DLC
Permanent link for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/10535/1
Browse By
Browsing DLC by Subject "Aborigines"
Now showing 1 - 16 of 16
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Conference Paper Aboriginal Gillnet Fishers, Scientists and the State: Interactions over Salmon Fisheries Management on the Nass and Skeena Rivers, British Columbia, Canada, 1955-1965(2008) Wright, Miriam"This paper examines the interactions between Aboriginal gillnet fishers and the Canadian state over the regulations for the industrial salmon fishery on the Nass and Skeena Rivers of northern British Columbia in the 1950s and 1960s. In particular, it focuses on the discussions and conflicts between Aboriginal people, who comprised the majority of industrial fishers in the region, and state officials and scientists who were members of the Skeena Salmon Management Committee. The Canadian Department of Fisheries had created this committee in 1954 in response to declining salmon populations and a 1951 rock slide on the Skeena system which damaged the sockeye spawning runs. The Committee relied heavily on science to gain legitimacy for their increased restrictions on access to the resource, and made it a central feature of their public meetings. They also relied on it to encourage the native fishers to understand and accept the regulations. This approach did not work as expected. Native fishers continued to challenge the regulations, arguing state officials were unfairly penalizing small-boat fishers, and were overlooking greater threats to the resource such as larger and more efficient vessels and gear types. As well, the Aboriginal fishers also used information fisheries scientists had provided to point out inconsistencies in the regulations, particularly relating to the growing international offshore salmon fishery. Moreover, several Aboriginal communities also complained about some of the Committee's research projects such as counting fences and hatchery programs, arguing that they violated traditional Aboriginal treatment of salmon. While not all of these challenges led the Committee to alter its regulations and activities, some did, revealing the ways that science and management practices can be affected by interactions with groups involved in the process."Conference Paper Connection to Land and Sea at Erub, Torres Strait(1998) Scott, Colin; Mulrennan, Monica"In this paper we examine the relationship of indigenous, ethnological, and legal discourses in the definition of rights to land and sea among Torres Strait Islanders in northern Australia. In Australia, to a greater extent than in Canada or in any other settler state, the rules and customs of indigenous tenure systems are legally regarded as the source and test for state recognition of native title. The native claims process routinely depends on a combination of indigenous and anthropological documentation and testimony to formulate jurisprudence on the validity of claims. Hence, a three-cornered discourse - indigenous, ethnological, and legal - is shaping the emergent realities of property, boundaries, and territories in contemporary Australia. "Our presentation takes us first through a consideration of general perspectives that have been applied in recent years to understanding the connection of people -- and peoples -- to their lands and seas. Next, we turn to a brief ethnography of customary tenure at Erub (Darnley Island), in the East Torres Strait, and some aspects of the colonial legacy. Finally, we discuss the post-Mabo legal-political setting and consider the interaction of state 'law' and islander 'custom'."Journal Article Cross-cultural Conflicts in Fire Management in Northern Australia: Not so Black and White(1999) Andersen, Alan"European ('scientific') and Aboriginal ('experiential') perspectives on fire management in northern Australia are often contrasted with each other. For Europeans, management is portrayed as a science-based, strategically directed and goal-oriented exercise aimed at achieving specific ecological outcomes. In contrast, landscape burning by Aboriginal people is more of an emergent property, diffusely arising from many uses of fire that serve social, cultural, and spiritual, as well as ecological, needs. Aboriginal knowledge is acquired through tradition and personal experience, rather than through the scientific paradigm of hypothesis testing. Here I argue that, in practice, science plays only a marginal role in European fire management in northern Australia. European managers often lack clearly defined goals in terms of land management outcomes, and rarely monitor the ecological effects of their management actions. Management is based primarily on tradition, intuition, and personal experience rather than on scientific knowledge, and there is often a reluctance to accept new information, particularly when it is provided by 'outsiders.' In these ways, the processes by which European land managers acquire and utilize information are actually similar to those of indigenous Australians, and can be considered characteristic of a management culture. In this context, the conventional European vs. Aboriginal contrast might be more accurately described as a conflict between scientists on one hand and land managers in general, both black and white, on the other. That is not to say that science has all the answers and that researchers always deliver useful research outcomes. Cultural tensions between Australia's colonists and its original inhabitants rank highly on the national agenda, particularly in relation to land access and ownership. For the effective management of such land, another difficult but rewarding challenge lies in reconciling tensions between the cultures of science and management, black and white."Journal Article Haida Marine Planning: First Nations as a Partner in Marine Conservation(2010) Jones, Russ; Rigg, Catherine; Lee, Lynn"The Haida Nation is involved in an integrated marine planning initiative in northern British Columbia, Canada. The Haida continue to occupy traditional territory in and around Haida Gwaii, or the Queen Charlotte Islands, and are engaged in a larger planning process for