Hybrid economy research in remote Indigenous Australia: seeing and supporting the customary in community food economies

This article was downloaded by: [Australian National University]On: 05 November 2014, At: 17:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Environment: The InternationalJournal of Justice and SustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Hybrid economy research in remoteIndigenous Australia: seeing andsupporting the customary in communityfood economiesGeoff Buchanana

a Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, College of Artsand Social Sciences, The Australian National University, CanberraACT 0200, AustraliaPublished online: 12 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Geoff Buchanan (2014) Hybrid economy research in remote IndigenousAustralia: seeing and supporting the customary in community food economies, LocalEnvironment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 19:1, 10-32, DOI:10.1080/13549839.2013.787973

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.787973

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Hybrid economy research in remote Indigenous Australia: seeing andsupporting the customary in community food economies

Geoff Buchanan∗

Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, College of Arts and Social Sciences,The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia

Hybrid economy research in remote Indigenous Australia is what Gibson-Graham[2008. Diverse economies: performative practices for “other worlds”. Progress inHuman Geography, 32 (5), 613–632] describe as a performative ontological project.This research seeks to address the marginalisation of customary economic activitiesthat contribute to the well-being of Indigenous Australians. It aims to make thecustomary sector more real, more credible and more viable as an object of policy andactivism, challenging the dual dominance of the state and the market as the focus ofdevelopment (cf. Gibson-Graham 2008). This paper outlines how hybrid economyresearch has sought to broaden views of the economic landscape in remote IndigenousAustralia amid the withdrawal of key policy and programmatic support by theAustralian Government. This research draws on Canadian national surveys ofIndigenous peoples, harvest studies and programmatic support for customary harvest –hunting, fishing and gathering of bush foods – to identify ways in which theAustralian Government might better see and support Indigenous community foodeconomies.

Keywords: hybrid economy; food security; community food economies; harveststudies; Indigenous Australia; Canada

Introduction: Polly Hill’s plea revisited

In an article published in 1966, Polly Hill, economic anthropologist and critic of develop-ment economics, made a plea for indigenous economics “or the study of indigenous econ-omies” (Hill 1966, p. 10). Hill’s critique of the conventional economics of the timehighlighted a number of failings of dominant approaches to economic development in indi-genous societies. These included: the inadequacy and uncritical acceptance of official stat-istics relating to indigenous economies; the failure to understand the relationship betweencash and subsistence sectors of indigenous economies; neglect of the rationality and socio-economic organisation underlying economic responses in indigenous societies; and thecontinuing dominance of old-fashioned evolutionary ideas that identified progress with ashift from subsistence to the cash economy. For Hill (1966, p. 15), conventional economicpolicies based on apparent common sense could be “more damaging than no policy”. Manyof the criticisms that Hill made around 45 years ago continue to be found in the indigenouseconomics and post-development literature today (see, for example, Curry 2003, Usheret al. 2003, Altman 2005, Altman et al. 2006, Gibson-Graham 2006).

The focus of this paper is on understandings of Indigenous economies in remoteAustralia – in particular, understandings of community food economies existing therein.

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

∗Email: [email protected]

Local Environment, 2014Vol. 19, No. 1, 10–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.787973

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Since 2004 I have worked on a series of research projects that have focused on the custom-ary sector of what Altman (2001, 2005) has termed “hybrid economies”. This research canbe seen to form part of a project of Indigenous economics in Australia. The customarysector of Indigenous community economies comprises a range of productive activitiesthat are based on cultural continuities and have their origins outside of the settler stateand the capitalist market (Altman 2005). These activities include hunting, fishing, gatheringof bush foods, art and craft production, caring for kin and caring for country. The contem-porary performance of these activities is often facilitated by articulation with, and the appli-cation of resources (including cash) from, the state and the market (Langdon 1986, Sahlins1999, Usher et al. 2003, Altman 2005).

It is this interlinkage and interdependence that underpins Altman’s hybrid economy fra-mework (Figure 1). From this perspective most economic activity occurs in the intersectingsegments (4, 5, 6 and 7 in Figure 1) of the hybrid economy rather than in any discrete,autonomous sector. Attempts to both measure and develop remote Indigenous communityeconomies in Australia have largely neglected the customary sector – its existence, credi-bility and potential as a locus of productive economic activity.

In attempting to address this neglect, hybrid economy research has focused heavily onproducing evidence on the customary sector at national, regional and local scales. Thisresearch has included the collection and analysis of quantitative data relating to the custom-ary sector of Indigenous community food economies – that is, hunting, fishing and thegathering of bush foods. In this paper, “harvesting” is used as a collective term for thesecustomary activities. In Australia, s.211 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) recognisesIndigenous people’s native title right to harvest “for the purpose of satisfying their personal,domestic, or non-commercial communal needs”. Figure 2 provides a map of discrete Indi-genous communities along with areas of Indigenous-held land, with both being located pre-dominantly in remote Australia. As at the 2006 Census, 76% of the Indigenous populationlived in non-remote Australia while 24% lived in remote areas (ABS 2007). Hybrideconomy research has tended to focus on remote, discrete Indigenous communities, per-ceived as sites of greater economic difference wherein harvesting has greater economicimportance.

Hybrid economy research has clear parallels with the performative ontological projectof diverse economies research (Gibson-Graham 2006, 2008). For Gibson-Graham (2008,p. 618), at the heart of such a project is a choice:

Figure 1. Hybrid economy.Source: Altman (2005).

Local Environment 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

to continue to marginalize (by ignoring or disparaging) the plethora of hidden and alternativeeconomic activities that contribute to social well-being and environmental regeneration, or tomake them the focus of our research and teaching in order to make them more “real”, morecredible, more viable as objects of policy and activism, more present as everyday realitiesthat touch all our lives and dynamically shape our futures.

I identify five interconnected aims of hybrid economy research:

(1) to render the non-market and non-monetised customary sector visible;(2) to explore articulation between the customary, state and market sectors(3) to explore the operation and interplay of economic, social, cultural and political

institutions in each sector and intersecting segment(4) to reveal intersectoral and intercultural hybrid economies as more than merely tran-

sitional to capitalist incorporation(5) to identify alternative economic possibilities and strategies based on the reality and

potential of the customary sector of hybrid economies.

In this sense, hybrid economy research in Australia addresses longstanding concernsabout development economics in Indigenous contexts as laid out by Polly Hill. It isclosely aligned with the Canadian literature on mixed economies (Elias 1997, Usheret al. 2003). It also aligns with the post-development and post-capitalist approaches ofGibson-Graham (2006) and others (for example, Escobar 2008).

The focus of this paper is on the first and fifth aims of hybrid economy research – seeingthe customary sector and exploring approaches that might better support it as part of

Figure 2. Discrete Indigenous communities and Indigenous land.Source: Altman (2011a).

12 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Indigenous community food economies. The focus is restricted to customary, non-commer-cial harvest of wild resources. There is a growing literature on Indigenous people’s involve-ment in the commercial harvest of plants and wildlife in Australia. This research relatesmostly to the second aim of hybrid economy research in terms of linking the customaryand market sectors. Commercial harvest will not be addressed in this paper because it ispredominantly focused on food production for sale outside the community economy (Hol-combe et al. 2011, Walsh and Douglas 2011) and also includes non-food production (Austinand Corey 2012).

The argument presented in the paper is threefold: (1) customary harvest by Indigenouspeople has long been statistically hidden and a subject of policy neglect in Australia; (2)hybrid economy research strongly suggests that, statistically, customary harvest is signifi-cant, particularly in remote Australia and (3) by revealing Australian evidence and review-ing Canadian experience, hybrid economy research highlights how the AustralianGovernment might better see and support customary harvest as a fundamental element ofremote Indigenous community food economies.

The first section of the paper will provide a brief discussion of diverse and hybrideconomy research as performative ontological projects. Second, the paper will look atthree key means of seeing and supporting the customary sector of remote Indigenous com-munity food economies – national surveys of Indigenous peoples, harvest studies and har-vester support programmes – comparing Australian and Canadian experiences. Third, thepaper will discuss how recent policy and programmatic changes in Australia have effec-tively removed two key forms of state support for harvesting: (1) the Community Develop-ment Employment Projects (CDEP) programme and (2) national Indigenous food securityand nutrition policy. The conclusion will reflect on the ongoing, and seemingly growing,challenges facing hybrid economy researchers and Indigenous peoples in broadening theAustralian Government’s view of the economic landscape in remote communities.

