SUBMISSION TO THE REVIEW OF THE INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAM 2006

Transcription

1 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND SUBMISSION TO THE REVIEW OF THE INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAM 2006 Submitted by: Penelope Figgis AO Vice Chair for Australia and New Zealand IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas 4 Woolcott Street Waverton 2060 Ph: figdon@oz .com.au 1

2 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND SUBMISSION TO THE REVIEW OF THE INDIGENOUS PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAM 2006 The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Indigenous Protected Areas Program (IPA). WCPA is the world's leading global network of protected area specialists and one of six Commissions of the leading conservation body in the world, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 1 Australian members of the WCPA prepared this submission. Contributors include*: Dr. Hanna Jaireth (lead author), WCPA, CEESP, TILCEPA Chels Marshall, Traditional Indigenous Owner from Nambucca Heads, WCPA, Dr. Dermot Smyth, Major author and authority on conservation and indigenous rights, WCPA Penelope Figgis AO, Vice Chair for Australia and New Zealand, WCPA Greg Leaman, WCPA and Director of National Parks and Wildlife, SA Department for Environment and Heritage Dr. James Fitzsimons, WCPA Nicola Keane, Lecturer Production Horticulture Adelaide North TAFE Fiona Walsh, CSIRO, Ethno ecologist, especially Aboriginal land and resource use and management systems * Please note all contributors have offered comments as individuals in their own right and not on behalf of associated institutions. It has not been possible in the time available for WCPA to fully address all the possible issues that might be addressed. Rather the submission aims to communicate the value and importance of the Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA) program and express the view that the IPA should continue and be substantially enhanced. The aims of protected areas now include the sustainable use of natural resources, the preservation of ecosystem services and integration with broader social development processes, along with the core role of biodiversity conservation. More attention is now given to respecting cultural values as essential associates of biodiversity and to involve Indigenous and local communities in management decisions affecting them. 2 1 See generally < 2G. Borrini-Feyerabend, A. Kothari, A. and G. Oviedo, Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation, IUCN, Gland, 2004, p.1. 2

3 1.0 Summary statement The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Australia New Zealand (WCPA-ANZ) expresses strong support for the Indigenous Protected Area Program (IPAP). It is an innovative, successful but underfunded program for progressing the realisation of biodiversity conservation, human rights and sustainable development goals. IUCN is committed to models of governance which enhance equitable participation in conservation for indigenous people and the IPA model is one model, along with joint management models, practiced in many parts of Australia. The IPA is similar to the concept of Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) being promoted in the wider IUCN Oceania region. In WCPA s recent submission to the Senate Inquiry we identified that one of the most important roles that the National Reserve System (NRS) had played was as a vital catalyst role in expanding new governance models, especially private protected areas and Indigenous involvement in PAS through IPAs 3. Indigenous people have long struggled for the return of their land and the recognition of their rights, previously often in the face of opposition from government agencies. This history means that the IPA concept, which is voluntary and negotiated and does not require Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities to compromise existing rights to use, control and manage their lands and resources was a very important innovation. The Program makes a very significant contribution to the National Reserve System. Given the 17% of Australia s landmass currently under indigenous ownership, it is essential to continue the IPA program, and indeed to expand it, to achieve the goal of a comprehensive, adequate and representative protected area system. The Program is extremely cost effective. Many scientists have stressed the cost effectiveness of conserving healthy extant systems over trying to repair damaged and degraded areas. Hence all protected areas are cost effective means of achieving biodiversity conservation. However, the IPA brings millions of hectares under active conservation management for no acquisition cost and for a very low investment in management. These areas are also in mainly good ecological health and timely, well targeted management could reap significant benefits The Program not only helps governments to achieve biodiversity goals but also either brings, or has the potential if fully supported and adequately funded, to bring achieve social, educational and economic benefits. A gathering of IPA managers in Alice Springs last year made it clear that in the main the IPA program is strongly supported and meets the needs and aspirations of Indigenous participants. The current level of funding is very low and does not cover the real costs of active and effective management in some of Australia s most remote areas. If the investment were doubled or tripled, on a simple $ per hectare it would remain a cost-effective contribution. It is also not necessarily secure in the long term which when combined with the contractual nature of IPAs could undermine their value in future. The critical area which requires change is consistent long term funding to develop indigenous capacity for land and sea management on indigenous lands/waters. Many young indigenous people are looking to land and sea management as a culturally reinforcing direction. Currently, funding for much of the indigenous workforce undertaking on-ground activities in existing IPAs comes through the Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) which services generic contract employment needs on 3 The Submission of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas to the Senate Inquiry into Australia s Protected Areas can be viewed at < 3

