Lessons of Indigenous People and Community Involvement in the Kakadu National Park

By LU Wanlin

Abstract: Indigenous people and local communities (IPLCs) issues attracted attention from nations during the second phase of the Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Montreal from the 6th to 19th of December 2022, where parties called for better IPLCs engagement. Due to different national contexts, supports can be provided by CBD but it also relies on national actions. Therefore, drawing from the indigenous-led Kakadu National Park Nardab para grass actions, the article aims to conclude lessons from the park’s management for other countries to bring indigenous and non-indigenous people together. Three factors are identified as important reasons which are the recognition of IPLCs’ rights, comprehensive consideration of values and multi-party cooperation and support.

Key words: Kakadu National Park, Indigenous people and local communities (IPLCs), Nardab, CBD

LU Wanlin. Lessons of Indigenous People and Community Involvement in the Kakadu National Park. BioGreen - Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development. Vol. 1, May 2023. Total Issues 40. ISSN2749-9065

1 Introduction

From December 6th to 19th, the second phase of the Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was held in Montreal, Canada. This conference was held in the face of the urgent need for renewing the global biodiversity framework, with the failure to fully meet 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, such as reducing at least half of the natural habitats losing rate (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020, pp. 4–7).

With joint efforts, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted with a more ambitious goal of “30 by 30”, which means to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).

Among these, how to further involve indigenous people and local communities (IPLCs) was discussed. IPLCs are considered as crucial partner in the protection of biodiversity and the ecosystem. Because IPLCs’ land makes up at least 32% of global land and inland water, with 91% of IPLC’s land in a good ecological situation which is significant for biological preservation (World Wide Fund for Nature et al., 2021, pp. 7–8). Thus, maintaining biodiversity requires a comprehensive biodiversity regime and multi-stakeholders’ cooperation.

The Convention on Biological Diversity is the foundation for global biodiversity protection. In the very text of the CBD, IPLCs are mainly referred to in Article 8(j), which refers to traditional knowledge, innovation, and practices. Not only preserving and maintaining IPLCs’ knowledge are mentioned, but promoting wider utilization of knowledge, innovation and practices is also stated (Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, p. 6).

Based on the context of Article 8(j), parties expressed their ideas on IPLCs aiming to create a more comprehensive global biological framework. For instance, the UK stated that a national contact points agreement on traditional knowledge needs to be made (The Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 2022b). Based on the biodiversity loss pressure and emphasis from nations, the Working Group will further carry out Article 8(j) fulfillment (The Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 2022a, p. 5).

Several difficulties will be encountered in IPLCs issues. First of all, IPLCs challenge the power of the nation-state. Although IPLCs don’t have a unified definition, indigenous people usually share distinct cultures and histories with a given region before colonialism. The complexity of history given the controversial land right of IPLCs which conflicts with the sovereignty right of a state. Although in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, indigenous people’s right to use, develop, and control their lands are granted, CBD mainly mentions the sovereign right of states (United Nation, 2007; Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992). Therefore, there’s no consistency in IPLC’s land right. The treatment of indigenous’ land right in biodiversity preservation is given to the state to decide.

In addition, CBD fragments the relationship between culture and nature, which conflicts with the attitude of the IPLCs towards nature. Human is usually urged to protect the environment while a sustainable way is to hold the perspective of integrating human into nature (Friedman et al., 2022, p. 1477). Only when the perception of humans and natural changes, can IPLCs better cooperate with non-indigenous groups.

However, CBD is only the guidance for nations to implement since the outcome heavily relied on national actions. Meanwhile, CBD can be a strong supporter of national activities. With the new Global Biodiversity Framework and ongoing efforts, better involvement of IPLCs could come into reality. Therefore, the research question is to understand the approaches nations can adopt through the study of Kakadu National Park, which provides future direction for Article 8(j).

Following the research question, the present investigation aims to highlight: 1) the status quo of Kakadu National Park management practices; 2) the lessons for nations to be learned from; 3) the possible guidance for Article 8(j) discussion.

2 Method

A case study on Kakadu National Park will be performed in this article. Kakadu National Park is chosen as a relevant location where to investigate the approach to cooperating with indigenous people and communities.

Located in the Northern Territory in Australia, Kakadu National Park is home to indigenous Bininj and Mungguy with vast biodiversity and landscape. Management of the Park is based on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, with Bininj and Mungguy still living in there (Kakadu National Park Plan of Management 2016-2026, 2016). For indigenous people, the park is not merely a habitat, but their ‘country’ where the close interconnection between humans and nature is strongly emphasized (Bangalang et al., 2022; Ens et al., 2012).

Guided by the plan, the park is under the joint management of rangers and indigenous people (Kakadu National Park Plan of Management 2016-2026, 2016). Many environmental protection projects are being implemented with the cooperation between indigenous people and Ranger. Thus, the existence of rich biodiversity and the involvement of indigenous people in the Kakadu National Plan makes it a good case to learn about the effective engagement of IPLCs.

