About NAILSMA Ltd.
The North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management
Alliance Ltd. (NAILSMA) delivers large-scale initiatives
across northern Australia and is committed to finding
practical solutions that support Indigenous people and the
management of their lands for future generations. Its
culture-based economy approach aims to assist Indigenous
people through livelihoods and employment on their
country. NAILSMA is an Indigenous owned and managed
not-for-profit company. It has a strong track record of
delivering award-winning programs in challenging and
complex settings.
About the NAILSMA Knowledge Series
The NAILSMA Knowledge Series recognises and provides a
forum for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people
responsible for land and sea management across north
Australia. It is an information point for the dissemination of
knowledge from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous
perspectives on a broad range of issues relevant to land and
sea management. The series encompasses a broad range of
publication types including, for example, discussion and
policy papers, research reports, workshop and conference
reports, opinion pieces, and Indigenous Knowledge
publications. Publications in the NAILSMA Knowledge Series
are available electronically and, in limited cases, in hard
copy. Knowledge Series publications and other publications
by NAILSMA and its partners or collaborators are available
from the NAILSMA Ltd website www.nailsma.org.au.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in the NAILSMA Knowledge Series are not
necessarily those of NAILSMA. NAILSMA shall not be responsible in any way
whatsoever to any person relying in whole or part on the contents of this
publication. To the extent permitted by law, NAILSMA excludes all liability to any
person for any consequences, including, but not limited to all losses, damages,
costs, expenses, and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from
using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material
contained in it.
This report was jointly funded by the National Water Commission and the
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
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.
Indigenous knowledge in water planning,
management and policy
Cape York Peninsula, Qld.
Case Studies
Chris Roberts
2012
Copyright 2012 - North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd.
This publication is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research,
criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced, by any
process, without written permission from the publisher.
For requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights, contact:
North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea
Management Alliance Ltd.
PO Box 486
CHARLES DARWIN UNIVERSITY NT 0815
Phone: +61 8 89467673
Fax:
+61 8 89466364
www.nailsma.org.au
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:
Title:
Edition:
ISSN
ISBN
Series:
Subjects:
Indigenous knowledge in water planning, management and policy – Cape York
Peninsula, Qld. Case Studies
First edition
1837-4166
978-0-9808524-8-6
North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance
Knowledge Series
Indigenous studies, livelihoods, water rights, north Australia
Suggested citation:
Roberts, C., 2012. Indigenous knowledge in water planning, management and policy – Cape York
Peninsula, Qld. Case Studies. NAILSMA Knowledge Series 10/2012. North Australian Indigenous Land
and Sea Management Alliance Ltd. Darwin.
“What management plan?
We got our own management plan.”
Donovan Walmbeng, Aak Puul Ngantam Senior Ranger, on
integrating Indigenous knowledge into water management plans.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded as part of the Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment (NAWFA).
NAWFA is a multidisciplinary program being delivered jointly by the Department of Sustainability,
Water, Population and Communities and the National Water Commission, in close collaboration with
the Office of Northern Australia and State and Territory government agencies.
Thanks to all the Traditional Owners who once again graciously indulged us with their time; Sue
Jackson of CSIRO who put us close to the kernel literature on this subject; Poh Ling Tan who did
much of the legal and literature review legwork regarding collaborative planning; John McKenzie
with whom I shared an instant simpatico regarding challenges of time, topic and research
philosophy; Melissa Sinclair Aak Puul Ngantam researcher and PhD student, for her well informed
‘reality check’ capabilities; and anthropologists John Von Sturmer and Dave Martin for distilled gems
born of living with and as Indigenous people.
2
Executive Summary
1. This report stems from the National Water Initiatives’ inclusion of Indigenous
interest in future water management.
2. In the context of Indigenous and non-Indigenous water planning, the study details
Two Cape York Studies - one at Aurukun and one at Coen. The responses of
Traditional Owners to planning proposals and the researchers’ interpretation of
these responses form a major part of the report.
3. The report deals with the broader implications of future water policy for Indigenous
land holders and their communities. The lack of appreciation of Indigenous water
values and past failure to gain meaningful input into policy from Indigenous
spokespersons has led to a serious mismatch of processes and expectations.
Recommendations are made to remove procedural constraints to cooperative
planning in future policy planning activities.
4. Ten conclusions are reached to guide more effective Indigenous water planning in
the future.
