Search

Co-production across scientific and Indigenous knowledge systems has become a cornerstone of research to enhance knowledge, practice, ethics, and foster sustainability transformations. However, the profound differences in world views and the complex and contested histories of nation-state colonisation on Indigenous territories, highlight both opportunities and risks for Indigenous people when engaging with knowledge co-production. This paper investigates the conditions under which knowledge co-production can lead to improved Indigenous adaptive environmental planning and management among remote land-attached Indigenous peoples through a case study with ten Traditional Owner groups in the Martuwarra (Fitzroy River) Catchment in Western Australia’s Kimberley region. The research team built a 3D map of the river and used it, together with an interactive table-top projector, to bring together both scientific and Indigenous spatial knowledge. Participatory influence mapping, aligned with Traditional Owner priorities to achieve cultural governance and management planning goals set out in the Fitzroy River Declaration, investigated power relations. An analytical framework, examining underlying mechanisms of social learning, knowledge promotion and enhancing influence, based on different theories of change, was applied to unpack the immediate outcomes from these activities. The analysis identified that knowledge co-production activities improved the accessibility of the knowledge, the experiences of the knowledge users, strengthened collective identity and partnerships, and strengthened Indigenous-led institutions. The focus on cultural governance and management planning goals in the Fitzroy River Declaration enabled the activities to directly affect key drivers of Indigenous adaptive environmental planning and management—the Indigenous-led institutions. The nation-state arrangements also gave some support to local learning and decision-making through a key Indigenous institution, Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council. Knowledge co-production with remote land-attached Indigenous peoples can improve adaptive environmental planning and management where it fosters learning together, is grounded in the Indigenous-led institutions and addresses their priorities.

Climate change is disproportionally affecting Indigenous peoples' livelihoods across the globe. Despite this fact, climate adaptation planning and responses are not immediate concerns for most Indigenous people, whose key challenges are deeply embedded in colonial history. Through collaborative research centred on climate adaptation planning with the Yuibera and Koinmerburra Traditional Owner groups on the Great Barrier Reef Catchments, we demonstrate that Traditional Owners' primary concerns are in aligning the climate adaptation opportunity with their own strategies for Indigenous cultural renewal and survival. Their Indigenous identity generates a responsibility to protect cultural landscapes, sites, and their connections with these places. In this case study, to “protect what is left” of Indigenous material culture and socio‐cultural relationships emerged as the best approach to climate adaptation planning, providing both the decolonisation narrative and the means to strengthen their Indigenous practices. Planning for climate change adaptation is useful for Indigenous peoples when it supports decolonising, strengthens Indigenous customary practices, and recognises customary governance.

Working with indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) is vital for inclusive assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Indigenous peoples’ concepts about what constitutes sustainability, for example, differ markedly from dominant sustainability discourses. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES) is promoting dialogue across different knowledge systems globally. In 2017, member states of IPBES adopted an ILK Approach including: procedures for assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people; a participatory mechanism; and institutional arrangements for including indigenous peoples and local communities. We present this Approach and analyse how it supports ILK in IPBES assessments through: respecting rights; supporting care and mutuality; strengthening communities and their knowledge systems; and supporting knowledge exchange. Customary institutions that ensure the integrity of ILK, effective empowering dialogues, and shared governance are among critical capacities that enable inclusion of diverse conceptualizations of sustainability in assessments. Fil: Hill, Rosemary. Csiro Oceans And Atmosphere.; Australia Fil: Adem, Çiğdem. The Public Administration Institute for Turkey & the Middle East; Turquía Fil: Alangui, Wilfred V.. University of the Philippines; Filipinas Fil: Molnár, Zsolt. Centre For Ecological Research; Hungría Fil: Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Yildiz. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Francia Fil: Bridgewater, Peter. University of Canberra; Australia. Australian National University; Australia Fil: Tengö, Maria. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia Fil: Thaman, Randy. University of the South Pacific; Fiyi Fil: Adou Yao, Constant Y.. University Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Abidjan; Costa de Marfil Fil: Berkes, Fikret. University of Manitoba; Canadá Fil: Carino, Joji. Forest Peoples Programme; Reino Unido Fil: Carneiro da Cunha, Manuela. University of Chicago; Estados Unidos. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Diaw, Mariteuw C.. African Model Forests Network; Senegal Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Figueroa, Viviana Elsa. Indigenous Women's Network On Biodiversity; Argentina Fil: Fisher, Judy. University of Western Australia; Australia Fil: Hardison, Preston. Tulalip Tribes of Washington; Estados Unidos Fil: Ichikawa, Kaoru. Institute of Policy Research; Japón Fil: Kariuki, Peris. KENRIK Section National Museums of Kenya; Kenia Fil: Karki, Madhav. Centre for Green Economy Development; Nepal Fil: Lyver, Phil O. B.. Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research; Nueva Zelanda Fil: Malmer, Pernilla. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia Fil: Oteng Yeboah, Alfred A.. University Of Ghana; Ghana Fil: Pacheco, Diego Alejandro. Cordillera Foundation; Bolivia Fil: Pataridze, Tamar. Independent expert; Georgia Fil: Perez, Edgar. Fundación para el Desarrollo Rural Junej T'inam; Guatemala Fil: Roué, Michèle-Marie. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Francia Fil: Roba, Hassan. The Christensen Fund; Estados Unidos Fil: Rubis, Jennifer. Green Climate Fund; Corea del Sur Fil: Saito, Osamu. United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability; Japón Fil: Xue, Dayuan. Minzu University of China; China

