National Forum

Reconciling nature conservation objectives with Indigenous land management aspirations
Mr Steve Szabo

What is the Indigenous Protected Areas Program

For thousands of generations, the management of natural and cultural resources in this land was entirely the domain of the original inhabitants. In that context, Indigenous management regimes evolved to promote long term, sustainable resource use for their economic and social well-being. In many regions and communities, a contemporary expression of the traditional responsibility of 'caring for country' can be seen in the establishment and operations of local land management organisations.

Still today Aboriginal Land holders and lands are making a very valuable contribution to the national effort to conserve Australia's biodiversity. Some communities are declaring their lands as protected areas in accordance with internationally agreed protected areas standards and guidelines. These areas are supported through the Commonwealth's Indigenous Protected Areas Program.

I am not sure the name of my presentation RECONCILING NATURE CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES WITH INDIGENOUS LAND MANAGEMENT ASPIRATIONS, is entirely appropriate because it implies there is some conflict. I don't think this is the case but given the difficulties in gaining acceptance of indigenous involvement in protected areas nationally, it is evident not everyone is convinced. In my view the only reconciling that needs to be done is in terms of people's understandings, expectations and perceptions, but not with the reality of day to day management.

I have 15 minutes to cover what is a pretty big story and so I apologise in advance for making some pretty broad generalisations.

Generalisation No 1 In Australia, it is that land which has been most exposed to the western land management regimes and decision making that is in the worst condition. Conversely, that the land where Indigenous land management regimes have persisted are those which have best maintained their biodiversity values. So we might conclude that Indigenous land ownership and management is good for the whole country, or at least good for its biodiversity. More than just a benefit to Aboriginal people.

Generalisation No 2 One of the primary reasons why Indigenous people have so doggedly pursued their land ownership (land rights) agenda, in spite of the forces against them, is their sense of responsibility for the health of their traditional lands (it really is a duty of care). They are saddened and in many instances frightened by the consequences of the lack of respect shown for the land over the past 220 years. They also feel partly responsible for not having protected it so when they get it back restoration is a high priority.

Generalisation No. 3 In thinking about Indigenous land management, knowledge and skills and what we all can learn from it, I believe it is also important to consider some of what Indigenous people don't do as much as what they do.

For instance, it is extremely unlikely that an Indigenous Traditional Owner would consider chaining a couple thousand hectares of their traditional lands, laser levelling it and putting in a genetically modified cotton crop. I have never spoken with an Indigenous person who wants to clear a mangrove area for a marina, hotel and golf course development, turn lowland rainforest into a cane field or change the course of a river and reducing its natural flow by 99%. These kinds of actions would be seen as an act of desecration. In saying this I don't hold any naïve views that all Aboriginal people are born conservationists or that they should be frozen in time but rather that there are some things they would not do.

So why didn't the original Australians run down their natural capital the way the settlers have since arriving ? And why do they now want to repair the damage if and when they regain some control ? Is it because they were unsophisticated and lacked the technology ? They did not invent the wheel or the bulldozer or the chainsaw. Or Did they understand some things about this land and what it can sustain that the settlers did not ? Perhaps they have other values, associations and relationships with the land that prevent them from seeing their land primarily as a way of making profits ?

Generalisation No 4 - That most of those areas which governments have set aside for conservation are failing to properly protect the values for which they were established. This is not the fault of government nature conservation agencies but rather the inability or unwillingness of governments to commit the resources required for managing an ever increasing government conservation estate. The proclaiming of new national parks is a good way for a government to demonstrate their environmental credentials. However, committing to providing the recurrent resources to ensure proper management in the long term is far less appealing. In all Australian jurisdictions the statutory protected area estate is increasing, but the on-going resources required for effective management is not keeping pace. These national parks often amount to little more than lines on maps. Few national parks have current management plans and even fewer have adequate staffing and resourcing levels to tackle their complex environmental and management problems.

This new approach to biodiversity conservation and protected areas - that of Indigenous Protected Areas - has been quietly developing over the past 6 years. During that time the Commonwealth has been involved with Indigenous groups, State and Territory conservation agencies and NGOs in negotiating a partnership approach for enhanced Indigenous involvement in protected area management.

