Our life-cycle is constructed from the point ... The next section describes the four stage life-cycle of a .... connecting to a server to download the worm, or setting up a ..... (21,111,515). No. Cheese. No. Yes (10008). Lion. Back- door. IN-2001-05
Small-Scale Catch in Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Taiwan. 38. Figure 5-5: Artisanal ... Given our personal experience we found Fishing for Answers: Making Sense of the Global Fish Crisis compelling. ... of the Global Fish Crisis, helps answer
Mar 7, 2014 - services, including recreational capacity, are provided. In this forum ..... Anderson et al. 2008; Hsieh et al. ... be simple and rigid for effective law enforcement. This problem .... Reservoir, Harlan County Lake, Harry Strunk Lake [M
Apr 25, 2016 - with human society (Lubchenco, 1998; Bright and Porter, 2001; Liu et al., 2007). Humans have harvested ..... interaction with other predatory species, or other food-web dynamics. This action prop- .... segment, or local region as a man
propriate test due to the skewed and sparse data sam- ples typical of this problem. Both theoretical and experimental comparisons between Fisher's exact test and a variety of asymptotic tests (the t-test, Pearson's chi-square test, and ..... 13th Nat
Dec 2, 1999 - multiply-redundant bit-serial processing elements using a variety of fault-tolerant strategies;. â¢ memory cells; ... over long distances. The ultimate limit is the speed of light, but a much more .... term 'very large' used to mean an
Aug 29, 2018 - With regard to the web, we profit from the StartPage9 search engine for finding documents ... 9www.startpage.com ...... The Stanford CoreNLP.
You will lose points for writing material unrelated to the answer so think ... 2. Strategic dumping: Dumping based on a protected domestic market and .... Second World War era the domestic politics of international trade in the ... relative decline o
microstimulation ( 66 ms), and they persist in full form enigma. In this issue of Neuron, Graziano et al. (2002) under anesthesia, albeit less consistently. The micro ...
Festival, where a film she had appeared in premiered, and ...... North Carolina at Chapel Hill genetically ... el for evolution to stick old people with can- cer, but as ...
facilitated the rapid ascent of zebrafish as a model system, particular for vascular .... challenges ahead will be to define the substrates of NatC and delineate the .... Sumanas S, Lin S. Ets1-related protein is a key regulator of vasculo- genesis i
Community (Network of Excellence NeuroPrion). Work in the Harris laboratory is supported by grants from the US National Institutes of. Health (NS052526 and ...
It is relatively simple to understand evolution of preferences for characters ...... compartir mi vida, por hacerme querer ser una persona mejor, por animarme.
7 Mar 2005 - 1 Coreference Resolution for Extracting Answers: COREA ..... regio in een kwart eeuw trof en had een kracht van 7,9 op de schaal van Richter.
Reduce R-well by making low resistance contact to GND well by making low resistance contact to GND. 10 ... (a) Electrical charge is considered as fluid, which can move from one place to another depending on the difference in their level, of ..... Ans
Mining Answers for Causation Questions. Roxana Girju and Dan Moldovan. University of Texas at Dallas ... of many natural language processing researchers in the last decade. The automatic identification of semantic .... inferencing that can be drawn i
Preliminary analysis supports a number of propositions: (1) There is a substantial variation of knowledge sourcing strategies from individual to individual. Some individuals ... Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of
for semistructured data have been proposed [6, 11, 1, 4, 10] that, like SQL, can be seen as .... space" . Furthermore, aggregated answers make advanced query answering forms .... .Î¼(x)G An( A ) wheneverQcontains the labeling constraint A (x), . (Î¼(
trophic cascade predictions for fisheries to include behavioral changes. They also ... Keywords: fishing, coral reef, food web, behavior, indirect effects, trophic cascade. ... mediated ecological effects of marine predator declines. This framework .
When E(X|T = t) is nonincreasing in t, bigger fish are easier to catch. ..... birds. It seems that certain birds are systematic foragers, that is they are active in their.
