The ecological, cultural and social
values associated with aquatic
ecosystems in northern Australia
6 May 2013
This literature review provides an overview of the ecological and social and cultural values
associated with aquatic ecosystems in northern Australia, and discusses the different
valuation systems and the consequent management implications for recognising and
protecting social and cultural values associated with water. The literature in this review was
sourced prior to January 2012, no literature post this date has been utilized.
Acknowledgement and Disclaimers
NAWFA was a multidisciplinary program delivered jointly by the Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and the National Water
Commission, in close collaboration with the Office of Northern Australia and state and
territory government agencies. Through the Raising National Water Standards program
under Water for the Future, the Australian Government allocated up to $13 million for
projects for four years to 2012.
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are
factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or
completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be
occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this
publication.
© Commonwealth of Australia 2013
2
Contents
Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Report outline and objectives ............................................................................................................. 5
Background to northern Australia .......................................................................................................... 6
Defining ecological and cultural values .................................................................................................. 8
Defining values .................................................................................................................................... 8
Ecological values ................................................................................................................................. 9
Social and Cultural Values ................................................................................................................. 12
Identified ecological and social-cultural values associated with water in northern Australia ............. 17
Ecological values ............................................................................................................................... 17
Values associated with groundwater/surface water interactions ................................................ 17
Values associated with floods and natural flow regimes ............................................................. 18
Cultural values .................................................................................................................................. 19
Values associated with groundwater/surface water interactions ................................................ 19
Values associated with floods and natural flow regimes ............................................................. 21
Management of cultural values associated with aquatic ecosystems.................................................. 23
Current management of water related social and cultural values ................................................... 23
Management and protection of social and cultural values .............................................................. 23
Future research ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 25
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 27
3
Executive summary
1. Similarities between ecological and cultural and social values associated with water include:
a. Healthy water sources, including rivers that maintain a natural flow regime, are
important for maintaining the ecological and cultural and social values of water
resources.
b. A decline in the ecological condition of an aquatic asset often results in the erosion of
associated social and cultural values.
c. Permanent water sources, groundwater sources and estuaries generally have very
significant ecological and social and cultural values.
2. Differences between ecological and cultural and social values associated with water include:
a.
Social and cultural values may be attached to a place or water related object in the
landscape that is not recognised for its ecological value.
b.
Many social and cultural values are intangible and may not align with the tangible
ecological values of a water resource. These values are encoded in mythology, belief
systems and ethics and thus may not have a specific geographic reference point.
c.
Ecological and social and cultural values that are considered significant by one group
may not be considered in the same way by other groups across northern Australia.
d.
The scale at which ecological values are identified and managed does not always
align with the scale at which cultural values are perceived.
3. Flexible and responsive approaches to water management and planning in northern Australia
are key to ensuring the diversity of cultural values and interests are accounted for (Altman et
al. 2009). Achieving this will involve effective engagement with Indigenous communities in
water management and planning, the use of Indigenous knowledge in water management
decisions and taking into consideration the complex interconnections and conceptual
differences between ecological values and cultural values in, for example, the setting of
management regimes such as flow regimes.
4
Introduction
The Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment (NAWFA) was established by the
Australian Government to provide the information needed to inform the development and
protection of northern Australia’s water resources, so that development is ecologically,
culturally and economically sustainable. NAWFA is delivered jointly by the Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and the National Water
Commission, in close collaboration with the Office of Northern Australia and state and
territory government agencies.
The NAWFA contains four programs: Water Resources, Ecological, Cultural and Social and
Knowledge Base programs. This literature review is part of the Cultural and Social program,
which aims to increase the understanding of social and cultural values, beliefs and practices
associated with water and how they may be affected by changes in water availability.
This review has been prepared by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities. It has undergone two independent peer reviews. In addition,
various Indigenous and non-Indigenous organisations throughout northern Australia
participated in a consultation process. The objective of the consultation process was for
participants to provide feedback as to how the literature review could better reflect their own
knowledge and experiences regarding the relationship between ecological and social and
cultural values in natural resource management and planning.
This literature review provides an overview, not a comparison, of the ecological and social
and cultural values associated with aquatic ecosystems in northern Australia. The review
discusses the different valuation systems that underpin these values and the management
implications for recognising and protecting these values in water management and planning.
Report outline and objectives
There is a need to better understand the ecological and social and cultural values related to
water (Stoeckl et al. 2006; Jackson 2011).
This literature review contributes to achieving the overarching objective of the NAWFA,
which is to understand the socio-cultural values, beliefs and practices associated with water
and how they may be affected by changes in water availability.
5
The review defines values broadly as those things that people consider to have merit or
importance, are of worth and are cared about (Robinson et al. 2009). The social and cultural
values discussed in this review will primarily focus on Indigenous cultural values1. This focus
is consistent with other literature, which is focused on Indigenous cultural values associated
with water and the importance of recognising these values in water management and
planning decisions.
Background to northern Australia
Freshwater resources in northern Australia include rivers, wetlands, estuaries and
underground aquifers (Stoeckl et al. 2006). For the purposes of this literature review,
northern Australia is defined according to the boundaries of the NAWFA. This includes
Australia’s north-draining rivers between Broome in the west and Cairns in the east,
including the Timor Sea and Gulf of Carpentaria, and part of the North-East Coast north of
Cairns (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Map of northern Australia. (Source: Department of Sustainability, Environment,
The term ‘Indigenous cultural values’ is used to refer to both cultural and social values associated with water for
Indigenous Australians, as well as some economic values. For Indigenous Australians, the distinction between
culture, society and economy is often indistinct (e.g. Mc Farlane 2004; Langton 2006).
1
6
Water, Population and Communities, 2010).
Northern Australia sustains some of the largest areas of intact river systems in Australia
(Woinarski et al. 2007), with more than sixty per cent of Australia’s freshwater held in
northern Australia’s tropical rivers (Pusey et al. 2011). The majority of rivers maintain their
natural flow regimes and connections with groundwater aquifers, floodplains and estuaries
(Hamilton and Gehrke 2005; Jackson and Langton 2006; Jackson and O’Leary 2006; CSIRO
2009a; Pusey et al. 2011; Ward et al. 2011).
There is little extraction of water for human use. Northern Australia only has 27
impoundments with capacity greater than 0.2 gigalitres compared to 467 in the rest of the
country (Pusey et al. 2011; Ward et al. 2011). Many of the catchments in northern Australia
are generally in good condition, with moderate and high degradation occurring in specific,
localised instances usually associated with pollution, mining and infrastructure development
(Pusey et al. 2011).
Rainfall in northern Australia is highly seasonal (Pusey and Kennard 2009; Pusey 2011).
Despite more than one million gigalitres of rainfall every year (Pusey 2011), northern
Australia is annually water limited (CSIRO 2009a; Ward et al. 2011). The annual water
budget (rainfall minus evaporation and transpiration) may be in deficit by more than 1000mm
per year (Pusey 2011). Although the rivers of northern Australia tend to be large
volumetrically (CSIRO 2009a), most are ephemeral, contracting to non-flowing pools during
the dry season (Woinarski et al. 2007; Ward et al. 2011). Those rivers that maintain
permanent water flow are dependent on rainfall during the wet season and groundwater
during the dry (Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce 2009; Ward et al. 2011).
Variability in the abundance of water also affects the patterns of water use and values
across the north (Stoeckl et al. 2006).
Annually, northern Australia is visited by more than 20 percent of international visitors to
Australia, and about six percent of travellers in Australia (Carson et al. 2009). Northern
Australia has a low population density (Pusey et al. 2011) with approximately two percent of
Australia’s resident population living there (Carson et al. 2009). Indigenous people constitute
around 30 percent of the total population (Altman et al. 2009). Currently, approximately
30 percent of northern Australia’s landmass is owned by Indigenous people (Altman et al.
2009) and the land base under their control is increasing (Jackson et al. 2005).
Agriculture, mining, Aboriginal enterprises, fishing and tourism are the major regional
industries in northern Australia. All of these industries require water in different ways
(Stoeckl et al. 2006). For example, tourism associated with water attractions in northern
7
Australia (including rivers, waterfalls and estuaries) relies on conserving and maintaining
natural river flows (Abel et al. 2009). Industry (including agriculture and often mining2)
requires the extraction of water from rivers and groundwater aquifers (Stoeckl et al. 2006).
The view that northern Australia has an abundance of water has led to an increasing focus
on developing northern Australia’s water resources for activities such as agriculture, mining
and tourism (Hamilton and Gehrke 2005; van Dam et al. 2008a; Pusey and Kennard 2009;
Pusey et al. 2011). Despite constraints on the viability of the development of northern
Australia’s water resources (CSIRO 2009a) demands for water are likely to increase in the
future (Stoeckl et al. 2006). Catchments that have already been modified include those of
the Ord, Flinders, Leichhardt (van Dam et al. 2008a), Fitzroy (Pusey et al. 2011) and Daly
(Daly Region Community Reference Group 2004).