the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA). This initiative is in the early planning stage, focused on capacity building and creating enabling conditions for co-governance. Court decisions, government policies, and a modern treaty process are driving short- and long-term efforts to resolve issues of Aboriginal ownership and resource access, both on land and in the ocean. As a result, the PNCIMA process is being led by two levels of government, First Nations and federal, reflecting changing perceptions of Aboriginal title and rights in British Columbia. The Haida have been resource owners and managers on Haida Gwaii for millennia, and continue to apply traditional knowledge and experience to marine-use planning and fisheries management. The Haida approach is place based and guided by fundamental Haida ethics and values such as respect, balance, and reciprocity. We describe these values and discuss the emerging role of First Nations in integrated oceans management in the context of the six themes: lessons from land-use planning; the PNCIMA governance structure; the relationship of values to planning outcomes; developing an ecosystem-based management framework; applications of traditional knowledge, based on a study of Haida marine traditional knowledge currently in progress; and linking marine planning at various scales. On Haida Gwaii, collaborative marine planning is expected to result in improved protection of Haida Gwaii waters for future generations, greater Haida participation in management decisions, and increasing emphasis on sustainability of both local fisheries and communities."Journal Article Innovation in Management Plans for Community Conserved Areas: Experiences from Australian Indigenous Protected Areas(2013) Davies, Jocelyn; Hill, Rosemary; Walsh, Fiona J.; Sandford, Marcus; Smyth, Dermot; Holmes, Miles C."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."Journal Article Mammal Distribution in Nunavut: Inuit Harvest Data and COSEWIC's Species at Risk Assessment Process(2012) Kowalchuk, Karen A.; Kuhn, Richard G."The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses risk potential for a species by evaluating the best available information from all knowledge sources including Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK). Effective application of ATK in this process has been challenging. Inuit knowledge (IK) of mammal distribution in Nunavut is reflected, in part, in the harvest spatial data from two comprehensive studies: the Use and Occupancy Mapping (UOM) Study conducted by the Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) and the Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study (WHS) conducted by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB). The geographic range values of extent of occurrence (EO) and area of occupancy (AO) were derived from the harvest data for a selected group of mammals and applied to Phase I of the COSEWIC assessment process. Values falling below threshold values can trigger a potential risk designation of either endangered (EN) or threatened (TH) for the species being assessed. The IK values and status designations were compared with available COSEWIC data. There was little congruency between the two sets of data. We conclude that there are major challenges within the risk assessment process and specifically the calculation of AO that contributed to the disparity in results. Nonetheless, this application illustrated that Inuit harvest data in Nunavut represents a unique and substantial source of ATK that should be used to enrich the knowledge base on arctic mammal distribution and enhance wildlife management and conservation planning."Journal Article Meaningful Consideration? A Review of Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Decision Making(2005) Ellis, Stephen C."In Canada's Northwest Territories, governments, industrial corporations, and other organizations have tried many strategies to promote the meaningful consideration of traditional knowledge in environmental decision making, acknowledging that such consideration can foster more socially egalitarian and environmentally sustainable relationships between human societies and Nature. These initiatives have taken the form of both top-down strategies (preparing environmental governance authorities to receive traditional knowledge) and bottom-up strategies (fostering the capacity of aboriginal people to bring traditional knowledge to bear in environmental decision making). Unfortunately, most of these strategies have had only marginally beneficial effects, primarily because they failed to overcome certain significant barriers. These include communication barriers, arising from the different languages and styles of expression used by traditional knowledge holders; conceptual barriers, stemming from the organizations difficulties in comprehending the values, practices, and context underlying traditional knowledge; and political barriers, resulting from an unwillingness to acknowledge traditional-knowledge messages that may conflict with the agendas of government or industry. Still other barriers emanate from the co-opting of traditional knowledge by non-aboriginal researchers and their institutions. These barriers help maintain a power imbalance between the practitioners of science and European-style environmental governance and the aboriginal people and their traditional knowledge. This imbalance fosters the rejection of traditional knowledge or its transformation and assimilation into Euro-Canadian ways of knowing and doing."Journal Article 'Not the Almighty': Evaluating Aboriginal Influence in Northern Land-Claim Boards(2008) White, Graham"The settling of comprehensive land claims across Canada’s territorial North has brought about substantial changes in governance. Prominent among these has been the establishment of numerous regulatory and co-management boards dealing with land, wildlife, and environmental issues. These boards were explicitly designed to bring significant aboriginal influence to bear in key land and wildlife decisions. To examine whether the boards have enhanced aboriginal participation and influence in these decision-making processes, factors such as the number