Innovation in management plans for community conserved areas: experiences from Australian indigenous protected areas

Copyright copy 2013 by the author(s) Published here under license by the Resilience AllianceDavies J R Hill F J Walsh M Sandford D Smyth and M C Holmes 2013 Innovation inmanagement plans for community conserved areas experiences from Australian indigenous protectedareas Ecology and Society 18(2) 14 httpdxdoiorg105751ES-05404-180214

Research part of a Special Feature on Integrating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Science in Natural ResourceManagement Perspectives from Australia

Innovation in Management Plans for Community Conserved AreasExperiences from Australian Indigenous Protected AreasJocelyn Davies 1 Rosemary Hill 1 Fiona J Walsh 1 Marcus Sandford 23 Dermot Smyth 45 and Miles C Holmes 67

ABSTRACT Increasing attention to formal recognition of indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) as part ofnational andor global protected area systems is generating novel encounters between the customary institutions through whichindigenous peoples and local communities manage these traditional estates and the bureaucratic institutions of protected areamanagement planning Although management plans are widely considered to be important to effective management of protectedareas little guidance has been available about how their form and content can effectively reflect the distinctive socio-culturaland political characteristics of ICCAs This gap has been particularly apparent in Australia where a trend to rapidly increasedformal engagement of indigenous people in environmental management resulted by 2012 in 50 indigenous groups voluntarilydeclaring their intent to manage all or part of their estates for conservation in perpetuity as an indigenous protected area (IPA)Development and adoption of a management plan is central to the process through which the Australian Government recognizesthese voluntary declarations and invests resources in IPA management We identified four types of innovations apparent insome recent IPA plans which reflect the distinctive socio-cultural and political characteristics of ICCAs and support indigenouspeople as the primary decision makers and drivers of knowledge integration in IPAs These are (1) a focus on customaryinstitutions in governance (2) strategic planning approaches that respond to interlinkages of stewardship between people placeplants and animals (3) planning frameworks that bridge scales by considering values and issues across the whole of an indigenouspeoplersquos territory and (4) varied communication modes appropriate to varied audiences including an emphasis on visual andspatial modes Further research is warranted into how governance and management of IPAs and the plans that support theseprocesses can best engender adaptive management and diverse strong partnerships while managing the risk of partners erodinglocal control

Key Words aboriginal land management community-based conservation indigenous community conserved areas indigenousprotected areas management effectiveness planning

INTRODUCTIONManagement plans are widely considered to be important foreffective management of protected areas (Oltremari andThelen 2003 Thomas and Middleton 2003 Lockwood 2006Leverington et al 2008 2010 Stoll-Kleemann 2010)Although the existence of a management plan is not in itselfa good predictor of effective management it may underpinother factors that are good predictors such as adequateinfrastructure monitoring and evaluation management skillsa clear work program and a supportive political environment(Leverington et al 2010) However many protected areas donot have documented management plans (Leverington et al2008) Further when management plans do exist critics pointout that they are often little used (Clarke 1999 2000 Fallding2000 Oltremari and Thelen 2003) and may be unusable(Clarke 1999)

Accessible guidance for the form and content of protected areamanagement plans (Thomas and Middleton 2003 Lockwood2006) draws primarily on experiences from government-managed protected areas Little specific guidance is availableabout the characteristics that management plans should have

to be appropriate to indigenous and community conservedareas (ICCAs Kothari 2006 Berkes 2009a IUCN 2009) inwhich communities rather than government are the majordecision makers Our research contributes to addressing thatgap by identifying innovations in the format and content ofmanagement plans that have emerged from indigenousprotected areas (IPAs) in Australia through novel encountersbetween the customary institutions through which indigenouspeoples manage their traditional estates and the bureaucraticinstitutions of protected area management planning

ICCAs and IPAsIndigenous protected areas (IPAs) have much in common withthe definition adopted by the International Union for theConservation of Nature (IUCN) for ICCAs that is ldquonaturalandor modified ecosystems containing significant biodiversityvalues ecological services and cultural values that arevoluntarily conserved by indigenous and mobile or localcommunities through customary laws or other effectivemeansrdquo (IUCN 2009) IUCN guidelines recognize somewhatcontroversially (Locke and Dearden 2005) that ICCAs arelegitimate inclusions in national and global protected area

1CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences 2Australian Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities 3Indigenous Protected AreasProgram 4Smyth and Bahrdt Consultants 5Charles Darwin University 6Beit Holmes and Associates Pty Ltd 7University of Queensland

Ecology and Society 18(2) 14httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol18iss2art14

Fig 1 Location of declared indigenous protected areas (IPA) and IPA Consultation Projects (proposals) May 2012 withnames of IPAs and proposals mentioned in the text

systems (Berkes 2009a) This recognition is consistent with aglobal paradigm shift in protected area governance over thepast two decades toward greater involvement of indigenouspeople and other local communities (Phillips 2003 Deardenet al 2005)

An IPA is defined by the Australian Government as an ldquoareaof land andor sea over which the indigenous traditional

owners or custodians have entered into a voluntary agreementwith the Australian Government for the purposes of promotingbiodiversity and cultural resource conservationrdquo (Hill et al20111) Indigenous representatives have defined IPAsdifferently in their engagements with Australian policy inways that do not rely on government recognition (Szabo andSmyth 2003 Hill et al 2011) However the governmentdefinition is very pertinent to our focus on the form and content


of management plans This is because a management planendorsed by traditional owners is considered by the AustralianGovernment to demonstrate that there are effectivenonstatutory means for managing the area as is required ifareas that have no statutory basis for management are to meetthe IUCN protected area definition (Dudley 2008) The IPAmanagement plans provide a basis for formal governmentrecognition of indigenous lands as part of the Australiannational system of protected areas and are also seen by theAustralian Government as an important mechanism forsupporting and invigorating the use of indigenous ecologicalknowledge (IEK) in biodiversity conservation (ANAO 2011)By 2011 50 declared IPAs (Fig 1) comprised 34 of theAustralian continent and over 25 of the total area in theAustralian terrestrial protected area system the NationalReserve System (NRS AG 2011) Rapid growth in the numberand area of IPAs over the first decade of this millennium is amanifestation of one of four standout trends identified inAustralian environmental management the increased formalinvolvement of indigenous people (ASEC 2011)

Formal incorporation of ICCAs into national protected areasystems raises issues about how indigenous people mightremain in control of management integrate their ownknowledge with other inputs and influences on managementand strengthen their capacity to address contemporary threatsto biodiversity and heritage values (Berkes 2009a) Weapproached these issues of control knowledge and capacitythrough the lens of IPA management plans We examined howthe form and content of planning documents artifacts thattypically reflect distinctive ways of thinking and doing thatare characteristic of western societies (Henrich et al 2010)may contribute to addressing these issues Lessons fromAustralian experience with IPA management plans areexpected to be valuable for other settings in which formalrecognition by governments of ICCAs is at an earlier stage

Considerations for effective ICCA management plansThe process used for planning has a deep influence onoutcomes for empowerment or disempowerment ofindigenous people (Lane 2006 Hibbard et al 2008) Howeverthe format and content of planning documents are alsoimportant decisions and directions established in a planningprocess are less likely to be overlooked forgotten or subvertedif they are robustly reflected in a plan (Fallding 2000)

Commentators emphasize that protected area managementplans should be action oriented practical working manualsthat set out what actions will be taken how where when andby whom (Clarke 2000 Fallding 2000 Thomas and Middleton2003) However management plans that are overlyprescriptive are quickly outdated and may also provide littleguidance for situations that are unanticipated at the time theplans are developed Effective plans cannot be staticdocuments They need to promote learning and adaptation in

management given incomplete information and pervasiveuncertainty in social-ecological systems including threats toprotected area values opportunities for management actionand endowments of management resources (Berkes et al2003)

Although success in community-based conservation is judgeddifferently by various stakeholders achievement of localcontrol and a style of management appropriate to the localcontext are widely considered to be important dimensions(Berkes 2004 Axford et al 2008) Management plans forICCAs should reflect the defining features identified (Berkes2009a IUCN 2009) for this protected area governance typeThat is plans should provide for the community that has closecultural or livelihood connections with the area to have anongoing major role in decisions as well as promotingdecisions that result directly or indirectly in conservationoutcomes

Governance that is ldquothe powers authorities andresponsibilities exercised by organizations and individualsrdquo(Lockwood 2010755) or in other words who makesdecisions about what happens and how those decisions aremade (Borrini-Feyerabend 2008) is not established in ICCAsby statutes regulations and corporate policies unlike thesituation for government-managed protected areasManagement plans for ICCAs thus cannot be concerned onlywith what actions will be taken to promote conservation Tosecure local control over management of ICCAs managementplans need to explicate if not re-establish indigenous or localcommunity governance

Scientific input is important to ensure that ICCA managementplans support conservation given new threats fromglobalization and habitat loss to biodiversity values that mayhave formerly been conserved as an indirect consequence ofindigenous or local peoplersquos management for tangible andintangible livelihood needs Cross-sectoral and cross-scalepartnerships are important because local management alonecannot address new and pervasive threats to biodiversity andcultural heritage that emanate from deeper level institutionsand larger scale systems (Berkes 2007) However if they areto be the primary decision makers indigenous people need tobe the prime drivers of knowledge integration as is alsoincreasingly acknowledged in other contexts (Bohensky andMaru 2011) Further the diversity of interests withincommunities (Agrawal and Gibson 1999) suggests thateffective plans need to recognize multiple objectives establishcriteria for assessing trade-offs among them and provide forconflict resolution