4 indigenous communities, covers only a basic wage for workers, provides no long-term employment options, and affords no opportunity for career path development. Real jobs with real income and the pride, confidence and broader social benefits which follow, could be achieved through a well supported IPA and indigenous land and sea management program. Given the range of benefits which could flow, IPA funding could be sourced beyond the Department of Environment. A consistent funding stream was available in the past through the CEPANCRM (Contract Employment Program for Aboriginals in Natural and Cultural Resource Management) model, which successfully delivered conservation and employment outcomes through a whole-of-government approach from This concept could be restored. A component of such a program would be building skills and capacity of IPA managers and also between IPA groups through adequately resourced field-based workshops and joint training exercises. As part of this capacity building and knowledge sharing WCPA supports the call of the World Wide Fund for Nature for greater investment in the retention and inter-generational transfer of Indigenous Knowledge (IK) 4. Such developments are more likely to occur if there is close tripartite efforts between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments and indigenous communities. Anecdotally there appears to be a need for better liaison with the states and territories. They clearly need to be partners in the both the delivery of the conservation benefits and also the general community benefits associated with sustainable development. While WCPA ANZ clearly supports the IPA concept, it also needs to be underscored that the program is effectively contractual and therefore is not necessarily secure in perpetuity. There is a degree of debate within WCPA whether the requirement of the NRS that It is considered that the areas in the National Reserve System will have security enough to be retained in the system 5 is satisfied by the current structure of IPAs. Inadequate funding or a change in future governments priorities could undermine the undoubted achievements to date. The IUCN definition of a protected area is An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means (IUCN 1994). Therefore for these areas to in fact be protected areas over a long period will require effective management of biodiversity to be supported and sustained. The issue of long term security also suggests that a variety of models from informal community based efforts, to contractual, to more long term secure models be negotiated with indigenous communities. Australia has already pioneered some important models, such as joint management after title handback and the SA model of legislated IPAs, and it would be desirable for this suite of tools to be further developed. This would enhance opportunities for indigenous management of land or sea country and allow for communities to choose more permanent options if they wish, with the greater long term certainty of government support this would engender. The IPA Program also has potential to develop with greater partnerships with private organisations, landholders and State and Territory jurisdictions. For example a private land trust may well contract with an indigenous group to work together for conservation outcomes. Private land trusts currently buy and manage land to achieve conservation outcomes, there is no reason why they could not negotiate stewardship contracts with indigenous people to achieve outcomes on land and sea country. The IPA Program can also assist communities increase their capacity to achieve a range of environmental, social and cultural goals. WCPA-ANZ recommends that the new arrangements in the administration of Indigenous affairs be applied to deliver substantially enhanced, whole-of-government sustainable development opportunities for Indigenous communities living on or near Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) over the medium and long term. 4 Submission on the Indigenous Protected Areas Program Review, WWF - Australia March Commonwealth of Australia, 2005 Directions for the National Reserve System - A Partnership Approach, p.37. 4

5 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner could play a role in monitoring the development and implementation of shared responsibility and regional engagement arrangements for IPA communities to ensure their compliance with international human rights standards and to create best-practice precedents. WCPA-ANZ supports the further development of the IPA concept to include tenures other than Aboriginal-owned land and marine areas, to support Indigenous peoples aspirations to sustainably manage land and sea country for which they have inherited rights and responsibilities irrespective of contemporary tenure arrangements. IPAs are a model Australia can be proud of initiating. As a nation we should invest in their continuing success and promote the concept internationally as an innovative way of reconciling biodiversity conservation, human rights protection and sustainable development in both terrestrial and marine Pas. Over a relatively short period, IPAs have made a substantial contribution to the protected area estate on the basis of land area alone. Perhaps more importantly they have provided a way to deal with the tensions between conservation interests and the aspirations of Indigenous peoples. IPAs are demonstrating that these often competing interests are not mutually exclusive (Szabo and Smyth 2003, p158). 2.0 Introduction The national objective of the National Reserve System (NRS) from its inception in the mid 1990s has been to assist with the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of reserves for Australia. In 2005 the Australian, state and territory governments agreed that by 2015 examples of at least 80% of the number of extant regional ecosystems in each bioregion should be represented in protected areas (PAs). 