Realising hybrid economies in remote Indigenous Australia

Realise v., 1. to grasp or understand clearly. 2. to make real, or give reality to (a hope, fear, plan,etc.). 3. to convert into cash or money. 4. to obtain as a profit or income for oneself by trade,labour or investment. 5. to convert property or goods into cash or money. 6. to realise a profit.(The Macquarie Dictionary, p. 1415)

The word “realise”, as defined above, captures much of what underpins the performa-tive ontological projects of diverse and hybrid economy research. Definitions 1 and 2 aresuggestive of the aim of rendering economic difference visible. Definitions 3–6 are sugges-tive of appreciating the value of diverse economic practices. Unlike the latter definitions,diverse and hybrid economy research moves beyond the conventional (and neoliberal)emphasis on monetary measures, market mechanisms and profit motives. Visibility andvalue are fundamental aspects of these projects, appreciating economic and cultural differ-ence, destabilising economic dominance and, ultimately, realising alternative economicfutures based on an ethic of sustainability and social justice (cf. Gibson-Graham 2006,2008).

Various models of Indigenous economies have emerged in the settler state contexts ofNorth America and Australia, all of which emphasise the co-existence and interaction ofcash and customary sectors (see, for example, Langdon 1986, Canadian Royal Commissionon Aboriginal Peoples 1996, Elias 1997, Pearson 2000, Altman 2001, 2005, Usher et al.2003). These models have elements in common with the diverse economy model that

Local Environment 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

has been more broadly applied to Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and rural and urban com-munities (Gibson-Graham 2006). Each model attempts to capture what is happening incommunity economies and to identify how economic diversity and hybridity might form(or has formed) the basis for sustainable livelihoods, particularly in remote areas wherethe settler state and the capitalist market have struggled to operate.

These models link cultural and economic diversity, forming something of a commonethic among them. In some instances this raises challenging questions of what aneconomy or development is for. In Australia there has been longstanding debate aboutthe pursuit of statistical equality for Indigenous Australians alongside people’s aspirationsto maintain cultural difference, identity and autonomy (Rowse 2002, Jordan et al. 2010,Austin-Broos 2011). The question arises as to whether these aims are reconcilable orwhether attaining statistical equality requires a loss of cultural difference (or vice versa).In a growing literature on Indigenous well-being, the cultural and economic bias inherentin statistical equality frameworks is commonly identified and challenged (Jordan et al.2010). The recognition of economic diversity and hybridity further challenges this biasand adds to debates around how well-being might be better defined and measured.Hybrid economy research has a key part to play in challenging these biases and in present-ing ways in which Indigenous communities can enhance their economic sustainability“within a framework of social and cultural continuity” (Berkes et al. 1994, p. 359).

Exploring the customary in community food economies in Australia and Canada

Hybrid economy research has an important part to play in improving understandings of con-temporary customary economic activity and in the development of approaches to foodsecurity and balanced development in remote Indigenous Australia. In undertaking suchresearch it has been valuable to draw on experiences in Canada. This section of thepaper explores three areas where hybrid economy research seeks to influence ways ofseeing and supporting the customary component of community food economies: first, thecollection of data on customary harvest through national surveys of Indigenous peoples;second, the collection of data through local and regional harvest studies; third, legislativeand programmatic support for customary harvest as part of balanced economic developmentin remote Indigenous communities. In each case the discussion highlights Australianexamples alongside insights gained from the Canadian experience.

National surveys of Indigenous peoples

Hybrid economy research has a history of engagement with the collection of official stat-istics on the customary sector in Indigenous Australia. A key example of this engagementrelates to the initial development and subsequent iterations of the Australian Bureau of Stat-istics (ABS) National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS). Acollection of papers (Altman 1992) published prior to the first NATSISS (originallycalled the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey (NATSIS)) in 1994included a paper by Altman and Allen (1992, pp. 138–151) that highlighted “the needto broaden the notion of employment to include productive activity in the informaleconomy”. Subsequent reviews of informal or customary sector data collected via theNATSISS have sought to both analyse the evidence and to constructively criticallyassess the survey design and the adequacy of the data collected (see, Hunter 1996, Smithand Roach 1996, Altman et al. 2006, 2012, Biddle and Swee 2012). Undertaken in1994, 2002 and 2008, the collection of data on the customary sector through the

14 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

NATSISS has been valuable though limited and inconsistent (Smith and Roach 1996,Altman et al. 2006, 2012). Table 1 shows the key inconsistencies between the threesurveys. Criticism of the collection of customary sector data in the NATSISS over timehas related largely to: (1) the inconsistencies outlined in Table 1 which limit comparisonof results over time and (2) limitations in the survey question(s), the data produced andthe results published (Altman et al. 2006, 2012).

The NATSISS has been limited in terms of its ability to provide any useful insights intothe depth of people’s participation, their motivations and harvesting’s place within people’sbroader economic participation, food security and livelihoods. Of the three surveys under-taken to date, the 2002 NATSISS provided the least useful data. In their critique of the 2002NATSISS, Altman et al. (2006) noted that the core Canadian Aboriginal Peoples Surveyalong with the Arctic and Metis supplements provide examples of how data on customaryfood production, distribution and consumption could be better captured in remote Indigen-ous Australia. Some of the criticisms and recommendations made by Altman et al. (2006)were addressed by the ABS in the 2008 NATSISS, though the data collected continue tohave significant limitations (Altman et al. 2012). The major change was to capture themotivations behind people’s harvesting. As shown in Table 1, the 2008 NATSISS askedrespondents why they harvested. These changes were in line with the main question on har-vesting in the “Labour Activity” section of the core Aboriginal Peoples Survey (StatisticsCanada 2001, 2006). It has been left to independent analysis of the NATSISS data toprovide insights into the workings of this customary aspect of Indigenous Australian com-munity food economies (Altman et al. 2012, Biddle and Swee 2012). Unlike Statistics

Table 1. Key inconsistencies in the collection of customary harvest data through the NATSISS,1994–2008.

NATSISS CategoryGeographic

coverage Activities includedPeriod of

recallReason for

participation

1994 Voluntary work All areas(remoteand non-remote)

“Hunting, fishingor gatheringbush food”

N/A N/A

2002 Culturalparticipation/involvementin socialactivities

Communityareas(remoteonly)

“Hunting orfishing” (as partof a group)

Previous3 months

N/A

2008 Culturalparticipation

All areas(remoteand non-remote)

“Hunted”;“Fished”;“Gathered wildplants/berries”(as separateactivities.Respondentswere able tochoose morethan oneresponse)

Previous12 months

“Food”, “Ownenjoyment/fun”,“Enjoyment/funwith others”,“Cultural learningor ceremony”,“Get money asincome”,“Medicinal”,“School activity”,“Other”(respondents wereable to choosemore than oneresponse)

Local Environment 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Canada (2008, see also Kumar and Janz 2010), the ABS has not produced reports based onanalysis of harvesting statistics from the 2008 NATSISS.

The supplements to the Aboriginal Peoples Survey – designed specifically for Metisand Arctic communities – collect additional information on the production, distributionand consumption of country foods. In the 2006 Aboriginal Peoples Survey questionsrelated to harvesting were included in a number of sections: labour activity (core); mobility(core); health (Metis supplement); household and harvesting activities (Arctic supplement);and community wellness and social participation (Arctic supplement). This provides a farmore comprehensive picture of the role played by harvesting within communities.

Additional survey questions in the Arctic and Metis supplements cover: sale of har-vested goods and related income; unpaid work in preparing for harvest and the processingof country foods; items used to harvest food (and whether or not these are owned within thehousehold); distribution of country food between households; consumption of country foodwithin households; satisfaction with the availability of country food; expected changes inthe level of household participation in harvesting in five years’ time (including reasonsfor change); and the contribution to physical activity and diet from harvesting. Most ofthese items would be valuable additions to the NATSISS. As per the Aboriginal PeoplesSurvey, these additional data could be collected through a supplement in remote Australiawhere harvesting is more prominent (Altman et al. 2006, 2012). The basic question on har-vesting as used in the 2008 NATSSIS would remain in a core survey administered in remoteand non-remote Australia.