These contextual factors indicate that ICCA plans need tobridge boundaries between the knowledge systems ofindigenous owners and custodians and the social institutionsthat these are embedded in and those of partners (Berkes2009b) Trust building deliberation and negotiation are


widely cited as critical for coherent action in dynamicmultiparty contexts (Armitage 2007 Berkes 2007 Raymondet al 2009 Innes and Booher 2010) Effective plans shouldreflect the importance of these factors

Four types of innovations that are apparent in some recent IPAmanagement plans are likely to contribute to the effectivenessof these plans The innovations are (1) a focus on customaryinstitutions in governance (2) strategic planning approachesthat respond to interlinkages of stewardship between peopleplace plants and animals (3) planning frameworks thatbridge scales encompassing all of an indigenous peoplersquosterritory and (4) varied communication modes appropriate tovaried audiences including an emphasis on visual and spatialmodes

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR IPAMANAGEMENT PLANS

Indigenous land rights and livelihoodsWith key exceptions IPAs have been declared over lands inwhich indigenous peoplersquos proprietary rights are recognizedby governments as freehold leasehold or registered nativetitle Indigenous rights to these lands are held collectively byincorporated indigenous groups or are held in trust forunincorporated groups through statutory mechanisms Forconvenience we refer to these groups as traditional ownerseven though not all are constituted in ways that reflectcustomary land and sea ownership principles Tenures andgovernance structures are diverse because the six states ratherthan the Australian (federal) Government have primeresponsibility for land tenure and management underAustraliarsquos constitution The Australian Government hasrelatively great power in Australias territories compared to itsstates This has been important to statutory land claimprocesses that have resulted in 50 of the Northern Territorybeing recognized as indigenous-owned land The AustralianGovernment has also exercised substantial influencenationally on indigenous engagement in environmentalmanagement by leading intergovernmental processesattaching conditions to fiscal distributions and grant programsand funding purchase of lands for indigenous groups

Indigenous-owned lands and IPAs are distributed all overAustralia However the indigenous land holdings and IPAsthat are located in the 80 of the continent that is sparselypopulated and remote or very remote from services (ABS2010a hereafter termed remote) are substantially larger thanthose in other regions (Fig 1) This reflects the impact ofphysical geography and colonization on indigenous peoples(Davies 2003 Altman et al 2007 Smith 2008 Taylor et al2011) Arid or tropical monsoonal climates and low soilfertility mean that large areas of Australia are relativelyunproductive for introduced agricultural systems and werenever alienated to nonindigenous interests Habitat loss

through land clearing has not been significant on most of theseremote lands However introduced species and changes to fireregimes resulting from reduced indigenous economicdependence on hunting and gathering and on the burningpractices that are integrally associated with that customarymode of food production have had an impact on biodiversityvalues particularly mammal diversity (Burbidge et al 1988Bird et al 2008 Ritchie 2009) Three quarters of the rapidlygrowing indigenous population which comprises 25 ofAustralians (ABS 2010b 2010c) live in rural and urbanregions In such areas indigenous-owned lands mostlycomprise small parcels in fragmented landscapes includingsome parcels with significant biodiversity and cultural valuesIndigenous people fare substantially worse than otherAustralians across all social and economic indicators (Maruand Chewings 2011 SCGRSP 2011) The diversity of land-based enterprises generally very small scale that exist onindigenous-owned land the numerous mining agreements thatprovide financial return to indigenous groups through paymentof royalty equivalents or negotiated compensation or thesubstantial investment from social sectors of governmentshave little impact on this situation (Gorman et al 2008Holcombe et al 2011 ILC 2011 Koenig et al 2011)

Evidence supports indigenous peoplersquos view that the health oftheir people and their country are integrally related andindicates that engagement in ldquocaring for countryrdquo can be apathway that improves indigenous peoplersquos health (Burgesset al 2009 Berry et al 2010 Davies et al 2011) The termldquocountryrdquo (Stanner 1965 Myers 1986 Rose 1996 Muller2008) is widely used by indigenous people to encapsulate landwaters plants and animals together with multifacetedrelationships that link people and various elements of theircustomary estates as described by Prober et al (2011) andHolmes and Jampijinpa (2013) ldquoCaring for countryrdquo involvesthe maintenance of these relationships (Young 1987) and isalso used to refer to a wide array of natural and culturalresource management activities that draw on IEK science orconservation management knowledge (Davies et al 2011 Enset al 2012 Gorman and Vemuri 2012) often under the epithetldquotwo-wayrdquo (Muller 2012 Preuss and Dixon 2012)

Cultural services outcomes (sensu MEA 2003) sought bytraditional owners from their country include identity pridespiritual renewal enhanced physical health psychologicalwell-being and education of children through intergenerationaltransfer of indigenous ecological knowledge (Rose 1996Walsh and Mitchell 2002 Peterson 2005 Hunt et al 2009)Traditional owners also seek economic outcomes from theircountry such as an abundance of animal species that are valuedas food (Wilson et al 2004) paid work that engages youngpeople with traditional estates (Luckert et al 2007 Sithole etal 2008 Gorman and Vemuri 2012) and payment to eldersfor their cultural leadership and IEK teaching roles (Douglas2011) The Australian Governmentrsquos IPA Program takes


advantage of the interface between these longstandingaspirations and government goals for biodiversityconservation (Szabo and Smyth 2003 Gilligan 2006) It wascatalyzed by the realization in the mid-1990s that the NRScould not include a comprehensive adequate andrepresentative sample of all Australiarsquos biogeographicalregions unless it included some lands in which governmentshad recognized indigenous peoplersquos proprietary rights(Thackway et al 1996 Szabo and Smyth 2003) The appealof IPAs to indigenous people evidenced by a steady growthin the number of IPAs since the first was declared in 1998(Fig 2) is explained by the effectiveness of the indigenousengagement methods that the program has developed (Gilligan2006 ANAO 2011 Smyth 2011 Ens et al 2012) and a paucityof alternative resources that indigenous people can readilyaccess to support their country-based aspirations (Luckert etal 2007 Ens et al 2012)

Fig 2 Indigenous protected area (IPA) Declarations by yearand mean length (years) of IPA Consultation Projects(proposals)

Development of IPA management plansManagement planning is a critical pathway to IPA declarationThe Australian Government IPA Program is the key enabler(Gilligan 2006 Ross et al 2009) It resources indigenousgroups through grant funding administrative assistance andspecialist advice (ANAO 2011) to consider whetherestablishing an IPA would be viable and would fit with theirgoals and aspirations and to implement an agreed program ofworks on declared IPAs Development of a management planis integrated with the process through which indigenousgroups decide whether or not to make a voluntary declarationof their intent to manage their land in perpetuity forconservation of biological diversity and associated culturalheritage (Szabo and Smyth 2003 ANAO 2011) The

Australian Government requires that the management planclassify the IPA into one or more of the six IUCN protectedarea management categories (Dudley 2008) thus providing abenchmark for management approaches (ANAO 2011)

Participatory planning (Walsh and Mitchell 2002 Moorcroftet al 2012 Preuss and Dixon 2012) contributes to ensuringthat traditional owners collectively and robustly grant freeprior and informed consent for an IPA declaration To meetthe needs of diverse groups the IPA Program has taken aflexible approach to how this planning is undertaken and howlong it takes (ANAO 2011) This is indicated in Figure 2 byaverage duration of the planning and consultation processesassociated with developing a management plan and otherpreparations for IPA declaration Overall these processesextended for an average of 35 years for each IPA declared upto December 2011 and ranged from lt 1 year to 13 years Grantfunding between A$50000 and A$190000 per year has paidfor the engagement of planning facilitators consultationmeetings and family visits to country to renew knowledgeInitial grants for management works may also be providedduring the consultation and planning phase No requirementsare specified for how IEK should be incorporated into plansand no penalty is incurred if traditional owners decide not toproceed to IPA declaration The IPA Program makesindependent verifications to ensure that proposed declarationsare in accordance with traditional ownersrsquo wishes The finalmanagement plan endorsed by traditional owners providesthe basis for an agreement with the Australian Governmentabout grant funding and other support for managementStreamlined administration means that a single agreement mayencompass grants from the IPA Program the nationalIndigenous Heritage Program and the Working on CountryProgram The latter funds training and employment of youngerindigenous people in environmental management typically asa workforce of community-based rangers in almost half ofthe declared IPAs (ANAO 2011)

In most cases neither IPA planning facilitators nor thecoordinators engaged to facilitate management in declaredIPAs are traditional owners They are typically nonindigenouspeople trained in ecological science or communitydevelopment They may be staff of or consultants to anorganization constituted directly by the traditional ownergroup or in some cases a conservation NGO However theyare often employed or engaged by regional-level statutory andnonstatutory indigenous representative organizations thathave key roles in bridging (Berkes 2009b) across knowledgesystem boundaries spanning governance levels in relation toconservation and all other uses of indigenous-owned landsAs a result of their record of success in achieving outcomesthat are important to their constituents notably land rightsgains these regional organizations are often trusted advisorsto traditional owners Their staff act as brokers (Woodward2008 Maru and Davies 2011) communicating information to


and from traditional owner groups and ensuring that anyproposed land use is in accordance with their wishes Manytraditional owner groups particularly in remote regions learnabout the IPA Program through these regional organizationsand the organizations commonly have a direct role in themanagement of IPAs whose traditional owners are notincorporated or who have limited administrative capacity Forexample the Central Land Council is resourced through grantfunding and a statutory mechanism to employ IPA managersor coordinators planning facilitators ranger coordinators andcommunity-based rangers for three large IPAs or IPAproposals in the southern Northern Territory The KimberleyLand Council is a nonstatutory organization that carries outthese roles in the north of western Australia