6 Large viable areas of land in high priority bioregions are currently preferred for assessment, consistent with the 1999 Australian Guidelines for Establishing the National Reserve System. 7 National parks and other protected areas are central to the conservation of Australia s biological and cultural diversity. PAs have been the backbone of Australia s effort to protect its full range of ecosystems for over 100 years. This is a heritage that has been successful and must continue to be built upon, because the catastrophic decline in Australia s biodiversity continues apace. 8 Although nearly 11% of Australia s landscape is protected in the NRS, 94% of the 85 IBRA bioregions include at least one threatened ecosystem. 9 Since the development of the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) and the marine equivalent IMCRA, it has been recognized that Indigenous Australians own large tracts of land and perhaps in the future areas of sea country, and are likely to have further areas returned under native title law and policy. Therefore a truly representative system will need to embrace indigenous lands and seas and traditional owners, like other private landholders, should be willing participants in management of their lands/seas as part of the NRS or NRSMPA. 6 Commonwealth of Australia, Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Directions for the National Reserve System: A Partnership Approach, Canberra, 2005, pp8, 31. This draws back from a commitment in the National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation (NOTs) that by 2005 a representative sample of each IBRA bioregion should be protected within the NRS (or as an IPA or other private protected area): National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation Environment Australia, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia, Third National Report under the Convention on Biological Diversity, accessed from p121 8 Australian Natural Resources Atlas, Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment Canberra. S. Morton, G. Bourne, P. Crisofani, P. Cullen, H. Possingham, and M. Young, Sustaining our Natural Systems and Biodiversity, an independent report to the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, CSIRO and Environment Australia, Canberra, 2002, accessible at A058293F190C/2014/Sustaining_our_Natural_Systems_and_Biodiversity_Wo.pdf. 9 Australian Natural Resources Atlas, Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment

6 The Indigenous Protected Areas Program was an innovative program set up under the NRS where Traditional owners can agree to manage their land for conservation purposes. The program attempts to address the issue of attaining representativeness as well as acknowledging the value of traditional knowledge, seeking constructive involvement and social benefits for indigenous communities. The aims of the program are: 1. To establish partnerships between government and Indigenous land managers to support the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative national system of protected areas which is consistent with the international protected areas classification system, by: assisting Indigenous people to establish and manage protected areas on their estates for which they hold title; and assisting Indigenous Groups and Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies to develop partnerships and agreements for the cooperative management of existing protected areas. 2. To promote Indigenous involvement in protected area management by supporting the establishment of cooperatively managed protected areas in each jurisdiction, and promotion of national best practice approaches to cooperative partnerships in protected area management. 3. To promote and integrate Indigenous ecological and cultural knowledge into contemporary protected area management practices in accordance with internationally endorsed protected areas guidelines Achievements to date Although the idea of Indigenous owned and managed protected areas as a component of the NRS emerged partly out of the necessity to achieve representativeness, IPAs can demonstrate the genuine concurrence of interests between traditional owners aspirations for management of their land and sea country, and the purposes of protected areas. Indigenous Australians use terms like caring for country or healthy country to characterise the well being of their customary territories, and this can be consistent with the goals of protected areas. 11 WCPA-ANZ believes that the IPA program has to date made a very significant contribution towards the realisation of the NRS goals. Nineteen Indigenous Protected Areas have been declared over Aboriginal land, covering more than 13.8 million ha and adding significantly to the National Reserve System ( Large additions, possibly adding an additional 5 million ha, are anticipated in 2006 (Bruce Rose pers. comm.). This dramatic addition to Australia s lands under some degree of conservation management is a globally significant achievement which deserves greater recognition. Both the NRS in general, and the IPA component, are in fact quiet achievers in environmental programs. They are critical components of a national, multi-partisan commitment to protect the continent s unique biodiversity. Many IPAs are of high conservation values. For example the vast Ngaanyatjarra IPA is part of the Western Desert region, which contains all of the Western Australian Central Ranges bioregion, bordered by the Gibson Desert to the north and west, and the Great Victoria Desert to the south. At 9,812,900 ha, it covers an area larger than Tasmania and is of great ecological significance. Prior to IPA declaration, this region was one of only two of Australia's 80 biogeographic regions with no conservation reserves or areas. The western Ngaanyatjarra IPA boundary is contiguous with the existing Gibson Desert Nature Reserve adding to the overall conservation significance of the declaration. At least five endangered or vulnerable animal species are known to occur in the Ngaanyatjarra IPA: Mulgara, Marsupial Mole, 10 Parks Australia, Thematic Report on Protected Areas or Areas where Special Measures need to be taken to Conserve Biological Diversity, accessed 19 March 2006 from < p19 11 S. Szabo and D. Smyth, 2003'Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia' in Jaireth H, and Smyth D (eds), Innovative Governance: Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and Protected Areas, Ane Books, New Delhi,, pp at p147. 6

