Emerging Geographies of Conservation and Indigenous Land in Australia

Abstract

International examples of interactions between Indigenous peoples and the new conservation paradigm come mainly from developing countries and suggest divisions over priorities. As a Western settler society, Australia is at a critical time in conservation and Indigenous peoples' rights. Innovative approaches to conservation are promoted. The role and influence of non-governmental organisations is increasing. Indigenous peoples' rights to land are recognised and Indigenous involvement in conservation is growing. Yet, despite Australia being considered a leader in these arenas, particularly the latter, there has been little analysis of the relationship between innovative approaches to conservation and Indigenous Australians under the new paradigm. This paper describes how the spatial manifestations of approaches under the new conservation paradigm and Indigenous land in Australia are creating new geographies. We identify geographies of overlap, dichotomy and absence. The paper identifies research needs into these geographies, including: examining the influence of 'recognition' in engagements between conservation and Indigenous Australians; investigating the impacts of approaches under the new paradigm such as scaling-up, territorialism and differing governance structures on Indigenous Australians; and questioning the social responsibilities of the non-governmental organisations towards Indigenous Australians.

Institutional thickening and innovation: reflections on the remapping of the Great Bear Rainforest

“…However, in recent decades governments have been challenged to give more priority to the non‐industrial benefits of forests (Westoby ), notably in relation to conservation values and aboriginal rights. Indeed, the courts, with the power to compel government action, have been vital to the empowerment of Aboriginal Peoples in Australia (Moorcroft and Adams ) and Canada (Low and Shaw 2011/12) in ways that redefine resource property rights. In a series of decisions since 1997, however, the Supreme Court of Canada has ‘revolutionized the jurisprudence of aboriginal rights and title’ (Flanagan , iii) – itself labelled a ‘remapping’ by one legal authority (2015, 1) – by rejecting the claim that aboriginal title had been extinguished, and by establishing the government's ‘duty to consult’ wherever claims of aboriginal rights or title are pending.…”

“…Although there are examples of forest conflict worldwide (Gritten et al . ), including forestry disputes in Finland involving the Sami peoples (Lawrence and Raitio ) and Chipko resistance in the Himalaya (Guha ), the closest parallels to the GBR are in ‘Western settler societies’ such as Australia and New Zealand (Moorcroft and Adams , 486; see also Roche ; Russell and Jambrecina ). These countries experienced the establishment of colonial rule and remapping over large areas where aboriginal peoples survive, population densities are low and public ownership of forests predominates.…”

The pelican slaughter of 1911: a history of competing values, killing and private property from the Coorong, South Australia

“…While the Animals and Birds Protection Act 1919 did not include this qualification, it did include the paternalistic provision that if 'any of the privileges … are being abused', the Governor could suspend them ( §21). While the analysis here is limited to a single case study, it points to the need for further research into the deep roots of the use of private property laws specifically for animal and area protection as well as the uneven consequences of doing so (for recent use in Australia, see Moorcroft, 2015;Moorcroft and Adams, 2014). Many state Acts of the 1960s and 1970s did not include exceptions for Aboriginal people and therefore prevented activities such as hunting, burning, and harvesting plant material within protected areas.…”

Black Country, White Wilderness: Conservation, Colonialism, and Conflict in Tasmania

“…The focus from conservationists was on wilderness, and they often downplayed or ignored the importance of Aboriginal involvement in the creation and management of this plan along with the social injustice issues the plan raised. When it comes to land access, rights, and management, conflict between conservationists and Aboriginal people is common in Australia as a whole (Adams 2004;Atchison 1994;Barbour and Schlesinger 2012;Bayet 1994;Moorcroft and Adams 2014;Muller 2003;Rose 2004) and the world at large (Braun 2002;Clapperton 2013;Cronon 1995;Dove 2006;Hathaway 2010;Sundberg 2004;West et al 2006).…”

“…They trace their ancestry from the Aboriginals who were moved to the Flinder's Island camp and the camps that followed it, and thus most have European individuals in their family ancestry. Over a century after the genocide, the dispossession of land, rights, and resources from Aboriginals has created inequity that lasts to this day (Moorcroft and Adams 2014).…”