UNM Mechanisms Used by Australia Aboriginal to Combat Climate Change Essay 1 PAGE DOUBLE SPACED What mechanisms are the Australia’s Aboriginal or Torre

UNM Mechanisms Used by Australia Aboriginal to Combat Climate Change Essay 1 PAGE DOUBLE SPACED

What mechanisms are the Australia’s Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or the Maori using to combat climate change?

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
UNM Mechanisms Used by Australia Aboriginal to Combat Climate Change Essay 1 PAGE DOUBLE SPACED What mechanisms are the Australia’s Aboriginal or Torre
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Please use ONE of the articles posted, and please cite which one and use a couple quotes. Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd.
Settling Indigenous Claims to Protected Areas Weighing Māori Aspirations Against
Australian Experiences
Author(s): Phil O’B. Lyver, Jocelyn Davies and Robert B. Allen
Source: Conservation & Society, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2014), pp. 89-106
Published by: Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment and Wolters
Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26393145
Accessed: 31-03-2020 23:42 UTC
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd., Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the
Environment are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Conservation & Society
This content downloaded from on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 23:42:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Conservation and Society 12(1): 89-106, 2014
Settling Indigenous Claims to Protected Areas:
Weighing Māori Aspirations Against Australian Experiences
Phil O’B. Lyvera,#, Jocelyn Daviesb, and Robert B. Allena
Landcare Research, Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia
Corresponding author. E‑mail: lyverp@landcareresearch.co.nz
Efforts to resolve indigenous peoples’ grievances about the negative impacts of protected areas established on
their customary estates by governments are driving the development of shared governance and management. The
Tūhoe people have sought that the settlement of their grievances against the New Zealand government include
unencumbered rights to manage Te Urewera, guided by scientific and traditional knowledge and practices, for
conservation and social benefits for the Tūhoe people and the broader public. We led a study tour to allow Tūhoe
and other Māori representatives to gain first-hand experience of long-standing jointly managed protected areas in
Australia that the New Zealand government had drawn on in proposing mechanisms to resolve the Tūhoe claim.
We found that these areas were a poor fit to the study tour participants’ aspirations that indigenous world views
would underpin governance and that indigenous people would be empowered. Our findings highlight that settlement
must be transformational in terms of attitudes and relationships. Collaborative problem-solving processes that build
trust can contribute. In areas like Te Urewera, where tenure boundaries fragment a landscape that is a coherent
whole in indigenous world views, settlement processes can offer the prospect of landscape-scale outcomes for
social justice and conservation.
Keywords: indigenous governance, co-management, joint management, collaborative governance, Tūhoe,
Māori, Te Urewera, New Zealand, Australia
Indigenous peoples have a dialectic and evolving relationship
with protected areas. On the one hand, protected areas can
conflict with indigenous peoples’ identity and economy
(e.g., Craig et al. 2012), rights recognised in international
instruments (United Nations 2008) and to varying degrees in
national constitutions, statutes, common law or the terms of
treaties made by colonising powers (Colchester 2004; West
et al. 2006). On the other hand, indigenous participation in
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
protected areas may facilitate the recognition and realisation of
conservation and livelihood aspirations, spiritual and material
values that are important to indigenous peoples (Phillips
2003; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004a; Walker Painemilla
et al. 2010). In ‘new settler’ states such as the USA, Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand, where indigenous people are
culturally-distinctive minorities, power-sharing between
governments and indigenous peoples has become increasingly
prevalent as a way of accommodating indigenous rights and
the conservation goals of governments for protected areas
(Taiepa et al. 1997; Beltran 2000; Borrini-Feyerabend et al.
2004b; Dearden et al. 2005; Timko and Satterfield 2008; Berkes
2009a; Ross et al. 2009).
Equitable power-sharing is not necessarily established when
formal agreements are made between indigenous peoples
and governments (Pinkerton 1992). Rather, the dynamics of
collaboration—including the role of informal institutions,
social networks, trust, communication, learning, and adaptive
processes—are important determinants of the extent to which
Copyright: © Lyver et al. 2014. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use and distribution of the article, provided the original work is cited.
