Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin AWP Knowledge Framework Australian Water Partnership contributions by Rory Hunter The Australian Water Partnership (AWP) is committed to (Program Lead), Katharine Cross (Mekong Coordinator) and enhancing sharing of knowledge and tools for sustainable Veitania Lepani (GEDSI and Program Officer). water management to improve water planning, allocation and governance by governments, industries and civil society. Citation This knowledge product supports the AWP Knowledge Strategy Australian Water Partnership and World Bank. (2022). and contributes to the Australian Perspective Series under the Valuing Water: The Australian perspective. Cultural values of Australian Bookcase. The other tiers within this bookcase are the water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water Partnership, Australian Journey Series and Guide Series. For more information, Canberra, and World Bank, Washington, DC. visit waterpartnership.org.au ©2022 eWater Ltd and The World Bank (published 09 13 2022) GWSP International Bank for Reconstruction and Development This publication also received the support of the Global Water The World Bank Group Security & Sanitation Partnership (GWSP). GWSP is a multidonor 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 USA trust fund administered by the World Bank’s Water Global Practice ISBN 978-1-921543-99-9 and supported by the Australian Government Department of Cover Image Foreign Affairs and Trade, Austria’s Federal Ministry of Finance, River Bliss (Source: Kwest / Adobe Stock) the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Denmark’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Disclaimer the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, This publication has been funded by the Australian Government Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, the Swiss through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The views Agency for Development and Cooperation, and the U.S. Agency expressed in this publication are the author’s alone and are not for International Development. necessarily the views of the Australian Government. About the Authors This work is also a product of the staff of the World Bank and Prepared by Phil Duncan, Lyndsay Charlton, Bill Moulden and of the Global Water Security & Sanitation Partnership (GWSP) Lisa Walpole from Alluvium Consulting with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the Acknowledgements views of the World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the This report is the result of a collaborative effort between the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee World Bank and the Australian Government Department of the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, Foreign Affairs and Trade with financial support from the Australian colours, denominations, and other information shown on any Water Partnership to promote more equitable, transparent and map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the effective management of water resources development. World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the The World Bank team was led by Xiawei Liao (Water Resource endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein Specialist, SEAW1), Marcus Wishart (Lead Water Resource shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver Specialist, SEAW1), David Kaczan (Senior Economist, SEAE1) of the privileges and immunities of the World Bank, all of which and Si Gou (Water Resources Management Specialist, SEAW1). are specifically reserved. In the case of any discrepancies between Guidance was provided by an advisory panel of peer reviewers this English version and any subsequent translations, the English within the World Bank, including: Eileen Burke (Senior Water version prevails. The report reflects information available up to Resource Specialists and Global Lead for Water Resources), December 20, 2020. Shelley McMillan (Senior Water Resource Specialist and Task Team Rights and Permissions Leader for the Mekong Vision 3.0), Halla Qaddumi (Senior Water The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the Economist) and William Young (Lead Water Resource Specialist). World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work Additional technical review and guidance was provided by may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for non-commercial Caroline Sage (Senior Social Development Specialist), and the purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. World Bank Water Global Practice Social Inclusion Team led by Sarah Keener (Senior Social Development Specialist), including Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, German Freire (Senior Social Development Specialist) and should be addressed to: Kamila Galeza (Social Development Specialist). The report was Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, prepared under the guidance of Jennifer Sara (Global Director of Washington, DC 20433, USA the Water Global Practice), Benoît Bosquet (Regional Director, E: pubrights@worldbank.org Sustainable Development, East Asia and the Pacific), and Sudipto F: 202-522-2625. Sarkar (Practice Manager, Water Global Practice, East Asia and the Pacific Region). UC Innovation Centre (Bldg 22), University Drive South Canberra ACT 2617 AUSTRALIA Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade T: +61 2 6206 8320 contributions have been led by John Dore (Lead Water Specialist, E: contact@waterpartnership.org.au Economic Growth and Sustainability Division, ESD), with guidance waterpartnership.org.au from James Morschel (Water Section, ESD). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin i Contents Acknowledgementv Executive summary 1 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Purpose of this case study 4 1.2 How this case study has been developed 7 1.3 Water management context 9 1.3.1 Water policy in the Murray-Darling Basin 9 1.3.2 Institutional framework 9 2 Recognising the cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 11 2.1 History and context 11 2.2 The Murray-Darling Basin 13 2.3 Cultural values 14 2.3.1 Connection to country 14 2.3.2 Sites of significance 18 2.3.3 Social and economic values of water to First Nations People 20 2.3.4 Managing, maintaining, and caring for water 21 3 “Measuring” or “considering” the cultural values of water 24 3.1 Tradeable water and cultural values 25 4 Realising the cultural values of water  26 4.1 Legislation and policy instruments 26 4.2 Cultural flows and cultural water 31 4.3 Engagement and governance arrangements 32 4.4 Institutions 33 4.5 On-ground actions 34 5 General lessons from the Australian experience 37 5.1 Insights and recommendations from the experience in Australia  39 References40 Valuing water: The Australian perspective ii Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Tables Table 1 Approaches to advancing Aboriginal cultural values in Australia 26 Figures Figure 1 Gingham Waterhole – located in the Ramsar-listed Gwydir Wetland system, Gomeroi Country vi Figure 2 Map showing the First Nation groups of the MDB 6 Figure 3 Markers of Aboriginal rights in recent history relevant to the MDB 12 Figure 4 The extent of Australia’s Murray Darling Basin and the major Australian towns within it13 Figure 5 Boobera Lagoon at Sunset 15 Figure 6 Gunbower Wetland 19 Figure 7 Brewarrina Fish passage 22 Figure 8 Timeline of recent policy changes related to Aboriginal water rights 29 Figure 9 The Coorong National Park, part of Narrandjerri Country 37 Acronyms Acronym Full term AWA Aboriginal Waterways Assessment AWI Aboriginal Water Initiative AWP Australian Water Partnership CAWI Committee on Aboriginal Water Interests FPWEC First People’s Water Engagement Council IPA Indigenous Protected Area IWPG Indigenous Water Policy Group MDB Murray Darling Basin MDBA Murray Darling Basin Authority ML Megalitres MLDRIN Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations NAILSMA North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance NBAN Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations NGO Non-Government Organisation NIAA National Indigenous Australians Agency NSW New South Wales NWI National Water Initiative NWRC National Water Reform Committee SA South Australia Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin iii Key terms Term Definition Country First Nations Australians use the word ‘Country’ to mean something different from the dictionary term ‘country’. For First Nations Australians, culture, nature and land are all linked. Country is a word for everything within the landscape - landforms, waters, air, trees, rocks, plants, animals, foods, medicines, minerals, stories and special places. It describes the entirety of their ancestral domains. Community connections include cultural practices, knowledge, songs, stories and art, as well as all people: past, present and future. Culture First Nations Australians use the word ‘‘Culture’ in a more expansive sense than non-Indigenous people. Culture includes spiritual beliefs, art and artefacts, but also includes connection to Country (see above) and practices, knowledge, social arrangements, respect for Elders, Traditional Owners, belonging, health and wellbeing. Aboriginal / ‘Aboriginal’ is a term extensively used and widely accepted throughout Australia when First Nations / referring to Aboriginal peoples and topics. Aboriginal peoples are the first peoples of Indigenous mainland Australia. ‘First Nations’ or ‘First Peoples’ can refer to the peoples who were there from the beginning, prior to the settlement of other peoples or nations. These terms have some general acceptance in Australia but can also perceived as generic terms, as they are not specific to Australia and can be applied to describe Indigenous peoples from other countries (such as Canada). ‘Indigenous’ is a term extensively used throughout Australia when referring to the Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia, and related topics. The terms ‘Aboriginal’, ‘Indigenous’ and ‘First Nations’ are used interchangeably throughout this document to refer to the first peoples of the Murray-Darling Basin. Valuing water: The Australian perspective iv Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Acknowledgement Yaama ngin-daayuu