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 3
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Context ............................................................................................................................. 6
2. The Cape York case studies .................................................................................................... 8
2.1 The social history of the two Cape York case study sites................................................. 8
2.1.1 Coen case study site .................................................................................................. 8
2.1.2 Aurukun case study site ............................................................................................. 9
2.2 Case study methodology ................................................................................................ 10
2.2.1 Introducing this project to the Traditional Owner groups at Coen and Aurukun ... 10
2.3 Interviews on site ........................................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Selected Coen response: ......................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Selected Aurukun response: .................................................................................... 12
3. Discussion............................................................................................................................. 14
3.1 Initial observations on these responses ......................................................................... 14
3.2 Discussion of initial Traditional Owners’ responses and research procedures ............. 14
4. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 19
References ............................................................................................................................... 21
4
1. Introduction
1.1 Abstract
Two prospective Traditional Owner groups were approached as early as the contract
process allowed. Despite good intentions on the part of all parties, circumstances conspired
to force a consideration of factors and ‘feelings’ that did not fit comfortably into the
technical research domain, and that extended deep into the social and professional
conscience of research. In fact feelings, beliefs and emotions are generally discarded by
researchers as subjective elements that are immiscible in the general understanding of
‘research’ pertaining to water and land.
In short, these factors relate to respectful engagement, including time, the community
agenda at the time, day-to-day community business, a substantial shortage of qualified
facilitators and translators, funerals, and allowing the community the time and resources to
formulate its own research approach and nominate its own researchers.
Indigenous peoples see their country as theirs and every other interest group as secondary,
so rather than finding a place for Indigenous values in a larger generic framework they argue
that secondary interests should make a case for recognition of their interests in the
Indigenous water management plan. This position would seem to be quite reasonable given
the demographics and tenure characteristics of remote northern Australia.
The paper does however, in the vein of research convention, examine the literature on
Indigenous use, values, engagement tools and Indigenous participation emanating from or
associated primarily with the northern Australian manifestation of the National Water
Initiative (NWI), via the TRaCK collaborative water planning sub-program.
5
1.2 Context
The current study is a sub-project of the Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment
(NAWFA).
Given time restraints and the associated limiting factors for proper community consultation
procedures, the Cape York sub-project aims are as follows.
1. Do something positive for the Traditional Owner groups concerned and provide
Indigenous knowledge (IK) amenable to being integrated with Western science.
2. Produce outputs that are understandable by all.
3. Provide financial and mentoring support for Traditional Owners to speak to their
respective groups in their own language, arrange their own discussion groups, make
their own notes, control those notes and learn about conventional research
processes and protocols.
4. Provide readers with an insight into Indigenous thinking, values and priorities.
5. Provide Traditional Owners with information about what drives and constrains
conventional planning. For example, multiple use concepts, resource sharing,
biodiversity protection, representative areas planning, use intensity (site hardening,
intensive grazing/agriculture), zoning, connectivity, public safety considerations,
seasonality of access, cost, legislation and other factors relevant to resource use and
management.
6. Explore ways to introduce sensitive knowledge into joint planning that does not
compromise Traditional Owners.
The above project aspirations were partly fulfilled given that the Traditional Owners
concerned took the project in a direction that allowed them to speak their minds regarding
knowledge sharing.
At the outset, it was predicted that a significant amount of discussion would focus on what
is believed to be two significant barriers in planning and management involving Indigenous
people.
1. The different perspectives and values of ‘outside’ managers compared with
Indigenous equivalents giving rise to the rationales underpinning management in
those two groups.
2. The question of the level of respect that researchers, through their processes and
imperatives, have for the people and their beliefs who are the focus of the
investigation. It would be fair to say that most researchers would be sceptical about
Indigenous beliefs even though the linkage between beliefs, knowledge, values and
management intent is highly significant. A respectful way of incorporating sensitive
IK is suggested as an interim measure until proper process and internal capability
evolves.
6
At the behest of Traditional Owners, the study was refocused more on the ‘how’ (process)
than the ‘what’ (content) questions relating to integration of Indigenous knowledge into
water management, policy, use and planning.
7
2. The Cape York case studies
2.1 The social history of the two Cape York case study sites
2.1.1 Coen case study site
Location: ‘The Bend’, Coen River, Coen, Cape York, Australia.
This site is located 6 km north of Coen in central Cape York and is regarded today as the
halfway mark to Cape York (Pajinka), seen as the modern frontiersman’s ‘must do’. As a
result of this tourism traffic, Cook Shire Council has been keen to provide tourism amenities
(e.g. toilets and rest areas) in strategic areas. ‘The Bend’ is one of these.
