Monitoring to Learn, Learning to Monitor: A Critical Analysis of Opportunities for Indigenous Community-Based Monitoring of Environmental Change ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
bs_bs_banner
Monitoring to Learn, Learning to Monitor: A
Critical Analysis of Opportunities for Indigenous
Community-Based Monitoring of Environmental
Change in Australian Rangelands
NATHANAEL D. WISEMAN* and DOUGLAS K. BARDSLEY
Geography, Environment and Population, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
*Corresponding author. Email: nathanael.wiseman@adelaide.edu.au
Received 4 December 2014; Revised 4 August 2015; Accepted 30 August 2015
Abstract
Indigenous community-based monitoring has been a central feature in many
international attempts to improve monitoring of and local adaptation to environ-
mental change. Despite offering much promise, Indigenous community-based
monitoring has been underutilised in natural resource management in Australia,
particularly within the remote, semi-arid rangelands. This paper discusses con-
textual social and environmental factors that may help to explain this apparent
deficiency, before critically analysing key stakeholder perceptions of the roles for,
and challenges of monitoring in the Alinytjara Wilurara Natural Resources Man-
agement region in the north-west of South Australia. The analysis guides a
discussion of responses to better integrate monitoring in general, and Indigenous
community-based monitoring in particular, into regional environmental manage-
ment approaches. We argue that community-based monitoring offers a range of
benefits, including: better coordination between stakeholders; a heightened ability
to detect and respond to climatic trends and impacts; the effective utilisation of
Indigenous knowledge; employment opportunities for managing and monitoring
natural resources; and improved learning and understanding of rangeland socio-
ecological systems. Identified opportunities for spatial and temporal community
monitoring designed for the Alinytjara Wilurara region could be of value to other
remote rangeland and Indigenous institutions charged with the difficult task of
monitoring, learning from, and responding to environmental change.
KEY WORDS Indigenous; community-based monitoring; rangelands; natural
resource management; South Australia
Introduction pensate Aboriginal Australians for the cultural
Australian remote Indigenous communities activities that they have or could provide. While
remain largely marginalised from the wealth of that failure could be attributed to ignorance,
the broader Australian society (SCRGSP, 2014). prejudice, fear, or greed in the past, arguably
The lack of opportunities for Aboriginal commu- a new era of socio-cultural recognition and
nities is in large part linked to the inability of self-determination sees the emerging challenges
the dominant socio-economic system and associ- as largely linked to policy settings, governance,
ated institutions to recognise, value, and com- and institutional arrangements and funding
52 Geographical Research • February 2016 • 54(1):52–71
doi: 10.1111/1745-5871.12150N.D. Wiseman and D.K. Bardsley: Rangelands Indigenous Community-Based Monitoring 53 opportunities (Sutton, 2001; Robbins, 2010; Most recently, the Australian Government’s Altman and Kerins, 2012; Gorman and Vemuri, Direct Action Climate Plan through the Carbon 2012). The recent Federal review on Overcoming Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014 identi- Indigenous Disadvantage notes that ‘Culture is a fied a key role for carbon sequestration on Abo- key aspect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait riginal Traditional Lands (Commonwealth of Islander wellbeing – not just knowledge and Australia, 2014b). Again, however, it remains practice of culture by Indigenous Australians, but unclear how the significant risks to Indigenous respect for that culture among the wider commu- communities which sign contracts to biosequest nity’ (SCRGSP, 2014, p5.4). That situation pre- carbon will function, given the regularity of wild- sents a challenge to governments, businesses, and fires and droughts in their semi-arid landscapes. non-government organisations (NGOs) that are Improving livelihoods and NRM in remote Indig- interested in overcoming social disadvantage and enous communities of Australia will require new incorporating Indigenous cultural interpretations forms of policy support, including the specific of country into environmental management in recognition of Aboriginal biocultural roles in Australia. It also generates the need for the devel- environmental management based on a formal opment and implementation of policy to com- acknowledgement of the ongoing role of people in pensate Indigenous Australians for the wealth the interpretation and shaping of landscape of their cultural activities, including those (Sallenave, 1994; Bardsley et al., 2015; Pert biocultural activities that monitor and manage et al., 2015). the environment within remote regions of the One vital mechanism that could direct public country (Maffi and Woodley, 2012). and private funding to Indigenous communities Since the Council of Australian Governments for improvements in environmental outcomes (COAG) National Indigenous Reform Agreement is investigated here, namely Indigenous (Closing the Gap) in 2008, a string of policy community-based monitoring of environmental announcements by the Federal Government has change. It is within that broader governance been emphasising the necessity to overcome context that this paper reviews the opportunities Indigenous disadvantage, in part through im- to support community-based monitoring to proved opportunities for training and employment improve NRM in the semi-arid rangelands of the (COAG, 2008). However, the application of com- Alinytjara Wilurara (AW) NRM region in the prehensive, caring policy to help guide sustain- north-west of South Australia (SA) (Figure 1). able futures for remote Indigenous communities The AW region covers over a quarter of a million remain highly problematic in Australia square kilometres and, as a result, there are rela- (Bardsley, 2015). Of immediate relevance to the tively few people employed per area to manage focus of this paper, there has been an increased the region’s natural resources (Robins and policy recognition of the importance of Indig- Dovers, 2007; AW NRM Board, 2013). Within enous natural resource management (NRM), and the semi-arid region live approximately 3000 yet the links between such policies as the Indig- people, mostly of Pitjantjatjara, Yankunytjatjara, enous Protected Areas programme and the asso- and Ngaanyatjaara descent, who refer to them- ciated Working on Country Ranger programme selves collectively as Anangu, which translates as and improved socio-economic outcomes for ‘people’ in Pitjantjatjara language, and will be remote communities remain uncertain, especially the term used throughout this paper to refer to the as Indigenous communities often struggle to local Indigenous population (ABS, 2011, AW access or maintain sufficient funding (URBIS, NRM Board, 2011). The majority of the popula- 2012; Bardsley and Wiseman, 2012a; Davies tion lives in small remote towns in the relatively et al., 2013; Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a; wetter north of the region (which receives 200– Moorcroft and Adams, 2014; Zander et al., 2014). 400 mm average annual rainfall), and to a lesser In just one relevant example, the majority of extent the coastal south. However, there is sig- leadership roles in Indigenous Protected Areas nificant seasonal and cultural migration between in South Australia’s Anangu Pitjantjatjara communities and to other areas of Australia, par- Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands are held by non- ticularly to Adelaide and Alice Springs, and to Indigenous staff (Bardsley and Wiseman, 2012a), other communities in the Northern Territory and despite the Federal programme’s primary goal to Western Australia, where Anangu territory has ‘Support Indigenous land owners to develop, traditionally extended (Goddard, 2006). Between declare and manage Indigenous Protected Areas the North and South semi-arid sub-regions lies on their lands’ (Australian Government, 2014). the more arid and sparsely populated Great © 2015 Institute of Australian Geographers
54 Geographical Research • February 2016 • 54(1):52–71
Figure 1 Map of the AW NRM region indicating mean annual rainfall, seasonal rainfall dominance, and major community
locations.
