Craig, Donna --- "Indigenous Joint Management of National Parks - Digest" [1999] AUIndigLawRpr 46; (1999) 4(4) Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 73

Indigenous Joint Management of National Parks

Donna Craig

Joint management of Australian national parks represents an evolving cross-cultural approach to land use and management in protected areas. Aborigines have rarely been given equal or determinative power in decisions about land use and resource allocation which affect them. Even the best studies and inquiries often hold out promises to Aborigines which then disappear, leaving few legacies in terms of laws, institutions and processes which might benefit Aborigines. A notable exception to this pattern is the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976 (Cth).

The grant of secure title to Aboriginal land is obviously a precondition for other Aboriginal aspirations relating to economic and political self-determination, and to control over the use and management of their land. The provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (Cth) and relevant Lease Agreements (between the Aboriginal owners and a Commonwealth or State/Territory National Parks Service) are particularly important in negotiating the terms of management. The Lease is crucial for working out the details of the relationship between the joint managers and for acknowledging changed circumstances when the terms are re-negotiated.

Joint management can help create ongoing institutions which play a positive role in educating non-Aborigines, and it can also provide an opportunity for Aborigines to remain on their land and to exercise political and cultural power over decisions affecting their lives and land. Aboriginal people have demonstrated that they can manage both the political and environmental implications of the joint management process effectively. It is clear that they can and ought to be increasingly involved in regional, State and national decisions about environmental and resource management in a far more significant way.

Sustainable development: ecological and cultural dimensions

Non-indigenous peoples have begun to focus on sustainable development^[1] as a philosophy and agenda for environmental change. It is clear that the world's ecological crises are closely interwoven with human crises, and that any strategy aimed at achieving ecological sustainability must be linked to increased public participation and the empowering of local communities.^[2] This will only be possible if people comprehend the rates at which the world ecosystems are changing, and are able to find a way to live within the constraints which these changes impose.

Historically, national parks have played an important role in the evolution of environmental values. However, the importance of the cultural and social dimensions of ecological sustainability have not yet been fully recognised. Indigenous peoples demonstrate clearly how cultural concerns are integral to environmental protection and management. It may be easier for conservationists and Aborigines to find common ground once ecological sustainability is more broadly defined.

Joint management: goals and concepts

Joint Management is an attempt to recognise the interests of two cultures within the constraints imposed by a goal of ecosystem preservation. This model institutionalises cooperation in both long-term planning for parks and in the day-to-day business of park management, including the mediation of disputes and the regulation of tourism. There are real potential conflicts in this process which has not yet been fully explored in Australia.

Joint management recognises the importance of cultural and biological diversity, and is a method of utilising the traditional knowledge of indigenous cultures to the benefit of all humanity. At the same time, it recognises certain human rights of minorities within nations. It allows new composite categories of national parks to emerge that can cater for continued habitation in national park areas but also help in 'averting a double tragedy of loss of unique ecosystems and unique cultures'.^[3] The joint management concept is spreading around the world, as illustrated by the co-management arrangements under Canadian Regional Agreements and the recent Makuleke Co-management Agreement in South Africa.

The initial stage of joint management usually focuses on the practical and urgent goals of Aboriginal people to achieve an equal decision-making role in how the land is controlled and managed. It allows Aboriginal owners to utilise useful resources provided by the National Parks Services, without allowing the NPS to become the controlling authority. The National Park Services have also been able to access new financial resources and knowledge by involving and employing Aboriginal people in Park activities.

Joint management in Australian national parks

The concept of joint management of national parks in Australia arose out of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.^[4] The Commission of Inquiry was established pursuant to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth) to evaluate the Ranger uranium mining proposal in the Alligator Rivers Region of the Northern Territory and its wider policy implications for Australia. Kakadu National Park was declared in 1979 after the Inquiry recommended that the mining proposal go ahead, but that a large part of the region should be returned to Aboriginal traditional owners, leased back to the government and designated a national park.

Following a land claim by the Aboriginal owners of Uluru-Kata Tjuta area in Central Australia, title was granted to the Uluru-Kata Tjuta Land Trust in 1985. Many of the traditional owners of the Uluru area live in the Mutitjulu Aboriginal Community and the community plays a vital role in the day-to-day management of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park. This is the only resident community inside the Park, although traditional owners for the area also live elsewhere in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia.

Both Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu National Parks are managed by the Federal Government agency Parks Australia under Commonwealth legislation. Both are on the World Heritage List and are major tourist attractions in Australia.

Jointly-managed national parks are now well established in the Northern Territory. Gurig National Park on the Cobourg Peninsula and Nitmiluk Park in the Katherine Gorge area are jointly managed by the Northern Territory Conservation Commission and Aboriginal under Northern Territory laws. (which ones?) Other legislation that is relevant to joint management in the Northern Territory include the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT), the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 (Cth), the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth) and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth). The latter Act was passed to implement the international obligations imposed by the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage to which Australia is a party. Some of the relevant Commonwealth legislation is now incorporated in the new Environmental Protection and Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). The extent to which the new legislation protects indigenous rights requires serious critique.