This content downloaded from on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 23:42:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90 / Lyver et al.
power is actually shared (Carlsson and Berkes 2005; Bauman
and Smyth 2007; Armitage et al. 2009; Nursey-Bray and
Rist 2009; Berkes 2010; Innes and Booher 2010; Zurba et al.
2012). This situation indicates that power-sharing is a potential
outcome of a collaborative problem-solving process, rather
than the starting point for that process (Carlsson and Berkes
2005). Hence power-sharing structures designed to promote
equity between indigenous peoples and governments in relation
to protected areas should be seen not as ends in themselves,
but as “enabling Aboriginal people to continue negotiating
towards participation […] as equal partners” (Woenne-Green
et al. 1994: 273).
Our interest in power-sharing in the governance and
management of protected areas has been focused by a
long-standing claim by the Māori tribe of the Tūhoe people
(henceforth ‘Tūhoe’) for the restoration of their ancestral
rights to land and resources within Te Urewera National Park,
a protected area declared by the New Zealand government in
the mid-1950s. The New Zealand government had drawn on
examples and experiences from long-standing jointly managed
Australian national parks, particularly Uluru–Kata Tjuta
National Park, to propose some mechanisms that could be
included in a Deed of Settlement for the Tūhoe claim (Kirsti
Luke, Establishment Manager, Te Kotahi a Tūhoe, pers. comm.
2009; Trevett and Tahana 2010). Our research aimed to test the
fit between the Tūhoe criteria for settlement of their claim to Te
Urewera with selected Australian joint management examples.
We particularly sought to explore the Tūhoe representatives’
first-hand impressions of long-standing Australian jointly
managed parks. The Tūhoe negotiators were interested in
establishing what Australian examples “looked, sounded, smelt
and felt like on the ground” (M. Te Pou, committee member,
Te Kotahi a Tūhoe, pers. comm. 2009), and were keen for the
Tūhoe representatives to talk to the Aboriginal owners of these
protected areas about their experiences.
Here we first present the contextual background on
approaches to power-sharing in protected area governance and
management globally and in Australasia, and the background
to Tūhoe and their claim to Te Urewera. We then describe
our methods and report our findings about the fit between
Tūhoe aspirations for Te Urewera and the Australian joint
management examples. We discuss indigenous governance
as an alternative to joint management that is consistent with
international frameworks for protected areas. Finally, we
consider the concept and process of settlement in relation to
grievances such as the Tūhoe claim, and the opportunities
that settlement might open up for promoting both biodiversity
conservation and social justice at the landscape scale.
Power-sharing in protected area governance and
International frameworks
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
defines a protected area as ‘a clearly defined geographical
space, recognised, dedicated and managed through legal or
other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation
of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural
values’ (Dudley 2008). While governments typically proclaim
and manage protected areas through statutory mechanisms,
the IUCN’s recognition that other means may be effective to
achieve conservation and associated outcomes has chartered
space for the recognition of a range of protected area
governance types (Table 1). Some collaborations between
governments and indigenous peoples can be categorised in
this schema as ‘shared governance’ arrangements (Table 1).
Governments are also increasingly acknowledging alignments
between indigenous stewardship traditions and their own
conservation goals, and between indigenous governed and
managed territories and IUCN’s indigenous and community
protected area governance types (Table 1) (Dudley 2008;
Berkes 2009a).