© 2015 Institute of Australian GeographersN.D. Wiseman and D.K. Bardsley: Rangelands Indigenous Community-Based Monitoring 55
Victoria Desert, with average annual rainfall gen- ian ecosystems and associated communities (e.g.
erally less than 200 mm per annum (see Robinson et al., 2005; Ens et al., 2012a; 2012b),
Figure 1). while central desert/rangelands regions have been,
The aim of this paper is to analyse the chal- by comparison, relatively poorly represented
lenges of effective Indigenous community-based in the literature (for a notable exception, see
monitoring in the AW NRM region, and to iden- Robinson et al., 2003).
tify opportunities for a broader role for local Where monitoring of environmental change
Indigenous communities to monitor, learn about, does occur in remote Australia, it is typically
and guide future sustainable management of characterised by large-scale remote sensing (e.g.
regional rangeland ecosystems. Previous work Bastin and the ACRIS-MC, 2008; Lawley et al.,
has identified the need for coordinated responses 2014) or small-scale and isolated expert field
to effectively monitor and respond to the emerg- observations (e.g. Masters et al., 2003; White
ing socio-ecological risks to regional Indigenous et al., 2012). These methods largely discount or
communities and has helped to guide AW NRM ignore local and/or traditional knowledge, even
planning (Bardsley and Wiseman, 2012a; 2012b; though such knowledge is recognised as highly
Wiseman and Bardsley, 2015). Accelerating significant in rangeland environments (Stafford-
global and local environmental risks, coupled Smith, 2008; Waudby et al., 2013). As we have
with persistent social constraints necessitate noted previously (Wiseman and Bardsley, 2015)
broad, resilient responses to learning to manage and researchers such as Ens et al. (2012a; 2012b),
changing ecological systems, and community- Robinson and Wallington (2012), and Muller
based monitoring needs to be seen a key part of (2012; 2014) also highlight, where Indigenous
that process. Therefore, the discussion on the people are included in monitoring, the focus has
roles of Indigenous community-based monitor- predominantly been on formal NRM goals in
ing is developed in the context of environmental Australia, rather than opportunities to evolve
change, which has had and is projected to con- policy and action to meet broader Indigenous
tinue to have dramatic and non-linear impacts on cultural interpretations of landscape and ecology.
local socio-ecosystems in the AW NRM region That focus seems to assume that NRM planning
(Walker and Abel, 2002; Scheffer, 2009; and processes are sufficient for management of
Svenning and Sandel, 2013). country, and that local Indigenous interpretations
and management goals are secondary. There are
Indigenous community-based monitoring considerable ethical and socio-ecological limita-
Community-based monitoring of environmental tions of that assumption, and as Muller (2014,
change is increasingly being recognised as 132) rightly emphasises, it overlooks ‘the need to
playing a vital role in strengthening knowledge, respect and value both cultures and knowledges
providing employment, and facilitating local equitably in a spirit of mutual respect and trust,
adaptation efforts in Indigenous communities protecting and respecting both ways of learning’.
(Graham et al., 2000; Danielsen et al., 2005; Moreover, unique cultural interpretations of what
Pelling and High, 2005; Berkes, 2012). Exam- constitutes effective environmental management
ples of comprehensive Indigenous community- are largely neglected by monitoring approaches
based monitoring programmes have now that concentrate on scientific interpretations of
been established in countries comparable to places and systems (Coombes et al., 2014). The
Australia, including New Zealand (Jollands and central role Indigenous community-based moni-
Harmsworth, 2007; Harmsworth et al., 2011; toring can play in addressing these practical and
Hughey and Booth, 2012) and Canada (Berkes ethical challenges is being recognised interna-
et al., 2007; Tremblay et al., 2008; Gearheard tionally, and we review those approaches with the
et al., 2011; Parlee et al., 2012). Yet despite an aim of identifying how community monitoring
expressed need for better integration of Austral- could help to guide the evolution of environmen-
ian Indigenous understandings and observations tal management within and for Indigenous com-
of environmental change (e.g. Petheram et al., munities of Australia, with a particular focus on
2010; Prober et al., 2011), documented examples the remote AW NRM region.
of Australian Indigenous community-based
monitoring programmes are uncommon, inter- Approaches to Indigenous community-based
mittent, and often limited in scope or duration. monitoring
Where they do exist, these studies are predomi- Participatory approaches to monitoring and man-
nantly focussed on monsoonal northern Austral- aging natural resources acknowledge traditional
© 2015 Institute of Australian Geographers56 Geographical Research • 2016
and/or local environmental knowledge as often and Ward, 2001; Olsson et al., 2004). Moreover,
providing valid complementary perspectives to institutions need to be open to the goals of envi-
Western science-driven knowledge (Gomez- ronmental management changing to reflect the
Baggethun et al., 2013; Waudby et al., 2013; knowledge generated by Indigenous monitoring.