Joint management processes are currently being proposed in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. (name which parks?)These proposed parks are likely to be established and managed under State Government laws and agreements. Mutawintji National Park was proclaimed in New South Wales in 1998 as a joint managed national park following the enactment of the National Parks and Wildlife (Aboriginal Ownership) Act 1996 (NSW). (status of Jervis Bay NP?)

Positive features of the Kakadu experience

Kakadu is an example where a National Parks Service is effectively utilising Aboriginal cultural knowledge in conservation and land use management and where the joint management process has proved sufficiently flexible to evolve and adapt to help achieve Aboriginal aspirations.

The significance of the Aboriginal contribution has been recognised in many contexts and structural changes to park management practices have been made. Examples include greater Aboriginal power in decision-making processes through an Aboriginal majority on the board of management, an increased focus on cultural preservation in the park involving Aborigines, and the resuscitation of traditional burning regimes through cooperative planning between scientists and traditional owners.^[5] The reintroduction of mosaic burning has helped reduce wildfires and stabilise the humanised landscape. Aboriginal involvement has also been important in the preservation of species and the collection of information on the behaviour, distribution and habitat of species.^[6] Aboriginal employment programs have also been implemented which aim to involve the traditional owners in the park's management as cultural advisers, members of the board of management, in the Kakadu ranger training scheme and through casual employment as labourers, fire burners or general hands.

In Kakadu National Park's first year, it is estimated that about 150 Aboriginal people returned to live either in the park, or very close to it, instead of the townships and Oenpelli mission. These 'outstations' have been useful in the reassertion of Aboriginal culture and spiritual vitality as links to country are re-established.

Traditional foods remain highly valued both culturally and socially, and their rights have been safeguarded by joint management. Aborigines have also contributed to wildlife management, especially where an endangered species has spiritual significance.^[7]

Visitor numbers are important as this currently dictates government budget allocation. Visitor interest is enhanced by Aboriginal involvement and the promotion of the Park's cultural dimension. Some forms of tourism could also provide a source of revenue for the Aboriginal owners. There are however environmental risks associated with the increasing tourist use of the park.^[8] Tourism must be well managed and will not always be positive from a conservation or Aboriginal perspective.

General critique

It remains to be seen whether or not the Kakadu and Uluru models will be followed by State Governments, and it is too early to provide an adequate evaluation of Northern Territory Government and New South Wales models of joint management. There is some concern that Aboriginal interests that their decision-making power may not be as strong as under the Commonwealth national park models (Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu). The separation of ownership and control, and the vesting of residual discretionary power in the director of national parks holds some risks for Aboriginal people. In the early nineties, there were disputes in Queensland between Aborigines and conservationists which made some Aborigines fearful that European conservation objectives might be achieved at the expense of Aboriginal aspirations.^[9]

The practical experience with joint management at Kakadu National Park is that it provides a basis from which both parties can work together in a constructive way. Subsequent models, such as the one at Uluru, have tightened the legal safeguards as a protection against any change in Government attitude.

One advantage of joint management is that it attempts to harness the energies and enthusiasm of both parties at a grass roots level, by providing a participatory framework and encouraging access to decision-making. This kind of joint management philosophy can however come into conflict with the institutionalised and hierarchical nature of government and the National Parks systems. A more fundamental criticism is that any Aboriginal involvement in mainstream decision-making processes will lead to reliance and acceptance of the dominant culture, and a growing dependency on non-Aboriginal professionals. The reality is that a trade off usually takes place between the two cultures, often promoted by economic pressures such as tourism and resource development.

---

^[1] World Commission on Environmental Development (WECED), Our Common Future Oxford University Press London 1987.

[2] Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for sustainable living, Switzerland 1992.

[3] S Stevens, ‘Inhabited national parks: indigenous people in protection landscapes’ east Kimberley Impass Assessment project, working paper No 10, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, ANU Canberra 1985.

[4] R W Fox et al, Ranger Uranium Environment Enquiry: First and Second Reports, AGPS Canberra 1976-7.

[5] Australian National parks and Wildlife Service, Uluru (Ayres Rock – Mount Olga) National Park: Plan of Management, AGPS Canberra 1991.

[6] E Young, H Rors, J Johnson, J Kesterson, Caring for Country: Aborigines and Land Management ANPWS, Canberra 1991.

[7] ANPWS 1991, above note 5.

[8] Resource Assessment Inquiry into the Coronation Hill proposal AGPS, Canberra 1991.

[9] Cf Sydney Morning Herald 12 November 1991 p 13.