Social and cultural values: Indigenous interests in water governance Dr Sue Jackson Principal Research Fellow Australian Rivers Institute Australian Rivers Institute

Aim Describe the emerging models and mechanisms for including indigenous interests in water governance: Indigenous entitlements Representative consultative groups Indigenous input to planning, EFAs Native title agreements (esp. mining) Indigenous water policy group Can these approaches help build resilient communities and ecosystems? Australian Rivers Institute

Indigenous perspectives Excluded until this century, customary systems of water governance ignored Diverse and interdependent indigenous interests, not fully recognised Indigenous advocacy – rights orientation, calls for greater equity in distribution, inc. resource rights Indigenous control of water e.g. ‘cultural flows’ more effective participation in management, inclusion of IK restoration of environmental systems A governance agenda - to influence law, policy, planning as well as research and renegotiate r/s Australian Rivers Institute

Indigenous access to water: Geography matters Two very different contexts reflecting differences in climate, entitlements, water cultures, histories of development Northern Australia – tropical, ‘under-developed’, significant and relatively powerful indigenous sector strongly attached to intact, unregulated rivers Southern – water scarcity, intense competition, lack of legal recognition of rights, smaller more marginalised populations, attenuated connections Affects claims and perceived legitimacy – makes you think about water and power Tropical river systems contain approx 70% of nation’s water resources but less than 2% of this is currently diverted. Australian Rivers Institute

Indigenous Water Policy Group Many regard the NWI as an important foundation, but a narrow one Indigenous input was minimal and awareness low NAILSMA set up the Indigenous Water Policy Group Members drawn from northern Land Councils, government agencies are connected Shared interests across north Australian Rivers Institute

Model in capacity building, exchange, dialogue One of Policy group’s roles: Oversee development of research program to address issues arising from NWI Research team brought in extra expertise Identified research gaps – e.g. customary management, economic requirements, legal frameworks Promoted cooperation And built capacity in agencies Australian Rivers Institute

Very successful model of policy entrepreneurialism Significant policy innovation - SIRs Tindal (Katherine) WAP introduced a limit on water extraction No Indigenous land within WCD, Native title pending Initially no allocations for Indigenous commercial use Strategic Indigenous Reserve was established Calculated at 2% of consumptive water, equiv. to claim area Precedent for other NT WAPs (25%) But, new government is opposed Australian Rivers Institute

(CEO NAILSMA, IWPG) ‘The development of the Strategic Indigenous Reserve would include a focus on capacity building to support productive use of water, and, more fundamentally, increase Indigenous participation in water planning and land and water management more broadly'… Australian Rivers Institute

Prospects for resilient communities and ecosystems Indigenous presence shows resilience IWPG demonstrates quality of Indigenous contributions to water governance Resilience scholars consider that local ecological knowledge constitutes a key analytical domain for SES research Australian Rivers Institute

Resilience con’t But, how social change is conceived is a limitation How well does it address normative issues – resilience of what and for whom? does the resilience of some livelihoods result in the vulnerability of others? (Cote and Nightingale 2012)? ‘who governs, whose systems framings count, and whose sustainability gets prioritized’ (Smith and Stirling, 2010: 1) Focus is on institutions (getting the rules right) vs attention to politics and culture Move from attending to institutional configurations alone, and towards the processes and relations that support these structures power and competing value systems are not external to, but rather integral to the development and functioning of SES. It over-emphasises the role of physical hazards and underestimates the part played by political economic factors in vulnerability. Resilience thinking problematically assumes that social and ecological system dynamics are essentially similar (Cotes and Nightingale) who defines what states/thresholds are desirable, and for whom Australian Rivers Institute

Resilience con’t Look at principles from the standpoint of differently placed/situated groups with different norms, values etc Understand historical context and cultural differences Flexibility could mean ‘anything goes’ Attitudes to risk – open to review and change requires trust & that your needs are understood Australian Rivers Institute

Resilience con’t Deal with contested values overcome inequality Avoid narrowly framed models of social and environmental priorities – are all options on the table? e.g. re-allocation to indigenous groups Buy-back funds/trusts Water for Indigenous env. ‘assets’ Australian Rivers Institute