Sustainable water management is required to prevent a decline in condition of northern
Australia’s aquatic ecosystems (Australian Tropical Rivers Group 2004; Kimberley Institute
2009). Pusey et al. (2011) have identified a number of existing and possible future threats to
the sustainability of northern Australia’s freshwater systems. Existing threats include
overgrazing, altered fire regimes, feral animals and weeds. Poor management of human
impacts has already impacted on the Fitzroy, Ord, Leichhardt and upper Mitchell River,
which are distinguished from most northern Australia rivers by a high disturbance intensity
(Stein and Nix 2002). Potential threats include development of water resources for example
the expansion of horticultural industry, tourism and climate change (Pusey et al. 2011).
An important part of sustainable water management will be to account for the multiple and
complex values associated with northern Australia’s water resources (Stoeckl et al. 2006;
Straton and Zander 2009). This will be a challenge due to the numerous and diverse aquatic
ecosystems and values (Stoeckl et al. 2006), as well as the limited data available to inform
decisions (Lukacs and Finlayson 2010) and the inability to directly compare value sets.
Defining ecological and cultural values
Defining values
There are many ways to define the terms value and values (Jackson 2005). In this literature
review, values refer to those things that people consider to have merit or importance, are of
worth and are cared about (Robinson et al. 2009).
2
The data on the amount of water required for mining activities is not conclusive (Stoeckl et al. 2006)
8
It is now recognised that natural resource management decisions should account for social
and cultural values in addition to economic and environmental values, which are traditionally
the focus of such decisions.
Ecological values
Ecological values are typically defined according to scientific perspectives and attributes
(Jackson 2005; Craig 2007) including a range of physical and biological features and
processes of river systems (Kingsford et al. 2005).
The term ‘aquatic ecological asset’ is often used to describe an attribute of an aquatic
ecosystem that is valued by communities and requires protection (van Dam et al. 2008b).
These assets are often identified using criteria based on ecological values such as
classification systems. For example Dunn (2000) described five categories of ecological
values that may define an aquatic ecological asset:
1.
Naturalness (e.g. unregulated water flow; natural community composition).
2.
Representativeness (e.g. a good example of a particular aquatic ecosystem
type, or community within it).
3.
Diversity and richness (e.g. diversity of endemic species, instream habitat,
or native species).
4.
Rarity (e.g. rare/threatened ecological processes, flora/fauna or habitats).
5.
Special features (e.g. drought refuge; significant floodplain wetlands).
Under Clause 25(x) of the National Water Initiative (NWI) (National Water Commission
2004), the Australian Government and jurisdictions are responsible for identifying and
protecting high ecological value aquatic assets and values. This was the driver for the
development of a set of tools, the Aquatic Ecosystems Toolkit, by the multi-jurisdictional
Aquatic Ecosystems Task Group. Modules 3 and 4 of the Toolkit provide guidance on
identifying potential High Ecological Value Aquatic Ecosystems (HEVAE) and their
delineation and description. Five core ecological criteria are used to identify potential HEVAE
at all levels:
1.
Diversity – the asset exhibits exceptional diversity of species
(native.migratory) or habitats, and/or geomorphological features/processes.
2.
Distinctiveness – the asset is a rare/threatened or unusual aquatic
ecosystem; and/or supports rare/threatened/endemic species/
communities/genetically unique populations; and/or exhibits rare or unusual
geomorphological or hydrological features/processes; and/or environmental
conditions, and is likely to support unusual assemblages of species adapted
9
to these conditions, and/or are important in demonstrating key features of the
evolution of Australia’s landscape, riverscape or biota.
3.
Vital habitat – the asset provides vital habitat for flora and fauna species if it
supports unusually large numbers of a particular natural species; and/or
maintenance of populations of specific species at critical life cycle stages;
and/or key/significant refugia for aquatic species that are dependent on the
habitat at times of stress.
4.
Naturalness – the ecological character of the asset is not adversely affected
by modern human activity.
5.
Representativeness – the asset is an outstanding example of an aquatic
ecosystem class to which it has been assigned, within a Drainage Division.
An aquatic ecological asset may be identified as nationally or internationally significant for its
ecological values. Criteria have been developed for determining nationally and
internationally important wetlands, which can include a range of aquatic habitat types, such
as marshes, billabongs, lakes and rivers. For an asset to be identified as internationally
significant under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, it must
meet at least one of nine criteria3. The criteria include supporting vulnerable or endangered
species; providing an example of a representative or unique wetland; regularly supporting
20 000 or more waterbirds; and supporting a significant proportion of native fish, thus
contributing to global biodiversity. For an asset to be included in the Directory of Important
Wetlands of Australia, at least one of six criteria must be met4. These criteria are similar to
the Ramsar criteria and include representing a good example of a wetland type occurring
within a biogeographic region; providing important habitat for animals at vulnerable life
stages; or supporting nationally vulnerable or endangered species.
Many aquatic ecosystems of northern Australia can be regarded as high ecological value
aquatic ecosystems5. The range of hydrologic, geomorphic and topographic settings across
3
For the complete list of criteria for inclusion on the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance see
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/topics/wetlands/ramsar-convention/identification-criteria.html
4
For the complete list of criteria for inclusion in the Directory of Important Wetlands of Australia see
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/topics/wetlands/database/diwa.html#diwa-criteria
5
It is beyond the scope of this literature review to identify the high ecological value aquatic ecosystems of
northern Australia. Further descriptions and examples of ecological assets in northern Australia can be sourced
from the following:
A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, Third Edition, Environment Australia 2001
(http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/wetlands/directory.html)
Sinclair Knight Merz (2009). Ecological assets of northern Australia study, final report.
(http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/action/nawfa-ecological-report.html)
10
northern Australia supports a diverse range of water dependent plants and animals (Erskine
et al. 2005; Kennard 2010; Pusey 2011). For example, approximately 75 percent of
Australia’s fish species and 12 percent of Australia’s turtle species are found in the north
(Woinarski et al. 2007; Georges and Merrin 2008).
Many of the aquatic ecosystems in northern Australia have been identified as assets of
national or international importance for their ecological values (Australian Tropical Rivers
Group 2004; Hamilton and Gehrke 2005; Pusey and Kennard 2009), including supporting
vulnerable and endangered species, providing critical habitat and contributing to biological
diversity. Assets in northern Australia of international significance under the Ramsar
Convention include Roebuck Bay (WA), the Ord River Floodplain (WA), Kakadu (NT) and
Cobourg Peninsula (NT) (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities 2010). In addition, it has recently been recognised that groundwater aquifers in
northern Australia support internationally significant biodiversity (Humphreys 2006; Hatton
and Evans 1998; Pusey and Kennard 2009). Nationally significant aquatic ecosystems
include the Camballin Floodplain (WA), the river pools of the permanent Drysdale River
(WA), the Daly River middle reaches (NT), the Mary River Floodplains (NT), Arafura Swamp
(NT), and the Jardine River wetlands aggregation (Qld) (Environment Australia 2001).
Ecologically important water resources are increasingly being identified and defined by their
ecosystem services. This definition incorporates a human component and moves beyond
traditional definitions of ecological assets and ecosystems based on scientific perspectives
and practices. Ecosystem services are defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(2003) as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems”, which include services such as
providing food and water, regulation of flood and drought, and cultural services such as
recreational, spiritual or religious benefits (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003).
Australia’s tropical rivers are ecologically significant for the range of ecosystem services they
provide (Australian Tropical Rivers Group 2004; Daly Region Community Reference Group
2004; de Groot et al. 2008; Straton and Zander 2009). Ecosystem services provided by
tropical river systems include the provision of: floodplain habitat; conditions for recreational
fishing; species and habitat important for Indigenous hunting; and production from irrigated
agriculture (Straton and Zander 2009; Stoeckl et al. 2006). Such services are of both
ecological and social and cultural value to communities (Woinarski et al. 2007).
Kennard, M. (ed) (2010). Identifying high conservation value aquatic ecosystems in northern Australia. Final
Report for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and the National Water Commission.
Charles Darwin University, Darwin.
11
Social and Cultural Values
This review considers both Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural and social values
associated with water, however the focus of the review will be on Indigenous cultural values.
In addition to this literature review, over the last five years, a number of important literature
reviews and studies on social and cultural values have been commissioned to inform
Commonwealth Government research programs. These include:




The Land and Water Australia Social Values review (Stoeckl et al. 2006).
The Land and Water Australia Indigenous perspectives on tropical rivers (Jackson and
O’Leary 2006)
The CERF Hub project 1.3, Collaborative Water Planning (Tan et al. 2008). Collaborative
Water Planning: Context & Practice, Literature Review. Report to the Tropical Rivers and
Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) program.
The NAWFA review of existing cultural and social initiatives and key groups and
organisations across northern Australia associated with water (Robinson et al. 2009).
CSIRO also conducted a Taskforce Science Review in 2009, a major study of the
development potential of the north (CSIRO 2009).
There are differences between the cultural values Indigenous and non-Indigenous people
hold for water (Langton 2002; Strang 2005) however similarities do exist (Stockel et al. 2006;
Toussaint 2009) and will be highlighted where possible.