Harvest studies

The NATSISS is the only national survey of Indigenous people’s participation in customaryharvesting in Australia. A number of ethnographic, economic and ecological studies havebeen undertaken that provide insights at sub-national, regional and local scales (see, forexample, Altman 1982, 1987, Meehan 1982, Cane and Stanley 1985, Devitt 1988,Raven 1990, Walsh 1990, Povinelli 1993, Asafu-Adjaye 1996, Roberts et al. 1996,Rouja 1998, Morris and Lapwood 2002, Coleman et al. 2003, Kennett et al. 2004, Grayet al. 2005, Kwan et al. 2006, AFMA 2007, Bliege Bird and Bird 2008, Buchanan et al.2009, Toussaint 2010, Birckhead et al. 2011, Busilacchi et al. 2013). Fine-scale and in-depth studies provide greater insight into the part that harvest plays in Indigenous commu-nity food economies and into the diversity that exists across Australia. For example, basedon research undertaken in the Maningrida region in tropical Arnhem Land between 1948and 2009, Altman (2011b) has produced evidence that suggests harvest has remained con-sistent over time, representing up to 50% of total income for some Indigenous individualsand groups. Based on data collected in Martu communities in the remote Western Desertbetween 2000 and 2005, Bliege Bird and Bird (2008, p. 661) estimate that bush foodsaccounted for “between 20% and 50%” of the total diet. Based on a survey undertakenin the non-remote Wallis Lake catchment in regional New South Wales, Gray et al.(2005) estimated that the value of contemporary harvest by the Indigenous populationwas equivalent to 5% of gross income.

Outside of the Torres Strait traditional turtle and dugong fishery (Skewes et al. 2004,AFMA 2007), there has been little coordinated research aimed at capturing the significanceof Indigenous customary harvest in Australia over time. Very rarely has harvesting beenlooked at as an integrated part of a wider community food economy. Altman (1982,1987) and Povinelli (1993) both explore contributions of food from the customary (non-monetised) and cash sectors in terms of monetary (replacement) and nutritional values.

16 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Other studies have also estimated dollar values of customary harvest through replacementvalue methods (see, Asafu-Adjaye 1996, Gray et al. 2005, AFMA 2007, Buchanan et al.2009). Recent studies focused on Indigenous interests in freshwater have tended to takea more qualitative, subjective or multi-criteria approach to documenting the value ofharvest (see Toussaint 2010, Barber and Jackson 2011, Birckhead et al. 2011, Finn andJackson 2011). These studies raise important questions about value and how it might bebetter measured and/or documented in a cross- or intercultural context.

Recent research around the value of freshwater to Indigenous Australians also high-lights the role that is played by government policy and legislation in requiring formal rec-ognition of Indigenous interests. In 2004, the Council of Australian Governments agreed tothe National Water Initiative. As a result, “water resource agencies are now obliged to con-sider Indigenous perspectives, values and interests under national water policy, yet, for arange of reasons, Australian planning practice is at the early stages of doing so” (Barberand Jackson 2011, p. vii). Generally however, data on the economic significance of the cus-tomary sector are not included in any formal or rigorous manner in planning or developmentassessment. There have been some exceptions, including the Cape York Land Use Strategy(Asafu-Adjaye 1995, 1996), the Torres Strait Turtle and Dugong Fisheries Strategic Assess-ment (AFMA 2007), the Kimberley Land Council (KLC) Aboriginal Social Impact Assess-ment (ASIA) (Kahn et al. 2010) and a number of studies undertaken in support of water andcoastal planning (Gray et al. 2005, Altman and Branchut 2008, Toussaint 2010, Barber andJackson 2011, Birckhead et al. 2011, Finn and Jackson 2011).

In Canada (and also Alaska, USA), institutions exist, which either require or support thecollection of detailed harvest data at the regional and community level. The origin of theseinstitutions and harvest studies in Canada can be traced back to the implementation of theJames Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) of 1975 (Usher and Wenzel 1987).Under this, and subsequent land-claim agreements in other regions of Canada, harveststudies have served a number of purposes as required by, or in support of, elements ofthese agreements and related legislation. These purposes include: establishing theminimum or basic needs levels of Indigenous people (where agreements provide priorityto Indigenous people’s customary harvest ahead of recreational and commercial harvests);calculating total allowable harvests for particular species as part of wildlife management;providing the basis for compensation in the case of any impact on customary use by devel-opment activities; establishing the economic value of customary use prior to the declarationof a protected area (see Wilson 2006); and recording Indigenous Ecological Knowledge.Detailed harvest studies have been undertaken in a number of settlement regions, includingJames Bay and Northern Quebec (James Bay and Northern Quebec Native HarvestingResearch Committee 1982), Sahtu (Sahtu Renewable Resources Board 2002), Inuvialuit(Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat 2003), Nunavut (Priest and Usher 2004) and Gwich’in (McDo-nald 2009).

Based on the formal recognition of the customary sector under land-claim agreements,harvest studies have provided a key means by which to make visible, and to measure thevalue of, harvesting to the community economies of Canadian Aboriginal peoples. Thedevelopment of such statistical apparatus and the establishment of bureaucratic andco-management arrangements and institutions under land-claim and other agreements isnot necessarily unproblematic. The challenges that such statistical, scientific and bureau-cratic approaches present to Indigenous communities is highlighted in the work of anumber of Canadian researchers (see, for example, Nadasdy 2003, 2005, Stevenson2006, see also, Altman et al. 2012).

Local Environment 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

As noted above, in most instances harvest studies in Australia occur outside of anyspecific, legislated requirement and tend to be undertaken on an ad-hoc basis. The followingcase study provides an example of hybrid economy research applied through a local harveststudy in remote Australia. Subsequently, this research was able to feed into a regional socialimpact assessment of a major development proposal. In developing the study it proved par-ticularly helpful to review a number of Canadian harvest studies.

Bardi Jawi harvest study and Kimberley liquefied natural gas precinct ASIA

In 2007, I joined a research team commissioned to document the social, cultural and econ-omic value of dugong and marine turtles to Bardi Jawi people – the Traditional Owners ofland and sea country at the tip of the Dampier Peninsula north of Broome in the West Kim-berley region of Western Australia (see Figure 3). The North Australian Indigenous Landand Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA) requested this research as part of itsDugong and Marine Turtle Project, funded for 2.5 years through the Australian

Figure 3. Dampier Peninsula region showing Bardi Jawi native title determination area.Source: National Native Title Tribunal (2005).

18 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Government’s Natural Heritage Trust. As part of the NAILSMA project and earlier commu-nity consultations, Bardi Jawi Traditional Owners had identified the quantification of theirharvest of dugong and marine turtles as a priority in their management of these culturallyand economically significant species (Carr 2004, KLC 2005).

The Bardi Jawi Turtle and Dugong Harvest Study was developed in collaboration withthe Bardi Jawi Ranger group, guided by a steering committee of senior Traditional Owners.The research team worked with the Bardi Jawi Rangers to develop a community-basedharvest survey, utilising the rangers’ extensive local, social, cultural and Indigenous eco-logical knowledge. The survey sought to collect fortnightly harvest data from all knowndugong and/or marine turtle hunters within the three Bardi Jawi communities and nearbyoutstations. By February 2008 a full 12-months’ worth of harvest data had been collected.The research team vetted and analysed the data with input from rangers and the final reportwas published in 2009 (Buchanan et al. 2009).

A key focus of the analysis of the harvest data was to estimate the contribution to theBardi Jawi community food economy. The analysis looked at the harvest data alongsideABS Census data to provide a socio-economic profile of the communities and explorethe place of harvesting therein. Using a replacement value method, the study found thatthe contribution of the 12-month harvest to the communities was equivalent to an estimated$340,000. The estimated Indigenous resident population in the study area was 588 peopleacross 86 households. This equated to an estimated contribution of $76 of meat per house-hold per week, equivalent to 11% of average household income.

The importance of revealing this otherwise hidden contribution from the customarysector was highlighted in the context of a proposal to develop an onshore liquefiednatural gas (LNG) processing precinct on the Dampier Peninsula. While the proposeddevelopment site was outside of Bardi Jawi land and sea country it was clear that, giventhe scale of the proposed development, it would have significant implications for commu-nities across the Dampier Peninsula region. The final report from the Bardi Jawi study rec-ommended that there be consideration of the customary sector in any assessment of theimpacts of development (Buchanan et al. 2009). As part of a strategic assessment of theproposed LNG precinct the KLC undertook an ASIA. As part of the KLC ASIA a reportwas commissioned to establish a baseline of the contribution of customary harvestwithin the Dampier Peninsula region (see Buchanan 2009, Kahn et al. 2010).