Joint Management

The concept of Aboriginal joint management of national parks has been around for over 20 years ago starting with the establishment of Kakadu National Park on Aboriginal owned land in the NT. The IPA concept has been informed by these developments but differs from joint management in some significant ways.

Many of Australia's statutory protected areas have been acquired because of their high scenic and/or biodiversity values. Such areas invariably also have significant cultural value for Indigenous people. Consequently, across Australia (and the rest of the world) Indigenous peoples have been in conflict with nature conservation agencies over the acquisition and management by governments of statutory protected areas (Mitchell Plateau is a recent WA example and Rudall River and Purnululu not so long ago).

As a result of these kinds of situations Aboriginal people and government conservation agencies often view each other with mistrust.
Secondly, until relatively recently, the only Indigenous owned protected areas were those which had been established or continued as a pre-condition to the granting of Indigenous title. Although Indigenous land holders have a say in the management of those national parks via boards of management and other cooperative management mechanisms, they had no say in the original decision as to whether a protected areas was to be declared or not. Additionally these joint managed parks are still run by government agencies and largely staffed by non-Indigenous people.

WHAT ARE PROTECTED AREAS AND INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AREAS IN PARTICULAR ?

Indigenous Protected Areas look and act very much like national parks with similar management objectives but they are owned, managed and controlled by the Indigenous traditional owners. Local Aboriginal people are employed there and the management responsibility as well as any benefits rests with the community. This includes any jobs, tourism and other enterprise opportunity. Government agencies as with conservation on private lands have a supportive and advisory role.

With Indigenous Protected Areas the government doesn't have to buy land as is the case with "normal' protected areas. Bear in mind that you can spend a lot money buying land for conservation, but the act of purchasing land in itself does not protect it. Indigenous Protected Areas benefit the whole community because at very little cost these lands become part of the nation's reserve system. The Aboriginal land holders volunteer to declare and manage their lands as protected areas. Through a contractual agreement with the Commonwealth and in some instances with a State government as a third party, the land holder commits to maintaining the natural and cultural values of their lands to a particular standard and for an agreed period of time. In return for Commonwealth provides some funding and technical assistance to implement their works programs.

All Indigenous Protected Areas have management plans before they are declared, all have people living and working on them and all have been declared as the result of well-informed voluntary decisions by the community concerned.

The funding for Indigenous Protected Areas comes from the Natural Heritage Trust and is managed through Environment Australia. It has enabled 13 new protected areas to be declared since August 1998 in all jurisdictions except WA and NSW. A grand total of 3.16 million hectares of Indigenous owned land has now been added to the national system of protected areas. To date we have spent just under $3 million dollars - less than a dollar per hectare !

Another million or more hectares is only months away. This is a great story and one I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to share you. It runs parallel with the efforts of many non-Indigenous people to protect the natural values of the land they privately own.

I believe there is real opportunities and benefits in developing collaborative approaches between these two very similar community based initiatives. Private land holders may be aware that their privately held lands will retain indigenous cultural values and associations, irrespective of current tenure. This should be considered by land holders in their efforts to formalise the conservation status of their properties or in the acquisition of new areas for conservation. It would be a pity to be competing on the land market when both Indigenous and conservation interests can be accommodated. Understanding and protecting the indigenous values on privately owned conservation areas will enrich them and enhance their management in the same way as it has done with national parks like Kakadu, Uluru or Karijini.

It is important to note that Indigenous Protected Areas concept are not in competition with government protected area agencies. There remains a need for well managed and well resourced statutory protected areas. Indigenous Protected Areas have most value in regions (Bioregions) where Indigenous people are the predominant land holders and other approaches to reserve establishment are limited or likely to cause conflict.

Recurring concerns
In addressing issues such as Indigenous Protected Areas and cooperative management with State and Territory agencies and conservation NGOs over many years a few recurring concerns have arisen.

This is where the reconciling part in the title of my talk comes in. It has been and remains very difficult to overcome misconceptions and resistance to developing new approaches such as Indigenous Protected Areas and protected areas on private lands particularly where they are components of the National Reserve System Program.

Clearly there is a lack of trust and confidence in Indigenous people to take responsibility for land management on behalf of or in partnership with government. The irony of this is astounding given the history and many of the current practices of western land management institutions.