The Bend is southern Kaantju and Ayapathu country, but had been appropriated (taken) as a
rest and recreation area since Coen’s earliest times.
Coen is a small community with a varying population between 250 - 300 people,
approximately 85% of whom are Aboriginal. The town was established in 1893 after gold
was found in 1876 (Jenny Creek, 2010 pers comm.). As was the experience in many parts of
Australia, Indigenous peoples did not fare well amongst gold diggers. The settlement
attracted Aboriginal people and brought alcohol and sickness into their lives.
Mr Thomas Creek decided to move his family out of town to an area near “the Bend” in the
1980s to a traditional camping ground called Wukunta-nguma. The older siblings each
established their own camps near their parents.
The Creeks felt happy and comfortable there, away from the ravages of alcohol in the town
area and importantly having the inherited cultural authority to use the campsite of their
“old people”. They have always been very well connected to the place historically and
traditionally as evidenced in anthropological and claim book records made available to this
project.
A few hundred metres to the north is the Mutuka-nguma, big scrub bandicoot story. This is
now known as ‘the Bend’ proper. Approximately 400m upstream is the most important
story place of the Southern Kaantju people, the resting place of the Rainbow Snake Piama.
This place is called ‘Wanchan’ - “the Rainbow Snake makes sure that the water flows
properly in all Kaantju country”. (Jenny Creek, 2012 pers comm.).
In 1994 the Creek family were evicted from their traditional camp. Despite Professor Athol
Chase reviewing information gathered by John Von Sturmer in 1989 and collecting
additional material to make a case on behalf of the Creek family to overturn the eviction
notice, the Creek family were forced to relocate to the Coen township.
In 2009, Mt Croll Station was returned to the Toolka Land Trust. The Creeks and Bally
families were under the impression that this transfer would also include that part of the
8
Bend nearest to the waterfall, Wanchan, the resting place of the Rainbow Snake located
upstream of the reserve. They believed that the area was previously part of Mt Croll station
and should have been transferred to the Toolka Land Trust. Subsequently Traditional
Owners were advised that this important area was to be transferred to the trusteeship of
Cook Shire Council. Traditional Owners sought to have the transfer of the Bend to Cook
Shire Council delayed until an agreement between Cook shire and Traditional Owners about
the management of the area could be negotiated. However the Queensland Government
proceeded with the transfer without such an agreement.
Soon after the transfer, the Department of Environment and Resource Management and
Cook Shire Council developed a draft Management Plan for the area with negligible
discussion with Traditional Owners. The Queensland Department of Environment and the
Cook Shire Council are now seeking input into the draft management plan from the Creek
family and other Traditional Owners.
This post-facto involvement of Traditional Owners occurs too frequently in many instances
on Cape York, where Traditional Owners – even though they are the most affected – do not
achieve parity in planning priorities, policy development or management.
2.1.2 Aurukun case study site
Location: Wik, Wik-waya and Kugu people collectively known as the Wik people hold native
title or seek native title over 2.7 million hectares of land (Pryor 2000) in the remote Cape
York Peninsula. The Southern Wik traditional homelands are within these lands, and for the
purpose of this study consist of homelands that fall within the Aurukun Aboriginal land lease
held by the Aurukun Shire Council, approximately 900km north-west of Cairns and 200km
south of Weipa. The Aurukun Shire Council is the main planning authority for the study area,
and numerous other government departments and Indigenous agencies have jurisdiction
over the wider Cape York area (Memmott and Blackwood 2008).
The Southern Wik homelands referenced in this study fall within the area that extends south
of the Archer River to the Kendall and Kirke Rivers. The area is dominated by wetlands and
stringy bark forests (Venn, 2004).Due to a robust outstation movement between the 1970s
and 1980s, there are up to 24 outstations dotted throughout Southern Wik homelands
(Memmott and Blackwood, 2008). There are large rivers in the area, with extensive
floodplains as well as significant areas of savannah woodland that have been targeted for
carbon abatement and carbon credit research. The area is replete with cultural sites and IK,
and at least three prominent anthropologists have worked there. However this project is
not about the knowledge per se but about how that knowledge manifests itself in water
management planning.
The Traditional Owners spoke of their homelands water features in broad terms, not sitespecifically, due to their own sensitivity about sharing with outsiders their sacred sites,
water places and knowledge. Regardless of time constraints, this sensitivity may challenge
any research agenda that seeks to selectively integrate Indigenous values and knowledge
selected by non-Indigenous policy makers or researchers into non-Indigenous determined
policy. This criticism has been made before by Australian indigenist researcher Posey (1999).