7 Greater bilby, Black-footed Rock Wallaby and Ghost Bat. Management activities such as fox-baiting work have already shown positive results with an increase in rock wallaby numbers 12. Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) operate in accordance with the internationally recognised IUCN Protected Areas Guidelines and are managed in accordance with a plan of management which is developed prior to declaration to protect natural and cultural features and to contribute to conserving biological diversity. The Plan includes mapping the flora and fauna of the area and other significant values, identifying threats to biodiversity eg feral animals and weed infestation and determining management zones and prescriptions for each zone. The concept involves combining a strong respect for traditional ecological knowledge together with the use of modern science and land management skills. Aboriginal land management, such as patch burning and maintenance of water holes, is increasingly understood as integral to maintaining biodiversity. The social sustainability issues are to enhance the ability of indigenous Australians to live on their country and to pass on their ancient knowledge of the land and concepts of responsibilities to the next generation. There are declared IPAs in each state and territory except for the Australian Capital Territory. IPAs have achieved the highest level of acceptance in South Australia and there is now good progress in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Success factors relate strongly to local political issues, including the nature of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the state and territory governments. The amount and size of Indigenous land holdings has not been a major factor, as is evident by the number of IPAs declared in Tasmania (with relatively small areas of Indigenous owned land) and the reluctance of Indigenous landowners in Queensland (where there are large areas of Indigenous owned land) to take up the IPA option. In the A.C.T. there is Aboriginal involvement in the management of Namadgi National Park, which comprises 46% of the territory, but there is scope for the provision of DEH funding for one or more IPAs and to support joint management arrangements. While this review is aimed at the Commonwealth program under the NRS, there are other models of IPAs available. South Australia for example has developed an innovative approach and legislation to facilitate indigenous involvement in the management of protected areas. The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 was amended in 2004 to enable Parks to be co-managed with the traditional owners, and indeed, to provide the legal framework for a Park to be established over Aboriginal-owned land. This legislation, which also enabled the hand back of the 2.1 million hectare Unnamed Conservation Park to the Maralinga Tjarutja while remaining as a Conservation Park, is seen as an exciting new development in recognising indigenous aspirations, encouraging development of shared objectives and ensuring that parks are managed in a way that respects contemporary and traditional culture, knowledge and skills. The legislation is an Australian first in providing a model that avoids the inherent imbalances in power associated with the conventional tenant / landlord approach. Whilst land is important to Aboriginal people, land also contributes to people's cultural, social and emotional well being. The cultural benefits of getting people back to country include, getting people back on land, restoring respect for elders and acknowledgment of their skills and their talents. It is a fact that when the level of respect for elders erodes there are a lot more social problems in communities. Leanne Liddle, Aboriginal Partnerships, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia Support for the concept of IPAs continues to be expressed at national workshops of IPA managers and IPA supporters such as that held in Alice Springs in April Traditional owners are proud of what has been achieved to date. While Indigenous landholders have expressed concerns about the security of sufficient long-term funding since the establishment of the IPA program, there is widespread support for 12 Figgis, P., Humann, D. & Looker M., 2006 Conservation on Private Land in Australia, to be published in Parks in mid National Indigenous Land and Sea Management Conference 7

8 IPAs, both as a mechanism for improved environmental management and for the associated cultural, education, health, employment and other social benefits. IPA managers have often made it clear that the environmental and cultural benefits of IPAs are inseparable. These include: getting traditional owners back on country, often after long absences; involving school children in IPA field trips, transferring knowledge between generations and strengthening languages re-establishing traditional burning practices, maintaining waterholes and reducing feral animal impacts; providing training and employment in managing country, and promoting renewed interest about caring for the country. 14 The potential for reconciliation between native title and protected area objectives is well-demonstrated by the Paruku IPA. This IPA covers hectares in Western Australia s Kimberley region. The IPA protects areas of cultural significance, provides income through a pastoral enterprise, and conserves the internationally significant Paruku wetlands. The Paruku IPA is part of the area recognised by the Federal Court in August 2001 as the Tjurabalan native title determination area. The close working relationship between officers working on IPAs in the Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH), and Indigenous IPA stakeholders is also a demonstration of practical reconciliation. 4.0 IPAs exemplify sustainable development principles and practice The involvement of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation is fundamental to sustainable development law and practice. 