Protected Areas, Country and Value: The Nature–Culture Tyranny of the IUCN's Protected Area Guidelines for Indigenous Australians

Abstract

“Protected areas” is the formal definition for the global network of conservation places, including marine and terrestrial reserves, which are overseen by the IUCN through instruments such as the Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (Guidelines). In the long‐term conservation of nature, the Guidelines embed a nature–culture dualism, upon which the values of each are ascribed and weighted. This binary does not recognise relational values of Indigenous peoples to land or encompass worldviews beyond the restricted choice of the dualism. Through two Australian Aboriginal case studies, I reveal tensions in classifying cultural values for protected areas under the limited Guidelines offerings and provide an alternative engagement, through reassessing the means and scope by which values are assigned, for greater equity to Indigenous peoples.

Managing consequences of climate‐driven species redistribution requires integration of ecology, conservation and social science

“…The creation of a fourth type of governance (in addition to government, shared and private governance) in the IUCN's Protected Area Guidelines specifically addresses IPAs and Indigenous peoples' and Community‐Conserved territories and Areas (ICCAs). In this case, the nature–culture binary is being dismantled to incorporate a range of worldviews that promote sustainable development, governance vitality and management devolution (delegation of power) (Borrini‐Feyerabend et al, ; Lee, ). Acknowledging the legitimacy of traditional knowledge systems can be instrumental in understanding species redistribution and provides a mechanism by which local communities can monitor and manage impacts (Eicken et al, ; Tengö et al, ).…”

Explorando la innovación local como proceso clave en la transformación de las instituciones del nuevo milenio

“…Estas organizaciones podrían activar mecanismos globales que faciliten una transformación de valores compartidos al respecto (Löfmarck y Lidskog, 2017), propendiendo por un impacto interescalar y policéntrico (Jordan et al, 2017) que valorice el patrimonio ecológico y cultural de los saberes locales (Sato, 2014(Sato, , 2016. Existen "instituciones de conocimiento" específicas surgidas de las practicas territoriales locales que, en esencia, son similares entre sí; pero su impacto se aborda comúnmente desde una perspectiva de nivel micro (Turnhout et al, 2016), sin embargo, este conocimiento ecológico podría ser reconocido como una expresión de conocimiento universal que inicia en el nivel local y puede escalarse hacia niveles nacionales e internacionales (Löfmarck y Lidskog, 2017;Lee, 2016).…”

Untitled

“…For example, in Australia, 75 Indigenous Protected Areas cover approximately 67 million hectares, which comprise 44 per cent of the Na onal Reserve System and 7.5 per cent of all protected areas in Australian territories (CAPAD, 2014). This figure does not include jointly-managed World Heritage Areas, such as Kakadu Na onal Park (Lee, 2016a). Second, a number of the protected areas within which Indigenous peoples and local communi es have an important influence are reported as 'shared governance'.…”

“…Through a lens that prioritises biodiversity, Indigenous peoples' and local communities' connections to land, sea and sky have long been delineated in conservation policy as being either 'natural' or 'cultural'. This has led in many instances to the objectification of cultural values (Cohen, 1978;Lee, 2016a) and the associated undervaluing and undermining of the broader and more intricate socialecological systems (Berkes et al, 2003;Folke et al, 2005) and relationships that exist across landscapes and seascapes with which Indigenous peoples and local communities have close connections (Pathak, 2009;Robson & Berkes, 2010;Brown & Kothari, 2011;Bhatt et al, 2012;AIPP, 2013).…”

“…While this approach may have an inherent logic from a 'conservation' perspective, this binary approach leaves a wealth of Indigenous and local worldviews (including ontologies and ethics) unrecognised, disrespected and marginalised (Indian Law Resource Centre and IUCN, 2015). Inherent values that are characterised by the variability of diverse, changing and complex connections to both the physical and non-physical worlds (Gibbs, 2006;Johnson & Morton, 2007) and relational ways of knowing (Healey & Tagak, 2014) are obscured by the poor fit into either 'natural' or 'cultural' values (Lee, 2016a).…”