Indigenous water values, rights, interests and development goals in the Roper catchment Australia’s National Science Agency A technical report from the CSIRO Roper River Water Resource Assessment for the National Water Grid Ilisapeci Lyons, Marcus Barber, Kristina Fisher, Peta Braedon ISBN 978-1-4863-1909-1 (print) ISBN 978-1-4863-1910-7 (online) Citation Lyons I, Barber M, Fisher K and Braedon P (2023) Indigenous water values, rights, interests and development goals in the Roper catchment. A technical report from the CSIRO Roper River Water Resource Assessment for the National Water Grid. CSIRO, Australia. Copyright © Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 2023. To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO. Important disclaimer CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. CSIRO is committed to providing web accessible content wherever possible. If you are having difficulties with accessing this document please contact Email CSIRO Enquiries . CSIRO Roper River Water Resource Assessment acknowledgements This report was funded through the National Water Grid’s Science Program, which sits within the Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Aspects of the Assessment have been undertaken in conjunction with the Northern Territory Government. The Assessment was guided by two committees: i.The Assessment’s Governance Committee: CRC for Northern Australia/James Cook University; CSIRO; National Water Grid (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water); NT Department of Environment, Parks and Water Security; NT Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade; Office of Northern Australia; Qld Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; Qld Department of Regional Development, Manufacturing and Water ii.The Assessment’s joint Roper and Victoria River catchments Steering Committee: Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT; Austrade; Centrefarm; CSIRO, National Water Grid (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water); Northern Land Council; NT Cattlemen’s Association; NT Department of Environment, Parks Australia; Parks and Water Security; NT Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade; Regional Development Australia; NT Farmers; NT Seafood Council; Office of Northern Australia; Roper Gulf Regional Council Shire Responsibility for the Assessment’s content lies with CSIRO. The Assessment’s committees did not have an opportunity to review the Assessment results or outputs prior to its release. This report was reviewed by Malcolm Connolly (CSIRO) Acknowledgement of Country CSIRO acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands, seas and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present. Photo Roper River. Source: CSIRO Director’s foreword Sustainable regional development is a priority for the Australian and Northern Territory governments. Across northern Australia, however, there is a scarcity of scientific information on land and water resources to complement local information held by Indigenous owners and landholders. Sustainable regional development requires knowledge of the scale, nature, location and distribution of the likely environmental, social and economic opportunities and the risks of any proposed development. Especially where resource use is contested, this knowledge informs the consultation and planning that underpins the resource security required to unlock investment. In 2019 the Australian Government commissioned CSIRO to complete the Roper River Water Resource Assessment. In response, CSIRO accessed expertise and collaborations from across Australia to provide data and insight to support consideration of the use of land and water resources for development in the Roper catchment. While the Assessment focuses mainly on the potential for agriculture, the detailed information provided on land and water resources, their potential uses and the impacts of those uses are relevant to a wider range of regional-scale planning considerations by Indigenous owners, landholders, citizens, investors, local government, the Northern Territory and federal governments. Importantly the Assessment will not recommend one development over another, nor assume any particular development pathway. It provides a range of possibilities and the information required to interpret them - including risks that may attend any opportunities - consistent with regional values and aspirations. All data and reports produced by the Assessment will be publicly available. Chris Chilcott Project Director C:\Users\bru119\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Word\C_Chilcott_high.jpg The Roper River Water Resource Assessment Team Project Director Chris Chilcott Project Leaders Cuan Petheram, Ian Watson Project Support Caroline Bruce Communications Chanel Koeleman/Kate Cranney, Siobhan Duffy, Amy Edwards Activities Agriculture and socio- economics Chris Stokes, Caroline Bruce, Shokhrukh Jalilov, Diane Jarvis1, Adam Liedloff, Yvette Oliver, Alex Peachey2, Allan Peake, Maxine Piggott, Perry Poulton, Di Prestwidge, Thomas Vanderbyl7, Tony Webster, Steve Yeates Climate David McJannet, Lynn Seo Ecology Groundwater hydrology Indigenous water values, rights, interests and development goals Danial Stratford, Laura Blamey, Rik Buckworth, Pascal Castellazzi, Bayley Costin, Roy Aijun Deng, Ruan Gannon, Sophie Gilbey, Rob Kenyon, Darran King, Keller Kopf3, Stacey Kopf3, Simon Linke, Heather McGinness, Linda Merrin, Colton Perna3, Eva Plaganyi, Rocio Ponce Reyes, Jodie Pritchard, Nathan Waltham9 Andrew R. Taylor, Karen Barry, Russell Crosbie, Phil Davies, Alec Deslandes, Katelyn Dooley, Clement Duvert8, Geoff Hodgson, Lindsay Hutley8, Anthony Knapton4, Sebastien Lamontagne, Steven Tickell5, Sarah Marshall, Axel Suckow, Chris Turnadge Pethie Lyons, Marcus Barber, Peta Braedon, Kristina Fisher, Petina Pert Land suitability Ian Watson, Jenet Austin, Elisabeth Bui, Bart Edmeades5, John Gallant, Linda Gregory, Jason Hill5, Seonaid Philip, Ross Searle, Uta Stockmann, Mark Thomas, Francis Wait5, Peter L. Wilson, Peter R. Wilson Surface water hydrology Justin Hughes, Shaun Kim, Steve Marvanek, Catherine Ticehurst, Biao Wang Surface water storage Cuan Petheram, Fred Baynes6, Kevin Devlin7, Arthur Read, Lee Rogers, Ang Yang, Note: Assessment team as at June 15, 2023. All contributors are affiliated with CSIRO unless indicated otherwise. Activity Leaders are underlined. 1James Cook University; 2NT Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade; 3 Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods. College of Engineering, IT & Environment. Charles Darwin University; 4CloudGMS; 5NT Department of Environment, Parks and Water Security; 6Baynes Geologic; 7independent consultant; 8Charles Darwin University; 9Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research. James Cook University. ii | Indigenous water values, rights, interests and development goals Shortened forms SHORT FORM FULL FORM AAPA Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics AACo Australian Agricultural Company ALRA Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation CSSHREC CSIRO Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee DKIS Darwin – Katherine Interconnected System DOI Document Object Identifier ILC Indigenous Land Corporation ILS Indigenous Landholder Service ILSC Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreement NAILSMA Northern Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance NGO Non-Government Organisation NLC Northern Land Council NPF Northern Prawn Fishery NT Northern Territory NWI National Water Initiative RRLG Roper River Landcare Group RWCD Roper Beetaloo Water Control District SAWR Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserve TNRM Territory Natural Resource Management TRaCK Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WAP Water Allocation Plan Preface Sustainable regional development is a priority for the Australian and Northern Territory governments. For example, in 2023 the Northern Territory Government committed to the implementation of a new Territory Water Plan. One of the priority actions announced by the government was the acceleration of the existing water science program ‘to support best practice water resource management and sustainable development’. The efficient use of Australia’s natural resources by food producers and processors requires a good understanding of soil, water and energy resources so they can be managed sustainably. Finely tuned strategic planning will be required to ensure that investment and government expenditure on development are soundly targeted and designed. Northern Australia presents a globally unique opportunity (a greenfield development opportunity in a first-world country) to strategically consider and plan development. Northern Australia also contains ecological and cultural assets of high value and decisions about development will need to be made within that context. Good information is critical to these decisions. Most of northern Australia’s land and water resources, however, have not been mapped in sufficient detail to provide for reliable resource allocation, mitigate investment or environmental risks, or build policy settings that can support decisions. Better data are required to inform decisions on private investment and government expenditure, to account for intersections between existing and potential resource users, and to ensure that net development benefits are maximised. In consultation with the Northern Territory Government, the Australian Government prioritised the catchment of the Roper River for investigation (Preface Figure 1-1) and establishment of baseline information on soil, water and the environment. Northern Australia is defined as the part of Australia north of the Tropic of Capricorn. The Murray– Darling Basin and major irrigation areas and major dams (greater than 500 GL capacity) in Australia are shown for context. The Roper River Water Resource Assessment (the Assessment) provides a comprehensive and integrated evaluation of the feasibility, economic viability and sustainability of water and agricultural development. While agricultural developments are the primary focus of the Assessment, it also considers opportunities for and intersections between other types of water-dependent development. For example, the Assessment explores the nature, scale, location and impacts of developments relating to industrial and urban development and aquaculture, in relevant locations. The Assessment was designed to inform consideration of development, not to enable any particular development to occur. As such, the Assessment informs – but does not seek to replace – existing planning, regulatory or approval processes. Importantly, the Assessment does not assume a given policy or regulatory environment. As policy and regulations can change, this enables the results to be applied to the widest range of uses for the longest possible time frame. Preface Figure 1-1 Map of Australia showing Assessment area It was not the intention – and nor was it possible – for the Assessment to generate new information on all topics related to water and irrigation development in northern Australia. Topics not directly examined in the Assessment are discussed with reference to and in the context of the existing literature. Functionally, the Assessment adopted an activities-based approach (reflected in the content and structure of the outputs and products), comprising eight activity groups; each contributes its part to create a cohesive picture of regional development opportunities, costs and benefits. Preface Figure 1-2 illustrates the high-level links between the eight activities and the general flow of information in the Assessment. For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au Preface Figure 1-2 Schematic diagram of the high-level linkages between the eight activities and the general flow of information in the Assessment. Assessment reporting structure Development opportunities and their impacts are frequently highly interdependent and consequently, so is the research undertaken through this Assessment. While each report may be read as a stand-alone document, the suite of reports most reliably informs discussion and decisions concerning regional development when read as a whole. The Assessment has produced a series of cascading reports and information products: • Technical reports; that present scientific work at a level of detail sufficient for technical and scientific experts to reproduce the work. Each of the eight activities has one or more corresponding technical report. • A Catchment report; that for the Roper catchment synthesises key material from the technical reports, providing well-informed (but not necessarily-scientifically trained) readers with the information required to make decisions about the opportunities, costs and benefits associated with irrigated agriculture and other development options. • A Summary report; that for the Roper catchment provides a summary and narrative for a general public audience in plain English. • A Summary factsheet; that for the Roper catchment provides key findings for a general public audience in the shortest possible format. The Assessment has also developed online information products to enable the reader to better access information that is not readily available in a static form. All of these reports, information tools and data products are available online at https://www.csiro.au/roperriver. The website provides readers with a communications suite including factsheets, multimedia content, FAQs, reports and links to other related sites, particularly about other research in northern Australia. Executive summary The Assessment examined the feasibility, economic viability and sustainability of water and agricultural development in the catchment of the Roper River. The Assessment uses ‘Roper catchment’ as a collective term to describe the easterly draining Roper River and its tributaries. One of the eight activities within the Assessment included investigating Indigenous water values, rights and interests, Indigenous perspectives on natural resource development generally, and local Indigenous development opportunities and goals. This activity addresses the existing information needs with respect to Indigenous water issues in the Assessment area to provide foundations for further community and government planning and decision making. This technical report presents the results of this activity. Indigenous peoples’ desire to participate in sustainable economic activity in northern Australia. They wish to be engaged early and continuously in the development of options for future activity, rather than be consulted about already formed proposals. This report provides a regionally specific assessment designed to help non-Indigenous decision makers understand general Indigenous valuations of water, wider connections to country, and the rights and interests attached to those. It highlights likely issues to be raised in future discussions with Indigenous groups about development proposals, community planning, and Indigenous business objectives. The report also helps local, regional and national decision makers understand the specific residential, ownership, natural and cultural resource management, and development issues faced by Indigenous peoples associated with the Roper catchment. This activity within the Assessment highlighted key conceptual issues and principles with respect to Indigenous peoples and generated a representative set of Indigenous water values, rights and interests. It focused on data gathering and individual consultations. It did not attempt to conduct community-based planning or to identify formal Indigenous group positions on any of the matters raised. However, it does provide firm foundations for such processes to occur in the future. This activity also contributes significant additional material about Indigenous perspectives on agricultural development. The research outputs from the activity represent a scoping analysis, but correlation with other studies suggests that the general issues, principles and responses outlined within constitute a reliable initial guide. Summaries of the material in this report are also included in the Roper catchment report for the entire Assessment. The research approach for the activity was adopted partly due to the geographic context, scope and time frame of the Assessment. The amount of available research work on Indigenous peoples and their interests varies across the Roper catchment. The Indigenous population is dispersed across the study area, with significant variations in residential density and the existence, location and stability of local Indigenous group corporations The report contains seven main sections and four appendices. To frame the research, the introduction describes some key concepts and principles as they relate to Indigenous Australians. These include Indigenous perspectives on engagement, ‘culture’, ‘country’, ‘values, rights and interests’ and understandings of ‘development’. Particularly important to note is the way that ‘values, rights and interests’ encompasses both formally recognised rights and a broader range of attributes important to Indigenous peoples. These concepts are discussed in Section 1 and form the contextual frame for this research. Key geographic information about the Roper catchment, as well as the methods for the Indigenous activity are provided in Section 2. The research approach was primarily based on face-to-face meetings and interviews with senior members of the Wubalawan, Mangarrayi, Jawoyn (Bagala), Dalabon, Ngalakan, Ngandi, and Warndarrang and Alawa groups. Indigenous peoples have lived in Australia for many thousands of years, developing strong connections to important places and significant knowledge of the wider landscape. The violence and dispossession that occurred during European colonisation had deep and ongoing effects on both individual Indigenous people and the cultures and societies they were part of. Many areas within the Roper catchment remain relatively underpopulated by Indigenous peoples because of this history. Nevertheless, Indigenous people and the groups they belong to have significant land holdings and rights in country through the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA), the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 and native title determinations. These holdings are an important focus for discussions about water and about sustainable development in the Roper catchment. Indigenous objectives combine economic viability and sustainability with a range of wider social, cultural and environmental goals, including care for the country, respect for the knowledge and authority of elders, collective governance arrangements, thriving communities and meaningful employment for young people. In Section 4, participants in the Activity provided crucial framing information about Indigenous culture, country and people. This included comments about the significance of ancestral and religious beliefs (often known colloquially as the Dreaming), camping, hunting and fishing, and the importance of ownership and interconnections. Particular obligations to past and future generations to maintain customary practices and knowledge and care for the country properly are identified; these obligations entail responsibilities to near neighbours and downstream groups, as well as to future generations. In terms of conservation and land management, the role of Indigenous knowledge in effective management and the growing significance of formal Indigenous roles in natural and cultural resource management are important issues. Indigenous ownership principles relevant to non-Indigenous activities on Indigenous lands are also noted, encompassing consultation, consent, compliance and compensation. The overall importance of water is demonstrated by clear statements from the research participants. Key water issues for Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchments include: • ensuring enough water and of sufficient quality to maintain healthy landscapes (environmental flows) and sustain cultural resources and practices • having access to water sites • monitoring and reporting of water uses, availability and development impacts on water quality for informed decision making about future development • maintaining adequate and good-quality supplies for human consumption and recreation in communities, for outstations and to maintain green shaded community spaces • securing sufficient water reserves for current and future economic activity • deriving benefits from water development and water use. Indigenous interests in water were not recognised in law until changes in water law and policy in the early 1990s through native title and reforms to state and territory water statutes. In principle, native title to land applies similarly to water; however, common law does not recognise exclusive possession of native title rights and interests to waters. Only non-exclusive native title possession to access and use water can exist. These legal constraints are reflected in limited Indigenous roles in water planning. In 2019, the Northern Territory Government introduced the Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserves policy under the NT Water Act 1992 (NT) to improve access to water allocations for Aboriginal people holding land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. However, not all Aboriginal people in the Roper catchment have such rights and only the central region of the catchment is subject to a current water planning process – the Mataranka Tindall Limestone Aquifer Water Allocation Plan. There remains relatively limited means for Indigenous knowledge of water to be expressed in public policy and planning. Indigenous peoples’ knowledge of formal government-led water planning in the area was found to be relatively low. Historically, Indigenous peoples have been less likely than non-Indigenous peoples to benefit from large development projects and more likely to experience negative social cultural, and environmental impacts from such developments. This affects Indigenous estimations of the risks associated with development. The report identifies cultural heritage impacts from development as a significant issue, including ongoing damage to known existing sites. Information is needed on the heritage values of less well-known areas of traditional lands now potentially subject to development proposals. Results from the Indigenous participants in the activity showed that, if water development were to occur, the general trend from most favourable to least favourable forms of development would be: flood harvesting into smaller offstream storages; sustainable bore and groundwater extraction; smaller instream dams in side tributaries or ancillary branches; and large instream dams in the river channels. A combination of supply options was considered to be advantageous, but large instream dams were consistently rejected by research participants. This list is indicative rather than definitive, and new information may alter individual and collective perceptions of which options are considered more or less favourable. With respect to Indigenous objectives and development planning, five primary interrelated development goals are identified: • greater ownership of and/or management control over water • secure water supply for human consumption and recreation in communities and outstations • improvements in the overall social and economic status of Indigenous people • protection and strengthening of regional governance in line with customary connections • development of new enterprises and businesses. The key issues affecting these goals include: the social, economic and institutional investment in existing residential locations; water planning literacy; water rights and ownership and local recognition in the Roper catchment; involvement of Indigenous peoples locally and regionally in water-related development and planning; insecure access to clean water supply; and employment and training opportunities. There are clear relationships between access to secure clean water for community, community wellbeing and health, and development possibilities. The activity research findings highlight the importance of group or community-based planning processes to help Indigenous peoples prioritise desirable options for their own natural and cultural resource management and development. Such planning will also assist in further interactions and negotiations with government and developers. In relation to wider development, group or community-based planning can help communities prioritise options for development. These can include establishing stand-alone Indigenous businesses, building partnerships with non-Indigenous businesses, and focusing on employment and training outcomes such as local and regional resource monitoring and reporting programs. All of these were objectives which emerged during the research, but which different groups may prioritise in different ways. Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment possess valuable natural and cultural assets and represent a significant potential labour force, but collectively lack business-development skills and expertise. Partnerships can address this gap, but there is a need to improve the opportunities for business to understand and invest in Indigenous peoples and lands in the Roper catchment. The following actions can assist this process: • investigating the full range of potential business activities and options • producing group and/or catchment prospectuses to coordinate and define collective Indigenous assets and opportunities and to aid communication with potential investors • providing further information and training for Indigenous peoples about the opportunities and constraints of partnerships with private industry, including effective leveraging of Indigenous resource rights • providing targeted non-Indigenous community training about partnerships with Indigenous people, including models for shared-benefit agreements and partnership arrangements • creating incentives for Indigenous involvement in new development initiatives • training younger Indigenous peoples in career planning and formal job skills. Indigenous development objectives, and Indigenous development partnerships, are best progressed through locally-specific, group and community-based planning and prioritisation processes that are nested in a system of regional coordination. Indigenous peoples strongly wish to participate in sustainable economic activity in northern Australia. A range of private interests underpinned by government endorsement, enablement and strategic investment is the most likely outcome, indicating the significance of engaging across sectors. Indigenous peoples can also act as a substantial enabler of appropriate development. They seek to be engaged early and continuously in defining development pathways and options. Contents Director’s foreword .......................................................................................................................... i The Roper River Water Resource Assessment Team ...................................................................... ii Shortened forms .............................................................................................................................iii Preface ............................................................................................................................... iv Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ vii Part I Main report 1 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Research context ................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Scope for the Roper Indigenous activity ............................................................... 2 1.3 Indigenous engagement and stakeholder consultation ........................................ 4 1.4 Key principles and issues for interpreting the report content .............................. 7 1.5 Summary: key concepts and issues ..................................................................... 11 2 Catchment description and research methods ................................................................ 13 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 13 2.2 History of Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment ...................................... 14 2.3 Current population .............................................................................................. 18 2.4 Land use ............................................................................................................... 19 2.5 Economic activity ................................................................................................. 21 2.6 Current infrastructure ......................................................................................... 21 2.7 Indigenous land ownership and management regimes ...................................... 24 2.8 Indigenous organisations and representation .................................................... 27 2.9 Indigenous roles in existing natural resource management and water planning ............................................................................................................................. 30 2.10 Assessment research methods ............................................................................ 34 3 Literature, legislation and policy ...................................................................................... 38 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 38 3.2 Water and Indigenous Australians ...................................................................... 38 3.3 Indigenous catchment, community and business planning ................................ 40 3.4 Indigenous Australians and agricultural development ....................................... 41 3.5 Legislative and policy context for Indigenous responses to water and agricultural development ................................................................................................. 44 4 Culture, people and country ............................................................................................. 48 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 48 4.2 Culture ................................................................................................................. 49 4.3 People .................................................................................................................. 52 4.4 Country ................................................................................................................ 55 4.5 Managing others on country ............................................................................... 57 5 Indigenous people, water and development in the Roper catchment ............................ 60 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 60 5.2 The importance of water ..................................................................................... 60 5.3 Seasonal and environmental change .................................................................. 61 5.4 Water quality ....................................................................................................... 62 5.5 Types of water use............................................................................................... 64 5.6 Types of water extraction .................................................................................... 67 5.7 Types of development ......................................................................................... 71 5.8 Impacts from development ................................................................................. 75 5.9 Water rights and planning ................................................................................... 79 6 Indigenous development objectives ................................................................................. 90 6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 90 6.2 Recognition and resource rights.......................................................................... 90 6.3 Regional governance ........................................................................................... 91 6.4 Country-based business and enterprise options ................................................. 92 7 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 98 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 98 7.2 Indigenous water values, rights and interests in the Roper catchment ............. 99 7.3 Development planning and water planning ...................................................... 100 7.4 Water-development options ............................................................................. 102 7.5 Indigenous business and agricultural development ......................................... 103 7.6 Further research ................................................................................................ 105 7.7 Summary ............................................................................................................ 106 References ........................................................................................................................... 108 Part II Appendices 117 Project information Sheet ................................................................................. 118 Ethics consent form ........................................................................................... 120 Indigenous water declarations and policies ...................................................... 121 Example of a Water Literacy factsheet ............................................................. 140 Figures Preface Figure 1-1 Map of Australia showing Assessment area ..................................................... v Preface Figure 1-2 Schematic diagram of the high-level linkages between the 8 activities and the general flow of information in the Assessment. ............................................................................. vi Figure 1-1 Community consultation in the Roper catchment ........................................................ 4 Figure 1-2 Elsey Creek at Mataranka .............................................................................................. 8 Figure 1-3 Weemol Creek at the top of Roper catchment ........................................................... 11 Figure 1-4 View from Ngukurr of ranger fire work in the distance .............................................. 12 Figure 2-1 Roper catchment ......................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2-2 Sign at the historical Roper River Police station on Roper Bar .................................... 16 Figure 2-3 Colonial frontier massacres in Australia ...................................................................... 17 Figure 2-4 Land use classification for the Roper catchment ........................................................ 20 Figure 2-5 Electricity generation and transmission network and natural gas pipelines in the Roper catchment ........................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-6 Indigenous freehold (Aboriginal Land) in the Roper catchment as at July 2017 ........ 25 Figure 2-7 Indigenous native title claims and determinations in the Roper catchment as at July 2017............................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 2-8 Daly Roper Beetaloo Water Control District................................................................ 31 Figure 2-9 Mataranka Tindal Water Allocation Plan Location and Tenure .................................. 33 Figure 2-10 Oval being sprinkled with groundwater in Bulman (at the top of Roper catchment) ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 3-1 Mataranka thermal springs.......................................................................................... 40 Figure 3-2 Map of the locations of the joint Aboriginal Land Economic Development Agency and Central and Northern Land Councils pilot projects ...................................................................... 43 Figure 3-3 Wilton River ................................................................................................................. 46 Figure 3-4 Road trains at Mataranka township ............................................................................ 47 Figure 4-1 Artwork on display at the Ngukurr Art Centre ............................................................ 48 Figure 4-2 Fishing at a local waterhole ......................................................................................... 50 Figure 4-3 Hunting at a local waterhole for file snake .................................................................. 52 Figure 4-4 Waterhouse Creek before the wet season .................................................................. 53 Figure 4-5 Sign in Bulman community about the Mimal Rangers’ work on country ................... 57 Figure 4-6 Yugul Mangi Ranger patrol boat .................................................................................. 59 Figure 5-1 Ngukurr Traditional Owner at billabong ...................................................................... 61 Figure 5-2 Cattle brands register .................................................................................................. 64 Figure 5-3 Dinghy on the Roper River at Ngukurr Community ..................................................... 67 Figure 5-4 Pipes from the Roper River at Ngukurr ....................................................................... 69 Figure 5-5 Original site of Elsey station ........................................................................................ 72 Figure 5-6 Ngukurr community store ........................................................................................... 74 Figure 5-7 Escarpment on the Arnhem Land Highway ................................................................. 76 Figure 5-8 Roper River winding into Ngukurr ............................................................................... 79 Figure 5-9 A local fishing spot at the top of the catchment ......................................................... 82 Figure 5-10 Entrance to Jilkminggan community ......................................................................... 85 Figure 5-11 Ngukurr community football oval .............................................................................. 89 Figure 6-1 Roper River Bar ............................................................................................................ 92 Figure 6-2 Weemol springs ........................................................................................................... 97 Figure 7-1 Ngukurr community sign ............................................................................................. 99 Figure 7-2 Wild donkey at Bulman .............................................................................................. 101 Figure 7-3 Centrefarm agricultural horticulture limited economic development strategy map 105 Tables Table 2-1 Major demographic indicators for the Roper catchment ............................................. 19 Table 2-2 Tenure and resourcing arrangements for named groups and consulted for this study ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 Part I Main report 1 Introduction 1.1 Research context Indigenous Australians have consistently sought sustainable inter-generational social and economic opportunities for themselves and their communities. Mechanisms such as native title and land restitution schemes are giving growing levels of formal recognition of their rights to the nation’s natural resources, particularly in northern Australia. In the past, key Indigenous development objectives have been articulated in Indigenous-driven initiatives and documents (NAILSMA, 2012; 2013a), and Indigenous leaders have also sought to have Indigenous values, rights, interests and development objectives acknowledged in wider development initiatives and planning processes. These include past government white papers focused on the development of northern Australia and agricultural competitiveness (Australian Government, 2015; 2016) and the constitution of an Indigenous Reference Group to inform Australian Government approaches to development in northern Australia. Such actions reflect ongoing needs for improved recognition and understanding of the role that Indigenous peoples could play in future successful development initiatives. Reflecting these circumstances, the Roper River Water Resource Assessment included a survey of Indigenous values, rights, interests and development objectives across the catchment. 1.2 Scope for the Roper Indigenous activity The scope for this activity was based on previous experience of catchment-scale studies of the implications for Indigenous peoples of water and agricultural development (Barber, 2013; 2018a). The final scope for the Indigenous activity for the Roper catchment was that it investigates and reports on: • general principles and issues for understanding Indigenous interests in water and agricultural development • the context for contemporary Indigenous residence in, and connections to, the Roper catchment • key contemporary Indigenous groups and organisational arrangements • Indigenous values associated with water and riparian landscapes in the Roper catchment • potential cultural heritage issues associated with water and agricultural development • Indigenous needs and objectives in relation to water planning and catchment management • Indigenous needs and objectives in relation to water and agricultural development • additional steps which may facilitate positive Indigenous participation in future development and lower the barriers to investment in such development. The scope was used to guide the research process and the content of the current report. At the commencement of the Assessment, the development possibilities within the Roper catchment were provisional, exploratory and geographically unspecified. All activities in the Assessment were required to be conducted simultaneously, with the results not to be released publicly until the end date of the Assessment, and the Assessment was not itself recommending particular development pathways. This meant it was not appropriate to simplify the scope for the activity by reducing the research scale to discrete locations or groups within the Roper catchment, as any locations chosen may have subsequently emerged as more or less favourable for development. Preliminary assessments of water storage and soil potential gave the activity some focus, but these were general and provisional, so adopting a generalised cross-catchment approach remained vital. The overall time frame for the Assessment meant that any whole of catchment study needed to be a ‘rapid response’ scoping assessment of Indigenous water values, rights and interests. This approach focuses on participation by key individual research participants from the relevant groups to generate a representative set of issues and perspectives. It has been used previously by members of the research team (Barber, 2018b; Lyons and Barber, 2018), and the data generated are appropriate markers of issues relevant to the Roper catchment as a whole. Such an approach also limits the time and resource investment required in the project by any one individual or group involved, an important consideration when development possibilities remain un-finalised. It is also useful when groups are geographically dispersed and/or when significant social fractures could lead to challenges for collective processes about potentially controversial development topics. The ‘ground up’ approach of initial individual engagement can provide foundations for group, inter-group, or catchment-based collective discussion at the end of the activity. However, it is important to note that although the process undertaken provides foundations for wider group- based consultation and planning processes, it cannot substitute for them. The research conducted indicates that such group- and community-based planning and business-development processes will be crucial to further progress involving Indigenous peoples and water and agricultural development proposals in the Roper catchment. The report is intended to reach a wide audience, including governments, local Indigenous elders and leaders, and the general public. Given that, the report provides a regionally specific assessment designed to help non-Indigenous decision makers understand general Indigenous valuations of water, their wider connections to country, and their accompanying rights and interests. It highlights likely issues to be raised in future discussions with Indigenous groups about community planning, development proposals and Indigenous business aspirations. The report also helps Indigenous decision makers (local, regional and national) understand the specific residential, ownership, natural and cultural resource management, and development issues relevant to Indigenous peoples associated with the Roper catchment. The recent attention given by the Australian Government to development in northern Australia has been welcomed by key Indigenous forums and leaders, but concerns about the pathways adopted to achieve that development have also been expressed in the past (NAILSMA, 2012; 2013b). Indigenous peoples have clear preferences about the processes adopted to achieve development and the types of development desired. Individual developments are judged on a range of criteria in addition to economic viability. These include the timing and level of Indigenous consultation, Indigenous roles in project oversight and governance, opportunities for Indigenous participation and partnership, potential social and environmental impacts, and economic development-related opportunities. Further consideration of the nature of Indigenous ‘engagement’ in development that can shape these outcomes is provided below. Figure 1-1 Community consultation in the Roper catchment 1.3 Indigenous engagement and stakeholder consultation Greater recognition of Indigenous peoples and of their values, rights and interests in natural resources has led to a greater emphasis on engagement by both the public and private sectors. However, what is meant by engagement can vary considerably. Confusion about that term can significantly affect both the intended process and the likelihood of a successful outcome. There are a number of ways of conceptualising the nature of engagement processes (Hill et al., 2012), and it is important for all parties to consider what forms of Indigenous engagement are appropriate. With respect to water and agricultural development in the Roper catchment and elsewhere, two key issues are highlighted here: understandings of ‘engagement’ and stakeholder consultation. 