Human capital

2016
Land
Effectiveness of management
Timor Sea
East Coast

Although positive developments in resourcing, evidence-based policy-making and management effectiveness are evident, ongoing improvements depend heavily on the quality and overall capacity of the human resources, networks and infrastructure involved in land planning and management. This aspect is being increasingly recognised as strategically important for the future, especially with consideration of the ‘human dimensions’ of land management. This includes the need for a better understanding of the motivations of, and barriers to, land managers and others to support and undertake improved land management practices.

Australia is highly urbanised: more than two-thirds of Australians live in capital cities, and there is an ongoing trend for people to move from regional areas into cities (ABS 2012a). Consequently, many Australians now have minimal direct contact with people in rural and remote regions. This affects both the awareness and the sophistication of public discourse on land-related issues (e.g. management of feral animals such as horses, risks and benefits of genetically modified organisms, management of fire in naturally flammable vegetation types).

The trend for people, particularly young people, to move from regional and rural to urban areas is reflected in the demographics of Australia’s farmers: between 1981 and 2011, the proportion of farmers aged 55 years and over increased from 26 per cent to 47 per cent, while the proportion of farmers aged less than 35 years fell from 28 per cent to 13 per cent (ABS 2012b). However, since SoE 2011, the numbers of students taking higher degrees in agricultural sciences has increased, albeit from a very low point, stimulated by a growing interest in food and where it comes from, and food security (Parkinson 2016).

Social, economic and environmental benefits of Indigenous land and sea management

Investments in Indigenous land and sea management in the past 5 years have benefited Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities (Ryan et al. 2012, DSEWPaC 2013, SVA Consulting 2014, PM&C 2015, van Bueren et al. 2015). Reported benefits include:

Despite these significant contributions to Indigenous and non-Indigenous society, the future of Indigenous Protected Areas and the Working on Country program remains uncertain beyond 2018.

Box LAN14 Weeds, feral animals, fire and research at Wattleridge and Tarriwa Kurrukun Indigenous Protected Areas, New South Wales

The Banbai Aboriginal nation owns and manages 2 Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) in northern New South Wales. Wattleridge was the first IPA declared in the state, in 2001, and covers 648 hectares of native bushland. Tarriwa Kurrukun (which means ‘strong one’) covers 930 hectares of wetlands and stringybark forest. Both IPAs have a high diversity of plant and animal species, including threatened species, and have high cultural values for the traditional owners.

The Banbai Rangers are tackling weeds and feral animals on both properties. Some of the biggest challenges for managing weeds on the IPAs are the weather, difficulty in accessing weeds and trying to ensure that all weeds are being managed at once. Cattle have also brought new weeds into the IPAs.

Feral animals are managed through shooting, trapping and netting or line-catching fish. The Banbai community has put a lot of effort into controlling mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Mosquitofish have been associated with decline of native fish species. Since mosquitofish do not like cool water, the Banbai Rangers have planted 300 mat rush (Lomandra spp.) plants in riparian areas and erected shade cloth across the river to lower the water temperature. These sites are monitored once a week.

The Banbai community is also interested to see how fire affects weeds and feral animals. ‘I think it would be interesting to find out what comes back, native or introduced, with the “right way” burn as opposed to the “wrong way” burn where we had to use a lot of chemicals to control the weeds afterwards’, says Tanya Elone, manager of the Banbai Business Development Aboriginal Corporation. Banbai Rangers and a PhD student at the University of New England are developing a 2-way monitoring system using Indigenous and scientific knowledge to consider the effects that fire has on the environment.

Owning and managing Wattleridge and Tarriwa Kurrukun IPAs gives the Banbai community an opportunity to look after their Country and culture, and to pass it on to the next generations. Elder and ranger Lesley Patterson, believes ‘our children need to know their culture and their Country so that they can keep themselves and their land healthy for generations to come’.

Source: Tanya Elone and Travis Patterson (Banbai Enterprise Development Aboriginal Corporation) and Michelle McKemey (University of New England)

soe2016_lan_feral_cattle_cape_york_metcalfe.jpg

Feral cattle on the Coleman River floodplain, Cape York
Photo by Dan Metcalfe, CSIRO

Indigenous fire management across northern Australia

Fire management is a crucial component of the wider management of the Australian landscape, enabling control of the timing, size and intensity of fires, and contributing to environmental management to preferentially encourage or inhibit particular species (see the Biodiversity report). Effective fire management sustains healthy landscapes and, where reductions in carbon emissions contribute to carbon markets, provides important Country-based income streams for Indigenous people (Russell-Smith et al. 2013).