Jun 10, 1982 - Unit FISH-1. 2. EU contract FISH/2004/011 on âSport Fisheriesâ (or Marine Recreational Fisheries) in the EU ..... consultation process that took place in the UK throughout most of the project period, as part ...... fish for more th
Newell and Sanchirico are Fellows at Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, and Kerr is Director and Senior. Fellow at .... prices of perpetual quota sales and annual quota leases relative to measures of the market rate of .... reporting procedure
ficient sarcomerogenesis, because most mutations found in human HCM patients affect genes encoding sarcomeric proteins. silent heart (sil) is another example ...
e-mail: [email protected] Biodiesel is a renewable, ... in coastal seas. In contrast, fishing boat fuel B, which is similar to. ASTM No. 6 diesel and thus bears ...
Page 321, Nursey-Bray: Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge in Northern Australia
FISHING FOR ANSWERS THE INCORPORATION OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE IN NORTHERN AUSTRALIA: DEVELOPING CROSS CULTURAL LITERACY MELISSA NURSEY-BRAY Task Leader, Indigenous Hunting Project Centre for Co-operative Reef Research, Townsville Queensland Australia 4810 Tel: +61 740 421 386 Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT In northern Australia, traditional indigenous hunting of turtle and dugong species continues to be a vital part of cultural practice, yet daily attracts media controversy. Both turtle and dugong species have experienced documented declines in the last two decades. A community hunting planning and management initiative in Hopevale community, (now in the process of implementation) was established in 1999 to address some of these concerns and improve the sustainability of hunting practice. This initiative includes the imposition of a locally-decided quota for turtle and dugong take, and a restricted hunting season. This paper argues that the successful implementation of such initiatives necessitates the incorporation of entire cultural perspectives in a two way management process, and the development of multicultural literacy and tool boxes to facilitate effective co- and collaborative natural resource management regimes. Reconciliation of these dynamics is discussed in terms of the ways that local cultural institutions inhibit and/or enhance opportunities for sustainable management and harvest. The stronger the community input and implementation of local knowledge in such contexts, the more effective species management will be. INTRODUCTION “While working with indigenous hunters in the Aboriginal community of Hopevale in Queensland Australia, debate occurred over the inclusion of a ‘protection of cruelty’ section in the hunting management plan we were working on. Hopevale hunters argued that this section must include a clause stating that turtles once caught must be butchered while alive and on the beach. Despite having worked with indigenous people for a while, and thinking myself ‘culturally in tune’ I was upset by this idea. However it was pointed out to me that within indigenous culture, to kill a turtle
and then butcher it was to deprive it of an essential right – that to life. It is only through live butchering that the turtle’s spirit, through its blood can be returned to the ancestors and the sea.” This quote reflects an essential difference in perspective between ‘western’ and indigenous groups when coming together in collaborative management programs, and exemplifies the need for both parties to acknowledge such difference in order to achieve real conservation and cultural protection gains. Reconciling and managing the impact of human use of a species achieves the dual goals of species conservation and indigenous and cultural rights to that species and is an essential management dilemma worldwide. This paper explores some of the facets of this issue in an evaluation of an Australian indigenous planning exercise designed to manage both human impact on the two threatened species of the Green turtle and the dugong in Australia, while maintaining cultural hunting practices. I argue that the incorporation of indigenous knowledge within management entails the inclusion not only of the culturally charismatic aspects of culture but those that are culturally uncomfortable. The paper is divided into three sections: (i) a brief Australian context (ii) a discussion of the case study and, (iii) an analysis of lessons learned and their implications for future management.
“A Thumbnail Sketch….”