15 Indigenous people aspire to, and are entitled under international law to be involved in the management of the natural and cultural resources on their traditional lands. Involvement can include cultural site management and interpretation, habitat restoration and maintenance, fencing, feral animal and weed control, and sustainable business ventures. Sustainable development was defined in the 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment Development (the Brundtland Report) as: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs... In essence... a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations. 16 This approach moves beyond older and simpler development-through-growth models by including aspects of social development and an improvement in the level of societal and individual welfare within concepts of growth, particularly for those living in poverty. It seeks to promote participatory development, conserve and enhance the resource base, merge economics with environmental decision-making, eradicate poverty and meet essential needs, render population growth stable, and promote social justice, social integration, and environmental regeneration. 17 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) includes several articles that are directly relevant to the recognition of Indigenous peoples traditional knowledge, equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of such knowledge, and sustainable use of resources. For example, parties are as far as possible and as appropriate to protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements (article 10(c)). Other articles address the exchange of information, including Indigenous and traditional 14 Szabo and Smyth, 'Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia', p See summaries of provisions of 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UNCED Statement of Forest Principles, Agenda 21 etc in D. Posey, Traditional Resource Rights: International Instruments for Protection and Compensation for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, IUCN, Gland, World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987, pp.43, 46 17World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, pp.49, 65. 8

9 knowledge (article 17.2), and the development and use of technologies, including Indigenous and traditional technologies (article 18.4). IUCN Guidelines for Protected Area Categories 18 are sufficiently flexible to accommodate the features of IPAs. The IUCN recognises that IPAs and other community-conserved areas reflect the paradigm shift that has occurred in protected area management in recent years. A senior IUCN adviser, Adrian Phillips, has described this new approach to PAs as: including social, economic, conservation, recreation, restoration and rehabilitation objectives often involving PA designations for scientific, economic and cultural reasons management to ensure that local people benefit from, and are not adversely affected by, tourism recognising that socalled wilderness areas are often culturally important places often involving many partners, including different tiers of government, local communities, Indigenous groups, the private sector, NGOs, and others run with, for and in some cases by, local people who are no longer passive recipients of protected area policy but as active partners, even initiators and leaders.19 A commitment to sustainable development is manifest in numerous Australian Government statutes and policies, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act) and the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (Cwlth). Although sustainable development principles should be well entrenched into Australian law and policy WCPA-ANZ believes that the social aspects inherent in the concept of sustainable development could be better integrated into effective policy development and implementation in relation to IPAs. This is particularly the case with regard to the provision of appropriate levels of financial support. Good IPA management will requires more than simply natural resource management tools and skills. Good management requires that a functioning community can continue to live on their often remote lands. The Hassall review of Phase 1 of the Natural Heritage Trust, for example, referred to Indigenous Australian s aspirations to manage and live on traditional country to protect its cultural significance, noting that this requires the provision of infrastructure and the generation of employment and economic activity. The Hassall review then claimed Neither Indigenous objective fits comfortably with the objectives of Phase 1 of the Trust. 20 This comment is questionable since the purposes of the Natural Heritage Trust Account include environmental protection 21, supporting sustainable agriculture 22 and natural resources management. 23 When approving proposals to spend money from the account the Minister is obliged to take into account the principles of ecologically sustainable development specified in the Act, 24 which include individual and community well-being, inter-generational equity and the protection of biological diversity. In our view the purposes of the Trust are sufficiently broadly defined in the legislation to accommodate and permit Trust funding for Indigenous Australians land management aspirations. WCPA believes that the better integration of the IPA program with other government programs is appropriate to generate the fundamental underpinnings necessary to ESD and the achievement of the land/sea management aims. 18 See generally: Borrini-Feyerabend, Kothari, and Oviedo, Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. 19 A. Phillips, Turning ideas on their head: the new paradigm for protected areas in H. Jaireth and D. Smyth (eds), Innovative Governance: Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and Protected Areas, Ane Books, New Delhi, pp Hassall and Assoc Pty Ltd, Natural Heritage Trust Phase 1 Final Evaluation: Final Report, Prepared for Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Department of the Environment and Heritage, February 2005, p as defined in s15 of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (Cth) which refers to developing or promoting waste minimisation and clean production, and responding to pollution in the environment. 22 as defined in s16 of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (Cth) which refers to the social viability and well-being of rural communities and the ecologically sustainable use of Australia s biodiversity 23 as defined in s17 of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (Cth) which refers to any activity relating to the management of the use, development or conservation of soil, water or vegetation 24 see s21 of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (Cth) 9

