Abstract:The growing use of environmental flows in rivers and wetlands around the world, aimed at maintaining ecological health by allocating water to the environment, arguably also provides space for recognition of Indigenous water values. Theoretically, if environmental water values, which nominally determine what water is made available for restoring river health through environmental flows, do coincide with Indigenous water values, then this mutual benefit is conceivable. However, in contexts such as the Ord in nor… Show more
“…In that same submission, Badger Bates offered a compelling critique of environmental flows and their politics of nature, how transforming the river into an environmental flow privileges water‐dependent and vulnerable features of the environment recognised by settler society (amongst them endangered species), or authorised by scientific conservation frameworks (for instance, biologically representative habitats) (Finn & Jackson, 2011; Jackson, 2017; McLean, 2014; Weir, 2009). In his example, he explained how hard it is to get environmental flows to sustain the vital more‐than‐human relations of Barkandji life: Kularku (brolgas) are Barkandji people, they are our relations, they tell us things and they dance for us.…”
Section: Challenges To the Legitimacy Of The Nce And Its Ontological ...mentioning
In 2018, a large, coordinated environmental flow was instituted along the Barwon‐Darling (Barka) River to connect ecosystems and restore public confidence in water regulation in the Murray‐Darling Basin. This article examines the multiple river realities enacted by this event—environmental flow, regulated flow, unregulated flow, shut‐up flow—as a conflict over what constitutes the character of water during substantial change in Australia’s settler colonial systems of water governance. Geographical analyses of event spaces from military contexts assisted in unpacking the ontological and spatio‐temporal matters germane to this situation in which managers needed to heed the dynamism of the river at both material and institutional registers. The article describes the scientific and regulatory practices and visual technologies through which management of an “event‐ful” river brought together some waters (but not others) into something ontologically secure and coherent, and therefore governable. It shows how the naturalising discourse constrained and enabled what could be said about the relations deserving of water and who gets to decide what socio‐material connections water might make. Aboriginal leaders interviewed during the flow chose to emphasise a wider relational set of connections than did state water managers, and to accentuate dysfunctional and destructive relations, thereby inviting others to think and feel differently about environmental flows.
“…In that same submission, Badger Bates offered a compelling critique of environmental flows and their politics of nature, how transforming the river into an environmental flow privileges water‐dependent and vulnerable features of the environment recognised by settler society (amongst them endangered species), or authorised by scientific conservation frameworks (for instance, biologically representative habitats) (Finn & Jackson, 2011; Jackson, 2017; McLean, 2014; Weir, 2009). In his example, he explained how hard it is to get environmental flows to sustain the vital more‐than‐human relations of Barkandji life: Kularku (brolgas) are Barkandji people, they are our relations, they tell us things and they dance for us.…”
Section: Challenges To the Legitimacy Of The Nce And Its Ontological ...mentioning
In 2018, a large, coordinated environmental flow was instituted along the Barwon‐Darling (Barka) River to connect ecosystems and restore public confidence in water regulation in the Murray‐Darling Basin. This article examines the multiple river realities enacted by this event—environmental flow, regulated flow, unregulated flow, shut‐up flow—as a conflict over what constitutes the character of water during substantial change in Australia’s settler colonial systems of water governance. Geographical analyses of event spaces from military contexts assisted in unpacking the ontological and spatio‐temporal matters germane to this situation in which managers needed to heed the dynamism of the river at both material and institutional registers. The article describes the scientific and regulatory practices and visual technologies through which management of an “event‐ful” river brought together some waters (but not others) into something ontologically secure and coherent, and therefore governable. It shows how the naturalising discourse constrained and enabled what could be said about the relations deserving of water and who gets to decide what socio‐material connections water might make. Aboriginal leaders interviewed during the flow chose to emphasise a wider relational set of connections than did state water managers, and to accentuate dysfunctional and destructive relations, thereby inviting others to think and feel differently about environmental flows.