The last decade has been a dynamic one for Australia. Australians have been both challenged and confronted by the politics of self determination and emancipation, on the heels of the legacy left by colonial racial oppression that is deeply embedded in the psyche of indigenous Australia. The declaration of ‘Terra nullius’ or ‘land of no people’ by Captain Cook, in 1788, gave a mandate for ‘white’ Australians, to ignore indigenous rights. Disease, economic oppression, assimilation, massacres; the establishment of missions and accompanying suppression of cultural practice, the removal of children from their families are all hallmarks of the Australian aboriginal experience (Pearson, N: 2000, Folds, R:1993). The High Court “Mabo” decision of 1992 overturned the concept of Terra Nullius and heralded a new era of ‘reconciliation’ and recognition for indigenous Australians. The response has included the enactment of new and amendments to existing legislation such as the
Putting Fishers’ Knowledge to Work– Conference Proceedings, Page 322
Native Title Act (Cwlth 1993), and the establishment of Inquiries and commissions such as the ‘Deaths in Custody Inquiry’ and the ‘Reconciliation Commission’ (Nettheim, G. 2001). The “Sorry” movement, which has induced Australians everywhere to apologise to indigenous peoples for the removal of their children or the ‘stolen generation’, and recent films such as Radiance, Rabbit-proof Fence and One Night the Moon illustrate the extent to which public awareness and appreciation of indigenous issues has changed. In the field of resource management these changes have been expressed in growing Aboriginal involvement in and control over land and sea country, national parks, and ranger training programs (Draft Resolutions 2001). Indigenous protected areas and indigenous land use agreements are being piloted and implemented across the country (Langton et al. 2000). The successful determination and return of lands to Aboriginal owners under State and Federal land and Native Title legislation mean that co-management has become more than a catch phrase. It is now a serious management option. In the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage region in North Queensland, co-management options are crucial management alternatives. Six of the seven species of turtle in the world are found along the reef (Zann and Sutton 1995; Limpus 1995). The region also boasts one of the world’s most important dugong populations. (Marsh 1999). Moreover as the largest marine protected area in the world, (345,000 square kilometers), the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority GBRMPA, (the Commonwealth government statutory management agency for the reef), has the responsibility of managing the area responsibly and in perpetuity. It is also responsible for juggling the different demands of its multiple users (GBRMPA 1994). For the seventeen indigenous communities residing adjacent to the reef, and which use the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, dugongs and turtle are the most highly valued traditional foods (Thompson 1934; Smyth 1997; Benzaken et al. 1997). Moreover, hunting is a very real expression of cultural practice. However, in this World Heritage area, which is cloaked with environmental glamour, indigenous hunting is often perceived as disturbing the vision of ‘a wild aquamarine paradise’ touted by the tourist brochures. To green and animal rights activists, hunting endangered animals is not part of the environmental equation.
In this context, the development of co-operative management arrangements for turtle and dugong hunting is recognised as a significant first step towards indigenous people managing their own land and sea country, as well as contributing towards effective strategies for species management (Benzaken et al; 1997). Accordingly, the GBRMPA has instituted a number of co-management initiatives along the coast relating to indigenous peoples hunting practice within the GBRWHA (GBRMPA 2001). One of these, the indigenous hunting management and planning exercise at Hopevale community, is used as a case study in this paper. CASE STUDY
Guugu Yimmithirr Bama ii: Turtle and Dugong Hunting Management Plan, Hopevale Aboriginal Community, North Queensland.
Hopevale is a community allocated north west of Cooktown. It has a local population of approximately 1,200 (HVAC 2002). Within the community there are thirty seven clan groups and the language is Guugu Yimmithirr (Smith 1987). Originally established as a Lutheran Mission, it is now a dynamic community, run by a local council of seven members, and funded through a variety of programs and initiatives. As for most indigenous people living along the tropical Australian coast, hunting turtle and dugong is an important part of their cultural, social, and economic life (Haviland and Haviland 1980; Smith 1997; Chase and Sutton 1987). The allocation in 1998 by GBRMPA of a grant to develop a hunting management plan was the culmination of a three-year community driven consultation coordinated through the Hopevale Land and Resource Management office (P Gibson, pers comm 2001). Priscilla Gibson was the Indigenous Ranger coordinator from Hopevale who initiated and managed the development of the Hunting Plan process and publication. This consultation identified the hunters’ main areas of concern and formed the basis of the final planning document. This case study review discusses three important dimensions of the planning exercise.
Dimensions of the planning exercise 1. Community Involvement
Community involvement in the plan was secured through several mechanisms aimed at: a) Incorporating local knowledge about hunting practice and species; and b) Maximising community ownership.
Page 323, Nursey-Bray: Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge in Northern Australia
Children were brought into the process through an art competition that required them to draw images of hunting, which were then included as a backdrop to the final documents produced. Prizes for the winner of each grade were given at a special assembly. Children were also involved in the launching of the plan, singing hunting songs and a community barbecue afterwards. A display of all artwork and images as part of a community anniversary celebration built up community awareness about hunting. Elders were continually consulted. They gave crucial input to the plan itself, blessed meetings, gave talks to government agencies and helped facilitate and launch community meetings. Finally, a series of meetings was convened with various interest groups including hunters, women, and land title and management agencies – and the Hopevale Council, all of whom had a say and input into the various stages of the plan. The entire process aimed to involve rather than consult the community members. As such, it helped facilitate not only their interest and ownership, but charged the process with an integrity that reflected back to the managing agencies the seriousness of community commitment to this enterprise.