Traditional owners and the staff of bridging organizationsreport multiple ecological social and cultural benefits fromtheir IPAs (Gilligan 2006 Ross et al 2009 Hunt 2010 WLM2010 Smyth 2011 Hoffmann et al 2012) Neverthelessgovernment and traditional owner agendas can be hard toreconcile (Muller 2008 2012 Smyth 2011 Gorman andVemuri 2012) One in-depth analysis (Walker 2011) foundthat traditional owners and partners who participated in areview of management effectiveness of the Northern TanamiIPA agreed that management should give priority to objectivesthat are of prime importance to traditional owners Howeverall participants also agreed that traditional ownersrsquo objectiveshad received little attention compared to the biodiversity andheritage conservation goals of the IPA Program whichbecause of funding accountabilities were also reflected in thegoals of the bridging organization (Walker 2011) Revision ofthat IPArsquos initial management plan has been able to drawdirectly on the lessons from that analysis

The need for guidelines for IPA management plansA review of the first decade of the IPA Program observed thatit ldquoseems to trigger a very positive and enthusiastic responsefrom people because of its inherent respect for the decisionmaking role of the indigenous elders and the empowermentand autonomy provided in the formulation andimplementation of the Management Planrdquo (Gilligan 200642)However IPA plans have not always effectively conveyed thisdecision making role empowerment and autonomy Onereason is that early IPA management plans tended to reflectthe format and content of those for government-managedprotected areas (Lockwood 2006) This orthodoxy wasinfluenced by the IPA Programrsquos cautious attitude during itsearly years Program managers perceived a risk that IPAsmight be seen by stakeholders as inferior to other protectedareas if IPA plans departed radically from familiar forms(Bruce Rose IPA Program Director personal communication)

Perusal of early IPA plans indicated several issues that wouldlimit their appeal to indigenous people because they were not

congruent with indigenous epistemologies For example mostearly IPA plans adopted a conventional distinction betweennatural and cultural values reflecting a foundational principleof modernist western thought that can make deep cross-cultural communication difficult (Ingold 2000 Davidson-Hunt and Berkes 2002 West and Brockington 2006) Thestrongest focus in early plans was often on natural values andon actions to address invasive species and inappropriate fireregimes Indigenous peoplersquos attitudes toward these issueswhich tend to be different to those of western-trainedconservation managers (eg Robinson et al 2005) weresometimes quite obscure Early plans also tended to lack clearpolicies or actions to maintain or invigorate cultural practicesthat were invariably important to traditional owners Furthersome were silent about who was responsible forimplementation or else the plan was unclear about theaccountability of coordinators or management staff totraditional owners

Concerns about such matters led IPA program managers toinitiate the development of guidelines for use by traditionalowners and IPA planners (Hill et al 2011) with the aim ofensuring that management plans reflected the distinctivecharacteristics of IPAs In the course of developing thoseguidelines we identified innovations that are apparent in somerecent IPA management plans

METHODSWe identified innovations in IPA management plans througha two-day national workshop convened by the IPA Programin collaboration with the Commonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organisation (CSIRO Walsh et al 2011)This involved 20 IPA traditional owners conservationplanners and other professionals who the convenersconsidered on the basis of their professional knowledge ofIPA planning and initial examination of a wide array of draftand endorsed IPA plans to be innovators Workshopparticipants presented plans which they had been involved indeveloping in the preceding period of about five years andpeer-reviewed other plans The examined plans included 10plans for IPAs or proposed IPAs 2 plans for comanaged parks6 regional-scale plans for indigenous traditional territoriesand 4 plans for specific management issues on indigenous landor a government-managed protected area Most of these planswere from remote regions of Australia (Fig 1) becauseworkshop conveners had concluded that the most innovativeplans were being produced in these regions in which limitedliteracy and relatively strong continuing use of IEK includingthrough everyday use of indigenous languages highlightedthe complexities inherent in cross-cultural communication Alimitation is that we examined very few plans for IPAs in moredensely settled regions in which place-based approaches areequally important and the nature of IEK appropriaterepresentation and authoritative governance is more contested(Carter and Hollinsworth 2009 Carter 2010)


In peer-reviewing IPA plans workshop participants identifiedthe elements that they considered were most or least usefuland for whom Qualitative methods of conceptual clusteranalysis and theme identification (Kumar 2005) were appliedduring the workshop to identify factors that accounted for theparticipantsrsquo assessments of the various plans Workshopconveners later examined a broader selection of plans againstthemes identified during the workshop We outline themesidentified as innovative in that they depart from the formatand content of conventional protected area management plansto address distinctive values of IPAs and characteristics of IPAgovernance and management No single plan that we examinedincluded all these themes

INNOVATION IN IPA MANAGEMENT PLANS

Focus on customary institutions in governanceSome IPA plans recognize a fundamental and strong role forcustomary institutions in governance This reflects the viewcommonly expressed by traditional owners that only peoplewith the proper customary rights and responsibilities can makedecisions about country Plans embody this view by presentingIPA management as first and foremost a story that is beingtold by traditional owners themselves The plans often includephotographs of and quotations from individual people thatsignify their authority to speak for the area Identity andcultural distinctiveness is also conveyed through devices suchas a dedication simple strong vision statements and storiesthat add depth and nuance These variously recount how thedecision about IPA declaration was made and the historyleading up to it express traditional ownersrsquo feelings aboutcountry acknowledge ancestral creation-beings that have anongoing presence on country and set out hopes and ambitionsfor future generations

Plans indicate the diversity in governance structures for IPAsIPAs on lands that are held in trust for indigenous peoplethrough statutory mechanisms are variously governed bycommittees and boards whose membership is generally drawnfrom people with customary rights and responsibilities for thearea These governing bodies are commonly presented in theplans as being accountable to the larger group of traditionalowners ie by diagrams that show the traditional owner groupat the top of decision making structures (Dhimurru AboriginalCorporation et al 2008 Preuss and Dixon 2012) In othercases for example when an incorporated indigenous group isthe landowner or lessee its governing body usually alsogoverns the IPA Such is the case with the Yalata IPA (CRodgers unpublished manuscript) which is declared on landleased to Yalata Community Inc In contrast to the lack ofclarity in some early plans about the accountability of staffrecent plans state more clearly that the role of coordinators ormanagers whether employed by the IPA governing body or

by a bridging organization is to implement IPA governingbodiesrsquo decisions often through the work of community-basedranger groups

Strategic planning for interlinked people places plantsand animalsStrategic planning approaches are being used to address thedistinctive socio-cultural characteristics of IPAs Theseapproaches emphasize high-level purposes such as vision andintent rather than attempt to comprehensively address allaspects of management (Lockwood 2006) They do not requireany distinction to be drawn between natural and culturalvalues obviating the common urge among western-trainedconservation planners to delineate goals and practices as eithernatural or cultural resource management

The integration of biodiversity conservation with tangible andintangible dimensions of indigenous culture is illustrated inadaptations of conservation action planning (CAP) tools (TNC2006) For example Wunambal Gaambera people identified10 of the most important things termed focal conservationtargets in CAP for their management of the Uunguu IPAincluding ldquoWanjina Wunggurr Law ndash our culturerdquo ldquoRight wayfirerdquo ldquoAamba and other meat foodsrdquo ldquoBush plantsrdquo ldquoRockartrdquo and ldquoMangguru (marine turtles) and Balguja (dugong)rdquoThese targets address elements of prime importance totraditional owners for their identity and livelihoods Nestedtargets encompass management issues that are more familiarto stakeholders whose goals are biodiversity conservationTraditional owners liken the structure to going hunting forkangaroos ldquowe also do other things along the wayrdquo (Moorcroftet al 2012 Wunambal Gaambera Aboriginal Corporationunpublished manuscript) Strategies in a revised draft of theYalata IPA plan (C Rodgers unpublished manuscript) inwhich CAP tools were not used in planning show a similarstructure The management plan for Angas Downs IPA is oneof very few plans that includes strategies directed at managingthe impact of traditional ownersrsquo own use of wildlife (Wilsonet al 2005) It integrates indigenous governance and wildlifemanagement science with the aim of increasing populationsof animals valued by traditional owners as game (Wilson andWoodrow 2009) Because some such species are consideredcommon by conservation planners they attract little attentionin other management approaches (Finn and Jackson 2011)

Country-based planning that bridges scalesThe term country-based planning refers to a process in whichtraditional owners identify their aspirations and strategiesacross the entirety of their traditional territories unconstrainedby the tenures that are recognized by governments (Smyth2008) This process develops a strategic framework forconsidering how values and issues beyond the scale of aparticular legal land tenure parcel should influence theboundaries adopted for an IPA identifies impacts from


nonlocal institutions and processes that need attention in IPAmanagement and develops strategies that are important foraddressing these cross-scale dimensions Country-basedplanning helps to overcome IPA plannersrsquo reliance on plansand strategies developed by government authorities withlimited input from indigenous people for understanding theregional context of an IPA It thus helps to redress the keyproblem recognized for ICCAs globally (Kothari 2006567)of customary institutions being undermined by colonial orcentralized political systems