10 An excellent example of this approach is the Kuka Kanyini project within the Watarru IPA in the far north west of South Australia. This project, developed by the SA Department for Environment and Heritage, the Watarru Community, SA Government Aboriginal Lands Taskforce and Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Land Management, is about not only the management of country but provides the means for the Aboriginal Community to sustain their culture on traditional lands. It also provides training and employment opportunities, improvements in diet and overall wellbeing 25. The success of this project was recognised through the prestigious SA Great Environment Award in Funding issues WCPA s submission to the Senate Inquiry stressed the straightforward cost effectiveness of protected areas in achieving the nation s national biodiversity targets. The report, Directions for the National Reserve System declared experience in Australia to date has generally demonstrated that it is seven times more cost effective to conserve intact ecosystems rather than attempting to re-establish them after they have been cleared or significantly degraded. Therefore investments in consolidating Australia s National Reserve System are one of the most cost-effective steps that governments can make to secure the nation s biodiversity. As noted in the summary, the IPA program can claim even greater cost effectiveness given there are no acquisition costs. For very modest investments the program brings millions of hectares under active conservation management. WCPA clearly believes this investment needs to be significantly increased, but even if it were doubled or tripled on a simple $ per hectare it would remain a dramatically costeffective contribution to the national biodiversity effort, as well as having many other benefits to the most disadvantaged Australians. In fact such funding boosts are fundamental to the future of IPAs because while IPAs provide a significant contribution to a comprehensive, adequate and representative protected area system, they are not permanently dedicated under legislation (See 6.0). Therefore it is management activities consistent with protected areas that make the concept a reality. The capacity of Indigenous Communities to ensure management can continue will be dependent on sustained funding commitment from Australian Governments. To date funding has been on an annual basis to individual IPAs and is provided for the development of management plans, consultations and negotiations, and a share of on-ground management costs. 26 On ground management involves IPA management staff, wages for traditional owner involvement in management activities, vehicles, field equipment and general operational costs in the rangelands which are often very large, remote from mainstream services. Due to these difficulties of operation IPA coordinators generally need to expend considerable effort and time in trying to find sufficient funding from a wide variety of sources to augment the basic IPAP funding levels. The administration necessary to service these various funding arrangements eats into the valuable time of IPA staff needed to dedicate to on-ground management effort on their protected areas. Australia s National Report under the CBD says that this funding is available for a limited time, usually one or two years, to assist the parties to identify the management issues and to negotiate a decision making and management structure which accommodates the needs of both. 27 State and territory agencies are increasingly contributing resources and support to IPAs, but this has also been sporadic and short term. Some governments have not even provided exemptions from rates and taxes for land contributed to conservation via IPAs 28 (Chels Marshall pers.comm.). The current 19 IPAs that bring 13.8 million ha of Australia s landmass under conservation management are only costing the Australian Government about $2.5 million per annum. 29 The average annual funding from DEH to each IPA project is only in the order of $110,000. The size of the total Australian protected 25 The Kuka Kanyini Pilot Project at Watarru, First Annual Report, November Commonwealth of Australia, 2005 Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Directions for the National Reserve System: A Partnership Approach, p Commonwealth of Australia, Third National Report under the Convention on Biological Diversity, p IPA Managers Meeting, 15 th 18 th April 2005, Action List. 29 Department of the Environment and Heritage, Annual Report , Canberra, p

11 area estate in the NRS is million ha, or per cent of the Australian land area (over 7, 720 PAs). IPAs make up 1.79% of Australia 30 and 17% of the NRS. 31 The revenue for the administration of just the Commonwealth 7 reserves covering just 2,131,300 ha. in was $58.8 million 32. Thus it appears that the funding provided to IPAs is very low compared with the funding provided to Commonwealth reserves. While WCPA acknowledges that other jurisdictions are more secure in legislation, we would hold that the future willingness of indigenous Australians to consider other more secure options, such as joint management of a formal protected area, will depend upon the success of their experience with the IPA model, which in turn is dependent on secure sustained funding. The WCPA-ANZ therefore regards current funding levels for the NRS, and IPAs in particular, as inadequate and poorly coordinated across agencies and programs. The WCPA-ANZ notes that Parks Australia has reported to the CBD that available human, institutional and financial resources are adequate for the full implementation of the protected areas network. 