The cultural sensitivities of the hunting process and associated Native Title issues were considered to ensure that several protocol documents and processes were developed. This included a document briefing their consultant on a plan of action, and written endorsements from key community individuals and agencies of the plan and its contents at all stages of its development. Following a series of meetings, a Turtle and Dugong Hunting Management Council was established. Constituent members included representatives from across the community. This Council is the body that now implements the plan, decides on issues of conflict regarding breaches of it, and acts as the point of contact between management agencies and the community on hunting issues.
3. ‘Reverse’ consultation
Finally, a reverse consultation process was used. In contrast to the convention where management agencies employ a consultant to write a plan and then consult the community, Hopevale employed a consultant to do this, and then consulted the agencies. A meeting was held where invitees from various departments and interest groups, (including conservation groups)
came together and gave their input into the plan. This included discussion of aspects of the plan that made agencies and scientists uncomfortable, but that they needed to engage with if they were serious in committing to a comanagement or community based wildlife management program. In engaging both indigenous and agency representatives, this process revealed interesting differences between perspectives. For example, management agency staff supported the process of consultation, but at times expressed discomfort with the extent to which the process was being run independently of their own operations. The ways in which indigenous people conduct and have meetings, and achieve outcomes is very different from conventional bureaucratic approaches. In some cases the differences between clan groups and Native Title Land Councils caused friction, as even amongst the indigenous peoples involved there was a spectrum of opinion and difference that needed careful navigation.
In determining the contents of the plan, several ‘bottom line’ principles were mutually agreed upon early on in the process. Crucially this included a decision to work within existing legislation; an interesting choice given a recent Australian High Court determination – the ‘Yanner’ decision had provided precedent for indigenous peoples to choose to manage their hunting through the exercise of native title rights. Secondly, the community decided to continue with the quota and allocation approach previously established. It was also decided to have both maintenance of hunting practice and protection of the species as a joint and primary aim, embodied ultimately in the plan’s vision statement. Finally, the community was very clear that the plan should in no way impinge on, or negatively affect, future Native Title rights or opportunities. Overall, the final contents of the plan (see Box 1) attempted to maintain a balance between upholding cultural practice and adherence to the legislative requirements. Much heated discussion over content occurred between all parties, resulting in a process of reconciliation of differences over key areas. Issues included questions such as whether there should be a quota or not? Can hunting occur anyway? Does the government have the right to decide on issues that will impact cultural rights? Should there be a Prevention of Cruelty clause?
Putting Fishers’ Knowledge to Work– Conference Proceedings, Page 324
To what extent should tradition take heed of ‘science’ regarding the target species? Some of the traditional hunting areas overlapped with ‘no take’ zones in the park, leading to much discussion over who should give way on this issue. Given the intricate web of relationships between various members of the community and the managing agencies, the exertion of control over, and punishment of illegal hunting was one of the greatest points of disagreement. Such discussion frequently illustrated the difference between cultural perspectives on management. The issues of enforcement and penalties were especially difficult to solve (see Purnomo this vol). These still remain the most difficult points of reconciliation between indigenous peoples and agencies involved in the issue of hunting, exacerbated by the dialectic between animal rights and cultural rights that underlie any discussion or action in this arena. Debate over the content also reflected the extent to which agency staff were more comfortable with the culturally ‘charismatic’ aspects of hunting rather than those that are less ‘palatable’. For example, agency staff and scientists could not understand why the plan did not include ‘stories’, and ‘ethno-biological’ knowledge about turtle and dugong, as this is what represented (to them) appropriate inclusion of the cultural aspects. These discussions also revealed that the agency perspective did not always recognise that in determining to stay within the existing legislative frameworks, the community was from the very beginning accepting a situation that they found culturally ‘unpalatable’. In their view, the decision to stay within the legislative and therefore cultural mores of a society widely viewed as having suppressed indigenous people for centuries, was a ‘big call’. It has been at the stage of implementation that the differences in perspective between agency and indigenous approaches have produced most strain. It is at this point that the ‘warm and fuzzy’ stage of the planning process abruptly terminates and the real negotiation of issues
occurs. This is a process complicated further by community politics, the political and economic imperatives of government and the reality that each party approaches implementation completely differently. For example, the political situation has reflected that the rhetoric of support for indigenous hunting rights is not matched by reality. Events such as the Australian position on Indigenous whaling in the year 2000 International Whaling Commission meeting in Australia, and subsequent Federal government support for a whale sanctuary; have revealed a contradiction between support for local community based initiatives, and the political imperative to satisfy public reproach and indignation regarding hunting generally. The turtle hunting ban imposed by the Federal Minister during 2001 and ongoing negotiations over dugong sanctuaries along the Great Barrier Reef, has underlined the irony of this situation. In this context, it is difficult for management agencies to successfully pursue co-management initiatives without exciting indigenous cynicism. This is particularly challenging when operating within a native title landscape. Overall, this has had major implications for the implementation of hunting management plans such as that at Hopevale, mainly evinced through delays in the issuing of permits, and insufficient resourcing of the implementation process. In turn, community confusion over government processes and internal politics between clan groups regarding hunting responsibilities has further complicated this situation. It is clear that putting co-management or community wildlife management into practice is much harder than supporting its conceptual articulation. The ongoing evolution of the implementation of this and other such initiatives will be a test of the commitment of both parties to working together within these different cultural approaches, to broker efficient outcomes within the context of these different perspectives – and competing political imperatives each sustain.