Country-based planning has provided the framework formultitenure IPAs such as in the Yanyuwa IPA proposal(Bradley and Yanyuwa Families 2007) and the MandingalbayYidinji IPA (MYAC 2006) which comprise land underindigenous and nonindigenous tenures shorelines and marineareas Indigenous peoplersquos conception of these areas as onecountry has provided impetus for development of a consistentconservation management framework Implementation ofmanagement plans for such areas necessarily centers onnegotiation and partnership

Communicating to varied audiencesRisks to traditional ownersrsquo authority and control can arisefrom text-rich plans if these are written in high-level Englishthat traditional owners perceive as a secret language (Christieand Perrett 1996) or contain key words that are open to multipleinterpretations (Hoffmann et al 2012) Many traditionalowner groups continue to prefer oral and visualcommunication modes and tend not to see the value of writtenplans for their own use However IPA management plans haveother important audiences including professional andmanagerial staff of the IPA government agencies communityservice organizations schools and researchers

In response to such issues IPA planning increasingly tends togenerate a suite of documents for different audiences andpurposes as is recommended more generally for protectedareas (Thomas and Middleton 2003 Lockwood 2006) A mainplan that is succinct and rich with pictures and maps will oftenbe supplemented by a compilation of relevant scientific andtechnical information short-term action plans or annual workplans and conservation and site management plans forparticular features and localities

Indigenous paintings that represent landscapes are beingincorporated in IPA management plans alongside topographicmaps Observers often liken these paintings to maps althoughSutton (1998a) in a more critical assessment disagrees SomeIPA planning processes have also developed land use andoccupancy maps (Tobias 2010) which is novel in theAustralian context in which land claim processes haveemphasized indigenous spiritual rather than economicgeographies Maps that combine both can have particularimpact for nonindigenous audiences in signifying IPAs aslandscapes that are under stewardship because the density of

named places which are often waterholes or other resource-rich landscape patches with important biodiversityconservation values contrasts with their paucity on standardtopographic maps particularly in remote regions (Walsh2009)

Locally meaningful icons are being incorporated into plans asmnemonics or guides to content For example the plan for theproposed Karajarri IPA uses local idiom to representtraditional ownersrsquo various goals ldquokeeping country healthyrdquois symbolized by the annual cycle of six seasons (Prober et al2011) ldquokeeping culture strongrdquo is symbolized by ngurpacalling people to ceremony ldquohaving resources formanagementrdquo is symbolized by yirlpi making fire andldquolooking to the futurerdquo is symbolized by palatany ngapastoring water in trees (Tanya Vernes WWF Australiapersonal communication) Such idioms and associatedsymbols help to promote confidence among traditionalowners that they can ldquoread the planrsquos words by drawing on theways they have always read the countryrdquo (Walsh et al 2011Jampijinpa personal communication)

DISCUSSIONThe innovations described contribute to addressing the needthat has been identified (Waylen et al 2010) for managers ofconservation to better understand and adjust to communitysettings Indigenous ontologies are recognizable in theseinnovations through portrayals of leaders and ancestorsspiritual andor human whose authority underpinsgovernance through conservation targets that focus onculturally important species and processes and through theuse of local idiom and imagery These features together witha strong focus in many IPA plans on facilitatingintergenerational knowledge transmission integrate aspectsof the whole spectrum of the knowledge- practice-beliefcomplex that characterizes IEK (Berkes et al 2000) intoconservation planning As with other protected areas(Leverington et al 2010) we do not know the extent to whichIPA management plans contribute to conservation andlivelihood outcomes beyond their immediate role inunderpinning resourcing agreements with the AustralianGovernment However we expect that traditional owners willhave a relatively greater sense of ownership of managementplans and be relatively less likely to revise their intent tomanage their lands for conservation when these kinds ofinnovations result in IPA plans that reflect their world view

IPAs and other engagements in environmental managementthat allow indigenous people to maintain or re-establish soleor substantial control over governance are identified by Hillet al (2012) as offering the best prospects for IEK to beintegrated with other knowledge in ways that promotesustainability in social-ecological systems The focus oncustomary institutions in governance that is emerging in someIPA plans emphasizes that IPA governance is not the domain


of indigenous people per se but rather of the particularindigenous people who are recognized by others as havingrights and responsibilities within the IPA These rights andresponsibilities are underpinned by social relationships ofstewardship that are embedded in place-attachments totemicrelationships and classificatory kinship in remote regions(Marika et al 2009 Holmes and Jampijinpa 2013) In moresettled regions they are reflected in the identities andremembered origins of descent groups (Sutton 1998b)Interlinkages and cross-cutting responsibilities mean that theauthority of individual traditional owners to make decisionsalone or in concert with others may be differentiated withinIPAs either spatially by gender or by the nature of a particularthreat or opportunity These perspectives although wellestablished in anthropological literature are much lessunderstood by ecologists and natural resource managersinvolved in IPA management They represent a strong shiftaway from the much criticized construct of community(Agrawal and Gibson 1999) that has been ubiquitous inAustralian indigenous affairs policy (Davies 2003) andhighlight the importance of engaging social scientists notablyanthropologists in IPA planning to give appropriate attentionto ldquothe complexity of the socialrdquo (West and Brockington2006614)

Nevertheless there is little information in IPA managementplans about how members of IPA governing committees andboards and their decisions are actually influenced by the kindsof customary institutions noted above Undoubtedly onereason for this lack of specificity is that these institutions oftenprovide for flexibility negotiation and contest (Myers 1986Merlan 1997) Other complexities result from the impact ofcolonization and environmental change on socialorganization property rights and opportunities to maintainand pass on knowledge of country (Young 1987 Rose 1996)Such factors contribute to a prevalent view withinnonindigenous Australia that indigenous ways of decisionmaking are unknowable immutable andor corrupt (Smithand Hunt 2011) Further attention in future IPA plans toexplicating the basis on which particular people are the rightand proper ones to make various kinds of decisions maycontribute progressively to challenging this view

Indigenous efforts to overcome the epistemological and scalelimitations of colonial tenure boundaries through country-based planning highlight the potential role of customaryinstitutions as unifying frameworks for ecosystemmanagement Potentially such frameworks might even extendbeyond the territories of a particular language groupNetworked and relational forms of indigenous Australiangovernance have been shown to link horizontally andvertically to larger collectivities and alliances and to bereformed by indigenous people where no longer fit for purpose(Smith and Hunt 2011) Such polycentric entities linked

across scale are considered important for adaptive capacity(Olsson et al 2004 Cundill and Fabricius 2010)

Nonetheless the very flexibility that is inherent in customaryinstitutions most markedly in arid regions (Keen 2003) maypresent challenges for the conservation intent expressed in IPAplans We do not know how effective IPA plans andgovernance structures will be in maintaining conservationintent when opportunities arise for resource rents from landuses such as agistment livestock grazing or mining(OFaircheallaigh 2011) which offer traditional ownersgreater financial benefit for less effort than is the case forconservation management Understandings of humanterritoriality in nonequilibrium systems in which productivityvaries stochastically (Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978 Ellisand Swift 1988 Mearns 1993 Powell 1998 Davidson-Huntand Berkes 2003) suggest that the flexible customaryinstitutions that are engaged in IPA governance will formdifferent configurations if pay-offs increase substantiallySuch challenges indicate the potential importance of IPA plansas frameworks for resolution of conflicts among traditionalowners However conflict resolution is a neglected area inIPA plans as it is more generally in indigenous Australiancontexts (Bauman 2007)

Other challenges for IPA plans and planning are indicated inrelation to development of adaptive comanagement apromising approach to promoting resilience and sustainabilityin social-ecological systems that combines the learningemphasis of adaptive management and comanagementrsquosemphasis on partnerships (Olsson et al 2004 Berkes 2007Fabricius et al 2007 Armitage et al 2009 Berkes 2009bSchultz et al 2011) A number of the IPA plans we examinedsignal traditional ownersrsquo intent to apply adaptivemanagement In accordance with IPA Program recommendations(AG 2012) some IPAs have modified the AustralianGovernmentrsquos natural resource management program logicand evaluation framework (AG 2009) using it to reflecttraditional ownersrsquo strategic priorities and to identifyindicators that are culturally meaningful A range ofmonitoring methods are in use in various IPAs includingsystematic surveys of animal movements supported byhandheld data loggers (Ens et al 2010 Wilson et al 2010)eldersrsquo assessments about whether important sites are beingproperly looked after (Rodgers 2010) and in Paruku IPAperiodic updating of large topographically accurate mapshand-painted by traditional owners to record observations ofburnt areas and wildlife sightings (Paruku IPA 2010 Mortonet al 2013) The important role that learning has in thesustainability of social-ecological systems (Armitage et al2008) suggests a key need to better understand whether andhow these mechanisms actually engage traditional owners inreflecting about the effectiveness of their management andadapting management directions