By focusing on the management actions in Kakadu National Park, the author will refer to the Healthy Country Bininj/Mugguy indicator project which created reliable indicators for para grass control on the Nardab floodplain.

The Nardab, one of the World Heritage, is both culturally and ecologically significant. Since 1960, the invasive species para grass spread over 3,200 hectares of the park’s floodplain which threatens the habitat of culturally important species like turtles and Magpie Geese (Viki et al., 2021). The successful indigenous-led actions led to the increase of Magpie Geese numbers from 80 in 2018 to 1800 in 2019 (Kakadu National Park et al., n.d.).

In order to understand what factors contribute to the successful cooperation, regulations of the Australian government and literature will be drawn on to provide an in-depth and detailed understanding of the Australian way of indigenous-led management.

3 Strengths

The weakness of CBD mentioned by scholars could have been present in Australia and hindered IPLCs’ involvement. However, Australia has already established a harmonious relationship with IPLCs in Kakadu National Park, and actively engages them and uses indigenous knowledge. The success of Australia attributes to the following reasons.

The clear recognition of IPLCs’ rights

One of the difficulties for the world to reach a consensus is the recognition of IPLCs’ rights. Indigenous people refer to the landscape as ‘country’ which contradicts the sovereignty right (Ens et al., 2012, pp. 102-103). Whether indigenous people share their original right to land use could influence the relationship between the national government and indigenous groups. It will be very difficult to cooperate if even IPLCs’ power over the land is not recognized, especially for regions with colonial history (Mauro & Hardison, 2000, p. 1264).

Australia tackles this issue by confirming the right of IPLCs and the recognition of IPLCs. Early in 1976, the Australian government introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights Act which legally recognized the land ownership of indigenous people. Indigenous people have the right to make key decisions and control their lands. It not only provides legal protection for indigenous people but also ideologically acknowledges their land rights, which serves as the foundation of indigenous-led management in wetland protection (Central Land Council, n.d.).

Based on this milestone law, the plan states that the land of the park is leased by Bininj/Mungguy for joint management. It contributes to IPLCs involvement because it respects and recognizes the land right of indigenous people. Besides, through joint management, the non-indigenous entities can participate as well.

Thus, for nations that would like to engage IPLCs, it is essential to identify the right of IPLCs and build a collaborative relationship.

Centrality of local values

Apart from institutional support, the strength of Kakadu National Park lies in the accommodation of indigenous and other values. In decision-making, cultural value and natural value are both considered. The Bininj/Mungguy healthy country indicators were developed to guide environmental protection under the leadership of Bininj/Munggy Traditional Owners. Indicators comprehensively cover various aspects which are country value, culture and community value, economic value, sharing indigenous knowledge, and sharing science and indigenous knowledge (The Resilient Landscapes Hub, n.d.-a).

For instance, to select the most valuable site for protection, value and threat assessment were conducted. Through interviews and field visits, sites were chosen reflecting diverse values. For instance, cultural value is prioritized in choosing the site one where family gatherings, hunting culturally significant magpie geese and passing on traditional stories there (Bangalang et al., 2022, p. 111). While site two and three take more aspects as priority such as tourism value, combating para grass, and culturally sacred sites (Bangalang et al., 2022).

With respect to indigenous people’s land right, the site selection reflects an awareness of the value of all aspects. Conservation value is not solely focused on, which helps to interconnect interests and involvement of parties.

Multi-party cooperation and support

With clear values identification, involving indigenous people requires multi-party cooperation and support. There’s a separation of indigenous and non-indigenous people and the necessity of cooperation between them need to be emphasized (Friedman et al., 2022, p. 1477). Only relying on IPLCs or taking indigenous knowledge may be one-sided.

In Kakadu National Park, co-management provides the platform for both indigenous and non-indigenous to cooperate. In the case of protecting Nardab wetlands, various entities actively communicate with each other. Guided by traditional owners, non-indigenous scientists, rangers, and park staff work together (Mauro & Hardison, 2000; The Resilient Landscapes Hub, n.d.-a). Institutions like The University of Western Australia and Charles Darwin University, Microsoft, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation can offer technological assistance (Viki et al., 2021). Financially, the Australian government’s National Environmental Science Program funded project (The Resilient Landscapes Hub, n.d.-b).

The multi-stakeholder partnership of indigenous and non-indigenous allow the spread and integration of both indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge. For instance, indigenous knowledge and AI are found effectively integrated into para grass management (The Resilient Landscapes Hub, n.d.-a). Traditional knowledge provides the basis of health indicator identification while technology support sustainable monitoring. Thus, the lessons from Kakadu National Park reflect the importance of collaboration between parties as an opportunity to bring new and old knowledge together.