1.3.1 Interpretations of Indigenous engagement The list below highlights some of the different meanings people give to the term ‘engagement’, presented in increasing order of Indigenous involvement: Community consultations • Consultation – a frequently adopted term, often used interchangeably with ‘engagement’. Consultation can be a formal requirement in legislation and policy, including native title. In Indigenous communities, consultation about the development of natural resources is expected to be an extended dialogue that begins very early in the process of proposal development. This provides time and scope for learning about and suggesting modifications to any proposal. However, some others see consultation as providing limited information for a short period about a proposal that has already been conceived and developed elsewhere without prior contact. The additional categories of engagement listed below rely on some level of consultation to be effective – basic consultation is a precondition. • Consent – the power to consent implies that, following such a period of consultation, a right to refuse exists and may be exercised. In Indigenous contexts, the power to formally withhold development permission is restricted to limited areas, but engagement processes may nevertheless involve a combination of consultation and consent. Indigenous Australians particularly require that consent is free, prior and informed. Obtaining such consent may require a range of additional categories of engagement beyond consultation. Some key ones are noted below. • Participation – engagement may take place through a number of forms of active participation. Participation can bring direct benefits such as knowledge enhancement, training and employment programs, but also significant costs as consultation processes take time, resources and attention away from other important issues. Engagement as direct participation has been a popular model in recent natural resource development initiatives. • Partnership – the degree of acceptance and popularity of participatory engagement depends on where control rests. Partnership implies shared responsibility and authority, and for that reason is often the model of participation preferred by Indigenous people. Partnership can be both a part of effective engagement about resource development and a consequence of it. • Control – the strongest form of engagement from an Indigenous perspective is when control over both the engagement process and the outcome rests with Indigenous peoples themselves. Control over consultation and consent processes regarding resource development, over the operations associated with resource extraction, and over the benefits accrued from such developments, remains an important objective for Indigenous peoples across Australia. Indigenous control over actual resource development may be a step beyond what is commonly considered as Indigenous engagement, but at the very least it is important to consider how control over the engagement process is distributed. It is important to be clear about what is meant by ‘Indigenous engagement’ when it is taken to be a necessary component of natural resource management (NRM) and natural resource development processes. The above list is not comprehensive, but it indicates how the term can be understood in different ways. Often a number of engagement pathways exist in a given catchment or region. Without clarity about the meaning of the term, one party to any engagement may believe that the process of ‘engagement’ has been sufficient, while another may believe that the process has barely begun or is being undertaken on inadequate or improper foundations and cannot succeed (Hill et al., 2012). Identifying any significant difference in perspective about what constitutes appropriate engagement is an important first step in understanding what kind of agreed compromise position is required. The Assessment itself is a large, Australian Government–driven initiative grounded in strategic priorities developed at high levels (Australian Government, 2015; 2016). Once the activity began, every effort was made to ensure effective Indigenous consultation and free, prior and informed consent, followed by participation and agreed forms of partnership. Further detail about these steps is provided in Section 2.10. However, although Indigenous participants were free to engage and withdraw at their discretion, at a structural and strategic level, the Assessment is not configured as a process in which Indigenous peoples could wield substantial amounts of control. Consultations with regional and local Indigenous organisations guided the engagement procedures throughout the Assessment. 1.3.2 Indigenous peoples and stakeholder consultation Two further aspects of Indigenous engagement and consultation processes needs to be noted here in the context of understanding Indigenous perspectives about water and agricultural development. Firstly, certain assets, both natural and cultural, are recognized in specific government policies as requiring a higher level of protection. These policies mandate more comprehensive engagements to ensure that the views of Indigenous Peoples are included before any activities that may cause impact. Examples of such policies include the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Revive: A place for every story, A place for every place (Australian Government cultural policy), Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989, and Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Regulations 2004. Secondly, a popular method of consultation for NRM and development planning is a stakeholder model in which interest groups identified with particular industries or activities (e.g. conservation, mining agriculture, tourism) and/or identified with particular populations (e.g. local residents, Indigenous people, landowners) are given equivalent representation in a collective consultation process – a ‘seat at the table’ (Prell et al., 2009; Reed et al., 2009). This kind of stakeholder model remains crucial to progressive planning toolkits for a wide array of applications. However, this stakeholder model for consultation has been and continues to be problematic for Indigenous Peoples. Two major challenges are identified here, and both are relevant to water and development issues in the Roper catchment. The first challenge relates to the way that stakeholder models generally depict individual stakeholders, and their interests, as equivalent and of the same order. This can be useful in limiting the direct influence of particularly powerful interests (like other stakeholders, they only occupy ‘one seat at the table’), but from an Indigenous perspective, it erases both an extended pre-colonial occupation and the colonial violence and dispossession that followed. Indigenous peoples understand their position as fundamentally different from, and prior to, all other stakeholders. From this perspective, rather than being participants, the most appropriate Indigenous role is one of Traditional Owner oversight and control over a stakeholder consultation process in which government and development proponents participate as stakeholders alongside other equivalent non-Indigenous community interests. Then the final decision about how best to use stakeholder input to inform development decisions rests with Indigenous people. Successfully undertaking stakeholder consultations requires a range of skills and capacities which may not exist in all Indigenous contexts, so this option may not be realisable even if other powerful interests were to agree to it. Nevertheless the ‘inverted’ stakeholder model described above is useful to highlight the conceptual, ethical, historical and political challenges posed to Indigenous peoples by the conventional stakeholder models popular in contemporary natural resource planning. That conceptual and ethical challenge leads to the second challenge: practical issues with Indigenous participation. There are many Indigenous peoples with substantial skills in participating in (and operating) stakeholder consultation processes. However, the time and resources required for participation, and the language, content and tone of stakeholder discussions, can be significant barriers to effective engagement. In addition, there are diverse political and linguistic boundaries across Indigenous Australia. These, combined with formal Indigenous restrictions on ‘speaking for’ country which belongs to others, place particular pressures on Indigenous representatives involved in natural resource planning discussions across large areas (such as river catchments). The restrictions upon speaking for and about country belonging to others can make it difficult for Indigenous representatives in such forums to contribute, even when they have the time, knowledge and skills to do so. The goal is to identify how such models (which are often taken as a progressive solution to planning and development challenges) pose particular difficulties for Indigenous participation. This has direct relevance to future catchment management and regional development planning processes discussed later in this document. 1.4 Key principles and issues for interpreting the report content 1.4.1 Indigenous Australians, water and development Indigenous peoples have lived in Australia for many thousands of years. Over time, they developed strong custodial connections to important places and significant knowledge of the wider landscape. The violence and dispossession that occurred during European colonisation had deep and ongoing effects on both individual Indigenous peoples and the cultures and societies they were part of. In many cases, including within the Roper catchment, these effects involved dispersal and dislocation from traditional lands. Permanent water sites were important to pre-colonial Indigenous habitation, and water sites were a major focus of conflict during the colonial period as they were valuable to incoming colonisers as well as to Indigenous people. Indigenous peoples across Australia assert and maintain important cultural, historical and emotional ties to their traditional lands. In many cases, these lands are also relied upon for a range of practical, material and economic support, so they have become a major focus for contemporary social and economic development ideas and objectives. Indigenous peoples understand themselves as members of a socially and economically disadvantaged group, but also as upholding a long tradition of custodianship over their traditional lands and waters. This requires balancing short- to medium-term social and economic needs with long-term cultural, historical and religious responsibilities to their traditional lands and waters. This report demonstrates the importance of water to Indigenous Australian societies. It is consistent with previous work on northern Australian Indigenous peoples and water undertaken by a range of past research initiatives, including the Northern Australia Water Resources Assessment, the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce,1 the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) consortium,2 and the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA).3 1 https://apo.org.au/node/20473 2 http://www.nespnorthern.edu.au/track/ 3 https://www.nailsma.org.au/ Figure 1-2 Elsey Creek at Mataranka Water resources are usually developed to foster wider economic and social development: securing adequate water supplies, managing wastewater and/or protecting major assets from excess water. Indigenous peoples have strong objectives for economic development and the opportunities it creates. These objectives very often focus on activities that provide sustainable long-term employment on traditional lands. There are successful examples of this in a range of locations, including the Roper catchment. Elsey at Mataranka 1.4.2 Country, culture and lore for Indigenous people The terms ‘country’, ‘culture’ and ‘law’ are crucial concepts for Indigenous Australians when communicating in English about their values, rights and interests. With respect to ‘country’, Indigenous Australian identities are strongly connected to particular places and to the wider land and waterscapes that encompass them (Bradley, 2010; Langton, 2006; Morphy, 1991; Rose, 1996; 2004; Williams, 1986). Indigenous peoples often use the English term ‘country’ to collectively describe those places and landscapes as an integrated whole, where particular named sites are key points in a wider regional matrix (Merlan, 1981; Myers, 1991; Strang, 1997). The use of the term ‘country’ also implies a sense of ownership by people whose origins lie within that area, and a sense of responsibility for it. This has some similarities with the way citizens of Australia understand themselves as part of a ‘country’ which they both collectively own and have obligations towards, including to protect it. Indigenous peoples understand themselves as connected to their country in a range of ways (Merlan, 1982; Munn, 1973; Myers, 1991; Rose, 2000). First, places are part of the network of kinship relationships understood to exist between human beings, plants and animals and other features in the landscape (Rose, 2005). Alongside this kin relationship, people connect themselves to country through physical presence in the landscape, through knowledge of its characteristics (including its seasonal and long-term changes), through practices and activities related to it such as hunting, singing and dancing, and through the relationships with other people that are formed through the country they share (Bradley, 2010). The term ‘culture’ has been used by many Indigenous Australians and commentators to describe the knowledges, practices and relationships that bind Indigenous peoples to one another and to the landscape (Merlan, 1981; Rose, 2000; Strang, 1997). ‘Culture’ is a widely used term with a range of meanings (Head et al., 2005), but the Indigenous usage emphasises jointly held knowledge and collectively undertaken activity. A second important aspect of Indigenous understanding of culture is shown by the use of the English word ‘law’ to describe these activities – ‘culture’ and ‘law’ are sometimes used interchangeably by Indigenous peoples (Barber and Jackson, 2011). This demonstrates that ‘culture’ in the Indigenous sense has legal, political and moral force – it refers to the guiding principles and commitments that should govern peoples’ lives, not to rapidly changing ‘popular’ culture often suggested by wider English usage. Many Indigenous peoples talk about the unchanging nature of this lore and culture, and how this is different from non-Indigenous laws, which seem to constantly change. However, in the same ways that change in non-Indigenous law should be and is governed by underlying principles that are far more stable, so ‘unchanging’ Indigenous lore is a dynamic tradition that has been obliged, and sometimes forced, to adapt to new circumstances to sustain its existence. That adaptation process has been more or less successful depending on the circumstances, but it has always relied on stable and enduring principles. The crucial sustaining role of culture and country, and of the laws and practices that are associated with them, also place a heavy obligation on current custodians to protect and pass on as much as they can to subsequent generations. In relation to the country (both land and waters), people regard themselves simultaneously as owners, guardians, custodians, advocates, beneficiaries, relatives and dependants. When the terms ‘country’, ‘culture’ and ‘law’ are used in this report, it is these broader but nevertheless specifically Indigenous meanings that are intended. They are crucial to understanding Indigenous responses to specific issues associated with traditional lands, including water and agricultural development. 1.4.3 Values, rights and interests The report regularly uses the phrase ‘values, rights and interests’ in discussing Indigenous peoples’ relationships with water and with the landscape generally. This is because each of the terms in this phrase highlights a different aspect of Indigenous perspectives that those engaging with Indigenous peoples need to consider. The working definitions below demonstrate how these terms express different aspects of Indigenous relations: •Value – refers to what people consider important, worthy and of merit and significance. It canalso refer to underlying principles or beliefs that drive estimations of importance. •Right – can refer to what is morally or ethically correct, but in this context also refers particularlyto what is legally recognised as just and valid. •Interest – refers to people having a share, involvement, concern or claim in something. Each of these terms has strengths and weaknesses in characterising Indigenous peoples’ individual and collective stake in matters such as the development of water and land. ‘Values’ is in many respects the broadest term, encompassing anything that people believe to be significant or important, as well as the underlying principles which inform that belief. ‘Rights’ encompasses a narrower range than values, but rights have the strongest force with respect to others (assuming the rights are recognised as such). ‘Interest’ identifies a share or stake in something, but also directly implies the involvement and interests of others in that same thing – the claim being made is not fully exclusive. Indigenous perspectives about land and associated resources come from a standpoint of prior ownership and sovereignty, but discussions about development may see a range of more specific values, rights and interests expressed. Decision makers and those engaging with Indigenous peoples need to keep in mind the complementarities and distinctions between Indigenous values, rights and interests in land and water, and in the economic developments that may emerge from that resource base. The way the terms above are understood can significantly affect the development of key planning and development processes. Taking ‘values’ in NRM as an example, they are often broken down into subcategories – economic, social, environmental and, sometimes, cultural. This categorisation reflects the ‘triple-bottom line’ approach to ecological sustainability, as well as the more recently perceived need to incorporate (Indigenous) cultural issues in policy and planning (Alexandra et al., 2015; Daniell and Daniell, 2019; Hartwig et al., 2018; Heiner et al., 2019; Lim et al., 2017). Social values have been harder to define and quantify than economic and environmental values in ‘triple-bottom line’ processes but have received increased attention in NRM policy and practice. Cultural values have provided a further avenue for broader thinking about the significance and use of natural resources; however, there are no nationally endorsed guidelines for how best to account for ‘cultural values’ in natural resource planning, including water management. The distinction between ‘cultural’ and ‘social’ values is also unclear (Jackson et al., 2011). Even though processes of culture formation are universal in human beings (Strang, 1997), the ‘cultural’ category is commonly associated with spiritual significance in general and with Indigenous heritage values in particular (Head et al., 2005). For instance, the National Water Quality Management Strategy’s guidelines for protecting ‘environmental values’ reveal a spiritual and exclusively Indigenous focus to its interpretation of a subsidiary concept called ‘cultural value’. ‘Values, rights and interests’ is a useful phrase to describe collective Indigenous relations with water, but the meaning given to key terms can have important implications for processes of consultation, recognition and planning. Figure 1-3 Weemol Creek at the top of Roper catchment 1.5 Summary: key concepts and issues The above sections outline the scope and the research context for this activity, the scope and intent of the report, and some key principles and issues for interpreting the content which follows. The Assessment required catchment-scale research across an area that is geographically and politically complex, resulting in a process that emphasised data gathering with key individuals from relevant groups and permission, briefing and endorsement at a group level. The goal of such research is to identify issues which would inform and assist future group-based planning processes and/or scoping for developments undertaken at sub-catchment scales. Indigenous Australians have an extended pre-colonial and colonial history of interactions with water resources, and these underpin contemporary valuations and objectives with respect to water development and water use. Indigenous concepts such as culture, country and lore govern how people relate to one another and to their surroundings. These concepts are reference points Weemol Creek at the top of Roper catchment for people in making specific responses about water and associated development. ‘Values, rights and interests’ is the term used in the report to express the multiple ways in which Indigenous peoples value, share, own and are connected to water. It also expresses how some of those ways are increasingly recognised in policy and legislation. The concept of ‘engagement’ is discussed, both to note potential confusions in Indigenous and non-Indigenous understandings of the term and to note a sequence of potential meanings of engagement which are also applicable to wider development discussions. The limitations for Indigenous peoples of stakeholder models are also noted, as these are a commonly favoured model of engagement. Water-planning issues are briefly identified, as Indigenous peoples now have specific recognition in water-planning processes, and changes to existing water plans will be a key component of any water-dependent development in the Roper catchment. Lastly, any possible future development in the Roper catchment will occur in the context of growth in Indigenous land tenure and management responsibility, as well as an increasing focus on Indigenous roles in attracting private- sector investment on Indigenous lands. The scope and research context, as well as the concepts, definitions, and issues identified above, provide important framing context for the detailed results and analysis from the Roper catchment presented below. Figure 1-4 View from Ngukurr of ranger fire work in the distance View from Ngukurr of ranger fire work in the distance 2 Catchment description and research methods 2.1 Introduction Chapter 2 provides further information about the physical geography and demographics of the catchment of the Roper River with particular reference to Indigenous Traditional Owners. This information is in part a summary of material provided by other activities of the Assessment. Section 2.10 describes the research methods, including general ethical and research requirements and how they are specifically tailored to the Roper catchment context described in this chapter. The Roper catchment is situated east of Katherine township and includes the Roper, Wilton and Hodgson rivers (Figure 2-1). The study area is characterised by a distinctive wet and dry season due to its location in the Australian summer monsoon. The mean annual rainfall for the catchment is 843 mm in a 77-year historical period (1930 to 2007) with about 90% of the rain falling during the wet season (November to May) (CSIRO, 2009). Of this, a considerable proportion is due to tropical cyclones or tropical lows that cross the Roper catchment every couple of years. Seasonal flows of the Roper catchment underpin river-floodplain productivity and species habitat. Flows also add carbon and nutrients, draining from the landscape to support extensive recreational and commercial fisheries and endangered species. Floodplain and river connectivity is important in supporting plants and animals, allowing species to migrate both upstream and downstream (Stratford et al., 2022). Figure 2-1 Roper catchment 2.2 History of Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment 2.2.1 Pre-colonial history Northern Australia contains a record of continuous Indigenous occupation and cultural adaptation that extends from over 65,000 years ago to the present and includes some the world’s earliest evidence of rock art (Clarkson et al., 2017). The northern Australian coastline is also considered to be one of the likely first points through which humans came into contact with the Australian Location map \\FS1-CBR.nexus.csiro.au\{lw-rowra}\work\6_Indigenous\3_Roper\1_GIS\1_Map_docs\In-R-500-Fig2-1_location_Templatev11_10_8_v1.mxd For more information on this figure please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au continent. Extensive trading routes connected Indigenous peoples in northern Australia with other Indigenous peoples to the west, south, and east, centuries before European colonisation. There is also historical evidence of trade, diplomatic and residential connections between northern Australian Indigenous peoples and the Macassan peoples from parts of contemporary Indonesia (Macknight, 1976; Thompson, 2005). Pre-colonial Indigenous society can be characterised by four primary characteristics: long residence times; detailed knowledge of ecology and food gathering techniques; complex systems of kinship and territorial organisation; and a sophisticated set of religious beliefs, often known as Dreamings. Indigenous religious cosmologies provided a source of spiritual and emotional connection as well as guidance on identity, language, law, territorial boundaries and economic relationships (Merlan, 1981; 1982; Rose, 2004; Rose, 2000; Strang, 1997; Williams, 1986). From an Indigenous perspective, ancestral powers are present in the landscape in an ongoing way, intimately connected to people, country and culture. Those powers must be considered in any action that takes place on the country. Resource-rich riverine habitats were central to Aboriginal economies based on seasonally organised hunting, gathering and fishing, and rivers were also major corridors for social interaction, containing many sites of cultural importance. The Roper catchment contains archaeological evidence of Indigenous habitation stretching back many thousands of years (Macintosh, 1951), but gaps remain in the published archaeological record. 2.2.2 Colonisation European colonisation resulted in significant levels of violence towards Indigenous Australians, with consequent negative effects on the structure and function of existing Indigenous societies across the continent. Avoidance, armed defensiveness and overt violence were all evident in colonial relationships as hostilities occurred as a result of competition for food and water resources, colonial attitudes and cultural misunderstandings. In the Roper catchment, the events that had the most significant impact on the Aboriginal peoples were the (Morphy and Morphy, 1981): • development of a supply depot for the Overland Telegraph on the Roper River • establishment of a stock route from Queensland to the north-west of the Northern Territory (through Borroloola and the Roper catchment) • Pine Creek and Kimberly gold rushes in the 1880s that brought many miners through the catchment • establishment of permanent cattle stations. The Roper catchment was opened for colonial industry by the South Australian Government after John McDougall Stuart’s 1862 exploratory expedition reported plentiful water, fertile soils and native vegetation (Merlan, 1978; 1986). Pursuing expansion of its pastoral country, the South Australian Government annexed Northern Territory in 1863 (Merlan, 1978; Zoellner, 2017). A team of surveyors was sent to the Roper River in 1870 to assess the suitability of the river as a port for supplies. Roper Landing (Roper Bar) was established as a supply depot for the telegraph parties. The construction and the establishment of the Overland Telegraph Line, which was completed in 1872, facilitated the first incursion that made an impact on the tribes of the Roper River (Merlan, 1978). The construction of the Overland Telegraph Line initiated intensive contact between Europeans and the local Aboriginal peoples. Surveying and workforce expedition encounters with Aboriginal peoples were often violent and involved a lack of knowledge and misunderstanding about each others’ intentions and interests (Merlan, 1978). For the following three decades the government sought to establish permanent European presence in the catchment. The first pastoral lease application at the top of the catchment was made in 1877 on an area that became part of Elsey station (Merlan, 1978). The property was stocked with cattle that were driven from New South Wales through Roper Bar, Mount McMinn, Mole Hill and Strangways River and temporarily stopped at a camp at Crescent Lagoon. Finally, the cattle were moved through Red Lilly Lagoon onto Elsey Creek where they were released (Merlan, 1978). Pastoral occupation began in the early 1880s and was a focus for conflict as pastoral homesteads and outstations were sited close to permanent water and the animals grazed fertile plains and river valleys used by Indigenous peoples for food and other resources (McGrath, 1987; Merlan, 1978). A police station was established in Roper Bar in 1885 to protect the new inhabitants and safe passage through the catchment. It continued to be used to maintain law and order until 1980 (Figure 2-2). Figure 2-2 Sign at the historical Roper River Police station on Roper Bar Local group structures were severely disrupted from the early 1880s, at which time Aboriginal people established themselves at cattle stations and mission settlements (Merlan, 1981). Stations became places for enforced dependence and colonial influence to control Aboriginal people, to protect cattle and to potentially incorporate Aboriginal people as assets to the development vision of northern Australia (Merlan, 1978; 1982). There was consequential reduction in Aboriginal numbers in the early phase of European settlement from violence and disease, though not all encounters were violent (Merlan, 1986). Figure 2-3 below depicts the general areas within the catchment where violent colonial encounters occurred (Ryan et al., 2018). The socio-linguistic groups that identified with the Roper catchment largely remained in the area on stations and settlements (Merlan, 1981). In the areas of Elsey and Roper Valley stations, the Indigenous For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au Aboriginal peoples have sustained their relationships to lands through their association within localised ‘countries’ (Merlan, 1986). Both Elsey and Hodgson Downs stations were bought by the Eastern and African Cold Storage Co. Ltd in 1903. The company intended to stock its 20,000 square miles of leased coastal frontage in the Blue Mud Bay region by moving cattle from the Elsey–Hodgson region, what was then thought to be rich pasture country on the rivers of the Roper catchment. As Merlan (Merlan, 1978:87) writes ‘[i]n the six years of its operation the ‘Eastern and African’ engaged in what was apparently the most systematic extermination of Aborigines ever carried out on the Roper’. Figure 2-3 Colonial frontier massacres in Australia Source: (Ryan et al., 2018 also see https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/ accessed 15 March 2023) Confrontations map \\FS1-CBR.nexus.csiro.au\{lw-rowra}\work\6_Indigenous\3_Roper\1_GIS\1_Map_docs\In-R-501-Fig2-3_massacres_10_8_v1.mxd For more information on this figure please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au From the 1970s, systems of Indigenous recognition and land restitution were established, notably the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA). This saw significant amounts of land returned to Indigenous ownership across the Northern Territory (see Section 2.7). 2.3 Current population The Roper catchment has no major cities, but there a number of small towns and communities, including Barunga (Bamyili), Beswick, Bulman (Gulin Gulin), Daly Waters, Larrimah, Mataranka (the regional centre), Miniyeri and Ngukurr. With the exception of Ngukurr (population 1149), these towns had populations of less than 1000 at the 2016 census. Katherine (population 6303) is the closet urban service centre – it is located about 100 km northwest of Mataranka, just outside the catchment. The nearest major city and population centre is the state capital of Darwin, approximately 420 km from Mataranka; the total population living within the Greater Darwin area was 136,828 at 2016 census. The demographic profile of the catchment, based on data from the 2016, 2011 and 2006 censuses is shown in Table 2-1. As no Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) statistical geographic region, or combination of regions, closely approximates the Roper catchment, two sets of data are shown: • ABS data for Elsey (ABS SA2 region 702051065), which is the single region that most closely (but highly imperfectly) approximates the catchment boundary • estimated data based on combining the appropriate portions of a number of ABS regions to best match the actual spatial coverage of the catchment (62.2% of Elsey SA2 region, 19.0% of Gulf SA2 region, plus small proportions (each less than 2%) of the SA2 regions of East Arnhem, Katherine, Victoria River and West Arnhem). The typical resident of the region is younger, poorer and more likely to identify as Indigenous than the typical resident of the Northern Territory and of the country as a whole. The population is predominantly younger (median age less than 30) than is typical for the territory and the country as a whole (median age more than 30). However, the trend from 2011 to 2016 suggests that the median age is moving towards the territory and national averages. The population contains a much larger proportion of Indigenous peoples (more than 70%) than does the territory overall (less than 20%) and the country overall (less than 3%). Median household incomes were considerably below the mean for the territory and for Australia as a whole in 2016. Furthermore, the proportion of households on low incomes (less than $650/week) was far higher, and the proportion on high incomes (more than $3,000/week) far lower than the proportion for the territory and for the country as a whole. Table 2-1 Major demographic indicators for the Roper catchment The study area as represented by two data sets, ABS data for Elsey SA2 region, and Roper catchment that combines a number of ABS regions to best match the spatial coverage of the catchment. Adapted from (Stokes et al., 2023). INDICATOR UNIT ELSEY SA2 REGION ROPER CATCHMENT* NORTHERN TERRITORY AUSTRALIA Total population 2016 Number 2,301 2,512 228,833 23,401,892 Total population 2011 Number 2,053 2,329 211,943 21,507,719 % change in population 2011–2016 % 12.1% 7.9% 8.0% 8.8% Indigenous population 2016, as % of total % 71.1% 73.4% 25.5% 2.8% Indigenous population 2011, as % of total % 76.5% 76.6% 26.8% 2.5% Male population 2016, as % of total % 51.2% 51.1% 51.8% 49.3% Male population 2011, as % of total % 49.7% 50.0% 51.7% 49.4% Population density 2016, per 1,000 hectares People 0.2 0.3 2 30 Median age 2016 Years 29 24 32 38 Median weekly household income 2016 $ $1,163 $990 $1,915 $1,432 Mean people per household 2016 Number 3.8 3.4 2.9 2.6 *Weighted averages of scores for SA2 regions falling wholly or partially within the catchment boundary Source: 2016 and 2011 and 2006 census data from ABS. 2.4 Land use The Roper catchment is around 77,352 km2 in area, of which conservation and protected land accounts for 48.78% (Figure 2-4). A further 5.03% is classified as water and wetlands. Most of the remaining area (45.74%) is used for grazing natural vegetation. Intensive agriculture and cropping make up a very small portion of the catchment: dryland and irrigated agriculture and intensive animal production together comprise just 0.14% of the land area. Transport, communications, services, utilities and infrastructure (0.31%) make up most of the remainder of other intensive localised land uses in the catchment, and mining no more than 0.01% of the catchment area. Figure 2-4 Land use classification for the Roper catchment Source: Northern Territory Land Use Mapping Project 2016–current, Department of Environment, Parks and Water Security, Northern Territory Government (cited in Stokes et al., 2023) Land use map \\FS1-CBR.nexus.csiro.au\{lw-rowra}\work\6_Indigenous\3_Roper\1_GIS\1_Map_docs\In-R-502-Se-Fig2-4_landuse_10_8_v1.mxd For more information on this figure please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 2.5 Economic activity Economically, key natural-resource-based industries in the Roper catchment include agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Indigenous peoples play a significant role in the regional economy through participation in the government, arts, mining and pastoral industries, as recipients of public expenditure, and through customary fishing, food-collecting and hunting activities. ‘Education and training’ and ‘Healthcare and social assistance’ are important employers in the catchment. ‘Public services and safety’ and ‘Other services’ are relatively important to the employment prospects of workers within this catchment. The gross value of agricultural production in the Roper catchment is approximately $73 million. Beef cattle contribute around $55 million and cropping accounts for the remaining $18 million, mainly from melons and mangoes grown near Mataranka. Mataranka complements Katherine as a mango growing area. There is currently no active aquaculture in the Roper catchment. A freehold area of approximately 12,000 ha about 25 km upstream from the mouth of the Roper River was developed by Carpentaria Aquafarm Pty Ltd with about 40 ha of grow-out ponds in the 1980s. Offshore, the Roper River drains into one of the most valuable fisheries in the country. The Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF) spans the northern Australian coast between Cape Londonderry in Western Australia to Cape York in Queensland, with most of the catch being landed at the ports of Darwin, Karumba and Cairns. Over the ten-year period from 2010–11 to 2019–20 the annual value of the catch from the NPF has varied between $65 million and $124 million, with a mean of $100 million (Steven et al., 2021 in Stokes et al., 2023). The Roper catchment flows into the South Groote NPF region, one of the smallest regions by annual prawn catch. The NPF is managed by the Australian Government (via the Australian Fisheries Management Authority) through input controls such as gear restrictions (number of boats and nets, length of nets) and restricted entry. Any development of water resources in the Roper catchment would need to consider the downstream impacts on prawn breeding grounds and the NPF. Power generation and network infrastructure in the vicinity of the Roper catchment is centrally managed by Territory Generation and the Power and Water Corporation, entities owned by the Northern Territory Government. The NT Government has signalled its intent to increase renewable energy generation to 50% by 2030, so the renewable generation component is anticipated to increase. 