Environmental threats are influencing federal and state governments including other agencies such as universities to investigate how other social and governance aspects can be incorporated into the sustainability framework. Little critical inquiry exists on this topic and a paradigm shift is attempting to integrate and use Indigenous knowledge to inform contemporary environmental policy decisions and management solutions. Binthi Wambal Aboriginal Corporation’s case study is an example of how complex this topic is.
Paradigm shifts are taking into consideration Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) to be incorporated into sustainability frameworks in a context where little critical analysis has taken place. Much of this participatory approach is a new methodology used to work with Indigenous groups highlighting the uniqueness and complexities of incorporating these governance structures within legislative frameworks including the ethical considerations and mistrust towards governments.
Reviews of 3 authoritative sources pertaining to Indigenous governance and sustainability show that there is a dichotomy between western science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge and that recommendations need to be taken into account for improved management.
Case Study and Recommendations: Binthi Wambal Aboriginal Corporation (BWAC)
Operating as a small organisation in a remote region, BWAC have the ability to manage their affairs but are under-resourced and does not receive an income to manage the issues and problems that are affecting their objectives to achieve their aims. This section addresses the issues and problems experienced by BWAC and what they would have to change to manage these problems.
The review of governance issues and indicators of knowledge integration across the types supports that Indigenous governance and Indigenous-driven co-governance are
References: Altman, J.C. (2001), ‘Sustainable Development Options on Aboriginal Land: The Hybrid Economy in the Twenty-First Century’. CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 226, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), Australian National University, Canberra [Online], Available: https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/40104/2/2001_DP226.pdf Bohnet, I.C. (2009), Integrating Social and Ecological Knowledge for Planning Sustainable Land and Sea Scapes: Experiences from the Great Barrier Reef Region, Australia. Research Article, Landscape Ecology, DOI 10.1007/s10980-010-9504-z, Available: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-010-9504-z#page-1 Hill, R. (2006), The Effectiveness of Agreements and Protocols to Bridge Between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Toolboxes for Protected Area Management: As Case Study from the Wet Tropics of Queensland, Society & Natural Resources, 19:7, 577-599, Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08941920600742310#.Uowc1-Kn6Ts Smith, B. (2003), A Complex Balance: Mediating Sustainable Development Cape York Peninsula. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, Volume 4, Number 2: November 2003, 99-115, School of Economics and Political Science, University of Sydney. Available: http://www.australianreview.net/journal/v4/n2/smith.pdf http://caepr.anu.edu.au/StaffProfiles/Benjamin-Smith Smith, B. (2005), ‘We Got Our Own Management’: Local Knowledge, Government and Development in Cape York Peninsula. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2005/2, Australian National University, Canberra. Szabo, S. & Smyth, D. (2003), Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia. In, Jaireth, H. and D. Smyth (Eds), Innovative Governance: Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and Protected Areas, pp 145-164. IUCN-sponsored by publication, published by Ane Books, New Delhi. Available: http://www.sbconsultants.com.au/index.php/reports-and-publications-mainmenu-41 Appendix A: Hill’s Conceptual framework for bridging two management toolboxes Kuku Yalangi versus Wet Tropics World Heritage Area Appendix B: Guugu Yimithirr Map Appendix C: Cultural Heritage Study & Cultural Heritage Management Flow Chart