9
2.2 Case study methodology
Indigenist researchers have highlighted that Indigenous people are one of the most
researched peoples on earth, yet the outcomes of such research have not resulted in
Indigenous people benefitting. This reflects an entangled power relationship between the
researcher and the researched (Martin, 2004; Smith 1999). Post-colonial perspectives
specifically challenge research to acknowledge the politics of the production of knowledge
(Shaw et al, 2006), and the practices of research that are in themselves political (Martin,
2003; Howitt and Jackson, 1998).
As a researcher and staff member of Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation, an
Indigenous regional organisation, it would have been appropriate and right to implement a
methodology that reflected the literature that supports a post-colonial approach to research
with Indigenous people. However, due to the time constraints and the NWI pre-determined
research agenda, this research paper has instead used more standard methodology of
qualitative interviews with self-selected participants from the research area, assisted by
some facilitation from Aak Puul Ngantam Cape York over a few visits to community between
February and April 2012.
In 2009, Aak Puul Ngantam Cape York (APN) was formed by Southern Wik Traditional
Owners as an incorporated entity to apply for and administer their own funds, including
research funds, for the management of the Southern Wik country. Ideally, the Southern Wik
case study of this sub-project should have been done by APN because they have all the
necessary skills (traditional knowledge, academic research, full language translation) at their
disposal, but unfortunately time restrictions prevented their greater involvement. Given
another three or four months, a powerful outcome would have been possible.
It was made very clear by Traditional Owners that they are doing the management plan for
their country, so this project was not concerned with how Indigenous knowledge is
manifested in the plan.
However, critically, a regional plan was placed over the top of their process in April, 2009, in
the form of the Archer River Wild River Declaration. Traditional Owners of Aak Puul
Ngantam were outraged at how this came about. They were most concerned that another
layer of conservation planning legislation would need to be negotiated in order to develop
plans for the management of the land and water resources. They are now assessing how
they may best proceed.
2.2.1 Introducing this project to the Traditional Owner groups at Coen and Aurukun
First, phone calls were made to the two participant groups. These groups were undertaking
planning at different scales, in different areas and in different stages of evolution and
implementation. Both of the groups had pre-existing relationships with Balkanu.1 In fact,
Balkanu played a significant role in supporting the formation of these groups, and enjoys a
level of trust with them. This was a factor that first opened up the opportunity for the
project.
10
The project was introduced face-to-face to Traditional Owners as soon as practicable by the
Balkanu researcher, in the following way in Feb 2012:
“There is some funding available to assist you with parts of your planning. We would like to
help you get your ideas and concerns across in a research paper that will be seen by others
so that they recognise you and what you want for your country.”
“This project focuses on Indigenous knowledge around water.”
“It seems to us [Balkanu], when you Traditional Owners make plans for country by
yourselves, you already have the Indigenous knowledge, know the sites, the bush tucker, the
poison places; you already know who speaks for each area. This is not an issue or a problem
for you. But because Traditional Owners cannot own water under white-fella law there is
always someone else involved; might be national parks, some other government
department, shire council, consultant doing research, strangers.”
“How do you think you can get your knowledge into the management plan?”
The contact representatives at the time (November 2011) for each group thought
something worthwhile could come of the proposal, but they needed to seek broader
counsel despite being important Traditional Owners for the countries concerned. The
Christmas festive season soon descended, and staff at NAILSMA (tendering the subcontracts) and Balkanu (sub-contractor) worked over their holidays to obtain formal
approvals, start ethics approval processes and complete contract details.
The first visit to Traditional Owners of Aurukun and Coen was made in February 2012.
2.3 Interviews on site
The Balkanu researcher presented the project to Traditional Owners, concluding with the
words: “How do you think you can get your knowledge into the management plan?”; the
responses are outlined in the following sub-section.
2.3.1 Selected Coen response:
This case study concerns a small area, a recreational reserve created by the State
Government under trustee ship of Cook Shire Council, adjacent to an important cultural site
and a traditional camp ground. Outside the reserve, the cultural site (Wanchan, a waterfall
and associated pools) is a magnet for locals and visitors. Part of the reserve has currently
been fenced off by Traditional Owners and a sign placed at the access to the area stating:
“No Camping”.
Jennifer Creek, Traditional Owner and Cultural Heritage Officer, Southern Kaantju.
