Caring as Country: Towards an ontology of co‐becoming in natural resource management

Abstract

This collaboratively written paper takes the reader on a journey to Bawaka, in North East Arnhem Land, northern Australia, to explore how a Yolŋu ontology of co-becoming can inform natural resource management (NRM) theory and practice. By focusing on the process of gathering and sharing miyapunu mapu (turtle eggs) and the foundational Yolŋu concept of wetj, we challenge NRM to take seriously Indigenous ways of knowing and becoming, and to attend to the vibrant, more-than-human relationality of our world. We discuss this relational cosmology, highlighting the importance of being aware and attentive, as well as the underlying ethical imperative of responsibility and obligation. We argue that as important as the concept of Caring for Country has been for NRM in Australia, it is critical that the human imperative to care for Country is balanced with a multidirectional and beyond-human understanding of the human-Country relationship. This requires engagement with the ways Country also cares and acknowledgement that humans are part of Country and not separate from it. We therefore propose a reframing, that we not only Care for Country but Care as Country. This has implications for understanding the ways that humans can and should relate to the environment as they exist together through co-becoming.

Community owned solutions for fire management in tropical ecosystems: case studies from Indigenous communities of South America

“…In the context of PES and REDDþ, this is not only through receiving funds to maintain sellable and tradable 'ecosystem services', but also to monitor, report and verify the status of the environment to fulfil state obligations to international funding organizations. Yet although MBIs espouse a range of creative and innovative solutions to environmental management, critically, their ideological foundations within a neoliberal agenda that promotes 'selling nature to save it', is in stark contradiction with Indigenous ontologies based on human-nonhuman-spiritual relationships [13]. Recent studies indicate that in practice, MBIs not only escalate inequalities through privileging elites and intermediary organizations, but also fall short in 'permanence' as a result of lack of land tenure, corruption and the failure to defend community land rights from competing interests [16].…”

Reframing Indigenous water rights in ‘modern’ Taiwan: reflecting on Tayal experience of colonized common property

“…Methodological approaches which embrace more-than-human worlds are increasingly acknowledged as framing the interface between human and natural systems in the discipline of Human Geography (Whatmore 2002;Braun 2005;Panelli 2010;Suchet-Pearson et al 2013;Wright 2014;Bawaka et al 2015;Larsen and Johnson 2016). Among studies of more-than-human worlds, there is growing interest in how Indigenous philosophies perceive relations and connections with non-human agents, such as rivers, land and forests.…”

“…Among studies of more-than-human worlds, there is growing interest in how Indigenous philosophies perceive relations and connections with non-human agents, such as rivers, land and forests. For instance, Suchet- Pearson et al (2013) demonstrate the co-constitution of human and non-human agencies in Yolŋu ontology in northeast Arnhem Land, Australia: they 'see humans as one small part of a broader cosmos populated by diverse beings and diverse ways of being, including animals, winds, dirt, sunsets, songs and troop carriers (Suchet-Pearson et al 2013, 185)'. Acknowledging a more-than-human world opens the possibility to recognizing a non-anthropocentric worldview and its implication of common property governance (Bawaka et al 2015).…”

Transforming cross‐cultural water research through trust, participation and place

“…Undeterred by these research challenges, geographers continue to seek to engage Indigenous communities in joint enquiry through participatory methodologies that transcend the discipline's colonial legacies (Baker et al ., ; Pain and Kindon, ; Marika et al ., ; Castleden et al ., ; de Leeuw et al ., ; Fermantez, ; Suchet‐Pearson et al , ; Coombes et al ., ; Maclean and The Bana Yarralji Bubu Inc., ). In Geographical Research alone there are diverse examples of geographers who played central roles to facilitate and broker Indigenous community involvement in NRM and planning (see, for example, Louis, ; Hill, ; Howitt et al ., ; Maclean and Woodward, ; Veland et al ., ).…”