p 6.
- Stevens, S., op. cit., pp 8-9.
- Machlis, G.E. and Tichnell, D.L., op. cit., p 12; and
Hall, C.M., Wasteland to World Heritage: preserving Australia's
wilderness, Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, 1992, pp.
101, 232.
- Wilson, A., op. cit., p. 235.
- Stevens, S., op. cit., pp. 23, 26.
- Wilson, A., op. cit., pp. 227-28.
- Lowry, W.R., op. cit., pp. 139-140.
- Wilson, A., op. cit., p. 239.
- Bridgewater, P., 'World Heritage and its role in a National
Nature Conservation System: an Australian perspective',
Australian Parks and Recreation, 29(3), 1993, p. 41.
- Stevens, S., op. cit., p. 30.
- Rose, B., Aboriginal Land Management Issues in Central
Australia, Alice Springs, Central Land Council, Cross-Cultural
Land Management Project, 1992, p. 26.
- Strelein, L.M., 1993, 'Indigenous people and protected
landscapes in Western Australia', Environmental and Planning
Law Journal, 10(6), 1993, p. 382.
- Rose, B., op. cit., p. 27; and Robertson, M., Vang, K.
& Brown, A.J., Wilderness in Australia: issues and
options, Canberra, Australian Heritage Commission, 1992, p.
xi.
- Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and Kakadu
National Park Board of Management, Kakadu National Park: plan
of management, Canberra, ANPWS, 1991, p. 16.
- Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Kakadu
National Park: plan of management, Canberra, ANPWS, 1980.
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, A Fine
and Delicate Balance: a discussion paper on ATSIC's draft
environment policy, Canberra, ATSIC, 1994, p. 17.
- Strelein, L.M., op. cit., p. 383.
- Australia, Parliament, House of Representatives, Standing
Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts,
Biodiversity: the role of protected areas, Canberra, AGPS,
1993, p. 67.
- Australian Law Reform Commission, The Recognition of
Aboriginal Customary Law, Canberra, AGPS, 1986, pp. 181,
224.
- Brown, A.J., Keeping the Land Alive: Aboriginal people and
wilderness protection in Australia, Sydney, Wilderness Society
and the Environmental Defender's Office, 1992, pp. 115-120.
- Young, E., Ross, H., Johnson, J. & Kesteven, J., Caring
for Country: Aborigines and land management, Canberra,
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1991, p. 140.
- Merlan, F., 'Entitlement and need: concepts underlying and in
Land Rights and Native Title Acts', in Claims to Knowledge,
Claims to Country: native title, native title claims and the role
of the anthropologist, edited by Edmunds, M. Canberra, Native
Titles Research Unit, AIATSIS, 1994, pp. 18-19.
- Young, E.A., 'Managing the land: land and Aboriginal community
development in Australia', in Indigenous Land Rights in
Commonwealth Countries: dispossession, negotiation and community
action, edited by Cant, G., Overton, J. & Pawson, E.
Christchurch, Department of Geography, University of Canterbury and
the Ngai Pahu Maori Trust Board for the Commonwealth Geographical
Bureau, 1993, p. 227; and Australia, Parliament, House of
Representatives, Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and
the Arts, op. cit., p. 61.
- Brown, A.J., op. cit., pp. 78-79.
- McNeely, J., Parks for Life: report of the IVth World
Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, 10-21 February
1992, Gland, IUCN, 1993, pp. 14-16, 35-36.
- United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,
Outcomes of the Conference (Agenda 21) Rio de Janeiro,
[Rio de Janeiro?], Ministry of External Relations and Trade,
Ministry for the Environment, 1992, p 381-384; Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Commission, op. cit., p. 16; United
Nations. Economic and Social Council, Technical Conference on
Sustainable Development: discrimination against indigenous
peoples, New York, United Nations Economic and Social Council,
1990; and Egede, I., 1992, Discrimination Against Indigenous
Peoples: report of the United Nations Technical Conference ...
(Santiago, Chile, 18-22 May 1992), New York, United Nations
Economic and Social Council, 1992.
- Brown, A.J., op. cit., p. 78.
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, op.
cit., pp. 17, 20.
- Rose, B., Land Management Issues: attitudes and perceptions
amongst Aboriginal people of central Australia, Alice Springs,
Central Land Council, 1995, pp. 90-91.