The KLC ASIA study relied heavily on data already collected as part of the Bardi Jawistudy about customary harvest in the Dampier Peninsula region – including various surveysand research projects previously undertaken in the region. At the regional level data weresourced from the 1994 NATSIS (ABS 1996), the 2000–01 Indigenous Fishing Survey ofNorthern Australia (IFSNA) (Coleman et al. 2003) and a 2001–02 Western AustralianDepartment of Conservation and Land Management assessment of customary harvest ofmarine turtles in the region (Morris and Lapwood 2002, available only in Microsoft Power-Point document format). An unpublished PhD thesis (Rouja 1998) and the Bardi Jawi Turtleand Dugong Harvest Study report (Buchanan et al. 2009) provided further data. The studyhighlighted the lack of any coordinated approach to the collection of data on the customarysector of the regional economy and the reliance to a large extent on ad hoc, unrelated andunpublished data from different research projects of differing geographic, species and dis-ciplinary focus (Buchanan 2009, cf. Usher and Wenzel 1987).

Ultimately, the best prospect for establishing a baseline of regional customary harvestcame from unpublished data collected from five communities within the Dampier Peninsularegion as part of the IFSNA (Coleman et al. 2003). The IFSNA had been undertaken in2000–2001 as part of a National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey inspired

Local Environment 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

by the 1994 A National Policy for Recreational Fishing. While this policy recommended afive-yearly survey, the IFSNA has not been repeated.

A major limitation of the publicly available data from the IFSNA was that results werereported at too broad a level to be of use to the KLC ASIA. The greatest potential of theIFSNA lay in the raw community-level data that could be used to establish a regional base-line estimate as at 2000–2001. For the purposes of the KLC ASIA access was provided tounofficial data from the five communities surveyed in the region. Due to the short-termnature of the KLC ASIA study – the report on customary harvest was produced as atwo-week consultancy – more detailed and official analysis of the data was not possible(Buchanan 2009). The final KLC ASIA report noted that on the basis of this unofficialdata, the contribution of edible seafood to Indigenous households in the region could beconservatively estimated to be between 6% and 10% of household income (Kahn et al.2010). The question remains as to what role or influence, if any, these data will have ifthe LNG precinct development proceeds.

Harvester support programmes

Beyond recognising the economic contribution of harvest along with its nutritional, culturaland social value, there lies the challenge of recognising and valuing people’s participationin harvesting and related activities as valid forms of “work”, “labour” or “employment”(see, for example, Langdon 1986, Altman and Taylor 1987, Smith and Roach 1996).Here again, hybrid economy research has drawn from Canadian experience, namely inthe form of long-running and successful harvester support programmes (see, forexample, Altman and Taylor 1987).

In Canada, a number of land-claim agreements have seen the establishment of program-matic support for customary harvest in remote communities where it continues to be valuedas part of people’s way of life. Harvester support programmes have been established in anumber of settlement regions, including James Bay and Northern Quebec, Inuvialuit,Nunavut and Gwich’in. Each programme operates somewhat differently as a result of thespecific social, cultural, ecological, economic, geographical, historical and politicalcontext. The first such programme, the Cree Hunters and Trappers Income SecurityProgram (ISP), commenced in 1976 under the JBNQA and continues to operate today(Cree Hunters and Trappers Income Security Board 2010). Scott and Feit (1992, p. 1)note that the ISP is “of particular interest as an example of how an income supportprogram can be used to fortify the economic base of rural communities where subsistenceproduction is an important component of the economy”. The objective of the ISP is pro-vided in the JBNQA:

The program shall ensure that hunting, fishing and trapping shall constitute a viable way of lifefor the Cree people, and that individual Cree who elect to pursue such a way of life shall beguaranteed a measure of economic security with conditions prevailing from time to time.(JBNQA Section 30.1.8, cited in Scott and Feit 1992, p. 1)

There is also recognition that this contemporary customary production “is articulatedwith, and in some respects heavily dependent upon, institutions of economy and state inwider North American society” (Scott and Feit 1992, p. 2; see also, Usher et al. 2003).In their assessment of the ecological, social and economic effects of the ISP, Scott andFeit (1992, p. viii) found that the availability of such “income security benefits did notencourage reduced participation in the wage economy where jobs were available in

20 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

communities, but beneficiaries were more selective in taking up opportunities for wageemployment”. This outcome supports the original recognition in the negotiations leadingto the JBNQA “that balanced development for the Cree region would involve simultaneousattempts to fortify the subsistence as well as wage sectors of the economy” (Scott and Feit1992, p. 6).

The Inuit of Nunavik (Northern Quebec) negotiated an Inuit Hunter Support Program(HSP) under the same land-claim agreement, though it was not formally established until1982 (Gombay 2005, see JBNQA Section 29 Inuit Economic and Social Development).The HSP initially intended to “guarantee a supply of hunting, fishing, and trappingproduce to Inuit who are disadvantaged and who cannot hunt, fish, or trap for themselvesor otherwise obtain such produce” (JBNQA Section 29.0.5). Gombay (2005) notes thatwhen it was eventually established under provincial legislation, the objective of the HSPwas closer to that of the Cree ISP: “to favour, encourage, and perpetuate the hunting,fishing and trapping activities of the beneficiaries as a way of life and to guarantee Inuitcommunities a supply of the produce from such activities” (Quebec Government 1982,p. 4, cited in Gombay 2005, p. 120). Despite sharing the objective of supporting the main-tenance of customary harvesting as a way of life, the two programmes operate quite differ-ently. The Cree ISP provides income for people going out on land and harvesting for aminimum (and maximum) number of days each year regardless of their distribution ofharvest. The Inuit HSP provides income to harvesters who supply the community withmeat that is then distributed for free, primarily to those in the community who areunable to harvest for themselves (Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples1996, Gombay 2005, 2009).

While drawing inspiration from these programmes, it is important to note the contexts inwhich they have been developed and the ways in which these differ from Australian con-texts. Feit (1983) stresses that the Cree ISP programme cannot be understood if separatedfrom the historical situation of Cree hunting society and the place of hunting as a centralforce of Cree life and society, or if it is examined in isolation from the range of programmesand benefits the Cree sought and obtained in the JBQNA. While stressing the need for pro-grammes to be designed for specific populations and conditions, Feit (1983, p. 446)suggests that what is crucial in any context is an “integrated package of rights, policies, pro-grammes, institutions and benefits” as well as “relative autonomy of the program itself fromgovernment control”. With the ISP and HSP located primarily within the customary-statesegment of the hybrid economy framework, the emphasis Cree and Inuit have placed onincreasing their autonomy and decreasing their dependency on government through theseprogrammes may seem problematic. In the case of the ISP and HSP this problem is resolvedprimarily by the programmes being protected from the whim of the state through theJBNQA. As Feit (1983, p. 445) notes, “any change in the Program must involve changesin the Agreement, and this can only be done with Cree consent”.

Another aspect of autonomy and dependence that harvester support programmes haveattempted to address is dependency on both state welfare and the capitalist (global) market(Feit 1983, Gombay 2005). For Gombay (2009, p. 119), the Inuit HSP “represents an inter-esting mechanism through which Inuit have tried to accommodate their need for cash withtheir desire to preserve a variety of socio-economic institutions associated with their sub-sistence way of life”. The HSP can be seen as a hybrid institution whereby customaryfood production and consumption are supported by a market mechanism funded by thestate and operated and controlled by the community (Gombay 2009, see also Chabot2003). Through this hybrid approach, Gombay (2005, 2009) argues, an acceptablebalance has been achieved between the need for engagement with the cash economy to

Local Environment 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

maintain the contemporary customary economy, while also maintaining social and culturalinstitutions crucial to the Inuit moral economy that is based on an ethic of reciprocity andthe sharing of customary foods. Ultimately, these programmes highlight how the potentialof a hybrid economy has been realised in ways which recognise, value and remunerate cus-tomary economic activity as a credible and fundamental part of balanced and sustainableeconomic development in remote Indigenous communities (see also Berkes et al. 1994).

It is this recognition of the customary as a vital part of economic development that is atthe heart of a hybrid economy view of remote Indigenous Australian community econom-ies. Where native title law in Australia provides recognition of rights of Indigenous peoplesto harvest for non-commercial purposes, such rights would be more meaningful if measuresalso existed to address the economic needs of contemporary customary harvesters, whilealso recognising the economic contribution they make (cf. Scott and Feit 1992). Asimilar point has been made in relation to the lack of formal, legislative support and recog-nition of Indigenous land management or caring for country in the wake of the recognitionof native title rights in Australia – where the weak Indigenous rights recognised are those ofpassive users rather than of active managers (Altman and Kerins 2008, p. 3). In recent yearsIndigenous Australians have at least seen the establishment of significantly improved pro-grammatic (if not legislative) support for caring for country, primarily through the Austra-lian Government’s Indigenous Protected Area and Working on Country programmes. At thesame time, the CDEP programme that has long provided support for both customary harvestand land management is being radically transformed. While improved programmaticsupport for land management has emerged there are no signs of any such support emergingfor the maintenance or enhancement of customary harvest as part of a more balancedapproach to economic development or food security in remote Indigenous communities.

