Safeguarding our sacred islands: Traditional Owner-led Sea Country governance, planning and management in Australia

Abstract

This timely collation of case studies, written by and with Traditional Owners of diverse Australian offshore islands, offers direct insights into benefits arising from strategic and participatory action planning for biocultural island conservation and monitoring. We pay respect to the Old People and Elders whose dedicated care of their island homelands means we today can still experience their cultural and natural diversity. We extend greetings to our Pacifika neighbours, and to carers of islands around Earth. Our paper scopes socio-economic benefits arising from planning for islands, for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, and more generally. Global, national, state and local co-investments support place-specific planning for some islands by Traditional Owners as a starting point toward shared governance and caring for Country. Case studies describe Country planning for Mayala Country in Australia’s northwest, Woppaburra experiences within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and integrated biocultural health monitoring arising from remote island Indigenous Protected Area planning in Torres Strait. New institutional initiatives are also seeking to create solid foundations for more substantive island research collaborations. Across Australia, novel relationships grounded in culturally assured, holistically integrated approaches to island governance and caring for Country involving Traditional Owners and island resource users/managers are creating equity in livelihoods and stronger wellbeing. Australia’s innovative Sea Country collaborations, with priorities initiated and led by island Traditional Owners, carry real value for sustained island conservation and provide positive inspirations for global humanity in the accelerating Anthropocene.

How do we drive a renaissance for national island conservation in Australia?

“…The future restoration of islands requires a holistic approach to coordination: expertise across local community including island custodians, the environment sector and business who collectively bring a diversity of people to the table, and a respect for what these networks offer across different phases of stakeholder and community engagement and action. Inclusion of traditional custodians at the early partnership stage of project planning and discussions to contextualise and respectfully empower shared island management (Bock et al 2022), an emphasis on national partner coordination (Kark et al 2022), involvement and support from bona fide conservation entrepreneurship to finance island development and conservation agendas (Ball 2022), contribution and ownership from local communities into conservation initiatives in Australia (Bryant et al 2022), and the clear message from knowledge gained in New Zealand that island stakeholders and custodians are vital partners to restoration professionals (Saunders et al 2022), collectively demonstrate the time is now for Australia to move forward with a unified national collaborative to progress island conservation and restoration.…”

“…A secondary role for a national island alliance would be to work with island stakeholders, including from the outset the traditional custodians of offshore islands (Bock et al 2022), to facilitate the selection of priority islands for restoration, to champion those choices, and to have these funded and implemented. In parallel, an alliance would build on a national evidence base to support conservation prioritisation actions for targeted islands to focus on the most effective and efficient conservation actions for island biodiversity nationally.…”

“…Many islands across northern and southern Australia are now again being cared for by their respective Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander custodians, following their return via diverse processes including native title determinations. These places hold deep spiritual and cultural connections, and societal relevance as marine and island food sources (Bock et al 2022).…”

‘Out of sight, out of mind’ - towards a greater acknowledgment of submerged prehistoric resources in Australian science-policy as part of a common heritage

“…Most marine-based programs and grant schemes fall within the latter, with the development of strategic alliances and partnerships between Traditional custodians and marine science and management agencies, with the shared realization that the integration of traditional knowledge and Western science provides a better way forward (e.g., Lincoln and Hedge, 2019;Shamsi et al, 2020;Diggon et al 2022;Murley et al, 2022). Such aims are exemplified in the Australian Marine Parks Indigenous Engagement Program 15 and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) Indigenous Partnerships Plan 16 (Evans-Illidge et al, 2020;Bock et al, 2021). To fully embrace Indigenous perspectives, these schemes need to be inclusive of all Sea Country, including submerged cultural heritage resources, and not separate from traditional terrestrial estates (see also Henderson, 2019).…”

Kes (Passageway): Cross‐Cultural Considerations of Island Field Containment in the Torres Strait

“…16 16 See Bock et al (2022:324) for examples of differences between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous (Western) worldviews. …”