Aboriginal fire practices have been described by researchers as ‘patch mosaic burning’ and early dry-season burning. The application of early dry-season patch burning in several northern Australian contexts (such as Arnhem Land and north Kimberley) has resulted in some beneficial outcomes for biodiversity, by protecting endangered tropical heathlands and habitat for small mammals (Murphy & Duncan 2015, Radford et al. 2015). It has also contributed to the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions. Early dry-season burning underpins prescribed burning to reduce the frequency and spread of high-intensity wildfires, and thereby lower greenhouse gas emissions, in northern Australia (Yates et al. 2008, Russell-Smith et al. 2013). Early dry-season burning in the savannas is also an effective tool to increase carbon sequestration in the debris pools, by ensuring that fires are smaller and less intense than late dry-season fires and consume less organic matter. Currently, southern Australia is not as amenable to the maximisation of carbon storage potential through fire management because of the much lower frequency of fire in the landscape, which limits the ability of fire management to impact on unplanned fire activity. However, fire management will become increasingly important for biodiversity conservation as the climate warms (Bradshaw et al. 2013).

Indigenous people’s own view of their fire management practices emphasises linkages between customary law, economies, social relations, ecology and the application of management activities in response to cues such as seasonal indicators (Bright 1995, Rose 1995, Hill et al. 1999). The description of Indigenous fire as just ‘patch mosaic burning’ ignores these culturally embedded mediating and explanatory factors, meanings and purposes (Bright 1995; Hill et al. 2004, 2008).

One important means by which Indigenous fire knowledge and management can be formally recognised is through conservation agreements. However, recognition under these agreements does not always successfully incorporate fire knowledge, or empower Indigenous holders of fire knowledge and fire managers. This is also evident in carbon abatement programs. Economic benefits to Indigenous people from carbon markets and associated schemes involving ‘payment for ecosystem services’ allow Indigenous landholders and managers to achieve environmental goals. The development of carbon sequestration and abatement projects also generates co-benefits such as reconnection with Country and other cultural benefits (Howe et al. 2014). In practice, however, designing carbon offset programs and policies that achieve both carbon benefits and associated co-benefits has proved challenging; in some cases, separate programs fund biodiversity, social and cultural benefits without carbon abatement occurring (Reed 2011, Gerrard 2012, Robinson et al. 2016b). Efforts have been frustrated both by a lack of understanding about the value to communities and the parameters under which benefits for Indigenous communities can be sought, and by the realisation that there may be fewer opportunities than anticipated to simultaneously realise a full suite of carbon and Indigenous co-benefits (Robinson et al. 2014).

The challenges to the incorporation of Indigenous fire knowledge into contemporary fire management can be cultural, reflecting differences in world views; institutional, reflecting constraints in how the programs are conceptualised; scientific, reflecting the availability of data that support the knowledge; and logistical and operational, reflecting limits to the resources available to complete the work. Ongoing refinements in our understanding of the role that fire plays in driving community, landscape and global processes also mean that there may be a need to refine fire management practices. Sometimes it may not be appropriate to incorporate past Indigenous practices into modern fire management.

Parkinson E (2016). Agriculture degree programs on the rise at universities. Australian Financial Review, 17 February.

Ryan R, Wilczynski A, Watkins S & Rose J (2012). Assessment of the social outcomes of the Working on Country program, Urbis Pty Ltd, Sydney.

SVA Consulting (Social Ventures Australia Consulting) (2014). Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa: social, economic and cultural impact of Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa’s on-Country programs, evaluative social return on investment report, SVA Consulting, Canberra.

van Bueren M, Worland T, Svanberg A & Lassen J (2015). Working for our country: a review of the economic and social benefits of Indigenous land and sea management, Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, & Synergies Economic Consulting, Sydney.

Allen Consulting Group (2011). Assessment of the economic and employment outcomes of the Working on Country program, report to the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Allen Consulting Group, Melbourne.

Green D & Minchin L (2012). The co-benefits of carbon management on country. Nature Climate Change 2:641–643.

Fordham A, Forgarty C & Fordham D (2010). Knowledge foundations for the development of sustainable wildlife enterprises in remote indigenous communities of Australia, CAEPR Working Paper 62/2010, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra.

Sithole B & Hunter-Xenie H, with Williams L, Saegenschnitter H, Yibarbuk D, Matthew R, Otto C, Yunupingu B, Liddy M & Watts E (2007). Aboriginal land and sea management in the Top End: a community-driven evaluation, CSIRO, Darwin.

Burgess CP, Johnston FH, Berry HL, McDonnell J, Yibarbuk D, Gunabarra C, Mileran A & Bailie RS (2009). Healthy country, healthy people: the relationship between Indigenous health status and ‘caring for country’. Medical Journal of Australia 190(10):567–572.

Thompson S (2009). Aboriginal perspectives on physical activity in remote communities: meanings and ways forward, Menzies School of Health Research, Melbourne.

Barber M & Jackson M (2011). Indigenous water values and water planning in the upper Roper River, Northern Territory, report to the National Water Commission and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship, Australia.

Weston N, Bramley C, Bar-Lev J, Guyula M & O’Ryan S (2012). Arafura three: aboriginal ranger groups protecting and managing an internationally significant swamp. Ecological Management and Restoration 13(1):84–88.

Australian Government (2016). Agricultural competitiveness white paper: stronger farmers, stronger economy, Australian Government, Canberra.

Robertson, F., Crawford, D., Partington, D., Oliver, I., Rees, D., Aumann, C., Armstrong, R., Perris, R., Davey, M. & Moodie, M. 2016. Soil organic carbon in cropping and pasture systems of Victoria, Australia. Soil Research.