- Willis, J, 'Two laws, one lease: accounting for traditional
Aboriginal law in the lease for Uluru National Park', in
Aboriginal Involvement in Parks and Protected Areas,
edited by Birckhead, J., De Lacy, T. & Smith, L. Canberra,
Aboriginal Studies Press, 1992, p. 166.
- Weaver, S.M., 'The role of Aboriginals in the management of
Australia's Coburg (Gurig) and Kakadu National Parks', in
Resident Peoples and National Parks, edited by West, P.C.
& Brechin, S.R. Tuscon, University of Arizona Press, 1991, p.
313.
- Davey, S., 'Creative communities: planning and comanaging
protected areas', in The Law of the Mother, edited by
Kemf, E. San Francisco, Sierra Club Books, 1993.
- Ibid., p. 204.
- Woenne-Green, S., Johnston, R., Sultan, R. & Wallis, A.,
Competing Interests: Aboriginal participation in national parks
and conservation reserves in Australia, Fitzroy, Australian
Conservation Foundation, 1994, p. 296.
- Ibid., p. xxxv.
- Marsden, D. & Oakley, P. (editors), Evaluating Social
Development Projects, Oxford, Oxfam, 1990, p. 1-10.
- Woenne-Green, S., Johnston, R., Sultan, R. & Wallis, A.,
op. cit., p. 296; and Weaver, op. cit., p.
313.
- Hough, J.L., 1988, 'Obstacles to effective management of
conflicts between national parks and surrounding human communities
in developing countries', Environmental Conservation,
15(2), 1988, p. 129.
- Australia, House of Representatives, Standing Committee on
Environment, Recreation and the Arts, op. cit., p. 68; and
Craig, D., 'Environmental law and Aboriginal rights: legal
framework for Aboriginal joint management of Australian national
parks', in Aboriginal Involvement in Parks and Protected
Areas, edited by Birckhead, J., De Lacy, T. & Smith, L.
Canberra, Aboriginal Studies Press, 1992, p. 147.
- Strelein, L.M., op. cit., p. 390.
- Craig, D., op. cit., p. 147.
- Johnston, E. (Commissioner), National Report, Royal
Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, Canberra, AGPS,
1991, vol. 1, p. 22.
- Johnston, E. (Commissioner), op. cit., Overview and
recommendations, p. 100.
- Johnston, E., op.cit. p. 101; Australia, Royal
Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, Aboriginal Deaths
in Custody: response by Governments to the Royal Commission,
vol. III, p. 1194-1195.
- Australia, Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody,
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: response by Governments to the
Royal Commission, Canberra, AGPS, 1992, vol. I, pp. 1194-1205,
1271, and vol. II, p. 718; and Woenne-Green, S., Johnston, R.,
Sultan, R. & Wallis, A., op. cit., pp. i-ii.
- Ibid., p. 10.
- Tickner, Robert, 1995, Aboriginal Land Grant and Management
(Jervis Bay Territory) Amendment Bill 1995: second reading
speech, Canberra, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of
Australia; and Australia. Laws, Statutes, etc, Aboriginal Land
Grant and Management (Jervis Bay Territory) Legislation Amendment
Bill 1995.
- Lawrence, D., Kakadu: the making of a national park,
Darwin, ANCA and NARU, in press.
- Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and Kakadu
National Park Board of Management, op. cit., p. 11; and
Commonwealth Gazette GN 28, 26 July 1989.
- Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust and Australian National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Memorandum of lease, np, 1991.
- Woenne-Green, S., Johnston, R., Sultan, R. & Wallis, A.,
op. cit., p. 294.
- Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and Kakadu
National Park Board of Management, op. cit.
- Craig, D., op. cit., p. 146.
- Lawrence, D., op. cit.
- Craig, D., op. cit., pp. 144-146.
- Ditton, P. (Project Director), 1990, Mutitjulu: a unique
community, np, 1990,
pp.99-102, 197.
- Taylor, P., Evaluation of Aboriginal Training and
Employment at Kakadu, Canberra, ANPWS, 1987; and Wignell, P.
& Boyd, K., Kakadu National Park as a Case Study in
Workplace Literacy, Darwin, Faculty of Education, Northern
Territory University, 1994, p. 26.