33 Both this submission and the submission which WCPA has submitted to the current Senate Inquiry into Protected Areas would question that assertion 34. WCPA s Submissions to the Senate Inquiry and to the NRS Review in general have both called for a very significant overall funding increase. Our figures are based on The Prime Minister s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) document Setting Biodiversity Priorities which found that efforts to consolidate Australia s National Reserve System is one of the most cost-effective investments that governments can make to secure the nation s biodiversity. PMSEIC held that an investment of $ m would achieve 80% protection of the full range of regional ecosystems, save 14,700 native species and result in collateral benefits of $2,000m 35. WCPA therefore believes that $400 million over 5 years should be allocated to the total NRS. This is based on the figure of $350 million suggested by PMSEIC, plus an additional $50m to expand the IPA program and to fund the complex task of bringing freshwater systems into the NRS. The likely need for better resourcing of IPAs is recognized in the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council s Directions for the National Reserve System A Partnership Approach (2005) (hereafter Directions Statement), which states that further assistance for ongoing management of private protected areas and Indigenous protected areas needs further consideration in the context of the increasing importance of protected areas and the community benefits of conservation of Australia s biodiversity. It refers to the possibility of private sector partnerships or sponsorships 36 The Directions Statement also includes a commitment that all jurisdictions will assist in capacity building for Private Protected Areas and Indigenous Protected Areas by Environment and Heritage Portfolio, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Inquiry into Australia s National Parks, Conservation Reserves and Marine Protected Areas, accessed 19 March 2006 from p Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Annual Report , Canberra 2005, p Environment and Heritage Portfolio, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Inquiry into Australia s National Parks, Conservation Reserves and Marine Protected Areas, p Parks Australia, Thematic Report on Protected Areas or Areas where Special Measures need to be taken to Conserve Biological Diversity, p WCPA Submission is available on the Senate website 35 Possingham, H., Ryan, S., Baxter, J. and Morton, S. 2002, Setting Biodiversity Priorities. A paper prepared as part of the activities of the working group producing the report Sustaining our Natural Systems and Biodiversity for the Prime Minister s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council in DEST, Canberra, p.9. Available (look under committee/reports). 36 Commonwealth of Australia. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Directions for the National Reserve System: A Partnership Approach, 2005, p Australia. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Directions for the National Reserve System: A Partnership Approach, 2005, p

12 The aims of the Directions Statement are broadly supported by WCPA-ANZ, but as the report itself states Implementation of the Directions Statement will be dependent on the availability of funding. 38 Many submissions to the current Senate Inquiry have highlighted this inadequacy of current funding. The Northern Territory Government has criticised the relatively low level of funding for the NRS from the Natural Heritage Trust. It has said in a submission to the Senate Inquiry on the NRS that the NRS receives only 6% of total NHT annual allocation, which is manifestly insufficient for the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. 39 The CSIRO has argued similarly that current funding levels are inadequate for the establishment of a comprehensive and representative NRS. 40 The mid-term review of the Natural Heritage Trust also recommended that governments provide more technical and financial assistance to develop sustainable industries on IPAs, and that simpler grant application procedures be developed. It recognised that Indigenous organisation may lack the grantsmanship required to be successful in a competitive funding environment. Better involvement, cooperation and communication between the Commonwealth and State and Territory nature conservation agencies prior to IPA establishment may also be a crucial requirement in adequate funding and resourcing. In at least one instance a state nature conservation agency was not made aware of the declaration of an IPA until after the event. Improving communication between these three key players would allow for more informed decision-making on reserve expansion priorities on public land within a bioregion and generally improve conservation planning efforts. It may also lead to states being more willing to assist in funding. Anecdotally some States/Territories have made the point that if they are not involved in the IPA negotiation they resent picking up the tab for management. 6.0 Security Issues As indicated in the summary there is a history of hard won back rights which governs a great deal of indigenous policy. The IPA in its current form creates an innovative means of addressing concerns over the extent to which the establishment of protected areas on Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander lands may compromise existing rights to use, control and manage their lands and resources. Options around security of tenure and reporting on management effectiveness however may need to be addressed in the future. Indigenous Protected Areas are a relatively new concept and despite their real successes there is no framework is in place for ensuring that the investment in their establishment and management will persist long term. In the area of private land conservation generally there are many options ranging from informal, to contractual, to more long term secure models 41. There may be a need for a variety of models to be similarly available for consideration and negotiation with indigenous communities. A