May K (2010). Indigenous cultural natural resource management and the emerging role of the Working on Country program, CAEPR Working Paper 65/2010, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Canberra.

Russell-Smith J, Cook GD, Cooke PM, Edwards AC, Lendrum M, Meyer CP & Whitehead PJ (2013). Managing fire regimes in north Australian savannas: applying aboriginal approaches to contemporary global problems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11:E55–E63.

Murphy B & Duncan D (2015). Interaction of time sequences and geomorphology in the soils of the Lower Macquarie River plain in south eastern Australia. Quaternary International 365:60–73.

Radford IJ, Gibson LA, Corey B, Carnes K & Fairman R (2015). Influence of fire mosaics, habitat characteristics and cattle disturbance on mammals in fire-prone savanna landscapes of the northern Kimberley. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0130721, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130721.

Yates CP, Edwards AC & Russell-Smith J (2008). Big fires and their ecological impacts in Australian savannas: size and frequency matters. International Journal of Wildland Fire 17(6):768–781.

Bradshaw CJA, Bowman DMJS, Bond NR, Murphy BP, Moore AD, Fordham DA, Thackway R, Lawes MJ, McCallum H, Gregory SD, Dalal RC, Boer MM, Lynch AJJ, Bradstock RA, Brook BW, Henry BK, Hunt LP, Fisher DO, Hunter D, Johnson CN, Keith DA, Lefroy EC, Penman TD, Meyer WS, Thomson JR, Thornton CM, VanDerWal J, Williams RJ, Keniger L & Specht A (2013). Brave new green world—consequences of a carbon economy for the conservation of Australian biodiversity. Biological Conservation 161:71–90.

Bright A (1995). Burn grass. In: Rose DB (ed.), Country in flames: proceedings of the 1994 symposium on biodiversity and fire in North Australia, Biodiversity Unit, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories & the North Australia Research Unit, Australian National University, Canberra, 59–62.

Rose DB (ed.) (1995). Country in flames: proceedings of the 1994 Symposium on biodiversity and fire in North Australia, Biodiversity Unit, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, & North Australia Research Unit, Australian National University, Canberra.

Hill R, Baird A & Buchanan D (1999). Aborigines and fire in the wet tropics of Queensland, Australia: ecosystem management across cultures. Society & Natural Resources 12(3):205–223.

Hill R, Baird A, Buchanan D, Denman C, Fischer P, Gibson K, Johnson J, Kerry A, Kulka G, Madsen E, Olbar A, Olbar L, Pierce J, Schuan J, Shipton E, Shipton H, Smith J, Sykes R, Walker E, Walker W, Wallace P, Yerry B, Yougie D, Ball D, Barney E, Buchanan R, Buchanan R, Denman H, Fischer R, Gibson R, Talbot L, Tayley E, Tayley N, Walker D, Walker K, Wallace M & Yougie L (2004). Yalanji Waranga Kaban: Yalanji people of the rainforest fire management book, Little Ramsay Press, Cairns.

Hill R, Miriuwung and Gajerrong peoples, Hill D & Goodson S (2008). Miriuwung-Gajerrong cultural planning framework: Mirruwung and Gajerrong peoples’ guidelines for developing management plans for conservation parks and nature reserves under the Ord final agreement, endorsed by the Yoorrooyang Dawang Regional Park Council, presented by the Miriuwung-Gajerrong people, Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth.

Howe C, Suich H, Vira B & Mace GM (2014). Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environmental Change 28:263–275.

Reed P (2011). REDD+ and the indigenous question: a case study from Ecuador. Forests 2:525-549.

Gerrard E (2012). Towards a carbon constrained future: climate change, emissions trading and Indigenous peoples’ rights in Australia. In: Weir JK (ed.), Country, native title and ecology, ANU E Press, Canberra, 135–174.

Robinson CJ, James G & Whitehead PJ (2016b). Negotiating Indigenous benefits from payment from ecosystem (PES) schemes. Global Environmental Change 28:21–29.

Robinson CJ, Gerrard E, May T & Maclean K (2014). Australia’s Indigenous carbon economy. a national snapshot. Geographical Research 52(2):123–132.

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2012a). Geographic distribution of the populations, ABS, Canberra.

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2012b). Australian social trends, ABS, Canberra.

DSEWPaC (Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (2013). Working on Country. Reporting back to you: 2009–2012, report to working on Country funding recipients, DSEWPAC, Canberra.

PM&C (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) (2015). Annual report 2014–15, Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra.

Australian Government (2015b). Reporting back ... 2013–14: working on Country and Indigenous Protected Areas programmes, Australian Government, Canberra.

Robinson CJ, Renwick AR, May T, Gerrard E, Foley R, Battaglia M, Possingham H, Griggs D & Walker D (2016a). Indigenous benefits and carbon offset schemes: an Australian case study. Environmental Science & Policy 56:129–134.

Metcalfe D, Bui E (2016). Land: Human capital. In: Australia state of the environment 2016, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/land/topic/2016/human-capital, DOI 10.4226/94/58b6585f94911