- Wignell & Boyd, op. cit., p. 27.
- Ditton, op. cit., p. 203.
- Evans, Nicholas, Mayali Dictionary, np, 1991.
- Harvey, M., 'The Gaagudju people and their language',
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 1992.
- Merlan, F., 'Study of the Jawoyn language', Unpublished report
to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1992.
- Rose, B., Land Management Issues: attitudes and perceptions
amongst Aboriginal people of central Australia, Alice Springs,
Central Land Council, 1995, p. 91.
- Woenne-Green, S., Johnston, R., Sultan, R. & Wallis, A.,
op. cit., p. 285.
- Ibid., p. 284.
- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
the World Heritage Convention. Revised edition, Paris, UNESCO,
1995, p. 10.
- Australia, Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, Renomination of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park by
the Commonwealth of Australia for inscription on the World Heritage
List, Canberra, DEST, 1994, p. 4.
- Head, L., 'Australian Aborigines and a changing environment
views of the past and implications for the future', in
Aboriginal Involvement in Parks and Protected Areas,
edited by Birckhead, J., De Lacy, T. & Smith, L. Canberra,
Aboriginal Studies Press, 1992, p. 47.
- Strelein, L.M., op. cit., p. 393.
- Brown, A.J., op. cit., p. 79-80.
- Australia, Parliament, House of Representatives, Standing
Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts, op.
cit., p. 69.
- Sultan, R., Craig, D. & Ross, H., 'Aboriginal joint
management of Australian national parks: Uluru-Kata Tjuta: case
study', in Inter-Commission Task Force on Indigenous Peoples:
workshop papers: workshop 31 March-2 April 1993, np, IUCN,
1993, p. 13.
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, op.
cit., p. 16.
- Ibid., pp. 2, 5-6.
- De Lacy, T., 'The Uluru/Kakadu model Anangu Tjukurrpa: 50,000
years of Aboriginal law and land management changing the concept of
national parks in Australia', Society and Natural
Resources, 7, 1994, pp. 480-481, 493.
- Sultan, R., Craig, D. & Ross, H., op. cit., p.
16.
- Sutherland, J. & Smyth, D., 'Investigating Conservation
Partnerships with Indigenous Land Holders, phase one report:
legislative options and constraints', Atherton, D. Smyth and C.
Bahrdt Consultants, 1995.
- De Lacy, T., op. cit., p. 495.
- Australian Nature Conservation Agency, National Reserves
System Cooperative Program (NRSCP): general briefing,
Canberra, ANCA, 1995; and Thackway, R. & Cresswell, I.D.,
An Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia,
Canberra, ANCA, 1995.
- Sutherland, J. & Smyth, D., op. cit.
- Australian Committee for IUCN, 1994, Towards a Strategy for
the Conservation of Australia's Marine Environment, Sydney,
The Committee, 1994, pp. 19-20.
- Northern Territory of Australia, Legislative Assembly,
Towards Statehood: national parks upon statehood, Options
paper, September 1987, Darwin, Legislative Assembly of the Northern
Territory, 1987, pp. 24, 37, 45.
- Northern Territory of Australia, Directions for Northern
Territory Tourism Development: a discussion paper, Darwin,
Northern Territory Tourism Commission, 1993.
- Ibid., p. 22; and Northern Territory of Australia,
1994, Northern Territory Tourism Development Masterplan: A
commitment to growth, Darwin, Northern Territory Government,
1994, p. 42.
- Tsamenyi, B.M. & Bedding, J.M., 'Implementing international
environmental law in Australia: case law analysis', Journal of
Environmental Law, 2(1), 1990, p. 119.
- Harris, A. (editor), A Good Idea Waiting to Happen:
regional agreements in Australia, Cairns, Cape York Land
Council and Australian Conservation Foundation, 1995.
- Stevens, S., op. cit., p. 30.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. A Fine and
Delicate Balance: a discussion paper on ATSIC's draft environment
policy. Canberra, ATSIC, 1994.
Australia. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories.
Renomination of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park by the
Commonwealth of Australia for Inscription on the World Heritage
List. Canberra, DEST, 1994.