and influence of aboriginal board members, the extent of board powers, the independence (financial and otherwise) of the boards, and the boards’ willingness and capacity to incorporate traditional knowledge into their operations are considered. Overall, the evidence supports the conclusion that the land-claim boards represent an important vehicle for substantially enhanced aboriginal involvement in and influence over government decisions affecting the wildlife and environment of traditional aboriginal lands."Journal Article The Persistence of Subsistence: Qualitative Social-Ecological Modeling of Indigenous Aquatic Hunting and Gathering in Tropical Australia(2015) Barber, Marcus; Jackson, Sue; Dambacher, Jeffrey; Finn, Marcus"Subsistence remains critical to indigenous people in settler-colonial states such as Australia, providing key foundations for indigenous identities and for wider state recognition. However, the drivers of contemporary subsistence are rarely fully articulated and analyzed in terms of likely changing conditions. Our interdisciplinary team combined past research experience gained from multiple sites with published literature to create two generalized qualitative models of the socio-cultural and environmental influences on indigenous aquatic subsistence in northern Australia. One model focused on the longer term (inter-year to generational) persistence of subsistence at the community scale, the other model on shorter term (day to season) drivers of effort by active individuals. The specification of driver definitions and relationships demonstrates the complexities of even generalized and materialist models of contemporary subsistence practices. The qualitative models were analyzed for emergent properties and for responses to plausible changes in key variables: access, habitat degradation, social security availability, and community dysfunction. Positive human community condition is shown to be critical to the long-term persistence of subsistence, but complex interactions of negative and positive drivers shape subsistence effort expended at the individual scale and within shorter time frames. Such models enable motivations, complexities, and the potential management and policy levers of significance to be identified, defined, causally related, and debated. The models can be used to augment future models of human-natural systems, be tested against case-specific field conditions and/or indigenous perspectives, and aid preliminary assessments of the effects on subsistence of changes in social and environmental conditions, including policy settings."Conference Paper Prospects for Co-Management in Australia(1998) Ross, Helen"Co-operative management (known as co-management) offers flexible possibilities for combining indigenous common property rights and responsibilities with private property and resource rights of other stakeholders in environmental management. It can work where the resources in question are primarily common property, as in fisheries (Pinkerton 1989), or in situations where combinations of common, private and public (government managed) property rights apply. The essence of co-management arrangements is that they are negotiated among the stakeholders - hopefully to mutual satisfaction - so that arrangements can be customized to each circumstance. "Co-management has evolved in different ways in North America and Australia... "Indigenous Australians hold at least two distinct interpretations of the concept 'co-management', which affects their interest in it. Since Australians have become accustomed to the term 'joint management' for twenty years now, 'co-management' is interpreted by some indigenous people as a weaker form of shared administration, far less acceptable than 'joint management' which is construed to imply equality (cf the discussion of co-management versus consultative management in McCay and Jentoft 1996). Kowanyama community, on the other hand, which brought the term to Australia construes the term in the same way as North America. Most indigenous Australians' first preference is to hold primary responsibility for resource management, in association with recognised title to their customary lands. Joint management and co-management are seen as secondary options, where the first is not available."Conference Paper Reimagining Northern Seascapes in Australia: Open Access, Common Property and the Return of Responsibility?(1998) Sharp, Nonie"This paper focuses on the reimagining of sea space in Australia. It considers the distinctive ways in which rights are related to responsibilities in the common property regimes of indigenous Australia and contrasts these with the predominantly private property regimes introduced by a colonising culture. The growing insistence by indigenous coastal groups on their right to take primary responsibility for inherited marine common property domains along the coast is different to, but reconcilable with, a sense of responsibility among non-indigenous groupings. It is argued that each can make a unique contribution to a re-formed Australian identity and a reimagined marine space, one which respects the previously unacknowledged contribution of indigenous groupings to the management and care of their land-sea homelands. A crucial step in reimagining sea space is the exploration of how the dominant conception of coastal marine space as an 'open access' area for all Australians rendered customary marine tenures invisible, how this construction of marine space emerged historically in Europe in the transformation of land ownership from joint or common property to absolute individual ownership, and the association of the latter with 'free riding' individualism. The experiences and perspectives of indigenous communities on the northern coasts, related in this paper, their interrelations with other groupings, are informed and strengthened by a larger context which differentiates contrasting 'cultures of owning.' A necessarily widely focused and historical exploration seeks to reveal how the naturalisation of the dominant construction of marine space has precluded serious consideration of the positive contribution indigenous groupings embedded in common property