Staddon et al., 2014; Tengö et al., 2014). Not Many of the challenges and complexities of
only is better information being derived from the community-based monitoring are enhanced
recognition of local knowledge as a core compo- within the remote, marginal conditions of the
nent of any understanding of natural resource rangelands (Lynam and Stafford Smith, 2004;
condition, but importantly, community-based Gorman et al., 2008; Eyre et al., 2011; White
monitoring aims to simultaneously empower et al., 2012).
local communities (Danielsen et al., 2005). Vital
human heritage associated with Indigenous adap- Challenges of monitoring in the rangelands
tation to extreme environmental conditions, Ecosystems within semi-arid rangelands are
while sustaining complex cultures, can be cham- dependent upon extremely variable rainfall
pioned, supported materially, and constantly events and consequent water flows (Ludwig and
regenerated through its use within environmental Tongway, 1997; Stafford-Smith et al., 2009).
monitoring programmes (Graham et al., 2000; This stochasticity both in space and in time pre-
Berkes, 2012). Such local involvement can be sents difficulties for maintaining monitoring con-
particularly important when it is necessary to sistency and detecting significant changes or
generate local ownership and understanding of causal relationships (Ludwig and Tongway,
environmental change, and to facilitate the devel- 1996; Morton et al., 2011; White et al., 2012;
opment of both autonomous and externally sup- Waudby et al., 2013). A difference of days
ported local climate change adaptation responses between observations before or after major rain-
(Pelling and High, 2005; Bardsley and Rogers, fall events can mean the difference between a
2011). Community-based monitoring aims to landscape that appears degraded and one that is
interpret change and guide responses to environ- lush and seemingly full of wildlife (Box et al.,
mental issues as an integral and regular part of 2008). The positioning of monitoring sites in the
local management activities often through landscape can also give widely varying results
regular community practices such as hunting and depending on differences in local water flow and
gathering (Gearheard et al., 2011; Ens et al., catchment-scale succession processes (Pringle
2012a; 2012b; Parlee et al., 2012). et al., 2006).
Yet community-based monitoring is not an A number of social challenges also constrain
uncontested or neutral concept. Participatory community-based monitoring in rangeland envi-
approaches to monitoring are extremely diverse ronments. Human populations are typically
in how they employ traditional, local, and scien- sparsely distributed and distanced from centres
tific knowledge and in how monitoring and of economic and political power (Reynolds et al.,
analysis are undertaken (Danielsen et al., 2009). 2007), making investment in long-term range-
As a situated practice, community-based moni- lands monitoring a low priority at the national
toring can exacerbate existing social differences, level (White et al., 2012). This disadvantage is
power relations, and inequalities according to especially true for remote Aboriginal commu-
whom is accorded authority and what counts as nities due to a combination of political, socio-
important knowledge for environmental manage- economic, and cultural marginalisation within
ment (Staddon et al., 2014). The importance of the wider society (HORSCATSIA, 2004;
collaboration and open participation in the Burgess et al., 2005; Davies et al., 2008; AW
design, development, implementation, and evalu- NRM Board, 2013): what Veland et al. (2013,
ation of the monitoring programme is essential if 323) term the ongoing ‘disaster of colonisation’.
power struggles and inequalities are to be In many cases, the well-being of remote Indig-
addressed through empowered and mutually enous communities could be seen to reflect the
respectful partnerships (Berkes et al., 2007; condition of country (Burgess et al., 2005; Green
Jollands and Harmsworth, 2007; Leonard et al., and Minchin, 2014). Within the AW NRM
2013; Tengö et al., 2014). Ultimately, trust region, the rangelands have changed dramati-
between different stakeholders is essential in this cally since colonisation as a result of declining
process of shared learning and collaboration to traditional fire management; loss of native biodi-
inform decisions about management of Indig- versity; pastoral activities; and spreading inva-
enous lands (Baland and Platteau, 1996; Pretty sive species (AW NRM Board, 2011, EPA,
© 2015 Institute of Australian GeographersN.D. Wiseman and D.K. Bardsley: Rangelands Indigenous Community-Based Monitoring 57
2013). It is highly likely that global climate munities at Yalata, Kampi-Nyapari, Kenmore
change will exacerbate such existing risks (Maru Park, Ernabella, and Umuwa in 2014 (see
et al., 2012; Bardsley and Wiseman, 2012a). As Figure 1). Importantly, this work was conducted
well as having direct impacts on people through at the request of the Indigenous AW NRM Board,
heat stress, reduced water supplies, and increased to identify future monitoring priorities in the
risk of disruptions to critical community infra- region, and to compare existing monitor-
structure through fires and flooding, declining ing programmes with best-practice Indigenous
environmental quality has weakened traditional community-based monitoring in other places.
cultural ties to country (Wiseman and Bardsley, This project forms part of a longer participatory
2013). research agenda developed with Anangu commu-
nities and AW NRM staff on regional approaches
Framing effective Indigenous monitoring of to respond to environmental change (Bardsley
environmental change and Wiseman, 2012b), which had identified that
Together, the environmental and social chal- community-based monitoring of environmental
lenges outlined above conspire to both hinder the condition remained a significant gap in regional
capacity for community-based monitoring in the capacity.