Phil Duncan Niwarra n-gaya Gomeroi, Kamilaroi, Gamilaroi mari n-gaya. Dhawun nhalay (many Nations of the MDB) Barkindji (Paakintji), Barunggam, Bidjara, Bigambul, Budjiti, Barapa Barapa, Barkindji, Dhudhuroa, Dja Dja Wurrung,Euahlayi, Gamilaroi, Githabul, Gunggari, Gwamu (Kooma), Jarowair, Kambuwal, Kunja, Kwiambul, Latji Latji, Maljangapa, Mandandanji, Mardigan, Murrawarri, Maraura, Mutti Mutti, Nari Nari, Ngarrindjeri, Ngemba, Ngiyampaa, Ngintait, Ngunnawal, Nyeri Nyeri, Tatti Tatti, Taungurung, Wadi Wadi, Wailwan, Wakka Wakka, Wamba Wamba, Waywurru, Wegi Wegi, Wergaia,Wiradjuri, Wolgalu, Wotjobaluk, Yaitmathang, Yita Yita, and Yorta Yorta. N-gaya winangaylanha. Way yaama wunun-gay ngiani ganu. Garri-y yiiy garaydhalibaa. Ngurrgun mayrraa warranggal dhuwi. Milyagin gilguba-rri wulul yiiliyanbaa. Maalaa baburr dhama-li dhuwuu / dhawun. Dharramalan maran burrulaa Univers. Gunimaa. Gurugun. Gama-li wulbuldaan dhaadhaa naa-y warruwi winanga-li ngarraga-li mudhu. Dhiirra-y guuma-li ngiyaninya walaaybaa warranggal. Baluwaal muurr gi-gi nguuma ayla-y mayabuu naa-y bariyan ngama. Gunii dhawun bunbul. Ngalingu gurrumayaa. Gaba nginda Yanaay Hello and Welcome. My name is Phil Duncan, Niwarra is my Country name. I am a very proud Gomeroi, Kamilaroi, Gamilaroi man. I acknowledge the many Nations within the Murray Darling Darling Basin - Barkindji (Paakintji), Barunggam, Bidjara, Bigambul, Budjiti, Barapa Barapa, Barkindji, Dhudhuroa, Dja Dja Wurrung,Euahlayi, Gamilaroi, Githabul, Gunggari, Gwamu (Kooma), Jarowair, Kambuwal, Kunja, Kwiambul, Latji Latji, Maljangapa, Mandandanji, Mardigan, Murrawarri, Maraura, Mutti Mutti, Nari Nari, Ngarrindjeri, Ngemba, Ngiyampaa, Ngintait, Ngunnawal, Nyeri Nyeri, Tatti Tatti, Taungurung, Wadi Wadi, Wailwan, Wakka Wakka, Wamba Wamba, Waywurru, Wegi Wegi, Wergaia,Wiradjuri, Wolgalu, Wotjobaluk, Yaitmathang, Yita Yita, and Yorta Yorta. We respect the Elders, all of them. Remember to stop and listen to the silence. The voice of the wind will always give you strength but will always beat loudest in your soul. Your spirit will always feel energy from those who have walked before us and block out the noise of the world. So, find a tree and allow your feet to touch the dirt / ground / earth. Our spirit ancestors created the balance of the Universe. The centre is Mother Earth. Our peace has and always will be a oneness with everything, one’s centre is with oneself. Break a branch like my grandfather always did and walk, allow your pathway to see everything, hear and feel within. Know who you are to see all that we are connected to and know that we belong. Cultural faith is our supreme power. Never forget those before us continue to walk among the stars. Mother Earth has us in her keeping. Our holy country. Will Go Phil Duncan Traditional Owner – Gomeroi / Kamilaroi / Gamilaroi / Gamilaraay Nation Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin v Figure 1. Gingham Waterhole – located in the Ramsar-listed Gwydir Wetland system, Gomeroi Country (Source: David Preston) Valuing water: The Australian perspective vi Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Executive summary This case study tells a story of how Australia’s Aboriginal people and their cultural values are included in the management of water in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin. It is intended to help the World Bank, the Australian Water Partnership (AWP) and its partners understand and learn from the Australian experience when including Aboriginal Peoples’ values in catchment management initiatives elsewhere in the world. A note on terminology: First Nations is used throughout the AWP Synthesis Report relating to the Case Study. However, this Cultural Case Study uses the terms Aboriginal and First Nations interchangeably in recognition of the range of preferences among Aboriginal People, which include Aboriginal People, First People, Traditional Owners, Traditional Custodians, Aboriginal Nations and First Nations. As the primary author of the AWP Cultural Case study, I have reached out to my Aboriginal networks seeking advice and clarification on this issue. My conversations confirm that most people prefer Aboriginal Nations and First Nations be used interchangeably. Readers should also note that these interchangeable terms recognise both the past and the dynamic and ever evolving cultural values of Australia’s Aboriginal People. The case study explores themes regarding the recognition or identification of Aboriginal Peoples water values, how those values are considered in decision making, and the protection of these values. Much progress has been made towards recognition of cultural values, and in some instances towards consideration of these values in decision making. However, much work remains to ensure protection of Aboriginal water values. Australia continues its journey of dealing with increasing water demands in a highly variable and changing climate and there is increasing progress in recognising and involving First Nations people in restoring sustainable management. Aboriginal Nations and other Australians have demanded that Australia respond to water scarcity and threats