Indigenous peoples in Australia, and globally, are situated in an unusual context of both significant vulnerability and unique resilience to climate change which influence their perceptions of climate risk and uncertainty. Their vulnerability to climate change arises in part from their contexts of living in many of the harshest and isolated environments. Their resilience originates from their accumulated knowledge of specific environments over millennia, mediated through sui generis cultural institutions. Our results illustrate that indigenous groups primarily perceive uncertainties related to volition of actors and institutions. When they are involved in climate adaptation planning in ways that mobilise their cultural institutions and knowledge, they can safely manage these uncertainties through their agency to determine and control key risks. We demonstrate that climate justice approaches can be strengthened for indigenous peoples by applying a linked vulnerability-resilience analytical framework. This enables stronger consideration of how unique cultural institutions and knowledge, which are not available to all vulnerable groups, affect indigenous perceptions of uncertainty in climate adaptation planning. We use this analytical approach in a case study with Yuibera and Koinmerburra Traditional Owner groups within the Great Barrier Reef Catchment. We conclude that a specific focus on sui generis indigenous knowledge and cultural institutions as a source of resilience can strengthen climate justice approaches and work more effectively with indigenous peoples in climate change contexts.

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) has grown in stature as a key component of many national natural resource and rural development governance systems. Despite their growth, the integrity of CBNRM governance systems has rarely been analysed in a national context. To enhance dialogue about how best to design and deploy such systems nationally, this paper analyses the Australian system in detail. The Australian system was selected because the nation has a globally recognised and strong history of CBNRM approaches. We first contextualise the international emergence of national CBRM governance systems before analysing the Australian system. We find that a theoretically informed approach recognising regions as the anchors in brokering multi-scale CBNRM was applied between 2000 and 2007. Subsequent policy, while strengthening indigenous roles, has tended to weaken regional brokering, Commonwealth&ndash, state cooperation and research collaboration. Our findings and consequent emerging lessons can inform Australian policy makers and other nations looking to establish (or to reform existing) CBNRM governance systems. Equally, the research approach taken represents the application of an emerging new theoretical framework for analysing complex governance systems.

Throughout the world, there is growing recognition of the important role Indigenous people play in natural resource management and conservation. Indigenous Land and Sea Management Programs (ILSMPs; which provide funds to Indigenous people to support Indigenous land management activities) are also known to generate social and economic benefits, although relative few of these co‐benefits have been quantified. Using northern Australia as a case study, we analysed data on ILSMP expenditure within three regional input–output tables, learning more about the size and distribution of their associated regional economic benefits. We found ILSMPs make a significant contribution to regional economies—with multipliers commonly exceeding that of other key regional industries such as agriculture and mining. We also found ILSMP expenditures make a larger contribution to Indigenous household incomes than they do to non‐Indigenous incomes—thus helping to close the (income) gap. They will continue to do so, provided the proportion of ILSMP money spent on Indigenous (compared to non‐Indigenous) incomes does not fall below a threshold amount. Rather than finding evidence of a trade‐off between socio‐ecological and financial/economic goals, our results suggest ILSMPs, known for their ecological importance, can also make a vitally important contribution to economic development in rural areas.