2.6 Current infrastructure The most significant road in the Roper catchment is the Stuart Highway, which runs from Darwin to Port Augusta in SA, about 300 km north of Adelaide. The Stuart Highway is formally designated Route A1 from Darwin to Daly Waters and Route A87 from Daly Waters to Port Augusta. The road passes through Mataranka and Larrimah at the top of the catchment in the west and is the main link northwards to Katherine and Darwin, and southwards to the south-eastern states via Alice Springs. Aside from the Stuart Highway, the Roper catchment is served by a sparse network of mainly unsealed roads. The most important roads branching off the Stuart Highway into the catchment are the Roper Highway (Route B20), linking Ngukurr near the mouth of the river (in the east) to Mataranka at the top of the catchment (in the west), and Central Arnhem Road (Route C24), which runs across the north of the catchment from the Stuart Highway through Bulman/Gulin Gulin. About 31,000 t of melons were transported out of the catchment, predominantly to domestic distribution centres, in 2021 according to records of truck movements from the CSIRO Transport Network Strategic Investment Tool (TraNSIT). Large volumes of freight also transport cattle into and out of (~36,000 head) the Roper catchment, mainly via the Stuart Highway. Live export of cattle via Darwin Port accounts for most cattle movements. Roper catchment currently lacks processing facilities for agricultural produce, but there are (or soon will be) facilities nearby that could support producers in the catchment. The closest meatworks is run by AACo (Australian Agricultural Company) at Livingstone, about 40 km south of Darwin, and is accessible by large road trains along the entire route from the Roper catchment. The closest port for bulk export of agricultural produce from the Roper catchment is in Darwin. The Darwin-Katherine Interconnected System (DKIS) is the largest electricity grid in the NT (Figure 2-5). The DKIS is electrically isolated from other grids in Australia. The DKIS transmission networkreaches the western edge of the Roper catchment, passing through Mataranka and reaching as farsouth as Larrimah. A small branch off this main transmission line serves Barunga (Bamyili) andBeswick, and a distribution line links Jilkminggan to the nearby Mataranka. Most of the Roper catchment is too remote to be covered by the DKIS. The largest three off-grid remote communities rely on hybrid systems powered by diesel generators supplemented with solar: Ngukurr (400 kW solar system), Minyerri (275 kW) and Bulman (100 kW). Distribution lines link nearby smaller settlements to these off-grid sources of electricity: Rittarangu (Urapunga) is connected to Ngukurr and Weemol is connected to Bulman. There are no major dams or water-transmission pipelines in the Roper catchment. Urban water for domestic consumption depends mainly on treated groundwater (from bores) as the preferred source for larger settlements while outstations are largely not serviced and rely on river water, springs and lagoons (Zaar, 2009, cited in Stokes et al., 2023). Figure 2-5 Electricity generation and transmission network and natural gas pipelines in the Roper catchment Distribution networks are not shown, but communities marked with red lightning symbols are connected to nearby generation or transmission sources of electricity Source: Stokes et al., 2023 Energy map \\FS1-CBR.nexus.csiro.au\{lw-rowra}\work\6_Indigenous\3_Roper\1_GIS\1_Map_docs\In-R-503-Se Fig2-5_Energy_10_8_v1.mxd For more information on this figure please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 2.7 Indigenous land ownership and management regimes Both colonial history and contemporary land tenure regimes have significantly altered where Indigenous peoples live. The degree and nature of European intervention has affected Aboriginal relationships to their lands in more or less significant ways (Merlan, 1986). In the Roper catchment, Traditional Owner groups have sustained their association with their custodial lands and waters in localised regions to a greater extent than in other areas (Merlan, 1986; Sandefur, 1985). Major residential sites include communities, homelands, camps and outstations. These patterns of residence and dispersal reflect a combination of involuntary relocation, voluntary movement to seek jobs and other opportunities, and kinship and family links. The concentration of people in particular places, such as in Ngukurr community, means that residential location can differ from formal group and tenure boundaries. In the Roper catchment, Aboriginal people from elsewhere have assimilated into the local social systems (Merlan, 1986). Many Indigenous groups across Australia express a strong desire for improved conditions, including increased employment opportunities, which would enable more of their people to reside on their own traditional lands. Indigenous residents in the Roper catchments include local ownership groups as well as residents who identify as Indigenous but have their origins elsewhere. The research for this activity emphasised participation by people who were from the recognised Traditional Owner groups. In some cases, family members who identify with groups outside the catchment participated in the Assessment interviews. Residential patterns are one influence on customary land ownership and management regimes, but areas which are not frequently visited may also be crucial in peoples’ lives, sustaining a distinct individual and group identity as well as connections to past ancestors and future descendants. Across Australia, a primary form of recognition for Indigenous land interests is native title and associated Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). Native title provides a series of rights (such as access) determined through a legal process. ILUAs are voluntary registered agreements between native title claimants or holders and other interested parties for the use and management of land and resources. Indigenous native title interests are currently formally recognised by the Australian legal system over parts of the Roper catchment. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA) is specific land rights legislation applicable to the Northern Territory. Figure 2-6 shows the extent of Aboriginal land holdings (ALRA) under the Northern Territory regime. This regime provides a form of collective freehold ownership. Figure 2-7 shows the status of native title claims and determinations. There are two ILUAs in the catchment with a combined area of less than 0.01% (not visible on these map scales). Combined Indigenous holdings are a significant proportion of the catchment (more than 40%), which is greater than the proportion of Indigenous holdings in the areas immediately to the north west to Darwin and south. These differences reflect differential impacts of colonisation and the historical creation of the Arnhem Land reserve in 1928. In addition to these formally registered and enduring customary ownership regimes, land is also held in community and individual freehold tenures and leases held by Indigenous peoples and corporations, including pastoral and mining leases. By definition, formal legal recognition of customary ownership reflects patterns of customary connection, but pastoral leaseholders can include Traditional Owners and Indigenous residents, both individually and in combination. Figure 2-6 Indigenous freehold (Aboriginal Land) in the Roper catchment as at July 2017 Data source: Northern Land Council Indigenous freehold map \\FS1-CBR.nexus.csiro.au\{lw-rowra}\work\6_Indigenous\3_Roper\1_GIS\1_Map_docs\In-R-504-Fig2-6_Indigenous_Freehold_10_8_v1.mxd For more information on this figure please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au Figure 2-7 Indigenous native title claims and determinations in the Roper catchment as at July 2017 Data sources: National Native Title Tribunal and Northern Land Council Native title determinations map \\FS1-CBR.nexus.csiro.au\{lw-rowra}\work\6_Indigenous\3_Roper\1_GIS\1_Map_docs\In-R-505-Fig2-7_NTC_Determinations_10_8_v1.mxd For more information on this figure please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 2.8 Indigenous organisations and representation 2.8.1 Regional Indigenous representative and management agencies The formal regional Indigenous representative organisation in the Roper catchment is the Northern Land Council (NLC). The NLC is a statutory authority constituted under the ALRA that represents a significant number of Indigenous peoples over a wide area of northern NT. It carries out a range of functions, notably the issuing of permits for works on and access to Indigenous land. It remains the key initial point of contact for outside interests with respect to Indigenous access, participation, partnership and ownership in development in the Roper catchment. With respect to development, the Northern Territory Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA) was established to implement the Sacred Sites Act 1989. AAPA is an independent statutory authority that has responsibilities for recording, registering, and managing Indigenous sacred sites. AAPA inspections and ‘Authority Certificates’ may be required for development applications, and the organisation has obligations to balance the consequences of development on cultural heritage with the development objectives and aspirations of Traditional Owners and those wishing to access the land containing Indigenous sacred sites. 2.8.2 Local Indigenous groups and corporations The activity focused on communities across the Roper catchment, particularly areas important to local Indigenous groups for residential and customary reasons or more likely to be the focus of water and agricultural development. Participants in the activity were drawn from five Traditional Owner groups with customary connections to the Roper catchment: the Wubalawan, Mangarrayi, Bagala, Dalabonand and Ngalakan peoples and residents from the catchment who belong to neighbouring groups. This list reflects the broad location of these groups from west to east. It does not contain all the groups with potential interests in water and agricultural development. Alawa Traditional Owners (Minyerri community) are included in the table below as consultations were undertaken in Minyerri community, however due to events that curbed continued engagement, interviews were not undertaken. This may impact on the level of engagement required to support future development conversations, particularly with respect to downstream impacts. The formal boundaries for the Traditional Owner groups are not provided in this report because in many cases either these are not determined in current tenure and legislative arrangements or the area of transition or boundary remains contested in the legal system. The ALRA requires Traditional Owners to establish a Land Trust corporation and the Commonwealth’s Native Title Act 1993 requires that a prescribed body corporate be created to hold the collective rights and manage the customary ownership issues on behalf of the successful applicants. Table 2-2 summarises the existing situation regarding ownership, residence, management and representation for the key groups consulted for this activity. There is considerable consistency across the groups in overall terms, but there are also some variations in existing capacity, resourcing, regional alliances, development activity and consequent ability to participate in NRM and development decision making. The patterns in ownership and perspectives about development presented here demonstrate the necessity for planning processes grounded in the specificities of local groups, and for catchment-level coordination of that planning. Table 2-2 Tenure and resourcing arrangements for named groups and consulted for this study GROUP FEATURE ALAWA BAGALA DALABON MANGARRAYI NGALAKAN WUBALAWAN Key residential sites Minyerri Beswick Barunga Katherine Bulman and Weemol Jilkminggan and Mataranka Urapunga and Ngukurr Katherine Primary river associations Hodgson and Arnold Rivers Waterhouse River Wilton River Roper River and Elsey Creek Flying Fox Creek and the Wilton River Birdum Creek Land Trust Alawa Aboriginal Land Trust Beswick Aboriginal Land Trust Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust Mangarrayi Aboriginal Land Trust Urapunga Aboriginal Land Trust and Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust Wubalawan Aboriginal Land Trust Aboriginal Corporation Alawa Aboriginal Corporation Yes Mimal Land Management Aboriginal Corporation Jilkminggan Community Aboriginal Corporation Yugul Mangi Development Aboriginal Corporation No Corporation office infrastructure Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Paid corporation staff Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Exclusive possession or ownership of significant rural land Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Involvement in government co- managed land No No No No No No Residential presence on traditional lands Yes and outstations Yes Yes Yes and outstations Outstations Outstations Registered native title Native title exists in parts of the determination area No No Yes No Native title exists in parts of the `determination area Current ILUA/s No No No Yes Yes No Partner in national park joint management No No No Yes (Elsey National Park) No No Formal role in catchment management No Jawoyn Rangers Mimal Land Management Aboriginal Corporation Mangarrayi Rangers Yugul Mangi Rangers No Representation in water planning No water allocation plan No water allocation plan No water allocation plan Yes (water allocation plan in progress) No water allocation plan Yes (water allocation plan in progress) 2.9 Indigenous roles in existing natural resource management and water planning 2.9.1 Natural resource management The primary catchment and natural resource management entity in the Roper catchment is Territory Natural Resource Management (TNRM) (www.territorynrm.org.au). This is an independent not-for-profit organisation that seeks the sustainable management of natural resources and catchments. Guided by a community-based regional NRM plan, the organisation funds and supports a range of catchment activities. TNRM coordinates natural resource management in the Roper catchment though two regional plans, for the Gulf Savanna region and the Top End region. TNRM has wide membership that includes Aboriginal organisations and ranger groups and lists two Aboriginal board members. The Roper River Landcare Group (RRLG) is a pastoral land management group that consists mainly of landowners and land managers. The RRLG executes property- and regional-scale projects that include weed and feral animal control, monitoring, and fire management; these projects have included projects with Aboriginal rangers. Wongalara Sanctuary is a nature reserve on a pastoral lease that occupies 1910 km2. It is owned and managed by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC). The AWC constructed the first feral cat exclusion area in northern Australia at Wongalara Sanctuary. The Mangarrayi, Jawoyn, Mimal and Yugul Mangi rangers undertake land, water and fire management and protect important cultural sites such as Dreaming and water places of historical significance across a significant area of the catchment. Both the Mangarrayi and Jawoyn rangers work with the Jawoyn Association. The Mimal Rangers operate under Mimal Land Management and the Yugul Mangi Rangers work with NLC coordination and support. The ranger groups are Traditional Owner–led entities that are involved in various projects and collaborations with the NT Government such fire management and water monitoring in Elsey National Park and Limmen National Park. Neither of these parks is under co-management regimes. Mimal Land Management has proposed an Indigenous Protected Area plan in the top of the Roper catchment. 2.9.2 Water planning and Aboriginal water reserves The Northern Territory Water Act 1992 regulates and manages water resources by developing and implementing water allocation plans (WAPs) which cover specific regions within designated water control districts (see https://depws.nt.gov.au/water/water-management/water-allocation-plans). The water-planning process is implemented where there are competing demands for water that risk compromising significant environmental or cultural values, or where significant interconnection between water sources requires a systems-management approach. Stakeholder consultation is focused on the plan level rather than the district level, and the plans are developed through a combination of scientific assessment and stakeholder consultation processes. The primary water control district in the Roper catchment is the Daly Roper Beetaloo Water Control District (RWCD) (Figure 2-8). Within that district, a WAP has been created for the Mataranka Tindall Limestone Aquifer groundwater system (referred to from here onward as Mataranka WAP). The Mataranka WAP is in development. The Mataranka Water Advisory Committee arrangements and meeting minutes are publicly available. Two Traditional Owners sit on the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee, as does a representative of the NLC. Figure 2-8 Daly Roper Beetaloo Water Control District Source: Northern Territory Government (https://nt.gov.au/environment/water/water-resources-of-the-nt/water-control-districts accessed 28 October 2022.) For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserves In 2016 the incoming Northern Territory Government embarked on a consultation process regarding the establishment of a policy framework for Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserves (SAWRs). The SAWR development process involved a discussion paper followed by a series of consultation meetings held across the Northern Territory during 2017 with land councils, industry representative bodies, industry groups, and water advisory committees. From those consultations, a policy framework was developed (Northern Territory Government, 2017). The policy framework is designed to increase opportunities for Indigenous peoples to access water resources for their economic development. It does this by creating Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserves that are a reserved percentage of water from the designated consumptive pool within a water allocation plan area that is exclusively accessible to eligible Indigenous peoples to use or trade. The SAWR became statute in the NT in 2019, and Section 4(1) of the Water Act defines SAWR as ‘water allocated in a water allocation plan for Aboriginal economic development in respect of eligible land’. A key constraint on the SAWR as formulated is that it is calculated according to the proportion of land held either as scheduled under the ALRA or as exclusive possession native title determinations. Groups without such holdings will be unable to access an SAWR and will therefore be subject to the conditions for general water licensing and planning. Beneficial uses are described as agriculture, industry, aquaculture and cultural use (where the cultural use is considered consumptive). At its maximum, the SAWR can be no more than 30% in an area with more than 30% of eligible Aboriginal land (Godden et al., 2020). An SAWR allocation will be tradable to a third party in exchange for payments, employment or a stake in a project. The Mataranka Water Allocation Plan area (Figure 2-9) includes the estate of four Traditional Owner groups: Jawoyn, Yangman, Mangarrayi and Wubalawan. The Traditional Owners own 53% of the land within the draft WAP area as Aboriginal freehold under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Nikolakis and Grafton, 2022). Over 80% of the land in the area is categorised as eligible Aboriginal land (O'Donnell et al., 2022). The availability of water for the SAWR in the draft Mataranka WAP is uncertain under previously agreed water allocations that were issued while the plan was in development (NT Government, 2019, cited in (Nikolakis and Grafton, 2022)). Figure 2-9 Mataranka Tindal Water Allocation Plan Location and Tenure Source: Northern Territory Government (https://depws.nt.gov.au/water/water-management/water-allocation-plans/tindall-mataranka-daly- waters-water-allocation-plan accessed 28 October 2022.) For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 2.10 Assessment research methods The above description of the Roper catchment, combined with the scope, provides the context for the approach taken by the activity. The following section outlines the research methods for the Roper catchment, considering research ethics, literature, and fieldwork in turn. As noted in the introduction, the Assessment itself is an Australian Government–driven initiative grounded in strategic priorities developed at high levels and as such was not configured as a process in which Indigenous peoples could wield substantial amounts of control. However, processes of consultation and of free, prior and informed consent ensured high levels of engagement across the groups and that agreements were reached that met the goals of the activity and provided protection for Indigenous interests. Prior to the commencement of field research, the research aims, scope and proposed methods were reviewed for approval by the CSIRO Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee (CSSHREC). The committee is made up of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and of researchers and community members. Key to the CSSHREC review and approval process were the information sheet and the free, prior and informed consent form (see Appendix A and Appendix B). Key aspects of the participant consent process were outlined to CSSHREC, including the following: •participation in the activity was entirely voluntary •participation would be on an individual basis, with comments appearing in the public report de- attributed to the group level to provide a combination of anonymity and geographic and culturalspecificity •participation would be focused on senior people with experience of communicating beyond thegroup •no information of a personally or culturally restricted nature would be sought or recorded •individual participants would make the final decisions about the content they provided and howthey were to be identified •individual participants would not be paid to participate In order to achieve free, prior and informed consent, potential participants were provided with clear explanations of the research process and outcomes through a combination of telephone, face-to-face and written contact before they made any decision to participate. Wherever practicable, research participants were afforded an extended period (of one month or more) after first contact by research staff to allow time for further consideration and consultation before making a decision to participate. After this process had taken place, verbal consent was to be sought and then confirmed through the participant signing the consent form. These forms were to be retained by CSIRO staff in a secure location. CSSHREC approval for the research was provided on this basis, and these conditions were met in subsequent research. 2.10.1 Indigenous oversight and guidance The overall Assessment included a project oversight and steering committee involving stakeholder representatives from government, development agencies, agricultural interests and community interests. The representative on this committee from the NLC was Bridie Velik-Lord. The NLC regional councils responsible for the area that includes the Roper catchment are the Ngukurr and Katherine regional councils. A presentation was provided to the Ngukurr Regional Council meeting at the start of project (before the COVID-19 outbreak). Guidance was provided through meetings with the NLC, local corporations and through meetings with local senior people in each community. An NLC research permit was issued for the Indigenous activity of the Assessment. It included specific access to ALRA lands for research purposes. The permit application included specific information on how local-scale Indigenous participation would be invited and how the risks and benefits of participation would be managed in the Indigenous activity of the Assessment. The application defined the process and the timing of engagement for data gathering consistent with conditions of free, prior and informed consent, indicated support of the communication process of the research results, including the delivery method, and the validation and approval process with Traditional Owner groups and agencies to review and edit the draft report before further circulation. The permit application and factsheets defined the Assessment’s obligation for information disclosure and the clear ownership of intellectual property by the research participants in the project. The project fact sheet, consent forms and interview guides formed part of the research permit application. As the research was undertaken during various phases of COVID-19 travel restrictions and approval, research permit applications included COVID-19 risk- management plans. The research permit specified key features of the consultations, including the following: • CSIRO would abide by all of the requirements specified in the original ethics approval described above • participants retained all intellectual property rights in any material they provided, and similarly the respective corporations retained all intellectual property rights in any material they provided • individual participants would receive any data intended for publication in writing prior to publication and could amend data or withdraw entirely up until the moment of publication • individuals could choose how they were publicly identified Scoping discussions and an invitation to join as an observer to a combined NLC and NT Government Roper catchment field trip to several communities facilitated direct engagement with local Traditional Owners. Previous experience by the research team highlighted the research value of qualitative data from small-scale face-to-face interviews, and there was solid guidance from initial local contacts that local-level consultation would be a priority. Yet the geographic scale and rapid timing of the Assessment required that any such data would necessarily be a subsample of the overall Indigenous population of the Roper catchment. It was also desirable to retain a degree of consistency of approach with previous assessments. Following the joint field trip with the NLC and NT Government, and subsequent consultations with Traditional Owners individually and through the Roper Gulf Regional Council Local Authority meetings, it was determined that the research focus would be primarily Traditional Owners, and others as guided by senior Traditional Owners. This would recognise established community consultation protocols and associated group governance, as well as providing learning opportunities to individual group members regarding the issues raised in the Assessment. Figure 2-10 Oval being sprinkled with groundwater in Bulman (at the top of Roper catchment) 2.10.2 Fieldwork data gathering Participants were informed at the outset that the results of the Assessment were to be made public, and that information subject to cultural or other restrictions would not be sought or recorded. The semi-structured discussions and interviews were guided by a series of questions based on understanding derived from issues and topics identified in other water studies undertaken by the research team and/or evident in the research and policy literature. Historical and ethnographic literature in regional and national databases was also investigated and key information incorporated into the analysis. The questions were based on the key objectives of the Assessment and were refined through on-ground consultations that identified important issues and emphases in local Indigenous relationships with water and development. The questions used common everyday language and were designed to act as open-ended prompts for further discussion rather than generate simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses. This reflects the scope of the Indigenous activity of the Assessment to identify a representative range of water and development issues arising for Indigenous decision makers in the Roper catchment, rather than attempting to survey attitudes across the Indigenous population of the Roper catchment as a whole. The questions were: •What places or areas of the catchment/s are most significant for you? (Additional: Why? Whatmakes them significant?) For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au • How do you stay in touch with those places/areas? • Who manages and looks after them? • Why is water important? • How have people used groundwater and river water on your country in the recent past? • What are the most important ways to use groundwater and river water in this catchment in the future? • What are the best ways to get and store that water? • What is good and bad about current decision making about using water? • Who should be involved in making future decisions about water use? • What needs to change to get that involvement? • What plans do you (and/or your group or organisation) have for business development that will need water? • What else is needed to make those business-development plans happen? In the interviews, the research team would occasionally prompt further discussion of the issues by referring to general categories of response and local examples. Formal data gathering and data revision with local participants commenced in September 2021 after the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions. This was two years after the first consultation trip into the catchment in August 2019. Because of the delay caused by COVID-19 travel restrictions, extensive and repeated consultations were undertaken in the catchment to re-familiarise Traditional Owners with the Assessment and ensure practice followed the principles of free, prior and informed consent. The final number of individuals interviewed from any group depended on the group size and individual availability for interview, but sufficient numbers of senior people participated from across the Roper catchment communities. Interviews were not conducted in Minyerri due to events beyond the influence of the Assessment team. 2.10.3 Data analysis and revision The data from the literature and interviews were iteratively analysed using NVivo qualitative analytical software. The initial themes and categories for analysis were derived from previous assessments of a similar nature (Barber, 2013; 2018a) and were then adapted and modified to suit the circumstances. Key information and research participant comments from the interviews were identified, extracted and then formally checked with the respective research participants to ensure that they were an accurate reflection of their views and that they could be used in further analysis and public presentation. The resulting information and analysis were combined into a draft research report which was subjected to scientific peer review. 3 Literature, legislation and policy 3.1 Introduction Chapter 3 reviews relevant literature in four key areas: •water and Indigenous Australians – including links with international initiatives •Indigenous community-based planning •Indigenous peoples and agricultural development •legislative and policy context for Indigenous responses to water and agricultural development. This literature review establishes the broader academic and institutional context of Indigenous water rights, values and development interests, and directly and indirectly informs the analysis of the data derived from the Indigenous activity component of the Assessment in the following chapters. 3.2 Water and Indigenous Australians The recent and sustained focus on the relationship between water and Indigenous Australians has emerged alongside, and engaged in mutually beneficial ways with, an international focus on water and Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have long advocated for the importance of their perspectives, and this advocacy has been able to attract greater international attention over the past 25 years. In 2000, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) organised an inaugural session on ‘Water and Indigenous People’ at the Second World Water Forum. A subsequent session at the 2003 Third World Water Forum in Kyoto, Japan, culminated in the Kyoto Indigenous Peoples Water Declaration (World Water Council, 2003). In 2023, the Indigenous Peoples pre-summit UN Water Conference meeting resulted in the New York Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration (United Nations, 2023). Indigenous peoples have retained a profile at subsequent events, and a statement generated in Australia was presented to the 2009 Water Forum in Istanbul (NAILSMA and UNU-IAS TKI, 2008). Further statements have been generated specifically for the Australian context (Kimberley Land Council, 2018; NAILSMA, 2008). These have been crucial documents to refine Indigenous peoples’ thinking about water issues and to brief the wider non-Indigenous communities about Indigenous perspectives and priorities. Reflecting the result of Indigenous advocacy and interest from government policymakers, the amount of research and literature describing how Indigenous Australians relate to water is growing. The published research shows how Indigenous Australian societies give meaning to water and examines the place of water in their formalised systems of knowledge and social institutions (Barber, 2018b; Barber and Jackson, 2014; Barber and Rumley, 2003; Jackson, 2004; 2006; Morphy and Morphy, 1981). There is a northern focus to this literature, including the Kimberley region of WA and the Northern Territory, as well as the wet tropics (Laborde and Jackson, 2022; Maclean and Bana Yarralji Bubu, 2015; Pelizzon et al., 2021; Poelina et al., 2019; Toussaint et al., 2005; Yu, 1999) and the Mitchell catchment in Queensland (Strang, 1997). Further work has also been conducted in the Murray–Darling Basin (Maclean et al., 2012; Moggridge and Thompson, 2021; Weir, 2009) and by one of the authors (Barber and Jackson, 2011; 2012; 2014). This literature demonstrates how water is an important feature of the Indigenous cultural landscape, with symbolic dimensions that attach individuals and groups to water bodies. Indigenous peoples and groups conceptualise water sources and rivers, as with the land, as having been derived from the actions of mythic beings during the Dreaming, when the world attained its present shape and the sociocultural institutions governing water use were formed (Barber, 2005; Barber and Jackson, 2011; Barber and Rumley, 2003). Stories relating to water are represented in myth, painting, film and dance, as well as the local customary practices, beliefs and ideas associated with water (Morphy, 1991; Strang, 1997; Toussaint et al., 2005). In the Fitzroy River in WA, the ever-present mythic beings in the form of rainbow serpents or snakes (variously referred to as kaput, unggud, yungurrungu) represent a common theme modified by local interpretation and practice (Toussaint et al., 2005). However, many studies also reveal the material and economic use of water according to Indigenous custom. Water is of economic significance to Indigenous people. It provides the foundations for the Indigenous harvest and distribution of wildlife in general and of aquatic life in particular (Finn and Jackson, 2011). Indigenous peoples sometimes changed the local land and waterscapes to improve their harvest, as river flows were manipulated with the construction of fish traps, weirs and small dams in numerous Australian river systems (Barber and Jackson, 2012; Tan, 1997). Some research about Indigenous peoples and water has pointed to the connections between Indigenous landscape constructions and valuations and those held by non-Indigenous groups and individuals (Barber, 2005; Goodall, 2002; Strang, 1997; Strang, 2009). Such studies highlight the importance of understanding how cultural meanings and environmental perspectives form. The research demonstrates how human–water interdependence is common to all peoples, and this can provide some important insights into collaborative approaches to the management of water and water-dependent development (Douglas et al., 2019; Jackson et al., 2012). Indigenous understandings of the significance of water incorporate its value as a resource in its own right, as well as for the resources for physical sustenance it provides. These are the values that are most familiar to non-Indigenous people. But the significance of water for Indigenous Australians also encompasses mythology, identity and social connection, and the interrelationships between these different valuations. All these values are evident in the findings from the activity appearing in Sections 4 to 6. Figure 3-1 Mataranka thermal springs 3.3 Indigenous catchment, community and business planning The information provided by the Indigenous activity of the Assessment will enable future development-focused planning and a greater degree of focus on the likely development options. While such processes will require additional investment, community-based planning processes have been variously supported by NGOs, Land Councils, Indigenous development agencies, state and territory representatives, and researchers. There is now considerable expertise in conducting community-based development planning in Australian Indigenous contexts and an associated history of successful outcomes (Agius et al., 2007; Dale, 1992; Davies et al., 2013; Davies and Young, 1996; Hemming et al., 2017; Howitt, 2010; Smyth, 2008). Planning is increasingly encompassing multiple-tenure regimes and/or business-development opportunities and can encompass a wide array of social and economic aspirations in addition to seeking protections for natural and cultural resource assets (Altman and Kerins, 2012; Hemming et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2015; NAILSMA, 2013b). Indigenous development objectives and Indigenous development partnerships are best progressed through locally specific, group and community-based planning and prioritisation processes that are nested in a system of regional coordination (Costanza-van den Belt et al., 2022; Dale, 1992; Lyons and Barber, 2018). Such planning and coordination can greatly increase the success of business development and of the resulting opportunities for Indigenous employment, retention and resettlement (Barber, 2018c; Dale et al., 2014). Sustainable futures require government and developer attention to Indigenous rights, the For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au development of good relationships with Indigenous peoples, and support for good governance that enables both autonomy and responsibility within communities (Barber, 2018c; Costanza-van den Belt et al., 2022; Howitt, 2010). 3.4 Indigenous Australians and agricultural development The agricultural development context of the Assessment makes it necessary to identify literature and policy activity about the topic as it relates to Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians have an extended prehistory of landscape manipulation using fire that in recent times has been termed ‘firestick farming’ (Bliege Bird et al., 2008), and there is also evidence in the Roper catchment for the manipulation and use of water at a landscape scale (Barber and Jackson, 2012). During the colonial era, many Indigenous peoples were displaced by agricultural and pastoral activity, particularly in the fertile and valuable lands of southern and eastern Australia. However, in northern Australia, Indigenous peoples formed an important labour force for colonial pastoralism (McGrath, 1987; Merlan, 1978), and they remain involved in the industry to this day. In contrast to the large impact of pastoralism, the small amount of intense agriculture in northern and central Australia where Indigenous land ownership is concentrated has meant that Indigenous involvement in that sector has been limited. The growing amount of rural land passing back to some form of Indigenous control (Hill et al., 2013) combined with improved technology may alter this situation. The chances of Indigenous participation in agricultural development in the future appear to be increasing. One analysis of the prospects for agricultural development on Indigenous lands identified a range of necessary requirements for further progress (Alexandra and Stanley, 2007). These included sustained funding, capacity building and mentoring, robust community and commercial structures, sound business and commercial models, and governance improvements. The limited involvement of Indigenous peoples in agriculture also means that there are no case studies of development in the literature and little documented policy to guide development. Nevertheless, some key features of the current landscape can be noted here: the policy landscape, agricultural initiatives by the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC), the horticultural ‘broker’ role played by Centrefarm in Central Australia, and the comprehensive Indigenous agreement associated with the Ord Irrigation Project. Policy settings relating to Indigenous peoples and agricultural development appear to be sparse and intermittent. In the 1990s, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rural Industry Strategy (ATISIC and DPIE, 1997) aimed to support Indigenous landholders in developing rural industries. However, minimal implementation and auditing appears to have occurred after the development of the policy. As a result, it has not been extensively used, although it may have had some indirect influence on local and regional project planning (Alexandra and Stanley, 2007). Until it ceased operating in 2012, the Australian Government climate change initiative ‘Australia’s Farming Future’ contained a rural Indigenous component. There have also been Commonwealth policy initiatives in relation to forestry and aquaculture aligned with broader economic, business and employment development initiatives associated with the commitment of the Council of Australian Governments to Closing the Gap. However, the general level of policy activity specific to Indigenous agricultural development appears to be low (or alternatively not well documented). The low level of wider policy activity contrasts with the activities of the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation (ILSC). Formerly known as the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC), the ILSC is an Australian Government statutory corporation which assists Indigenous peoples to acquire and manage land (ILC, 2013). It has strongly prioritised the development of Indigenous agricultural business in recent years and directly oversees a range of land-based Indigenous enterprises. Historically, ILSC strategy has aimed to bring Indigenous land into economic production to create employment and development benefits, and to regionally integrate these businesses wherever possible to increase productivity and profitability (ILC, 2011). The ILSC produces state-based strategies and collaborates with state jurisdictions. For example, the Indigenous Landholder Service (ILS), a joint venture between the ILC and the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food, worked for close to two decades to support Indigenous pastoral and agricultural producers. The program engaged with around 5000 people on 70 Indigenous-held properties to build capacity and economic benefits through technical support, governance development and business management mentoring. In June 2016, the ILS was transformed into the Aboriginal Business Development project. The ILSC plays an important ongoing role in the transfer of legal tenure to Indigenous control in circumstances where legal pathways recognising Traditional Ownership are not possible and in assisting Indigenous owners generally to maximise economic returns from their lands. It may also play a role in broader discussions of future agricultural development in the catchment of the Roper River. In terms of Indigenous-owned start-up agricultural business, Centrefarm is an Indigenous-owned company that specialises in brokering the economic development of Indigenous lands in Central Australia, specifically with respect to horticulture (Davies et al., 2010). It emerged from an Aboriginal Horticulture Strategy developed by the Central Land Council and the ILSC in 1999. This strategy identified strong Indigenous landowner interest, suitable crops, potential funding sources and joint venture and long-term lease arrangements. Centrefarm acts as a horticultural broker to reduce transaction costs for investors. It facilitates agreements with Indigenous owners, secures planning approvals, organises water licences, and attracts commercial growers, but its services have expanded to include all aspects of remote Indigenous economic development (see http://www.centrefarm.com). However, the logistics of remote areas and skills shortages in local labour have limited the attractiveness to investors of Centrefarm activity, and Indigenous employment aspirations have not been fully realised (Maru and Davies, 2011a; Maru and Davies, 2011b). The model used by the ILSC requires a greater investment by local Indigenous groups in any enterprise. Nevertheless, Maru and Davies (2011) conclude the ‘broker’ model that Centrefarm represents has been valuable and is needed to improve Indigenous employment and livelihood outcomes in remote Australia. In the northern section of the NT, Centrefarm trades as TopEnd Farm, and has significant involvement in the Aboriginal Land and Sea Economic Development Agency (ALSEDA), a joint initiative from the Central and Northern Land Council. Three pilot phase projects are being advanced through the Joint Land Council Economic Development Strategy with the Mangarrayi and Wubalawan Aboriginal Land Trusts in the Roper catchment (see figure 3-2). Figure 3-2 Map of the locations of the joint Aboriginal Land Economic Development Agency and Central and Northern Land Councils pilot projects Source: Centrefarm (https://centrefarm.com/pilot-projects/ accessed 15 March 2023) The highest profile agreement relating to Indigenous involvement in and benefits from a specific agricultural initiative is that for the Ord River Irrigation Scheme in the Kimberley, Western Australia (Jackson and Tan, 2013). The original Ord scheme was initially developed without considering Indigenous rights, needs and interests; it involved flooding key sites and dispossessing Indigenous peoples of their lands. An ILUA which attempted to resolve issues created by the For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au scheme was negotiated between the state of WA and the Miriuwung Gajerrong people. It aimed to recognise Indigenous claims to land, mitigate the impacts of existing developments, and adopt a partnership approach for future stages of the Ord development (Jackson and Barber, 2013). The overall agreement involved compensation for compulsory land acquisition and reparations for past impacts, but also establishment of a new Indigenous corporation to manage the benefits received under the agreement, operate an economic development unit and hold and acquire land (farm lots, commercial/industrial and residential land) (Jackson and Barber, 2013). The agreement required any developer of Ord Stage 2 to negotiate a benefits package with the Indigenous corporation. Notably, the Ord Final Agreement did not include rights to water for commercial purposes for Traditional Owners, and it has been the subject of criticism by prominent Indigenous leaders associated with the development (Anderson, 2013). Nevertheless, a further doubling in size of the Ord River Irrigation Area (Stage 3) is in development. 