Page 325, Nursey-Bray: Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge in Northern Australia
Box 1. Guugu Yimmithirr Bama Wii: Turtle and Dugong Hunting Management Plan Vision: To develop and implement controlled and sustainable hunting practices that will minimise the impact on and may contribute to the protection and survival of Dugong (Girrbithi) and Turtle (Ngawiya) species for the enjoyment and use of future generations Aims 1. To develop controlled indigenous hunting regimes for Dugong and Turtle through careful planning monitoring and management 2. To protect dugong and turtle habitat by managing the activities carried out on the land and sea by both traditional owners and visitors according to the desires of the traditional owners 3. To maintain the activity, knowledge and skill of traditional hunting for turtle and dugong, ensuring that this important cultural activity is continued through future generations 4. To assist the community to develop and reinstate customary laws to manage traditional hunting in conjunction with state and Commonwealth legislation 5. To revitalise respect for the law and sea management aspiration of individual clan grope, and identify ways in which these groups can work together to ensure the survival and prosperity of dugong and turtles Other sections include:• Zoning restrictions • Community Hunting license and conditions • Compliance and communication • Permit penalties • Management group roles and responsibilities • Cultural and natural resource management office • Boating license and registration • Safety equipment • Details of catch • Prevention of cruelty • Seasonal hunting, • Weddings, birthday parties and funerals • Transportation of meat to other communities • Turtle eggs • Pregnant dugong and calves • Barter and exchange • Community education strategy • Recommendations • Summarised from; Hopevale Aboriginal Council and Nursey-Bray, M (1999) A Guugu Yimmithirr Bama Wii; Girrbithi and Ngawiya, Turtle and Dugong Hunting Management Plan, Hopevale Council Implementation The plan was finally launched in November 1999, and subsequently attracted national attention when it was nominated for and won the Prime Ministers Environmental Award for Community Leadership and Environmental Sustainability, 2000. The Pew Foundation, the Australian Research Council, James Cook University, the GBRMPA and Hopevale Community Council have funded the subsequent implementation of this plan over its first and second seasons, with its third currently underway. Plan implementation has included (i) the allocation of permits by the community, (ii) the establishment of ranger patrols and camps to monitor hunting progress, (iii) a reporting process for take that goes back to the agencies (and which includes information about the species caught - sex, age, number, gender place caught, when etc), and (iv) the imposition of a restricted hunting season. The Turtle and Dugong Hunting Management Council is scheduled to meet during each hunting period and to liaise between agency staff and the community on hunting matters, including breaches of the plan, and to reach decision on penalties.