Indigenous people in Australia have maintained strong cultural connections with water for
thousands of years (Craig 2007). Indigenous values and uses for water vary throughout
northern Australia, not only in regards to cultural beliefs and practices but also in regards to
the relative importance of different values and uses (Altman et al. 2009)6. Nevertheless,
several commonalities regarding the cultural importance of water for Indigenous people in
northern Australia are evident in the literature.
For Indigenous Australians, water is an essential part of country. Country is a culturally
defined landscape (Langton 2006; Barber and Rumley 2003; Altman et al. 2009). It refers to
both the physical and metaphysical place of origin for members of an Indigenous group, who
are the Traditional Owners of that country (Jackson and Robinson 2009). Country is an
important aspect of Traditional Owner identity (Jackson 2005; Altman et al. 2009). Country
includes land, water, people and other species, as well as ancestors and mythical beings,
and sacred and heritage sites, all of which are inseparable parts of a living landscape (Rose
1997; Altman et al. 2009). While in the western world there has been a tendency to separate
6
For example, the relative importance of the use of water to sustain cultural values or for extraction for economic
development. It is however beyond the scope of this literature review to discuss the relative values for water for
different Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in northern Australia.
12
people from the environment and therefore environment from culture (Schnierer 2002),
Indigenous people view themselves intrinsically connected to the environment and do not
make a clear distinction between environmental and cultural values (Rose 1997; Langton
2002; Jackson 2005).
Every part of country, including water features has cultural significance for the Traditional
Owners of that country (McDonald et al. 2005; Cooper and Jackson 2008). Indeed, cultural
sites associated with water tend to be especially significant (Rose 2004; Strang 2005). This
is demonstrated by the numerous sites and items of cultural significance often found within
or surrounding water sources. These include canoe trees, middens, fish traps, burial
grounds (Morgan et al. 2007), campsites, fishing and resource-gathering sites (Cooper and
Jackson 2008). In Eastern Cape York, Langton (2002) observed that natural features, in
particular those associated with river systems, are used to denote the boundaries between
different Traditional Owner groups.
However, cultural values for water are not limited to sites or items of cultural heritage
(Douglas 2004; McFarlane 2004; Jackson 2006). Spiritually, Indigenous people consider
water a sacred and fundamental source of life (Langton 2002; Groenfeldt 2004; McFarlane
2004; Langton 2006).
For Indigenous Australians, water exists within a system of rights and responsibilities
(Langton 2002; Rose 2004) referred to as customary law. Customary law is based on
relationships with country (Bradley 2001; Langton 2002) and gives individuals and groups’
obligations to protect and sustain their country (Rose 2004). Altman et al. (2009) identified
that upholding obligations under customary law is a common concern of Indigenous people
throughout northern Australia. This was also emphasised by participants during the
consultations. In relation to water resources, obligations under customary law include
protection of heritage and knowledge associated with water, regulation of the use of water
sources (such as limiting the amount of people who can use certain water holes), the
maintenance of significant sites within and related to water sources and the maintenance of
living things directly dependent on water (Calma 2009). Customary law therefore includes
cultural practices and ethics which have maintained the landscape and sustained important
resources, such as water, for thousands of years (Morgan et al. 2007; Armstrong 2008;
Strang 2001; Rose 2004; Jackson 2005; Cooper and Jackson 2008; Calma 2009; Robinson
et al. 2009). Many mythologies associated with water are accounts of the ethical way of
behaving in relation to water and Dreamtime stories include accounts of animals that act
unethically by stealing or misusing water (Yu 1999, Toussaint et al. 2005, Jackson 2005).
For example, a Wardaam Dreamtime story tells of how the Brolga took all of the water away
13
from the country, emptying the rivers, billabongs, rivers and creeks, which was killing the
Dreamings. Eventually the water was released and the animals were happy again (Jackson
2005).
Customary law is based on an extensive knowledge and understanding of country, including
water cycles, the physical features formed by water (Cooper and Jackson 2008) as well as
spiritual features of the landscape (Jackson et al. 2005). This knowledge is passed down
through generations by experiences and observations on country (Rose 1997; Cooper and
Jackson 2008; Weir 2011). Social activities such as fishing, are an important way for
Indigenous people to pass on knowledge of the country, and teach younger generations
about their responsibilities to kin and country under customary law. Customary law is
embedded in daily life including in languages (Jackson and Robinson 2009), social etiquette,
songs, stories, art and rituals (Rose 1997; Altman et al. 2009).
Indigenous Australians believe that customary law was created during the Dreaming through
the actions of mythic beings (Dreamings). Dreamings created the current landscape
including all water sources (Cooper and Jackson 2008; Yu 1999; Bradley 2001; Strang 2001;
Barber and Rumley 2003; Rose 2004; Morgan et al. 2007; Jackson and Robinson 2009). In
northern Australia, sacred sites associated with the Dreaming are concentrated around
waterholes, creeks, wells and other aquatic sites (Strang 2001). These sites are often
connected through the travels of the Dreamings (Rose 2004; Langton 2006). Dreaming
tracks provide important linkages between Indigenous groups (Cooper and Jackson 2008;
Hill et al. 2008) and demonstrate the interconnections between elements of country. For
example, the Rainbow Serpent is a Dreaming recognised by Indigenous groups throughout
northern Australia in a variety of forms (Strang 2001; Cooper and Jackson 2008; Yu 2006;
Altman and Branchut 2008). Rose (2004) describes the Rainbow Serpent as a major
connecting figure as its movements and actions often demonstrate the connections between
groundwater, surface water and rain (Cooper and Jackson 2008).
Today, the Dreamings still have an active and spiritual presence in the landscape (Cooper
and Jackson 2008; Barber and Rumley 2003; Altman and Branchut 2008). Sacred sites
include water places where the Dreamings still reside (Cooper and Jackson 2008; Altman
and Branchut 2008). As the Dreamings are still active in the landscape, these places are
particularly significant and powerful (Rose 2004; Strang 2005). Dreamings are believed to
bring good fortune as well as misfortune (Yu 1999; Bradley 2001; Langton 2006). For
example, the Miriuwang and Gajerrong peoples who are Traditional Owners of country along
the Ord River believe that two brothers, Jigoomirri and Boolgoomirri were created by the
Rainbow serpent. They are still present in the landscape, and are represented by two stones
14
on the top of a hill. If you climb to the top of the hill the two brothers will give people sores all
over their feet (Hill et al. 2008).
Country is believed to be inhabited by ancestors, returned to their country as spirits (Cooper
and Jackson 2008; Bradley 2001). Some water places are believed to be home to these
ancestors. Some water places are also believed to be holding the spirits of future
generations (Langton 2002; McFarlane 2004; Rose 2004; Jackson 2008). Water places
therefore provide an important link between past, present and future generations and are a
source of identity for individuals as well as social groups.
Resources obtained from rivers such as fish, eels and turtles are important to the diet of
Indigenous people, and may be particularly valuable to those on low incomes or those
prohibited from eating red meat as part of a mortuary ritual (Toussaint et al. 2005; Yu 2006;
Storey 2006). Resources are harvested for medicines and for arts and crafts. The use of
aquatic natural resources therefore contributes to the maintenance of a cultural economy
(Anon 2003), which today not only provides a means of generating income but helps to
maintain important cultural practices (Altman and Branchut 2008; Altman et al. 2009). For
example hunting, gathering and fishing (Jackson 2006), as well as habitat, fire and
biodiversity management (Altman et al. 2009) are all cultural practices. They are obligations
under customary law and involve interactions with the Dreamings and ancestors in the
landscape. These activities also generate income in the market economy. Therefore
economic and cultural values can be are tightly interconnected.
Water is also of high cultural and social value for non-Indigenous people (Jackson and
O’Leary 2006; Stoeckl et al. 2006). Cultural and social values associated with northern
Australia’s water resources include recreation, education, aesthetic values and social
relations (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). For example, social values identified for
the Daly River include a place to relax with family and friends, go camping and fishing and
enjoy the aesthetics of the river and surrounding landscape (Young 2004). The Fitzroy River
is valued for recreational uses such as fishing and kayaking (Toussaint et al 2005).
Similarities between Indigenous and non Indigenous cultural values include activities such
as fishing and recreation (Stockel et al. 2006) and also the emotional connections that both
groups hold for aquatic ecosystems (Stockel et al. 2006; Toussaint 2009).
Most Indigenous people emphasise the interconnections between ground and surface water,
and do not draw a distinction between the two (Altman and Branchut 2008; Jackson and
Altman 2009). Many of the permanent water sites identified above for their cultural
importance are linked directly to groundwater through the travels of mythical beings which
inhabit them, in particular the Rainbow Serpent (Cooper and Jackson 2008; Yu 1999;
15
Jackson and Altman 2009). For example, local Indigenous people in the Katherine region of
the Northern Territory believe that the Rainbow Serpents travelled underground through
tunnels and channels within the limestone formations of the Tindall Aquifer, which now
channel water in underground rivers.