spectrum already exists. Australia has pioneered some important models, such as joint management after title handback and the SA model of legislated IPAs and it would be desirable for this suite of tools to be further developed. This would enhance opportunities for indigenous management of land or sea country and allow for communities to choose more permanent options, if they wish, with the greater long term certainty of government support this would engender. One model which aims at establishing long term security with the retention of full indigenous rights over land is the model established in South Australia. The SA National Parks and Wildlife Act provides a mechanism for negotiating National Parks and Reserves over Aboriginal-owned land thereby providing security of tenure, addition to the Reserve System and processes for capacity building and management support for traditional owners. The Act provides a three-tiered system for cooperative management of parks that could be adapted to, where appropriate formalise the conservation management of IPAs 38 Australia. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Directions for the National Reserve System: A Partnership Approach, 2005, p Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Inquiry into Australia s National Parks, Conservation Reserves and Marine Protected Areas, accessed 19 March 2006 from p4 40 CSIRO, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Inquiry into Australia s National Parks, Conservation Reserves and Marine Protected Areas, accessed 19 March 2006 from 41 Figgis, Penelope, 2004, Conservation on Private Lands: The Australian Experience, IUCN, Switzerland and UK. 12

13 and associated funding arrangements. A Tier 1 park established over Aboriginal Freehold Land is managed in accordance with a Cooperative Management Agreement between the Environment Minister and the Indigenous Owners. Management is by a Board with a majority of members and the chair selected by Traditional Owners. A proportion of NRS funding could be directed at a transition process (to an area formally managed for conservation purposes) rather than the purchase of new land (Greg Leaman pers.comm.). Other possibilities include the stewardship contract or stewardship covenant discussed in Effective Engagement The Final Report on the Evaluation of the Natural Heritage Trust found that although Phase 1 of the Trust had delivered some positive outcomes within some Indigenous communities, Indigenous engagement in Phase 1 was restricted, and the outcomes achieved on Indigenous-owned land were limited. Some of the benefits included an improved skills base within Indigenous communities, the establishment of new networks and partnerships amongst stakeholders, 42 improved relations between Indigenous communities, their neighbours and state agencies, foundation-building for new economic enterprises (particularly for bush tucker 43 ) and a greater number of Indigenous people living on their traditional country and caring for heritage places. During consultations for that review Indigenous participants also noted that some degraded country had been repaired; there was more weed and feral animal control; some endangered species were protected and some wetlands and watercourses had been rehabilitated. Aboriginal Ranger programs were also viewed positively. 44 That evaluation concluded that Phase 1 did not reflect Indigenous aspirations for management of land and waters, which centre around protection of the Indigenous cultural landscape and the capacity for traditional owners to manager their lands. This in turn means enabling people to return to their traditional lands and developing long-term employment and an economic base so they can stay there. 45 Other Indigenous NRM aspirations identified in the Hassall review of NHT Phase 1 included use of fire, bush tucker, bush medicines, cultural tourism, eco-tourism and homeland improvement and the need to integrate program delivery with government programs for health, employment and training in Indigenous communities. 46 The Review identified amongst the policy lessons for current and future programs that: program delivery needs to be integrated with government programs for health, employment and training (covering both traditional knowledge and financial management, project management, report writing and computer skills) in Indigenous communities there should be a better emphasis on integrating Indigenous people fully in the regional NRM framework through a range of measures, including partnerships to fund Indigenous Land and Sea Management Centres to develop a regional approach to administer devolved grants from a range of funding sources provision of longer-term commitments and longer funding cycles, with less emphasis on provision of matching funding by Indigenous communities and recognition of the higher administrative costs incurred in Indigenous communities 47 The need for employment opportunities to be funded is also commonly identified by peak Indigenous organisations. The Central Land Council for example, has called for the provisions of better-coordinated support for the development of community land management or ranger programs in larger communities where traditional owners reside near parks and reserves. WCPA ANZ would like to support this call. It 42 including Indigenous communities, agencies, local government, research bodies, the Indigenous Land Corporation and other landholders and community interests. 43 Hassall and Assoc Pty Ltd, Natural Heritage Trust Phase 1 Final Evaluation: Final Report, Prepared for Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Department of the Environment and Heritage, February 2005, pp.157, Hassall and Assoc Pty Ltd, Natural Heritage Trust Phase 1 Final Evaluation: Final Report, Prepared for Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Department of the Environment and Heritage, February 2005, pp. viii, 91, Hassall and Assoc Pty Ltd, Natural Heritage Trust Phase 1 Final Evaluation: Final Report, p.viii. See also p Hassall and Assoc Pty Ltd, Natural Heritage Trust Phase 1 Final Evaluation: Final Report, p Hassall and Assoc Pty Ltd, Natural Heritage Trust Phase 1 Final Evaluation: Final Report, pp.164, 168,