“…Indigenous water research has proliferated over the last 25 years (Maclean et al., ) and there is now a substantial body of research on Indigenous water knowledges within Australia (among others, see Gibbs, ; Jackson, ; Jackson & Langton, ; McLean, , ; Toussaint, ; Weir, , ; Yu, ) and globally (for example, Boelens, ; Guelke & Shell, ; O'Regan et al, ; Palmer & Tehan, ). This array of research has drawn attention to the multiplicity of Indigenous water knowledges as well as the impacts of global forces of change such as colonialism, neoliberalism and Indigenous rights movements.…”
Section: Engaging Cross‐cultural Water Knowledges and Shadow Watersmentioning
Connections between people and water have received considerable attention within geographic research. This paper draws on cultural and historical geographies, political ecology and the environmental humanities to extend understandings of the hydrosocial cycle by focusing on the cultural dimensions of society–water relations through the concept of shadow waters. Shadow waters centres attention on the cultures that privilege certain waters while rendering other waters invisible and marginalised. Inspired by Val Plumwood's notion of “shadow places,” shadow waters brings to light the way power intersects with cultural practices. We bring this concept of shadow waters into conversation with Indigenous water knowledges. Shadow waters can be conceptualised vertically, with surface water receiving more policy and research attention than ground water, and also horizontally, as some sub‐catchments, uses and values have been ignored or undervalued in macro‐catchment processes. Temporally, in considering the past, complex and contested histories of human–environment relations are often overlooked in favour of simple historical narratives that ultimately reinforce dominant management structures and trajectories. Shadow waters are thus historically created as particular power structures and narratives are reinforced and “normalised” over time. This paper examines shadow waters in southeastern Australia, elucidating the way two rivers are interwoven and co‐determined in cultures of water use in this context. We show how the rethinking of dominant water cultures, made possible by cross‐cultural engagement, generates new possibilities for reconnection, restoration and protection; a different water ethics based on care and responsibility that addresses power relations and injustices.
“…In this paper, we focus on the term, "Indigenous flows", which is a type of cultural flow that is specifically-held and articulated by Indigenous peoples. Indigenous flows draw attention to downstream Indigenous communities who have generations-long relationships in river systems and who rely on these relationships for community well-being (McLean 2014;Jackson et al 2015). However, Indigenous flows have not been widely recognized by decision makers such as policy-makers or dam operators.…”
Section: An Emergent Culturally-sensitive Concept: Indigenous Flowsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Downstream Indigenous communities rely on rivers for their livelihoods and lifeways. While this is not unique to Indigenous communities (Chan, Satterfield, and Goldstein 2012), often Indigenous communities will use the same ecosystem service to express multiple cultural, spiritual and livelihood dimensions (McLean 2014;Jackson et al 2015). Consequently, neglecting these multiple dimensions, which are part of the more holistic and connected cosmology of Indigenous ways of knowing, has adverse implications for how Indigenous interests can be met in decision making (Barrett 2013).…”
Section: Invisible Lossesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Decision-making about flows results in significant, inter-connected impacts on downstream Indigenous communities, which are not well-recognized in many dam governance arrangements (Turner et al 2008;McLean 2014). While dam operators have long been required to address environmental flows, demands now require operators to consider how to adjust the quantity and timing of water released to potentially better meet diverse needs of downstream communities (Johnston 2013;Jackson et al 2015).…”
Rivers and dams are increasingly contested venues where knowledge pluralism is critical for effective governance. To navigate change, decision-makers can adopt culturally-sensitive interventions to address the needs of diverse stakeholders and rights holders. Calls for Indigenous flows have become important as dam operators seek to renew their legal and social licenses to operate. Knowledge pluralism is needed to enhance decision-making about flows that better address complexity and change to Indigenous livelihoods and cultural practices. However, leveraging diverse knowledge types to inform these interventions is not simply a matter of changing management practice. Power relations can constrain knowledge pluralism. We contribute an empirical example that links power in a decision-making process about a dam in Saskatchewan, Canada, to the losses experienced by downstream Indigenous communities. This paper operationalizes power to illustrate its methodological utility and documents the interconnected losses, experienced by resources users, resultant from the marginalization of Indigenous knowledge.
ARTICLE HISTORY
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