“That waterfall is the resting place of the rainbow serpent Paima. He controls all the water in
our area. You got to have proper smell for that place to go there. Paima can get angry and
11
change the water flow. We get very upset when we can’t control who goes there. We believe
in these things.”
2.3.2 Selected Aurukun response:
Dorothy Pootchemunka and Dawn Kundumbin (Mama Archer) had been briefed by the APN
contact and co-ordinator, a Traditional Owner. Both senior Traditional Owners speak English
well to the extent of being asked to act as interpreters in local justice matters.
Dorothy Pootchemunka, Senior Traditional Owner for Kirke River area stated:
“We got a lot of important story place out there, we believe in that. We want others to
respect that”.
The first thing Dawn Kundumbin (Mama Archer), Senior Traditional Owner for Archer River
said after hearing the brief was: “There is a tree there along the river, you touch it, you get
sick…..leprosy”.
Donovan Walmbeng, APN senior ranger, after senior ladies had called him across the space
outside the store, had not been briefed. The women wanted him, as an important operative
in traditional management aspirations and as someone wise to the hazards of “new people”
to make an assessment of the “opportunity” to introduce Indigenous knowledge into water
planning, management and policy. Donovan stated:
“What management plan? We doing our own management plan”.
Chris Roberts responded: “Ok that’s good, but let’s say there’s a management plan being
done by white-fellas somewhere else.”
Walmbeng: “That’s simple. If white people tell us they got something buried there, we don’t
go there. Simple. We don’t ask questions, we respect that. They should do that for us, too.”
Dorothy Pootchemunka asked her Elder, Mr Silas Wolmby, to come to a separate meeting
on this matter. The interviewer was known to Mr Wolmby, having been on a trip to Darwin
some years ago. Dorothy spoke to Mr Wolby in Wik in order to reframe the question
conceptually. Mr Wolmby stated “When someone dies we return their spirit to their country.
The rivers were there from the beginning.” [“intimin” in Wik language].
When the idea of water sharing or moving water was proposed (e.g., pipelines), Mr Wolmby
said in essence that white people were clever people, and that they should be able to work
out their own problems without affecting his country.
Roberts was left alone with Mr Wolmby to have a ‘man-to-man’ discussion. Roberts used
bread as an example. “Ol’ man, let me give you an example of this problem. You buy bread
from the store. The wheat to make the flour for the bread comes from Queensland or New
South Wales. If those farmers don’t have water, then there might be a problem for all of
us.”
12
Mr Wolmby listened intently. The conversation lasted two and a half hours.
Mr Wolmby was asked about solutions to the big water problem in Australia, and how it
could be discussed. Mr Wolmby responded:
“My boy in my language we say this…let’s sit quiet….tell me what you thinking. Then I tell
you what I’m thinking. You might say you wrong old man, I might say you wrong there boy.
So tell me what you thinking.”
I believe Mr Wolmby was recommending the logical mechanism for informed consent. “Tell
me what you are thinking” before, not after, the fact.
The key theme of discussion with senior people is always about departed spirits. These
spirits are returned to their country, to the land and water. The reality for them is that the
water and earth contain spirits, and both land and water contain story places. When
someone dies, country is closed and so is the house of the deceased until there is a
ceremony allowing access. This means that the ability to use different configurations of
resources on country must remain flexible. In effect, this operates as a rotational resource
access base.
13
3. Discussion
3.1 Initial observations on these responses
Despite these interactions only being short in duration, the following implications were
evident.
1. These Indigenous people were irritated by researchers parachuting projects into
their country at short notice.
2. They had no context in which to think about the implications of the sub-project, how
they could improve outcomes in their favour, and which assumptions they might
challenge. Traditional Owners need to know who is asking and why, as well as
what’s in it for them.
3. Indigenous knowledge’ itself was in the minds of individual Traditional Owners and
always associated with story places. That is, knowledge is not separate to the person
and the land.
4. Traditional Owners felt that most non-Indigenous people that used their country had
little regard for their story places. In the Coen case this concern extended to any
Indigenous people other than Southern Kaantju people using the waterfall area
without their permission.
5. Traditional Owners felt that most non-Indigenous people did not believe in their
stories or what they regarded as the proper way to care for country.
6. Traditional Owners felt that many non-Indigenous people did not respect or believe
that Traditional Owners held such beliefs and so disregarded them and the cultural
rules for their countries.
7. The Traditional Owners provided timely notice to this non-Indigenous author that
doing the wrong thing on country has consequences.