Out of sight, out of mind: customary harvest as a policy blindspot

Recent policy developments highlight an ongoing and increasing loss of vision and supportin relation to customary harvest. This is evident in two key policy shifts: first, changes to theAustralian Government’s CDEP programme; second, changes to the Australian Govern-ment’s food security and nutrition policy for remote Indigenous communities.

CDEP: the rise and fall of a de facto harvester support programme

Analyses of 2008 NATSISS data have highlighted a number of variables associated withhaving higher harvesting participation rates. These include: being male; living in aremote area; recognising an area as a homeland or traditional country; being an adultliving in a couple family with children; speaking a language other than English; havingpost-school qualifications; being in the labour force and being in CDEP programmeemployment (Altman et al. 2012, Biddle and Swee 2012). Biddle and Swee (2012,p. 225) note that, as with the 1994 and 2002 surveys, the 2008 NATISS suggests “theCDEP scheme provided support for participation in harvesting activities”. Overall, thosein employment were more likely to participate in harvesting than those who were not. Ofthose employed, those in CDEP employment were more likely to participate than thosein non-CDEP employment.

NATSISS data consistently show a correlation, but they do not explain the nature of therelationship between CDEP and customary harvest. Hybrid economy research undertakenin the Torres Strait Islands has demonstrated the challenge of capturing the relationshipbetween the market (commercial fishing), state (CDEP) and customary (subsistence

22 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

hunting and fishing) sectors in remote Indigenous communities (Kwan et al. 2006, Busilac-chi et al. 2013). One explanation for the positive correlation between CDEP and harvestingis that CDEP employment provides time and money to invest in hunting, fishing and/orgathering bush foods in remote areas where incomes are low, store prices are high andnon-CDEP employment is limited – and also where harvesting has high social and culturalvalue (see, for example, Kwan et al. 2006, Bliege Bird and Bird 2008, Buchanan et al.2009). Across individuals, families and communities, the relationship between CDEPand harvesting is likely to reflect some combination of Indigenous people’s desire to main-tain harvesting as part of their way of life – or life projects – and their livelihood strategies,developed amid considerable constraints.

The Australian Government introduced the CDEP programme in 1977. The programmewas established in response to concerns that the introduction of unemployment benefitswould have negative social impacts in remote Indigenous communities where there werelimited prospects for unsubsidised employment and economic development (Altmanet al. 2005, Department of Finance and Deregulation 2009, Gray et al. 2011). Gray et al.(2011, p. 3) note that “for the majority of its history [CDEP was] used as a means toprovide employment, training, activity, enterprise support, or income support to Indigenousparticipants”. In response to a Parliamentary Inquiry into the Aboriginal homelands move-ment in Australia (HoRSCAA 1987), the Australian Government noted that “CDEP whereappropriate and applicable, provides mechanisms for improving the subsistence base of out-station centres” (HoRSCAA 1991, p. 23). NATSISS data strongly suggest that CDEP hassupported this subsistence base in the form of customary harvest in remote Australia(Hunter 1996, Altman et al. 2006, Altman et al. 2012, Biddle and Swee 2012). For themost part this support has been informal, implied and indirect – essentially, de facto.

Participation in the CDEP programme peaked in 2002–2003 with 35,182 participants,but as at 30 June 2010 this number had dropped to 10,321 (Gray et al. 2011). Table 2 showsthe decline in CDEP participation rates in remote and non-remote Australia between 2002and 2008. This decline reflects substantial changes to the programme since the mid-2000s.CDEP was phased out in non-remote areas between mid-2007 and mid-2009. In remoteIndigenous communities the programme has continued but with a focus on preparing par-ticipants to enter the labour market rather than CDEP employment being an end in itself(Department of Finance and Deregulation 2009, Gray et al. 2011). There is no formal indi-cation that the CDEP programme today is intended to support customary harvest as part ofthe economic base in remote communities, either directly or indirectly. From June 2013 theCDEP programme will effectively cease to exist with the introduction of the Remote Jobsand Communities Program (Hunter and Gray 2012). The strong and enduring correlationbetween CDEP and harvesting raises questions about what impact this programmatic trans-formation might have. Hybrid economy research will be critical in assessing theseoutcomes.

A zombie ate my bush tucker: undead statistics, fetishism and footnotes in remoteIndigenous community food security policy

Analysis of 2008 NATSISS data shows that Indigenous people’s participation in harvestingwas motivated primarily by it being a source food (Altman et al. 2012). Across Australia, anestimated 51% of Indigenous Australians aged 15 and over participated in harvesting overthe previous 12 months. This figure was significantly higher in remote Australia where 76%of respondents reported having harvested. In remote Australia, 91% of those who harvesteddid so for food, 57% for their own enjoyment and 56% harvested for enjoyment with others.

Local Environment 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Around 35% of harvesters in remote Australia participated as part of cultural learning orceremony, 11% for medicinal reasons, with only 4% having harvested to get money asincome (Altman et al. 2012, Biddle and Swee 2012). These findings present a strong chal-lenge to the figures upon which the Australian Government has based its new approach tofood security and nutrition in remote Indigenous communities.

In November 2009, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Affairs (HoRSCATSIA) released the final report of its inquiryinto remote Indigenous community stores (HoRSCATSIA 2009). Citing a submissionfrom the Commonwealth Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indi-genous Affairs, the report notes that “most estimates suggest that between 90 and 95 percent of food eaten in Aboriginal communities is food purchased in the store, with traditionalfoods now contributing only a small amount to people’s dietary intake” (HoRSCATSIA2009, p. 6). The “most estimates” referred to by the Department are not identified. Thecited source for this claim leads back to a submission by Territory Health Services to aNorthern Territory Parliamentary Inquiry in 1999 (Select Committee on Territory FoodPrices 1999, p. 97) which does not cite any sources for the 90–95% estimate. This estimateappears to have been derived from research undertaken “as far back as the 1970s and 1980s,with the most recent source dating from the early 1990s” (Buchanan and May 2012, p. 75).Despite this, it has been cited as a key piece of the evidence base underlying food securityand nutritional policy for remote Indigenous communities.

Earlier in 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (2009) agreed to a NationalStrategy for Food Security in Remote Indigenous Communities, along with a NationalHealthy Eating Action Plan. This strategy and plan replaced the National Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Nutrition Strategy and Action Plan 2000–2010 – a policy documentthat provided explicit support for Indigenous people’s access to traditional foods in remoteand non-remote Australia (National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NutritionWorking Party 2001). Buchanan and May (2012, p. 75) note that, in stark contrast to theprevious policy, the new food security strategy for remote Indigenous communities“focuses solely on store foods with bush foods mentioned only in a footnote”. This footnotestates that “it has been estimated that approximately 95% of food eaten in Aboriginalcommunities is food purchased in the store” (Council of Australian Governments 2009,p. H-91). Only the upper bound estimate originally reported by Territory Health Services

Table 2. Labour force status of Indigenous working-age men and women by remoteness, NATSISS2002 and 2008.

2002 2008

Not inthe

labourforce Unemployed

CDEPemployed

Employed(excluding

CDEP)

Not inthe

labourforce Unemployed

CDEPemployed

Employed(excluding

CDEP)

RemoteMale 29.3 7.9 42.1 20.7 27.2 10.1 25.3 37.4Female 49.2 4.5 26.6 19.7 49.1 8.3 13.0 29.7Non-remoteMale 25.9 20.8 6.7 46.6 24.4 12.9 1.3 61.4Female 46.5 14.4 2.8 36.3 43.7 9.7 1.0 45.6Total 37.4 14.4 12.7 35.5 35.5 10.7 5.6 48.2

Source: Thapa et al. (2012, pp. 128–129).

24 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

in 1999 is provided. On this basis, bush foods and customary harvest have effectively beendismissed as making an insignificant contribution to remote Indigenous community foodeconomies.

This case may serve as an example of both the paucity of official statistics and theiruncritical acceptance as noted by Hill (1966). Buchanan and May (2012, pp. 75–76)describe it as a case of “statistical fetishism” whereby:

a de-contextualised statistic derived from vague sources comes to represent reality. Zombie-like, this statistic [of 95%] rises from the grave, consuming hunters, fishers and gatherersand their bush foods along with entire outstations . . . Fetishised, it gains a magical powerover other evidence that either challenges or contextualises it.