3.5 Legislative and policy context for Indigenous responses to water and agricultural development There is an extensive legislative, regulatory and policy context that relates to Indigenous values, rights and interests in water and irrigation development. This context also shapes Indigenous development objectives, enabling some possibilities and constraining others. A previously published technical report Macintosh et al. (2018) provides a detailed description, at that time, of the legislative, regulatory and policy context specific to Indigenous issues and of the general legal and regulatory environment that governs water-related development in northern Australia. The following short summary, drawn from (Barber, 2018a), provides some basic contextual information to enable understanding of the field data provided by Indigenous research participants that appears in subsequent chapters of this report. In terms of making laws, the Australian Constitution provides for government powers and responsibilities to be shared between federal, state and territory governments. This includes powers to make laws with respect to Indigenous Australians and their interests, and in each jurisdiction governments have elected to do this. In Australia, international law does not directly affect legal relations between domestic actors unless it becomes incorporated into domestic law by an Act of parliament. The following sections briefly summarise Indigenous interests in land and water as they are represented in domestic law and emerged in the field data from Indigenous participants in this activity. 3.5.1 Indigenous interests in land An earlier legal challenge by Indigenous peoples to secure rights in land was unsuccessful, but it led to the Australian Parliament creating the first land rights legislation, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The development of land rights in the NT was influential in subsequent debates and initiatives regarding Indigenous land interests – Indigenous peoples elsewhere in Australia remain aware of the extent and power of the NT example. The Act provides a system for granting substantial rights (fee simple estates) over areas of land in the NT to trusts representing Traditional Owners. The trusts have considerable control, similar to freehold title held by property owners elsewhere in Australia, but in this instance the property is collectively held and unable to be sold. Other state jurisdictions also produced acts providing for Indigenous collective ownership over small areas, often the sites of former colonial mission and reserves. Although conferring powerful rights, this legislation did not represent formal recognition in Australian law of traditional Indigenous ownership – of native title. This recognition came from the High Court of Australia’s 1992 decision in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2). This decision and subsequent legislation — the Commonwealth’s Native Title Act 1993 – created a system for recognising Indigenous native title across Australia. The native title system provides formal recognition for traditional claimants, but it does not automatically generate consistent property rights like those coming from the NT land rights process. Rather, it recognises a ‘bundle of rights’ defined by the laws and customs of the successful claimants as they can be demonstrated to the Court. As a result, it can enable recognition of rights that are foreign to Anglo-Australian property law. Yet it also requires an extensive burden of legal proof regarding the connection and continuity through time of Indigenous laws and customs. Where that proof cannot be demonstrated, such laws and customs remain unrecognised in Australian law. By its nature, the system creates significant variations across time and space in the ability to recognise potential native title holders, and in the rights they can secure. This means all parties affected by determinations of native title must pay close attention to the detail of each determination. Securing native title can be a long process and there are a series of stages to negotiate. These include deciding on whether a claim can be launched, identifying a suitable list of claimants, registering the claim, managing potentially competing claims, securing a determination from the Court, registering that determination, and creating a prescribed body corporate to manage the rights secured. The native title system also contains provisions for managing acts (defined in the Native Title Act as activities, land use changes) that wholly or partly affect the continued existence, enjoyment or exercise of native title rights and interests of native title holders. One key aspect of these provisions is a system of compensation. The type of act and when it took place is very important in determining whether compensation is possible and the size and distribution of it. The system also supports the identification and management of future acts that may affect native title. Depending on the circumstances, future acts can be rendered invalid, or trigger a requirement for compensation, if they adversely affect native title. For water and irrigation development, these acts may include special legislation to facilitate development, issuing property interests or approvals, and undertaking public works in support of development. The Native Title Act specifies processes for identifying whether such acts are valid, the procedures they require, and whether compensation is payable. One additional important aspect of the native title system is the making of Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). These are binding agreements between native title parties and others about the use of land and waters where native title is claimed or determined. They can be made at any time during the native title process and may encompass a wide array of issues including: how native title coexists with other interests, development agreements, compensation for adverse effects, cultural and heritage site conservation, and benefit sharing. ILUAs can represent a significant tool for managing native title interests in proactive and productive ways. Further detail about ILUAs, and about wider Indigenous interests in land, is available in Appendix C . Figure 3-3 Wilton River 3.5.2 Indigenous interests in water Under Australian law, the rights to the use, flow and control of water rest with state and territory governments. State and territory water legislation specifies processes for water planning and approval regimes, as well as for constructing water infrastructure such as dams and pipes. Indigenous interests in water were largely ignored until the recognition of native title, as native title can apply to water as well as land. Non-exclusive rights to use and access waters have been secured through this avenue, but past native title cases have determined that exclusive possession of water will not be recognised in Australian law. Exclusive possession of land through native title can provide the practical ability to restrict access to water, but it is not exclusive possession of the water. As with land, continuity in laws and customs in relation to water must be demonstrated for rights to be recognised. A second means for recognising Indigenous interests in water is through water laws and statutes. The NT is a signatory to the National Water Initiative (NWI) (agreed in 2004 by the Council of Australian Governments) that emphasises Indigenous access to water, Indigenous representation in water planning, and the incorporation of social, spiritual and customary objectives in water plans. The NWI also highlights the existence of native title rights to water. There are variations across the jurisdictions in the degree to which their statutes reflect the NWI. In the NT, ‘cultural factors’ can be considered in current water-planning frameworks alongside water allocations for Aboriginal economic development that are now possible through the Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserve that became statute in 2019. The Australian Government, with the states and territories, For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au has agreed to renew the NWI. A key objective of the NWI renewal is to increase Indigenous influence in water resource management. 3.5.3 Government approvals General government planning, environmental and heritage approval processes provide a means for Indigenous participation in development decisions, and for recognising and protecting Indigenous interests in development. Regulatory processes focused on the specific protection of Indigenous interests mostly relate to the protection of places and objects of Indigenous heritage significance. This encompasses legislation at both federal and state levels, and both cultural and environmental heritage legislation. Water and irrigation developments will need to comply with relevant federal, state and territory environmental and cultural heritage requirements. Figure 3-4 Road trains at Mataranka township For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 4 Culture, people and country 4.1 Introduction Section 4 of this report uses data from the Assessment participants to highlight key principles for Indigenous peoples generally and in particular for the people of the catchment of the Roper River. The comments are organised into three interrelated themes that are frequently emphasised as significant by Indigenous peoples themselves: culture, people and country. The comments progress in sequence, providing foundations for more specific remarks about water, environmental change and development impacts and objectives. In discussing culture, the section highlights the importance of underlying cosmology and belief (the Dreaming), activities (represented here by hunting and fishing), and the knowledge that flows from those. These key components of culture influence people, shown here by comments about identity and kinship and about obligations and responsibilities. In turn, these discussions of culture and people inform understandings of country – ownership and access, and how country is looked after. These provide the underlying principles for how Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment engage with non- Indigenous people, summarised here in terms of consultation and consent about access and activities, compliance with protocols and conditions, and compensation for profits extracted and/or damage incurred. Supported by Sections 1, 2 and 3, Section 4 provides principles and foundations for effectively understanding the wider context of the data provided in Section 5, which focuses directly on water and natural resource development. Figure 4-1 Artwork on display at the Ngukurr Art Centre For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 4.2 Culture When speaking English, Indigenous peoples often describe their ‘culture’ as a crucial attribute. Culture is a complex term with a range of meanings, even in technical usage in the social sciences. What is frequently emphasised by Indigenous peoples are interrelated principles, beliefs and activities – stories, laws, songs, dances, kin relationships, hunting and fishing practices, and so on. Of these, three main elements will be highlighted here: religious beliefs about the landscape (known as the Dreaming), hunting and fishing activities, and Indigenous knowledge. For the Indigenous groups with affiliation to the Roper catchment, these cultural components are crucial to sustaining their rights and responsibilities to the water sources (Rose, 2002). 4.2.1 Dreaming For Indigenous peoples, the rivers and all water sources are known to have been created by the Dreaming and are often inhabited by a complex of mythic beings regarded as living rainbow serpents or water snakes. Water, in the Indigenous belief system, is living. It creates and sustains life in both the spiritual and physical sense. People and places across the landscape are related through knowledge and practices including ceremony, stories and protocols that are enacted with and through water. Participants in the Roper catchment spoke of the sacredness of water and Dreaming places, of ancestors who remain present and sentient in the landscape and lore that govern human action: It is important for life, culturally water plays a very important role in Indigenous culture. We look at water as life, like giving birth and stuff like that. Water come from us as a kid. It is water Dreaming – like when you dream about water that’s where you come from; it’s your country – it’s your Dreaming. So, it’s in our Dreaming. It is big part; it is not only for drinking, but also in the Dreaming. A lot of people say it’s Rainbow Serpent, but it is a gift. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader It’s [Roper River] important because of my ancestors. It [the Roper River] is important for stories. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 3 Water is important for stories and songs from our elders. Bagala Group 2 The waterfall comes from the river – it is a sacred place, very much untouchable. No one goes there. Rock art there as well. [Traditional Owner shows photo on his phone of a big waterfall, which is on his country.] Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 2 Sacred place is Duck Creek is important sacred place – meaning black cockatoo. It is a Dreaming place. No matter where that water is on country there is something in that water; there is a lot of things there within this water. In our area, we got something in the water, something sacred in the water. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader 3 Water connects to everybody; it’s comes from us, it’s important to us, it’s everything, its irrigation. We rely on it for cooking, showers. Water is good and it is there for everybody – animals and people. Snake made this river. He is still there at the mouth of the river; it’s sacred river there is story attached to it. You got catfish Dreaming that Hudson mob. Water is important for stories, doesn’t matter where you go; they all got meaning and connection. Ngukurr Resident Traditional Owners spoke of totems, stories and song lines that connected them and country, including animals and plants, through water: Important for animals and people for life. Animal comes for green grass. Water is important for story, that runs along the river from Buranga to Mataranka and Elsey. Bagala Group 2 Mole Hill, Jilk and Mulgun (hot springs) all Mangarrayi. They are important cause our totem run through them. We share stories, song line. In Aboriginal culture this our song line. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 1 Figure 4-2 Fishing at a local waterhole For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 4.2.2 Hunting and fishing Indigenous peoples emphasise the practice of their cultures as fundamental to their relationship to their ancestral lands and waters, and to their collective cultural and physical survival. Cultural practices that are communicated orally and through performance include access and restriction protocols, ceremony, dance, welcome to country and the protocols of harvesting and sharing of resources. The customary practices recounted by Indigenous participants in the Roper catchment relate to kinship relations with certain places, to associations with resources and certain times of the year, and to inter-generational knowledge sharing. Hunting and fishing are cultural activities that bring people together on country. Hunting and fishing activities are seasonal and there are diverse sources, including rivers, springs and billabongs. Participants talked about their favourite places which they visit and value. The significance of hunting and fishing to peoples’ ongoing connection to country is clearly evident from the data gathered here: The most significant areas are the springs; the main river is Wilton River. There are a lot of springs; we drink spring water. The Wilton River it goes right down to Roper. It comes from Maningrida one big river system. It’s good for fishing, hunting. We love it. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 2 We go fishing and camping, visiting the places, the rivers and billabongs. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 3 Along the river, 57 miles back to Mole Hill we all related. We always go there hunting and fishing. We take the school kids to Red Lily with the ranger mob on school holidays for camping, show them fishing and hunting and tell them song line stories, teach how to do corroboree! Then school kids go to Elsey station and dance. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 4 We have favourite place to go fish and hunt. We want the river to stay like that. We need water. We want the river to stay like that [this]. Roper Valley Group 1 4.2.3 Indigenous knowledge Indigenous knowledge is often expressed as culturally and spatially context-specific, adaptive, performative, derived and informed by ancestral lore, and sustained through contact and everyday experiences with the landscape, such as hunting and fishing (Fraser et al., 2006; Rose, 2000). Indigenous knowledge and culture is vital to Indigenous land and water management systems and subsistence resource-use strategies (Barber, 2005; Woodward et al., 2012). Indigenous knowledge is temporally extensive through long occupation and observations (Beaupark et al., 2023; McKemey et al., 2020) and is often passed between generations by teaching and exploring on country, through fishing, camping and swimming visits. This is evident in the field data collected from the Roper catchment: Water is important because we got tidal water. Tidal water goes as far as Roper Bar upstream to Mataranka to where the streams are fed and into the tributary where the Roper that stops flowing –we know that if it doesn’t flow well, we won’t have any migrating fish or animals to move aroundusing water [as a vehicle to move around] and also to breed and then it comes back to cycle. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader I always go fishing. I love fishing. I get mussels and crab. We have another traditional country on the coast that’s where we go to get all the mud crabs and go fishing. We normally use the plants for bush medicine. When COVID came through everybody was living on bush medicine. Traditional Owner (Neighbouring Group), Community Leader and Ngukurr Resident 2 We go fishing and swimming from Beswick to Mataranka we go camping, school holidays excursion and teaching children culture. We take people to country to teach them culture and why water is important. Bagala Group 2 Figure 4-3 Hunting at a local waterhole for file snake 4.3 People 4.3.1 Identity and kinship The key elements of culture provide foundations for personal identity, relatedness and obligations to others that are crucial to shaping peoples’ sense of who they are. Culture informs, and is informed by, the people who hold it. Individual identities emerge from relatedness to culturally important places and enduring relations to places and connections across landscapes. Responsibilities to others past, present and future are a feature of Indigenous identities and For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au kinship relationships. Traditional Owners of the Roper catchment expressed their identity by their kinship and location on the river. They consider themselves to be part of larger language groups, while also holding separate identities that are associated to places, waterways and billabongs: We got one culture, one governance – this your structure this how it works and this your land … Once you occupy that land you there for life. Then from that block of land then people [future generations] create another block, that’s our story lines start they still the same. The lore still the same, just different dialects. Nothing changes and it very strong. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader Traditional Owner mob, Jawoyn, we all Jawoyn people. We all got different language, but we one people. We all look after country. Bagala Group 2 We live in one area, we will have a talk and we go back and forward. We all one mob, we all grew up on country. We all Mangarrayi. We manage this area because we live here; people come and go but we live here. Mangarrayi Traditional Owners Group 2 In our hearts and our minds, this place where we grow up, as a little girl, our great-great- grandmother and great-great-grandfather, they used to live on this land. They taught us. We don’t want to see the water go down. Roper Valley Group 1 Figure 4-4 Waterhouse Creek before the wet season For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 4.3.2 Obligations and responsibilities These cultural and kinship ties generate obligations and responsibilities as well as connection and identity. Obligations and kinship are to other living relatives, including non-human life, strongly connected with that country, but also across generations. These connections to the water sources also imply obligations and responsibilities to those living elsewhere, particularly downstream. Responsibilities to others past, present and future are a feature of Indigenous identities and kinship relationships. Indigenous peoples within the Roper catchment stressed the connections and obligations that are expressed through songlines and the marriage systems that strengthen their kinship across countries: Declaration [a map petition that details Traditional Owner concerns] is only Ngukurr. Ngukurr, Duck Creek, Minyerri, we are all connected to the Roper. They are top stream, we’re bottom stream. That’s why we are working on the Declaration. Alawa is connected to Dalabon Traditional Owners. We got one culture. We are connected to the land and water. You see that oval on the car with the four moieties. The seven tribes want to be consulted [Participant means each tribe will have its own views about how they want to be consulted]. Ngukurr Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Water is important for groups. Water represents our ceremonies, our lands and our kids’ futures. Bulman Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader When you look at us, we all Indigenous here. All our waterways are important to us. That songline across the land, it’s in the lagoon, billabongs, you name it. We got song to it, right up to the saltwater. We freshwater people, everything run that way towards Ngukurr, same songline takes us down there. Not long ago they got this family from Beswick, it another songline, waterline there, they connected to my missus. Songline run every way; that’s how we all connected. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 Because we down the bottom part of the catchment and whatever happens everywhere and tribes on this bottom part of the catchment will be affected. Whatever happens on top, we at the end of line we’ll get affected. That maybe pollution, more water coming down, whatever, we gonna cop it. Whatever happens on top, whatever agreement, whatever activities, we’re downstream and we will get affected more. Water is important for connections through the rivers. Where the songline went through, the Dreaming went through. All totems participate in those areas [water-related areas]. There is drinking waterholes and hunting grounds and conservation, so water plays a bigger part even with gatherings and hunting. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader I stay in touch with places because most TOs from those areas intermarry and most are here, and I can always talk to someone at Minyerri when we go for meetings or funeral. We still connect same as Jilkminggan. We still got connection with them, and they come to Ngukurr. We talk ask questions and tell stories; that’s how countrymen always keep in touch with our mob here in Ngukurr. That’s how we stay in touch with country, stay in touch with countrymen in each area. This catchment which goes from Elsey to Moroak, we still got strong ties with traditional lands which is connected with countryman on community on Minyerri and Roper Valley and some at Jilkminggan. So, we got ties there and we know the practice of these sites and we feel very strong. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader The obligations and responsibilities described above relate to the desire for good practice across the catchment to care for country. 4.4 Country 4.4.1 Ownership The previous sections demonstrate that the principles and obligations relating to culture and to people also relate to the country itself. Indigenous peoples understand themselves as the prior and continuing owners and custodians of their traditional country. The interconnections of the Indigenous peoples of the Roper catchment to each other and through their waterways establishes a collective duty of care. Traditional Owners in the Roper catchment consider ‘ownership’ to be more of a responsibility and obligation to ensure everyone’s basic requirement to have access to water and waterways is met – ‘everyone’ includes people, animals and plants. Ownership entails both an awareness of what those lands and waters are and knowledge of the regulation and protocols of access to them, to see that they are maintained for the future. We are from this area, [referring to map] Mangarrayi area. We can only stay on country when water is there, about this time of the year [September]. When water goes down, it is sad. Traditional Owners (top and bottom of catchment), Ngukurr Residents and Community Leaders Group 1 God made this river for everyone to share, to drink it, not to fight over. I feel hurt in my heart, for the land and the river … At the moment, it is very hard to find good soil here. People are everywhere around us. There’s a station there, there’s mining there, there’s a station manager there. Some of the land are pastoralists. We here this is a Land Trust. This is our place. Here, there’s not much water. It is only spring water. We want to save the water in the river because it is a lot of water. We want to catch fish, turtle. Sometimes we feel hungry we go out and take our children. I know we can help each other … Water is free … Roper Valley Group 1 Ngalakan is the tribe that owns from there down to here. We have only been able to support Uranpunga– a little community that’s on the Wilton that’s as far as our IPA [Indigenous Protected Area] boundary goes. But we still got traditional ties with Ngalakan, that owns this part of the country. Make sure people from the outside know who the owner is, doesn’t matter that they live there. This is Ngalakan country, we know who the people are who are connected to this River … From Moroak down to here [Ngukurr] this is all Ngalakan, they the tribes here at Ngukurr – you got Ngalakan everywhere. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader It’s a big issue now with all the Aboriginal across the top, I can’t go to the Roper or the Grove and use their water, swim in it, drink it unless we got permission with the landowners. And here same way, people got to get permission to use our water. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 The sharing of resources is an intrinsic and inherent trait in Aboriginal culture. Water is an essential, scarce and sacred resource that groups are obligated to share and to sustain for country. The comments above highlight how ownership is specific to particular areas and there are both connections and protocols that guide access regimes. ALRA and native title are tools for contemporary recognition and ownership, but they are limited in the way that they can express and validate key aspects and conditions of ownership. Concerns about recognition of ownership and the regulation of access and use of water are manifestations of the deeper concerns that Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment have to look after country, discussed in more detail in the next section. 4.4.2 Looking after country Looking after country can take several forms, some of which have already been noted such as the customary obligations and responsibilities across the catchment to practices that entail regular visits to places for fishing, collecting and hunting trips. Fishing and harvesting trips can also involve monitoring the health of country and sharing knowledge. Rangers play a central role in looking after country, as do the NLC, Indigenous peoples working on pastoral leases, and pastoral leaseholders who have ongoing agreements of visitations with local owners. These arrangements operate under customary governance and protocols and create opportunities for Indigenous peoples to view and protect important sites on country and solidify their roles as local owners of place. Mostly when we have meetings with NLC, if something happens there, they’ll come tell us or if we see something that’s not right, we’ll tell them. We’ll do a report for the NLC or for the rangers. Mostly it is from people within this area, the ranger or the NLC. It’s mostly us ranger. If any of the locals see anything going on, they go and tell the elders then they’ll tell us what to do. If it’s really important they’ll let the police know. Good or bad things that happen we always let the elders know. The rangers usually patrol the area, either driving around in car or in the boat. We also patrol in the air, with helicopter when we are doing burns. We will take the TOs out to their area, that way they know what we are doing. Roger Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader The TOs, the Traditional Owners. When we go fishing, we go and check places. I look at the water, if it’s high. I look at bush tucker. The Mangarrayi Rangers look after these places. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 3 Rangers take us out to the rivers. Go swimming, check on country. Jawoyn Rangers and lease manager come and pick us up and take us to water to check on it [river]. Bagala Group 1 Mangarrayi Trust Area. We (Mangarrayi Rangers) have been doing samples for water testing to see if animals can live in the water. Test to see if water going down, once it goes down, we must wait for next year water – big rain to fill it up. From here Elsey to the top, they starting to drop [water level] all the small creeks are starting to drop. Most of the water flows under and comes out on the other side. Mole Hill we do not know if it is coming from underneath. We check make sure cattle do not smash the spring waterhole, where the water comes bubbling up. Make sure the cattle do not get stuck in the spring hole because they will die in there. That will save our springs and the water. Mangarrayi Ranger 1 We all do, the rangers. Pastoralist got Aboriginal boys working there and they know how to look after the place.Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 3 Figure 4-5 Sign in Bulman community about the Mimal Rangers’ work on country 4.5 Managing others on country Strong cultural attachments to traditional country are intimately woven with a sense of ownership and responsibility to look after country. This entails managing access by others and the use of resources on country to ensure they are used appropriately. This, in turn, leads to a series of expectations with respect to managing the activities of non-Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands. Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment share their country with pastoralists, farmers, mining exploration and mining production companies, and national parks. Concerns with For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au managing others on country relate to lack of information on legal rights and responsibilities to facilitate processes for consent, compliance, consultation and compensation (see Section 1.3). This river and for 20 kilometres is Aboriginal lands. On that side you got land that’s been given back to Aboriginal people, native title. The other side of the river you got national parks, then you got pastoralists leases, and all other agreements with pastoralist and TOs. So, you got a mixture. As a councillor doing council services. we are having difficulties on where you can service and where you can’t. Similar to the roads, we can only go that far on the roads then the other side you can’t touch it because it’s pastoralist or something like that. Who controls that area looks after it … [T]his where consultation is not coming back to the people. And it’s all falling back to NLC. They arenot consulting with anybody about the mine that is happening soon because it’s on pastoralistlease area. You got Traditional Owner for that area, but it is still under pastoralist leaseagreement. I don’t know who controls that, is it NLC, or the pastoral lease or the TOs? Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader [There is] no manager at Elsey station. It used to be a cattle station but not anymore. We don’t know what the people on the mango farm do with looking after country. That’s why we want Aboriginal people to go to the farm so they can check on our cultural sites to make sure they are not being damaged. The whole community, we all family here. We work with our ranger to look after country, all of us. NLC always come and involved as well. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 1 But the government is saying 10 feet under the ground, Aboriginal people don’t own that. You own the top part of the land but not the bottom. You got the basin down the bottom, but right down past that 100 or 5 or 10 kilometres down you got the gas … We don’t even own the water. Ngalakan Traditional Owner, Ngukurr Resident and Community Leader May 2022 Bottom We (Mangarrayi Traditional Owners) are leasing Elsey station at the moment. We got one person leasing ‘Junction Bore’ which is past Elsey station. We got rangers who look after Mataranka Springs, but we got problems with the Elsey line. We got mango farm, but two watermelon farms started without going through us. We got a problem with that. About the water issue we got problem with that, people coming in and wanting to grow stuff. People just come in without asking us. We got a problem with that. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner and Minyerri Resident 1 The roles of consultation, consent, compliance and compensation for managing the conduct of specific activities provide a useful starting point for understanding the different models of potential engagement reviewed in Section 1. The data presented above highlight some of the different ways that Indigenous custodians seek to manage relations with non-Indigenous and non- local people engaged on their country. Of significance is the relationship of Indigenous peoples with country, in particular the importance of water to cultural beliefs and practices and how the obligations and responsibilities to each other shape engagement with the wider world. These points and principles underlie the responses specifically focused on water and development presented in Section 5. Figure 4-6 Yugul Mangi Ranger patrol boat For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 5 Indigenous people, water and development in the Roper catchment 5.1 Introduction Section 5 focuses on water values and issues as well as responses to development and its impacts. The general importance of water is clearly evident from the responses of Indigenous participants across the catchment. Access to multiple sources of water and clean water, and the seasonal changes in its availability, influence Indigenous perspectives about water extraction, use and appropriate development. A series of key risks associated with water-related development are further identified, as are comments about Indigenous roles in water-planning processes 5.2 The importance of water The high value attributed to water is clearly evident from the statements of all the Indigenous participants in the Assessment. In particular, water is related to life and to sustaining plants and animals. It provides places for life to thrive and supports community health and livelihood, and it is vital to customary practices. Water, as part of country, has agency to respond to human action and to connect people, and has significance in its presence and absence. Indigenous peoples within the catchment of the Roper River highlighted a variety of values that relate to water and the need to find balance between them: Water is our life. We use water to drink, wash, kids to swim in and the animals to drink and everyone else that uses water. We use water for cooking. We use water for ceremony. That’s why water is important to us [and] all the plants and trees around it. It keeps the land safe and cool. Bulman Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Water is like life; you know it gives us life. We hunt in the water, the river. We hunt in the billabongs, we fish there, we camp there beside the banks. We’ve been living on the land and from the water, that includes billabongs. The river and the billabongs. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 Water is so precious to us. Like I said, Indigenous peoples have a scientific knowledge. If you harm the land, harm the water, it will harm you. If you look after land and water, it will look after you. Water is so precious for the plants, animals, and us drinking the water. Ngukurr Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Water is important all around the world. Water is very important to us. It is there for us, why give it away? Do we got to say yes all the time for people wanting water – it is getting harder. We got to learn to get hard, not say yes all the time. Water is life. Can’t keep saying yes to money all the time. Water is important for connections between groups. Water connects us here to Minyerri, all the way up the top, we are connected through stories. We go camping, fishing and hunting. Water is alive, everybody knows that. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner and Minyerri Resident 1 Keep our trees alive, farming our bushfood, swimming. Water is important for stories and songs. We share stories about the land, part of our culture. It is important for connecting groups. Stories that connect from top to bottom. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 1 Country cry when it is dry. Country is sad, it gives life, it is creation. We need water for life, health. It has a songline for water for here. It is important for custom/ceremony. Water is important for fishing. Traditional Owners (top and bottom of catchment), Ngukurr Residents and Community Leaders Group 1 Figure 5-1 Ngukurr Traditional Owner at billabong 5.3 Seasonal and environmental change The alternating wet and dry seasons of the tropical climate mean that surface water availability is highly seasonal. The Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment experience seasonal and inter- annual climate cycle changes that include the flushing out of billabongs by the wet-season rain, and they are observing longer-term changes on their country. Barber and Jackson (2015) document the local weir-building practice of Mangarrayi people to divert water flow to sustain animal and plant life longer in the dry season, in the area that was later known as Elsey station. Sandefaur (1985) writes about the seasonal movement of the population in the Ngukurr settlement in early 1908 and 1977 between cattle stations and outstations. Ngukurr and other remote communities such as Bulman can be inaccessible during the wet season. Customary For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au practices, living arrangements and Indigenous peoples’ capacity to fulfil their cultural obligations and responsibilities are shaped by seasonal changes as described below. Against this backdrop of seasonal cycles, people are also noting systemic changes – billabongs drying and river banks eroding: Nalawan outstation, it is seven or ten kilometres down the river. It is the only outstation on the Roper River. I live there on the dry season. I don’t live there during the wet because we are cut off. Ngukurr Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader The river [Waterhouse River] we don’t have much water – all dry. When the rain comes here [Beswick] and fills it up, is important for fishing, camping and swimming – take the children there. Some areas are sacred. The water comes from Beswick Falls and it rush through the community. Bagala Group 1 The river is important to me, the Roper River. Elsey station is important. Billabong, Warlock is important. It sometimes dry. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 3 My husband goes out camping and hunting, he uses the billabong water, he boils it. It OK to drink water from billabong when it is full. You need to wait for wet season as it will flush the bad stuff out of billabongs. You got to be careful with billabong water, other animals, and cattle drink from it. You got Ganiyarrang and Boomerang [outstation] but you can’t drink from there– it all white. There is a bug in the water too, you got to boil it. Ngukurr Resident This is the only river that pumps up for the community. The bad thing is we just hoping we don’t have that saltwater back here … The river is now wider; the river is washing away the bank. Twenty years ago we could sit under the tree on the bank. Now we can’t sit under it, we have to sit behind it or on top of it. We didn’t move the tree, it [pointing to the water] has changed course. Ngukurr Resident Billabongs are getting very low very quick which is very unusual. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader The presence, movement, level and absence of water are points of observation in the seasonal and longer-term changes in the availability of water. These observations influence how Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment assess development options and their potential effects on their livelihoods. 5.4 Water quality Participants across the catchment spoke about the different sources of water they access and the decline in water quality they have observed over their lifetime. Sustained residence in homeland and communities and the flourishing of Indigenous peoples now and into the future depends on a clean water supply. People expressed concerns about the effects of bore water quality on the health of people in the communities. The data also shows that Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment have observed the impacts of development, including mining, on the health of water systems, and are concerned about effects on plants, animals and people downstream.: We drink groundwater. They already get groundwater for the road people. That spring going dry up too. The water from the ground got calcium in it. We get sick from that chlorine [reference to tap water], it tastes funny. There is no statistic to say who getting sick from it if we get gallstones. Sometimes when they [NT Government] sink them bores, some are good, and some are not. