ABSTRACT. Indigenous peoples now engage with many decentralized approaches to environmental management that offer opportunities for integration of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge (IEK) and western science to promote cultural diversity in the management of social-ecological system sustainability. Nevertheless, processes of combining IEK with western science are diverse and affected by numerous factors, including the adaptive co-management context, the intrinsic characteristics of the natural resources, and the governance systems. We present a typology of Indigenous engagement in environmental management, derived through comparative analysis of 21 Australian case studies, and consider its implications for the integration of IEK with western science. Sociological and rational choice institutionalism underpin our analytical framework, which differentiates on three axes: (1) power sharing, incorporating decision making, rules definition, resource values and property rights; (2) participation, incorporating participatory processes, organizations engaged, and coordination approaches; (3) intercultural purpose, incorporating purposes of environmental management, Indigenous engagement, Indigenous development and capacity building. Our typology groups engagement into four types: Indigenous governed collaborations; Indigenous-driven cogovernance; agency-driven co-governance; and agency governance. From our analysis of manifestations of knowledge integration across the types, we argue that Indigenous governance and Indigenous-driven co-governance provides better prospects for integration of IEK and western science for sustainability of social-ecological systems. Supporting Indigenous governance without, or with only a limited requirement for power sharing with other agencies sustains the distinct Indigenous cultural purposes underpinning IEK, and benefits knowledge integration. We conclude by advocating that the typology be applied to test its general effectiveness in guiding practitioners and researchers to develop robust governance for Indigenous knowledge integration in environmental management.

No abstract

No abstract

Increasingly the importance of Indigenous participation is acknowledged as central to effective biodiversity conservation. Traditional management emphasizes the importance of a holistic, integrated approach to safeguard species and ecological communities of cultural significance. This is discordant with many instruments for biodiversity conservation. Indigenous Australians have consistently lobbied for domestic laws to be amended to establish comanagement as the preferred approach to managing significant species and ecological communities -an approach that aligns with international obligations such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We describe amendments to Australia's biodiversity legislation and the use of biocultural indicators that would support Traditional management of Culturally Significant Entities (species and ecological communities), and in turn, assist Australia to effectively conserve biodiversity and meet international obligations. The ongoing challenge will be in empowering Indigenous peoples and their governance structures to implement enduring change.

Shells are beautiful! They are really ingenious in the way that they are made and the animals they house. The shells grow with the animal, from tiny little shells to a great big shell. An animal wasn’t born that big, so the large shells have been there for years.