While submissions to the HoRSCATSIA Inquiry tended to note a decline in traditionalfood production, they also noted its ongoing importance, suggesting that while the dietarycontribution from traditional foods varies significantly between remote Indigenous commu-nities its social and cultural significance generally remains high. Using 2008 NATSISS data,Altman et al. (2012), Biddle and Swee (2012), and Dockery (2012) have explored thesocio-economic contexts and well-being outcomes associated with customary harvesting.These analyses suggest that living on one’s homeland and participating in harvesting isassociated with a higher level of self-reported good health, happiness and well-being.The most recent findings from the Australian Government’s Longitudinal Study of Indigen-ous Children show that “bush tucker, hunting and fishing was especially important topeople in areas of high or extreme isolation where 83.8 per cent said they wanted to passthese skills to their children” (Department of Families, Housing, Community Servicesand Indigenous Affairs 2012, p. 56).

Among the HoRSCATSIA Inquiry’s 33 recommendations, five relate to the AustralianGovernment providing support for traditional and local food production, distribution andconsumption in remote Indigenous communities (see HoRSCATSIA 2009, Recommen-dations 16–20). These recommendations suggest a number of key issues: the nutritionaland health benefits of traditional food production and consumption; the continuation of tra-ditional practices; the long-term sustainability of food systems and connections to landmanagement; and the creation of linkages between traditional food production and localstore distribution or sale.

These recommendations appear to lay the foundation for a formal approach to the pro-motion and support of customary harvest within remote Indigenous community food econ-omies. This approach would appear to fit within a hybrid economy framework wherebyAustralian Government initiatives would support customary food production, distributionand consumption as well as opportunities to link customary food production to themarket via sale in or to community stores. Such an approach would value customaryharvest as a key component of a programme for food security (Public Health Association2009, cited in HoRSCATSIA 2009, p. 142) and land management (Buchanan and May2012) in remote Indigenous Australia. As discussed above, experience in Canada illustrateshow formal approaches might be developed through harvester support programmes tailoredto regional or community contexts and needs.

The outcomes of the 2009 HoRSCATSIA Inquiry would provide greater hope if it werenot for the fact that policy and programmatic support for customary food production wasalready being dismantled. Such recommendations have been made by committees in thepast without being adequately followed up by government. In response to an inquiry intothe Aboriginal homelands movement in 1987, the Australian Government made anumber of positive responses. These included support for funding “detailed studies of

Local Environment 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the nature and extent of the contributions of subsistence production to the economies ofdesert outstations” and the provision of “additional resources to improve the subsistencebase of homeland centres” (HoRSCAA 1991, pp. 22–23). While some funding andsupport did eventuate, provided through programmes like CDEP, this commitment wasnever fully realised and it was neither consistent nor sustained, being subject to the prioritiesand politics of an increasingly economically rational, neoliberal state (see Pusey 1992,2010).

Conclusion

To paraphrase the anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner, in the realm of Indigenous economics theAustralian state has long looked through a window which has been carefully placed toexclude a whole quadrant of the economic landscape (Stanner 2009, p. 189). Formal rec-ognition and support for customary harvest as part of balanced, secure, just and sustainablecommunity food economies in remote Indigenous Australia does not appear to be within thenarrow economic vision of the Australian Government. Indeed, it seems to be fading furtherfrom view. As one of a number of researchers working in partnership with Indigenousorganisations and communities on this issue, the challenge to gain recognition of the poten-tial that lies within economic diversity and to gain support for its maintenance and enhance-ment remains a significant one. Unfortunately, this tasty research does not seem to be to thetaste of the state.

The clearest evidence of this is the loss of de facto harvester support provided throughthe CDEP programme and the removal of bush foods as an element of food security andnutrition policy. Ongoing hybrid economy research will be critical to the assessment ofthe impact of such significant policy and programmatic change on the customary sectorof Indigenous community food economies. In a more proactive and applied sense, researchshould also explore ways in which customary contributions can be maintained andenhanced where Indigenous Australians aspire to maintain harvesting as an importantpart of their way of life.

In view of the Australian Government’s uncritical acceptance of a debatable andde-contextualised estimate of the relative contribution of bush foods in remote Indigenouscommunity food economies, priority should be given to the compilation and evaluation ofexisting evidence on customary harvest across Australia. This might well confirm thatacross Australia the contribution of bush foods to Indigenous people’s diets is relativelysmall. What is important though is that it would provide critical contextual informationthat is currently lacking in two key areas: first, the significant variation that exists acrossAustralia in terms of the contribution of bush foods to people’s diets as suggested by theNATSISS and a number of harvest studies undertaken in various Indigenous communities;second, the broader importance of customary harvest to Indigenous Australians in terms ofits contribution to physical, social and emotional well-being and to cultural identity.

The view of the Australian Government has been broadened in some important waysthrough the NATSISS. The incorporation of elements from the Canadian AboriginalPeoples Survey into the 2008 NATSISS allowed greater insight into the place of harvestingin Indigenous community food economies in Australia (Altman et al. 2012, Biddle andSwee 2012). Despite this, the view remains too narrow, especially when compared towhat has been experienced in Canada. From this brief survey of Canadian experience,the potential for the recognition and support of customary food production, consumptionand distribution in remote Indigenous communities can be seen in practice. There is nodoubt that Inuit, Cree and other Canadian Aboriginal communities still face challenges

26 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

to the maintenance of their way of life. There is also no doubt that there exist significantdifferences between Australian and Canadian contexts (and between particular contextswithin each of these nations) that mean the study of economic diversity has itself to beopen to the diversity of experience of Indigenous peoples – and of their aspirations. Akey lesson to be taken from Canadian experience, particularly in the development of har-vester support programmes, is that the genuine involvement and authority of Indigenouspeoples in the development and administration of such programmes is a key to theirsuccess, alongside the stability that is provided by strong institutions (Feit 1983, Scottand Feit 1992).

In remote Indigenous communities where store prices for fresh, nutritious foods tend tobe high, cash incomes tend to be low and limited formal employment opportunities exist,the linkages between customary harvest, food security and meaningful livelihoods are high-lighted (cf. Scott and Feit 1992, Buchanan et al. 2009). The production of evidence of thesignificance of customary harvest in remote Indigenous Australia and the exploration of itspotential to be supported and to flourish through linking state, market and customary/com-munity initiatives can be seen to be part of a broader, global pursuit of life projects by Indi-genous peoples (Blaser et al. 2004). These Indigenous life projects are too often seen asbeing in the way of development than as being inherently valuable sites of economic diver-sity vital to the development of balanced, secure, just and sustainable livelihoods.

AcknowledgementsThe development of this paper has been greatly assisted by a number of people, including colleaguesat the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research. In particular, I thank Jon Altman and Nicho-las Biddle for our collaborative research in this area over a number of years. I am especially grateful tothe Bardi Jawi Rangers, Kimberley Land Council and NAILSMA for providing opportunities toundertake some of the research discussed in this paper. Many thanks to Jenny Cameron and SarahWright for providing the opportunity to develop ideas I originally presented at the 2009 Institute ofAustralian Geographers Conference. Much appreciation goes to Annick Thomassin from McGill Uni-versity and two anonymous reviewers for providing invaluable critical and constructive feedback onthe original version of this paper.

ReferencesAltman, J.C., 1982. Hunter-gatherers and the state: the economic anthropology of the Gunwinggu of

north Australia. Unpublished Thesis (PhD). Canberra: ANU.Altman, J.C., 1987. Hunter-gatherers today: an Aboriginal economy in north Australia. Canberra:

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Altman, J.C., ed., 1992. A national survey of Indigenous Australians: options and implications.

Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University,CAEPR Research Monograph No. 3.

Altman, J.C., 2001. Exploring sustainable development options on Aboriginal land: the hybrideconomy in the twenty-first century. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic PolicyResearch, Australian National University, CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 226.

Altman, J.C., 2005. Development options on Aboriginal land: sustainable Indigenous hybrid econom-ies in the twenty-first century. In: L. Taylor, et al., eds. The power of knowledge, the resonance oftradition. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 34–48.

Altman, J.C., 2011a. Reforming the native title act. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic PolicyResearch, Australian National University, CAEPR Topical Issue No. 10/2011.

Altman, J.C., 2011b. From Kunanj, Fish Creek, to Mumeka, Mann River: hunter-gatherer traditionand transformation in Western Arnhem Land, 1948–2009. In: M. Thomas and M. Neale, eds.Exploring the legacy of the 1948 Arnhem Land Expedition. Canberra: ANU E Press, 113–134.