8. Traditional Owners can only think and act within the bounds of what they know.
3.2 Discussion of initial Traditional Owners’ responses and research
procedures
Some Traditional Owners in the Aurukun case were unaware of this project, despite signed
permissions from representative bodies. It was due to time pressures and, in the case of
Aurukun, larger areas with more families were involved. Facilitating organisations do face
the wrath of Traditional Owners in these circumstances. However, once appraised of the
context and utility of opportunities, concerns abated. Earlier research planning would
facilitate better outcomes. APN had all the requisite skills to do its own research, but the
timing of the project and earlier commitments prevented it from happening. Balkanu was
14
thus asked to do the work. It became clear that running a side research project created
significant difficulties and interfered with the clear process flow that had been decided over
a lengthy series of governance meetings about due process. It was only personal familiarity,
understanding elders, patient facilitators and researcher support that enabled progress.
Ideally projects need to be generated by the Traditional Owners in the knowledge of a
certain sequence of events. Researchers can fall into a trap of taking on research that stems
from a sequence of events alien to the Traditional Owner group. When Traditional Owners
ask how this project came about, the answer is that in 1994 COAG established a water
reform agenda, and in 2004 the Commonwealth Government set up the National Water
Commission who commissioned the National Water Initiative (NWI). The NWI then spawned
the North Australia Water Futures Assessment (NAWFA) which developed a sub-program,
“Indigenous social, cultural and economic aspirations with respect to land and water
management and development in the north of Australia”. That in turn initiated a further
branch in the research framework, ‘Identifying tools and processes to capture/articulate
Indigenous social and economic aspirations with respect to water in Northern Australia’. The
North Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA) tendered for the
roll-out of the latter and called for expressions of interest from parties in the Kimberley,
Northern Territory, Gulf of Carpentaria and Cape York.
In an ideal world Traditional Owners should understand the origins of the research projects
as well as the motivations for water reform. That in itself is at least a full day exercise, and
that is if people do not have other commitments- the fact is, most do. Tenders were let
approaching Christmas when many key personnel were intending to take leave and research
permissions were going to be difficult to obtain. Developing the sub-contracts was time
consuming.
There is a question about why the sub-contractor (Balkanu) took on the project. The answer
is that it offered opportunity for the Traditional Owners of prospective case study areas to
voice their opinions about the integration of Indigenous knowledge in water planning,
management and policy.
However, because of time pressure, the research process became an issue. Respect was
required on both fronts - content and process. As has been stated, time limitations were a
significant issue. Because of the nature of close-knit communities where any social event
has broad implications, time is a valuable commodity when planning community projects. If
there is insufficient time, the quality of engagement and outcomes fall short of expectations
on all sides. Executive decision-making in Western society is seen as a sign of strength and
efficiency. But in communities where long deliberation (especially outside meeting rooms) is
the norm, insufficient time alienates people and stifles co-operation.
Traditional Owners were quick to associate Indigenous knowledge with culture and ‘story
places’, perhaps reflecting a priority about cultural integrity. The forms of Indigenous
knowledge relevant to water management could be listed as:


location of culturally important places;
protocols prescribed for entering, and use rules for those places;
15



the person or people who are rightfully responsible for that place, its management
and management of areas around it;
the social connections and economic interactions brought about by the linkages
between places; and
ecological knowledge in relation to both species, and ecological processes – e.g. fire
(Langton, 2006).
Widely respected anthropologist John von Sturmer, who has worked extensively with both
the Coen and Aurukun groups, made a powerful statement when he said of outside
investigators:
“Too many seem to think Indigenous knowledge can be separated from the person”, pers
comm. March 2012.
In this researcher’s view, this sentiment strikes at the heart of the Indigenous knowledge
question and how that knowledge can be lost when it changes language, changes context
and is separated from place and people. The concept of endemism of knowledge and local
relevance is discussed by Roberts in Roberts and Wallis (2002). Questions can be raised
about the reasons for moving Indigenous knowledge from its place and people of origin
other than for storage purposes and academic interest. The value and practical application
of the knowledge is for and by the people who hold it, and the country to which it applies.
This makes the people to whom it belongs indispensible. They are the only people capable
of proper interpretation and demonstration. Indigenous knowledge is in the main a practical
outdoors activity passed between kin. A successful hybridisation of Indigenous and scientific
knowledge will require the Western science component to “set up camp” for a number of
years in the area concerned.