4 Discussion and conclusion

Although scholars argue that the creation of Kakadu National Park is trying to naturalize indigenous groups and joint management reflects the acceptance of the hegemony of technology, Kakadu National Park presents a good model for nations to get direction (Palmer, 2006, p. 37).

The factors that contribute to indigenous involvement are an acknowledgment of land rights, integration of value, and the creation of partnerships between indigenous people and different entities. The first factor forms the foundation for the latter two factors to function. Although it is difficult to move forward in a short period of time for all nations to legally grant indigenous peoples land rights, nations should realize that the common ground they could reach is to show respect and acknowledgment to IPLCs’ management status. It can avoid biodiversity protection to be caught up in political controversy.

These are points that other nations can adopt and undertake indigenization. It not only provides guidance for nations but also the potential direction for renewing GBF. As Article 8(j) needs improvement, the Kakadu National Park case allows the world to rethink the relationship between indigenous groups and non-indigenous groups.

Except for mentioning the importance and significance to engage IPLCs so as to use indigenous knowledge, non-indigenous groups should not be excluded. Besides, since biodiversity protection is time-consuming and case-based, concrete actions to support nations should be further discussed, especially for developing and least-developed countries.

References

Kakadu National Park Plan of Management 2016-2026, 1 (2016). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00002/Download

Bangalang, N. gangila, Nadji, J., Nayinggul, A., Nadji, S., Nayinggul, A., Dempsey, S., Mangiru, K., Dempsey, J., McCartney, S., Mairi Macdonald, J., & Robinson, C. J. (2022). Understanding Indigenous values and priorities for wetlands to guide weed management actions: Lessons from the Nardab floodplain in northern Australia’s Kakadu National Park. Ecological Management and Restoration, 23(S1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12542

Central Land Council. (n.d.). The Land Rights Act Made Simple. Retrieved January 8, 2023, from https://www.clc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ACFrOgD_efF0_uFzIlDwWUQh6BECyjBeULMerSpnGRfzE3mbuOLPJw3Ad4wgNr4Q-j2gf1PueYSbrPZ3bnJa41hKA3Piv7NRuOTWyRSuAnDMeYvnb0-c1kLniFc1LAanGOTDnN8LyORUpAB0Ykfz.pdf

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022). Nations Adopt Four Goals, 23 Targets for 2030 In Landmark UN Biodiversity Agreement. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf

Ens, E. J., Finlayson, M., Preuss, K., Jackson, S., & Holcombe, S. (2012). Australian approaches for managing “country” using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge. Ecological Management and Restoration, 13(1), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00634.x

Friedman, K., Bridgewater, P., Agostini, V., Agardy, T., Arico, S., Biermann, F., Brown, K., Cresswell, I. D., Ellis, E. C., Failler, P., Kim, R. E., Pratt, C., Rice, J., Rivera, V. S., & Teneva, L. (2022). The CBD Post-2020 biodiversity framework: People’s place within the rest of nature. People and Nature, 1475–1484. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10403

Kakadu National Park, Northern Australia Environmental Resources Hub, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, The University of Western Australia, Njanjma Rangers, & Microsoft. (n.d.). Healthy Country Bininj/Mungguy Indicator Dashboard.

Mauro, F., & Hardison, P. D. (2000). Traditional knowledge of indigenous and local communities: International debate and policy initiatives. In Ecological Applications (Vol. 10, Issue 5, pp. 1263–1269). Ecological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1263:TKOIAL]2.0.CO;2

Palmer, L. (2006). “Nature”, place and the recognition of Indigenous polities. Australian Geographer, 37(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180500511954

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 – Summary for Policy Makers. https://www.cbd.int/gbo5

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2022a). Summary of the UN Biodiversity Conference: 7-19 December 2022. https://enb.iisd.org/un-biodiversity-conference-oewg5-cbd-cop15

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2022b). UN Biodiversity Conference Highlights: Friday, 9 December 2022.

The Resilient Landscapes Hub. (n.d.-a). Bininj/Mungguy healthy country indicators.

The Resilient Landscapes Hub. (n.d.-b). NESP Northern Australia Environmental Resources Hub. Retrieved January 7, 2023, from https://nesplandscapes.edu.au/nesp/

United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1 (1992).

Viki, C., Northern Australia Environmental Resources Hub, Cathy, R., & Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. (2021). Wetlands Australia 34: Something for our grandkids’ future: Para Grass control on the Nardab floodplain. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/water/wetlands/publications/wetlands-australia/march-2021/para-grass

World Wide Fund for Nature, UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, GEF Small Grants Programme, I.-G. S. I., LandMark Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Wildlife Conservation Society, UNDP Equator Prize, International Land Coalition Secretariat, Conservation Matters LLC, & International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2021). The State of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Lands and Territories: A technical review of the state of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ lands, their contributions to global biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, the pressures they face, and recommendations for actions. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/report_the_state_of_the_indigenous_peoples_and_local_communities_lands_and_territor.pdf