DISCUSSION – DEVELOPING CROSS CULTURAL LITERACY
Indigenous peoples in Australia are very diverse and it would be inappropriate to deduce that the process of planning management that worked in Hopevale would automatically work elsewhere. Nonetheless there are a number of lessons that can be drawn from this case study that bear consideration for future initiatives. Reconciling human need and cultural affiliation, with the biological and ecological needs of the target species is a key challenge. In this context, the concepts of ‘rights’, ‘access’ and ‘equity’,
compete strongly with the discourse about the values of ‘wilderness’, ‘pristineness’ and ‘animal rights’. The importance of local knowledge and involvement in management programs is well illustrated. The need to build mutual trust between management agencies and local peoples - and between groups within the local communities - is vital (Merculieff 1994). In order to broker real collaborations and comanagement; mutual trust, cross cultural respect and commitment to the project at hand must exist. This means developing programs that
Putting Fishers’ Knowledge to Work– Conference Proceedings, Page 326
are characterised by a real and respectful engagement with each other. The need to develop flexible mechanisms that take into account differences in cultural perspective is crucial. This includes the engagement with and incorporation of the entire cultural perspective. In this case study, this may mean incorporating the culturally uncomfortable aspects of that engagement. For example (a) management agencies must come to accept and understand culturally uncomfortable practices such as turtle butchering, as quoted earlier, and (b) indigenous peoples, in turn, must recognise that some of the species they hunt are threatened and take appropriate action. To facilitate the incorporation of local knowledge we need to develop multicultural literacy or a ‘multi cultural toolbox’ (Jacobs and Mulvihill 1995). Through the development of multiculturally literate resource management systems we avoid the trap of reducing traditional value systems and perspectives into fragmented ‘facts’ of utilitarian value for ‘appropriation’ and exploitation as seen fit. Howitt (2001) notes that this approach will need to include an acknowledgment and practice of three aspects: (i) ways of seeing (ii) ways of thinking and (iii) ways of knowing. It will also need to include a shift in our understanding of what ‘local’ and ‘cultural’ knowledge is. It entails restructuring and renegotiation of the different layers engrained within ‘knowledge’ such as sacred/secret knowledge, male/female knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge, song, stories, experience, laws (tribal or otherwise), cultural mores and social traditions, ideological orientation (Johannes 1989). In Australia ‘knowledge‘ also comprises the historical appreciation of the history of racial division it has experienced and understandings that the current social and economic conditions prevailing in indigenous communities significantly influence environmental management regimes, and their ultimate success or failure. Drawing a curtain over the past does not make it disappear, and serious engagement by management needs to accept the history and politics from which these initiatives have burgeoned. The case study used in this paper is a reflection of the important first steps that indigenous communities and management agencies in Australia are taking towards the facilitation of
multi-culturally literate resource management in ways that involve and acknowledge the vitality and importance of the community contribution. In the broader context, this case study is important because it unmasks the ‘apoliticising’ or ‘green washing’ about the environment that occurs in so much of the public debate about it. Land and sea management is, and will remain, an essential and political struggle for accession by different stakeholders, a whirlpool of emotion and political connections. At its heart, this example illuminates the fundamental relationship between power and knowledge, and how management regimes must be cognisant and familiar with these relationship dynamics in order to succeed. There are approximately 5,000 indigenous / tribal local groups in the world, comprising up to 200 million people and 4% of the global population, yet these groups represent in between 90 – 95% of the world cultural diversity (Howitt 2001). In this context, it makes sense culturally, ecologically, legally, scientifically and in terms of management to support and incorporate indigenous and local peoples aspirations for sea country. The advantages of such incorporation are many. They include decreased impact on the species concerned accompanied by an increased involvement in management by the communities and individuals most affected. Such approaches strengthen the maintenance of cultural integrity, and increase the visibility and viability of different cultural approaches. Finally, and of greatest advantage, is that such as an approach enhances the development of diverse and culturally appropriate management regimes. The development of such regimes is not only cost effective but also ensures a more holistic general management orientation. If the bottom line is sustainability, then management should be able to ensure the maintenance of both cultural practice, while protecting the species for future generations. As Chief Tom Happynook (2000), concludes in relation to whaling; “The issue is not about whether or not to hunt; it is about sustainable use; if the use is sustainable then protecting endangered wildlife and maintaining cultural practice are perfectly compatible”. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professor Helene Marsh James Cook University for making it possible to work at Hopevale, and for editing my work.