situations may make towards responsible and non-exploitative practices. In the difficult and long passage ahead, the process of re-forming Australian identity may draw inspiration as well as practical expertise from those with different ways of going about conserving landscapes and seascapes for coming generations."Conference Paper Totemism, Regions, and Co-management in Aboriginal Australia(1998) Rose, Deborah Bird"My broad purpose here is to lay out some of the ground on which ethical dialogue toward co-management may take place. At this time co-management is something to be worked toward rather than something that has been achieved, as Nonie Sharp contends. The ground of 'working toward' must be founded in ethical dialogue if co- management is to be mutual. Such a ground requires reflexivity and critique. Thus, an examination of western preoccupations explores some limits to western thought, limits which only become apparent by moving outside of them. "Analysis of management of common property resources in Aboriginal Australia has been hindered by a number of western preoccupations: that hunter-gatherer peoples do not manage resources, but only make use of them; that totems stand for or symbolise something other than themselves; that the boundaries of local land-based groups are congruent with boundaries of responsibility; that a discourse of rights, and particularly of property rights, is capable of encapsulating an indigenous jurisprudence. Each of these preoccupations limits inquiry and fails to do justice to Aboriginal people's thought and practice. I propose to examine each of them, because each derives from a fundamental aspect of western world views, and therefore wields power in polities dominated by western conquest. "Debates in Australia about Indigenous institutions of common property ownership and management are, in the closing years of the twentieth century, inseparable from the highly political issues of land rights. The official view that Indigenous people did not own the land at the time of European conquest has been overturned by the High Court's 'Mabo' decision (1992) which gave formal legal recognition to the fact that at the time of conquest Indigenous people did own the land. In theory, Indigenous people continue to exercise rights of ownership -- now labelled 'Native Title' -- except in areas where conquest and appropriation have formally extinguished those rights. The Native Title Act (Cth 1993) provides a legislative framework within which the continuity of Native Title can be asserted, and the High Court's recent 'Wik' decision (1996) provides further articulation of how Native Title can be understood legally to survive. Where Native Title continues to exist, land cannot be alienated from Indigenous use and management without negotiation with the Indigenous title holders. Co-operative management agreements are increasing as the Native Title Act begins to have an impact. "Issues of Indigenous land tenure have thus acquired a special urgency in Australia. The analysis of Aboriginal common property regimes brings to these issues a vital perspective: that usufructuary rights are embedded within regimes of responsibility, and that regimes of rights and regimes of management are inseparable. Without rights, resources will not be managed; without management, resources will not be sustained, and rights will become meaningless."Journal Article Toward Increased Engagement Between Academic and Indigenous Community Partners in Ecological Research(2014) Adams, Megan S.; Carpenter, Jennifer; Housty, Jess A.; Neasloss, Douglass; Paquet, Paul C.; Service, Christina; Walkus, Jennifer; Darimont, Chris T."Ecological research, especially work related to conservation and resource management, increasingly involves social dimensions. Concurrently, social systems, composed of human communities that have direct cultural connections to local ecology and place, may draw upon environmental research as a component of knowledge. Such research can corroborate local and traditional ecological knowledge and empower its application. Indigenous communities and their interactions with and management of resources in their traditional territories can provide a model of such social-ecological systems. As decision-making agency is shifted increasingly to indigenous governments in Canada, abundant opportunities exist for applied ecological research at the community level. Despite this opportunity, however, current approaches by scholars to community engaged ecological research often lack a coherent framework that fosters a respectful relationship between research teams and communities. Crafted with input from applied scholars and leaders within indigenous communities in coastal British Columbia, we present here reflections on our process of academic–community engagement in three indigenous territories in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Recognizing that contexts differ among communities, we emerge with a generalizable framework to guide future efforts. Such an approach can yield effective research outcomes and emergent, reciprocal benefits such as trust, respect, and capacity among all, which help to maintain enduring relationships. Facing the present challenge of community engagement head-on by collaborative approaches can lead to effective knowledge production toward conservation, resource management, and scholarship."Journal Article The Use of Joint Ventures to Accomplish Aboriginal Economic Development: Two Examples from British Columbia(2010) Boyd, Jeremy; Trosper, Ronald L."'Aboriginal economic development' differs from other forms of development by emphasizing aboriginal values and community involvement. Joint ventures, while providing business advantages, may not be able to contribute to aboriginal economic development. This paper examines two joint ventures in the interior of British Columbia to examine their ability or inability to contribute the extra dimensions of development desired by aboriginal communities. The AED framework examines business structure; profitability; employment; aboriginal capacity in education, experience, and finance; preservation of traditional values, culture and language; control of