The fact that it is not a practice for non-Indigenous people to inquire about ownership of the
country they use for recreation, commercial gain or when they claim management rights
leaves Traditional Owners with the impression that “stranger users” and outside resource
managers don’t care and behave better only when they are forced to. This generally occurs
only when some secure land title is achieved by Traditional Owners and where there is a
functioning and resourced Traditional Owner body vested with holding the land. Only then
can capacities such as ranger units exercise the will of the landholding group. Several Cape
York groups have had their land returned to them only recently.
The general public and government agencies frequently do not believe in the same things
that Traditional Owners do in relation to managing country, including biodiversity priorities.
Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people agree that maintaining a broad diversity of
plants and animals is the right goal, and providing extra protection for rare animals is a
logical corollary to that aspiration. However, the differences between broader Australian
values and Indigenous values is highlighted by the focus of contemporary official
management on species listed as rare and threatened as opposed to focus on utilitarian
species in Indigenous management scenarios. This is fertile ground for management and
stakeholder conflict. But a greater differential in Indigenous/non-Indigenous management
aspiration and intent lies in the cultural priorities and spiritual components of management.
Neither the wider Australian public nor Government agencies can be expected to ‘believe in’
16
Indigenous constructs of landscape and values without knowing about them. Thus, Western
perspectives of management that focus on the three pillars of ESD (economic,
environmental and social), biodiversity preservation, representative areas, national reserve
system and other ‘bio-logic’ concepts or values that do not take into account ‘spirit’ are
dominant.
Social scientists have started to fight to find a place for social values, wellbeing, and chosen
livelihoods in resource management, but Indigenous concepts of place, people and
relatedness still remain a giant leap behind. The absence of an overt spiritual component or
criterion in mainstream Western management is the root cause of serious differences of
opinion. The seriousness with which the Indigenous people ‘live the belief system’ and
follow the native religion and laws of the area, is constantly downplayed in planning,
management and policy. Therefore, significant resistance and conflict accrues, or has the
potential to accrue, in Indigenous communities. Reactions include refusal to engage.
Despite the high transaction costs of proper engagement – the expense of getting people to
gatherings, discussions, and meetings in or from remote areas - the long-term benefits of
Indigenous groups owning the solutions must be borne in mind. Jackson and Morrison,
2007, mention the other form of transaction cost incurred: “The uncertainty and potential
for high transaction costs arising from conflict, compensation and disaffection between
parties suggests that there should be inclusive processes that bring parties together to
negotiate”. Remedying conflict is emotionally and financially costly. Much of this conflict can
be avoided by openness at the very start of a process.
Implicit in Mr Womby’s “tell me what you are thinking” idea is that Traditional Owners
require a more expansive interaction when talking about their country. They require
communication that encompasses much more than just the science but includes an open
dialogue and a process where ideas and consequences of actions are laid in a
comprehensive and thoughtful way. This kind of more iterative, holistic process is well
documented and examples include Arbinger’s social solutions (www.arbinger.com) and the
Second Road program (www.secondroad.com.au). Both of these processes provide a
framework for effective communication between people who have different historical and
cultural backgrounds.
Not acknowledging or respecting that Indigenous people “believe in” (to use the words of
the Traditional Owners) the spiritual elements of their country is disrespectful. In a modern
world where determining management actions and priorities is often undertaken remotely
and computer based using complex weighting algorithms, the values, beliefs and
management actions of Indigenous people must be reconciled and have precedence.
In both case study areas, Traditional Owners made it clear that strangers require either a
Traditional Owner escort, induction ceremony or both for the newcomer to be safe and for
Traditional Owners to feel comfortable that they had acquitted their responsibilities to
country and to the newcomer. In most cases, the simplest path is to have a Traditional
Owner-escort, and to be mindful that this may constitute ‘work’ where some compensation,
payment or exchange might be appropriate.
17
The key is to respect what Indigenous people believe in their hearts, and accommodate
those beliefs in the way water, land, sea and air are accessed, planned for, used and
managed. The Indigenous groups concerned need to be at the forefront of decision-making
about the use of their country. There is ample evidence about Indigenous generosity of
spirit and strategic capability. Mainstream society can be oblivious to this fact.
18
4. Conclusions
1. Indigenous Knowledge exists and is pertinent to practical and acceptable water
planning, management and policy development. Better processes must be
developed by appropriately skilled people to access and recognise this knowledge.