Partnerships have been found to be important for effectivecommunity-based conservation in other contexts (Berkes2007 Fabricius et al 2007) Extending and deepening IPApartnerships is critical and urgent because the IPA Programonly provides seed funding for management and its continuitybeyond 2013 is not assured (ANAO 2011) Diverse and strongpartner networks are well developed in some IPAs such asDhimurru IPA which Yolgnu people declared after 20 yearsof partnership building by Dhimurru Land ManagementAboriginal Corporation (Smyth 2007 Hoffmann et al 2012)and Wardekkan IPA declared in 2007 after a decade ofresearch had enabled an agreement through which privatesector investment resources traditional owners to manage firebuild on traditional practices and achieve greenhouse gasmitigation targets (Whitehead et al 2008 WLM 2010)However partnership development is at a much earlier stagein many other IPAs

The potential for the knowledge of traditional owners to beundermined and their authority and priorities subverted by thedifferent epistemologies and agendas of partner organizations(Nadasdy 2003 Walker 2011 Gorman and Vemuri 2012Muller 2012) has influenced at least two IPAs to emphasizethat formation of IPA partnerships needs to wait until aftertraditional owners have established their IPA plan or at leastits core themes (Hoffmann et al 2012 Preuss and Dixon 2012)Nevertheless IPA planning processes are themselvesinvariably partnership processes because they involvecollaboration and communication between traditional ownersplanning facilitators staff of the IPA Program and oftenbridging organizations Robinson and Wallingtonrsquos (2012)analysis of boundary work in the management of feral animalsin a comanaged national park is indicative of the complexitiesthat IPA planning facilitators face in translating meanings andbrokering understandings IPA plans or the maps diagramsand vision statements included in them might serve asboundary objects that is tools that are coproduced amongvarious parties and that each party finds to be meaningfulSuch objects have been valuable in other contexts providinga shared point of reference for knowledge that various partiesindividually or collectively consider to be legitimate andauthoritative and acting to facilitate social learning andmaintain trusted connections (Cash et al 2003 2006 Mollinga2010) However little consideration has been given to date tohow IPA plans are received by IPA partners or prospectivepartners and what further innovations might be necessary forplans to play an effective role in building diverse and strongpartnerships

CONCLUSIONDevelopment of a management plan has been integral todeclarations made by 50 indigenous groups in Australia oftheir intent to manage all or part of their customary estatesfor conservation outcomes in perpetuity as IPAs Fourinnovations distinguish some recent IPA management plans

from earlier such plans and from those prepared forgovernment-established protected areas (1) overt recognitionof the primacy of customary governance (2) strategic planningformats that reflect interlinkages between people placeplants and animals (3) planning frameworks that encompasscustomary territories identify cross-scale issues andchallenge power relations embedded in colonial tenures and(4) a suite of planning documents for varied audiences andpurposes with an emphasis in the main plan on visual andspatial communication modes that facilitate accessibility totraditional owners Identification of these innovationscontributes to addressing a lack of accessible guidance forICCA management planning both within Australia and in otherjurisdictions in which recognition of ICCAs as part of nationalprotected area systems is at an earlier stage Because theyreflect indigenous ontologies we consider that theseinnovations will promote confidence among traditionalowners about maintaining control of IPA governance andmanagement and drive integration of knowledge Theseinnovations are not widespread across existing IPAmanagement plans but their inclusion in management planguidelines produced by the Australian Government IPAProgram (Hill et al 2012) will encourage their wider adoptionand ongoing innovation

Understanding the extent to which IPA plans are actually usedto guide learning and adaptation warrants furtherinvestigation Other important areas for inquiry include howplans might best contribute to resolving conflict amongtraditional owners and how they might support thedevelopment of diverse and strong partnerships whilemanaging risks of partners eroding local control Research onsuch questions would valuably extend beyond the format andcontent of IPA plans which has been our focus here toencompass participatory action research on the dynamics ofgovernance and management and the impact of theseprocesses on biodiversity conservation and livelihoods inICCAs

Responses to this article can be read online at httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgissuesresponsesphp5404

Acknowledgments

We thank people and organizations who participated in thedevelopment of Australian national guidelines for IPAmanagement plans We also acknowledge the assistance ofBruce Rose Noah Pleshet Kim Mahood Veronica Lulu JaneAddison Sam Muller Sue Jackson Erin Bohensky JamesButler and two anonymous referees for comments and insightsthat helped us improve on earlier drafts of this paper andGlenn Johnstone of the Australian Department of


Sustainability Environment Water Population andCommunities for preparing Figure 1

LITERATURE CITEDAgrawal A and C C Gibson 1999 Enchantment anddisenchantment the role of community in natural resourceconservation World Development 27(4)629-649 httpdxdoiorg101016S0305-750X(98)00161-2

Altman J G Buchanan and L Larsen 2007 Theenvironmental significance of the indigenous estate naturalresource management as economic development in remoteAustralia ANU Centre for Aboriginal Economic PolicyResearch Discussion Paper No 2862007 Centre forAboriginal Economic Policy Research Canberra Australia[online] URL httpcaepranueduauPublicationsDP2007DP286php

Armitage D 2007 Building resilient livelihoods throughadaptive co-management the role of adaptive capacity Pages62-82 in D Armitage F Berkes and N C Doubleday editorsAdaptive co-management collaboration learning and multi-level governance UBC Press Vancouver British ColumbiaCanada

Armitage D M Marschke and R Plummer 2008 Adaptiveco-management and the paradox of learning GlobalEnvironmental Change 18(1)86-98 httpdxdoiorg101016jgloenvcha200707002

Armitage D R Plummer F Berkes R I Arthur A TCharles I J Davidson-Hunt A P Diduck N C DoubledayD S Johnson M Marschke P McConney E W Pinkertonand E K Wollenberg 2009 Adaptive co-management forsocial-ecological complexity Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment 7(2)95-102 httpdxdoiorg101890070089

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2010a The Australianstatistical geographic classification (ASGC) remotenessstructure Australian Bureau of Statistics Canberra Australia[online] URL httpwwwabsgovauwebsitedbsd3310114nsfhomeremoteness+structure

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2010b Experimentalestimates and projections aboriginal and Torres Straitislander Australians 1991-2021 Australian Bureau ofStatistics Canberra Australia [online] URL httpwwwabsgovauausstatsabsnsfmf32380

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2010c Populationcharacteristics aboriginal and Torres Strait islanderAustralians 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics CanberraAustralia [online] URL httpwwwausstatsabsgovauausstatssubscribernsf0526FE126443EBCC6CA257718001D547F$File47130_2006_reissuepdf

Australian Government (AG) 2009 Natural resourcemanagement monitoring evaluation reporting and improvement(MERI) framework Caring for Our Country ProgramAustralian Government Canberra Australia

Australian Government (AG) 2011 About the NationalReserve System Australian Government Department ofSustainability Environment Water Population and CommunitiesCanberra Australia [online] URL httpwwwenvironmentgovauparksnrsindexhtml

Australian Government (AG) 2012 IPA managers toolkitmonitoring and evaluation Australian GovernmentDepartment of Sustainability Environment WaterPopulation and Communities Canberra Australia

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) 2011 The auditor-general audit report no 14 201112 performance auditindigenous protected areas Department of SustainabilityEnvironment Water Population and CommunitiesAustralian National Audit Office Canberra Australia[online] URL httpwwwanaogovauPublicationsAudit-Reports2011-2012Indigenous-Protected-Areas

Australian State of the Environment Committee (ASEC)2011 State of the environment 2011 Independent report to theAustralian Government Minister for SustainabilityEnvironment Water Population and CommunitiesAustralian State of the Environment Committee CanberraAustralia [online] URL httpwwwenvironmentgovausoe2011reportkey-findingshtmlkey-findings

Axford J C M T Hockings and R W B Carter 2008What constitutes success in Pacific Island communityconserved areas Ecology and Society 13(2) 45 [online]URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol13iss2art45

Bauman T 2007 You mob all agree The chronic emergencyof culturally competent engaged indigenous problem solvingIndigenous Law Bulletin 6(29)13-15 [online] URL httpwwwwhatsworkingcomauWomenforWikpdfsILB_v6n29_Baumanpdf

Berkes F 2004 Rethinking community-based conservationConservation Biology 18(3)621-630 httpdxdoiorg101111j1523-1739200400077x

Berkes F 2007 Community-based conservation in aglobalized world Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America 104(39)15188-15193 httpdxdoiorg101073pnas0702098104

Berkes F 2009a Community conserved areas policy issuesin historic and contemporary context Conservation Letters 220-25 httpdxdoiorg101111j1755-263X200800040x


Berkes F 2009b Evolution of co-management role ofknowledge generation bridging organizations and sociallearning Journal of Environmental Management 90(5)1692-1702 httpdxdoiorg101016jjenvman200812001

Berkes F J Colding and C Folke 2000 Rediscovery oftraditional ecological knowledge as adaptive managementEcological Applications 10(5)1251-1262 httpdxdoiorg1018901051-0761(2000)010[1251ROTEKA]20CO2

Berkes F J Colding and C Folke editors 2003 Navigatingsocial-ecological systems building resilience for complexityand change Cambridge University Press Cambridge UKhttpdxdoiorg101017CBO9780511541957

Berry H L J R A Butler C P Burgess U G King KTsey Y L Cadet-James C W Rigby and B Raphael 2010Mind body spirit co-benefits for mental health from climatechange adaptation and caring for country in remote aboriginalAustralian communities New South Wales Public HealthBulletin 21(6)139-145 httpdxdoiorg101071NB10030