The IUCN typology of protected area governance (Table 1)
draws a clear distinction between ‘joint management’ and
‘co-management’, even though these terms are used
interchangeably by some authors (e.g., Lane 2001; Carlsson
and Berkes 2005; Ross et al. 2009; Izurieta et al. 2011). Joint
management is distinguished by the IUCN from other subtypes of shared governance of protected areas by the vesting of
power, authority, and responsibility in a pluralistic governance
body. In contrast, collaborative management, often shortened to
co-management, is indicated by the IUCN to be a less specific
and more flexible construct, characterised by ‘various forms
of pluralistic influence’ (Table 1; and see Borrini-Feyerabend
Table 1
IUCN protected area governance types (Borrini‑Feyerabend 2008; Dudley 2008)
IUCN governance type
A. Governance by government
Federal or national ministry or agency in charge
Local/municipal ministry or agency in charge
Government‑delegated management (e.g., to an NGO)
B. Shared governance
Trans‑boundary conservation (involving state agencies and others)
Collaborative management (various forms of pluralist influence)
Joint management (pluralist management board)
C. Private governance
Declared and run by individual landowner
Non‑profit organisations (e.g., NGOs, universities)
For‑profit organisations (e.g., individual or corporate landowners)
D. Governance by indigenous peoples and local communities
Indigenous: Decisions are made and enforced by indigenous peoples
Community: Decisions are made and enforced by local communities
This content downloaded from on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 23:42:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Settling indigenous claims to protected areas / 91
2008; Dudley 2008). This conception of protected area
collaborative management matches the broader observation
that there is no single universally accepted definition of comanagement (Berkes 2010). Co-managed protected areas may
be difficult to distinguish in practice from those governed
by indigenous people or local communities since both may
involve a complex array of actors at the community level
and within government agencies and industry (Carlsson and
Berkes 2005; Nursey-Bray and Rist 2009; Ross et al. 2009).
Indeed, the effectiveness of community-based conservation
depends, among other things, on these kinds of partnerships
and networks, since they establish cross-scale linkages, i.e.,
open communication, information-exchange, and trust across
different organisational levels from local to regional, national,
and often global. These linkages are important in ensuring that
an array of threats and opportunities emanating from political,
social, and ecological processes at different scales can be
addressed (Cash et al. 2006; Berkes 2009b).
Increased definitional clarity is important in understanding
how government and indigenous aspirations, authority, and
accountabilities interact in protected areas. In particular, we
note that ‘governance’ and ‘management’ have different, though
interrelated, meanings, and yet are often conflated in protected
area contexts. Governance concerns the powers, authorities,
and responsibilities exercised by organisations and individuals.
In contrast, management concerns the resources, plans, and
actions generated through the application of governance
powers, authorities, and responsibilities (Lockwood 2010: 755;
and see Borrini-Feyerabend 2008). However, the distinction
between these terms is clouded by terminology in the IUCN
governance typology for protected areas (Table 1), which uses
‘collaborative management’ and ‘joint management’ as the
names of governance sub-types. When the distinction is applied
to the IUCN protected area governance types (Table 1), an array
of options, outlined in Table 2, become apparent for recognising
the rights and interests, responsibilities and accountabilities of
governments and indigenous people in a protected area. While
we recognise that any typology is likely to be inadequate at
reflecting fine-grained adaptations to local conditions, we use
this array as a framework to help compare Tūhoe aspirations
for Te Urewera with the Australian protected area examples.
The Australasian situation
Global trends of increased indigenous engagement with
protected areas have had a particularly strong impact in
Australia. In the decades since the first Australian joint
management arrangements were established, between 1979
and 1989 in the Northern Territory (Woenne-Green et al.
1994; Smyth 2001), co-management of some type has come
to be seen as the minimum standard expected by Australian
conservation managers and indigenous people (Ross et al.
2009). New Zealand protected area institutions have been
slower to change (Taiepa et al. 1997). Nevertheless, for the
past two decades, mechanisms such the Ngā Whenua Rāhui
Fund have provided opportunities for the Māori landowners
to dedicate parts of their land for conservation. Recently,
the Māori use of customary approaches to manage natural
resources has surged (Moller 2007; Dick et al. 2012).