rangelands and make learning from such envi- International Indigenous community monitor-
ronments slower and more difficult (Reynolds ing procedures utilise traditional knowledge to
et al., 2007). That situation leads to the need for varying degrees. The programmes can be typified
a strong understanding of effective approaches along a spectrum of methodologies and goals:
for community monitoring of environmental with integrated monitoring providing depth and
change. Canadian, New Zealand, and Australian cultural context to established science-based
case studies of successful Indigenous assessments at one end of a spectrum, while at
community-based monitoring are reviewed and the other end, comprehensive community moni-
key themes identified that frame the approach toring is initiated, developed, and implemented
taken according to what knowledge and technol- by local people to support their own learning
ogies are utilised, who gathers and uses the data and management interests (Jollands and
collected, and who is the primary beneficiary Harmsworth, 2007; Danielsen et al., 2009;
from the approach (Table 1). It is not the inten- Harmsworth et al., 2011; Hughey and Booth,
tion of this paper to attempt an exhaustive review 2012). The other vital spectrum for categorisa-
of the literature on these monitoring typologies tion relates to the potential for empowerment of
(see Danielsen et al., 2014). Rather the review local communities as defined by who benefits
allows for the development of a framework of from the generation of the knowledge. The inter-
monitoring approaches, which is applied to criti- section of the two axes represents a blend of both
cally review existing monitoring programmes in local and external interests, and scientific and
the AW region and to generate arguments on traditional knowledge. A small number of suc-
which particular monitoring approaches may be cessful community-based monitoring projects
more or less appropriate. are underway within the AW NRM region, which
To develop the critique, in 2013 information on suggests that particular methods and techniques
community-based monitoring in the AW NRM for community-based monitoring are being
region was accessed from published materials implemented within the regions’ unique social
and interviews conducted with 14 regional stake- and environmental contexts. These activities are
holders, including AW NRM staff (in both mana- framed in relation to the international case
gerial and scientific/technical positions), AW studies (Figure 2), and discussed in some detail
NRM Board Members (elected Anangu repre- in the fourth section, to highlight the need for
sentatives), and SA Government staff (scientific/ some approaches which aim to empower through
technical positions) in 2013. After ethical the use of traditional knowledge.
approval though the University of Adelaide,
respondents were chosen based on their knowl- AW NRM examples of Indigenous
edge of and involvement with existing monitor- community-based monitoring
ing programmes in the AW NRM region, or, in Native biodiversity is currently being monit-
the case of AW NRM Board Members, to iden- ored in the AW NRM region, including cultur-
tify what future monitoring priorities they saw as ally important species such as the Mallee
important for the region. The discussion also Fowl (Leipoa ocellata), Black-footed Rock-
draws from workshops held within Anangu com- wallaby (Petrogale lateralis), Sandhill Dunnart
© 2015 Institute of Australian GeographersTable 1 Indigenous community-based monitoring of environmental change.
58
# Source Description Knowledge Used Technology Used Primary Data Gatherers Primary Users Who Benefits?
A Parlee et al. Mapping and documenting perceptions Blended TEK obtained Observation and discussion Primarily Indigenous people and Indigenous people and Cultural observation and
(2012) of ecological change by Cree people through interviews and secondly external researchers external researchers understandings that have value for
in Alberta, Canada participatory mapping Analysis initiated externally resilience within Indigenous
exercises communities, but there is no
indication that the data led to
livelihood improvements
B Tremblay Monitoring ice and hunting trail Blended TEK and scientific Workshops and interviews, Integrated study with Indigenous Indigenous people and Draws from cultural observations that
et al. (2008) conditions by Indigenous groups in knowledge developed from ice monitoring stations people and external researchers external researchers have direct value for communities,
Nunavik, Quebec local observation and trail and web-based Analysis initiated locally as adaptation strategies are
mapping of risky areas ethno-cartographic developed in association with
processes researchers to facilitate better trail
access, and improve climate-related
information
C Harmsworth Developing a cultural health index of Blended TEK developed Observation-based data Integrated study with Indigenous Indigenous people and Traditional knowledge and community
et al. (2011) river catchments in New Zealand from local observation collection but integrated people and external researchers external researchers observations used to determine the
and integrating this with scientific with other community and with community Cultural indices defined locally health of cultural attributes
assessments of the same catchments scientific knowledge assessments and Mostly for external interests to test
freshwater scientific catchment condition, but leads to
research financial incentives and stronger
representations of Indigenous values
D Ens et al. Monitoring and controlling invasive Blended TEK with scientific Observation data, oral Indigenous observation and scientific Indigenous people and Funding was conditional upon annual
(2012b) feral animals around cultural sites in knowledge interpretations; scientific research undertaken by local external researchers monitoring of ecological outcomes.
Arnhem Land, Australia, using both transect, water quality, Indigenous people, with external Aim was to protect key billabongs
traditional and scientific observation photo point analysis support (wetlands) from invasive species for
techniques cultural purposes, particularly
hunting and gathering, as well as for
wider biodiversity, resources
E Gearheard GPS monitoring of weather conditions, Local observation given PDA/GPS/mobile weather Indigenous people (Inuit hunters) Indigenous people (Inuit Directly culturally relevant (mapping
et al. (2011) trail networks, hazards, rubbish, precedence – stations Monitoring indicators developed in hunters), but currently hunting trails, hazards, etc), but also
animals, etc., by Inuit hunters interpretations of what collaboration among engineers, requires support from of use to external researchers in
constitutes a ‘hazard’, for scientists, and Inuit hunters external professionals to monitoring environmental change
example, left up to local map and use information through changes in seasonal trail
Inuit observers use, etc.
F Berkes et al. Climate change monitoring in western Perceptions based on Direct observation and Indigenous people (Inuit hunters) Indigenous people, but also In the interests of Indigenous people to
(2007) – Canadian Arctic by Inuit peoples, Indigenous hunters of note-taking Monitoring indicators developed by external help in producing demonstrate adverse impacts from
western using locally developed indicators change, including ability Indigenous people communication media climate change to local governments
Arctic to predict weather patterns (video) and other
documentation
G Robinson Monitoring and managing feral Perceptions based on Direct observation Indigenous people (Jawoyn) Indigenous people (Jawoyn) Directly culturally relevant
et al. (2005) animals based on cultural values of Indigenous understanding Monitoring indicators developed Indigenous understandings of ‘good’
Jawoyn people, Kakadu National of ecosystem health and informally by Indigenous people versus ‘bad’ species sometimes
Park, Australia cultural values of conflicted with external national
introduced species park managers
Shared interest in controlling feral pigs
© 2015 Institute of Australian Geographers
Geographical Research • 2016
GPS, Global Positioning System; PDA, Personal Digital Assistant; TEK, Traditional Ecological Knowledge.N.D. Wiseman and D.K. Bardsley: Rangelands Indigenous Community-Based Monitoring 59
Traditional
1
6
5
7
Knowledges
Local community External parties
3
2 4 A
Who benefits?