Australia. Laws, statutes, etc. Aboriginal Land Rights
(Northern Territory) Amendment Act (No. 3) 1978.
Australia. Laws, statutes, etc. Aboriginal Land Rights
(Northern Territory) Amendment Act (No. 2) 1978.
Australia. Laws, statutes, etc. National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Amendment Act 1978.
Australia. Laws, statutes, etc. National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Amendment Act 1979.
Australia. Laws, statutes, etc. National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Amendment Act 1985.
Australia. Laws, statutes, etc. National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Amendment Act 1987.
Australia. Laws, statutes, etc. National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1987.
Australia. Laws, statutes, etc. Aboriginal Land Rights
(Northern Territory) Amendment Act 1989.
Australia. Laws, statutes, etc. Native Title Act
1993.
Australia. Laws, Statutes, etc. Aboriginal Land Grant and
Management (Jervis Bay territory) Legislation Amendment
Bill.
Australia. Parliament. House of Representatives. Standing
Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts.
Biodiversity: the role of protected areas. Canberra, AGPS,
1993.
Australia. Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: response by Governments to the
Royal Commission. Canberra, AGPS, 1992.
Australian Committee for IUCN. Towards a Strategy for the
Conservation of Australia's Marine Environment. Sydney, the
Committee, 1994.
Australian Law Reform Commission. The Recognition of
Aboriginal Customary Law. Canberra, AGPS, 1986.
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Kakadu
National Park: plan of management. Canberra, ANPWS, 1980.
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Kakadu
National Park: plan of management. Canberra, ANPWS, 1986.
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Uluru (Ayers
Rock - Mount Olga) National Park: plan of management.
Canberra, ANPWS, 1986.
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Uluru (Ayers
Rock - Mount Olga) National Park: plan of management.
Canberra, ANPWS, 1991.
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Annual
report, 1990-91. Canberra, ANPWS, 1991.
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Annual
report, 1991-92. Canberra, ANPWS, 1992.
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service & Kakadu
National Park Board of Management. Kakadu National Park: plan
of management. Canberra, ANPWS, 1991.
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service &
[Commonwealth] Department of Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism
and Territories. Nomination of Kakadu National Park by the
Government of Australia for Inscription on the World Heritage
List. Canberra, ANPWS & DASETT, 1991.
Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Annual report,
1992-93. Canberra, ANCA, 1993.
Australian Nature Conservation Agency. National reserves
System Cooperative program (NRSCP): general briefing.
Canberra, ANCA, 1995.
Bridgewater, P. 'World Heritage and its role in a National
Nature Conservation System: an Australian perspective',
Australian Parks and Recreation, 29(3), 1993.
Brown, A.J., Keeping the Land Alive: Aboriginal people and
wilderness protection in Australia. Sydney, Wilderness Society
and the Environmental Defender's Office, 1992.
Commonwealth Gazette, GN 28, 26 June 1989.
Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory. Gurig
National Park: plan of management. Darwin, Conservation
Commission of the Northern Territory on behalf of the Coburg
Peninsula Sanctuary Board, 1987.
Craig, D. 'Environmental law and Aboriginal rights: legal
framework for Aboriginal joint management of Australian national
parks', in Aboriginal Involvement in Parks and Protected
Areas, edited by Birckhead, J., De Lacy, T. & Smith, L.
Canberra, Aboriginal Studies Press, 1992.
Davey, S. 'Creative communities: planning and comanaging
protected areas', in The Law of the Mother, edited by
Kemf, E. San Francisco, Sierra Club Books, 1993.
De Lacy, T. 'The Uluru/Kakadu model Anangu Tjukurrpa: 50,000
years of Aboriginal law and land management changing the concept of
national parks in Australia', Society and Natural
Resources, 7, 1994.
Ditton, P. (Project Director). Mutitjulu: a unique
community. np, 1990.
Egede, I., Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples: report
of the United Nations Technical Conference ... (Santiago, Chile,
18-22 May 1992). New York, United Nations Economic and Social
Council, 1992.
Eidsvik, H.K. 'National parks and other protected areas: some
reflections on the past and prescriptions for the future',
Environmental Conservation, 7(3), 1980.
Evans, N. Mayali Dictionary. np, 1991.