Bird R B D W Bird B F Codding C H Parker and JH Jones 2008 The ldquofire stick farmingrdquo hypothesisAustralian aboriginal foraging strategies biodiversity andanthropogenic fire mosaics Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(39)14796-14801 httpdxdoiorg101073pnas0804757105

Bohensky E L and Y Maru 2011 Indigenous knowledgescience and resilience what have we learned from a decadeof international literature on ldquointegrationrdquo Ecology andSociety 16(4) 6 [online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol16iss4art6

Borrini-Feyerabend G 2008 Implementing the CBD programof work on protected areas governance as key for effectiveand equitable protected area systems Briefing Note 8Commission on Environmental Economic and Social PolicyIUCN Geneva Switzerland [online] URL httpcmsdataiucnorgdownloadsgovernance_of_protected_areas_for_cb-d_pow_briefing_note_08_1pdf

Bradley J and Yanyuwa Families 2007 Barni-WardimanthaAwara Yanyuwa sea country plan Mabunji AboriginalResource Association Borroloola Northern TerritoryAustralia [online] URL httpwwwenvironmentgovauindigenouspublicationspubsyanyuwapdf

Burbidge A A K A Johnson P J Fuller and R ISouthgate 1988 Aboriginal knowledge of the mammals ofthe central deserts of Australia Australian Wildlife Research 159-39 httpdxdoiorg101071WR9880009

Burgess C P F H Johnston H Berry J McDonnell DYibarbuk C Gunabarra A Mileran and R Bailie 2009Healthy country healthy people superior indigenous health

outcomes are associated with lsquocaring for countryrsquo MedicalJournal of Australia 190(10)567-572

Carter J 2010 Protocols particularities and problematisingindigenous lsquoengagementrsquo in community-based environmentalmanagement in settled Australia Geographical Journal 176(3)199-213 httpdxdoiorg101111j1475-4959201000355x

Carter J and D Hollinsworth 2009 Segregation andprotectionism institutionalised views of aboriginal ruralityJournal of Rural Studies 25(4)414-424 httpdxdoiorg101016jjrurstud200905008

Cash D W W N Adger F Berkes P Garden L Lebel POlsson L Pritchard and O Young 2006 Scale and cross-scale dynamics governance and information in a multilevelworld Ecology and Society 11(2) 8 [online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol11iss2art8

Cash D W W C Clark F Alcock N M Dickson NEckley D H Guston J Jaumlger and R B Mitchell 2003Knowledge systems for sustainable development Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 100(14)8086-8091 httpdxdoiorg101073pnas1231332100

Christie M J and B Perrett 1996 Negotiating resourceslanguage knowledge and the search for lsquosecret Englishrsquo innortheast Arnhem Land Pages 57-65 in R Howitt J Connelland P Hirsch editors Resources nations and indigenouspeoples Oxford University Press Melbourne Australia

Clarke P 1999 Park management planning in Africa Oryx 33(4)281-284

Clarke J E 2000 Protected area management planning Oryx 34(2)85-89

Cundill G and C Fabricius 2010 Monitoring thegovernance dimension of natural resource comanagementEcology and Society 15(1) 15 [online] URL httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol15iss1art15

Davidson-Hunt I J and F Berkes 2002 Nature and societythrough the lens of resilience toward a human-in-ecosystemperspective Pages 53-72 in F Berkes J Colding and CFolke editors Navigating social-ecological systems buildingresilience for complexity and change Cambridge UniversityPress Cambridge UK httpdxdoiorg101017CBO9780511541957006

Davies J 2003 Contemporary geographies of indigenousrights and interests in rural Australia Australian Geographer 34(1)19-45 httpdxdoiorg10108000049180320000066137

Davies J D Campbell M Campbell J Douglas HHueneke M LaFlamme D Pearson K Preuss J Walker


and F Walsh 2011 Attention to four key principles canpromote health outcomes from desert aboriginal landmanagement Rangeland Journal 33(4)417-431 httpdxdoiorg101071RJ11031

Dearden P M Bennett and J Johnston 2005 Trends inglobal protected area governance 1992-2002 EnvironmentalManagement 36(1)89-100 httpdxdoiorg101007s00267-004-0131-9

Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation Wearne Advisors and SMuller 2008 Dhimurru IPA plan of management 2008 to2015 Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation NhulunbuyNorthern Territory Australia [online] URL httpwwwdhimurrucomauuploads89368936577dhimurru_pom_2-008_to_2015_081221_l_respdf

Douglas J 2011 Learning from country the value ofindigenous language and culture programs in remote schoolsfor community engagement and natural resourcemanagement Ninti One Research Report 69 Ninti One AliceSprings Australia [online] URL httpwwwnintionecomauresourceNintiOneResearchReport_69_Thevalueofcountr-yvisitsinremoteschoolspdf

Dudley N 2008 Guidelines for applying protected areamanagement categories IUCN Gland Switzerland httpdxdoiorg102305IUCNCH2008PAPS2en

Dyson-Hudson R and E A Smith 1978 Humanterritoriality an ecological reassessment AmericanAnthropologist 80(1)21-41 httpdxdoiorg101525aa197880102a00020

Ellis J E and D M Swift 1988 Stability of African pastoralecosystems alternate paradigms and implications fordevelopment Journal of Range Management 41(6)450-459httpdxdoiorg1023073899515

Ens E-J P Cooke R Nadjamerrek S Namundja VGarlngarr and D Yibarbuk 2010 Combining aboriginal andnon-aboriginal knowledge to assess and manage feral waterbuffalo impacts on perennial freshwater springs of theaboriginal-owned Arnhem Plateau Australia EnvironmentalManagement 45(4)751-758 httpdxdoiorg101007s00267-010-9452-z

Ens E-J M Finlayson K Preuss S Jackson and SHolcombe 2012 Australian approaches for managinglsquocountryrsquo using indigenous and non-indigenous knowledgeEcological Management and Restoration 13(1)100-107httpdxdoiorg101111j1442-8903201100634x

Fabricius C C Folke G Cundill and L Schultz 2007Powerless spectators coping actors and adaptive co-managers a synthesis of the role of communities in ecosystemmanagement Ecology and Society 12(1) 29 [online] URLhttpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol12iss1art29

Fallding M 2000 What makes a good natural resourcemanagement plan Ecological Management and Restoration 1(3)185-194 httpdxdoiorg101046j1442-8903200000031x

Finn M and S Jackson 2011 Protecting indigenous valuesin water management a challenge to conventionalenvironmental flow assessments Ecosystems 14(8)1232-1248httpdxdoiorg101007s10021-011-9476-0

Gilligan B 2006 The indigenous protected areas program2006 evaluation Australian Government Department ofSustainability Environment Water Population andCommunities Canberra Australia [online] URL httpwwwenvironmentgovauindigenouspublicationsipa-evaluationhtml

Gorman J and S Vemuri 2012 Social implications ofbridging the gap through lsquocaring for countryrsquo in remoteindigenous communities of the Northern Territory AustraliaRangeland Journal 34(1)63-73 httpdxdoiorg101071RJ11037

Gorman J T P Whitehead A D Griffiths and L Petheram2008 Production from marginal lands indigenouscommercial use of wild animals in northern AustraliaInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and WorldEcology 15(3)240-250 httpdxdoiorg103843SusDev1537

Henrich J S J Heine and A Norenzayan 2010 Theweirdest people in the world Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2-3)61-83

Hibbard M M B Lane and K Rasmussen 2008 The splitpersonality of planning indigenous people and planning forland and resource management Journal of PlanningLiterature 23(2)136-151 httpdxdoiorg101177088541-2208322922

Hill R C Grant M George C J Robinson S Jackson andN Abel 2012 A typology of indigenous engagement inAustralian environmental management implications forknowledge integration and social-ecological systemsustainability Ecology and Society 17(1) 23 httpdxdoiorg105751ES-04587-170123

Hill R F Walsh J Davies and M Sandford 2011 Ourcountry our way guidelines for Australian indigenousprotected area management plans Australian GovernmentDepartment of Sustainability Environment WaterPopulation and Communities Canberra Australia [online]URL httpwwwenvironmentgovauindigenousipatoolkitmanagementhtml

Hoffmann B D S Roeger P Wise J Dermer BYunupingu D Lacey D Yunupingu B Marika M Marikaand B Panton 2012 Achieving highly successful multipleagency collaborations in a cross-cultural environment


experiences and lessons from Dhimurru AboriginalCorporation and partners Ecological Management andRestoration 13(1)42-50 httpdxdoiorg101111j1442-8903201100630x

Holcombe S P Yates and F Walsh 2011 Reinforcingalternative economies self-motivated work by centralAnmatyerr people to sell Katyerr (desert raisin bush tomato)in central Australia Rangeland Journal 33(3)255-265 httpdxdoiorg101071RJ10081

Holmes M C C and W (S P) Jampijinpa 2013 Law forcountry the structure of Warlpiri ecological knowledge andits application to natural resource management and ecosystemstewardship Ecology and Society in press

Hunt J 2010 Looking after country in New South Wales twocase studies of socioeconomic benefits for aboriginal peopleANU Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy ResearchWorking Paper No 752010 Centre for Aboriginal EconomicPolicy Research Canberra Australia [online] URL httpcaepranueduauPublicationsWP2010WP75php