forest management over traditional territory; and community support. Established in the context of unresolved land claims, both enterprises partially contribute to aboriginal economic development, but in different ways and with different overall results."Conference Paper The Use of Joint Ventures to Accomplish Aboriginal Economic Development: Two Examples from British Columbia(2008) Boyd, Jeremy; Trosper, Ronald L."'Aboriginal economic development' differs from other forms of development by emphasizing aboriginal values and community involvement. Joint ventures, while providing business advantages, may not be able to contribute to aboriginal economic development. This paper examines two joint ventures in the interior of British Columbia to examine their ability or inability to contribute the extra dimensions of development desired by aboriginal communities. The AED framework examines business structure; profitability; employment; aboriginal capacity in education, experience, and finance; preservation of traditional values, culture and language; control of forest management over traditional territory; and community support. Established in the context of unresolved land claims, both enterprises partially contribute to aboriginal economic development, but in different ways and with different overall results."Conference Paper Who Owns the Animals? Sustainable Commercial Use of Wildlife and Indigenous Rights in Australia(1998) Davies, Jocelyn"The questions I pose in the title to this paper sits somewhat ill at ease with conventional conceptions of indigenous relationships to natural resources. Customary indigenous law is usually characterized as not prescribing ownership rights, but rather rights and responsibilities to use and sustain natural resources such as wild animals. In Australia, these 'soft' conceptions of property rights are now pitted against two different forces. On the one hand is a trend to sustainable use of wildlife through commercial use, which is beginning to lead, for the first time, to the allocation of private property rights in native animals. On the other hand are the practical difficulties that indigenous people have in realising native title rights to hunt native animals. The question of 'who owns the animals' is increasingly pertinent. "Australia's native animals, particularly its mammals, are icons of the continent's status as one of the planet's regions of biodiversity. Indigenous peoples have close cultural and economic relationships with this fauna and their land management practices are commonly held to be responsible for sustaining it over thousands of years. While commercial exploitation of virtually all of Australia's other natural resources is well established, with little provision for benefit to return to indigenous peoples, commercialsation of this fauna (and of native plants) is at an early stage. The animals represent something of a last frontier in natural resource development in Australia. Indigenous rights to this fauna, including 'ownership' of real and/or intellectual property in it and customary rights to use it, may potentially provide some bargaining power for indigenous people to share equitable in the benefits of sustainable management, such as through negotiated co-management regimes. "The question of who owns this fauna is not one for which I can confidently present any answers--either on the basis of exhaustive legal analysis or from extensive empirical research into indigenous viewpoints. In both cases there is little relevant research to draw on. However, some analysis of both sources of information is provided here together with an exploration of current issues in wildlife management that makes the question relevant. From this basis, the paper addresses what might be done in Australian policy to reconcile different answers to this question in a way that promotes social justice for indigenous people. "This paper first looks at some indigenous viewpoints on 'who own the animals'. It then examines government frameworks for wildlife ownership and the implications of the recognition of native title for these. Moves to privatise wildlife resources are examined through the case of the commercial kangaroo industry in South Australia. The paper concludes by outlining some measures that would promote indigenous equity in commercial wildlife industries." (Author's Conclusion) "Indigenous people have significant rights and interests in Australian wildlife. Some characterise these rights as 'ownership' although they may not readily fit non-indigenous conceptions of property. At present recognition of indigenous peoples' native title rights to subsistence harvest of wildlife is problematic and the prospects of indigenous people being recognised as having native title rights to commercial harvest seem remote. In pursuing their strong interest in development of commercial wildlife industries, indigenous people will be subject to the same rules as apply to non-indigenous operators. They are likely to play, at best, a marginal role in industry development due to lack of capital and of experience and skills in commercial enterprise. In addition, opportunities for direct economic benefit from commercial use of wildlife will be inevitably distributed between indigenous groups in an inequitable way, because of the spatial imbalance between indigenous populations and harvestable wildlife resources. "Recent moves to allocate private property rights in the wildlife 'commons' to landowners have not taken account of indigenous rights and interests. There are opportunities for promoting sustainable use of wildlife in a way that also enhances social and economic aspects of sustainability, through the development of co-management structures at various local, regional and national scales. However there is currently a lack of awareness of these opportunities, related to a lack of previous research into indigenous relationships with wildlife and of investigation into native title rights to animals. This adds to the obstacles for negotiating co-management that are presented by the current climate of antagonism from governments and rural industry towards the recognition of indigenous rights in Australia."