No abstract

The strong presence of Indigenous Australians at the 2014 Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) conference highlights expansion in the ways Indigenous people are working as evaluation practitioners and collaborating in evaluation. This may reflect changing practice, moving from the involvement of Indigenous Australians solely as the users of programs to their more diverse and active engagement in the conduct of evaluations. However, it is not clear how far this shift extends to Indigenous‐led shaping of evaluation questions or framing the interpretation of findings. In this chapter, Indigenous Australian coauthors who are practicing evaluators explore dimensions of Indigenous participation. Themes covering knowledge and engagement processes and principles emerged from the conference, demonstrating how “ways of knowing and doing” make Indigenous evaluation much more than about method. The concept of an “adaptive shared space” is presented as a venue for growing respectful collaboration. Developing deliberative learning among Indigenous and non‐indigenous people, commissioners, and practitioners, offers a way to bring deeper meaning to evaluation practice.

Many programmes formally engage Australian Indigenous people in land and sea management to provide environmental services. There are also many Indigenous people who 'look after country' without rewards or payment because of cultural obligations. We investigated how Indigenous peoples' mobility in and around two communities (Maningrida and Ngukurr) is affected by their formal or informal engagement in cultural and natural resource management (CNRM). Understanding factors that influence peoples' mobility is important if essential services are to be provided to communities efficiently. We found that those providing formal CNRM were significantly less likely to stay away from settlements than among those 'looking after their country' without payment or reward. Paying Indigenous people to engage with markets for CNRM through carbon farming or payments for environmental services (PES) schemes may alter traditional activities and reduce mobility, particularly movements away from communities that extend the time spent overnight on country. This could have both environmental and social consequences that could be managed through greater opportunities for people to engage in formal CNRM while living away from communities and greater recognition of the centrality of culture to all Indigenous CNRM, formal or otherwise. Keywords: cultural obligations; fire management; land and sea management; 'looking after country'; payments for environmental services (PES); pest control; temporary movements healthy people? Exploring the health benefits of Indigenous natural resource management.

No abstract

No abstract