Table 2
Options for governance and management of a protected area between a generic state and an indigenous group
1. State governed and managed
By National Parks authority, accountable to Minister; Ministerial By National Parks authority
powers to direct National Parks authority
As for (1) plus indigenous membership of body constituted to
As for (1)
1A. State governed with an indigenous
advise on governance
advisory body, state managed
2. State‑governed, devolved management
By National Parks authority, accountable to Minister; Ministerial Contracted to indigenous group
powers to direct National Parks authority
2A. State governed, with indigenous
As for (2), plus indigenous membership of body constituted to
As for (2)
representation on an advisory body;
advise on governance
devolved management
3. Indigenous governed and managed
By indigenous traditional owners, through customary institutions By indigenous group
and/or new structures and/or statutory mechanisms
3A. Indigenous governed, with state
As for (3) plus state membership of body constituted to advise
As for (3)
representation on an advisory body,
on governance
Indigenous management
4. Indigenous governed, devolved
By indigenous traditional owners, through customary institutions Contracted to government or a
and/or new structures and/or statutory mechanisms
third party
4A. Indigenous governed, with state
As for (4) plus state membership of body constituted to advise
As for (4)
representation on an advisory body,
on governance
devolved management
5. Jointly governed, state managed
Governance vested in an authority jointly constituted by
Contracted to government
government and indigenous group
6. Jointly governed, indigenous managed
As for (5)
Contracted to indigenous group
7. Jointly governed, jointly managed
As for (5)
By employees of the jointly
constituted governing authority
8. Polycentric
Various governing bodies with overlapping spheres of authority
Coordinated in ways determined
and responsibility, with or without a jointly constituted
or agreed by the various
coordination body
governing bodies
This content downloaded from on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 23:42:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92 / Lyver et al.
One early Australian arrangement, negotiated for Uluru-Kata
Tjuta National Park, lent its name to the ‘Uluru approach’,
which grants land title to the Aboriginal people conditional on
a lease-back to the government (Bauman and Smyth 2007).
This approach, considered further below as part of our research
results, has been characterised as a “strong” form of joint
management (Ross et al. 2009), and a “blueprint” (WoenneGreen et al. 1994) for formally accommodating both Australian
indigenous rights and conservation values (De Lacy 1994;
Toyne 1994; Smyth 2001). From the mid-1990s, recognition
by Australian federal and state governments that indigenous
native title had survived British colonisation was one catalyst
for many new joint management and co-management
arrangements over government-established protected areas
(Bauman and Smyth 2007; Smyth and Ward 2008; Hill 2011).
A diversity of structural forms emerged reflecting the history
and political ecology of state and territory jurisdictions.
Recognition of Aboriginal land ownership, as in the Uluru
approach, is an important foundation but has not always been
achieved (Bauman and Smyth 2007). There has been little
critical assessment of how effectively these Australian shared
governance arrangements work in practice or meet indigenous
aspirations compared with the attention given to describing
their structural features and goals.
As well as being involved in the management of many
government-established protected areas, indigenous peoples
have been substantial contributors to the growth of the
Australian national protected area system since 1998 through
voluntary declarations of their intent to manage their lands
in perpetuity for conservation and associated ecosystem
services and livelihood outcomes. More than 50 areas of
indigenous-owned land designated as Indigenous Protected
Areas now encompass 25% of Australia’s national protected
area system (Gilligan 2006; ANAO 2011; Davies et al. 2013).
Indigenous Protected Areas are indigenous governed and
largely indigenous managed (Option 3, Table 2). They match
closely the IUCN’s indigenous and community governance
type (Table 1) in that governance institutions are communitybased rather than statutory and may be adapted from customary
norms (Berkes 2009a; Davies et al. 2013).
Other novel institutional forms continue to be negotiated
between Australian governments and indigenous groups.
For example, the Queensland state government de-gazetted
part of Oyala-Thumotang National Park in 2010 in order
to grant a freehold title to the park’s indigenous custodians.
The indigenous group has since dedicated half this land as a
nature refuge under a statutory mechanism that retains this
land in their private ownership and establishes a management
partnership with the Queensland government (Langton 2012;
Purchase answer to see full

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.