Hunt J J Altman and K May 2009 Social benefits ofaboriginal engagement in natural resource managementANU Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy ResearchWorking Paper 602009 Centre for Aboriginal EconomicPolicy Research Canberra Australia [online] URL httpcaepranueduauPublicationsWP2009WP60php

Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) 2011 Annual report2010-11 Indigenous Land Corporation Adelaide Australia[online] URL httpwwwilcgovauwebdataresourcesfilesILC_Annual_Report_2010-11pdf

Ingold T 2000 The perception of the environment essays onlivelihood dwelling and skill Routledge Oxon UK

Innes J E and D E Booher 2010 Planning with complexityan introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy Routledge Oxon UK

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2009Indigenous and community conserved areas a bold newfrontier for conservation IUCN Geneva Switzerland[online] URL wwwiucnorgaboutunioncommissionsceesptopicsgovernanceicca

Keen I 2003 Aboriginal economy and society Australia atthe threshold of colonisation Oxford University Press SouthMelbourne Australia

Koenig J J Altman and A D Griffiths 2011 Indigenouslivelihoods and art income participation production andreturns from woodcarvings in Arnhem Land north AustraliaAustralian Geographer 42(4)351-369 httpdxdoiorg101080000491822011619952

Kothari A 2006 Community conserved areas Pages 549-573in M Lockwood G L Worboys and A Kothari editorsManaging protected areas a global guide EarthscanLondon UK

Kumar R 2005 Research methodology Pearson EducationAustralia Frenchs Forest Australia

Lane M B 2006 The role of planning in achievingindigenous land justice and community goals Land Use Policy 23(4)385-394 httpdxdoiorg101016jlandusepol200505001

Leverington F K L Costa H Pavese A Lisle and MHockings 2010 A global analysis of protected areamanagement effectiveness Environmental Management 46(5)685-698 httpdxdoiorg101007s00267-010-9564-5

Leverington F M T Hockings and K Lemos Costa 2008Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas - aglobal study Report for the project lsquoglobal study intomanagement effectiveness evaluation of protected areasrsquo TheUniversity of Queensland Gatton IUCN WCPA TNCWWF Australia [online] URL httpwwwwdpaorgMEPDFglobal_studypdf

Locke H and P Dearden 2005 Rethinking protected areacategories and the new paradigm EnvironmentalConservation 32(1)1-10 httpdxdoiorg101017S0376892905001852

Lockwood M 2006 Management planning Pages 292-327in M Lockwood G L Worboys and A Kothari editorsManaging protected areas a global guide EarthscanLondon UK

Lockwood M 2010 Good governance for terrestrialprotected areas a framework principles and performanceoutcomes Journal of Environmental Management 91(3)754-766 httpdxdoiorg101016jjenvman200910005

Luckert M K B M Campbell J T Gorman and S TGarnett editors 2007 Investing in indigenous naturalresource management Charles Darwin University PressDarwin Australia

Mandingalbay Yidinji Aboriginal Corporation (MYAC)2006 Strategic plan for Mandingalbay Yidinji country Mandingalbay Yidinji Aboriginal Corporation GordonvaleQueensland Australia

Marika R Y Yunupingu R Marika-Mununggiritj and SMuller 2009 Leaching the poison - the importance of processand partnership in working with Yolngu Journal of RuralStudies 25(4)404-413 httpdxdoiorg101016jjrurstud200905007

Maru Y T and V H Chewings 2011 A review ofmeasurement and causal analysis of indigenous poverty and


disadvantage in remote indigenous Australia CSIRO Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED)Working Paper Series Number 2011-02 CommonwealthScientific and Industrial Research Organisation ClaytonSouth Australia [online] URL httpwwwcsiroauresourcesSEED-paper-44html

Maru Y T and J Davies 2011 Supporting cross-culturalbrokers is essential for employment among aboriginal peoplein remote Australia Rangeland Journal 33(4)327-338 httpdxdoiorg101071RJ11022

Mearns R 1993 Territoriality and land tenure amongMongolian pastoralists variation continuity and changeNomadic Peoples (33)73-103 [online] URL httpcnpnonunivoxacukpdfNP_journal_back_issuesTerritoriality_and_land_tenure_among_Mongolian_pastoral-ists_R_Mearnspdf

Merlan F 1997 Fighting over country four commonplacesPages 1-14 in D E Smith and J Finlayson editors Fightingover country anthropological perspectives Centre forAboriginal Economic Policy Research Canberra Australia[online] URL httpcaepranueduausitesdefaultfilesPublicationsmonoCAEPR_Mono12pdf

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) 2003 Ecosystemsand human well-being a framework for assessment IslandPress Washington DC USA [online] URL httpwwwmillenniumassessmentorgenFrameworkaspx

Mollinga P P 2010 Boundary work and the complexity ofnatural resources management Crop Science 50(2)S1-S9

Moorcroft H E Ignjic S Cowell J Goonack SMangolomara J Oobagooma R Karadada D Williams andN Waina 2012 Conservation planning in a cross-culturalcontext the Wunambal Gaambera healthy country project inthe Kimberley western Australia Ecological Managementand Restoration 13(1)16-25 httpdxdoiorg101111j1442-8903201100629x

Morton S M Martin K Mahood and J Carty editors 2013Desert lake art science and stories from Paruku CSIROPublishing Melbourne Australia

Muller S 2008 Accountability constructions contestationsand implications insights from working in a Yolngu cross-cultural institution Australia Geography Compass 2(2)395-413 httpdxdoiorg101111j1749-8198200700087x

Muller S 2012 lsquoTwo waysrsquo bringing indigenous and non-indigenous knowledges together Pages 59-79 in J Weireditor Country native title and ecology Australian NationalUniversity e-press and Aboriginal History Incorporated(Monograph 24) Canberra Australia [online] URL http

epressanueduauappsbookwormviewcountry+native+title+and+ecology8681ch04html

Myers F R 1986 Pintupi country Pintupi self SmithsonianInstitute Press and Australian Institute of Aboriginal StudiesWashington DC USA and Canberra Australia

Nadasdy P 2003 Reevaluating the co-management successstory Arctic 56(4)367-380 [online] URL httparcticsynergiesprairiescaarcticindexphparcticarticleview634

Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2006 CAP (Conservation ActionPlanning) an adaptive management framework The NatureConservancy Arlington Virginia USA [online] URL httpconserveonlineorgworkspacescbdgatewaycappracticesindex_html

OFaircheallaigh C 2011 Use and management of revenuesfrom indigenous-mining company agreements theoreticalperspectives Working Paper Series No12011 AgreementsTreaties and Negotiated Settlements Project MelbourneAustralia [online] URL httpwwwatnsnetauatnsreferencesattachmentsATNSWP1_2011_OFaircheallaighpdf

Olsson P C Folke and F Berkes 2004 Adaptivecomanagement for building resilience in social-ecologicalsystems Environmental Management 34(1)75-90 httpdxdoiorg101007s00267-003-0101-7

Oltremari J V and K D Thelen 2003 Evolution of theplanning process for protected areas in Latin America NaturalAreas Journal 23(2)174-179

Paruku IPA 2010 Paruku IPA management plan 2010-2020Ngurra man martangangku marrkangu - keep your countryand your culture strong Paruku IPA Mulan office andBilliluna office Halls Creek Australia

Peterson N 2005 What can the pre-colonial and frontiereconomies tell us about engagement with the real economyIndigenous life projects and the conditions for developmentPages 7-18 in D Austin-Broos and G Macdonald editorsCulture economy and governance in aboriginal Australiaproceedings of a workshop of the Academy of the SocialSciences in Australia held at the University of Sydney 30November-1 December 2004 Sydney University PressSydney Australia

Phillips A 2003 Turning ideas on their head the newparadigm for protected areas George Wright Forum 20(2)11-32 [online] URL httpwwwuvmedu~snrsprngvermontpdf

Powell N 1998 Co-management in non-equilibrium systemscases from Namibian rangelands Dissertation SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden

Preuss K and M Dixon 2012 lsquoLooking after country two-waysrsquo insights into indigenous community-based conservation


from the southern Tanami Ecological Management andRestoration 13(1)2-15 httpdxdoiorg101111j1442-8903201100631x

Prober S M M H OConnor and F J Walsh 2011Australian aboriginal peoplesrsquo seasonal knowledge apotential basis for shared understanding in environmentalmanagement Ecology and Society 16(2) 12 [online] URLhttpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol16iss2art12

Raymond C M B A Bryan D H MacDonald A Cast SStrathearn A Grandgirard and T Kalivas 2009 Mappingcommunity values for natural capital and ecosystem servicesEcological Economics 68(5)1301-1315 httpdxdoiorg101016jecolecon200812006

Ritchie D 2009 Things fall apart the end of an era ofsystematic indigenous fire management Pages 23-40 in JRussell-Smith P Whitehead and P Cooke editors Cultureecology and economy of fire management in north Australiansavannas rekindling the Wurrk tradition CSIRO PublishingMelbourne Australia

Robinson C J D Smyth and P J Whitehead 2005 Bushtucker bush pets and bush threats cooperative managementof feral animals in Australiarsquos Kakadu National ParkConservation Biology 19(5)1385-1391 httpdxdoiorg101111j1523-1739200500196x