B
D C
Scientific
Figure 2 Comparison of effective Indigenous community-based monitoring activities with AW NRM projects according to
knowledge and beneficiaries. 1= Parlee et al., 2012 (Alberta, Canada; Cree); 2 = Tremblay et al., 2008 (Nunavik, Canada; Inuit);
3 = Harmsworth et al., 2011 (Motueka and Riwaka river catchments, New Zealand; Maori); 4 = Ens et al., 2012b (Arnhem Land,
Australia; Yugul Mangi and Manwurrk); 5 = Gearheard et al., 2011 (Nunavut, Canada; Inuit); 6 = Berkes et al., 2007 (Hudson
Bay, Canada; Inuit, Cree); 7 = Robinson et al., 2005 (Kakadu, Australia; Jawoyn). A = AW NRM, biodiversity monitoring;
B = AW NRM, camel monitoring; C = AW NRM, Buffel grass monitoring; D = AW NRM, coastal monitoring.
(Sminthopsis psammophila), Mulloway used to determine the spatial extent of vegeta-
(Argyosomus hololepidotus), whales, sea lions, tion types. The frequency of such monitoring
and coastal birds. There are also regular surveys activities is generally low, with most monitoring
of many other animal and plant distributions, programmes only repeating observations a few
focussing on the northern APY lands, southern times a year or less. Anangu are involved in
Yalata region, and central Oak Valley region many of the current biodiversity monitoring pro-
(see Figure 1 for regions). The monitoring of grammes, helping to identify and record animal
animals employs a range of methods, including track sightings, and monitor species with impor-
tagging of individuals, setting pit traps, record- tant cultural significance (highlighted above).
ing animal tracks, and recording direct sightings Many of these biodiversity monitoring pro-
using Cybertracker Global Positioning System grammes are highly popular with Anangu, offer-
(GPS) software, a digital, icon-based program ing opportunities to go out on country and
which allows real-time spatial recording of field maintain cultural connections to the land, as
data within low-literacy populations (Ens, 2012; well as some paid employment. It also provides
CyberTacker, 2014). For plants, a combination a sense of pride to Anangu that such work is
of direct field observation and remote-sensing is valued and supported from a Western/scientific
© 2015 Institute of Australian Geographers60 Geographical Research • 2016
perspective. As one respondent noted of a moni- ment using satellite collaring. Anangu are
toring programme: employed to do survey work and mustering of
I think the reason this project works so well is camels in the APY Lands, both directly and
that community members get really enthusi- through contractual agreements with third
astic about going out to monitor – it is their parties, but further south (Marlinga Tjarutja and
animals, on their land, their country. They are Yalata) the process is more informal, with
proud to look after their country. (Respondent Anangu being asked to be involved in satellite
6, 26/3/2013) monitoring work as it arises. There remains a
significant gap between the understanding of
Past biodiversity surveys have also had strong camel numbers and impacts, and their manage-
Anangu involvement in on-ground monitoring, ment that largely aims to cull animals or remove
with close relationships formed between Western them for meat.
scientists and Anangu, resulting in rich cross-
cultural experiences and knowledge generation I don’t think we’ve adequately covered the
(see Robinson et al., 2003).The use of tools such as monitoring needs at all. I think there are
Cybertracker was identified in the interviews plenty of gaps. One is to, rather than trying to
as useful for communities undertaking monitor- respond to the current situation, start looking
ing, particularly as photographs could be taken at what the likely future holds. And we’re not
of land condition and shared with other commu- doing that in terms of camel density, camel
nity members who might not have gone out habitat, and how climate change might affect
on country. For example, the AW NRM both of those. (Respondent 4, 26/3/2013)
Dreamweaver program has been successful in There is also a conflict between the goal of
supporting women to undertake rockhole main- rangeland management to reduce camel numbers
tenance and to guide mutual understanding of as much as possible and the goals of many local
the importance of rockholes in the landscape people to establish regimes of sustainable camel
(AW NRM Board, 2014). However, interview harvesting to obtain a regular income.
respondents suggested that while generating
useful community engagement, the outcomes The problem we’ve got of course is particu-
were less valuable for informing scientific NRM. larly on Aboriginal communities is we’re
There was a perceived difficulty in translating always weighing up impact with potential
Indigenous perspectives of the environment into benefit. You know the fact that APY in par-
forms useful for integrating with scientific ticular a lot of people are receiving an income
knowledge and to meet cultural as well as NRM from camel management so it’s always trying
policy goals. to convince them that the impact is significant,
even if there is a benefit to be gained in
We have the Dreamweaver program, which is addressing that impact by mustering.