A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people.

Co-production between scientific and Indigenous knowledge has been identified as useful to generating adaptation pathways with Indigenous peoples, who are attached to their traditional lands and thus highly exposed to the impacts of climate change. However, ignoring the complex and contested histories of nation-state colonisation can result in naive adaptation plans that increase vulnerability. Here, through a case study in central Australia, we investigate the conditions under which co-production between scientific and Indigenous knowledge can support climate change adaptation pathways among place-attached Indigenous communities. A research team including scientists, Ltyentye Apurte Rangers and other staff from the Central Land Council first undertook activities to co-produce climate change presentations in the local Arrernte language; enable community members to identify potential adaptation actions; and implement one action, erosion control. Second, we reflected on the outcomes of these activities in order to unpack deeper influences. Applying the theory of articulation complexes, we show how ideologies, institutions and economies have linked Indigenous societies and the establishing Australian nation-state since colonisation. The sequence of complexes characterised as frontier, mission, pastoral, land-rights, community-development and re-centralisation, which is current, have both enabled and constrained adaptation options. We found knowledge co-production generates adaptation pathways when: (1) effective methods for knowledge co-production are used, based on deeply respectful partnerships, cultural governance and working together through five co-production tasks—prepare, communicate, discuss, bring together and apply; (2) Indigenous people have ongoing connection to their traditional territories to maintain their Indigenous knowledge; (3) the relationship between the Indigenous people and the nation-state empowers local decision-making and learning, which requires and creates consent, trust, accountability, reciprocity, and resurgence of Indigenous culture, knowledge and practices. These conditions foster the emergence of articulation complexes that enable the necessary transformative change from the colonial legacies. Both these conditions and our approach are likely to be relevant for place-attached Indigenous peoples across the globe in generating climate adaptation pathways.

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) include the aesthetic, artistic, educational, spiritual and/or scientific values of ecosystems and have been described as ‘intangible’ and complex, reflecting diverse people-nature interactions that are embedded in dynamic linked social-ecological systems. CES have proved difficult to value, therefore mapping CES has largely concentrated on more tangible aspects, such as tourism and recreation—presenting the risk that highly significant cultural relationships, such as those between Indigenous peoples and their traditional land, will be rendered invisible in ecosystem assessments. We present our results from co-research with a group of ‘Rainforest Aboriginal peoples׳ from the Wet Tropics, Australia that illustrates a method to address this gap through mapping their perceptions of the health of Indigenous CES. We found that categories associated with biocultural diversity and governance matched their perceptions better than the usual framework that recognizes aesthetic, spiritual and other categories. Co-produced maps presented demonstrate spatial patterns of CES that are related primarily to variations in social attributes (such as adherence to cultural protocols), rather than the ecological attributes (such as biodiversity patterns). Further application of these concepts of biocultural diversity governance, and variation in social attributes when mapping CES, particularly in partnerships with Indigenous peoples is recommended.

The concept of ''usable knowledge'' is central to sustainability science, but most of the research that ex- plores this concept focuses on the science-policy interface. This paper expands this scholarship by describing a par- ticipatory research methodology that aimed to facilitate knowledge sharing between indigenous peoples, and sup- port indigenous community efforts to consider different knowledge claims and negotiate indigenous knowledge that could be used for environmental risk assessments and management responses. We draw on two case studies to show how a participatory mapping approach enabled Aboriginal people connected to the Girringun Indigenous Corporation (Girringun) in northern Australia to negotiate the knowledge needed to assess the environmental risks that affect their territories. Individuals painted and drew maps of their values, knowledge, and management aspirations for water and native vegetation. These maps were shared with the wider group to enable the consid- eration of different perspectives and the negotiation of agreed risks affecting local watersheds and native vegeta- tion. These maps were also used to facilitate the design of knowledge partnerships among the Girringun tribal groups, staff, and other collaborators that are critical to re-framing and co-managing the environmental risks affecting this region of northern Australia.