Fox, A. 'Kakadu is Aboriginal land', Ambio, 12(3/4),
1983.
Friesema, H.P. 'American Indians and the national parks of the
southwest', in International Perspectives on Cultural Parks:
proceedings of the First World Conference, Mesa Verde National
Park, Colorado, 1984. np, United States National Park Service
and the Colorado Historical Society, 1989.
Gibson, S. '"This Rock is Sacred": the Northern Territory
Government and the handback of Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga)
National park, November 1983 May 1986'. Unpublished Graduate
Diploma of Arts (History) thesis, Northern Territory University,
1994.
Hall, C.M. Wasteland to World Heritage: preserving
Australia's wilderness. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press,
1992.
Harris, A. (editor). A Good Idea Waiting to Happen: regional
agreements in Australia. Cairns, Cape York Land Council and
Australian Conservation Foundation, 1995.
Harvey, M. 'The Gaagudju people and their language'. Unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 1992.
Head, L. 'Australian Aborigines and a changing environment views
of the past and implications for the future', in Aboriginal
Involvement in Parks and Protected Areas, edited by Birckhead,
J., De Lacy, T. & Smith, L. Canberra, Aboriginal Studies Press,
1992.
Hill, M. & Press, T. 'Kakadu National Park: an Australian
experience in joint management'. Paper prepared for the Liz
Claiborne / Art Ortenberg Foundation Community-based Conservation
Workshop held in Airlie, Virginia, 18-22 October 1993.
Hough, J.L. 'Obstacles to effective management of conflicts
between national parks and surrounding human communities in
developing countries', Environmental Conservation, 15(2),
1988.
IUCN. Protected Areas of the World: a review of national
systems: Volume 1, Indomalaya, Oceania, Australia and
Antarctic. Gland, IUCN, 1992.
IUCN. Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas.
Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories.
Gland, IUCN, 1994.
Jackson, P.B. 'National parks and indigenous peoples',
Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and
Policy, 4(2), 1993.
Johnston, Elliott (Commissioner). National Report, Overview
and Recommendations: Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in
Custody. Canberra, AGPS, 1991.
Johnston, Elliott (Commissioner). National Report, Volume 1:
Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Canberra,
AGPS, 1991.
Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust & Australian National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Memorandum of lease. np, 1991.
Kemf, E. (editor). The Law of the Mother: protecting
indigenous peoples in protected areas. San Francisco, Sierra
Club Books, 1993.
Lawrence, D. Kakadu: the making of a national park.
Darwin, Australian Nature Conservation Agency and the North
Australia Research Unit, Australian National University, in
press.
Lowry, W.R. The Capacity to Wonder: preserving national
parks. Washington, Brookings Institution, 1994.
Machlis, G.E. and Tichnell, D.L. The State of the World's
Parks: an international assessment for resource management, policy
and, research. Boulder, Westview, 1985.
Marsden, D. & Oakley, P. (editors). Evaluating Social
Development Projects. Oxford, Oxfam, 1990.
McNeely, J. 'Afterword', in The Law of the Mother,
edited by Kemf, E. San Francisco, Sierra Club Books, 1993.
McNeely, J. Parks for Life: report of the IVth World
Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, 10-21 February
1992. Gland, IUCN, 1993.
Merlan, F. 'Study of the Jawoyn language', Unpublished report to
the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1992.
Merlan, F. 'Entitlement and need: concepts underlying and in
Land Rights and Native Title Acts', in Claims to Knowledge,
Claims to Country: native title, native title claims and the role
of the anthropologist, edited by Edmunds, M. Canberra, Native
Titles Research Unit, AIATSIS, 1994.
Northern Land Council, Files 88/0006, 89/0303, 1986-1991.
Northern Territory of Australia. Directions for Northern
Territory Tourism Development: a discussion paper. Darwin,
Northern Territory Tourism Commission, 1993.
Northern Territory of Australia. Northern Territory Tourism
Development Masterplan: a commitment to growth. Darwin,
Northern Territory Government, 1994.
Northern Territory of Australia. Legislative Assembly.
Towards Statehood: national parks upon statehood. Options
paper, September 1987. Darwin, Legislative Assembly of the Northern
Territory, 1987.
O'Riordan, T. Environmentalism. London, Pion, 1976.