doing some stuff around rockholes, women’s (Respondent 4, 26/3/2013)
sites and rockholes, getting people back to
rockholes. It’s getting people connected to Buffel grass monitoring has become much more
country, which is an outcome, and it is a land important in the last five years with the growing
management outcome according to Anangu, recognition of the ecological and social impacts
and I agree with that. However, I think we of this invasive species in the rangelands. As
could sort of ‘upscale’ that program so it pro- Buffel grass is highly rainfall dependent, current
vides a clear framework for consistent monitoring activities focus on identifying where
methods of monitoring rockholes, and stra- rain has occurred in the region and conducting
tegic methods across the region, and that’s site visits to determine the extent of Buffel grass
where I want it to go. (Respondent 5, 26/3/ invasion, particularly in the south where Buffel is
2013) still not widespread. Rainfall data are obtained
from weather stations in the region, from local
What Caring for Country looks like to radio reports, and direct observation through
Aboriginal women may be very different community/staff networks. Monitoring of Buffel
from a scientific perspective. (Respondent 7, grass includes mapping the current range of
15/4/2013) establishment using GPS with ArcPad or
Camel monitoring in the AW region includes Cybertracker, and monitoring post-control
assessing browsing impacts, aerial surveys of growth and condition at regular intervals. At
camel density, and recordings of camel move- present, Anangu are contracted to do some
© 2015 Institute of Australian GeographersN.D. Wiseman and D.K. Bardsley: Rangelands Indigenous Community-Based Monitoring 61
monitoring of Buffel grass through community- Effective international and other national exam-
based monitoring programmes in Oak Valley and ples of successful Indigenous monitoring reviewed
Yalata, using Cybertracker to locate Buffel grass tend to use traditional knowledge comprehensively
sightings using GPS. Given the difficulties AW and either independently (e.g. Berkes et al., 2007;
NRM staff have accessing such a large region Parlee et al., 2012) or in conjunction with scien-
with limited capacity, there are recognised tific knowledge (e.g. Tremblay et al., 2008; Ens
opportunities to expand community involvement et al., 2012b) to inform both local and external
in monitoring Buffel grass: planning and action (Figure 2). In contrast, it can
clearly be seen that AW NRM regional monitoring
[Communities are] there on-ground, they can programmes prioritise scientific knowledge over
do it every day of the week. And it’s hard for local Indigenous knowledge, and generate that
us to predict what’s happening up there. So I knowledge primarily for external interests and
think that would be the key for them to be especially the institutional needs of the AW NRM
doing it, and then fielding things back to us, Board itself. There are some exceptions to this
saying ‘hey we had an inch of rain’ or ‘it’s general pattern; for example, biodiversity monitor-
been dry’, you know, just that communication ing in the AW NRM region has utilised a blend of
about what they’re doing. And we’ll still con- scientific and traditional knowledge, with strong
tinue the support. (Respondent 14, 24/4/2013) benefits for local communities. Furthermore, some
The aim is to give communities the empow- AW projects, such as Robinson et al.’s (2003)
erment, the knowledge and the ability. That is review of the regional ecology or the Dreamweaver
very important, because at this stage it is the project which supports Indigenous women’s
communities who are most at threat. involvement in traditional NRM activities, clearly
(Respondent 8, 24/4/2013) focus on utilising traditional knowledge for the
benefit of local communities, and have worked
Coastal monitoring in the AW NRM region closely with local Anangu in developing appro-
includes marine debris surveys, whale monitor- priate knowledge. Yet, just as clearly, the integra-
ing, shorebird monitoring, mulloway tagging, tion of Indigenous community-based monitoring
recreational fishing surveys, and marine mammal is neither at the scale or scope necessary to gen-
sampling and dissection. While there have been erate regular engagement between traditional
studies of cliff erosion and the link to climate Anangu cultural knowledge and the management
change in the past, there is no current ongoing of country, or provide a mechanism for linking
monitoring of cliff retreat. All coastal monitoring biocultural understanding and activities to
programmes involve Anangu in some form, regular employment.
whether through employment as data collectors, Discussions with AW NRM stakeholders
or in consultation to determine AW priorities emphasised the problems with engaging with
along the coast. A new digital storytelling project Indigenous communities for effective monitoring
aims to increase Anangu involvement by allow- of environmental change, rather than the oppor-
ing communities to record their thoughts and tunities. Part of the problem lies in the lack of
ideas. information on environmental conditions in the
The communities purchase tablets, so we teach vast, remote region, such that baseline informa-
them the technology to use the tablets, and then tion on rangeland condition is not available.
skill those workers up through employment We’re trying to get a grip on what is ‘normal’,
positions to capture the stories . . . through with the realisation that climate change didn’t
voice recording and film . . . [to see] if the start last week when someone mentioned
community thinks that we’re having an impact it! . . . So there’s a lot of catching up to do,
in the region and on the environment from and I guess that’s the difficulty of it at the
management strategies. (Respondent 9, moment is to try and determine where your
24/4/2013) baselines are from which you can then, you
know, measure change. (Respondent 1,
The examples of Indigenous community moni-
5/3/2013)
toring are summarised using the same conven-
tions as the other case studies (Table 2) and Historically, there have been a number of strong
represented against the spectra generated in the ecological drivers of changing rangeland con-
context of the effective community-based moni- dition including changes to fire management,
toring activities. invasive species, grazing pressures, and climate
© 2015 Institute of Australian Geographers62
Table 2 Summary of local AW NRM monitoring activities.
# Source Knowledge Used Technology Used Primary Data Gatherers Primary Users Who Benefits?
A AW NRM Mixture of Anangu and Direct observation, A mixture – Anangu are Anangu use knowledge of Anangu paid to undertake
biodiversity scientific perspectives GPS mapping, involved in on-ground species directly from field monitoring work though
monitoring on-ground and monitoring, external work, and external community-based contracts
aerial surveys contractors involved in institutions generally use Work directly relevant to
aerial monitoring mapped data Anangu values and culture.
B AW NRM camel Mixture of Anangu Direct observation, Mixture – Anangu involved External institutions (state Anangu paid to undertake
monitoring perspective on camels and GPS mapping, in on-ground surveying, and national) monitoring work
scientific perspectives aerial surveys external contractors Work directly relevant to
involved in aerial Anangu values and culture,
surveying but also potentially at odds
with desire to muster for
economic benefit
C AW NRM Buffel Science-led eradication GPS, site Scientists/technicians with External institutions (AW Anangu paid to undertake
grass monitoring programme, with support observations support from Indigenous NRM) monitoring work, but in
from Anangu (concern communities state/federal interest to
over Buffel grass impact undertake control work
on native species)
D AW NRM coastal Currently science based GPS tagging, field Scientists/technicians with External institutions Some programmes (e.g.
monitoring observations with support from Indigenous (regional, state) mulloway tagging) in
GPS communities community interest through
employment, some benefit
external institutions more
Whale monitoring is culturally
relevant.
AW, Alinytjara Wilurara; GPS, Global Positioning System; NRM, natural resource management.
