Is investment in Indigenous land and sea management going to the right places to provide multiple co-benefits?

ABSTRACT

Indigenous land and sea management (ILSM) has been the focus of large government investment in Australia and globally. Beyond environmental benefits, such investments can deliver a suite of social, cultural and economic co-benefits, aligning with the objectives of Indigenous communities and of governments for culturally appropriate socio-economic development. Nevertheless, there have been very few studies done on the spatial distribution of this investment and the extent to which its associated co-benefits address socio-economic disadvantage, which is unevenly distributed across Australia. This study draws on Australian ILSM programmes to examine the spatial and temporal distribution of investment for ILSM between 2002–2012 and considers implications for the distribution of associated co-benefits. Mapping and analysis of 2600 conservation projects revealed that at least $462M of investment in ILSM projects had occurred at 750 discrete sites throughout Australia. More than half of this investment in ILSM has been concentrated in northern Australia, in disadvantaged remote and very remote areas where a high percentage of the population is Indigenous, and Indigenous land ownership extensive. Our research has shown that ILSM investment has successfully been spatially distributed to areas with high needs for multiple social, economic, environmental and health and well-being co-benefit outcomes.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous land and sea management
• programme investment
• Indigenous peoples
• socio-economic benefits
• caring for country

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The term Indigenous is capitalised throughout when referring to Indigenous peoples, many of whom have expressed preference for this convention and adopted it themselves (see Johnston et al. 2007). Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are referred to herein as Indigenous People.

2 For more information on Caring for Country please refer to: Greiner and Stanley (2013), (Burgess et al. 2008; Burgess et al. 2009; Weir, Stacey, and Youngetob 2011).

3 In Australia, Indigenous rangers combine traditional knowledge with conservation training to protect and manage their land, sea and culture (National Indigenous Australians Agency (2020))

4 Payments for ecosystem services (PES) occur when a beneficiary or user of an ecosystem service makes a direct or indirect payment to the provider of that service. For more information see UNDP (2020)

5 For more information on the Ghost Nets Programme see Ghost Nets Australia (n.d.)

6 Note: No adjustment has been made for inflation in these figures.

7 Note: Analyses with SEIFA data were performed at the SA1 level which is designed to maximise the spatial detail available for Census data. Most SA1s have a population of between 200–800 persons with an average population of approximately 400 persons.

8 Governance type ‘community’ is defined as … "Community conserved areas where indigenous peoples or local communities (settled or mobile) hold decision-making authority, responsibility and accountability’. See Australian Government and Department of the Environment and Energy (2019).

9 In general, Indigenous communities in urban areas have scant opportunities for ownership and management or co-management of land and waters, limiting the potential of investment in these situations. Nevertheless, some cities are beginning to recognise such opportunities, for example through the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017 (Victoria).