Robertson, M., Vang, K. & Brown, A.J. Wilderness in
Australia: issues and options. Discussion paper. Canberra,
Australian Heritage Commission, 1992.
Rose, B. Aboriginal Land Management Issues in Central
Australia. Alice Springs, Central Land Council, Cross-Cultural
Land Management Project, 1992.
Rose, B. Land Management Issues: attitudes and perceptions
amongst Aboriginal people of central Australia. Alice Springs,
Central Land Council, 1995.
Russell-Smith, J. 'Flora', in Kakadu: natural and cultural
heritage and management, edited by Press, T., Lea, D., Webb,
A. & Graham, A. Darwin, Australian Nature Conservation Agency
and the North Australia Research Unit, Australian National
University, 127-166, 1995.
Stevens, S. Inhabited National Parks: indigenous peoples in
protected landscapes. Canberra, Centre for Resource and
Environmental Studies, Australian National University, 1986.
Strelein, L.M. 'Indigenous people and protected landscapes in
Western Australia', Environmental and Planning Law
Journal, 10(6), 1993.
Sultan, R., Craig, D. & Ross, H. 'Aboriginal joint
management of Australian national parks: Uluru-Kata Tjuta: case
study', in Inter-Commission Task Force on Indigenous Peoples:
workshop papers: workshop 31 March-2 April 1993. np, IUCN,
1-18, 1993.
Sutherland, J. & Smyth, D. 'Investigating Conservation
Partnerships with Indigenous Land Holders, phase one report:
legislative options and constraints'. Draft. Atherton, D. Smyth and
C. Bahrdt Consultants, 1995.
Taylor, P. Evaluation of Aboriginal Training and Employment
at Kakadu. Canberra, ANPWS, 1987.
Thackway, R and Cresswell, I.D. An Interim Biogeographic
Regionalisation for Australia. Canberra, ANCA, 1995
Tickner, R. Aboriginal Land Grant and Management (Jervis Bay
Territory) Amendment Bill 1995: second reading speech.
Canberra, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1995.
Tsamenyi, B.M. & Bedding, J.M. 'Implementing international
environmental law in Australia: case law analysis', Journal of
Environmental Law, 2(1), 1990.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
Outcomes of the Conference (Agenda 21) Rio de Janeiro.
[Rio de Janeiro?], Ministry of External Relations and Trade &
Ministry for the Environment, 1992.
United Nations Economic and Social Council. Technical
Conference on Sustainable Development: discrimination against
indigenous peoples. New York, United Nations Economic and
Social Council, 1990.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
the World Heritage Convention. Revised edition. Paris, UNESCO,
1995.
Weaver, S.M. 'The role of Aboriginals in the management of
Australia's Coburg (Gurig) and Kakadu National Parks', in
Resident Peoples and National Parks, edited by West, P.C.
& Brechin, S.R. Tuscon, University of Arizona Press, 1991.
Wignell, P. & Boyd, K. Kakadu National Park as a Case
Study in Workplace Literacy. Darwin, Faculty of Education,
Northern Territory University, 1994.
Willis, J. 'Two laws, one lease: accounting for traditional
Aboriginal law in the lease for Uluru National Park', in
Aboriginal Involvement in Parks and Protected Areas,
edited by Birckhead, J., De Lacy, T. & Smith, L. Canberra,
Aboriginal Studies Press, 1992.
Wilson, A. The Culture of Nature: North American landscape
from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Cambridge, Blackwell,
1992.
Woenne-Green, S., Johnston, R., Sultan, R. & Wallis, A.
Competing Interests: Aboriginal participation in national parks
and conservation reserves in Australia. Fitzroy, Australian
Conservation Foundation, 1994.
Young, E., Ross, H., Johnson, J. & Kesteven, J. Caring
for Country: Aborigines and land management. Canberra,
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1991.
Young, E.A. 'Managing the land: land and Aboriginal community
development in Australia', in Indigenous Land Rights in
Commonwealth Countries: dispossession, negotiation and community
action, edited by Cant, G., Overton, J. & Pawson, E.
Christchurch, Department of Geography, University of Canterbury and
the Ngai Pahu Maori Trust Board for the Commonwealth Geographical
Bureau, 1993.