© 2015 Institute of Australian Geographers
Geographical Research • 2016N.D. Wiseman and D.K. Bardsley: Rangelands Indigenous Community-Based Monitoring 63
change, so the attribution of variations to envi- We don’t have an overall monitoring strategy
ronmental condition to a particular cause is very – it’s severely lacking – everyone’s doing
difficult. their own little bit and they’re fitting it in
If we get the big fires, is that because there is where they can. You know, it’s the other 50%
a lack of a small fire mosaic, or is that a of the equation obviously, but I think we give
climate-induced thing, or is that a Buffel grass it only about 5.5% value to the whole thing. I
induced thing? So how do you then measure think it should be driving the purpose of doing
that and try and split it and pull it apart and what you’re doing by measuring what you’ve
say well this is a weather factor and this is a achieved. Monitoring has always been the
cultural factor and this is a new species intro- poor cousin to the operational action at the
duced into the area factor – it’s difficult! other end of the stick. (Respondent 1,
(Respondent 1, 5/3/2013) 5/3/2013)
Most respondents also raised the issue that they There are also conflicting opinions about what
must constantly innovate to access funding as are the major priorities for management and
baseline funding is limited (AW NRM Board, monitoring. For example, conflicts exist between
2013), which means that monitoring approaches community goals, which may, for example, focus
are constantly in flux, making long-term com- on the sustainable management of hunted
parisons difficult or impossible. Thus, any con- animals that are important to local communities,
sistent, long-term monitoring at the community and State and Federal priorities that aim for the
level cannot be supported via prevailing funding conservation of endangered species. As a result
mechanisms. of this mismatch, traditional knowledge is often
Speaking purely from past experience, I used conceptualised as secondary to the core issues of
to find it really frustrating because it was very, scientific data gathering, assessment, and man-
very hard to get money for monitoring. State agement for specific NRM outcomes.
government basically wasn’t interested in Are we introducing the little species, where
it . . . Quite often I was told when I was going maybe what we need to do is actually
for funding, I’d outline, trying to give them a work on what the community want, which is
lot of background of the project, and they’d to get the more common ones back [e.g. red
just say ‘oh no, we really need to see different kangaroos]? But then you don’t get the
projects’. So you’d have this situation where funding to do that . . . because it’s not a
each year you had to come up with something national priority – there’s only so much
new, which seemed a bit ridiculous. You had money they can spend on things around Aus-
to be innovative. Which doesn’t really work if tralia so they’ll go for what they see as
you’re trying to do long-term monitoring. national priorities. (Respondent 3, 21/3/2013)
(Respondent 2, 18/3/2013)
The mismatches in both management goals and
Indigenous people already engage with their
in what knowledge is required to support those
country in the long term and so support for their
goals make translating traditional knowledge to
involvement in generating and recording knowl-
inform science-based management difficult. On
edge through remote community employment
the other hand, monitoring programmes that
could avoid the short-term project-focus of much
focus on species important to both the AW NRM
historical rangeland monitoring. As has also been
Board and to Anangu communities, such as the
found in Canada (Sallenave, 1994), if remote
Mallee fowl, are well supported.
Indigenous communities can monitor local con-
ditions regularly and over the longer term, It may not be a monitoring activity per se, but
remote data generation can improve and the costs the ability for old people to go out on country
of monitoring may actually decrease in relation and see it, and say ‘well this is looking alright’
to current monitoring approaches. or ‘this isn’t looking alright’ – the support for
There is still a lack of a coordinated and inte- them to go out and do that has worked, but
grated approach to monitoring across the large you don’t necessarily end up with what’s
region, which makes it difficult to interpret called a ‘scientific’ outcome. You end up with
and synthesise information and understand people saying ‘yeah, yeah it was alright’, or
change. In particular, respondents suggested that ‘nah, we found some real issues out there; you
resources are wasted due to repetition, overlap- mob of young kids have got to get out there
ping activities, or major gaps in knowledge. and do a bit more’. (Respondent 3, 21/3/2013)
© 2015 Institute of Australian Geographers64 Geographical Research • 2016
I think the reason this project works so well is going to go walking away, and that they’ve
that community members get really enthusi- got the intellectual property for it. (Respond-
astic about going out to monitor – it is their ent 3, 21/3/2013)
animals, on their land, their country. They are
Projects such as Ara Irititja, a digital archive for
proud to look after their country. (Respondent
Anangu focussing on the preservation of cultural
6, 26/3/2013)
heritage, show that it is possible to navigate this
On occasions, mutual trust seems to be lacking complex field of intellectual and cultural prop-
between Anangu and management personnel. erty rights while providing an important service
That situation raises important ethical and philo- to both Anangu and non-Aboriginal researchers
sophical issues about the use and maintenance of interested in Anangu history and culture (Ara
different types of knowledge, particularly when Irititja, 2014).
it is sourced from people who are relatively As Anangu elders who have direct experience
disempowered within knowledge production and of walking, understanding, and living off the
use systems. In fact, the incorporation of tradi- semi-arid rangelands age and pass away, much of
tional biocultural knowledge into normalised the complex and detailed traditional ecological
knowledge systems risks devaluing the very dif- knowledge they hold is lost with them (Bardsley
ference that is core to the long-term socio- and Wiseman, 2012a; Ara Irititja, 2014). Besides
ecological value of Indigenous ways of knowing, the immediate challenge that represents to Indig-
understanding, and utilising environmental enous communities and cultures, such knowl-
information (Muller, 2012; Bardsley and edge represents some of the most important
Wiseman, 2012a). Explicit concerns were raised remaining fragments of traditional biocultural
about the outcomes of monitoring activities, heritage in Australia. Some traditional knowl-
including who subsequently owns or makes use edge about local environments that was created
of the information. and built upon over innumerable generations of
living off country is being recorded and kept in a
It’s also what you do with the information:
manner that suits the needs of both Indigenous
that’s a critical outcome. Why should commu-
people and western science, yet much is lost to
nities go out and collect information and give
contemporary and future managers of country.
it to you if you’re not going to help them do
Formal education systems could act to bridge the
anything with it? So there’s got to be an
gap between intergenerational knowledge, but at
outcome from the collection of the data. . . . I
the moment the integration of school education,
think you need a long term strategy of how
formal NRM, and traditional land use activities is
you get community involved – the ‘what’s in
weak.
it for me?’ outcomes have got to be there.