Environmental management has progressed from a tenure-based process, where each tenure is established for a single purpose, to one that considers multiple, often conflicting, uses across multiple tenures at the landscape scale. Here we consider the history of management, contestation and conservation of humid tropical rainforests of north-east Australia, Australia's Wet Tropics, and investigate the unfolding expression of new and diverse values attached to the region. We show that i) for environmental managers, the task of understanding and giving expression to diverse human values attached to environmental resources is an on-going, complex and transdisciplinary task, ii) there is no ‘moment’ when a landscape, and the human values which make it legible, are ‘secured’, and iii) by locating dynamic social values as central to the project of environmental (or in this case, forest) management, we begin to understand managing for concurrent values as a central challenge for contemporary natural resource management. Three examples of multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to forest management for concurrence are examined: 1) managing the diverse impacts of rainforest tourism, 2) managing competing demands on a rapidly changing coastal community, and 3) bridging the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous indicators of forest condition. Our analysis supports the current theory of nested adaptive policy cycles that change in response to exogenous factors, rather than the Multi-Level Perspective which attributes causality to endogenous forces. We suggest that 21st Century environmental problems such as climate change and biodiversity loss will lead to further major social transformations and the path generation to increasing complexity will continue.

It is widely accepted that Indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK) is potentially valuable for maintaining biodiversity within linked social-ecological systems, and cultural landscapes in particular. However, IEK is declining globally, along with biodiversity. Adaptive co-management frameworks incorporating both Indigenous and scientific knowledge systems have the capacity for greater success than frameworks embedded within a singular world view. A major challenge exists, however, in identifying pathways for the integration of these knowledge systems. The need to integrate both IEK and science into management is widely recognised; various approaches have been trialled but there are few successful examples. Cooperative research using joint learning is emerging as one potentially useful approach. Here we present an example of applying co-research in a cultural landscape in Australia, the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, where we aimed to develop linked cultural and biophysical indicators of ecosystem condition. Our approach was founded on five stakeholder-defined core principles for research. The study revealed seven determinants of successful implementation within these principles: strong Indigenous governance; problem-framing and conceptualisation; relationship building; data collection and management; considerations of scale; agreed dissemination of results; and evaluation. We identify cooperative problem-framing as one of the most important determinants, and argue that by starting the co-research process with this task, co-research can assist the equitable convergence of IEK and contemporary natural resource management, thereby potentially enhancing social-ecological system resilience and sustainability.

This paper focuses on Indigenous business development, an under-researched co-benefit associated with investment in Indigenous land and sea management programs (ILSMPs) in northern Australia. More than 65% of ILSMPs undertake commercial activities that generate revenue and create jobs. In addition to generating environmental benefits, ILSMPs thus also generate economic benefits (co-benefits) that support Indigenous aspirations and help to deliver multiple government objectives. We outline key features of northern Australian economies, identifying factors that differentiate them from Western urbanised economies. We discuss literature highlighting that, if the aim is to stimulate (short-term) economic development in northern Indigenous economies, then the requirement is to stimulate demand for goods and services that are produced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (herein referred to as Indigenous people), and which generate benefits that align with the goals and aspirations of Indigenous people. We also discuss literature demonstrating the importance of promoting a socio-cultural environment that stimulates creativity, which is a core driver of innovation, business development and long-term development. ILSMPs have characteristics suggestive of an ability to kick-start self-sustaining growth cycles, but previous research has not investigated this. Using 8 years of data relating to Indigenous businesses that are registered with the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (a subset of all Indigenous businesses), we use statistical tests (Granger causality tests) to check whether ILSMP expenditure in the first year has a positive impact on Indigenous business activity in subsequent years. This analysis (of admittedly imperfect data) produces evidence to support the proposition that expenditure on ILSMPs generates positive spillovers for Indigenous businesses (even those not engaged in land management), albeit with a 3-year lag. ILSMPs have been shown to be an appropriate mechanism for achieving a wide range of short-term benefits; our research suggests they may also work as catalysts for Indigenous business development, fostering sustainable economic independence.

In recent years there has been wider recognition of the important role that Indigenous knowledge can play in developing and implementing natural resource management (NRM) strategies. The biophysical surroundings of many Indigenous peoples are of symbolic significance to them, hence their perception and values of natural resources may be vastly different to those of scientists or managers. We discuss a research approach that explicitly embraces the co-production of knowledge to facilitate NRM in Australia. We demonstrate that if particular methodologies are used and specific criteria met, cooperative research can represent one pathway for the integration of Indigenous and scientific knowledge. We suggest an important step for genuine knowledge and systems integration is in research direction-setting. Our approach practices multi-directional learning and mutual benefit, promoting cross transfer of skills by the cooperative generation and documentation of information. Indigenous knowledge and associated systems are strengthened and the value of Indigenous knowledge and systems is recognised alongside accepted scientific knowledge and methods. Essential to the methodology used is the creation of partnerships based on trust between co-researchers and the generation of genuine action research outcomes.

The Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) in Far North Queensland is one of the world’s hotspots of rainforest biodiversity and is an area rich in cultural heritage, with surrounding landscapes important nationally for agriculture and tourism. Like many globally important UNESCO sites, the area is currently experiencing unprecedented rates of population growth and urbanisation hence efficient and effective management action is required to maintain the area’s ecological, cultural and economic values. One of the aims of the Commonwealth Government funded Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility, is to develop a monitoring programme for biodiversity which will include critical indicators of ecosystem health and thresholds of concern to trigger management action. However, a major scientific challenge remains to identify critical indicators and thresholds of concern for the cultural status of both Indigenous and Non-Indigenous local human communities, who inherently form a part of the ecosystem. An additional challenge lies in linking these cultural indicators to ecosystem health. This paper outlines a framework of cooperative research for the generation of a series of linked biophysical and cultural indicators to facilitate the development of effective cooperative Natural Resource Management. Once composed, it is considered that the framework and a consequent monitoring protocol will be appropriate for use within the WTWHA and will be applicable to other protected areas worldwide.

In the Australian Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA), protected areas impact on the rights and obligations of Indigenous traditional owners. This research investigated the effectiveness of two new policy instruments, a negotiated agreement, and a protocol, as mechanisms to bridge between the differing protected area management approaches of Kuku-Yalanji Aboriginal people and the WTWHA managers. The policy innovation sought from these instruments reflects a paradigm shift in protected areas globally toward a more inclusive approach, and recognition of diversity in governance types. However, the instruments' effectiveness in achieving innovation was hampered by the lack of substantive legal mechanisms to overcome the colonial legacy within protected areas. Legislative reform to properly recognize diversity in protected area governance would assist effective bridging. Internationally, rigorous criteria to measure progress toward a more inclusive approach in national systems would enhance our capacity to...

Indigenous land use practices have a fundamental role to play in controlling deforestation and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Satellite imagery suggests that indigenous lands contribute substantially to maintaining carbon stocks and enhancing biodiversity relative to adjoining territory ( 1 ). Many of these sustainable land use practices are born, developed, and successfully implemented by the community without major influence from external stakeholders ( 2 ). A prerequisite for such community-owned solutions is indigenous knowledge, which is local and context-specific, transmitted orally or through imitation and demonstration, adaptive to changing environments, collectivized through a shared social memory, and situated within numerous interlinked facets of people's lives ( 3 ). Such local ecological knowledge is increasingly important given the growing global challenges of ecosystem degradation and climate change ( 4 ).

Australian indigenous people may retain common law native title rights in lands that have been reserved for nature conservation purposes . They are seeking greater equity in management of these places , and recognition of their cultural practices , such as "fire-stick farming." This article examines the approach to fire management of one group of Australian Aborigines , the Kuku-Yalanji , and that of the government managers of the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area . The comparative ecosystem management framework used to analyze the cultural interface highlights potential conflicts over the control of management and information, while identifying common interests in maintaining species and communities . Kuku-Yalanji use fire to protect fire-sensitive rainforests as well as to promote fire-prone open forests. The study suggests a Fire Protocol to mediate the different goals of the two groups, and supports the view that implementation of ecosystem management requires a social decision process.