2. Lead times for Indigenous research projects must be substantial for optimal results.
Appropriate project times must bear in mind seasonality, community events, family
obligations (including funerals and ceremony) and the commitments of key
personnel likely to be involved. If the NWI was envisaging Indigenous participatory
policy from its formative years, then the prospect of an IK component would have
been clear and identifiable. Forward planning and budgeting could have provided at
least a twelve-month window for prospective groups to navigate in that direction.
Mechanisms to deal with financial year cycles and three-year electoral terms must
be seriously contemplated to alleviate time pressures on research organisations, coordinators, community facilitators and Traditional Owners. In many cases,
Traditional Owners will not be rushed or unduly stressed. They would sooner let the
opportunity pass, as they see additional stresses as unnecessary and bad for their
wellbeing.
3. An effort should be made to establish Indigenous research priorities from the user
and grass roots level, and then broader program logic developed from responses.
There are Indigenous support organisations able to facilitate this approach.
4. Research opportunities could be put directly to Traditional Owner groups, who could
be assisted by regional Indigenous organisations who are more informed about
existing capabilities and with the ability to value-add and cross-link projects.
Traditional Owner groups could then make their own judgments about preferred
partners if any and the utility of the opportunity.
5. The availability of key personnel is a crucial factor. These include community leaders
who are often loaded with many projects. Rangers, for example, often have contact
guidelines and Key Performance Indicators that preclude them from undertaking
unspecified work.
6. A trusted intermediary with a track record is vital to get access to Indigenous
knowledge. For example, a team could include a Traditional Owner and
anthropologist well known to the group.
7. Resources should be provided for an internal planning process where knowledge is
freely discussed. Then the group can decide what can be shared and by whom, and
information that cannot be shared can be converted to a visual ‘use overlay’ which
simply allows or disallows certain activities. NAILSMA has commissioned a useful
schematic of what categories of knowledge might exist in the Indigenous data
domain. This is part of their data-sharing agreements relating to I-tracker data
collected by local ranger groups, where the local groups are empowered to place
restrictions they see fit on different types of information. For the most part,
19
however, Traditional Owners are happy to share the majority of their information in
a climate of trust.
8. To blend IK and Western science, the worldviews and different spiritualities of each
must be respected. Both are different and not easily combined in a clinical
operational way. As discussed, the reality of Indigenous people occupying an
intercultural space suggests the two worlds can come together depending on the
situation. Researchers need to be freed from science only constraints, and
Indigenous people need to realise that scientists share some notion of connection
with the natural world.
9. Feelings, emotions and perceptions which are too often regarded as irrelevant to
scientific research, management, use and policy can create conflict. Some conflict
resolution may be necessary.
10. The tools (communication frameworks) already exist to implement Mr Wolmby’s
“Tell me what you are thinking” idea. Find and train the people to do it.
20
References
Howitt, R. and Jackson, S., 1998. Some things do change: Indigenous rights, geographers and
geography in Australia Australian Geographer Volume 29, Issue 2 London New York:
Routledge.
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: CSIRO Publishing.
Jackson, S., Tan, P., Mooney, C., Hoverman, S. and White, I. in press. Principles and
guidelines for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. Journal of
Hydrology.
Martin, K., 2003. Ways of Knowing, Ways of Being and Ways of Doing: a theoretical
framework and methods for Indigenous re-search and Indigenist research. Journal of
Australian Studies 76 London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Langton, M., 2006. Refining and Testing Joint Fact-Finding for Environmental Dispute
Resolution: Ten Years of Success, Mediation Quarterly, 329-348.
Memmott, P. and Blackwood, P., 2008. Holding Title and Managing Land in Cape York – Two
Case Studies. Canberra Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
Posey, D.A. (Ed.), 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London: United Nations
Environmental Programme & Intermediate Technolog Publications.
Roberts, C. and Wallis, A., 2002. Aboriginal cultural subregions as surrogates for biodiversity
mosaics in Cape York Australia-Towards reconciliation of Management Values and on
ground realities. In Aquatic Protected Areas, Proceedings of the world Congress on Aquatic
Protected Areas, Cairns Australia Editors J.P. Beumer, A, Grant, and D.C. Smith.
Shaw, W.S., Herman, R.D.K. and Dobbs, G.R., 2006. Encountering Indigeneity: reimagining
and decolonising geography. Geografiska Annaler.
Smith, L.T., 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples. London:
Zed Books.
Venn, T.J., 2004. Vision and Realities for a Wik Forestry Industry on Cape York Peninsula,
Australia. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3 (3).
21
22