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 We used to get drinking water from the river; it used to be pure, just put your cup in and drink. No chemical, straight from the river to the ground for plants and animals. We don’t just want water, a licence for water, we want a licence to clean water. At the moment if you use this water [pointing to the river] that got chemicals. You water that to a plant and that plant leaves turn white … Your garden won’t thrive unless you have clean water. [Ngukurr community is supplied by bore water today] Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader We use spring water to make park green. Pastoralists use river water or spring water. Beswick use bore water because the biggest river goes dry. We don’t drink bore water at Beswick; we buy spring water from shop. Bagala Group 2 There are three to four mines, big mines, but two have been stopped because of iron ore prices. There is one they are starting up and there is another mine that is going to start up again and it’s too close to the river. That’s why a lot of people are afraid of the pollution of the water, of the river. That’s a big talk, how much (water) they are going to use. Where are they going to pump water out again? We have seen the effects from the first mine that has been closed. I’ve been to that area. You can see the effect. You can see where the clean clear water turning to red water where it is all iron ore coming down through what you call erosion. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader We think of our children. We don’t want to catch fish with some kind of thing inside and we eat it and get sick. We need the water to run clean all the time for our kids. Roper Valley Group 1 Maintaining quality of life and community health is reliant on clean water supply. Peoples’ experiences of the seasonal variability, longer-term changes in the quantity and quality of water and their access to secure clean water inform their perceptions of how water can be used and the appropriate techniques for extracting it. These topics are addressed below. 5.5 Types of water use Water planning makes clear distinctions between different types of water use. The uncertainty and expressed need to understand water-planning processes and language reflects the low level of planning activity in the catchment. Participants expressed both historical and contemporary observations and experiences of changing water sources and uses in the catchment. Earlier comments on the importance of water for hunting and fishing and for customary purposes illustrate the links between the health of water systems, characterised as ‘environmental flows’ in water planning. Figure 5-2 Cattle brands register Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment also stressed the importance of sustained clean water supply for community health and wellbeing for current and future generations and for outstations. Their perspectives about water use in the catchment are informed by the type of water source and water quality they can securely access for their livelihoods, as well as the perceived impacts of development on which their livelihoods depend. While past coexistence of communities and industries is acknowledged, strong concerns were expressed about the insecurity of community water supplies into the future: We got five bores at Ngukurr. First one [bore] was when we had 600 people; population goes up to 800 – another bore needed. As the population rise, you got to look at more bores to support the community population. At the moment we got bore number 5. So for bore number 6 ,7, 8 and onwards there has got to be consultation with the landowners, and maybe the Land Council, and ranger groups and any other organisation that is able to support us for another bore … This week coming we have another 15 to house. We need to make sure all the bores are running to support the community as the population rises. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader Just this last four weeks my pipes got all clogged up and we couldn’t use the taps, no shower or toilet. This happens once a year. We had to go ask and use other family baths and toilets. The last two weeks we couldn’t cook, because the water was leaking through the fans and power points For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au and stuff like that, so we just had to turn it off, too dangerous. Kids can’t go to school. I can’t go to work; that’s how it is affecting me. I’m not the only one – there is about another 15 houses. After the 15 houses get fixed, another 15 houses get affected. Using bore water is alright but the government needs to put money to put water filtrations systems into all the houses. I’m not a water expert but I am living it, I am experiencing it. Bore water is good, we’ve been using bore water for a long time, but depends how much calcium you got in it. Even though we change our water from another bore, the amount of calcium that comes from it, it is costing the community council a lot of money to repair and patch up the taps. We are replacing all the piping in the housing from the calcium build-up … The filtration system is very expensive, but it is only used here at the motel. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader Sprinkler to keep grass green in Mataranka parks. Fill up the trough for cattle. They use bore water for the mango and melon farms. They have a lime mine up at Elsey Station; they use water for that … The whole community uses bore water. Jilk they use bore water, used to use river water but not anymore. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 1 Mission Gorge and other outstations, they got clean water. We got to look for it now. That water comes from other side of river. It is cleaner and sweeter. They connected the pipes in 2019. This water [bore], we couldn’t use it – chlorine it eats you up inside. I can’t use it. Even our old people it’s no good for old people, sick people and even for young ones. There are certain spots where you can find water in the rock in puddle or cave. Grandparents had special technique for finding water. Groundwater you have to look for it; community is relying on groundwater [bore water] right now. We get warnings when we can’t drink water. The rangers or government people come and tell us we can’t drink water. It makes it really hard, especially for the sick people, because they need clean water. The water can make you sick. Ngukurr Resident One year they told us we got to use less water, the power and water mob. When water turned off here, we walked to the springs for water for tea, showers. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 We use irrigation from the pump from the spring to keep the grass green and keep the dust down. Roadwork uses groundwater. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 2 We need water connected to houses [outstations]. At the moment it [water] is coming from billabong. It’s not good – the water is dirty. Horses, cows, buffalos, they all use the same water as us for our homes. Traditional Owners (top and bottom of catchment), Ngukurr Residents and Community Leaders Group 1 Participants acknowledged the shared use of water resources with industries in the catchment – agriculture, mining, and housing and road construction – and the different water sources they access. They expressed concerns about expansions in water use that they are not being informed of, the perceived wastage of water by industry, and the impact of water use on their rivers and billabongs. Much of the Roper catchment sits outside the proposed water allocation plan region, hence consumptive allocations for industries have been made outside water-planning processes. Station manager is already using the river water for cattle. That river water is coming through the mining mob. They are sharing the river water. We have asked them if they will share their river water with us. Right now, the mine digs a dam so they can keep water the whole year. They pump water from the river. They have a dam there for bathing. This other dam is for mining … They already have water to wash and clean the ilmenite. Roper Valley Group 1 The cattle station take water from the river, making it dry. They use bore water and solar panel to pump water out. Mining is using the river water to wash things down – that’s why river water is going down. They are wasting water … If the station uses water from the lagoon it will go dry. The mango farm using too much river water. Crescent Lagoon is where we go fishing; the station takes water [from the lagoon]. Warlock station has two bores. Water is important for community. Mangarrayi Traditional Owners Group 2 They use river water here for the roads. Use water for the new subdivision [houses], need it for country – keep country green – need it for community. Use for agriculture crops and mango farms. Bagala Group 1 We use river water for drinking water and to fill up billabongs. The pastoral station and the miners use the river water. We got bores past Elsey way, number 5, 6 and 7 use windmill. Pastoral station and miners use river water and bore water; they use both. Agricultural, the mango and melons, use groundwater, bores. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner and Minyerri Resident 1 We muster on the outside and bring cattle in. We need to camp near billabong then push them along to the main river. We can’t get groundwater out here, too much limestone. Half the pastoralist use groundwater. The pastoralist can put a bore down, but they need to ask us, because of sacred sites. They can fill up their ‘turkey nest’[dam] and troughs. Mangarrayi Ranger 1 The importance of secure community, town and outstation water supplies now and into the future and considerations of impacts on supply have a strong influence on Indigenous peoples’ thinking about water resource development in the Roper catchment. A significant proportion of the remainder of this report reviews the relationship between Indigenous peoples and commercial uses for water. 5.6 Types of water extraction Commercial use of water requires the extraction of commercial quantities. Indigenous perceptions of whether a particular commercial activity is appropriate may be directly affected by how the required water is obtained and by historical experience. As a result, Indigenous participants’ views about methods of water extraction will be considered before analysing types of commercial development in more detail. Figure 5-3 Dinghy on the Roper River at Ngukurr Community 5.6.1 Instream dams There was no support for instream dams from participants in the Assessment in the Roper catchment. The general preferences were for the use of bore water and/or flood harvesting for commercial purposes. Concerns about water resource development relate to the effects and impacts on cultural sites and values and customary practices, highlighting the importance of the active participation of Indigenous residents and Traditional Owners in development planning: For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au No damming of river. Use bore water. Put water in drums. Water from the ground. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 1 No dams – can use bores. Can use flood harvesting. Mangarrayi Traditional Owners Group 2 No good to dam the river. No, don’t dam the river. We don’t want that. Run the pipe from the river. They [station and miners] are sharing the river. Other station has put a generator at the river. Dig a hole in the land you make a lot of mess, you damage the land. Groundwater, you can use it for the future for drinking. Roper Valley Group 1 We don’t want dams…. It’s bad for country when water goes down. We feel sorry for our country. How come they boss us over country? We want it like it was back in the day when our ancestors had the land. Bagala Group 2 If we are going to have changes on the river and on the banks of the IPA section, it is going to change our country. If we are going to have farming this side of the river inside the IPA boundary, it is going to make a lot of changes. The country won’t be itself as it was before when we grow up. No farming, no damming on the river – that’s my own personal point of view. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 Separate water for different things. Mining uses bore water. Don’t dam the river; offstream damming is OK, but not the main river. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 4 Traditional Owners at the bottom of the catchment recounted the effects of damming along the Roper in the last century, as an illustration of the potential impacts of damming on their country and community life: Back in the 30 or 40s they dam up the river from pastoralist leases just for cattle use. That affected the community here. Lack of water was coming down [the river], so the saltwater from 80 kilometres came right up here and affected the drinking water … We had dolphins swimming up here. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader When the mission was here, they dammed the two creeks here … it holds lots of water. It [one] broke its bank and one dam gone. We are thinking not to do that again because of the crocodiles. Instead of having water here, you’ll have a big mob of crocodiles. In the past the idea was to save some water for gardening, so the garden was on the river. It wasn’t a good idea because the flood come and took all the vegetables and everything else. So, if we going to dam the river, we have to find a proper place to get it all in a dam. Don’t dam the river. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader Concerns of water resource development in other parts of Australia was also raised as a concern: No, don’t put water into a dam. Let the water flow. If you do that the creeks and river will dry out. It will cause damage. The Murray–Darling, the fish got sick and died from contamination. That is sad. Bulman Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group), and Community Leader Figure 5-4 Pipes from the Roper River at Ngukurr 5.6.2 Offstream storages, bores and other options Contrasting with comments about dams were stated preferences for bore and offstream storage of water for commercial development. Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment are familiar with bore water supply for agriculture, community water supply including construction, and park spaces. This may have shaped some of the preferences for types of water extraction as using bore water does not directly affect animal and plant life reliant on the rivers and creeks. However, there was also concern about bore water use: Pump it from the bore, you can get the right limits for them plants. We on the same streamline as Katherine – if their water is gone down, we not going to get water here. That’s why bore water is best way to use water. Mangarrayi Ranger 1 For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au Use the bore water for the parks and the melon farms. Don’t get river water. We use bore water now [community]. The river water just kept going down and down and down … We use the river water for fishing. They [local farms] have turkey nests for storage from rain and bore water. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 3 Bores. I think what we need is to have bores for us too, not just cattle and animals. The water in the creek now is drying out. The best way I can see is bore water. Some bores and small dams. Hardly any kangaroo because there is hardly any water; they go up that way to Mataranka because the water. My dad used to say there was a lot of kangaroos and emus, now I don’t even see one kangaroo or one emu. They follow the water. Wubalawan Land Trust 1 [U]nderground water is better to use [for agriculture] and safer for us to use bore water. Leave the river water for the fish and turtle and other animals to drink … Most important way for water for country is river water. Not OK to use river water for agriculture. Near the Red Lilly there is dry saltpan. That’s why we don’t use river water. The big farms should use bore water. They should not use river water – it’s OK in wet season but no other time. They can store water in big drums and dams in wet season. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 1 Well for myself, I’d like the river not to be touched. Concentrate on the bores because it [using river water] will affect us and it’ll affect our native fish and whatever lives in the water, in the river. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 Flood harvesting was also a preferred method of water extraction for future agricultural development. Participants expressed a general preference not to have offstream dams near the communities. Retention of sufficient water in the rivers and creeks for the environment was a critical determinant of preferred development options: No dams around the community area. OK for dam on farms for agriculture for vegetables and fruit growing. Bagala Group 1 If they build a dam, we won’t be able go fishing, hunting and swimming in it! Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader 3 Use river water for farming when flooding. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 3 During the floods we might be able to save some water that needs to be dammed. Then we’ll be able to use that water for plants and animals. The river water would just stay as a second thing that needs to be looked at. So, when it floods, we pump the water up and store it in a dam. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader They can store water when it floods. Bagala Group 2 Flood harvesting for community water supply was also highlighted by a participant at the bottom of the catchment. The participant raised their concern about the quality of harvested water that has travelled past communities and commercial sites: Not damming the river. We need a man-made dam, like what they got at Tennant Creek – that dam feed the town itself. No dam in river or streams. A dam somewhere they can catch water coming from hills. Got to look at where they can trap the water from the wet season, and not affect the water going into streams. Flood harvesting could be another way but got to look at how much water they going to take. Got to look at pollutions coming downstream from the floods. Take Beswick community – they’re 300 kilometres from here in a straight line, their sewage during floods comes straight this way. Got to remember you can catch floodwater but what else are you catching? Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader 5.7 Types of development Several key forms of on-country development in northern Australia featured prominently in discussions in the Roper catchment. These include pastoralism, agriculture, tourism and fishing, and mining. Each of these forms of development depends on a range of enabling conditions and services – such as residential infrastructure, energy, health and education services and transport – that also represent economic development opportunities for Indigenous peoples in their own right. Acknowledging this, this section focuses on the main forms of on-country development primarily associated with water assets and water extraction. The section highlights general views expressed by research participants on these industries and the potential opportunities arising from them and considers some key impacts from that industry. Perspectives regarding potential development can differ, both within and among Traditional Owner groups. However, regardless of sector, smaller-scale development emphasising local agency and local capacity is generally favoured over larger-scale, externally resourced and directed development (Barber, 2018c; Taylor et al., 2011). In terms of water use and extraction, development that delivers a local economic return without significant water extraction is likely to be favoured over one that requires significant water to operate. 5.7.1 Pastoralism Pastoralism is a historical and familiar industry that participants continue to value; some have leasing arrangements on their homelands. However, caution was also voiced about the impact of cattle locally on cultural sites (see Section 4.4.2) and regionally on water availability. As an industry, pastoralism has experienced significant declines in terms of financial returns and the labour force it supports. Indigenous perspectives on the industry reflect this historical mix of involvement and distance, of opportunity and impact, and arrangements that facilitate looking after country: Pastoralists need water too, but it depends on how much water that they want to use. Either they use bore or pump the water out from the river. Sometimes they dig a hole then when it rain/floods it fill the hole up – flood harvesting. Best way for pastoralist is to dig hole and let it fill up … If pastoralist mob want to use the river water, they’ll pump it into tanks on trucks and we can monitor it. If the pastoralist mob use it, they probably got a limit on how much they can use anyways. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader 3 It’s alright to use it for cattle; we used to have cattle here. Ngukurr Resident Bishop Falls [pastoralist] has his own bore to use. Pastoral lease at Bishop Falls and Five Mile have their own bore for cattle and he catches water buffalo. He looks after country for us. Bagala Group 1 Figure 5-5 Original site of Elsey station 5.7.2 Agriculture There is a direct connection between increasing cattle feed production through irrigation to support cattle enterprises, and wider forms of agriculture. There is ongoing interest in establishing ventures that improve Indigenous access to cheaper, local fresh produce and therefore improve health and food security. Custodians are aware of balancing multiple responsibilities: to generate employment, to improve health, to preserve ecosystem-reliant and cultural-health-affirming hunting and fishing, and to maintain the integrity of water systems. Participants expressed caution about large-scale farming initiatives and expansion as its use of land is counter to their vision for country and their sustained relationship with country and the limited benefits delivered by this industry to locals: For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au Just water for the garden there, that watermelon garden. There is big river underneath here, goes to Daly Waters. The watermelon farm is managed by private operator. They don’t even sell the watermelon here – they take them up to Darwin and down to Adelaide. We ask for that manager if he’d employ us Aboriginal people, but he employs aboriginal people from overseas islands, Pacific mob. Some of them work at Minyerri on mango farm. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 4 The melon farm wants to keep expanding, killing all the trees [clearing]. We want to stop it. We want it [the land] for our animals. Melon farm got cameras at the gate. Mangarrayi Traditional Owners Group 2 We only use spring water, for town plants and animals. We don’t know how much spring water we got. We can use bore water for vegetables. We don’t want any mining here; they destroy too much. Agriculture is OK, but with bore water. Bagala Group 2 Groundwater important for Mataranka, for community. Yes can use groundwater for farming, TO and white fella. Not mining. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 3 I’ve seen a lot of what pastoral lease holders have done damage to river systems. They have dug up the river places. They do irrigation system which is not good. It is better we [rangers, community and Traditional Owners] fence the area to protect that part of the creek. We should use water just for what we need it for. That’s it. I would not agree to water for agriculture. Too much clearing. They will be using more water. There may be contamination. Water to look after plants, trees is OK. Bulman Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader When they came in, they didn’t tell us they were going to make a farm and make it bigger and bigger, smashing trees. The Moroak people should have been involved with it. When we have our meetings in Mataranka, both those farms are supposed to be there and explain everything. What they doing on that farm and how much water they using. People downstream need to know too... If you have 50 or 60 farms using water around Mataranka, there will be no water. The bigger the farms the more water they use. That’s going to affect everyone even in town. We want government to give us more water instead of giving for mango and melons. Community is not involved in how water is used. It needs to be improved so community know how much is being used. The main thing is health. Without water we will die. Animals will die. Mangarrayi Ranger 1 The Daly River they are taking out a lot of water. The water turned red from somewhere at the top of the catchment. I think they were trying to grow rice or cotton. The people down at the mission were saying, ‘Hey what’s going on here?’ We don’t know what chemical they are putting into the river, what poison is going into it. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 5.7.3 Mining Participants across the Roper catchment consistently expressed concerns about the quantity of water used by the mining sector, the associated perceived and observed impacts of its operations on country, and the expansion of the sector in the catchment. Any future decisions about mining operations on their Country involves considerations of the environmental impacts and the benefits and opportunities that may be foregone to protect the health of their Country as is articulated below: We don’t want them, mining, oil, fracking. Wrecking our water – we got beautiful area. We don’t want them destroying and damaging our country. They might destroy our fish and plants. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 1 Mining, they use too much water, not like the gardening [agriculture] up there [pointing to Mataranka]. Roper Valley Group 1 I’m a bit touchy about mining because what happens upstream will flow downstream anyway. They got to look after the water the tailing dams or usage of grey water whatever they call it. They got to build a proper dam to make sure it evaporates and turns into mud or something. That’s what we got to know if they are doing their job to protect downstream …You got pastoralist property using water but for last two or three years we got mining company that using the water upstream. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader We’re facing [the choice between] job creation and saying no to a water licence to protect our land – but that would take away from job creation … We don’t have an answer, but proper research would help Traditional Owners in decision making. (Winston Thompson https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-08/indigenous-owners-call-for-nt- government-to-reject-water-licence/100812012 - accessed Feb 2022) Figure 5-6 Ngukurr community store For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 5.7.4 Environment-based tourism Environment-based tourism has growing significance as an industry in the Roper catchment. Participants responses highlighted the importance of resource management and diversification of water use to ensure livelihoods and a healthy country are sustained as well as economic outcomes: The big tourist attraction of fishing in the mighty Roper River will not happen if the birthplace of the barra is not looked after. Barra need to go back to billabongs, spring water is for drinking, bore water for plants and animals, therefore not depleting one water source. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader Safaris mob come here sometimes. Tourists. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 2 You got tourism coming down here. They can look at the river – you got the barra. There is lots of fish in the river. People come long way from Queensland, Victoria, Darwin and Katherine; they come down here to camp out. Locals and tourist come for fishing here and Roper River. Ngukurr Resident Tourists use the river water when they go camping. Tourists come for springs. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 3 5.8 Impacts from development The key types of development discussed above – pastoralism, agriculture, mining and tourism – differ in their natural resource requirements and their range of impacts. Perspectives on particular industries can and do vary, but some potential elements of development, such as instream dams, are consistently rejected because of the scale and nature of their potential impacts. Industries which have a significant effect on the landscape are generally regarded more negatively than industries that support the maintenance and/or improvement of country. Even in industries such as tourism that are more favourably regarded, the expansion of development can create impacts that are unwanted in their nature or scale. Concerns about more specific impacts from development are considered further below, organised into two broad interrelated impact categories: environmental and cultural. 5.8.1 Environmental impacts Environmental impacts from development can be diverse and complex. Reflecting the orientation of a study focused on water in a highly seasonal environment with people who still practise hunting and gathering, the comments below focus on water and soil, and on animals and plants. Indigenous peoples from the Roper catchment have articulated general concerns about landscape changes particularly mining contamination and their impacts on water systems. With respect to development, observations about water impacts from development included pollution and over- extraction: Figure 5-7 Escarpment on the Arnhem Land Highway If there is any pollution comes down from the development, up the river, that’s going to kill our native fish – even the crocs, they’re going to suffer. They’ll probably be wiped out – if it’s a very strong pollution or whatever. We don’t know what can happen. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 We used to walk across there collecting water lilies. Now when we go there, the water is low and muddy, your legs get itchy, some little bugs bite you. It’s not only that billabong but also other places when we go fishing for barramundi. Roger Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader Government introduced fracking. We don’t want fracking. It is dangerous for us. They keep asking us every five years. We keep saying we don’t want mining and fracking. They still have not covered up the holes from mining. Fracking is no good for us – the gas goes through the water and make water poison for us, fish and cattle … Bad thing about water decision is mining and fracking. Making country sad. Ngukurr Residents and Community Leaders Group 1 This country is full of buffalo; a lot of damage has been done to our waterway. This country got billabongs but we got no waterlilies. A lot of the areas where there should be lilies, water buffalo just take everything. It’s hard to get it back again because they take just about anything, even around the edge, that’s biggest concern. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au Look at the billabongs compared to rivers and bores. Billabongs are for hunting and stuff like that. Less water flows into those billabongs. Barramundi need flowing water to breed. River water gets affected and it doesn’t flow, billabong gets affected and life is all gone. How you are going to help your country. Your country gonna die, and billabongs play a big part for marine life too, for fish going up and down, to breed. So, you not only got to look at underground water, but you also got to look at how billabongs are going to be affected. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader We want to know how much they take and how much water we take. Need to know because water is important, so water is not too low. Water for country. So, water gets to town [as well]. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 3 Impacts on water and soil regimes intersect and interact with impacts on animals and plants. Historical and regional changes wrought by previous and recent developments inform Indigenous perceptions of likely future environmental impacts. These in turn intersect and interact with cultural impacts, reviewed in more detail below. 5.8.2 Cultural impacts The protection of Indigenous cultural lifeways and cultural heritage is a crucial area of ongoing concern, current activity and future potential for Indigenous people. Water-related development poses particular risks for cultural attributes and heritage places, as there is a clear relationship between water sources and past and present Indigenous habitation. The deep interconnection between water and culture has been highlighted in previous sections, and the cultural heritage importance of riverine corridors and waterholes is well established (McIntyre-Tamwoy et al., 2013), particularly in rocky areas where habitation and art sites are better preserved. Likely impacts from water resource development on cultural heritage and lifeway sites include: • inundation and large-scale earthworks over the water storage footprint • erosion and wave impact along the storage margins • increased regional population and associated visitation • pollution • access restrictions (new land tenure and fencing arrangements) • impacts on culturally and economically valuable food resources. The impacts of historical and recent developments in the Roper catchment on Indigenous cultural life and cultural practices have been profound and include the impacts identified above. The arrival of pastoralism in the 1800s resulted in serious levels of violence and dislocation. Environmental impacts are cultural impacts – for Aboriginal people they are inseparable. Peoples’ concerns about development relate strongly to potential harm to animals and plants; damage to sacred sites; how development may affect relationships with groups, particularly those downstream; and uncertainty how water-related development (through lack of information) may harm people now and into the future. Inappropriate development has direct consequences for ancestral powers and consequently for human beings. This in turn obliges people to predict cultural impacts and try to avoid them. The recent creation of the 13-metre map petition to lobby against Roper River water use by Arnhem Land Traditional Owners highlights their concerns that new development such as cotton and gas could damage their water systems: [A]ll the song lines follow the water, if you take our water you kill our culture, you can take your plans for cotton, for dams, for mining, away with you. (Mr Rogers https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-28/nt-ngukurr-traditional-owners- map/101588434 – accessed 23 Oct 2022) Well we got few sacred sites, on the river and on the banks of the river. We do not want them to be disturbed by developers. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 Agriculture, farming anything to do with the river or interference with our sacred sites areas. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 The water, the river and billabongs. The river is a sacred site. We want to keep our land strong. We want to keep the water healthy. The farms taking too much water, the mango farm. We don’t know what’s going on at the farms. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 3 Waterholes a little bit further from the big river. They fill up with big rain and water will stay in them for years and years. If you have station beside it, they’ll be taking a lot of water from out of there. The waterhole will go dry and things will die, trees and things. Animals can’t drink from there. They are significant to us because they are sacred sites. The waterholes feed animals and trees and plants. Mangarrayi Ranger 1 Building bores and dams is damaging to country. It is a cultural issue, [including] building bores, bulldozers and stuff like that. Building dams is no good for ceremony sites, [it causes] disturbed sites. I’m worried about digging up the ground for dams and bores. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner and Minyerri Resident 1 I’ve seen another place, Borroloola; they had an argument for the water. They made us sad. There were fish not alive. The turtle not alive, dugong. There’s poison in that river, big poison. What do we want to do in the future? We’ll be dead and gone if there is no water. Roper Valley Group 1 I heard that Conway station is growing rice and they only do it during wet season. No matter how much we talk, we get left behind … Nobody consults us about water. Our water is very valuable to us, all of us. When you start taking water away, there is a song line to it; the country becomes weak, the spirit, you know, it’ll dry up. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 Indigenous Traditional Owners in the Roper catchment are interested in the forms of development that can benefit local people. This interest in development is combined with an understanding of the potential for impacts and a range of concerns about those impacts. This provides the context for concerns about current and potential future acts of development and their impacts on key environmental assets: water and soil, animals and plants. These flow on into concerns about how changes wrought by water resource and landscape-scale development can affect Indigenous cultural heritage and lifeways. Figure 5-8 Roper River winding into Ngukurr 5.9 Water rights and planning One key response to such concerns is to manage the natural resources upon which development depends, particularly water. In the NT, there is a statutory water-planning, allocation and licensing regime in place, but there are significant variations in the degree to which it is required to operate across the territory. The NT regime is generally compliant with the requirements of the National Water Initiative with some qualifications (https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/water- reform#report). The Roper catchment currently has one draft water allocation plan, the Mataranka Tindall Limestone Aquifer Water Allocation Plan. There was no water-planning activity in the remote areas of the catchment at the time of this Assessment. Reflecting this situation, Indigenous research participants articulated strong principles with respect to the appropriate ownership and management of water, and the express need to be involved and informed decision makers. Perspectives regarding Indigenous decision making about water, knowledge of water planning, Indigenous rights and reserves, water planning and non-Indigenous involvement in water planning and allocation are presented below. For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 5.9.1 Indigenous water-planning process Reflecting the low level of water-planning activity in the catchment, participants highlighted the lack of information they can access and the importance of building knowledge so that they can be engaged in the decision making about water allocations. Questions raised by participants included: Who makes decisions about water allocation? How much water is used by community and by industry? Are water sources are being monitored under current use and, if so, how? Comments included concerns about the lack of information on prioritisation processes in water-planning allocations to enable local Indigenous peoples to understand how they can participate to mitigate potential development impacts on community livelihood and country, as rights holders: We don’t know how much water we take to water community. We don’t know how decisions about water is shared between community and agriculture … Traditional Owners need to be seen as owning water as well. It is important to know how government share the water between farmers, country and community. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 1 What is bad about water decision is we don’t know how decisions are made. Bagala Group 2 Everybody got to be on 50/50 and one level. Everyone should have clear water rights. We need to get the same as the farm … We don’t know how much water we got. We know farmer got limits but we don’t know how much. We as Traditional Owners need to be involved in water planning. We need education on how government allocates water from the top to the bottom. Mangarrayi Ranger 1 We don’t know how water is shared with pastoralist and farms leases. We would like to know how and who makes the decisions. Bagala Group 1 Nobody, not even the Territory Government told us how much volume water they are using on those farms, and that made me upset. Is the level going to drop and drop very low? It is going to affect us here at the bottom … [W]e don’t know how much volume is going to be used. Big development is like gardening … Are river levels going to drop and stay down? We don’t want that. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 When they come to use the water they don’t come to consult with the right people, the affected people. Our community people need drinking water. Pastoralists, they don’t consult … They don’t consult with people who live in the area … You might have other groups [Traditional Owner] in the region that have their own ideas; it is all about their decision. Ngukurr Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Common sense they [developers] should sit down and talk about the water, like: ‘I got a farm up here, can I use the water?’ Land Council should be fighting for this, to get all the Indigenous and farmers all together. If you had a pastoralist along the river, he should be asking, ‘Who do I talk to about the water?’. Just common sense come and talk to us … Science got to be part of it. If they [developers] keep using water, it might go dry in a couple months. We’ll need to reserve it for people in the community for animals and cooking. I have been told that our water levels have been dropping down. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 Comments from the research participants demonstrated that the status of traditional ownership should provide priority Indigenous control over water decision making. Some participants understood that Aboriginal land rights processes to not include complementary water rights on Aboriginal lands. These conditions raised concerns that the rights of local groups in decision making were not being recognised and consultation in water allocations was not being undertaken: There needs to be more consultation about decision making with water. We need everybody to come to us first and consult with us. Need more information about how government shares water. When we got our land back, we got everything back, we got our water back. We’d like to know how much stations and agriculturalist are using water. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner and Minyerri Resident 1 I think the landowner, the TOs to make decisions about water, we got to live on that land. Pastoralist, leaseholder and Centrefarm business need to come to meetings as well. They can’t just waste the water. Wubalawan Land Trust 1 Another concern, the water underneath if you want to sink and bore and set up a farm, we don’t own that water, it’s the government. It’s a big concern. We spoke about this at Land Council meeting. And all those fellows on the committee, they all white fellas. How do we get on board [the committee]. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 My understanding now is that Traditional Owner got no say on water – lands yes, but water no … I started to learn about it myself. How do you feel when you not part of the decision making on how much water you get to use, you’re in the dark? Make you angry sometimes. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader We need a clear understanding of water rights. Water is on our land. Bulman Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Involvement of Traditional Owners from across the catchment, upstream and downstream, in consultation, including reports on water use by users, and in decision making was identified as critical to decisions about current and future water use and allocations within the catchment. Downstream users shared the perspective that those people first or most affected have a central role in decision making: People upstream and downstream should be involved. They should know the good and bad to make decisions. They should be consulted in the right manner of the effects on the environment and the effects if they are making business … We need to be consulted properly of the issues around water. The affected people should be the first ones to be there to make decisions, where the plans will go, what the benefits are for the people. Ngukurr Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Figure 5-9 A local fishing spot at the top of the catchment The TOs should be asked about how much water that people can take. If we say it is OK to use the water, they will use it. If we say they can’t, well they should not be taking water. The government should be involved in the decision making too. Some of the pastoralist should be involved in the decision making. Traditional Owners first should be involved, that is, from the top of the river to bottom of river. Mangarrayi Traditional Owners Group 2 Everybody has got to get up and make decision, that’s the best way. We don’t know how the government makes decision on who get water … TOs upstream and downstream should be involved in decision making. Government need to properly listen to us. Pastoralist and agriculturist should be involved, to sit down and listen. Everyone should be involved in the decision making but come to the owners first. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner and Minyerri Resident 1 We don’t know how much water town people getting, we don’t know how much water we are getting. We ask. We don’t know. Once that river stop, they are going to have to run water from the For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au bore. Water from underneath. Traditional Owners downstream need to be involved. Traditional Owners at the top and at the bottom, as well as pastoralist station sharing information about water use. Mangarrayi Ranger 1 Participants highlighted that genuine participation and consultation in water-planning processes would involve sufficient time to support education, sharing information and deliberative and informed decision making by local groups and between groups. Such a process would involve agencies such as the NLC and NT Government: What is good is that people are starting to talk about how valuable it [water] is. We know how valuable it is; we need to talk about how to use it. The bad thing is I think it is all too late. It’s never too late to talk about education. There is not enough talk and education about water usage or how much water is in the catchment area. The only time we hear about it is when there is a mine coming up or fracking – then everybody starts jumping up and down last minute, you know. This type of thing should be talked about long time before, and there should be more consulting with people. Northern Land Council should be talking to people about that, not only about land but about water, making Traditional Owners understand that we got no power over water. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader NLC mob to take care of water. They (pastoralists, government) need to talk to NLC first then we have meeting then let us know. Traditional groups have meeting and decide from there. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 4 Consultation first, talk to government – then we talk to each other and we come up with a decision. Bulman Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Awareness of Indigenous decision-making roles in water highlights the Indigenous peoples’ need for agreements between governments and Indigenous institutions to be negotiated to determine the principles and protocols of joint management. A whole-of-catchment approach enables Indigenous peoples to assess information relevant to water planning. This is an important water governance question, one that also arises for the more specific issue of Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserves. 5.9.2 Indigenous water rights and water-related revenue Knowledge of the Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserves is not extensive in the catchment, reflecting the fact that large areas are not covered by existing water plans. However, participants’ statements about the need for Indigenous control over water decision making imply that they should have a first-priority water right, share or allocation of water that is being extracted and also that they should derive direct benefits from water use by others. This leasing of water to industry, including farms, mining and infrastructure projects, was raised as a form of compensation to Traditional Owners, as a form of acknowledgement of the value of water and country, its importance as a resource for development, and the impact of development that Traditional Owners negotiate as custodians of their country: At the end of the day, we want to be in control of our country, our water. We want to make our own decisions; we don’t want governments doing it. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 If they want to use water, then give money. That’s what they are doing now when they use water … Rent. Roper Valley Group 1 Traditional Owner should be involved in decision making because it’s our country. We are connected by lore through the water. Anyone who wants to use water needs to pay rent. Meeting coming up soon to talk with mango and melon farmers to talk about water. NLC needs to be involved as well as all Traditional Owners should be involved up and down river. We share one culture with Ngukurr and Jilk, we make individual decisions, but we are one. Farmer need to ask Traditional Owners first for water. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 1 This country is our mother. You start mucking around with that water over there, it’ll dry up. What then? Land Council got to be a part of this and say, ‘Hang on, we lease water to do that road’. We are talking about money now, but by rights, landowner got to have money. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 It is good to do the agricultural stuff. What is not good – no one tells us what and when they use water, and we don’t get paid for the water. They put a dozer through the land without telling us … We need more power and water rights. We don’t know how water is shared, but we want to know how it is decided who gets what water. We’d like more information about how government gives out the water, but it is important for us to know what our rights are. We need to be central to decisions about water. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner Group 3 The existence of the SAWR has been rightly celebrated, but Indigenous peoples from across the catchment do not view the ownership of their lands and waters as separate and therefore expect the same level of control over water as they have over their land. Consequently, participants expressed strong opposition to Traditional Owners having to get water permits on their country. They also noted that the rights and permits that do exist should address the water quality concerns of remote community living: Permits, we shouldn’t have to apply for it. It shouldn’t exist, full stop. I want us to be in control of the water. We want to use water the way we want to use water. We want to walk upon land like we used to walk upon land before white fella – we’re boss. Different clans who own different land, they own that water. I can’t go touch their water. I go touch my water over here. I want that to be further developed. I want Commonwealth Government to be hearing this. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 We don’t just want a licence for water, we want a licence to clean water … We got a law coming in. That law wasn’t there when the mission came. Nobody asked us, we just used the water anyway. We just used to pump the water for community, toilet, showers. Now they saying we need licence we need permit. The permit goes to the minister that looks after water; that’s a new thing … What we are looking at now is that they are going to ask us for [permit] in the future for using water from the river … Nothing should stop us now for using water from the river, that’s going to be the case for using water for parks, livestock, gardening. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader Figure 5-10 Entrance to Jilkminggan community 5.9.3 Monitoring, measuring and reporting Monitoring and reporting water use and the impacts of water extraction on the environment are pressing needs and represent a commitment participants want from government and industry water users. There was a strong perception that industry can easily access different water sources and has excessive access to water and that current water use by agriculture and mining is threatening the health of the environment. Monitoring and reporting the water use and impacts of development is critical to managing water use across the different seasons and changing environmental conditions across the catchment. Traditional Owners at the bottom of the catchment are particularly concerned about monitoring and understanding the impact of water use at the top of the catchment and are keen to see scientific evidence: Water plan, they should monitor the effect on land and environment. They should have an environmental impact study on the water. They should touch a particular volume of water only, not all the water from the rivers and the aquifers. Mostly they should rely on the rain and floodwater. Ngukurr Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader 2 For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au They (need to) come to us and tell us how much water they want to take out and when. It is important during dry and wet seasons to know who wants water. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner and Minyerri Resident 1 The users of the water should be reporting how much water they are using to the TOs. The pastoralist, the farmers everyone. This will help Aboriginal people. Mangarrayi Traditional Owners Group 2 Mining up here, they keep going, they keep making more area. I don’t know where the water came from. I don’t know if it is bore or river … For station and mining, they can use the river. Water from the river they can fill their dam. They should talk to us. Someone should help us. They got big pump there. Roper Valley Group 1 Me personally, I would like to go and see the monitoring, the measurement of the volume of water they take on all those areas … I know what is happening downstream. I can see the water it is a lot of volume. If I was upstream I can’t. We want reporting of upstream, exactly how much water is being used. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 How do we know how much water is being used? No matter how much we agree on to use water – they going to use more. Who is going to monitor the usage of the water? Especially the big mining companies and stuff like that or big farms … Regular meetings with scientists finding out how much water is getting used in the river, how water is getting used in the bores. How do we get scientist to tell us all that? How do we monitor that. It could be different with rain for this next year and then next five years could be drought. We need to know from your people (scientist) how much water is being used in five years and ten years. We need to know about water rights. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader Planning, monitoring and reporting processes include the capacity to evaluate the effects of resource development on the health of country people using both scientific and Indigenous knowledge. Tools that aid understanding of water-planning phases and processes, including Western scientific ecological evidence and principles, will help make sense of the risks and benefits of different types of water resource development that are needed to support Indigenous peoples in water planning. 5.9.4 Water planning literacy and research support Opportunities to improve water literacy to facilitate Indigenous involvement in informed assessment and decision making were identified by participants. These included translation of foreign concepts and language, interpretation of the logic of water planning and allocation for deliberation, and consideration in relation to Indigenous ways of knowing and involving the youth in communities: Consultation has to be clear about negative and what is good. The government talks about this study and that study. All have to come to meet in the consultation. Consultation should include water plan. Some groups are not educated. You have to inform them so they understand what you are talking about so they have a say, whether it will benefit them, the community, family, the pastoralist business. Ngukurr Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader 2 ‘We want proper research carried out first and an environmental impact study done,’ he said. (Winston Thompson 5 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-08/indigenous-owners-call-for-nt- government-to-reject-water-licence/100812012 - accessed Feb 2022) We don’t know how decisions are made about water. We want to know more about water ways. We only heard about water permit from seaside because people are talking about it … We need more information and consultation with the community. We need to ask for more information; then we can make decisions. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 2 I don’t know how decisions are made. They get water, we don’t know how much they get. We want to know how much water they use. Megalitres we’ve just started learning. I don’t know what that means … Water plan is important. I’m just learning, how to make decision about that water and how much water underground. Me and Name, Name, we have farmers, station managers [on the water allocation committee]. Everybody makes decisions [about water]. Traditional Owners don’t really have rights. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 3 Educating the young ones to learn the white fella language so they can translate for the Elders in Kriol language, so we can understand. Bagala Group 2 How do we get the other 40 or 50 clans or groups from the catchment area to understand how much water usage when you talking about millions of megalitres and stuff? Aboriginal people don’t look at that! We understand what season is going to fill the water up again. We don’t understand what a billion [megalitres] of water is. What we were told was that 40 MCG stadiums in a year will be used by just one mining company. That’s the only way you can put it into a picture, that’s the only way a lot of Aboriginal people, Traditional Owners can see when you put it into a picture like that. That’s a lot of water. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader How much volume of water there is? I have asked the CSIRO people … I asked them, How come we not being notified how much volume of water are being used on those gardens, and elsewhere? We do not know that. Are the river level on top of the Roper going down or is it still on the same level? We don’t know that … Is the volume of water used smaller than what they supposed to use. It should be. Get to an agreement [that states] they should be using that much volume … If it is more than what they are supposed to be using, give us some of what we need. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 I think education needs to go round … [I]f you got a farm, what water is getting used, how many megalitres of water is allowed out of your bore. I know a few outstations, a bore was put there and then they didn’t turn off the bore. The community got no water because they didn’t turn off the water. The government went and put water bore there, then they [government] need to do education so people know [w]hen they fill up their tank they got to turn off the bore … We need to monitor use, pastoralist too. We [Traditional Owners] need to monitor how much water is being used … So the bad thing is they [government] don’t educate Traditional Owners, not talking about it [water rights and resources] and trying to put some sort of law or agreement. The bad thing is not talking about it. The good thing is everyone is starting to talk about it now, the bad thing is no one understands it properly. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader We need more consultations. Government needs to come to us and consult with us, including pastoralist. We need more information about water rights. As Traditional Owners we’d like more information. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 2 We need scientist to help with knowledge of water. Traditional Owners (top and bottom of catchment),Ngukurr Residents and Community Leaders Group 1 5.9.5 Wider non-Indigenous involvement in water planning Participants supported the involvement of all parties with an interest in water, including government, agriculture and mining industry, in water planning that centres Traditional Owners as decision makers. There were differences in views of the types of information needed to make strong decisions, particularly for Indigenous peoples at the bottom of the catchment, and government’s role: All Traditional Owners have to be 100% with the decision making. Mining companies have to be involved…Everybody. All affected people living in the region should be involved in water planning. The pastoralists buy the land and own the land. Us, we own the land. We are spiritually connected to the land because of our culture. All the people should be involved. Ngukurr Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Everyone, not just Traditional Owners but everyone. Young and old, everybody. Government, pastoralist, everyone. This is where everyone should be consulted. This is where some mines been around for long time. We got to talk about not be greedy, everybody got to talk about it. Upstream got to understand that it not only affects them, but it also affects everyone. We downstream we get affected more; it goes back to the educating everyone. We going to cop it more because we are downstream. Everybody got to be on the same boat and understand the river system. We working from underneath. We need more monitoring of water usage. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader Agriculturalist need to come and talk to us about the water they use. We also need to know if there are bugs [contamination] in the water. We need scientist to tell us what and if bugs in water and how much water we have, quality and quantity. We need to have people talking with each other. Bagala Group 1 Make clear decisions. Everyone has to have a say. Government needs to listen to people of that land. The future kids should start getting involved in decisions. They will carry on. The government should not be involved. They should be listening to us … All Traditional Owners and people who live in the community, down the river, every Indigenous community should be involved. They have their right. Bulman Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Yes government should be involved. Government should make water [available] for communities. We heard on the news some people were upset that in the future we [will] only have mud, no water. Ngukurr they have the same idea. They have their heart on their land. We love our land. Everyone should have the same say about water. [NAME] has been talking to us about the same problem, not to waste too much water. He has got cattle there. He has a pipe running through the station. He said the mining is using too much water, day and night. Yes, miners should also decide how to use water. Roper Valley Group 1 Indigenous peoples and the government should be involved in decision making. Whoever lives in that area should be involved, everyone on the same river. If they are using the water, they got to be involved. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 2 Management of the wider Roper catchment is necessarily viewed by Indigenous participants as a shared responsibility between Traditional Owners, Indigenous residents, government agencies and non-Indigenous owners and leaseholders. Responses by participants in this study indicated interest in each of these as a means of fulfilling their obligations as traditional custodians using 21st century management and planning tools and institutions including Western science. Effective participation in these tools and institutions will require clear articulation of Indigenous development objectives. These are discussed in the next section. Figure 5-11 Ngukurr community football oval For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 6 Indigenous development objectives 6.1 Introduction The Indigenous peoples of the catchment of the Roper River have a range of development objectives that reflect the underlying principles of culture, people, and country outlined in Section 4 and the perspectives of water and development potential outlined in Section 5. Key objectives identified below encompass Indigenous recognition and resource rights; group, corporate and regional governance; country-based business and enterprise options; education and employment; and knowledge development and future planning. 6.2 Recognition and resource rights Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment work across customary and Western governance systems to engage with development and natural resource management projects. The inclusion of Traditional Owners in water-related decisions will engage both systems of governance, necessitating time for consultation and education, involvement of the right people, and collective informed decision making at local and catchment scales: Traditional point of view, we got people appointed by the three communities which are represented through the Land Council, and they are the ones that represent the people on this river. They are elders but they listen to what we have to present – an argument, an agenda … We take from them the feedback … Decision making needs to come back to First People. First People is people who own the land. This government only been here 200 years. We still have our stories, and we believe that First Nation culture is oldest living culture surviving in the world – it is still strong. Winston Thompson and Community Leader When you are talking about water, you got two communities or outstations on this river, you got us mob here in the middle. When it comes to who should be involved in decision making, it should be all of us upstream and downstream. All the Traditional Owners and Jungai for this country here … You go up to the Vic Daly up the top, along there, all that clan group there is a lot of them all landowner [Traditional Owners], the landholder should be talking to them. All them white fellas who buy the land next to the river or not far from the river, they use the river and water, it goes back to – we should be making decisions all of us [Traditional Owners], not farmers unless he blackfella farmer. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 When it comes to water decision- making, they got to talk to Traditional Owners, then got to talk to the other two. That means they have to talk to three people … You got to have the Traditional Owners, the person who looks after ceremonial things and the third person the Dalnyin [who] can overrule the Junggayi and the Traditional Owner. The Junggayi person is the most important one. They have to be there on everything. They [non-Indigenous actors] can ask the Traditional Owner, but they still got the other two. You have to have the Traditional Owner plus the other two for decision making. Mining companies, anything, you still have to have those three to come to decision. Everyone has to be involved the traditional way. Government can have a say, but them three decide then they tell government. Got to make right decisions. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader 3 We want to be involved in making decisions … It has to come from the seven clans. Not by one person, not by two persons … [M]ake an agreement, it should include all parties … Indigenous peoples here and elsewhere should come to one big agreement with NT and federal government, with the farmers and the miners on how much volume of water should be used from the river. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 6.3 Regional governance Participants prioritised the creation of a governance body or a committee with a role and responsibility to protect Traditional Owner interests and water rights and to advocate for their employment and involvement in monitoring. This kind of body must also have the capacity to enter into decision-making processes with government and other parties with an interest in water in the catchment. A water governance body or committee would have a catchment-wide perspective and include Traditional Owners from across the catchment and the Land Council as a facilitating agency: We need a governance body first before we make future decisions. This is the best way to protect our rights first … We need Traditional Owners of the Roper River catchment to form a committee to talk to Land Council and other organisations … They [government] need to support our chosen representatives. The ones that should be speaking on behalf of the Traditional Owners is the Land Council, both Northern and Central. That’s for land rights and water rights, everything. We should have a governance body set up for water rights. Winston Thompson, Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader Consultations is a must. We need to set up our advisory committee. That’s the thing, we got nobody. We will miss out here on Roper. Can we do that? We should form our own advisory committee – maybe an Indigenous advisory board so they can meet up and consult each other. From Bulman to Roper we can set up our own advisory group. We need something like that so we can monitor and control our own water. You know Land Council got it set up [a water advisory board] like in the Barkly area, Victoria area, Katherine area. We can talk about who got water, what countryman got water, what rights we got, what country benefits from that water, and talk about employment too for our local Indigenous people. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 No formal catchment-wide Indigenous water committees exist in the Roper or the Northern Territory. The utilisation of an Indigenous strategic water reserve will require appropriate governance arrangements through which the relevant Traditional Owner groups determine how the opportunities and benefits are accessed and shared, who accesses the water, and for what purpose. Figure 6-1 Roper River Bar 6.4 Country-based business and enterprise options There is a clear desire among Indigenous landholding corporations across Australia to better use the assets under their control. In many cases, shortages of capital, knowledge and skills make this difficult without external assistance. Equally, there are a range of developments across Australia pursued by non-Indigenous peoples in which Indigenous peoples have an interest, often through land and leaseholdings. Finally, a range of organisations are seeking new outcomes from their activities, often as a consequence of making arrangements for corporate social responsibility or creating a Reconciliation Action Plan. Each of these circumstances can give rise to partnerships and agreements between Indigenous and non-Indigenous parties that can enable Indigenous peoples to pursue their own development objectives, participate in achieving the development objectives of others, and/or limit or manage the impacts of development in which they are not directly involved. Partnerships and agreements can vary from small-scale single activities on local properties to large regional agreements. Recognition and resource rights, corporate and regional governance arrangements, and effective partnerships and agreements are all key development objectives for Roper catchment Indigenous people. This is because they form the foundations for the successful development of Indigenous businesses and enterprises. At the core of Indigenous development objectives lies the need for the growth and diversification of income sources. Meeting this need requires a combination of strategies, including stable and significant sources of government income, structural recognition for the existing roles that Indigenous peoples and their lands play that provide services to others For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au (e.g. carbon, biodiversity), and the development and intensification of new forms of private enterprise. In general, smaller-scale, locally driven opportunities are considered more likely to provide opportunities for people, and development that is consistent with Indigenous cultural principles is also strongly favoured. These strategic activities by regionally focused agencies form the backdrop to the comments about business and enterprise development objectives from the perspective of individual research participants. The participants made a range of observations about the structure and content of business and enterprise development. Using these structural considerations as foundations, the participants in the Indigenous activity of the Assessment reviewed industry opportunities immediately available to them, including pastoralism, agriculture and tourism. While general comments on these industries were made in a Section 5, the following comments focus on current business activities and future objectives. 6.4.1 Agriculture and community gardens Indigenous development objectives primarily focus on community gardens that will provide fresh vegetables and fruit for community consumption. Development decisions include considerations of the health of their country, spiritual connections to water, wellbeing of the community, building knowledge and skills within the communities in the employment of the younger and future generations, and the creation of economic opportunities: Buffalo and water for the roadworks. Buffalo company, feral buffalo they herd them up and ship them to Indonesia. Gulin Gulin company our company. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 2 We need science to come in and tell us how much water coming in, how much water for next year, how much water we have now and how much is everyone using, station managers, farm, town. That would help Mangarrayi Land Trust make decision about our business plans. The use of science would help us big time. Having water for farm with the use of science. Mangarrayi Ranger 1 For us it used to be pastoral, now with Centrefarm [TopEnd Farm] … Pastoralist and us rely on groundwater. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner and Jilkminggan Residents 1 Farming is important to the community. Farming is alright as long as people know what to do and people been in the community for a long time. Ngukurr Traditional Owner We were thinking about starting a farm up here [market garden], to have fresh vegetable, then we can get employment in the community too. And also, we will be learning how much water we are using, or not to use. It makes our young kids understand how precious water is to us – it’s our life. We need our young kids to get educated on how much is water language [volume]. Education needs to include about rights, what white fella think about water rights. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 Tomatoes, apples, corns, oranges and vegetable farm for our community and give it to the shop to sell. Abattoir to cut up cattle. We like to have our own vegetable farm and sell cattle from our abattoir. Bagala Group 2 We could make garden and sell it [crops]. The gardens at Mataranka, like melons, mango. Crops. Good to have crops and sell them but they got to think water … This is where our heart [is], to the land and to the river. When we go to the spring, we think of our ancestors. Don’t waste it. When you drive to Mataranka you see mangoes, lots of mangoes. Lots of water goes through the mangoes and melons and [they are] selling it to the shops. Roper Valley Group 1 Small-scale farming ventures are a common interest and objective across the Assessment participants and a clear opportunity for further support and investigation from regional organisations. 6.4.2 Ecological, cultural and educational tourism Ecological and cultural tourism and education programs are operating in the region and offer business opportunity models for some of the Assessment participants: Fishing industry and Aboriginal people looking to do tourism. We need water. There’ll be no business there for future generations, for Traditional Owners business [without water]. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader 4 A bit of everything, we need water for the town, conservation and agriculture. We need to teach the next generation how to look after water and river system. We need water for culture, country and community. Conservation need water too, plants and animals. Buffalo do a lot of damage around springs... Pretty well everyone looks after country – rangers, elders, everyone that goes there keeps it clean… School kids learn about culture they go to Baghetti, they enjoy themselves. The school kids are white ones that come up from down south somewhere. Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne. Baghetti run the course. There is an outstation, they got a house there, a beautiful house. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 2 Participants highlighted the need for outstation development alongside other development opportunities. Resourcing outstations can potentially open other small-scale business opportunities such as environmental services. 6.4.3 Community and outstation livelihoods Indigenous participants across the Roper catchment seek to engage more frequently and fully with their homelands through infrastructure development on their outstation. They have clear objectives to create conditions for self-sufficiency on their outstations that not only include secure clean water supply, but include fresh fruit and vegetables that can be sold locally and supplement store foods. People can live there and build a house there. Like Urapunga across the river from St Vidgeons you got Nulawan station – they can use water for their houses too. There are other houses there at Nulawan and they need water for their places too. That way you can support your own vegetables in the outstations. We can share the vegetables, so water is for everybody to use. I trying to move down there to St Vidgeons to start up something. This river is huge it can be used for a lot of things. Yulgul Mangi [Development Corporation] can help start up something, [if] given that permission to our area. That way government can say yes to there. I have vegetable garden aspirations on the outstation that will help the community – this were my children and grandchildren will follow on. One day we can sell the fresh veggies in the community; everyone needs fresh veggies. They were very happy in the old day, but now no one has the system to be a gardener. We do have CDEP (Community Development Employment Projects) that run to that system for gardening, so it would be good for people at Nulawan, Yellow Water and Ngukurr itself. The water will come either or both the river or bore. We can have a small farm with pigs, cows, chickens. Ngukurr Resident We want market garden and swimming pools for kids, Roper got one, we need one for our kids. We want to plant more tree too. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 1 No dams. We got tanks for the community to use, take water straight from the ground and into tanks. No fracking. We need to store rainwater. We want to save spring water. We want to use spring water for the community vegetable garden. Run a pipe from the spring water to our house, so we can water the garden. At the school they do a lot of planting, and they use their veggies. Eggplants and tomatoes. Community garden for the shop, make one garden for kids. Shop is owned by community. Dalabon Traditional Owners Group 2 In Ngukurr we have two billabongs, but they get dry. You can pump up the water from the river for fish to survive and people can still go camping. Ngukurr Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group), and Community Leader Some outstations have tanks. They store rainwater during the wet; it helps to reduce generator to pump water from the spring. During wet season, when it is hard to go down to pump water up to the house, they have rainwater in the tank. Bulman Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Bore water is important to remote community livelihood including drinking and household water supply as well as park greenery. We got four or five bores now. The one we are using now is from Kookaburra area. From the office you can see that hill – that’s where the bore is, that water for the community for drinking and washing. I don’t know about damming here. Ngalakan Traditional Owner and Community Leader 3 Agriculture and homes. Traditional Owner community. Outback stations. Used to be pastoralist uses. Now I thinking more for planting things like fruit and vegetables. The billabongs are sacred, we don’t want them touched. Wubalawan Land Trust 1 6.4.4 Industry partnerships in development Respondents acknowledged that there will be a continuing presence of industry that will require water resources. They seek a change in the current relationships to become informed partners, as Traditional Owners with rights and interests. Changing the nature of the relationships between Traditional Owners and industry will involve discussions about opportunities for Traditional Owners with the various interests groups that use and draw benefits from the waters of the Roper catchment. Indigenous peoples living in remote community, they don’t have the skills to understand what is going to happen to the land. They [resource development businesses] should consult all Traditional Owners. They should explain what is bad and what is good. If it is economic then they should get all TOs involved in work and employment. Yugul Mangi, we got two mines – they never consult. They never get us involved to lift our community to where we want to be, health, education, social wellbeing. Ngukurr Resident, Traditional Owner (neighbouring group) and Community Leader Our Land Trust is looking at Centrefarm as a business. The Pastoralist pay us to lease the land. Wubalawan Land Trust 1 We have a plan to develop water for farming with CentreFarm. Mangarrayi Traditional Owner 3 We have got a few meetings with the Northern Land Council to talk about making money from the river; the Traditional Owners decision need to do that. The recreational fisherman, they are talking about coming down here to do barramundi fishing. That’s what the meeting is about, decision making. What money can be made from fishing permits. Barra catching and mud crabs. Tourist permits to catch fish and crabs. Not aquaculture. NLC agreements, decision making by the Traditional Owners here. Yugul Mangi Ranger 1 Mangarrayi Land Trust has a agricultural farm plan. Mangarrayi Ranger 1 Figure 6-2 Weemol springs For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 7 Conclusions 7.1 Introduction There is strong ongoing interest from all levels of government in establishing appropriate foundations for sustainable economic development, particularly in rural and regional areas. Indigenous interests in natural resources, particularly water and land, are an important factor in the initiation and management of successful sustainable development. Indigenous peoples wish to protect the long-term health of their traditional lands and the ecosystems, resources and cultural heritage they contain. Indigenous peoples can also act as substantial enablers of appropriate development and have been shown here to have a range of existing perspectives and objectives that are crucial to future development. Although Indigenous historical and contemporary participation in the pastoral industry has received a degree of attention, less information is available about Indigenous roles in wider agricultural development. In part, this reflects the relative strength of Indigenous land tenure and residence in northern Australia, which is currently dominated by pastoral activity. However, it also reflects general orientations in Indigenous-focused research towards traditional Indigenous cultures, colonial and mission histories, native title and cultural heritage, and contemporary Indigenous social and health issues. The data from the Indigenous activity of the Assessment begins to address the knowledge gap regarding the intersection between water and agriculture in a key location in northern Australia. The results of this research identify some pathways for planning for sustainable Indigenous development which are grounded in existing local ideas and aspirations. The emphasis is upon achieving regional coordination and oriented to wider long-term policy goals. Figure 7-1 Ngukurr community sign 7.2 Indigenous water values, rights and interests in the Roper catchment Indigenous peoples of the catchment of the Roper River are deeply attached to their traditional country through a combination of cultural traditions and a history of personal and familial engagement. The Dreaming ancestors, hunting and fishing, and Indigenous knowledge are three primary characteristics highlighted here. These are often cited by Indigenous peoples as crucial aspects of Indigenous culture and are complemented by a strong sense of prior Indigenous ownership of country and ongoing rights of access and control. Some of these rights have been upheld in Australian land rights and native title law. Indigenous lore goes considerably further in asserting Indigenous ownership over land and natural resources. However, with that ownership also comes a range of obligations and responsibilities. These include inter-generational responsibilities to both ancestors and descendants, as well as responsibilities to near neighbours and those living downstream. The obligation to protect ancestral lands and non-renewable resources is the motivation for strong and ongoing interest in cultural and environmental management. As owners and guardians of important landscapes, For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au Indigenous peoples also have a range of principles with respect to non-Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands. This combination of cultural attributes, rights and obligations underpins Indigenous approaches to water issues, including water and agricultural development. 