Robinson C J and T J Wallington 2012 Boundary workengaging knowledge systems in co-management of feralanimals on indigenous lands Ecology and Society 17(2) 16httpdxdoiorg105751ES-04836-170216

Rodgers C 2010 Yalata Indigenous Protected Area draftMERI plan - monitoring evaluation reporting improvement2011-2016 Draft 2 Prepared by Carla Rogers of EvolveCommunities for Yalata Community Incorporated YalataSouth Australia [online] URL httpwwwenvironmentgovauindigenousipatoolkitpubsmeri-yalatapdf

Rose D B 1996 Nourishing terrains Australian aboriginalviews of landscape and wilderness Australian HeritageCommission Canberra Australia [online] URL httpwwwenvironmentgovauheritageahcpublicationscommissionbookspubsnourishing-terrainspdf

Ross H C Grant C J Robinson A Izurieta D Smyth andP Rist 2009 Co-management and indigenous protected areasin Australia achievements and ways forward AustralasianJournal of Environmental Management 16(4)242-252

Schultz L A Duit and C Folke 2011 Participationadaptive co-management and management performance inthe world network of Biosphere Reserves World Development 39(4)662-671 httpdxdoiorg101016jworlddev201009014

Sithole B H Hunter-Xenie L Williams J SaegenschnitterD Yibarbuk M Ryan O Campion B Yunupingu M Liddy

E Watts C Daniels G Daniels P Christophersen VCubillo E Phillips W Marika D Jackson and W Barbour2008 Aboriginal land and sea management in the Top Enda community-driven evaluation CSIRO Darwin Australia[online] URL wwwcsiroaufilesfilesplccpdf

Smith M Stafford 2008 The lsquodesert syndromersquo causally-linked factors that characterise outback Australia RangelandJournal 30(1)3-14

Smith D and J Hunt 2011 Understanding and engagingwith indigenous governance research evidence andpossibilities for a dialogue with Australian governmentsJournal of Australian Indigenous Issues 14(2-3)30-53

Smyth D 2007 Dhimurru Indigenous Protected Area solemanagement with partners Pages 100-126 in T Bauman andD Smyth editors Indigenous partnerships in protected areamanagement in Australia three case studies AustralianInstitute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander StudiesCanberra Australia

Smyth D 2008 Just add water Taking indigenous protectedareas into sea country Pages 95-110 in D Smyth and G Wardeditors Protecting country indigenous governance andmanagement of protected areas Proceedings of the AIATSISConference 2007 Australian Institute of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Studies Canberra Australia [online]URL httpwwwaiatsisgovauresearchpublicationsProtectingCountry8pdf

Smyth D 2011 Review of working on country and indigenousprotected area programs through telephone interviews finalreport Smyth and Bahrdt Consultants Atherton Australia[online] URL httpwwwenvironmentgovauindigenousworkingoncountrypublicationswoc-interviewshtml

Stanner W E H 1965 Aboriginal territorial organizationestate range domain and regime Oceania 36(1)1-26

Steering Committee for the Review of Government ServiceProvision (SCRGSP) 2011 Overcoming indigenousdisadvantage key indicators 2011 Productivity CommissionCanberra Australia [online] URL httpwwwpcgovau__dataassetspdf_file0018111609key-indicators-2011-reportpdf

Stoll-Kleemann S 2010 Evaluation of managementeffectiveness in protected areas methodologies and resultsBasic and Applied Ecology 11(5)377-382 httpdxdoiorg101016jbaae201006004

Sutton P 1998a Icons of country topographic representationof classical aboriginal traditions Pages 352-386 in DWoodward and G M Lewis editors The history ofcartography cartography in the traditional AfricanAmerican Arctic Australian and Pacific societies Universityof Chicago Press Chicago Illinois USA [online] URL http


wwwpressuchicagoedubooksHOCHOC_V2_B3HOC_VOLUME2_Book3_chapter9pdf

Sutton P 1998b Native title and the descent of rights National Native Title Tribunal Perth Australia

Szabo S and D Smyth 2003 Indigenous protected areas inAustralia incorporating ondigenous owned land intoAustralias national system of protected areas Pages 145-164in H Jaireth and D Smyth editors Innovative governanceindigenous peoples local communities and protected areasAne Books New Delhi India

Taylor A S Larson N Stoeckl and D Carson 2011 Thehaves and have nots in Australiarsquos tropical north newperspectives on a persisting problem Geographical Research 49(1)13-22 httpdxdoiorg101111j1745-5871201000648x

Thackway R S Szabo and D Smyth 1996 Indigenousprotected areas a new concept in biodiversity conservationPages 18-34 in R Longmore editor Biodiversity broadeningthe debate 4 Australian Nature Conservation AgencyCanberra Australia

Thomas L and J Middleton 2003 Guidelines formanagement planning of protected areas World Commissionon Protected Areas best practice protected area guidelinesseries No 10 IUCN Gland Switzerland

Tobias T 2010 Living proof the essential data collectionguide for indigenous land use and occupancy map surveys Ecotrust Canada Vancouver British Columbia Canada

Walker J 2011 Processes for effective management learningfrom the northern Tanami IPA Dissertation School of SocialPolicy Charles Darwin University Darwin Australia

Walsh F 2009 To hunt and to hold Martu aboriginal peoplesuses and knowledge of their country with implications for co-management in Karlamilyi (Rudall River) National Park andthe Great Sandy Desert western Australia DissertationDepartment of Anthropology and Department of PlantBiology University of Western Australia Perth Australia

Walsh F J Davies and R Hill 2011 Report of workshopto develop national guidelines for indigenous protected areaplans Alice Springs Desert Park June 2010 [CD-ROM]CSIRO and the Department of Sustainability EnvironmentWater Population and Communities Canberra Australia

Walsh F and P Mitchell editors 2002 Planning forcountry cross-cultural approaches to decision making onaboriginal lands Jukurrpa BooksIAD Press Alice SpringsAustralia

Warddeken Land Management Ltd (WLM) 2010 Annualreport 2009-10 Warddekan Land Management LtdKabulwarnamyo Northern Territory Australia [online]

URL httpcaepranueduausitesdefaultfilescck_misc_documents201101Warddeken20AR202009-201020webpdf

Waylen K A A Fischer P J K McGowan S J Thirgoodand E J Milner-Gulland 2010 Effect of local cultural contexton the success of community-based conservationinterventions Conservation Biology 24(4)1119-1129 httpdxdoiorg101111j1523-1739201001446x

West P and D Brockington 2006 An anthropologicalperspective on some unexpected consequences of protectedareas Conservation Biology 20(3)609-616 httpdxdoiorg101111j1523-1739200600432x

Whitehead P J P Purdon J Russell-Smith P M Cookeand S Sutton 2008 The management of climate changethrough prescribed savanna burning emerging contributionsof indigenous people in northern Australia PublicAdministration and Development 28(5)374-385 httpdxdoiorg101002pad512

Wilson G R M J Edwards and J K Smits 2010 Supportfor indigenous wildlife management in Australia to enablesustainable use Wildlife Research 37256-263

Wilson G R A Knight and L Liddle 2004 Increasing thenumbers of wildlife preferred by aboriginal communities inthe Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands Australia Game and WildlifeScience 21(4)687-695 [online] URL httpwwwawtcomauwp-contentuploads200906Game-Science-paper-on-AP-Wildlife-mgtpdf

Wilson G R M Pickering and G Kay 2005 Angas DownsIndigenous Protected Area plan of management Report toLisanote Pty Ltd Australian Wildlife Services CanberraAustralia

Wilson G R and M Woodrow 2009 Kuka kanyiniAustralian indigenous adaptive management Pages 117-141in C Allan and G H Stankey editors Adaptive environmentalmanagement a practitioners guide Springer Science andBusiness Dordrecht The Netherlands and CSIRO PublishingCollingwood Australia

Woodward E 2008 Social networking for aboriginal landmanagement in remote northern Australia AustralasianJournal of Environmental Management 15(4)241-252 httpdxdoiorg10108014486563200810648753

Young E 1987 Resettlement and caring for the country theAnmatyerre experience Aboriginal History 11156-170


Fig 1 Location of declared indigenous protected areas (IPA) and IPA Consultation Projects (proposals) May 2012 withnames of IPAs and proposals mentioned in the text

systems (Berkes 2009a) This recognition is consistent with aglobal paradigm shift in protected area governance over thepast two decades toward greater involvement of indigenouspeople and other local communities (Phillips 2003 Deardenet al 2005)

An IPA is defined by the Australian Government as an ldquoareaof land andor sea over which the indigenous traditional

owners or custodians have entered into a voluntary agreementwith the Australian Government for the purposes of promotingbiodiversity and cultural resource conservationrdquo (Hill et al20111) Indigenous representatives have defined IPAsdifferently in their engagements with Australian policy inways that do not rely on government recognition (Szabo andSmyth 2003 Hill et al 2011) However the governmentdefinition is very pertinent to our focus on the form and content




































































Acknowledgments

































































































































































































































Acknowledgments























































































































































































































Acknowledgments














































































































































































































Acknowledgments







































































































































































































Acknowledgments































































































































































































Acknowledgments






















































































































































































Acknowledgments












































































































































































Acknowledgments





































































































































































Acknowledgments























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Innovation in management plans for community conserved areas: experiences from Australian indigenous protected areas

Documents