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.

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.

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.