Regarding greater Indigenous and community involvement in protected area management many government conservation agencies appear to be saying that is our job and even if we aren't able to do a great job we don't really want others to step up. Proper conservation is done by government agencies through legislative means - 'National Parks'r'Us, and everything else is a bit Mickey Mouse. While they see room for conservation on private lands, and Indigenous lands, these community based approaches tend to be relegated to the 'off-reserve' category of conservation, generally seen as a lesser form of protection. I am pleased that this conference is actively challenging these assumptions and the agencies seem to be listening.

Community input into management of statutory reserves, is still through the somewhat exploitative Friends of the National Park type groups. The role of Friends is to provide free arms and legs to make up for inadequate staffing but they have no role in management decisions or setting priorities. This appears to be changing with a growing number of park advisory councils developing for particular parks where there are noisy local interests. These councils are comprised of the usual suite of 'stakeholders' and are particularly well represented by members of the tourism industry. There was and remains resistance to openness and an unwillingness to share responsibility by some agencies irrespective of how over stretched they are.

NGOs concerns
The NGOs have also had some concerns. On the NGO side it has been the old chestnut
· "Indigenous people eat biodiversity".
· I have heard NGO representatives describe Aboriginal park staff as "ranger poachers" or say things like …
· "I don't mind them hunting so long as they use traditional methods".
· "We've worked for years to get these national parks for conservation, not for Aborigines to hunt in them."

These misconceptions has been very resilient over the years among many in the non-government sector. There are many aspect to Indigenous involvement in protected area management besides hunting but we don't have time to explore them all today. Suffice to say that in relation to wildlife use where it is practiced on protected areas, it should be seen as a management issue, not an ideological one. (Explain here)

Indigenous lands and land owners are making a very substantial contribution to the national conservation effort by declaring Indigenous Protected Areas. They are doing this at a cost to themselves by choosing not to commercially exploit these lands and by committing significant human and other community resources to their management.

The willingness of Indigenous people to dedicate their lands as Indigenous Protected Areas is based on their traditional responsibility to care for and manage their country, a responsibility they has been passed down to them from previous generations. They also have responsibilities to the current and future generations of Australians. It is also an expression of a desire for recognition and respect, for legitimizing their role and capacity as stewards of the land, to be seen as providers of a valuable environmental service to the broader community not always recipients of community largesse.

While Indigenous Protected Areas are such a cost effective approach to the establishment and management of new protected areas uncertainty over continued government support remains the major obstacle to further expansion of this initiative.

Conclusion

I would like to close with another generalisation - Generalisation No 5
Local people are the ones with the commitment to local areas and are best placed to take care of the bush around their homes. The longer people (families) have lived and depended on an area the more powerful their connections are, the richer and more valued the landscape becomes. Over time landscapes develop additional levels of meaning, personal, historical and cultural values. So a river becomes much more than a water source, a forest much more than trees and timber and so on.

It is most often interests from elsewhere who come to an area and see its 'potential' , and want to exploit it, improve it or develop it . They can't leave well enough alone and see an opportunity to make profits that the locals apparently completely missed. They cook up a scheme, talk it up, garner political support (jobs galore, national interest etc, they'll even talk green if they have to), and if not watched closely, will change the character and values of a natural places forever.

Whether it's a residential development or say a marina and hotel complex on top of a near pristine marine park, their objective is the same - to maximise earnings then move on to the next project. The locals remain behind to deal with the collateral damage.

Local people must seek and be given responsibility for decisions about the future of their region, not simply be allowed to comment on development proposals or be forced into the role of protesters after bad decisions have been made.

On the difficult road to reconciliation, Aboriginal communities are making a significant gesture of goodwill by declaring Indigenous Protected Areas. Concern for the natural environment and accepting responsibility to act positively to protect it is not the monopoly of any particular sector of the Australian community. There is obvious convergence between the conservation work of indigenous and non-indigenous people that we have heard about during this conference. I hope that this shared concern for the environment and joint effort to protect what remains, can be an important platform for advancing reconciliation on a much broader front and if we can't do it in this sphere, there is little hope elsewhere.