to water quality. A critical component of the response has been an ambitious water planning process, with significant focus on the Murray-Darling Basin (‘the Basin’), but also including water planning initiatives across the continent. The Basin is one of the major river systems in Australia and one of the most under pressure. At the same time, it has significant economic and social importance, including to Aboriginal Nations. It is a large basin, covering an area the size of South Africa, or of France and Germany. The Basin covers significant parts of four Australian States and one Territory. Australia’s basin planning takes place in a federal constitutional framework, where states have constitutional responsibility and jurisdiction for land and water management. In Australia, the National Government is referred to as either the Commonwealth or Federal Government (in this case study we use National). Although challenges in implementation remain, Australia’s experience can offer a range of lessons and is an example of one approach that is iteratively being undertaken by a country and its communities committed to river basin planning and implementation. Connection to land and waters is fundamental to the cultural values of Aboriginal Australians. However, only in recent decades has there been a move towards legal and moral recognition of ownership of the lands and waters occupied by the many peoples prior to colonisation of Australia from 1788. The inclusion of Aboriginal Peoples’ values and perspectives in water management across the Basin occurs through statutory mechanisms, tailored engagement processes, and mainstream community engagement activities. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 1 Native Title in Australia includes rights and interests relating to land and waters held by First Nations People under traditional laws and customs, and recognised in accordance with the national Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. Each state also has legislation recognising Aboriginal Land Rights. The authors of this case study recognise and respect the culture, language, beliefs and practices of all Aboriginal Peoples in Australia and the Basin. We have included examples of four groups spanning across four states of the Basin, each with unique experiences and lessons related to Cultural values of water in the Basin. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations represent the rights and interests of Aboriginal people across Australia. These bodies could adopt both national and international instruments to enable Aboriginal people’s participation in planning and decision-making processes in water planning, particularly throughout the Basin. In practice, Aboriginal people’s participation in decision making is limited. To meet human rights standards, Aboriginal people should be involved in all decisions affecting them. Active decision making through First Nations institutions around the water industry should be established on the key principles of self-determination and self-management. The Australian Government has committed to resetting the relationship with Aboriginal people (Armstrong, 2016). Key Australian Government platforms such as the ‘Closing the Gap’ policies have been remodelled to reflect the government’s commitment to true and meaningful reconciliation that allows Aboriginal people to clearly determine their own futures. Being proactively engaged in the management of Australia’s water resources is just one arena where Aboriginal people’s cultural values and cultural way of life can make a significant difference in long-term sustainability and management for future generations, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. Because of time constraints, this case study provides only a limited example of Aboriginal perspectives on the cultural values of water. However, we can make several generalisations about the lessons that we have learned from efforts in the Basin to recognise, include and protect Aboriginal cultural values associated with water, which may be useful for others. Water is an essential element of Aboriginal people’s holistic view of Country and should not be considered or managed separately from land, people or knowledge. The establishment of native title generated a great deal of benefit for Aboriginal people, including them in the legal framework for managing land, and driving the formation of representative bodies that can advocate and make decisions for communities and provide an expression of cultural lore within contemporary Australian law. Properly implemented, native title offers the best template for recognising, including and protecting Aboriginal cultural values within contemporary law. The unbundling of water rights and establishment of separate legal frameworks for managing water and land generated significant economic benefits but, perversely, served to marginalise Aboriginal communities and values. The legal separation of land and water runs counter to the Aboriginal concept of Country and precluded the use of native title to protect cultural values associated with water or generate benefits from managing water. Some state legislation recognises native title rights to water, but in practice this has not been implemented to date. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 2 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Policy initiatives in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012 and appointment of Aboriginal individuals to decision-making roles have increased the recognition of the cultural value of water within government and the wider community. Policy commitments and inclusion offer a more flexible, and potentially more rapid, pathway than legislation to including cultural values in water management and protecting these values. However, this would require high-level commitments to truly inclusive and timely engagement with Aboriginal communities, and significant discretionary resources to enable independent and informed participation. In the longer term, Aboriginal communities are best served by legislative reform that confers exercisable rights that protect the cultural values of water. The creation of Indigenous Protected Areas and Indigenous Land Use Agreements, and subsequent participation in the operational aspects of land management, have generated economic opportunities and delivered significant social, mental and physical health benefits to Aboriginal individuals and communities. These programs are being used as a template to create similar community-level opportunities to participate operationally in the management of water. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 3 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this case study The World Bank has a policy of ensuring that indigenous people are not adversely impacted by, and receive culturally compatible social and economic benefit from, the development projects that it finances. The World Bank’s policy is that the best way to ensure this is through the informed participation of the affected indigenous people. This can be achieved through several mechanisms, including development of Indigenous people’s development plans for World Bank–financed projects and capacity-building activities within borrowing countries. The Australian Water Partnership (AWP) is a non-profit organisation funded by the Australian Government to enhance the sustainable management of water across the Indo-Pacific region and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals more generally. It works by providing trusted expertise and knowledge to partners across the region to implement development activities and build capacity. The AWP recognises Aboriginal Australians’ connection to land and water, and acknowledges that historical and contemporary policies have reduced their ability to fulfil cultural obligations to care for water and their access to water for economic development. There is growing recognition of the benefits of incorporating Aboriginal people’s cultural values into management of natural resources, including water, across Australia and the world. As population increases and the climate changes globally, sustainable management practices that balance economic, social and environmental considerations need to be adopted. Across the world, indigenous peoples have demonstrated a long history of balancing these considerations, and their participation in water management is increasingly viewed as an opportunity to address contemporary and future issues. Indigenous cultural values belong to the people who are the original inhabitants and custodians of the land. In the Murray-Darling Basin (the Basin), these people belong to the 48 Aboriginal nations that have inhabited the Basin for at least 40,000 years, including 230 years since European colonisation, and 120 years since the federation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. This story focuses strongly, although not exclusively, on how Aboriginal people are involved in managing water in the Basin. Only when the people are included can their values be included. This case study describes efforts made to include Aboriginal people and their cultural values in water management in Australia, and draws links with experiences elsewhere in the world. The objective of the case study is to provide guidance to the World Bank, the AWP and their partners that will allow them to better include indigenous peoples in development activities. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 4 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Box 1: Global context - The continuum of social and cultural values provided by water Water carries multiple values and meanings, providing a wide range of direct and indirect benefits, which may be cultural, spiritual, emotional, economic, environmental, or social. While universal access to safe water and sanitation is a cornerstone of socioeconomic development, water is also a vital ingredient in (among other things) food, energy, health, industrial development, livable cities, and the world’s biodiversity and ecosystems. It also provides a wide range of social, cultural and religious values across regions, communities, and identities, as found in the heritage of water language, norms and artefacts. For