7.3 Development planning and water planning 7.3.1 Development planning Indigenous views of water and development issues reflect their need to balance short-term opportunity with long-term sustainability. Indigenous communities in the Roper catchment are confronted by challenging issues, including land dispossession, significant unemployment, poor access to health services, structural impediments to economic resources, a lack of business support services, and social and family units under high levels of stress. Evidence from both regional forums in northern Australia and local participants in the Roper catchment indicates that Indigenous peoples have a strong desire to participate in a diverse range of sustainable economic activities. However, the form such development takes is crucial – some types of economic development can increase rather than decrease social and economic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. At the broadest level, Indigenous development plans and objectives articulate well with objectives specified in government policies in relation to Indigenous engagement, Indigenous socio-economic status, food security, NRM and regional development. Private interests may drive water and agricultural development in the Roper catchment, but Indigenous support for and contributions to that development would benefit greatly from additional government endorsement, enablement and strategic investment in complementary and related activities. Of particular importance are local group and community planning processes being undertaken in a regionally coordinated way, and key priorities identified in such processes being resourced. Such support would allow Indigenous peoples to act as substantial enablers of appropriate sustainable development and implement a range of existing plans. Northern Australian Indigenous leaders have begun to reorient towards the private sector as a major initiator of economic development. Indigenous groups and peak bodies have begun to refine concepts and engagement tools suitable for the task; promoting Indigenous peoples as existing ‘investors’ in Australian natural resources and developing a ‘prospectus’ model to encourage partnerships with other non-Indigenous investors. For Indigenous people, the objective is not just sustainable development, but sustainable development in particular locations and activities which support the ongoing residence of people in the places that matter most to them. However, successful development partnership approaches require both partners to clearly identify shared goals and priorities. In an Indigenous context, this highlights the significance of appropriate community-based and/or country-based planning to ensure accurate collective prioritisation. Such collective prioritisation increases the level of community investment in the planning agenda, enhancing the chances for a successful outcome. Clear statements of priorities can also identify mismatches, avoiding the difficulties and the costs of inappropriate business choices and partnerships. 7.3.2 Water planning and catchment management There is clear and strong interest in water planning as part of a suite of measures to aid the management of the Roper catchment. A significant area of the catchment sits outside the only current water allocation plan, and being consistent with the relationships Indigenous peoples in the Roper catchment have with country and each other will require better alignment between water, catchment, and regional planning. Successful Indigenous involvement in water-planning processes would enable Indigenous peoples to more effectively support sustainable development objectives, both their own and those of others in the study area. However, in building towards this objective, a range of measures to improve local capacity to participate are needed. Key pathways include: •building on existing Indigenous water knowledge and expertise through focused, catchment- scale skills and capability building in formal water planning •establishing appropriately resourced formal structures for catchment-scale Indigenous waterplanning and agreed catchment management consultation •holding further catchment discussions regarding aspects of water planning that are alreadyknown to some people, such as Indigenous reserves and tradable allocations •resourcing further research and sharing information about downstream interests in water thatfuture water planning will need to consider •further considering the articulation of water planning with both water resource developmentand catchment management •holding catchment discussions about the management and regulation of water for developmentpurposes and domestic and general community supply Involvement in water planning is a crucial pathway for accurately formalising Indigenous water values, rights and interests. It is therefore one component of a wider set of foundations that will underpin Indigenous support for, engagement with, and participation in, sustainable development in the Roper catchment. Figure 7-2 Wild donkeys at Bulman For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au 7.4 Water-development options Indigenous concerns about water development noted during the Indigenous activity of the Assessment included the impacts of water extraction, unsuitability of major instream dams as an option, changes to land and river access by Indigenous people, effects on animals, the consequences of intensified land use (e.g. weeds, water quality, chemicals, erosion), and cumulative impacts from other industries, particularly mining. Traditional Owners and Indigenous residents also raised concerns about the impacts of water-dependent development on community water supply and recreational facilities, and they aspired to establish secure water supply to outstations. However, it was also evident that Indigenous peoples were themselves scoping development options at smaller scales. Assuming that some water development in the Roper catchment is likely to occur, a range of steps or pathways may be important in meeting Indigenous needs. These include: • undertaking baseline cultural and environmental heritage surveys of key aquatic landscapes and sites that are likely to be affected • formal modelling of the potential impacts of those baselines • holding formal group consultations about water-development options and preferences (e.g. extraction type, location) • obtaining further information and discussion about the scale and potential employment and economic returns from water-development initiatives • ensuring Indigenous participation and involvement in formal monitoring of the direct site impact of significant developments • supporting projects and programs that connect Indigenous roles in water development, water planning, water monitoring and reporting, and wider catchment management. The Assessment highlighted the importance of literacy programs that improve understanding of: • water policy – water rights and entitlements, water for the environment and water for development and domestic water supply • water plans – water allocations, access and volumes of allocation, Indigenous involvement in water planning, monitoring and management, current and projected water uses • catchment hydrology – types of water sources for consumptive (community, outstations, development projects) and non-consumptive uses, volumes and reliability of water supply, sensitivity of water sources and its quality and supply to climate change and projected uses • water literacy – programs for current and emerging leaders are perceived to be critical to building confidence for Indigenous peoples to engage actively in water planning to promote and secure their sustained rights, interests and values in water. Three examples of literacy programs that provide culturally relevant and appropriately targeted resources that respond to community information needs are the: • Central Land Council Native Title story booklets translated into language (https://www.clc.org.au/native-title/) • Centrefarm Aboriginal Horticulture Limited video Economic parable ALEDA 1 (https://centrefarm.com/). •New South WalesAboriginal Land Council factsheet onwater licences (Appendix Dhttps://alc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Water-Licences-Fact-Sheet.pdf) A range of views exist about theprospect of further water development in the catchments. Theseinclude opposition (based on the potential negative impacts and caution about perceived benefits) through to endorsement of theprospects and the economic opportunities waterdevelopment may create.Communitywater supplyfor livelihoods, greenery and parklands and waterforoutstationswere highlighted as important considerations alongside development opportunities. This again emphasises the importance of groupconsultation and planning processes.The desirefor Indigenous involvement in water-development planning and implementation was a consistent finding across allparticipants, as was theneed for benefitsto Indigenous peoplestoflow fromsuch developments. Thisincludes benefits in the construction phase, but also support forIndigenousbusiness enterprisesand partnerships that take advantage of the opportunitiescreated bynew development. 7.5Indigenous business and agricultural development Nominating detailed initiatives regarding Indigenous business would be prematurebased on thescopingdata collected,but some key examples and keypoints about Indigenous businessdevelopment can be notedhere.These relate to land-based business ideas, issues ofdiversification and prioritisation, and generatingpartnerships and investment. 7.5.1Land-based Indigenous business Indigenous sustainable development objectivesare diverse and incorporateboth the developmentof Indigenous-owned and operated businesses, as well as involvement in other businesses and activitiesin theRopercatchment. On Indigenous-owned lands, a rangeofbusiness activities havebeen suggested,including: •agricultural activity •small-scale community businesses such as retail •ecotourism and cultural tourism •environmental management •water leasing to non-Indigenous businesses •resource harvesting permits(e.g.fishing permits). Identifying best options in developing such businesses requires a case-by-case analysis ofthespecific situation for theinvolved. This raises the issue ofdiversification and prioritisation. Giventhe activity list above, onepotentialchallenge is diversification and its relationship toboth the required skillbase and governance. Undertaking multiple activities provides insurance againstthe failure of any single activity,but alsoincreases individual andcorporate managementcomplexity and theneed for skills inmultiplebusinesses. This generates additional risks. The collective management structures commonwithIndigenous-owned properties afford access to a wider setof skills,but alsoincreasethe chance ofdisagreements over priorities and strategicdirection. All groupshave multiple management roles, Chapter7 Conclusions|103 but depending on geography, residence, assets, governance and/or skills, some may more easily sustain multiple business activities, while others may be better off focusing on a single activity or a set of closely related activities. Assessing the respective roles of diversification and prioritisation is a key step in future planning. 7.5.2 Partnership and investment The issues of prioritisation, governance and investment are critical to wider business partnerships with Indigenous people. A range of options may be useful in improving the opportunities for business to understand and invest in Indigenous peoples and Indigenous lands in the Roper catchment. These include: • producing one or more regional prospectuses to communicate with investors about existing Indigenous assets and opportunities • holding further information sessions and training for Indigenous peoples about the opportunities and constraints of partnerships with private industry, including discussion of the effect of changes in Indigenous resource rights (e.g. granting of native title rights, securing of water rights and allocations) • holding wider regional non-Indigenous community training about partnerships with Indigenous people, including models for shared-benefit agreements and partnership arrangements, and employment and training opportunities. (Figure 7-3 below is an example of a communication tool for strategic economic development with and for Indigenous peoples.) • creating incentives for Indigenous involvement, including relocation and resettlement allowances, pathways from training to jobs, and employer incentives to hire and retain Indigenous staff • training younger Indigenous peoples about career planning, personal budgeting and money management as well as formal job skills, focusing on living and working in rural areas and/or in agricultural and NRM industries • A full analysis of the potential for Indigenous business development, partnerships and associated investment is well beyond the scope of this report. However, the above points indicate some potential options and promising directions for further activity in this area. Such activity would benefit from further assessment of local Indigenous needs and priorities, particularly the needs of younger people of employment age. Figure 7-3 Centrefarm agricultural horticulture limited economic development strategy map Source: Centrefarm (https://centrefarm.com/joint-land-council-economic-development-strategy/ accessed 15 February 2023) 7.6 Further research The diversity of possible Indigenous development activities, and of the geographic and group contexts in which they might take place, makes it challenging to definitively generalise about research priorities in this area. The one crucial generalisation is that local engagement and specifically local planning are paramount to assessing and implementing development options. Potential research priorities that may enable Indigenous development objectives include: • improving understanding of key resource ownership and procedural rights that can be secured by Indigenous custodians of the Roper catchment • conditions hindering and/or enabling general Indigenous resettlement and/or retention within traditional lands • employment and training preferences among younger people, for example: What career paths are younger people aware of? Which do they wish to follow? What barriers to that aspiration exist? How can local and regional barriers to rural Indigenous economic participation in the Roper catchment be overcome? • the risks and benefits of agricultural intensification and/or economic diversification on Indigenous-owned pastoral properties For more information on this figure, table or equation please contact CSIRO on enquiries@csiro.au These kinds of research questions would clearly inform Indigenous planning processes. In terms of Indigenous responses to wider development, further work could focus more closely on Indigenous preferences, interests and concerns regarding agricultural development. The combined activities of the Assessment have created a clearer picture of the likely geographic zone of impact, viable crop types, seasonality of activity, rotation and diversification, economic value of the product, etc. Such information would be useful as part of ongoing engagement in the Roper catchment about agricultural development and also in wider studies of community acceptance of rural land use change. The above points are a preliminary list of examples of information needs and research priorities. Further consultation at the local and regional level is required to confirm current priorities, of these or other issues, from an Indigenous perspective. Collaborative identification of further information gaps with respect to Indigenous water values, rights, interests and objectives complements the other processes identified above: formal group consultations, preliminary field- based cultural heritage surveys of potential development areas, and the improvement of Indigenous water-planning skills and knowledge. In combination, these activities would increase Indigenous peoples’ capacity to engage and to participate in wider natural resource protection, management and development. 7.7 Summary This report addresses the request from the Australian Government for further information about Indigenous water values, rights and interests in the Roper catchment. This request was made in the context of further water and agricultural development in the area. As a result, the scoping study makes particular reference to development issues, impacts and opportunities. The current report provides: • general principles for understanding Indigenous perspectives on culture, country and the management of natural resources • guidance about the circumstances of local Indigenous groups, including tenure, residence, organisational arrangements and affiliations • a representative set of Indigenous water values derived from research participants who are senior members of relevant groups in the Roper catchment • information about Indigenous water rights and interests as they relate to the Roper catchment • a representative set of Indigenous objectives regarding water issues, water planning and catchment management • a representative set of Indigenous objectives regarding water and agricultural development • additional steps which may facilitate positive Indigenous participation in future development and lower the barriers to investment in such development In providing this information, this report meets the scope for the study. It also lays foundations for a range of future processes, notably catchment-based development planning. Such planning is a crucial step to ensuring successful outcomes for Indigenous peoples from development initiatives under consideration. It also facilitates the effective targeting of resources to local Indigenous group initiatives that will improve ongoing group capacity to engage in discussions of development and catchment management in the future. This combination of improved local capability and regional and catchment coordination is crucial if Indigenous peoples are to play an appropriately integral role in sustainable development and the sustainable management of natural and cultural resources into the future. References Agius P, Jenkin T, Jarvis S, Howitt R and Williams R (2007) (Re)asserting indigenous rights and jurisdictions within a politics of place: Transformative nature of Native title negotiations in South Australia. Geographical Research 45(2), 194-202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745- 5871.2007.00451.x. Alexandra J, Spencer M and Poelina A (2015) Kimberley water futures workshop - Exploring water governance in the Kimberley November Broom. Alexandra J and Stanley J (2007) Aboriginal communities and mixed agricultural businesses: opportunities and future needs. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Altman J and Kerins S (2012) People on country: vital landscapes, indigenous futures. The Federation Press, Sydney. Anderson F (2013) Ord experiment a 'failure' Queensland., Country Life. Rural press, Ormiston. ATISIC and DPIE (1997) National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rural industry strategy. Canberra. Australian Government (2015) Agricultural competitiveness white paper. Canberra. Australian Government (2016) Our north, our future: white paper on developing northern Australia. Canberra. Barber M (2005) Where the clouds stand: Australian Aboriginal attachments to water, place, and the marine environment in Northeast Arnhem land. PhD thesis., Canberra. Barber M (2013) Indigenous water values, rights and interests in the Flinders and Gilbert catchments. A technical report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Flinders and Gilbert Agricultural Resource Assessment, part of the North Queensland Irrigated Agriculture Strategy. CSIRO Water for a Healthy country and Sustainable Agriculture Flagships, Australia. Barber M (2018a) Indigenous water values, rights, interests and development objectives in the Darwin catchments. A technical report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments., Australia. Barber M (2018b) Indigenous water values, rights, interests and development objectives in the Darwin catchments. A technical report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, part of the National Water Infrastructure Fund: Water Resource Assessments. Australia. Barber M (2018c) Settling for dams?: planning for sustainable Indigenous livelihoods within large- scale irrigated agricultural development in north Queensland, Australia. Rangeland Journal 40(4), 365-379. DOI: 10.1071/rj18014. Barber M and Jackson S (2011) Water and Indigenous peoples in the Pilbara, Western Australia: a preliminary study. . CSIRO, Darwin. Available online: . Barber M and Jackson S (2012) Indigenous water management in the upper Roper River, Northern Territory: History and implications for contemporary water planning. CSIRO, Darwin. Barber M and Jackson S (2014) Autonomy and the intercultural: interpreting the history of Australian Aboriginal water management in the Roper River catchment, Northern Territory. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 20(4), 670-693. DOI: 10.1111/1467- 9655.12129. Barber M and Rumley H (2003) Gunanurang (Kununurra) big river, Aboriginal cultural values of the Ord River and wetlands. Beaupark S, Guerette EA, Paton-Walsh C, Bursill L, Chambers SD, Dadd L, Miller M, Tobin C, Hughes M and Woodward E (2023) Indigenous Knowledge of seasons delivers a new way of considering annual cycles in atmospheric dispersion of pollutants. Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science 73(1), 44-59. DOI: 10.1071/es22027. Bliege Bird R, Bird D, Codding B and Parker CJ, J. (2008) The “Fire Stick Farming” hypothesis: Australian Aboriginal foraging strategies, biodiversity and anthropogenic fire mosaics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Bradley J (2010) Singing saltwater country: journey to the songlines of Carpentaria. Allen and Unwin, Melbourne. Clarkson C, Jacobs Z, Marwick B, Fullagar R, Wallis L, M.A. S, Roberts RG, Hayes E, Lowe K, Carah X, Florin SA, McNeil J, Cox D, Arnold LJ, Hua Q, Huntley J, Brand HEA, Manne T, Fairbairn A, Shulmeister J, Lyle L, Salinas M, Page M, Connell K, Park G, Norman K, Murphy T and Pardoe C (2017) Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago. Nature 547(306). DOI: 10.1038/nature22968. Costanza-van den Belt M, Rao R, Colloff MJ, Pittock J and Moggridge B (2022) Watering of wetlands on Indigenous Country in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 73(12), 1413-1425. DOI: 10.1071/mf22155. CSIRO (2009) Water in the Roper region. Water in the Gulf of Carpentaria Drainage Division. A report to the report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship., Australia. Dale A, P., Pressey RL, Adams V, M., Alvarez-Romero J, G. and Digby M (2014) Catchment-scale governance in northern Australia: A preliminary evaluation. Journal of Economic and Social Policy 16(1, Article 2). Dale AP (1992) Aboriginal councils and natural resource use planning : participation by bargaining and negotiation. Australian Geographical Studies 30(1), 9-26. Daniell KA and Daniell TM (2019) What's next for Australia's water management? Australasian Journal of Water Resources 23(2), 69-77. DOI: 10.1080/13241583.2019.1696033. Davies J, Hill R, Sandford M, Walsh F, Smyth D and Holmes M (2013) Innovation in management plans for community conserved areas: experiences from Australian Indigenous protected areas. Ecology and Society 18(2), 14. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05404-180214. Davies J, Maru Y, Hueneke H, Grey-Gardner R and Chewings V (2010) Outback livelihoods: employment, sustainable livelihoods and development in Anmatjere region, central Australia, Research report for Desert Knowledge CRC, Project 6.707. Alice Springs. Davies J and Young E (1996) Taking centre stage: Aboriginal strategies for redressing marginalisation. In: Howitt R, Connell J and P. H (eds), Resources, nations and indigenous peoples: case studies from Australasia, Asia and the southwest Pacific. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Douglas MM, Jackson S, Canham CA, Laborde S, Beesley L, Kennard MJ, Pusey BJ, Loomes R and Setterfield SA (2019) Conceptualizing Hydro-socio-ecological Relationships to Enable More Integrated and Inclusive Water Allocation Planning. One Earth 1(3), 361-373. DOI: 10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.021. Finn M and Jackson S (2011) Protecting Indigenous Values in Water Management: A Challenge to Conventional Environmental Flow Assessments. Ecosystems 14(8), 1232-1248. DOI: 10.1007/s10021-011-9476-0. Fraser DJ, Coon T, Prince MR, Dion R and Bernatchez L (2006) Integrating traditional and evolutionary knowledge in biodiversity conservation: a population level case study. Ecology and Society 11(2). Godden L, Jackson S and O'Bryan K (2020) Indigenous Water Rights and Water Law Reforms in Australia. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 37(6), 655-678. Goodall H (2002) The river runs backwards. In: Bonyhady T and Griffith T (eds), Words for country: landscape and language. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. Hartwig LD, Jackson S and Osborne N (2018) Recognition of Barkandji Water Rights in Australian Settler-Colonial Water Regimes. Resources-Basel 7(1). DOI: 10.3390/resources7010016. Head L, Trigger D and Mulcock J (2005) Culture as concept and influence in environmental research and management. Conservation and Society 3(2), 251-264. Heiner M, Hinchley D, Fitzsimons J, Weisenberger F, Bergmann W, McMahon T, Milgin J, Nardea L, Oakleaf J, Parriman D, Poelina A, Watson H, Watson K and Kiesecker J (2019) Moving from reactive to proactive development planning to conserve Indigenous community and biodiversity values. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 74, 1-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2018.09.002. Hemming S, Rigney D, Muller SL, Rigney G and Campbell I (2017) A new direction for water management? Indigenous nation building as a strategy for river health. Ecology and Society 22(2). DOI: 10.5751/es-08982-220213. Hill R, Grant C, George M, Robinson C, Jackson S and Abel N (2012) A typology of indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management: implications for knowledge integration and social-ecological system sustainability. Ecology and Society 17(1), 23. DOI: 10.5751/es-04587-170123. Hill R, Pert PL, Davies J, Robinson C, Walsh F and Falco-Mammone F (2013) Indigenous land management in Australia. Extent, scope, diversity, barriers and success factors. Cairns. Howitt R (2010) Sustainable indigenous futures in remote Indigenous areas: relationships, processes and failed state approaches. GeoJournal, 1-12.DOI: 10.1007/s10708-010-9377-3. ILC (2011) ILC businesses strategic plan 2008-2012., Canberra. ILC (2013) People, land, opportunity., Canberra. Jackson S (2004) Preliminary report on Aboriginal perspectives on land-use and water management in the Daly River region. Northern Territory. Report to the Northern Land Council. Darwin. Jackson S (2006) Compartmentalising culture: the articulation and consideration of Indigenous values in water resource management. Australian Geographer 37(1), 19-31. DOI: 10.1080/00049180500511947. Jackson S and Barber M (2013) Recognition of indigenous water values in Australia's Northern Territory: Current progress and ongoing challenges for social justice in water planning. Planning Theory and Practice 14(4), 435-454. DOI: 10.1080/14649357.2013.845684. Jackson S, Finn M and Featherston P (2012) Aquatic Resource Use by Indigenous Australians in Two Tropical River Catchments: the Fitzroy River and Daly River. Human Ecology 40(6), 893- 908. DOI: 10.1007/s10745-012-9518-z. Jackson S, Finn M, Woodward E and Featherston P (2011) Indigenous socio-economic values and river flows. CSIRO and TRaCK, Darwin. Jackson S, Pollino C, Maclean K, Bark R and Moggridge B (2015) Meeting Indigenous peoples' objectives in environmental flow assessments: Case studies from an Australian multi- jurisdictional water sharing initiative. Journal of Hydrology 522, 141-151. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.12.047. Jackson S and Tan P (2013) Indigenous rights and interests in water, water management, and development. Report to the CSIRO by the Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University., Brisbane. Kimberley Land Council (2018) Fitzroy River Declaration. . Laborde S and Jackson S (2022) Living Waters or Resource? Ontological differences and the governance of waters and rivers. Local Environment 27(3), 357-374. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2022.2044298. Langton M (2006) Earth, wind, fire and water: the social and spiritual construction of water in Aboriginal societies. In: David B, Barker B and McNiven I (eds), The social archaeology of Australian Indigenous landscapes. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. Lim M, Poelina A and Bagnall D (2017) Can the Fitzroy River declaration ensure the realisation of the first laws of the river and the secure sustainable and equitable futures for the West Kimberley? Australian Environment Review 32(1), 18-24. Lyons I and Barber M (2018) Indigenous water values, rights, interests and development objectives in the Mitchell catchment. A technical report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment, part of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: Water Resource Assessments., Australia. Macintosh A, Waschka M, Jones J and Wood A (2018) Legal, regulatory and policy environment for the development of water resources in northern Australia. A technical report from the CSIRO Northern Australia Water Resource Assessment to the Government of Australia. CSIRO, Australia. Macintosh NWG (1951) The excavation and recording of Tandandjal Cave. Oceania 21(3), p.178- 204. Macknight C (1976) The voyage to Marege: Macassan trepangers in Northern Australia. Melbourne University Press, Carlton. Maclean K and Bana Yarralji Bubu I (2015) Crossing cultural boundaries: Integrating Indigenous water knowledge into water governance through co-research in the Queensland Wet Tropics, Australia. Geoforum 59, 142-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.12.008. Maclean K, Bark R, Moggridge B, Jackson S and Pollino C (2012) Ngemba water values and interests Ngemba Old mission billabong and Brewarrina Aboriginal fish traps (Baiame's Nguunhu). CSIRO, Brisbane. Maru Y and Davies J (2011a) Supporting cross-cultural brokers is essential for employment among Aboriginal people in remote Australia. The Rangeland Journal 33, 327-338. Maru YT and Davies J (2011b) Supporting cross-cultural brokers is essential for employment among Aboriginal people in remote Australia. The Rangeland Journal 33(4), 327-338. DOI: 10.1071/rj11022. McGrath A (1987) Born in the cattle: Aborigines in cattle country. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. McIntyre-Tamwoy S, Bird M and Atkinson F (2013) Aboriginal cultural heritage in the Flinders and Gilbert Rivers: a desktop review. Report to the CSIRO by Archaelogical aqnd Heritage Management Solutions. Archaelogical and Heritage Management Solutions, Sydney. McKemey M, Ens E, Rangers YM, Costello O and Reid N (2020) Indigenous Knowledge and Seasonal Calendar Inform Adaptive Savanna Burning in Northern Australia. Sustainability 12(3). DOI: 10.3390/su12030995. Merlan F (1978) "Making people quiet in the pastoral north" - Reminiscences of Elsy Station. Aboriginal history 2(1), 70-106. Merlan F (1981) Land, language and social identity in Aboriginal Australia. Mankind 13(2), 133-148. Merlan F (1982) A Mangarrayi representational system: environmental and cultural symbolization in northern Australia. American Anthropologist 9, 145-166. Merlan F (1986) Mataranka Land Claim - Senior anthropologist's report on behalf of the claimants. Darwin. Moggridge BJ and Thompson RM (2021) Cultural value of water and western water management: an Australian indigenous perspective. Australasian Journal of Water Resources 25(1), 4-14. DOI: 10.1080/13241583.2021.1897926. Morphy H (1991) Ancestral connections: art and an Aboriginal system of knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Morphy H and Morphy F (1981) Yutpundji-Djindiwirritj (Roper Bar) Land Claim Book. Northern Land Council, Darwin. Munn N (1973) Walipiri iconography. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Myers F (1991) Pintupi country, Pintup self: sentiment, place and politics among western desert Aborigines. University of California Press, Berkeley. NAILSMA (2008) Garma International Indigenous Water Declaration. In: Garma Conference. NAILSMA (2012) Towards resilient communities through reliable prosperity 'North Australian Indigenous experts forum on sustainable economic development - first forum report, Mary River Park, Northern Terrtory, 19-21 June 2012. North Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd, Darwin. NAILSMA (2013a) An indigenous prospectus for northern development: setting the agenda. A policy from the Second Forum. North Australian Indigenous Experts Forum on Sustainable Economic Development. NAILSMA, Darwin. NAILSMA (2013b) An Indigenous prospectus for participating in the sustainable development of north Australia. North Australian Indigenous Experts Forum on Sustainable Economic Development - Second Forum Report Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, 30 April - 2 May 2013., Darwin. NAILSMA and UNU-IAS TKI (2008) Garma international water declaration. Available online: . Nikolakis W and Grafton RQ (2022) Law versus justice: the Strategic Aboriginal Water Reserve in the Northern Territory, Australia. International Journal of Water Resources Development 38(1), 11-29. DOI: 10.1080/07900627.2021.1882406. Northern Territory Government (2017) Strategic Aboriginal water reserver policy framework. Darwin. O'Donnell E, Jackson S, Langton M and Godden L (2022) Racialized water governance: the 'hydrological frontier' in the Northern Territory, Australia. Australasian Journal of Water Resources 26(1), 59-71. DOI: 10.1080/13241583.2022.2049053. Pelizzon A, Poelina A, Akhtar-Khavari A, Clark C, Laborde S, Macpherson E, O'Bryan K, O'Donnell E and Page J (2021) Yoongoorrookoo The emergence of ancestral personhood. Griffith Law Review 30(3), 505-529. DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2021.1996882. Poelina A, Taylor KS and Perdrisat I (2019) Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council: an Indigenous cultural approach to collaborative water governance. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 26(3), 236-254. DOI: 10.1080/14486563.2019.1651226. Prell C, Hubacek K and Reed MS (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 22(6), 501-518. DOI: 10.1080/08941920802199202. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH and Stringer LC (2009) Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of environmental management 90(5), 1933-1949. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001. Rose D (2002) Country of the heart - an Indigenous Australian homeland. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. Rose D, Bird (1996) Nourishing terrains: Australian Aboriginal views of landscape and wilderness. Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra. Rose D, Bird (2004) Fresh water rights and biophilia: Indigenous australian perspectives. Dialogue 23(3), 35-43. Rose DB (2000) Dingo makes us human: life and land in an Australian Aboriginal culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rose DB (2005) An Indigenous philosophical ecology: situating the human. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 16(3), 294-305. Ryan L, Debenham J, Pascoe B, Gilbert S, Smith R, Brown M, Price D and Newley J (2018) Colonial Frontier Massacres in Central and Eastern Australia 1788-1930. University of Newcastle. Viewed 23 March 2023, . Sandefur J (1985) Aspects of the socio-political history of Ngukurr (Roper River) and its effect on language change. Aboriginal history 9(2), 205-219. Smyth D (2008) Just add water? Taking Indigenous Protected Areas into sea country. In: Smyth D and Ward G (eds), Protecting country: Indigenous governance and management ofprotected areas, proceedings of the AIATSIS Conference 2017. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra. Stokes C, Jarvis D, Webster A, Watson I, Jalilov S, Oliver Y, Peake A, Peachey A, Yeates S, Bruce C, Philip S, Prestwidge D, Liedloff A, Poulton P, Price B and McFallan S (2023) Financial and socio-economic viability of irrigated agricultural development in the Roper catchment. A technical report from the CSIRO Roper River Water Resource Assessment for the National Water Grid. CSIRO, Australia. Strang V (1997) Uncommon ground. Cultural landscapes and environmental values. Berg, Oxford, New York. Strang V (2009) Gardening the world: agency, identity, and the ownership of water. Berghahn, Oxford. Stratford D, Kenyon R, Pritchard J, Merrin L, Linke S, Ponce Reyes R, Blamey L, Buckworth R, Castellazzi P, Costin B, Deng R, Gannon R, Gilbey S, King D, Kopf K, Kopf S, McGinness H, McInerney P, Perna C, Plaganyi E and Waltham N (2022) Ecological assets of northern Australia to inform water resource assessments. A technical report from the CSIRO Roper River Water Resource Assessment for the National Water Grid. CSIRO, Australia. Tan P (1997) Native title and freshwater resources. In: Horrigan B and Young S (eds), Commercial implications of native title. Federation Press, Sydney. Taylor A, Larson S, Stoeckl N and Carson D (2011) The haves and have nots in Australia's Tropica North - Perspectives on Persisting Problem. Geographical Research 49(1), 13-22.DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00622.x. Thompson D (2005) Donald Thomson in Arnhem Land. The Miegunyah Press, Victoria. Toussaint S, Sullivan P and Yu S (2005) Water ways in Aboriginal Australia: an interconnected analysis. Anthropological Forum 15, 61-74. United Nations (2023) Indigenous Peoples' Declration for the 2023 United Nations Water Conference. Viewed 15 May 2023, . Weir J (2009) Murray river country: an ecological dialogue with traditional owners. Aboriginal Press Studies, Canberra. Williams N (1986) The Yolngu and their land: a system of land tenure and the fight for its recognition. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Woodward E, Jackson S, Finn M and McTaggart PM (2012) Utilising Indigenous seasonal knowledge to understand aquatic resource use and inform water resource management in northern Australia. . Ecological Management & Restoration 13(1), 58-64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00622.x. World Water Council (2003) Indigenous Peoples Kyoto Water Declaration. Viewed 13 August 2017, . Yu S (1999) Ngapa Kunangkul: living water. Report on the Indigenous cultural values of groundwater in the La Grange sub-basin. The Centre for Anthropological Research, University of Western Australia for The water and Rivers Commission of Western Australia, Perth. Zoellner D (2017) Vocational education & training. The Northern Territory's history of public philanthropy. Canberra. Part II Appendices Project information Sheet Ethics consent form Indigenous water declarations and policies The following declarations and policies provide context and complementary information to the local accounts of Indigenous water values presented in previous sections. A number of general statements about values and interests in water have been produced in the past ten years, and five of particular relevance are reproduced here. The first is the declaration produced at the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto in 2003. The next three are more recent declarations emerging from events held in northern Australia: Appendix C.2 is from a meeting of international Indigenous representatives held at Garma in Arnhem Land in 2008; Appendix C.3 is from a meeting of northern Australian Indigenous representatives at Mary River in 2009; and Appendix C.4 is the water policy produced by the Indigenous Water Policy Group of the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA). These represent progress from the oldest to the most recent, but also increasing refinement of values, goals and objectives as well as an increasing emphasis on Indigenous Australians. C.1 Indigenous Peoples’ Kyoto Water Declaration 2003 C.1.1 Relationship to water 1. We, the Indigenous Peoples from all parts of the world assembled here, reaffirm our relationship to Mother Earth and responsibility to future generations to raise our voices in solidarity to speak for the protection of water. We were placed in a sacred manner on this earth, each in our own sacred and traditional lands and territories to care for all of creation and to care for water. 2. We recognise, honour and respect water as sacred and sustaining all life. Our traditional knowledge, laws and ways of life teach us to be responsible in caring for this sacred gift that connects all life. 3. Our relationship with our lands, territories and water is the fundamental physical cultural and spiritual basis for our existence. This relationship to our Mother Earth requires us to conserve our freshwaters and oceans for the survival of present and future generations. We assert our role as caretakers with rights and responsibilities to defend and ensure the protection, availability and purity of water. We stand united to follow and implement our knowledge and traditional laws and exercise our right of self-determination to preserve water, and to preserve life. C.1.2 Conditions of our waters 4. The ecosystems of the world have been compounding in change and in crisis. In our generation we see that our waters are being polluted with chemicals, pesticides, sewage, disease, radioactive contamination and ocean dumping from mining to shipping wastes. We see our waters being depleted or converted into destructive uses through the diversion and damming of water systems, mining and mineral extraction, mining of groundwater and aquifer for industrial and commercial purposes, and unsustainable economic, resource and recreational development, as well as the transformation of excessive amounts of water into energy. In the tropical southern and northern forest regions, deforestation has resulted in soil erosion and thermal contamination of our water. 5. The burning of oil, gas, and coal, known collectively as fossil fuels, is the primary source of human induced climate change. Climate change, if not halted, will result in increased frequency and severity of storms, floods, drought and water shortage. Globally, climate change is worsening desertification. It is polluting and drying up the subterranean and water sources, and is causing the extinction of precious flora and fauna. Many countries in Africa have been suffering from unprecedented droughts. When the terms territory, land and water are used, it is inclusive of all life such as forests, grasslands, sea life, habitat, fish and other biodiversity. The most vulnerable communities to climate change are Indigenous Peoples and impoverished local communities occupying marginal rural and urban environments. Small island communities are threatened with becoming submerged by rising oceans. 6. We see our waters increasingly governed by imposed economic, foreign and colonial domination, as well as trade agreements and commercial practices that disconnect us as peoples from the ecosystem. Water is being treated as a commodity and as a property interest that can be bought, sold and traded in global and domestic market-based systems. These imposed and inhumane practices do not respect that all life is sacred, that water is sacred. 7. When water is disrespected, misused and poorly managed, we see the life threatening impacts on all of creation. We know that our right of self-determination and sovereignty, our traditional knowledge, and practices to protect the water are being disregarded, violated and disrespected. 8. Throughout Indigenous territories worldwide, we witness the increasing pollution and scarcity of fresh waters and the lack of access that we and other life forms such as the land, forests, animals, birds, plants, marine life, and air have to our waters, including oceans. In these times of scarcity, we see governments creating commercial interests in water that lead to inequities in distribution and prevent our access to the life-giving nature of water. C.1.3 Right to water and self-determination 9. We Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right we have the right to freely exercise full authority and control of our natural resources including water. We also refer to our right of permanent sovereignty over our natural resources, including water. 10. Self-determination for Indigenous Peoples includes the right to control our institutions, territories, resources, social orders, and cultures without external domination or interference. 11. Self-determination includes the practice of our cultural and spiritual relationships with water, and the exercise of authority to govern, use, manage, regulate, recover, conserve, enhance and renew our water sources, without interference. 12. International law recognises the rights of Indigenous Peoples to: • Self-determination • Ownership, control and management of our traditional territories, lands and natural resources • Exercise our customary law • Represent ourselves through our own institutions • Require free prior and informed consent to developments on our land • Control and share in the benefits of the use of, our traditional knowledge. 