Indigenous protected areas in Sea Country: Indigenous‐driven collaborative marine protected areas in Australia

Abstract

In many parts of the world, policymakers, legislators, marine managers, and indigenous peoples have attempted to reconcile marine protected area (MPA) governance and management with indigenous peoples' ancient and ongoing traditional ownership of coastal and marine environments. This paper describes a novel approach in Australia to addressing this challenge through indigenous‐led planning and collaborative governance of holistic coastal land and sea indigenous protected areas (IPAs) based on the indigenous concept of “Country”—traditional land and sea estates and their associated cultural, environmental, and other values. To provide context to this approach, the paper explains the concept of “Sea Country” and provides an overview of the relationship between indigenous peoples and Australia's coastal and marine environments, the legal and policy recognition of Indigenous Sea Country rights and interests, and the engagement of indigenous people in the governance and management of government‐led, legislated MPAs in Australia. The paper then describes the evolution of IPAs from being specifically based on indigenous land tenure to being based more generally on Indigenous Country, across multiple tenures, including marine areas. In recent years, IPAs based on Country have enabled indigenous people to lead planning and governance of land and sea areas over which they have limited legal rights, including over existing national parks and marine parks. Using this approach, some IPAs complement existing protected area governance and management arrangements, whereas elsewhere Country‐based IPAs are adding significantly to Australia's MPA estate. The Dhimurru IPA in the Northern Territory and Girringun Region IPAs in Queensland are presented as examples of this Country‐based approach. This indigenous‐driven, collaborative, nonlegislative approach to dedicating, governing and managing coastal areas and MPAs may serve as a model in other nation states for indigenous people wishing to use a protected area governance framework to support the contemporary management of their traditional marine and coastal estates.

Indigenous guardians as an emerging approach to indigenous environmental governance

“…This approach could provide a "…means for local Indigenous Peoples to re-assert control over Country that was disrupted by settler colonialization, by reinstituting traditional custodial and cultural responsibilities and building livelihoods based on natural and cultural resources" (Austin et al 2018:374). As such, we believe that future research should examine the intersection of indigenous guardian programs and the growing emergence of IPCAs, as an approach to reassert indigenous governance over land, resources, and territory (Moola & Roth 2018;Rist et al 2019;Tran et al 2020). Clearly, however, our review points to a systematic lack of local indigenous control over the funding and in some cases the design and implementation of indigenous guardian programs.…”

“…In all circumstances, we stress though that indigenous participation is generally better than the alternative to avoid programs or stewardship efforts becoming a prescribed or "deep colonising" management approach (Rose 1995). Indigenous guardians, and the nations they are supporting, are not only balancing these dual and often conflicting roles, but they are also using all opportunities to advance their rights and jurisdiction with or without state recognition (Rist et al 2019;Reed et al 2020a). For example, the Girringun Aboriginal Corporation has evolved from modest beginnings (i.e., limited statutory indigenous rights) to scaffold comanagement arrangements and joint ventures to "compensate for the absence of clear and strong statutory indigenous rights" (Zurba et al 2019(Zurba et al :1141.…”

“…The emerging literature of IPCAs (also known as tribal parks) is indicative of a growing movement to address the colonial history of environmental governance, park and conservation area creation, and the dispossession of land from indigenous peoples (Carroll 2014;Rist et al 2019;Zurba et al 2019;Tran et al 2020). The model of IPCAs challenges the "fortress conservation" model (Domínguez & Luoma 2020) and provides a framework for "…evolved conservation…by exemplifying time-honoured ways of interacting with environments that support people and places alike" (Artelle et al 2019:8).…”

Mapping the Marine Environment Through a Cross-Cultural Collaboration

“…That connection is extended out to the marine environment by those identifying as coastal or saltwater people. Longstanding relationships with 'Sea Country' are being formally recognized through collaborative governance arrangements within Indigenous Protected Areas (Rist et al, 2019), through native title determinations, and increasing Indigenous involvement in fisheries and marine protected area management (Ward et al, 2018).…”

Discourses of Cultural Continuity among the Bakweri of Mount Cameroon National Park

“…This has enabled First Nations groups like the Tla-o-qui-aht to create Tribal Parks in British Colombia. Similarly, in Australia, the state-following its commitment to promote new Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) initiatives in 2017-has enabled indigenous communities to plan, govern, and protect the cultural importance of existing national parks for future generations (Rist et al, 2019). Although the above examples are important for recognizing the respect for customs in parks, further investigations are needed to understand how local and indigenous people continue to practice their culture in spite of state restrictions for local land users.…”