Cultural and social values are not limited to items or sites with tangible cultural heritage
(Forward NRM and Arrilla – Aboriginal Training & Development 2003; Jackson and Morrison
2007; Venn and Quiggan 2007). For example, Indigenous cultural values are based on
beliefs including the actions of the Dreamings and past ancestors (Rose 2004; Jackson
2006). Social values of the Daly River include values such as promoting happiness and
strengthening relationships (Young 2004). If water management decisions are based on
ecological values alone, important intangible cultural values may be overlooked.
The intangible nature of some cultural and social values also means that while a water
resource or aquatic asset may be valued ecologically, socially and culturally, these values
may be quite different. For example, Indigenous individuals or groups often have special
relationships with a particular species or site, known as their totem (Rose 1997; Strang
2001; Langton 2002; Weir 2008). Totems may have significant ecological values, for
example, a site may provide habitat for an endemic species. However the cultural values of
totemic sites and species are derived from the Dreamtime and relate directly to individual
and group identity. In relation to species totems, Weir describes totems as “ethical
relationships of interspecies kinships” (Weir 2009) and refers to the customary obligations to
care for a totem species as equivalent to an individual caring for a family member. Water
holes and springs are also often totemic sites associated with spiritual beliefs (Langton 2002;
Rose 2004). Mr Bulan Bulan, a Ganalbingu man from eastern Arnhem Land referred to
Djulibinyamurr, a water hole complex on this country as “the equivalent of my ‘warro’ or
soul...it is the hole or well from which I derive my life and power” (Langton 2002).
In relation to Indigenous cultural values, while there are parallels in the cultural values of
Traditional Owner groups, each upholds their own customary laws relating to country (Anon
2003; Daly Region Community Reference Group 2004; Craig 2007; Altman et al. 2009). For
example, in the Northern Territories’ Roper River region, the rights to speak for and make
decisions about country are shared by Minirringgi, Junggayi and in some areas Darrnuin
Traditional Owner groups. Each Traditional Owner group has different rights and
responsibilities in looking after country and its sites. In water management decisions all
groups must be present because if one is absent, the decision remains fragile and open to
debate (Altman et al. 2009).
16
Difference in the knowledge of social and cultural values associated with particular water
places can also exist within Traditional Owner groups. For example, Anmatyerr men are
responsible for spiritual law related to secret and sacred sites, while women have
responsibility to look after the whole country (Wirf et al. 2008). As John Daly from the
Northern Land Council explains, the sensitive nature of many significant places and values
mean they are not disclosed to people outside a particular group, or even passed between
Indigenous men and women (Jackson 2004).
Variability in what is considered socially and culturally valuable also exists between
non-Indigenous people and interest groups (Jackson and O’Leary 2006). For example,
conflict has previously occurred between private property owners and members of the public
about gaining access to fishing places and the effects of development on water resources
due to the different values each group places on water resources (Stoeckl et al. 2006;
Jackson et al. 2008). The Daly River is valued by some people as a place for peace and
quiet while others value it as a place for meeting people and social interaction (Young 2004).
Identified ecological and social-cultural values associated
with water in northern Australia
Ecological values
Values associated with groundwater/surface water interactions
Many rivers stop flowing during the dry season in northern Australia (Woinarski et al. 2007;
CSRIO 2009a), rivers that maintain their baseflow during the dry season are particularly
important water resources (Woinarski et al. 2007; McJannet et al. 2009; CSIRO 2009a).
Such rivers include the Daly, Roper and Gregory (Pusey 2010). The permanent flow allows
many water-dependent animals to persist during the dry season that would not otherwise
survive (McJannet et al. 2009; Pusey and Kennard 2009). For example, the Daly River
middle reaches maintain a continuous dry season flow that supports unique ecosystems and
many threatened or ecologically important species (Harrison et al. 2009).
Australia’s northern rivers carry large volumes of water7, although most rivers only maintain
flow during the wet season (CSIRO 2009a). Perennial rivers in northern Australia that
maintain year-round flow are considered high value ecological assets (Hatton and Evans
1998). Perennial rivers are ecologically diverse, supporting endemic ecosystems and
providing habitat for species during the dry season that are either absent or rare in
ephemeral rivers (Daly Region Community Reference Group 2004; CSIRO 2009a; Hatton
and Evans 1998; McJannet et al. 2009). Perennial rivers are sustained by groundwater
7
Approximately 200 000 GL, or around half of Australia’s total yearly flow (CSIRO 2009a).
17
discharge (CSIRO 2009a; Pusey and Kennard 2009), which occurs where streams cross
shallow aquifers or where deeper artesian waters puncture the landscape creating springs
(CSIRO 2009a; McJannet et al. 2009). Aquifer fed perennial rivers in northern Australia
include the Daly, Gregory and Jardine rivers, and are particularly important for both aquatic
and terrestrial biota (Woinarski et al. 2007).
During the dry season, ephemeral rivers are reduced to disconnected pools and billabongs,
which are also important for supporting aquatic and terrestrial life (van Dam et al. 2008a).
Like perennial streams, permanent pools provide habitat for biota to survive the dry season
(Storey 2006), and support ecologically diverse vegetation communities (Toussaint et al.
2001; Daly Region Community Reference Group 2004; Yu 2006).
Although there is still a significant lack of scientific data and understanding about
groundwater (Hatton and Evans 1998; CSIRO 2009a), Hatton and Evans (1998) conclude
that groundwater fundamentally controls the health of major ecosystems across Australia. In
northern Australia, the role of groundwater in sustaining ecological values is in part related to
maintenance of permanent water sources during the dry season. Groundwater also sustains
subterranean biodiversity, which lives within groundwater ecosystems (Humphreys 2006;
van Dam et al. 2008a; Pusey and Kennard 2009). It is likely that many regions of northern
Australia with large groundwater aquifers (including those that underlay the Daly, Roper and
Gregory Rivers) contain diverse and unique subterranean communities (Pusey and Kennard
2009). The most diverse of these ecosystems are believed to occur in Cape Range, Western
Australia (van Dam et al. 2008a). Groundwater ecosystems are likely to contain endemic
species (Pusey and Kennard 2009) and species which represent faunas from various
geological periods and are of international significance (Humphreys 2006).
Values associated with floods and natural flow regimes
Aquatic ecosystem health is important for the maintenance of both cultural and ecological
values. Water availability and natural flow regimes drive many of the important ecological
processes that maintain the health of water resources (Poff et al. 1997; Bunn and Arthington
2002; Pusey and Kennard 2009). Many of southern Australia’s rivers have been modified by
either flow regulation and/or changes to catchment use (Dunn 2000; Pusey and Kennard
2009). Changes to the natural flow regimes have resulted in the degradation of many river
systems, and consequently the realisation that rivers require a certain amount of water to
maintain their health (Craig 2007). The water resources of northern Australia, where most
rivers still retain their natural flow regime, hold significant ecological value (Hamilton and
Gehrke 2005; Pusey and Kennard 2009; Pusey 2011).
18
In northern Australia, estuaries have high levels of biodiversity, are of conservation value
(Pusey and Kennard 2009) and have ecological values which are of both national and
international importance (van Dam et al. 2008a). Most estuaries in northern Australia are
largely unmodified and are in ‘near pristine’ condition (Murray et al. 2006; Woinarski et al.
2007; Pusey and Kennard 2009). Estuaries of northern Australia provide important habitat
for many significant species including migratory birds and waterbirds (Murray et al. 2006;
Pusey and Kennard 2009) as well as fish, prawns and crabs (Pusey and Kennard 2009).
Estuaries are also essential to the life cycle of many species, providing breeding habitat for
seabirds, waterfowl and shorebirds, dugongs and marine turtles (Murray et al. 2006;
Woinarski et al. 2007) as well as many species of estuarine and freshwater fish (Pusey and
Kennard 2009).
Seasonal flooding is also vital to sustaining the ecological health of the landscape. Floods
flush sediments and nutrients from freshwater ways into the marine environment (van Dam
et al. 2008a; CSIRO 2009a). This movement is vital for ecosystem function and biodiversity
maintenance, impacting on, for example, food availability and habitat structure. Floods are
also important for maintaining the movement of water through different parts of the aquatic
ecosystem, for example, between groundwater and surface water and between headwaters,
main channels, floodplains and estuaries (Pusey and Kennard 2009).
Cultural values
Values associated with groundwater/surface water interactions
Permanent water is of particular importance to Indigenous people (Yu 1999; Altman and
Branchut 2008; Cooper and Jackson 2008; Jackson and Altman 2009; McJannet et al.
2009). Throughout northern Australia, particularly in the arid zone, permanent water is
commonly believed to be essential for the health of country (Yu 1999). Permanent water
sources such as springs are often associated with conception and birth sites. For example,
the Ngarinyin people (Western Australia) believe that permanent pools, or unggud, make the
spirits of children, which are then found by the child’s father (Yu 2006). Permanent water
sources also provide fishing and camping locations and contain stone and shell artefacts
(Cooper and Jackson 2008; Yu 1999).