Local Environment 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Altman, J.C. and Allen, L.M., 1992. Indigenous participation in the informal economy: statistical andpolicy implications. In: J.C. Altman, ed. A national survey of Indigenous Australians: options andimplications. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian NationalUniversity, 138–151, CAEPR Research Monograph No. 3.

Altman, J.C. and Branchut, V., 2008. Fresh water in the Maningrida region’s hybrid economy: inter-cultural contestation over values and property rights. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal EconomicPolicy Research, Australian National University, CAEPR Working Paper No. 46.

Altman, J.C. and Kerins, S., 2008. Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment,Communications and the Arts inquiry into the operation of the Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic PolicyResearch, Australian National University, CAEPR Topical Issue No. 13/2008.

Altman, J.C. and Taylor, L., 1987. The economic viability of Aboriginal outstations and homelands. Areport to the Australian Council for Employment and Training. Canberra: Australian GovernmentPublishing Service.

Altman, J.C., Gray, M., and Levitus, R., 2005. Policy issues for the Community DevelopmentEmployment Projects Scheme in rural and remote Australia. Canberra: Centre for AboriginalEconomic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 271/2005.

Altman, J.C., Buchanan, G., and Biddle, N., 2006. Measuring the “real” Indigenous economy inremote Australia using NATSISS 2002. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 9 (1), 17–31.

Altman, J.C., Biddle, N., and Buchanan, G., 2012. The Indigenous hybrid economy: can theNATSISS adequately recognise difference. In: B. Hunter and N. Biddle, eds. Survey analysisfor Indigenous policy in Australia: social science perspectives. Canberra: ANU E Press, 163–191, CAEPR Research Monograph No. 32.

Asafu-Adjaye, J., 1995. Indigenous management of land and sea and traditional activities in CapeYork Peninsula. Brisbane: Department of Environment, Sports and Territories and Office of theCo-ordinator General, Queensland, Cape York Land Use Strategy: traditional activities progressreport.

Asafu-Adjaye, J., 1996. Traditional production activities and resource sustainability: the case of indi-genous societies in Cape York Peninsula, Australia. International Journal of Social Economics,23 (4/5/6), 125–135.

Austin, B.J. and Corey, B., 2012. Factors contributing to the longevity of the commercial use of cro-codiles by Indigenous people in remote Northern Australia: a case study. The Rangeland Journal,34 (3), 239–248.

Austin-Broos, D., 2011. A different inequality: the politics of debate about remote AboriginalAustralia. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 1996. 1994 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderSurvey: Broome ATSIC Region. Canberra: ABS, ABS Cat. No. 4196.0.00.021.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2007. Population distribution, Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Australians, 2006. Canberra: ABS, ABS Cat. No. 4705.0.

Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), 2007. Torres Strait turtle and dugong fisheriesassessment report. Canberra: AFMA.

Barber, M. and Jackson, S., 2011. Indigenous water values and water planning in the upper RoperRiver, Northern Territory. Darwin: CSIRO.

Berkes, F., et al., 1994. Wildlife harvesting and sustainable regional native economy in the Hudsonand James Bay Lowland, Ontario. Arctic, 47 (4), 350–360.

Biddle, N. and Swee, H., 2012. The relationship between wellbeing and Indigenous land, languageand culture in Australia. Australian Geographer, 43 (3), 215–232.

Birckhead, J., et al., 2011. Economic and cultural values of water to the Ngarrindjeri people of theLower Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth. Report to the Commonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Townsville, Australia: River Consulting.

Blaser, M., Feit, H.A. and McRae, G., eds., 2004. In the way of development: indigenous peoples, lifeprojects and globalization. London: Zed Books in association with International DevelopmentResearch Centre.

Bliege Bird, R. and Bird, D.W., 2008. Why women hunt: risk and contemporary foraging in a WesternDesert Aboriginal community. Current Anthropology, 49 (4), 655–693.

Buchanan, G., 2009. Indigenous people’s customary use of wild resources in the Broome/DampierPeninsula region: a desktop study for the Kimberley Land Council Aboriginal Social Impact

28 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Assessment. Appendix 10. In: K. Kahn, et al. Kimberley LNG precinct strategic assessment:Indigenous impacts report volume 3. Aboriginal Social Impact Assessment Report. Broome:KLC.

Buchanan, G. and May, K., 2012. Indigenous rangers and the customary economy. In: J.C. Altmanand S. Kerins, eds. People on country, vital landscapes, Indigenous futures. Sydney: TheFederation Press, 65–81.

Buchanan, G., et al., 2009. “Always part of us”: the socioeconomics of Indigenous customary use andmanagement of dugong and marine turtles – a view from Bardi and Jawi sea country, WesternAustralia. Darwin: NAILSMA, Research Report (NAILSMA Knowledge Series 001).

Busilacchi, S., et al., 2013. The role of subsistence fishing in the hybrid economy of an indigenouscommunity. Marine Policy, 37 (January), 183–191.

Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996. Report of the Royal Commission onAboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Group Communication.

Cane, S. and Stanley, O., 1985. Land use and resources in desert homelands. NARU Monograph.Darwin: NARU, ANU.

Car, Z., 2004. Report on progress of Bardi and Jawi communities turtle and dugong managementplan. Perth: Edith Cowan University.

Chabot, M., 2003. Economic changes, household strategies and social relations of contemporaryNunavik Inuit. Polar Record, 39 (208), 19–34.

Coleman, A.P.M., et al., 2003. Indigenous fishing survey of northern Australia. In: G.W. Henry andJ.M. Lyle, eds. The national recreational and Indigenous fishing survey. Canberra: AustralianGovernment Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 98–123.

Council of Australian Governments, 2009. National Indigenous Reform Agreement (Closing theGap). Canberra: Council of Australian Governments.

Cree Hunters and Trappers Income Security Board, 2010. Annual report 2009–2010. Quebec: CreeHunters and Trappers Security Board.

Curry, G., 2003. Moving beyond postdevelopment: facilitating Indigenous alternatives for “develop-ment”. Economic Geography, 79 (4), 405–423.

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 2012. Footprints intime: the Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children – key summary report from Wave 3.Canberra: FaHCSIA.

Department of Finance and Deregulation, 2009. Evaluation of the Community DevelopmentEmployment Projects (CDEP) Program. Evaluation report. Canberra: Office of Evaluation andAudit (Indigenous Programs), Department of Finance and Deregulation.

Devitt, J., 1988. Contemporary Aboriginal women and subsistence in remote, arid Australia.Unpublished Thesis (PhD). Brisbane: University of Queensland.

Dockery, A.M., 2012. Do traditional culture and identity promote the wellbeing of IndigenousAustralians? Evidence from the 2008 NATSISS. In: B. Hunter and N. Biddle, eds. Survey analysisfor Indigenous policy in Australia: social science perspectives. Canberra: ANU E Press, 281–305, CAEPR Research Monograph No. 32.

Elias, P.D., 1997. Models of aboriginal communities in Canada’s north. International Journal ofSocial Economics, 24 (11), 1241–1255.

Escobar, A., 2008. Territories of difference: place, movements, life, redes. Durham: Duke UniversityPress.

Feit, H., 1983. The income security program for Cree Hunters in Quebec, Canada: an experiment inincreasing autonomy of hunters in a developed nation state. In: N. Peterson and M. Langton,eds. Aborigines, land and land rights. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies,439–454.

Finn, M.A. and Jackson, S., 2011. Protecting Indigenous values in water management: a challenge toconventional environmental flow assessments. Ecosystems, 14 (8), 1232–1248.

Gibson-Graham, J.K., 2006. A post-capitalist politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress.

Gibson-Graham, J.K., 2008. Diverse economies: performative practices for “other worlds”. Progressin Human Geography, 32 (5), 613–632.

Gombay, N., 2005. The commoditization of country foods in Nunavik: a comparative assessment ofits development, applications, and significance. Arctic, 58 (2), 115–128.

Gombay, N., 2009. Sharing or commoditising? A discussion of some of the socio-economic impli-cations of Nunavik’s hunter support program. Polar Record, 45 (233), 119–132.

Local Environment 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Gray, M., Altman, J.C., and Halasz, N., 2005. The economic value of wild resources to the Indigenouscommunity of the Wallis Lake Catchment. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic PolicyResearch, Australian National University, CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 272.

Gray, M., Hunter, B., and Lohoar, S., 2011. Increasing Indigenous employment rates. Issue PaperNo. 3. Produced for the Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. Canberra: Australian Institute ofHealth and Welfare and Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Hill, P., 1966. A plea for indigenous economics: the West African example. Economic Developmentand Cultural Change, 15 (1), 10–20.