(Respondent 3, 21/3/2013) I would say our links into the school curricu-
lum needs to be a little bit more formal-
The appropriate sharing of information appears
ised . . . at the moment it’s more ad-hoc: we
in some cases to be actively prevented due to lack
have someone going up, they give the school a
of trust between people, which ultimately inhib-
call before they go up and say ‘hey, we’re
its learning and collaboration. Even the marker to
doing this’, the school says ‘yep, that’s good’,
a piece of information, such as a reference and
and it’s all good. But in terms of longer-term
abstract, may be unobtainable due to cultural
career paths, we need to get better at getting it
sensitivities, let alone the actual traditional
locked into a curriculum so there’s a long-
knowledge in any comprehensive form. Clearly
term strategy in place . . . [at the moment] it
such barriers need to be in place to protect Indig-
doesn’t necessarily provide long-term career
enous culture, but respondents fear breaching
paths or that base understanding of NRM as a
intellectual property rights by using traditional
job. (Respondent 5, 26/3/2013)
ecological knowledge in formal assessments of
rangeland condition. All of these challenges suggest that it is vital now
to develop or expand appropriate, ethical
How we end up with consistent long term data
approaches to engage Indigenous communities
management strategies is a critical issue. [We
for more mutually beneficial outcomes.
need strategies] that have got the right level of
protections on it for people, so that commu- The aim is to give communities the empow-
nities know that if they want to put informa- erment, the knowledge and the ability. That is
tion in there, it’s going to be there, it’s not very important, because at this stage it is the
© 2015 Institute of Australian GeographersN.D. Wiseman and D.K. Bardsley: Rangelands Indigenous Community-Based Monitoring 65
communities who are most at threat. fire risk, food insecurity) could overcome
(Respondent 8, 24/4/2013) this gap. Finally, the quadrant of utilising tradi-
tional knowledge primarily for external interests
Arguably, if Anangu are going to become equal
(top right quadrant of Figure 2) appears at first
partners in the monitoring and management of
glance to represent an undesirable situation,
rangelands, the journeys of building knowledge
given that it could involve either an exploitation
through social learning (field trips, sharing of
or devaluing of Anangu understandings of place
stories, talking) are as important as the destina-
in relation to scientific data collection and analy-
tions that store and transmit that knowledge in
sis. However, rather than being a one-way extrac-
data and reports (Muller, 2012). This distinction
tive encounter, such approaches can provide
has clear similarities with Berkes’ (2009, 153)
employment while re-emphasising local commu-
emphasis on traditional knowledge as a process
nities’ traditional knowledge as it comes under
to ‘teach what to look for and how to look for
significant risk from intergenerational loss, and
what is important’.
supporting institutional learning about culturally
relevant NRM and long-term trends in resource
Future opportunities for monitoring in the condition. Traditional ecological knowledge
AW NRM region could provide an alternative baseline for range-
In order to develop a clear direction for future land condition, but it is not formally recorded or
monitoring programmes and address respond- accessible by other interested researchers and/or
ents’ concerns about a lack of cohesion, it will be managers. By prioritising Indigenous involve-
necessary to have a shared discussion about what ment, traditional socio-cultural baselines could
monitoring is important to all stakeholders to be utilised during assessments of current
ensure that all goals are reflected, especially local resource condition (Harmsworth et al., 2011;
community interests and needs (Zander et al., Parlee et al., 2012). Much of that baseline may
2014). By talking with Anangu across the AW remain largely inaccessible to western science
region, it could be possible to develop a shared unless the Indigenous knowledge owners provide
set of traditional and contemporary indicators of specific permission, but by valuing and incorpo-
healthy/unhealthy ecosystems for all monitoring rating local Indigenous knowledge a baseline
programmes. Increased levels of trust between drawn from deep knowledge of an ancient rela-
Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge tionship with a place could compensate for the
holders and users might also evolve through such relatively limited scientific knowledge of the
a process. The indicators could involve particular vast, remote region.
targeted ecosystems or species for which there is In recent research involving community work-
mutual concern, or broader signs of landscape, shops with the AW NRM Board with Indigenous
ecosystem, or community health (Green and communities at Yalata, Ernabella, Kenmore Park,
Minchin, 2014). By choosing a diversity of and Kanpi-Nyapari, two important specific
systems to monitor through the application of opportunities emerged – one spatial, the other
different participatory methodologies, it would temporal – for monitoring environmental change
be possible to integrate community monitoring in the region (Wiseman and Bardsley, 2015). A
into a broader process of experimentation and spatial example of Indigenous community-based
learning to adapt to changing socio-ecological monitoring in the north of the AW NRM
circumstances in the rangelands (Argent, 2009; region could be the development of a managed
Stafford-Smith et al., 2009). In light of the bushfoods zone, where hunting is controlled and
review above, reorganising, revaluing, and threatening processes such as invasive species
expanding old activities or introducing new (e.g. Buffel grass, camels) are managed. Such an
monitoring programmes that aim to value and area was identified by Ernabella community resi-
make use of traditional knowledge for local com- dents in workshops as being an important refuge
munity benefit might focus such choices (top left area for valued bushfood species due to the
quadrant of Figure 2). denser tree cover (Figure 3). Concerns were also
Another element which appears to be under- raised about hunting pressures leading to a
represented in the AW programmes is the use of decline in the availability of favoured game
scientific knowledge for local community benefit animals, particularly kangaroo. By monitoring
(bottom left quadrant of Figure 2). A monitoring and managing bushfood species within the zone,
programme which focuses on identifying and as well as recording hunting effort and yield,
monitoring local community hazards (flooding, Anangu could better understand threats to
© 2015 Institute of Australian GeographersYou can also read