Permanent water sources are commonly linked to the activities and residence of ancestral
beings. In particular, Rainbow Serpents, which are represented in various forms throughout
northern Australia (Strang 2001), commonly reside in permanent water places (Yu 1999;
Toussaint et al. 2001; Cooper and Jackson 2008; Rea and the Anmatyerr Water Project
Team 2008). Rainbow Serpents are powerful beings from the Dreamtime. They created the
rivers and other water bodies, drive the replenishment of water and can generate or take life
19
(Yu 1999; Barber and Rumley 2003; Toussaint et al. 2005; Cooper and Jackson 2008). They
usually reside in the deepest river pools, which also provide habitat for fish and other biota
(Behrendt and Thompson 2003). For the Anmatyerr people, some of the permanent springs
where they believe the Rainbow Serpent resides are so sacred that people are not allowed
to visit these sites (Behrendt and Thompson 2003; Rea and the Anmatyerr Water Project
Team 2008).
Food sources are also sustained by permanent water sources. For example a rock hole near
Yakanarra, West Kimberley, provides an important fishing spot for the Indigenous
community. Other permanent water sites in the area sustain bush foods including seeds,
yams, lilies and berries (Toussiant et al. 2001). In the Howard River region, permanent water
sources provide the Larrakia people with fish, duck, geese and waterlilies (Woodward et al.
2008).
Non-Indigenous people also hold strong cultural and social values for permanent water.
These include the use of water for recreational activities, as a place to escape to, and as
fresh water to sustain communities during the dry season (Stockel et al. 2006; Cooper and
Jackson 2008; Jackson et al. 2008; Woodward et al. 2008). Some non-Indigenous social
and cultural values are also associated with the high ecological diversity of permanent water
including fishing, hunting, educational and leisure activities (Woodward et al. 2008). For
example, in Kakadu, and the Daly, Fitzroy and Katherine rivers, permanent water sources
provide habitat for fish and waterbirds during the dry season, as well as opportunities for
tourism and fishing (McJannet et al. 2009).
Traditional Owners in the La Grange Sub-basin (Western Australia) believe groundwater
plays a significant role in generating rain in the wet season, and thus is central to sustaining
all life. Pulany (snakes or serpents) are believed to reside in permanent water places
sustained by groundwater. If there is a bad season and there is no rain, Traditional Owners
visit specific permanent water places and perform rituals to encourage the Pulany to ‘get up’
and create rain. This rain replenishes groundwater sources, which in turn sustains country
through the dry season (Yu 1999).
For the Yolngu people of North East Arnhem land, ancestors are active in the groundwater,
signified by the boiling water in springs and the bubbling sounds that they create (James
2011).
20
Values associated with floods and natural flow regimes
Naturally flowing, healthy river systems are also essential to maintaining the cultural values
of Indigenous people, including Indigenous livelihoods (Craig 2007; Morgan et al. 2004b;
McFarlane 2004; McDonald et al. 2005). The groups interviewed by McDonald et al. (2005)
consider naturally flowing rivers the life blood flowing through the earth’s veins. In his
research on Fitzroy River, Storey concludes “many of the cultural values were dependent
upon ecological values which were in turn dependent on the hydrology and morphology of
the river system” (Storey 2006).
Estuaries are areas of immense cultural importance for Indigenous people. For example,
they provide a breeding area for many marine resources, sustain traditional food sources
(Armstrong 2008; Altman and Branchut 2008) and play an important role in spiritual and
ceremonial life (Armstrong 2008; Langton 2002).
For the Yolngu people of North Eastern Arnhem Land, the mixing of fresh and salt waters in
estuaries is of great cultural significance (Magowan 2002; Sharp 2002; Morphy and Morphy
2009; James 2011). The mixing of salt and fresh waters are referred to as ganma (Langton
2002) and represents the mixing of Dhuwa and Yirritja, two halves of the Yolngu world to
which all things belong (Magowan 2002; Morphy and Morphy 2009). The mixing of these
waters reflects the everyday life of Yolngu people, including their system of social
organisation (Morphy and Morphy 2009). For example, the mixing of waters can represent
the mixing of different personalities when people from different clans interact (Magowan
2002). It also symbolises kinship relations (Magowan 2002; Sharp 2002; James 2011). To
demonstrate this, Magowan (2002) discusses the significance of a song sung by a woman of
the Djambarrpuyngu clan. The song is about the mixing of fresh and salt water and also
reveals her paternal and maternal linage. The mixing of fresh and salt water also symbolises
the generation of new ideas and knowledge (Langton 2002; Magowan 2002; Sharp 2002).
For the Yanyuwa people in the south west Gulf of Carpentaria, rain is believed to be a spirit
ancestor. In the past, men who were paternally descended from this ancestor were able to
visit spring waters where the ancestor lives and sing for rain. However, the Yanyuwa believe
that there are no more living decedents of the rain ancestor. As no one is left to sing for rain,
floods no longer occur and the health of country is not maintained (Bradley 2001). In the Ord
and Fitzroy rivers, Traditional Owners also emphasise the importance of flood waters to
clear and rejuvenate the landscape, maintaining its cultural and ecological values (Toussaint
2009; Toussaint et al. 2001; Barber and Rumley 2003). Traditional Owners of the Daly River
region have expressed concern that possible changes in the flows of freshwater due to
21
development may have negative impacts on the balance between fresh and salt water in
their country (Jackson 2004).
Examples of aquatic ecosystems in northern Australia that are valued for both their
ecological and cultural significance include the many diverse wetland ecosystems in the
Northern Territory. Some of these are recognised nationally and internationally as significant
ecological assets, including Kakadu and Cobourg Peninsula (Finlayson et al. 1988;
Finlayson and von Oertzen 1992; Landcare Council of the Northern Territory 2005; Harrison
et al. 2009). Many of the wetlands also have significant Indigenous cultural values
containing, for example, Indigenous sacred sites and are used to meet customary needs
such as wildlife harvesting (Landcare Council of the Northern Territory 2005). In
Queensland, many of the rivers in the Cape York area are in near-pristine condition, with a
large number of wetlands registered on the Directory of Important Wetlands (Environment
Australia 2001; CSIRO 2009b).
Any decline in river health may have detrimental impacts on both the ecological and cultural
values of an aquatic ecosystem (Anon 2003; Morgan et al. 2004a; McFarlane 2004;
McDonald et al. 2005; Jackson and O’Leary 2006; Calma 2009; Weir 2008; Altman et al.
2009). Altman et al. argue that a common concern of Indigenous people throughout northern
Australia is that any development of water resources must ensure the ecological health is
maintained as “developments that threaten the sustainability of water ecosystems can have
potentially devastating consequences for Indigenous people” (2009, p. 12). For Indigenous
people, a decline in river condition may, for example, lead to a decline in the access to and
availability of traditional resources and sacred sites may be compromised (Calma 2009).
The Anmatyerr people of the Northern Territory have said that while protecting ecological
values will protect some social and cultural values, the reverse is also true (Rea and the
Anmatyerr Water Project Team 2008). This point was also emphasised throughout the
consultations, with many participants saying that if Indigenous cultural practices are upheld,
the health of the environment will be maintained, not withstanding degrading forces that are
beyond their control. Indeed, it is commonly acknowledged in the literature that Traditional
Owners have maintained the ecological health of their lands and waters for thousands of
years (Cooper and Jackson 2008; Calma 2009). The high levels of biodiversity in areas
where Indigenous people directly manage the landscape is used as evidence to support this
(Altman et al. 2009; Jackson and Robinson 2009). Many authors (Strang 2001; Rose 2004;
Jackson 2005; Craig 2007; Storey 2006; Toussaint 2009) have also noted that traditional
narratives often include an ethic of sustainability and care for the environment. Jackson in
her work on the Daly River reflects that traditional narratives include a ‘water ethic’ where
22
“poor water management serves as an ecological parable, pointing to a strong awareness
within Aboriginal societies of the need to cautiously manage and share water resources”
(2005, p. 141). Storey (2006) also notes the hunting seasons of Traditional Owners on the
Fitzroy River correspond to the lifecycle of target species to prevent degradation of the
population through over fishing.
Places of ecological value are identified by meeting certain measurable physical, chemical
and biological conditions or criteria (Tipa and Teirney 2003; Tipa 2009). Places of cultural
and social significance however are not dependent on these same criteria to be considered
valuable.
Management of cultural values associated with aquatic
ecosystems
Current management of water related social and cultural values
Cultural values have generally been poorly represented in water planning and management
(Behrendt and Thompson 2003; Jackson 2005; Weir 2008; Jackson and Robinson 2009;
Kimberley Institute 2009; National Water Commission 2009). It is now widely recognised that
cultural values should be considered in natural resource management decisions and
progress has been made towards achieving this (Jackson 2006; Altman et al. 2009). This
section briefly discusses the relevant conventions, policies and programs that recognise the
importance of cultural and social values in water management.
Management and protection of social and cultural values
Throughout the consultations, participants identified scale as a key area in which Indigenous
cultural and ecological values, in both their identification and management, vary. There were
two aspects of scale which were consistently discussed by participants.
