Suchergebnisse

Preliminary -- Contents -- List of Figures and Tables -- Acknowledgements -- List of Shortened Forms -- Contributors -- 1. Country, Native Title and Ecology -- 2. Connections of Spirit: Kuninjku Attachments to Country -- 3. The Kalpurtu Water Cycle: Bringing Life to the Desert of the South West Kimberley -- 4. 'Two Ways': Bringing Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Knowledges Together -- 5. Water Planning and Native Title: A Karajarri and Government Engagement in the West Kimberley -- 6. Native Title and Ecology: Agreement-making in an Era of Market Environmentalism -- 7. Towards a Carbon Constrained Future: Climate Change, Emissions Trading and Indigenous Peoples' Rights in Australia.

Country, native title and ecology all converge in this volume to describe the dynamic intercultural context of land and water management on Indigenous lands. Indigenous people's relationships with country are discussed from various speaking positions, including identity and knowledge, the homelands debate, water planning, climate change and market environmentalism. The inter-disciplinary chapters range from an ethnographic description of living waters in the Great Sandy Desert, negotiating the eradication of yellow crazy ants in Arnhem Land, and legal analysis of native title rights in emerging carbon markets. A recurrent theme is the contentions over meaning, knowledge, and authority. "Because this volume is scholarly, original and very timely it represents a key resource and reference work for land and sea managers; policy makers; scholars of the interface between post-native title responsibilities, NRM objectives and appropriate heritage protocols; and students based in the social sciences, natural sciences and humanities. It is rare for volumes to have this much cross-academy purchase and for this reason alone – it will have ongoing worth and value as a seminal collection."

– Associate Professor Peter Veth, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, The Australian National University.

Dr Jessica Weir has published widely on water, native title and governance, and is the author of Murray River Country: An Ecological Dialogue with Traditional Owners (Aboriginal Studies Press, 2009). Jessica's work was recently included in Stephen Pincock's Best Australian Science Writing 2011. In 2011 Jessica established the AIATSIS Centre for Land and Water Research, in the Indigenous Country and Governance Research Program at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.

Abstract
Indigenous leaders and scholars demand greater respect for their governance and knowledge authority, with one priority the de/centring of the environmental management research-praxis arising out of natural science traditions (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020). That is, to de-centre colonial privilege and centre Indigenous authority. Who can do this and how involves conceptual, political and cultural expertise; yet, natural science disciplinary practices prioritise invisibilizing power, culture and perspective (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020; Vásquez-Fernández and Ahenakew, 2020). This article is an intervention into this context. As a non-Indigenous scholar, I introduce the analytical tools I use to unpack two core assumptions that confounded my ability to hear what Indigenous mentors were saying about environmental management. With two demonstrations—Xaxli'p (Canada) and Gunditjmara (Australia)—I also show how Indigenous leaders do not just present their own approaches, but re-constitute environmental management itself with their meanings, practices, and priorities, whilst environmental management also influences Indigenous knowledge and governance. My focus is with how knowledge is formed and re-formed within and between diverse knowledge holders, including my work as a reflexive modern scholar. Significantly, this article is not purely for edification: this is justice work—in support of both Indigenous people and nature.

Engaging with Indigenous peoples is clearly on the agenda of natural hazard leaders in southern Australia, but there is very little research, policy or practical experience to support this work. Indeed, with a few important exceptions, natural hazard organisations and research institutions have had little engagement with Indigenous peoples, their organisations or research priorities or protocols. While there are substantial gaps in the research evidence, it is important to start identifying the issues at hand and consider what might be done in response. This paper provides a brief overview of the fraught relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Australia and some common misunderstandings. The paper includes specific suggestions for current research, policy and practice, noting that natural hazard agencies and research institutions are influential and closely related. It is clear there are challenges. However, changing practice is essential to foster more respectful terms between Indigenous peoples and Australia's natural hazard and emergency management sector.

Indigenous leaders and scholars demand greater respect for their governance and knowledge authority, with one priority the de/centring of the environmental management research-praxis arising out of natural science traditions (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020). That is, to de-centre colonial privilege and centre Indigenous authority. Who can do this and how involves conceptual, political and cultural expertise; yet, natural science disciplinary practices prioritise invisibilizing power, culture and perspective (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020; Vásquez-Fernández and Ahenakew, 2020). This article is an intervention into this context. As a non-Indigenous scholar, I introduce the analytical tools I use to unpack two core assumptions that confounded my ability to hear what Indigenous mentors were saying about environmental management. With two demonstrations—Xaxli'p (Canada) and Gunditjmara (Australia)—I also show how Indigenous leaders do not just present their own approaches, but re-constitute environmental management itself with their meanings, practices, and priorities, whilst environmental management also influences Indigenous knowledge and governance. My focus is with how knowledge is formed and re-formed within and between diverse knowledge holders, including my work as a reflexive modern scholar. Significantly, this article is not purely for edification: this is justice work—in support of both Indigenous people and nature.

AbstractAustralian law imposes certain responsibilities on landholders to protect environmental and economic values of the land, however native title has significant consequences for understanding and attributing these land management responsibilities. In 1992, the High Court recognised Indigenous peoples' rights and interests in land could survive the assertion of British sovereignty, effectively introducing a new category of land tenure into Australian law. Reporting on both law and management practice, we consider the implications for the collective provision of land management functions across Australia – including reforms required for legislative rationale and regulatory models. Relying on a test‐case, we found native title holders are substantial landholders who appear, at least in some circumstances in most jurisdictions, to owe the same legal obligations as other landholders. Much ambiguity remains, especially regarding 'non‐exclusive' possession native title. Together, the legal uncertainty and poor policy alignment necessitate a substantial revision of Australia's land management laws and governance.

Abstract
Human activities are the leading cause of biological invasions that cause ecologic and economic damage around the world. Aquatic invasive species (AIS) are often spread by recreational anglers who visit two or more bodies of water within a short time frame. Movement data from anglers are, therefore, critical to predicting, preventing, and monitoring the spread of AIS. However, the lack of broad-scale movement data has restricted efforts to large and popular lakes or small geographic extents. Here, we show that recreational fishing apps are an abundant, convenient, and relatively comprehensive source of "big" movement data across the contiguous United States. Our analyses revealed a dense network of angler movements that was dramatically more interconnected and extensive than the network that is formed naturally by rivers and streams. Short-distanced movements by anglers combined to form invasion superhighways that spanned the contiguous United States. We also identified possible invasion fronts and invaded hub lakes that may be superspreaders for two relatively common aquatic invaders. Our results provide unique insight into the national network through which AIS may be spread, increase opportunities for interjurisdictional coordination that is essential to addressing the problem of AIS, and highlight the important role that anglers can play in providing accurate data and preventing invasions. The advantages of mobile devices as both sources of data and a means of engaging the public in their shared responsibility to prevent invasions are probably general to all forms of tourism and recreation that contribute to the spread of invasive species.