"Increasing attention to formal recognition of indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) as part of national and/or global protected area systems is generating novel encounters between the customary institutions through which indigenous peoples and local communities manage these traditional estates and the bureaucratic institutions of protected area management planning. Although management plans are widely considered to be important to effective management of protected areas, little guidance has been available about how their form and content can effectively reflect the distinctive socio-cultural and political characteristics of ICCAs. This gap has been particularly apparent in Australia where a trend to rapidly increased formal engagement of indigenous people in environmental management resulted, by 2012, in 50 indigenous groups voluntarily declaring their intent to manage all or part of their estates for conservation in perpetuity, as an indigenous protected area (IPA). Development and adoption of a management plan is central to the process through which the Australian Government recognizes these voluntary declarations and invests resources in IPA management. We identified four types of innovations, apparent in some recent IPA plans, which reflect the distinctive socio-cultural and political characteristics of ICCAs and support indigenous people as the primary decision makers and drivers of knowledge integration in IPAs. These are (1) a focus on customary institutions in governance; (2) strategic planning approaches that respond to interlinkages of stewardship between people, place, plants, and animals; (3) planning frameworks that bridge scales by considering values and issues across the whole of an indigenous people???s territory; and (4) varied communication modes appropriate to varied audiences, including an emphasis on visual and spatial modes. Further research is warranted into how governance and management of IPAs, and the plans that support these processes, can best engender adaptive management and diverse strong partnerships while managing the risk of partners eroding local control."

"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."

Australian humid tropical forests have been recognised as globally significant natural landscapes through world heritage listing since 1988. Aboriginal people have occupied these forests and shaped the biodiversity for at least 8000 years. The Wet Tropics Regional Agreement in 2005 committed governments and the region’s Rainforest Aboriginal peoples to work together for recognition of the Aboriginal cultural heritage associated with these forests. The resultant heritage nomination process empowered community efforts to reverse the loss of biocultural diversity. The conditions that enabled this empowerment included: Rainforest Aboriginal peoples’ governance of the process; their shaping of the heritage discourse to incorporate biocultural diversity; and their control of interaction with their knowledge systems to identify the links that have created the region’s biocultural diversity. We recommend further investigation of theory and practice in Indigenous governance of international heritage designations as a means to empower community efforts to reverse global biocultural diversity loss.

[Extract] Cultural diversity influences both natural resource management and natural diversity throughout the world. A wide variety of cultural landscapes with high biodiversity values are the joint works of people and nature; examples include traditional coffee production forests in Mexico, highly diverse aynoka potato cultivation in the Andes and coltura mista farming in the Northern Appenines (Farina 1995; Sotomayor 1995; Moguel & Toledo 1999). Many of these systems are now undergoing replacement by industrial monocultures, or abandonment, resulting in rapid biodiversity decline (Michon & de Forestra 1995; Pandey 2003). Tropical rainforests, however, are places where the biophysical influence of Indigenous peoples is more difficult to discern, despite their millennia of occupation. Biodiversity in old fallows of Amazonian tropical forest agricultural systems approaches that of primary forests (Fujisaka et al. 1998). Although Kayapo resource strategies in the Amazon clearly concentrate non-domesticated resources near campsites, the distribution of Brazil nut trees, linked to Indigenous resource strategies, can also be explained by the scatter hoarding of the large rodent, the red-rumped agouti (Dasyprocta agouti) (Posey 1988, 1999; Peres & Baider 1997). Nevertheless, tropical rainforests and their plants and animals are integral to Indigenous rainforest peoples' cultures; for example, yams are of great religious significance to the Baka people of Cameroon (Joiris 1993), while in the West Kalimantan, the, Kantu people's augury is based on omens from several birds, notably the Nenak (white-rumped shama, Copsychus malabaricus) (Dove 1999). Alliances based on recognizing and respecting this deep significance of tropical rainforest to Indigenous peoples through territorial rights are also proving effective for protection of natural diversity (Schwartzman & Zimmerman 2005).

[Extract] Tropical rainforest was often seen as a barrier to progress in northern Queensland and the descriptive terminology used most frequently reflected that (scrub, jungle; see Stork and Turton, Chapter 1, this volume). Clearing the scrub to develop agriculture was a principal task of the early European settlers (see Turton, Chapter 5, this volume), as was the continuing attempt to remove the timber resources. The notion that the rainforest might need protecting from the impacts of human activity was quite weird until very recent times. In a historical review of attitudes towards rainforest in northern Queensland, Valentine (1980) documented numerous antagonistic and utilitarian views from explorers, settlers and government agencies. Indigenous Australians appreciated the qualities of tropical rainforests, which were integral to their culture, economy and society. The wider community has also seen the development of a much more positive view about tropical rainforests over time. One of the first to advocate its protection was John Busst, a local Bingal Bay resident who is best known for his work to save the Great Barrier Reef. He also formed the Rainforest Protection Society in 1962 and was at that time thought somewhat quirky for these ideas. His perspicacity is now acknowledged.