The first issue relates to site based management. All tropical rivers, wetlands and floodplains
of northern Australia can be considered ecologically significant (Finlayson and von Oertzen
1992; Australian Tropical Rivers Group 2004; Hamilton and Gehrke 2005). However, from a
management perspective, rivers and their dependent ecosystems identified as having high
ecological value are only a subset of Australia’s aquatic ecosystems. Those considered high
value are identified by comparing the conservation value of all rivers and ecosystems and
‘recognising’ only those of comparably high significant value (Kingsford et al. 2005). For
example, one section of river may be identified as having high ecological value based on the
presence of an endemic or threatened species (Dunn 2000).
23
In contrast, the social and cultural values of Indigenous people are holistic. Often a broad
area will hold significance, rather than a specific feature or location within it (Behrendt and
Thompson 2003). One stakeholder commented that ‘hot spots’ of biodiversity may be both
culturally and ecologically significant. However, management techniques which focus on
conserving isolated hot spots do not recognise the wider cultural connectivity beyond these
sites. For example, the stories of the Nyungar people in Western Australia focus on the
creation of whole landscapes, not just individual rivers and in doing so are linking social
groups across the landscape, creating social catchments where everyone is united through
cultural relationships. Interconnected water sources are believed to have the same spiritual
energy, forming part of the same ‘site’. Waterways are considered Dreaming tracks, forming
paths along which people travel from place to place and connecting stories and establishing
linkages between different Indigenous groups (McDonald et al. 2005; Langton 2002; 2006).
The Miriuwung-Gajerrong people of the Ord River have law lines and Dreaming tracks which
extend across the Kimberley through the country of many Traditional Owner groups resulting
in complex relationships and decision making arrangements (Hill et al. 2008).
Cultural values at the landscape scale can therefore be lost in ‘site’ based management
(Forward NRM and Arrilla – Aboriginal Training and Development 2003; Venn and Quiggan
2007). Indigenous management efforts are aimed at protecting customary relationships
rather than isolated places or aspects of the landscape (see Jackson 2006).
Participants stressed however, that the identification and management of cultural values
should not only occur at a landscape scale. Customary relationships can be highly localised
and each Traditional Owner group will have different perspectives, uses and values for
water. As one participant said, due to the interconnections and intimate knowledge that
Traditional Owners have of their country, “for Indigenous people, country is very localised.”
To demonstrate this, Craig (2007) uses the example of determining environmental water
flows. Decisions on flow regimes and allocation levels tend to be based on large
geographical scales, for example at the catchment or water basin scale. This scale may
overlook important local values. For example, under an environmental flow regime an
important water hole may be overlooked and dry out (Craig 2007) or a sacred rock on a river
bank may be exposed to air at the wrong time of year, having negative religious implications
(Jackson 2005).
Therefore the scale at which ecological values are identified and managed and the scale at
which Indigenous cultural values should be identified and managed are a key difference
between the two value sets. To account for cultural values, the scale at which water planning
occurs needs to account for the localised perceptions and values that Traditional Owner
24
groups have, as well as the complex interactions and interconnections that these localised
values have with the wider landscape.
Future research
Further research that may assist in increasing the recognition of social and cultural values in
water planning and management include:
-
Indigenous Livelihoods: Many of the social and cultural values identified, particularly
for Indigenous people, also have economic values generating income on the market
economy. As economic values and cultural values are typically viewed as opposite
ends of the water planning spectrum (Weir 2009) how to account for economic
values which are interconnected with the maintenance of cultural values needs to be
considered.
-
Intangible values: One of the major difficulties identified in the literature in accounting
for social and cultural values in water planning is their often intangible and
unquantifiable nature (Stoeckl et al. 2006; Durette 2010). Some work has been
undertaken in New Zealand that endeavours to quantify social and cultural values so
that they are more readily incorporated into western water planning and management
methods (Tipa and Teirney 2003). It may be valuable to undertake similar work with
different groups across northern Australia, to quantify the water required to meet
social and cultural values associated with water or thresholds of cultural values.
-
Cultural flows: Further research is required into the concept and implementation of
cultural flows and how this may vary between northern and southern Australia. In
northern Australia the definition or requirement for a cultural flow is likely to be
different to other parts of Australia where over-allocation of water resources can be a
significant issue.
-
Synergies between Indigenous and non-indigenous values: Further research is
required in relation to these synergies in regard to aquatic ecosystems in northern
Australia.
Conclusion
Indigenous people hold holistic values for water that are underpinned by healthy water
resources. In northern Australia, perennial rivers and other permanent sources of water
which are sustained by groundwater are ecologically significant. These water sources also
hold significant social and cultural values. Similarly northern Australian estuaries sustain
high levels of biodiversity and provide important habitat for a range of significant species.
They are also areas of high cultural significance for Indigenous people, with some Traditional
25
Owner groups having strong cultural beliefs associated with the mixing of fresh and salt
waters.
It cannot be assumed, however, that all social and cultural values will be restricted to aquatic
ecosystems and assets of ecological value. The scale of ecological assets identified as
significant may not always align with the scale of social and cultural values. Many places that
are socially and culturally significant may seem insignificant to others, and be overlooked
during the process of defining places of ecological value. There are differences between
groups and individuals in what is considered valuable; what may be important to one group
will not necessarily be important to another.
Intangible values, such as those associated with the Dreaming, are also likely to extend
beyond what is considered ecologically valuable.
It is now recognised that water management has to address a complex and diverse range of
social and cultural values, as well as ecological management objectives (Jackson et al.
2008). There are good reasons for planning processes to take advantage of the overlapping
nature of ecological and social and cultural values (Rea and the Anmatyerr Water Project
Team 2008). However, water planning should also recognise that not all social and cultural
values will be protected by managing areas that are identified by their ecological values
alone. To ensure both ecological and social and cultural values associated with water
resources are accounted for, extensive and effective consultation with Indigenous and nonIndigenous groups is required as part of the planning process. As part of this process, the
knowledge that Indigenous people have of their country should be included to strengthen
decision making and support the continuation of Indigenous cultural connections to water.
26
Bibliography
Abel, N., Measham, T., Clark, E., Morison, J. and Rippin, L. (2009). Tourism and recreation depend
on natural water flows. In: CSIRO (ed.), Northern Land and Water Science Review 2009 Chapter
Summaries. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
Canberra.
Altman, J. and Branchut, V. (2008). Fresh Water in the Maningrida Region’s Hybrid Economy:
Intercultural Contestation over Values and Property Rights. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy
Research. Canberra.
Altman, J., Jordan, K., Kerins, S., Buchanan, G., Biddle, N., Ens, E. and May, K. (2009). Indigenous
interests in land and water. In: CSIRO (ed.), Northern Land and Water Science Review 2009 Chapter
Summaries. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
Canberra.
Anon (2003). Indigenous response to the Living Murray Initiative. A report to the Murray Darling Basin
Commission,http://thelivingmurray2.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/1522/Indigenous_Report.pdf,
Accessed September 2011.
Armstrong, R. (2008). An overview of Indigenous rights in water resource management. North
Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, Australia. Darwin.
Australian Tropical Rivers Group (2004). Securing the North: Australia’s Tropical Rivers. A Statement
by the Australian Tropical Rivers Group. Sydney.
Barber, K. and Rumley, H. (2003). Gunanurang (Kununurra). Big river, Aboriginal cultural values of
the Ord River and wetlands. A report prepared for the Western Australia Water & Rivers Commission.
Perth.
Behrendt, J. and Thompson, P. (2003). The recognition and protection of Aboriginal interests in NSW
rivers. Occasional paper 1008. Healthy Rivers Commission of New South Wales. Sydney.
Bradley, J. (2001). Landscapes of the Mind, Landscapes of the Spirit. In R. Baker, J. Davies and E.
Young (eds), Working on Country: Contemporary Indigenous Management on Australia's Lands and
Coastal Regions. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, 295-304.
Bunn, S. and Arthington, A. (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered
hydrological regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30: 492-507.
Bureau
of
Meteorology
(2011).
Average
annual,
seasonal
and
monthly
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/rainfall/index.jsp?period=an#maps.
rainfall.
Accessed
22
September 2011.
Calma, T. (2009). 2008 Native Title Report. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Sydney.
27
Carson, D., Taylor, A. and Campbell, S. (2009). Demographic trends and likely futures for Australia’s
tropical rivers. Charles Darwin University. Darwin.
Cooper, D. and Jackson, S. (2008). Preliminary study on Indigenous water values and interests in the
Katherine region of the Northern Territory. A report prepared for NAILSMA’s Indigenous Water Policy
Group. Darwin.
Craig, D. (2007). Indigenous property right to water: Environmental flows, cultural values and
tradeable property rights. In: A. Smajgl and S. Larson (eds.), Sustainable Resource Use: Institutional
Dynamics and Economics. London, England.
CSIRO (2009). Northern Australia Land and Water Science Review: full report. National Research
Flagships Sustainable Agriculture. Canberra.
CSIRO (2009a). Water in Northern Australia. Summary of reports to the Australian Government from
the CSIRO Northern Australia Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country
Flagship. Canberra.