13. Member States of the United Nations (UN) and international trade organisations, international and regional financial institutions and international agencies of economic cooperation are legally and morally obligated to respect and observe these and other related collective human rights and fundamental freedoms. Despite international and universal recognition of our role as caretakers of Mother Earth, our rights to recover, administer, protect and develop our territories, natural resources and water systems are systematically denied and misrepresented by governmental and international and domestic commercial interests. Our rights to conserve, recreate and transmit the totality of our cultural heritage to future generations, our human right to exist as Peoples is increasingly and alarmingly restricted, unduly impaired or totally denied. 14. Indigenous Peoples interests on water and customary uses must be recognised by governments, ensuring that Indigenous rights are enshrined in national legislation and policy. Such rights cover both water quantity and quality and extend to water as part of a healthy environment and to its cultural and spiritual values. Indigenous interests and rights must be respected by international agreements on trade and investment, and all plans for new water uses and allocations. C.1.4 Traditional knowledge 15. Our traditional practices are dynamically regulated systems. They are based on natural and spiritual laws, ensuring sustainable use through traditional resource conservation. Long-tenured and place-based traditional knowledge of the environment is extremely valuable, and has been proven to be valid and effective. Our traditional knowledge developed over the millennia should not be compromised by an overreliance on relatively recent and narrowly defined western reductionist scientific methods and standards. We support the implementation of strong measures to allow the full and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples to share our experiences, knowledge and concerns. The indiscriminate and narrow application of modern scientific tools and technologies has contributed to the loss and degradation of water. C.1.5 Consultation 16. To recover and retain our connection to our waters, we have the right to make decisions about waters at all levels. Governments, corporations and intergovernmental organisations must, under international human rights standards require Indigenous Peoples free prior and informed consent and consultation by cultural appropriate means in all decision-making activities and all matters that may have affect. These consultations must be carried out with deep mutual respect, meaning there must be no fraud, manipulation, and duress nor guarantee that agreement will be reached on the specific project or measure. Consultations include: a) To conduct the consultations under the community’s own systems and mechanisms b) The means of Indigenous Peoples to fully participate in such consultations c) Indigenous Peoples exercise of both their local and traditional decision-making processes, including the direct participation of their spiritual and ceremonial authorities, individual members and community authorities as well as traditional practitioners of subsistence and cultural ways in the consultation process and the expression of consent for the particular project or measure d) Respect for the right to say no e) Ethical guidelines for a transparent and specific outcome. C.1.6 Plan of action 17. We endorse and reiterate the Kimberley Declaration and the Indigenous Peoples Plan of Implementation on Sustainable Development which was agreed upon in Johannesburg during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in September 2002. 18. We resolve to sustain our ancestral and historical relationships with and assert our inherent and inalienable rights to our lands and waters. 19. We resolve to maintain, strengthen and support Indigenous Peoples. movements, struggles and campaigns on water and enhance the role of Indigenous elders, women and youth to protect water. 20. We seek to establish a Working Group of Indigenous Peoples on Water, which will facilitate linkages between Indigenous Peoples and provide technical and legal assistance to Indigenous communities who need such support in their struggles for the right to land and water. We will encourage the creation of similar working groups at the local, national and regional levels. 21. We challenge the dominant paradigm, policies, and programs on water development, which includes amongst others; government ownership of water, construction of large water infrastructures; corporatisation; the privatisation and commodification of water; the use of water as a tradeable commodity; and the liberalisation of trade in water services, which do not recognise the rights of Indigenous Peoples to water. 22. We strongly support the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) on water and energy development. These include the WCD report’s core values, strategic priorities, the ‘rights and risks framework’ and the use of multi-criteria assessment tools for strategic options assessment and project selection. Its rights-based development framework, including the recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples in water development is a major contribution to decision-making frameworks for sustainable development. 23. We call on the governments, multilateral organisations, academic institutions and think tanks to stop promoting and subsidising the institutionalisation and implementation of these anti- people and anti-nature policies and programs. 24. We demand a stop to mining, logging, energy and tourism projects that drain and pollute our waters and territories. 25. We demand that the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), regional banks like the Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, stop the imposition of water privatisation or full cost recovery as a condition for new loans and renewal of loans of developing countries. 26. We ask the European Union to stop championing the liberalisation of water services in the General Agreement on Services (GATS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is not consistent with the European Commission’s policy on Indigenous Peoples and development. We will not support any policy or proposal coming from the WTO or regional trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), on water privatisation and liberalisation and we commit ourselves to fight against such agreements and proposals. 27. We resolve to replicate and transfer our traditional knowledge and practices on the sustainable use of water to our children and the future generations. 28. We encourage the broader society to support and learn from our water management practices for the sake of the conservation of water all over the world. 29. We call on the States to comply with their human rights obligations and commitments to legally binding international instruments to which they are signatories to, including but not limited to, such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; as well as their obligations to conventions on the environment, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, Climate Convention, and Convention to Combat Desertification. 30. We insist that the human rights obligations of States must be complied with and respected by their international trade organisations. These legally binding human rights and environmental obligations do not stop at the door of the WTO and other regional and bilateral trade agreements. 31. We resolve to use all political, technical and legal mechanisms on the domestic and international level, so that the States, as well as transnational corporations and international financial institutions will be held accountable for their actions or inactions that threaten the integrity of water, our land and our peoples. 32. We call on the States to respect the spirit of Article 8j of the Convention on Biological Diversity as it relates to the conservation of traditional knowledge on conservation of ecosystems and we demand that the Trade Related Aspects of the Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement be taken out of the WTO Agreements as this violates our right to our traditional knowledge. 33. We call upon the States to fulfi the mandates of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. We call for the end of State financial subsidies to fossil fuel production and processing and for aggressive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions calling attention to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that reported an immediate 60% reduction of CO2 is needed to stabilise global warming. 34. We will ensure that international and domestic systems of restoration and compensation be put in place to restore the integrity of water and ecosystems. C.2 Garma International Indigenous Water Declaration 2008 C.2.1 Declaration Preamble Context RECOGNISING and REAFFIRMING that the Indigenous peoples of the World are and have been since time immemorial sovereign over their own lands and waters and that Indigenous peoples obtain their spiritual and cultural identity, life and livelihood from their lands and waters. We assert that water has a right to be recognised as an ecological entity, a being with a spirit and must be treated accordingly. For the Indigenous peoples, water is essential to creation; Ancestral beings are created by and dwell within water. We do not believe that water should solely be treated as a resource or a commodity. Nation-States, in asserting competing sovereignty over the lands and waters, have introduced and enforced unlawful and unjust mechanisms resulting in trespass of the legal entitlements of Indigenous Peoples to the ownership, use, management and benefit of the lands and the waters, without consultation, consent or just compensation where required by law. Furthermore, Nation-States have grossly mismanaged the lands and waters of Indigenous peoples, causing ecosystem collapse, human induced climate change, severe water quality degradation, extreme stress upon ecologies and species extinction at a scale and rate which is unprecedented; and; Gross mismanagement of the lands and waters and denial of access of Indigenous Peoples to their lands and waters has caused severe, widespread and ongoing detrimental impacts to all aspects of the lives and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples. This includes significant disadvantages to the health, economy and social wellbeing of many Indigenous Peoples. Cultural and linguistic diversity has also been compromised, leading to loss of culture and lifeways of Indigenous Peoples. A contributing factor is the concomitant degradation and expropriation by Nation-States of significant landscapes and sites of spiritual and cultural importance to Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples have responsibilities and obligations in accordance with their Indigenous Laws, Traditions, Protocols and Customs to protect, conserve and maintain the environment and ecosystems in their natural state so as to ensure the sustainability of the whole environment. Acknowledgements We acknowledge our ancestors and elders who have honoured and maintained the land and waters to the highest standards. We acknowledge the work of past Indigenous Peoples in drafting and implementing international instruments and customary international law that informs our work towards justice. C.2.2 The Declaration We the Indigenous Peoples of the World DECLARE that: • water is not a commodity. Water is a spirit that has a right to be treated as an ecological entity, with its own inherent right to exist. We further DECLARE that Indigenous Peoples: • of many Indigenous Nations have inherent Aboriginal, treaty and other rights to water and waterways for navigation, customary and cultural uses of water. • have inherent and human rights to water for basic human needs, sanitation, social, economic and cultural purposes. • have a right to access adequate supplies of water that are safe for human consumption, hygiene and cooking. • must be fully involved in source water and water shed protection planning and operational processes including controlling Indigenous water licenses and fair allocation policies and practices; and • have a right to access and control, regulate and use water for navigation, irrigation, harvesting, transportation and other beneficial purposes. Indigenous Peoples also DECLARE that States must: • fully adopt, implement and adhere to those international instruments that recognise the rights of Indigenous peoples and our right to land and water. These include but are not limited to the: 1. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1965 (CERD) 2. World Heritage Convention 1972 3. International Covenant on Cultural, Economic and Social Rights 4. International Labour Organisation Convention 169 5. Rio Earth Summit Declaration 6. Palenque Declaration 7. Kyoto Water Declaration 8. Ramstad Convention 9. Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 10. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, specifically Articles 8, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32 11. International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights 12. UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005) 13. UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001) 14. UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) • recognise that all traditional Intellectual Knowledge and interpretation of the knowledge is the property of the Indigenous peoples and knowledge holder(s) • fully engage with Indigenous peoples and obtain their free prior and informed consent on matters affecting them. States shall engage with the Indigenous Peoples delegated representatives in accordance with Article 19 of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and • continue adoption of major cuts to greenhouse gas emissions to combat human induced Climate Change, as well as other harmful compounds and chemicals that cause pollution of water sources. C.3 Statement from the Mary River Indigenous Water Experts Forum 2009 The following is the formal statement generated from the Mary River Indigenous Water Experts Forum. For the full statement, including underlying principles and practical recommendations, see: http://www.nailsma.org.au/nailsma/forum/downloads/NAILSMA_Mary- River%20Statement_Web.pdf C.3.1 Mary Statement, 6th August 2009 We the delegates of the Mary River Water Forum make this statement to bring to the attention of the Australian Government the fundamental principle that water, land and Indigenous peoples are intrinsically entwined. Indigenous Peoples have rights, responsibilities and obligations in accordance with their customary laws, traditions, protocols and customs to protect, conserve and maintain the environment and ecosystems in their natural state so as to ensure the sustainability of the whole environment. Consideration by the Australian Government to separate land and water in future policy development for northern Australia and establish a new regime for the allocation and use of water is of critical concern to us. As Traditional Owners we have an inherent right to make decisions about cultural and natural resource management in northern Australia. In accordance with Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples we must have a central role in the development, implementation and evaluation of policy and legislative or administrative measures that may affect us concerning water. Any policies and legislation that are developed in water allocation and management in northern Australia needs to ensure that Indigenous rights are paramount. In accordance with Article 26 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples we assert that: 1. We, the Indigenous peoples, have the right to the lands, territories and resources which we have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2. We the Indigenous peoples, have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that we possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which we have otherwise acquired. 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditional and land tenure systems of the Indigenous Peoples concerned. We further assert that in accordance with Article 32 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that: 1. We the Indigenous peoples, have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of our lands or territories and other resources. 2. States shall consult through our representative institutions in order to obtain our free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting our lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilisation or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. 3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact. Indigenous peoples have always been part of and are crucial to the maintenance of our ecosystems and therefore want to ensure minimal impact from settlement and unsustainable development across northern Australia. We urge the government to ensure that sufficient resources are provided to enable the equitable participation of the Indigenous owners of northern Australia in the development of policies, setting of allocations and management of regulatory schemes that may evolve. We the Indigenous peoples of northern Australia will work with the Government to establish what water entitlement and allocation is required to satisfy our: (i) social and cultural; (ii) ecological; and (iii) economic needs. The delegates of this forum support the North Australian Indigenous Land Sea Management Alliance, Indigenous Water Policy Group, representative bodies or individuals to proactively pursue positive outcomes in line with this Mary River Forum Statement. Two nominations of people from each State/Territory from the North Australian Indigenous Experts Water Futures Forum are provided below to support NAILSMA and representative bodies in advocating this Statement. Queensland – Ron Archer, Marceil Lawrence Western Australia – Anne Poelina, Andrew Wungundin Northern Territory – John Christophersen, Mona Liddy C.3.2 Context of this Statement In August 2009, about 80 Indigenous experts from northern Australia convened at Mary River Park in the Northern Territory to discuss and present to the Northern Land and Water Taskforce their water interests and issues. Convened by the NAILSMA, the ‘North Australian Indigenous Experts Water Futures Forum’ provided an opportunity to raise ideas and concerns about economic development and opportunities; the potential impacts of developments in the north of Australia; and governance and institutional arrangements as they affect Indigenous community interests, aspirations and issues. As outcome to that forum, the Mary River Statement was written. The Statement offers testament to the seriousness of Indigenous peoples contribution and participation in policy decision making. It is also sends a message that Indigenous peoples cannot remain on the margins of discussions about development in the north. C.4 NAILSMA Policy Statement on North Australian Indigenous water rights 2009 Issued by NAILSMA and the Indigenous Water Policy Group, November 2009. C.4.1 Introduction As Traditional Owners we have an inherent right to make decisions about cultural and natural resource management in northern Australia. In accordance with Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), we must have a central role in the development, implementation and evaluation of policy and legislative or administrative measures that may affect us concerning water. This Policy Statement should be seen in the context of the following assumptions: • Water is a limited resource and in some catchments the appropriateness of the division of water use into consumptive and environmental allocations remains unclear. While the Indigenous Water Policy Group position claims a guarantee of an equitable allocation to Indigenous peoples from the consumptive pool, such a rights-based claim is made on the assumption that environmental and cultural flows are properly assessed and protected. • Indigenous knowledge is integral for any decision making (in accordance with Article 31 UNDRIP). Indigenous peoples do not wish to exacerbate avoidable environmental degradation associated with overallocation of water and therefore believe that water allocations should be based on the best available knowledge (including traditional and contemporary Indigenous knowledge and western scientific knowledge), sensitive to variations in the flow regime and open to review and adaptation. • Maintaining water flows is fundamental to ensuring the vitality and existence of Indigenous heritage and spirituality. • Water, land and Indigenous peoples are intrinsically entwined. (Mary River Statement, August 2009.) C.4.2 Recognition and reaffirmation The NAILSMA Indigenous Water Policy Group (IWPG) maintains, in accordance with Article 19 of the UNDRIP that: ‘states shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions, in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them’. The IWPG expects the Australian Government to be responsive to the rights of Indigenous peoples in accordance with the UN Declaration, specifically: • to maintain and strengthen their spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned territories and waters (Article 25); and, • to approve the commercial use and development of water on their traditional territories (Article 32.2). The Australian Government indicated its formal support for the UNDRIP in April 2009. Preceding this, the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments of Australia committed to policies to ‘close the gap’ in socio-economic status between Indigenous peoples and the broader community. The IWPG states that recognising and enhancing Indigenous cultural and commercial rights in the ownership, management and use of water is fundamental to facilitating Indigenous economic development and reducing Indigenous disadvantage. The recognition of native title in Australia has been a significant advance in the position of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous rights to land and waters are recognised within the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The non-discriminatory protection of native title is a recognised human right. It is therefore important to Indigenous peoples to build upon the rights recognised under the Native Title Act to ensure all Indigenous peoples can benefit from the commercial use of waters on their traditional lands. Furthermore, Indigenous peoples are ready to engage and contribute to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) water policies and the National Water Initiative (NWI). The NWI requires significant improvement with respect to the recognition of Indigenous rights and interests. The Garma International Indigenous Water Declaration (2008) acknowledges that water is essential for life and that access to clean water is a human right. First Nation peoples, the Indigenous peoples of Australia, have maintained sovereignty over their lands and waters from which they obtain their spiritual and cultural identity, life and livelihoods. The IWPG maintains in accordance with the Mary River Statement (2009) that the Indigenous peoples of northern Australia are the Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and waters of the region. Water land and Indigenous peoples are intrinsically entwined. The IWPG advocates for the recognition of Indigenous rights to the ownership, management and use of waters for both customary and commercial purposes. Its advocacy for commercial rights is a pragmatic response to the COAG Water Reform Agenda, specifically the NWI, and the sudden pace of development in the north of Australia. C.4.3 The Indigenous Water Policy Group The IWPG is an initiative created and facilitated by NAILSMA. Its members represent some Indigenous land councils and corporations across northern Australia and other Indigenous institutions and community groups. (For more details see http://www.nailsma.org.au). Formed in 2006, it is the only construct in the northern Australia examining Indigenous water policy and coordinating across state and territory jurisdictions. The IWPG continues the work of the Lingiari Reports (2002) to address Indigenous rights, responsibilities and interests in water. The IWPG aims to improve people’s awareness about government water reform agendas and to engage in research relating to Indigenous rights, responsibilities and interests in land and water resources. The IWPG is one of three initiatives of the NAILSMA Indigenous Water Resource Program. The IWPG works in parallel with the Indigenous Community Water Facilitator Program, which supports regionally based Indigenous engagement and research in water policy and management. The IWPG also works with Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) through its Theme 6 on Sustainable Enterprises, which examines water markets and rights relating to Indigenous interests. C.4.4 The Indigenous Water Policy Statement The NAILSMA Indigenous Water Policy Group States that: 1. Indigenous peoples’ traditional ownership must be fully recognised in Australian law: • The Native Title Act 1993 should be enhanced to provide for Indigenous rights to be recognised in the modern economy regardless of legal proof of native title. This is consistent with the Australian Government’s native title policies which seek to encourage agreements that recognise both native title and non‐native title outcomes for Indigenous peoples. 2. To ensure cultural rights and the equitable use of the consumptive, commercial allocation of water, water legislation and policy must include: • an allocated Cultural Flow, (in accordance with Articles 8, 25‐28 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)). Cultural Flows are water entitlements that are legally and beneficially owned by Indigenous peoples and are of sufficient and adequate quantity and quality to maintain the spiritual, cultural, environmental, social and healthy livelihoods of Indigenous peoples of northern Australia (refer to the MLDRIN 2008 Echuca Statement). 3. Any water plan in tropical Australia must, irrespective of historical allocation, should include an equitable Indigenous allocation from the consumptive pool for commercial purposes: • An Indigenous guaranteed entitlement to water in tropical north Australia from the consumptive pool for commercial purposes. • For any commercial use of water, a negotiated revenue stream should be incorporated to be payable to Indigenous Traditional Owners and native title groups (in accordance with Articles 3, 5, 23, 26‐28 UNDRIP). • The establishment of an Indigenous Water Fund (or similar) that underwrites the Indigenous purchase of an equitable allocation of existing consumptive pools where it is otherwise unavailable; and in cases where compensation is entitled (in accordance with section 17 of the Native Title Act). An Indigenous Water Fund is an Indigenous managed construct to be used for the benefit of those Indigenous peoples currently unable to access a commercial allocation and its generated incomes (in accordance with Articles 4, 18, 20 & 23 UNDRIP). • An Indigenous entitlement to waters should be temporarily tradeable, especially on a negotiated leasehold basis that will avoid the longer‐term alienation of water property rights from the Indigenous owners (in accordance with Articles 5, 23 & 26 UNDRIP). 4. The planning and ongoing management of water resources will be done jointly with Indigenous Traditional Owners, native title groups and State and Territory water agencies (in accordance with Articles 8, 18, 19, 23, 26‐29 & 32 UNDRIP). Disclaimer: Nothing in this Statement is intended to adversely affect the legal rights, negotiating or policy position of any of the Native Title representative bodies nor Indigenous peoples of northern Australia. C.5 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ DECLARATION FOR THE 2023 UNITED NATIONS WATER CONFERENCE We, the representatives, organizations, authorities, and members of the Indigenous Peoples of the seven socio-cultural regions, have reflected, discussed and developed recommendations for the actions required by the international community to protect, defend and safeguard water. For Indigenous Peoples, these actions, to be effective, must recognize and implement our rights and knowledge within the framework of the 2023 United Nations Water Conference taking place in New York March 22-24, 2023. We welcome the initiative of the United Nations to bring together at this critical time the Member States, the private sector, NGOs, Indigenous Peoples and other actors to conduct the "mid-term review of the Decade of Action for Water, 2018-2028”. We recognize the urgent need for the world community to define and commit to effective strategic responses to the dual water and climate crisis. We extend our appreciation to the co-hosts of the Conference, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Kingdom of the Netherlands and commend their efforts in this regard. We have analyzed the processes and discussions to date that have created the current policies at the UN and other international spaces impacting water, as the source and basis of all life. We have concluded that Indigenous Peoples, our rights, knowledge and timetested solutions have not been effectively included nor considered in most of these discussions. We appreciate that the 2023 UN Water Conference has opened a small window for Indigenous Peoples to be heard as rights- holders, and for our contributions to be included in the outcomes. We categorically affirm that Indigenous Peoples around the world continue to be primary actors in the care, protection and regeneration of water based on our deep and longstanding spiritual, cultural and economic relationships with water in all its forms and sources.1 Since time immemorial, we have relied on our own methods, techniques, sciences, ceremonies, and interdependent relationships with the ecosystems that sustain and are sustained by water as a sacred source of life. For Indigenous Peoples, water is an inherent and inalienable right and responsibility.2 Water will continue to sustain us only if conscious and committed measures are taken for its protection. We honor water as our first home. It is essential for the production of our food and for the reproduction of all species. Clean water is an essential traditional medicine, a source of healing and life-renewal in our ceremonial and spiritual practices. We are water and without it we would not exist. We therefore reject absolutely the commodification, privatization and dispossession of water being implemented by states and private sector entities around the world. Our original sources of water are being diverted to urban areas, mega-dams, extractive industries and large-scale agriculture production, systematically violating our inherent, internationally recognized rights, inter alia, to self-determination, self-government and autonomy, means of subsistence, health, lands, territories and natural resources, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent.3 These policies and practices result in repressive and often violent outcomes for Indigenous Peoples, depriving us of our traditional lands and territories, diminishing and contaminating our water sources, and further contributing to the water crisis we are facing in our homelands caused by climate change. We are deeply concerned that current national and international policies continue to allow widespread deforestation, mining, drilling and use of highly toxic agro-chemicals, contaminating water systems that nurture millions of species around the world. We are particularly concerned by the continuing contamination and poisoning of water sources by toxic waste produced by mining and drilling activities.4 These include contaminants such as mercury, which have well-documented, devastating impacts on maternal, child and intergenerational health and development. Many of these extractive activities also contribute directly to the global climate crisis and further diminish Indigenous Peoples’ capacity to adapt. We affirm that Indigenous Peoples continue to carry out a vital role in the protection of the Natural World and its original biodiversity. We continue to maintain and practice our sacred responsibilities as caretakers and protectors of water in all its forms including rivers, streams, lakes, springs, rain, snow, ice and oceans. We will continue to do this as an unwavering commitment. However, for us to realize and implement this commitment, it is essential that global institutions, international organizations, national, regional and local governments, as well as national and transnational corporations fully recognize and respect our rights. These include, inter alia, rights affirmed in Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,5 the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the rights affirmed in Nationto-Nation Treaties and Agreements with settler governments. We insist that all initiatives related to water, and specifically those that are carried out within our traditional lands and territories, be undertaken only with our Free, Prior and Informed Consent and full participation in decision-making by our authorities and representatives designated by our own Peoples.6 We reject the manipulations being carried out by some States to circumvent the true representation of Indigenous Peoples through falsified or watered-down consultation processes. We also call upon States, international agencies, financial institutions, and the United Nations System7 to support all initiatives and actions developed by Indigenous Peoples regarding water, respecting the self-determination, autonomy, and self-government of our Peoples according to our own forms of organization, land tenure, and resource management systems. We endorse the contributions to advance the respect and defense of our rights developed in the thematic reports presented to the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly by the Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Water and Sanitation, the Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We also welcome the recommendations of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in this regard.8 Finally, we condemn and reject with one voice the systematic repression, persecution, kidnapping, assassination and criminalization of Indigenous Peoples and their authorities, leaders, and representatives who are defending their rights to lands and territories including their right to water. We also reaffirm the essential role of Indigenous women as water protectors, water defenders and water knowledge holders and call for their practices, and contributions and leadership to be recognized and safeguarded. Based on the above, we recommend that the United Nations 2023 Water Conference outcome document include firm commitments by States and the UN System to: 1. Recognize, support, and respect Indigenous Peoples’ scientific knowledge, cosmovisions and time-tested practices for the preservation, protection, management, use, and distribution of water in all its forms, and to ensure the full and effective participation of Indigenous peoples in the creation and implementation of national and international policies affecting and addressing water, including Indigenous knowledge holders, women, and youth. 2. Respect and uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples recognized and affirmed in instruments of the United Nations and other intergovernmental bodies in the development and implementation of national and international policies and actions for water protection, mitigation of climate change, forests, desertification, and protection/recovery of Biodiversity. These include inter alia, the rights affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Free Prior and Informed Consent, Self Determination, and rights to lands, territories and natural resources including water. 3. Hold UN member states, private companies, extractive industries, landowners, UN bodies and other entities accountable for failure to fully respect and implement the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including to Free Prior and Informed Consent regarding extractive development as well initiatives carried out in the name of sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, and the creation of “protected areas” which deny access to traditional sources of food and water. 4. Halt the persecution, repression and criminalization of Indigenous Peoples defending rights to lands, territories and resources including water, and ensure effective mechanisms to bring perpetrators to justice. 5. Recognize and prioritize in their policies and programs the collective human responsibility to safeguard and protect water, and further recognize that privatization, usurpation, contamination, and commodification of water are crimes against humanity that produce conflicts, deaths and dispossessions around the world; halt the exploitation of water by mining, damming and industrial uses that are causing the destruction and contamination of water sources and waterways. 6. Establish mechanisms and resources to ensure the ongoing active participation of Indigenous Peoples in international discussions impacting and addressing water. We urge the United Nations Voluntary Fund to support with funds, the participation of our representatives in future discussions, and for States to support this engagement. In conclusion, we offer the following commitment to be added to the commitments of the UN 2023 Water Conference: Indigenous Peoples commit to actively engage, coordinate and plan with national, regional and local governments as well as UN bodies, based on their full recognition of our rights and respect for the value of our contributions, in order to produce positive results for the protection of water, and promote solutions that benefit our future generations, the natural world and all humanity. Finally, we request that the United Nations Secretary General register, post and circulate this Declaration as an official document submitted for the United Nations Water Conference. Signed and endorsed by the following Indigenous Peoples and organizations: 1. International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) 2. Center for Support of Indigenous Peoples of the North (CSIPN) 3. Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC) 4. Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) 5. World Reindeer Herders Association 6. Pacific Indigenous & Local Knowledge Centre of Distinction 7. United Confederation of Taíno People (UCTP) 8. Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indígenas (CAOI) 9. Centro para la Autonomia y Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (CADPI) 10. Asamblea Nacional Indígena Plural por la Autonomía (ANIPA-México) 11. Alianza de Mujeres Indígenas de Centroamérica y México (AMICAM) 12. Assembly of First Nations 13. Caribbean Amerindian Development Organization 14. Schaghticoke First Nations 15; Kamilaroi Nation, Australia 16. Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People 17. Aborigen-Forum Network 19. Foundation for the Promotion of Traditional Knowledge, Panama 20. Association for Indigenous Women and Peoples of Chad (AFPAT) 21. Unidad de la Fuerza Indígena y Campesina 22. Latin America Indigenous Womens Network 23. Association of Artisanal Fishers of South India 24. Six World Solutions 25. Sicangu Treaty Council 26. Three Fires Society 27, Ramapough Lunaape Nation 28. Unite for the Promotion of Batwa (UNIPROBA) 29. PACOS Trust, Malaysia 30. Project Access Indigenous Partnership 31. Red de Adolescentes y Jovenes Indígenas de Amazonas 32. Red de Jovenes Indígenas de America Latina y el Caribbean 33. Indigenous Environmental Network 34. Asian Indigenous International Network 35. Global Home for Indigenous Peoples 36. Association of Village Leaders, Suriname 37. Network of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Caribbean Region 38. Grupo Guía, Perú 39. Congreso Nacional de Comunicación Indigena-México 40. AUTORIDAD TRADICIONAL MAZAHUA DE SAN LORENZO CUAUHTENCO-MÉXICO; 41. Red de Mujeres Indígenas y Afrodescendientes con Discapacidad de América Latina y El Caribe 42. Fundación Paso a Paso A.C. 43. Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC) 44. Asociación Maya UK’UX B’E. Guatemala 45. Asociación de Mujeres Ixq’auii 46. Agencia Internacional de Prensa India (AIPIN-Mexico) 47. Federación Indígena Empresarial y Comunidades Locales de Mexico 48. Consejo de Mujeres Indígenas Biodiversidad 49. Asociación de Comunidad Indígenas Consejo de Autoridades Ancestrales y Guías Espirituales de Peten "Wajxaqib' Q'anil" 50. Asociación de Desarrollo Integral para el Pueblo Maya AQ'AB'AL 51. Asociación de Asentamientos Unidos del área Ixil 52. Coordinadora Nacional de Viudas de Guatemala 53. Cabecera del Pueblo de Santiago Atitlán 54. Consejo de Principales de San Lucas Tolimán 55. Consejo de Autoridades Ancestrales de San Andrés Semetabaj 56. Consejo de Ancianos "Ri Ajaw Tinamit" de Panajachel 57. "Qatb'altzij rixin Tinamit" Alcaldía Indígena de San Marcos la Laguna 58. Alianza de Autoridades Ancestrales Ajpop Tinait Oxlajuj Imox 59. Indigenous Peoples Rights International 60. Right Energy Partnership with Indigenous Peoples 61. Sea Tribes, Indigenous Coastal Media 62. Network of Indigenous Women in Asia (NIWA) 63. Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples of Asia (IKPA) 64. Asia Indigenous Youth Platform (AIYP) 65. Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Defenders (IPHRD) 66. Indigenous Women in Thailand (IWNT) 67. Bangladesh Indigenous Women’s Network 68. Consejo Indígena de Centro América (CICA) 69. Brokenhead Ojibway Nation 70. All Burma Indigenous Peoples Alliance – ABIPA 71. Guainía Taíno Tribe, Borikén 72. Guainía Taíno Tribe, US Virgin Islands 73. NDN Collective 74. Semilla Warunka 75. Indigenous Peoples Major Group Other supporting organizations: 1. FILAC 2. Pawanka Fund 3. Center for Earth Ethics (CEE) 4. NGO Committee on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 5. Oxfam, Mekong Water Governance, Viet Nam _________________________________________________________________ 1 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, Pedro Arrojo-Agudo on the Human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation of indigenous peoples: state of affairs and lessons from ancestral cultures. Presented to United Nations Human Rights Council, 51st Sessions, September 12 – October 7, 2022. 2 FILAC affirms that “according to the World Bank, of the 7,837 million people living on the planet, 2,000 million do not have access to safe water to meet their most basic needs. 446,000 children under five years of age die annually from diseases linked to the consumption of safe water. 3,000 million people depend on transboundary river basins in constant tension for this vital element.” FILAC 3 Articles 3, 10, 19, 20, 24, 26, 32, and 37, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on September 13, 2007. 4 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Marcos Orellana. The impact of toxic substances on the human rights of Indigenous Peoples. A/77/183 5 Organization of American States. General Assembly. American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Adopted at the third plenary session, held on June 15, 2016. AG/RES. 2888 (XLVI-O/16) 6 Article 18, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on September 13, 2007. 7 Article 41, Ibid. Example of a Water Literacy factsheet As Australia’s national science agency and innovation catalyst, CSIRO is solving the greatest challenges through innovative science and technology. CSIRO. Unlocking a better future for everyone. Contact us 1300 363 400 +61 3 9545 2176 csiroenquiries@csiro.au csiro.au For further information Environment Dr Chris Chilcott +61 8 8944 8422 chris.chilcott@csiro.au Environment Dr Cuan Petheram +61 467 816 558 cuan.petheram@csiro.au Agriculture and Food Dr Ian Watson +61 7 4753 8606 Ian.watson@csiro.au