Page 327, Nursey-Bray: Incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge in Northern Australia
I would like to thank the Cooperative Research Centre for Reef Research (CRC Reef), Townsville, Australia for supporting my project. My supervisors Professor Helen Ross of the University of Queensland and Associate Professor Steve Turton, James Cook University for their support and advice. I would like to acknowledge the staff at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for its support in the research, and comment on the draft. Finally I would like to thank and acknowledge the community of Hopevale Aboriginal community and all the people I have worked with there for their insight, wisdom and sharing their knowledge: thank you to you all. REFERENCES Benzaken, D., Smith, G., & Williams, R. (1997) “A long way together: The recognition of indigenous interests in the management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area”. In D. Wachenfeld, J. Oliver and K.Davis, (Eds) State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Workshop Proceedings, GBRMPA Workshop Series No. 22, pp 471 495, GBRMPA, Townsville Chase, A. & Sutton, P. (1987) “Australian Aborigines in a Rich Environment”. In W.H. Edwards (Ed) Traditional Aboriginal Society: A reader, Mac Millan, Melbourne Draft Resolutions (2001) 3rd Indigenous Ranger Conference Gulkulum 26 – 29 August 2000. Folds, R (1993) ‘Assimilation by any name…Why the Federal government ‘s attempts to achieve social justice for indigenous Australians will not succeed’ in Australian Aboriginal Studies No 1 1993 GBRMPA (1994) The Great Barrier Reef. Keeping it Great. A 25 Year Strategic Plan for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Haviland, J. & Haviland, L. (1980) “How much food will there be in heaven?, Lutherans and Aborigines around Cooktown before 1900”. Aboriginal History, 4(2):119-149 Hopevale Aboriginal Council and Nursey-Bray, M (1999) A Guugu Yimmithirr Bama Wii; Girrbithi and Ngawiya, Turtle and Dugong Hunting Management Plan, Hopevale Council Howitt, R (2001) Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Indigenous Peoples Routledge (Taylor and Francis group) London Jacobs, P & Mulvihill,P (1995) ‘Ancient lands: new perspectives. Towards multi-cultural literacy in landscape management’. In Landscape and Urban Planning 32: 7-17 Johannes, RS (1989) Traditional Ecological Knowledge: A Collection of Essays. IUCN Langton, M., Epworth, D & Sinnamon,V (2000) Indigenous Social, Economic and Cultural Issues in Land Water and Biodiversity Conservation Centre for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management, NTU Darwin, Northern Territory on behalf of WWF Limpus,C.J. (1995) Conservation of Marine Turtles in the Indo – Pacific region. Final Report to the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Australian Nature Conservation Agency , Canberra Marsh, Helene, Lawler,Ivan. (1999) Dugong Distribution and Abundance in the Southern Great barrier Reef Marine Park and Hervey Bay: Results of an Aerial Survey in October – December 1999, GBRMPA Research Publication No. 70.
Merculieff, L. (1994) “Western Society’s Linear Systems and Aboriginal Cultures: The Need for Two Way Exchanges for the Sake of Survival” in Burch, ES. & Ellana, L. (Eds) Key Issues in Hunter Gatherer Research, Berg Press Oxford Nettheim, G. (2001) Discussion Paper 7: Governance Bodies and Australian Legislative Provision for Corporations and Councils, Reconciliation and Social Justice Library, , The University of New South Wales and Murdoch University Pearson, N (2000) ‘The Light on the Hill Ben Chifley Memorial Lecture ‘in Journal of Indigenous Issues Vol 3, No 3 sep 2000 pp 4-15 Smith, A.J. (1987) The usage of marine resources by Aboriginal communities on the east coast of Cape York Peninsula. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, James Cook University, Townsville. Smyth, D. (997) “Recognition of Aboriginal maritime culture in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: an evaluation”. In Wachenfeld, D., Oliver, J. and Davis, K. (Eds) State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Workshop Proceedings, GBRMPA Workshop Series No. 22, pp 496 502, GBRMPA, Townsville Thompson, D. (1934) “The dugong hunters of Cape York”. Royal Anthropological Institute Journal, 64: 237-62 Zann, L & Sutton, P (eds) (1995) State Of the Marine Environment Report for Australia. GBRMPA.
Personal comments from: Chief Tom Happynook, Chairman, World Council of Whalers Conference, October 2000 Mrs Priscilla Gibson, Hopevale Community, 2001 Professor Helene Marsh, November 2001
QUESTIONS Saudiel Ramirez-Sanchez: You mentioned the possibility of having clear-cut categories for the fishers. However, fishers cannot be categorized as commercial or subsistence. Do you think that you can have the aboriginal people come up with their own categories? Melissa Nursey-Bray: It is not just a matter of categories; it is more a need to allow people to manage the fishery themselves. Managers have to negotiate with the aboriginal people.