Although feral animal management is often based on the proposition that introduced species threaten ecological and conservation values, that view is not necessarily shared by all stakeholders, including those indigenous people who own and co-manage Kakadu National Park with Australia's federal government.Drawing on field-based interviews with the Jawoyn people, we found that these indigenous people categorize water buffalo ( Bubalus bubalis) as an important food source (tucker), view horses ( Equus caballus) as bush pets, and consider pigs ( Sus scrofa) a threat to their lands. As a result, Jawoyn people want more water buffalo in the park, have high tolerance of environmental damage caused by horses, and are open to the idea that pig population densities should be reduced. Jawoyn also advocate an adaptive and participatory approach to feral animal control so that the consequences of any management actions can be properly understood before irrevocable change occurs. These findings highlight one example of how indigenous people's ecological knowledge has adapted in response to changing landscapes and community aspirations. Co-management strategies that aim to incorporate the dynamics of indigenous people's views need to start with issues on which there is agreement between different groups and take a cautious approach to joint exploration of more contentious issues. That approach should include ongoing and on-site monitoring so that the consequences of management actions can be properly understood and comprehensively negotiated by all parties. Key Words: adaptive management, bush pets, bush tucker, co-management, feral animal damage, indigenous ecological knowledge Alimento, Mascotas y Amenazas en el Matorral: Manejo Cooperativo de Animales Cimarrones en el Parque Nacional Kakadu en Australia Resumen: Aunque el manejo de animales cimarrones a menudo se basa en la propuesta de que las especies introducidas son una amenaza para los valores ecológicos y de conservación, este punto de vista no necesariamente es compartido por todos los interesados, incluyendo el pueblo indígena que es dueño del y cogestiona el Parque Nacional Kakadu con el gobierno federal Australiano. Con base en entrevistas de campo a indígenas Jawoyn, encontramos que los indígenas categorizan al búfalo ( Bubalus bubalis) como una importante fuente de alimento, perciben a los caballos ( Equus caballus) como mascotas y consideran a los cerdos ( Sus scrofa)como amenazas a sus tierras. Como resultado, los Jawoyn quieren más búfalos en el parque, son tolerantes al daño ambiental que causan los caballos y están abiertos a la idea de que se debe reducir la densidad de las poblaciones de cerdos. Los Jawoyn también apoyan un método adaptativo y participativo para el control de animales cimarrones de manera que las consecuencias de cualquier acción de manejo puedan ser entendidas correctamente antes de que ocurran cambios irrevocables. Estos hallazgos realzan un ejemplo de la adaptación del conocimiento ecológico autóctono a los cambios en el paisaje y en la...

ABSTRACT. Increasing attention to formal recognition of indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) as part of national and/or global protected area systems is generating novel encounters between the customary institutions through which indigenous peoples and local communities manage these traditional estates and the bureaucratic institutions of protected area management planning. Although management plans are widely considered to be important to effective management of protected areas, little guidance has been available about how their form and content can effectively reflect the distinctive socio-cultural and political characteristics of ICCAs. This gap has been particularly apparent in Australia where a trend to rapidly increased formal engagement of indigenous people in environmental management resulted, by 2012, in 50 indigenous groups voluntarily declaring their intent to manage all or part of their estates for conservation in perpetuity, as an indigenous protected area (IPA). Development and adoption of a management plan is central to the process through which the Australian Government recognizes these voluntary declarations and invests resources in IPA management. We identified four types of innovations, apparent in some recent IPA plans, which reflect the distinctive socio-cultural and political characteristics of ICCAs and support indigenous people as the primary decision makers and drivers of knowledge integration in IPAs. These are (1) a focus on customary institutions in governance; (2) strategic planning approaches that respond to interlinkages of stewardship between people, place, plants, and animals; (3) planning frameworks that bridge scales by considering values and issues across the whole of an indigenous people's territory; and (4) varied communication modes appropriate to varied audiences, including an emphasis on visual and spatial modes. Further research is warranted into how governance and management of IPAs, and the plans that support these processes, can best engender adaptive management and diverse strong partnerships while managing the risk of partners eroding local control.

No abstract

In many parts of the world, policymakers, legislators, marine managers, and indigenous peoples have attempted to reconcile marine protected area (MPA) governance and management with indigenous peoples' ancient and ongoing traditional ownership of coastal and marine environments. This paper describes a novel approach in Australia to addressing this challenge through indigenous‐led planning and collaborative governance of holistic coastal land and sea indigenous protected areas (IPAs) based on the indigenous concept of “Country”—traditional land and sea estates and their associated cultural, environmental, and other values. To provide context to this approach, the paper explains the concept of “Sea Country” and provides an overview of the relationship between indigenous peoples and Australia's coastal and marine environments, the legal and policy recognition of Indigenous Sea Country rights and interests, and the engagement of indigenous people in the governance and management of government‐led, legislated MPAs in Australia. The paper then describes the evolution of IPAs from being specifically based on indigenous land tenure to being based more generally on Indigenous Country, across multiple tenures, including marine areas. In recent years, IPAs based on Country have enabled indigenous people to lead planning and governance of land and sea areas over which they have limited legal rights, including over existing national parks and marine parks. Using this approach, some IPAs complement existing protected area governance and management arrangements, whereas elsewhere Country‐based IPAs are adding significantly to Australia's MPA estate. The Dhimurru IPA in the Northern Territory and Girringun Region IPAs in Queensland are presented as examples of this Country‐based approach. This indigenous‐driven, collaborative, nonlegislative approach to dedicating, governing and managing coastal areas and MPAs may serve as a model in other nation states for indigenous people wishing to use a protected area governance framework to support the contemporary management of their traditional marine and coastal estates.

No abstract