CSIRO (2009b). Water in the Northern North-East Coast Drainage Division. A report to the Australian
Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO Water for a
Healthy Country Flagship. Canberra.
Daly Region Community Reference Group (2004). Draft Report, November 2004. Daly Region
Community Reference Group. Darwin.
de Groot, R., Finlayson, M., Verschuuren, B., Ypma, O. and Zylstra, M (2008). Integrated assessment
of wetland services and values as a tool to analyse policy trade-offs and management options: A case
study in the Daly and Mary River catchments, northern Australia. Supervising Scientist Report 198.
Supervising Scientist. Darwin.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2010). Australian
Wetlands
Database
–
Australia’s
Ramsar
Wetlands.
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/wetlands/alphablist.pl Accessed September 2010.
Douglas, P. (2004). Healthy rivers and Indigenous interests. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 5: 12-14.
Dunn, H. (2000). Identifying and protecting rivers of high ecological value. Occasional Paper 01/00.
Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation. Canberra.
Durette, M. (2010). An integrative model for cultural flows: Using values in fisheries to determine
water allocations. Synexe Working Paper 2010/01.
Environment Australia (2001). A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. Canberra.
28
Erskine, W., Saynor, M., Erskine, L., Evans, K., Moliere, D. (2005). A preliminary typology of
Australian tropical rivers and implications for fish community ecology. Marine and Freshwater
Research, 56: 253-267.
Finlayson, C., Bailey, B., Freeland, W., Fleming, M. (1988). Wetlands of the Northern Territory. In:
McComb, A.J. and Lake, P.S. (eds) The conservation of Australian wetlands. Surrey Beatty and Sons
Pty Limited, Sydney, pp 103-126.
Finlayson, C. and von Oertzen, I.(1992). Wetlands of Australia: Northern (Tropical) Australia. In DJ
Whigham, H Dykyova & S Heijny (eds) Wetlands of the World I: Inventory, Ecology and Management,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. pp 195-243.
Forward NRM and Arrilla – Aboriginal Training & Development (2003). Scoping study on Indigenous
involvement in natural resource management decision making and the integration of Indigenous
cultural heritage considerations into relevant Murray-Darling Basin Commission programs. A report to
the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.
Georges, A., and Merrin, L. (2008). Freshwater Turtles of Tropical Australia: Compilation of
distributional data. Report to the CERF Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRACK) Project,
Charles Darwin University. Darwin.
Groenfeldt, D. (2004). Indigenous perspectives on water and development. Indigenous Law Bulletin,
5: 26-27.
Hamilton, S. and Gehrke, P. (2005). Australia’s tropical river systems: current scientific understanding
and critical knowledge gaps for sustainable management. Marine and Freshwater Research, 56: 243252.
Hatton, T. and Evans, R. (1998). Dependence of Ecosystems on Groundwater and its Significance to
Australia. Occasional Paper No 12/98. Land and Water Resources Research and Development
Corporation. Canberra.
Harrison, L., McGuire, L., Ward, S., Fisher, A., Pavey, C., Fegan, M. and Lynch, B. (2009). An
inventory of sites of international and national significance for biodiversity values in the Northern
Territory. Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport. Darwin.
Hill, R., Miriuwung and Gajerrong peoples, Hill, D., and Goodson, S. (2008). Miriuwung-Gajerrong
Cultural Planning Framework. MG Guidelines for developing Management Plans for Conservation
Parks and Nature Reserves under the Ord Final Agreement. Endorsed by the Yoorrooyang Dawang
Regional Park Council. Presented by Miriuwung and Gajerrong peoples. West Australian Department
of Environment and Conservation, Yawoorroong Miriuwung Gajerrong Yirrgeb Noong Dawang
Aboriginal Corporation and CSIRO, Perth, Kununurra and Cairns.
29
Humphreys, W. (2006). Aquifers: the ultimate groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Australian Journal
of Botany, 54 (2): 115–132.
Jackson, S. (2004). Preliminary report on Aboriginal perspectives on land-use and water management
in the Daly River region, Northern Territory. A report to the Northern Land Council. CSIRO
Sustainable Ecosystems. Darwin.
Jackson, S. (2005). Indigenous values and water resource management: A case study from the
Northern Territory. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 12: 136-146.
Jackson, S. (2006). Compartmentalising culture: the articulation and consideration of Indigenous
values in water resource management. Australian Geographer, 37 (1): 19-31.
Jackson, S. (2008) Recognition of indigenous interests in water resource management. Geography
Compass, 2, 874-898.
Jackson, S. (2011). Indigenous water management: priorities for the next five years. In: D. Lonnell
and R. Quentin Grafton (eds.), Basin Futures: Water reform in the Murray Darling Basin. ANU epress. Canberra.
Jackson, S., Storrs, M. and Morrison J. (2005). Recognition of Aboriginal rights, interests and values
in river research and management: perspectives from northern Australia. Ecological Management and
Restoration, 6: 105-110.
Jackson, S. and Langton, M. (2006). Indigenous cultural values and water resource management:
workshop overview and introduction. In: S. Jackson (ed.), Recognising and protecting Indigenous
values in water resource management. A report from a workshop held at CSIRO in Darwin, NT, 5-6
April 2006. Canberra.
Jackson, S. and O’Leary, P. (2006). Indigenous interests in tropical rivers: research and management
issues. A report to the North Australian Indigenous Land & Sea Management Alliance. CSIRO
Sustainable Ecosystems. Darwin.
Jackson, S. and Morrison, J. (2007). Indigenous perspectives in water management, reforms and
implementation. In: K. Hussey and S. Dovers (eds.), Managing water for Australia: The social and
institutional challenges. Collingwood.
Jackson, S., Stoeckl, N., Straton, A. and Stanley, O. (2008). The changing value of Australian tropical
rivers. Geographical Research, 46: 275-290.
Jackson, S. and Robinson, C. (2009). Indigenous participation in water planning and management. In:
CSIRO (ed.), Northern Land and Water Science Review 2009 Chapter Summaries. Department of
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Canberra.
30
Jackson, S., Altman, J. (2009). Indigenous rights and water policy: perspectives from tropical northern
Australia. Australian Indigenous Law Review, 13 (1). Indigenous Law Centre. University of New South
Wales.
James, B. (2011). Cultural significance of water to Yolngu in the Crocodile Islands – north east
Arnhem land, Northern Territory. Brief report prepared for the Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
Kennard, M. (ed.) (2010). Identifying high conservation value aquatic ecosystems in northern
Australia. Final report for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, and the
National Water Commission. Darwin.
Kimberley Institute. (2009). Indigenous people and water management. In: CSIRO (ed.), Northern
Land and Water Science Review 2009 Chapter Summaries. Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Local Government. Canberra.
Kingsford, R., Dunn, H., Love, D., Nevill, J., Stein, J. amd Tait, J. (2005). Protecting Australia’s rivers,
wetlands and estuaries of high conservation value. Department of Environment and Heritage
Australia. Canberra.
Landcare Council of the Northern Territory (2005). Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan for
the Northern Territory: Sustaining our resources – people, country and enterprises. Northern Territory
Government. Darwin.
Langton, M. (2002). Freshwater. In: Lingiari Foundation (ed.), Background briefing papers: Indigenous
rights to waters. Broome.
Langton, M. (2006). Earth, wind, fire and water: the social and spiritual construction of water in
Aboriginal societies. In: B. David, B. Barker and I. McNiven (eds.), Social archaeology of Australian
Indigenous societies. Canberra.
Lukacs, G. and Finlayson, C. (2010). An evaluation of ecological information on Australia’s northern
tropical rivers and wetlands. Wetlands Ecological Management, 18: 597-625.
Magowan, F. (2002). Ganma: Negotiating Indigenous water knowledge in a global water crisis.
Cultural Survival, 26: 18-19.
McDonald, E., Coldrick, B. and Villiers, L. (2005). Study of groundwater-related Aboriginal cultural
values on the Gnangara Mound, Western Australia. A report to the Department of Environment. Perth.
McFarlane, B. (2004). The National Water Initiative and acknowledging Indigenous interests in
planning. Paper presented to the National Water Conference, Sydney, 29 November 2004.
(http://www.nntt.gov.au). Accessed 12 April 2010.
31
McJannet, D., Wallace, J., Henderson, A. and McMahon, J. (2009). High and low flow regime
changes at environmental assets across northern Australia under future climate and development
scenarios. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Sustainable
Yields Project. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship. Australia.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for
assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Morgan, M., Strelein, L. and Weir, J. (2004a). Indigenous rights to water in the Murray Darling Basin:
In support of the Indigenous final report to the Living Murray Initiative. Australian Institute of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) Research Discussion Paper No. 14. AIATSIS. Canberra.
Morgan, M., Strelein, L. and Weir, J. (2004b). Indigenous water rights within the Murray Darling Basin.
Indigenous Law Bulletin, 5: 17-20.
Morgan, M., Strelein, L. and Weir, J. (2007). Authority, knowledge and values: Indigenous nations
engagement of natural resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. In: M. Langton, O. Mazel, L. Palmer, K.
