Abstract

Increasing attention to formal recognition of indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs) as part of national and/or global protected area systems is generating novel encounters between the customary institutions through which indigenous peoples and local communities manage these traditional estates and the bureaucratic institutions of protected area management planning. Although management plans are widely considered to be important to effective management of protected areas, little guidance has been available about how their form and content can effectively reflect the distinctive socio-cultural and political characteristics of ICCAs. This gap has been particularly apparent in Australia where a trend to rapidly increased formal engagement of indigenous people in environmental management resulted, by 2012, in 50 indigenous groups voluntarily declaring their intent to manage all or part of their estates for conservation in perpetuity, as an indigenous protected area (IPA). Development and adoption of a management plan is central to the process through which the Australian Government recognizes these voluntary declarations and invests resources in IPA management. We identified four types of innovations, apparent in some recent IPA plans, which reflect the distinctive socio-cultural and political characteristics of ICCAs and support indigenous people as the primary decision makers and drivers of knowledge integration in IPAs. These are (1) a focus on customary institutions in governance; (2) strategic planning approaches that respond to interlinkages of stewardship between people, place, plants, and animals; (3) planning frameworks that bridge scales by considering values and issues across the whole of an indigenous people’s territory; and (4) varied communication modes appropriate to varied audiences, including an emphasis on visual and spatial modes. Further research is warranted into how governance and management of IPAs, and the plans that support these processes, can best engender adaptive management and diverse strong partnerships while managing the risk of partners eroding local control.

Highlights

  • Management plans are widely considered to be important for effective management of protected areas (Oltremari and Thelen 2003, Thomas and Middleton 2003, Lockwood 2006, Leverington et al 2008, 2010, Stoll-Kleemann 2010)

  • Development of a management plan has been integral to declarations made by 50 indigenous groups in Australia of their intent to manage all, or part of, their customary estates for conservation outcomes in perpetuity as indigenous protected area (IPA)

  • Four innovations distinguish some recent IPA management plans from earlier such plans and from those prepared for government-established protected areas: (1) overt recognition of the primacy of customary governance; (2) strategic planning formats that reflect interlinkages between people, place, plants, and animals; (3) planning frameworks that encompass customary territories, identify cross-scale issues, and challenge power relations embedded in colonial tenures; and (4) a suite of planning documents for varied audiences and purposes, with an emphasis in the main plan on visual and spatial communication modes that facilitate accessibility to traditional owners

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Management plans are widely considered to be important for effective management of protected areas (Oltremari and Thelen 2003, Thomas and Middleton 2003, Lockwood 2006, Leverington et al 2008, 2010, Stoll-Kleemann 2010). When management plans do exist, critics point out that they are often little used (Clarke 1999, 2000, Fallding 2000, Oltremari and Thelen 2003) and may be unusable (Clarke 1999). Accessible guidance for the form and content of protected area management plans (Thomas and Middleton 2003, Lockwood 2006) draws primarily on experiences from governmentmanaged protected areas. Our research contributes to addressing that gap by identifying innovations in the format and content of management plans that have emerged from indigenous protected areas (IPAs) in Australia through novel encounters between the customary institutions through which indigenous peoples manage their traditional estates and the bureaucratic institutions of protected area management planning

Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.