Holcombe, S., Yates, P., and Walsh, F., 2011. Reinforcing alternative economies: self-motivated workby central Anmatyerr people to sell Katyerr (Desert raisin, Bush tomato) in central Australia. TheRangeland Journal, 33 (3), 255–265.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs (HoRSCAA), 1987. Return tocountry – the Aboriginal homelands movement in Australia. Canberra: Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, Report. Parliamentary Paper No. 125/1987.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs (HoRSCAA), 1991.Government response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on AboriginalAffairs report “Return to country – the Aboriginal homelands movement in Australia”.Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs(HoRSCATSIA), 2009. Everybody’s business: remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait communitystores. Canberra: HoRSCATSIA.

Hunter, B., 1996. Indigenous Australians in the labour market: the NATSIS and beyond. In: J.C.Altman and J. Taylor, eds. The 1994 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey: find-ings and future prospects. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, AustralianNational University, 53–64, CAEPR Research Monograph No. 11.

Hunter, B. and Gray, M., 2012. Continuity and change in the CDEP scheme. Canberra: Centre forAboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, CAEPR Working PaperNo. 84/2012.

Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat, 2003. Inuvialuit harvest study, data and methods report 1988–1997.Inuvik: Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat.

James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Harvesting Research Committee, 1982. The wealth of theland: wildlife harvests by the James Bay Cree, 1972–73 to 1978–79. Quebec: James Bay andNorthern Quebec Native Harvesting Research Committee.

Jordan, K., Bulloch, H., and Buchanan, G., 2010. Statistical equality and cultural difference inIndigenous wellbeing frameworks: a new expression of an enduring debate. Australian Journalof Social Issues, 45 (3), 333–362.

Kahn, K., et al., 2010. Kimberley LNG precinct strategic assessment: Indigenous impacts reportvolume 3. Aboriginal Social Impact Assessment Report. Broome: KLC.

Kennett, R., et al., 2004. Indigenous initiatives for co-management of miyapuna/sea turtle. EcologicalManagement and Restoration, 5 (3), 159–166.

KLC, 2005. NAILSMA dugong and marine turtle project draft regional activity plan for KimberleyLand Council. Broome: KLC.

Kumar, M.B. and Janz, T., 2010. An exploration of cultural activities of Metis in Canada. Cat. No.11–008-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Kwan, D., Marsh, H., and Delean, S., 2006. Factors influencing the sustainability of customarydugong hunting by a remote community. Environmental Conservation, 33 (2), 164–171.

Langdon, S.J., ed., 1986. Contemporary Alaskan native economies. Lanham, MD: University ofAmerica Press.

McDonald, I., 2009. Gwich’in harvest study final report. Inuvik, NT: Gwich’in Renewable ResourceBoard.

Meehan, B., 1982. Shell bed to shell midden. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Morris, K. and Lapwood, M., 2002. An assessment of the traditional harvest of turtles in the Dampier

Peninsula region of the West Kimberley, Western Australia. Powerpoint presentation. Broome:Department of Conservation and Land Management.

Nadasdy, P., 2003. Hunters and bureaucrats: power, knowledge, and Aboriginal-state relations in thesouthwest Yukon. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Nadasdy, P., 2005. The anti-politics of TEK: the institutionalisation of co-management discourse.Antrhopologica, 47 (2), 215–232.

30 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nutrition Working Party, 2001. National Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Nutrition Strategy and Action Plan 2000–2010 and first phase acctiv-ities 2000–2003. Canberra: National Public Health Partnership.

National Native Title Tribunal, 2005. Bardi Jawi determination area. Perth: National Native TitleTribunal.

Pearson, N., 2000. Our right to take responsibility. Cairns, Australia: Noel Pearson and Associates.Povinelli, E., 1993. Labor’s lot: the power, history, and culture of Aboriginal action. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.Priest, H. and Usher, P.J., 2004. The Nunavut wildlife harvest study. Final report. Nunavut: Nunavut

Wildlife Management Board.Pusey, M., 1992. Economic rationalism in Canberra: a nation building state changes its mind.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pusey, M., 2010. 25 years of neoliberalism in Australia. In: R. Manne and D. McKnight, eds. Goodbye

to all that? On the failure of neo-liberalism and the urgency of change. Melbourne: Black Inc.Agenda, 125–146.

Raven, M.M., 1990. The point of no diminishing returns: hunting and resource decline on BoiguIsland, Torres Strait. Unpublished Thesis (PhD). University of California, Davis.

Roberts, A., Klomp, N., and Birckhead, J., 1996. Monitoring marine and terrestrial hunting in anAboriginal community in North Queensland. In: M. Bomford and J. Caughley, eds.Sustainable use of wildlife by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. Canberra:Australian Government Publishing Service, 152–166.

Rouja, P.M., 1998. Fishing for culture: toward an Aboriginal theory of marine resource use among theBardi Aborigines of One Arm Point, Western Australia. Unpublished Thesis (PhD). Durham:University of Durham.

Rowse, T., 2002. Indigenous futures: choice and development for Aboriginal and Islander Australia.Sydney: UNSW Press.

Sahlins, M., 1999. What is anthropological enlightenment? Some lessons of the twentieth century.Annual Review of Anthropology, 28 (October), i–xxiii.

Sahtu Renewable Resources Board, 2002. Sahtu settlement harvest study data report 1998 and 1999.Tulita, Canada: SRRB.

Scott, C.H. and Feit, H.A., 1992. Income security for Cree Hunters: ecological, social and economiceffects. Montreal: McGill Programme in the Anthropology of Development, McGill University.

Select Committee on Territory Food Prices, 1999. Price, quality and choice: striking a fair balance.Inquiry into food prices in the Northern Territory, Vol. 1. Darwin: Legislative Assembly of theNorthern Territory.

Skewes, T.D., et al., 2004. The traditional fisheries catch of Torres Strait Islanders. Project FinalReport, 1996–2001. Canberra: AFMA/CSIRO Division of Marine Research.

Smith, D.E. and Roach, L.M., 1996. Indigenous voluntary work: NATSIS empirical evidence, policyrelevance and future data issues. In: J.C. Altman and J. Taylor, eds. The 1994 National Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Survey: findings and future prospects. Canberra: Centre for AboriginalEconomic Policy Research, Australian National University, 65–76, CAEPR ResearchMonograph No. 11.

Stanner, W.E.H., 2009. The dreaming and other essays. Melbourne: Black Inc. Agenda.Statistics Canada, 2001. Aboriginal Peoples Survey – 2001. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Statistics Canada, 2006. Aboriginal Peoples Survey – 2006. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Statistics Canada, 2008. Aboriginal Peoples Survey Fact Sheet: Inuit health, education and country

food harvesting. Cat. No. 89–637-X. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Stevenson, M.G., 2006. The possibility of difference: rethinking co-management. Human

Organization, 65 (2), 167–180.Thapa, P., Shah, Q., and Ahmad, S., 2012. What are the factors determining Indigenous labour market

outcomes? In: B. Hunter and N. Biddle, eds. Survey analysis for Indigenous policy in Australia:Social science perspectives. Canberra: ANU E Press, 125–162, CAEPR Research MonographNo. 32.

Toussaint, S., 2010. Fitzroy Valley Indigenous groups and the multi-criteria of fishing and fish. Areport for the Indigenous Social and Economic Values Project (2.2.) for Tropical Rivers andCoastal Knowledge (TRaCK). Darwin: TRaCK.

Usher, P.J. and Wenzel, G., 1987. Native harvest surveys and statistics: a critique of their constructionand use. Arctic, 40 (2), 145–160.

Local Environment 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Usher, P.J., Duhaime, G., and Searles, E., 2003. The household as an economic unit in ArcticAboriginal communities, and its measurement by means of a comprehensive survey. SocialIndicators Research, 61 (2), 175–202.

Walsh, F., 1990. An ecological study of traditional Aboriginal use of “country”: Martu in the Greatand Little Sandy Deserts, Western Australia. Proceedings of the Ecological Society ofAustralia, 16, 23–37.

Walsh, F. and Douglas, J., 2011. No bush foods without people: the essential human dimension to thesustainability of trade in native plant products from desert Australia. The Rangeland Journal, 33(4), 395–416.

Wilson, J.M., 2006. Renewable resource assessment for the Sahoyue-§ehdacho candidate protectedarea. Yellowknife, Canada: Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the NorthwestTerritories.

32 G. Buchanan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Aus

tral

ian

Nat

iona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

7:14

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14