Shain and M. Tehan (eds.), Settling with Indigenous people. Annandale.
Morphy, F. and Morphy, H. (2009). The Blue Mud Bay case: refractions through saltwater country.
Dialogue 28 (1): 15-23.
Murray, E., Radke, L., Brooke, B., Ryan, D., Moss, A., Murphy, R., Robb, M., and Rissik, D. (2006)
Australia’s newr-pristine estuaries: current knowledge and management, Cooperative Research
Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management. Queensland.
National Water Commission (2004). Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative
between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria,
Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
http://nwc.gov.au/nwi, Accessed July 2010.
National Water Commission (2009). Australian Water Reform 2009: Second biennial assessment of
progress in implementation of the National Water Initiative. National Water Commission. Canberra.
Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce (2009). Sustainable Development in Northern Australia.
A report to Government from the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce. Department of
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Canberra.
Poff, L., Allan, J., Bain, M., Karr, J., Prestegaard, K., Richter, B., Sparks, R. and Stromberg, J..
(1997). The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience, 47:
769-784.
Pusey, B. and Kennard, M. (2009). Aquatic ecosystems in northern Australia. In: CSIRO (ed.),
Northern Land and Water Science Review 2009 Full Report. Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Local Government. Canberra.
32
Pusey, B. (2010). Chapter 2: Study Area. In: M. Kennard (ed.), Identifying high conservation value
aquatic ecosystems in northern Australia. Final report for the Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts, and the National Water Commission. Darwin.
Pusey, B. (2011). ‘Introduction Brad Pusey', Aquatic Biodiversity in Northern Australia: patterns,
threats and future, pp. 5-22. Charles Darwin University Press. Darwin.
Pusey, B., Warfe, D.,Townsend, S., Douglas, M., Burrows, D., Kennard, M., Close, P. (2011). Chapter
10, Condition, impacts and threats to aquatic biodiversity. Aquatic biodiversity in northern Australia:
patterns, threats and future. Charles Darwin University Press. Darwin.
Rea, N and the Anmatyerr Water Project Team (2008). Provision for Cultural Values in Water
Management: The Anmatyerr Story. Land & Water Australia Final Report. Canberra.
Robinson, C.J., Jackson, S., Straton, A., Eberhard, R., Wallington, T., Dzedic, P., Camkin, J. and
Bohensky, E. (2009). Review of existing cultural and social initiatives and key groups and
organisations across northern Australia associated with water. A report to the Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, and the National Water Commission. CSIRO Water for a
Healthy Country Flagship, Australia.
Rose (1997) Ecological knowledge and the scientific community. Bushfire '97: Proceedings of the
Australian Bushfire Conference. 8th-10th July. Darwin.
Rose, D. (2004). Fresh water rights and biophilia: Indigenous Australian perspectives. Dialogue, 3:
35-42.
Schnierer, S. (2002). Scientific and environmental issues related to Indigenous ownership and use of
aquatic environments in Australia. In: Lingiari Foundation (ed.), Background briefing papers:
Indigenous rights to waters. Broome.
Stein. J and Nix, H. (2002). Spatial analysis of anthropogenic river disturbance at regional and
continental scales: identifying the wild rivers of Australia, Landscape and Urban Planning, 60: 1-25.
Center for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University. Canberra.
Sharp, N. (2002) Saltwater people: the waves of memory. Allen and Unwin, Australia.
Sinclair Knight Merz (2009). Ecological assets of northern Australia study. Report to the Department
of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Canberra.
Stoeckl, N., Stanley, O., Jackson, S., Straton, A. and Brown, V. (2006). An assessment of the social
and economic values of Australia’s tropical rivers. A report for Land and Water Australia. Darwin.
Storey, A. (2006). Ecological values of the Fitzroy River with links to Indigenous cultural values. In: R.
Hill, K. Golson, P.A. Lowe, M.K. Mann, S. Hayes, and J.E. Blackwood (eds.), Kimberley Appropriate
Economies Roundtable Forum Proceedings. Convened 11-13 October 2005, Fitzroy Crossing,
Western Australia, by the Kimberley Land Council, Environs Kimberley and Australian Conservation
Foundation. Australian Conservation Foundation. Cairns.
33
Strang, V. (2001). Poisoning the rainbow: mining, pollution and Indigenous cosmology in far north
Queensland. In: A. Rumsey and J. Weiner (eds.). Mining and Indigenous Lifeworlds in Australia and
Papua New Guinea. Sean Kingston Publishing, Oxford, UK: pp. 208-205.
Strang, V. (2005). Water works: Agency and creativity in the Mitchell River catchment. The Australian
Journal of Anthropology, 6: 366-381.
Straton, A. and Zander, K. (2009).The value of Australia’s tropical ecosystem services. Charles
Darwin University. Darwin.
Tan, P., Jackson, S., Oliver, P., Mackenzie, J., Proctor, W., Ayre, M. (2008). Collaborative Water
Planning: Context & Practice, Literature Review. Report to the Tropical Rivers and Coastal
Knowledge (TRaCK) program. Land & Water Australia. Canberra.
Tipa, G. (2009). Exploring Indigenous Understandings of River Dynamics and River Flows: A Case
from New Zealand. Environmental Communication, 3: 95-120.
Tipa, G. and Teirney, L. (2003). A cultural health index for streams and waterways: indicators for
recognising and expressing Maori value. A report to the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment,
Wellington. New Zealand.
Toussaint, S., Sullivan, P., Yu, S. and Mularty, M. (2001). Fitzroy Valley Indigenous cultural values
study. A report for the Water and Rivers Commission. Perth.
Toussaint, S., Sullivan, P. and Yu, S. (2005). Water ways in Aboriginal Australia: An interconnected
analysis. Anthropological Forum, 15: 61-74.
Toussaint, S. (2009). For whom the Fitzroy River flows: A fluctuating analysis of social and
environmental sustainability and incremental sovereignty. In: H. Ghosh, S. Goodall, and H. Donald
(eds.), Water, sovereignty and borders In Asia and Oceania. New York, USA.
van Dam, R., Bartolo, R. and Bayliss, P. (2008a). Chapter 2 – Identification of ecological assets,
pressures and threats. In: R. Bartolo, P. Bayliss and R. van Dam (eds), Ecological risk assessment for
Australia’s northern tropical rivers. Sub-project 2 of Australia’s Tropical Rivers – an integrated data
assessment and analysis. A report to Land and Water Australia. Environmental Research Institute of
the Supervising Scientist, National Centre for Tropical Wetland Research. Darwin.
van Dam, R., Bartolo, R. and Bayliss, P. (2008b). Chapter 1 –Introduction. In: R. Bartolo, P. Bayliss
and R. van Dam (eds), Ecological risk assessment for Australia’s northern tropical rivers. Sub-project
2 of Australia’s Tropical Rivers – an integrated data assessment and analysis. A report to Land and
Water Australia. Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, National Centre for
Tropical Wetland Research. Darwin.
34
Venn, T. and Quiggan, J. (2007). Accommodating indigenous cultural heritage values in resource
assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Ecological Economics,
61: 334-344.
Ward, D., Pusey, B., Brooks, A., Olley, J., Shellberg, J., Spencer, J., Tews K. (2011). River
landscapes and aquatic systems diversity, Chapter 2 pp 5-23.
Weir, J. (2008). 'Connectivity', Australian Humanities Review, 45, pp.153-164. Canberra.
Weir, J. (2009). Murray River Country: An ecological dialogue with traditional owners. Canberra.
Weir, J. (2011). Water planning and dispossession. In: D. Lonnell and R. Quentin Grafton (eds.),
Basin Futures: Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. ANU e-press. Canberra.
Wirf, L., Campbell, A. and Rea, N. (2008). Implications of gendered environmental knowledge in water
allocation processes in central Australia. Gender, Place and Culture, 15: 505-518.
Woinarski, J., Mackey, B., Nix, H. and Traill, B. (2007). The Nature of northern Australia: Natural
Values, Ecological Processes and Future Prospects. ANU e-press. Canberra.
Woodward, E., Jackson, S. and Straton, A. (2008). Water resources of the Howard River region,
Northern Territory: A report on the social and cultural values and a stakeholder assessment of water
use scenarios. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems. Darwin.
Young, M. (2004). Social values of the Daly Region: a preliminary assessment. A report to the Daly
Region Community Reference Group. Darwin.
Yu, S. (1999). Ngapa Kunangkul: Living Water. Report on the Aboriginal cultural values of
groundwater in the La Grange sub-basin. A report for the Water and Rivers Commission of Western
Australian. Perth.
Yu, S. (2006). Cultural studies of the Fitzroy River, WA. In: R. Hill, K. Golson, P.A. Lowe, M.K. Mann,
S. Hayes, and J.E. Blackwood (eds.), Kimberley Appropriate Economies Roundtable Forum
Proceedings. Convened 11-13 October 2005, Fitzroy Crossing, Western Australia, by the Kimberley
Land Council, Environs Kimberley and Australian Conservation Foundation. Australian Conservation
Foundation. Cairns.
35