example, the social and cultural values of water are seen in the acequia communities of New Mexico and Southern Colorado. Acequias—like their counterparts in Spain and the Middle East—are communal, using gravityfed canals to divert stream flow for distribution in fields. The autonomous collective organizations of water users developed as a mechanism to ensure a formal civil process to resolve water-rights issues, especially in times of water scarcity, lie at the heart of complex self-maintaining interactions between culture and nature that maintain community identity, cohesion and economic sustainability through drought adaptation. Working communally to keep up the community’s primary irrigation supply has bonded villagers together over the years. As a social institution, the acequia have therefore worked to preserve the historic settlements and local culture in a region that has undergone major political transitions. Water is seen as a conduit for preserving the homeland and identity of communities in this region. Water is also used as a purifier in most religions and ritual washing is common. For instance, immersion of a person in water is a central sacrament of Christianity (baptism); it is also a part of the practice of other religions, including Judaism (mikvah) and Sikhism (Amrit Sanskar). A ritual bath in pure water is performed for the dead in Judaism and Islam. Water is also used in funeral ceremonies of the Hindus and Buddhists. In Islam, the five daily prayers can be done after washing certain parts of the body using clean water (wudu). Many religions consider particular sources or bodies of water to be sacred and auspicious; examples include Lourdes in Roman Catholicism, the Zamzam Well in Islam and the River Ganges (and many others) in Hinduism. Many holy places in Hinduism are located on the banks of rivers, coasts, seashores and mountains. Sites of convergence, between land and river or two rivers, carry special significance and are specially sacred. The Kumbhamela, for example, is a pilgrimage of Hindu devotees and is held every three years at four different pilgrimage sites where rivers meet – Hardwar, Nasik, Prayaga and Ujjain. The cultural narrative around water is particularly pronounced for indigenous peoples. For example, water has been, and still is, central to culture in many parts of Africa. As a “source of life”, it represents birth or re-birth. It also represents purity. And these qualities confer a highly symbolic and even sacred status to water. Water is therefore a key element in ceremonies and religious rites (e.g. ceremonies that involve initiation of young men and women into adulthood, funeral rites and so on). It should also be noted that, as socio-economic conditions and circumstances change, the values of water in its social, cultural, environmental and biological dimensions change, reflecting the specific context, responding to peoples needs, aspiration and expectations. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 5 A Guide to Traditional Owner Groups This map was endorsed by the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) for Water Resource Plan Areas - representative organisation on 20 August 2018 Groundwater and the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN) representative organisation on 23 October 2018 Bidjara Barunggam Gunggari/Kungarri Budjiti Bidjara Guwamu (Kooma) Guwamu (Kooma) Bigambul Jarowair Gunggari/Kungarri Euahlayi Kambuwal Kunja Gomeroi/Kamilaroi Mandandanji Mandandanji Giabel Murrawarri Mardigan Wakka Wakka Bigambul Githabul Githabul Murrawarri Guwamu (Kooma) Gomeroi/Kamilaroi Charleville Mar Kambuwal ( ! Roma Mandandanji ¬ anoa ( ! « GW21 ¬ « River Barkandji Mutthi Mutthi GW22 ne River ami Barapa Barapa Nari Nari nd Ngarabal Co Bigambul Budjiti Ngemba Toowoomba BRISBANE " eek Ngiyampaa ) Euahlayi River River ! ( e Mooni Nebine Cr Githabul Nyeri Nyeri St George Gomeroi/Kamilaroi Tati Tati Par oo ¬ « er GW19 Guwamu (Kooma) Wadi Wadi ! ( Warrego Riv Kambuwal Wailwan Kunja Wemba Wemba ve r Goondiwindi ! Weki Weki Ri Kwiambul ¬ « ( Barkandji Kunja Wiradjuri ne GW18 Maljangapa Bigambul Kwiambul lon r Yita Yita Ba r Maraura ve Budjiti Maljangapa ve Ri Ri Murrawarri Yorta Yorta Euahlayi n Murrawarri ¬ « Ma oa rra c int Bigambul lg Gomeroi/Kamilaroi Ngarabal a GW15 yre Cu N Githabul Guwamu (Kooma) Ngemba ! ( Riv Kambuwal Kambuwal Wailwan Na MoreeG er Gomeroi/Kamilaroi Wiradjuri mo wy Barwon River dir Bourke iR ive Riv Kwiambul Barkandji Budjiti ¬ « GW13 ( ! r ¬ « GW14 Narrabri er ¬ « Ca Euahlayi ( ! GW11 Gomeroi/Kamilaroi stl Macq Murrawarri er Nari Nari ea Ngemba ¬ « Bog gh Ngiyampaa u First Peoples of Wailwan GW11 Tamworth Gomeroi/Kamilaroi arie R Ri Wiradjuri an ve the South East Yita Yita ( ! « ¬ « r Riv Maraura ¬ iver ¬ « GW6 ¬ « er Ngaduri GW7 GW11 GW14 Ngarrindjeri Ngintait Broken Hill ¬ « GW11 Peramangk RMMAC ( ! ¬ « GW6 ¬ « GW12 Dubbo ! ( Wailwan Wiradjuri Ivanhoe ( ! Willandra Cre ek Orange ¬ «GW6 r Forbes ¬ « ! ( ive GW10 ive r ( ! R R lan ¬ « h g Lac SYDNEY rlin ¬ GW4 « Da GW6 " ) ray Renmark Mildura River Mur ( ! ( ! Murrumbidgee Rive ( ! r Griffith Barkandji " ) ADELAIDE Murray Bridge Edw ¬ « GW9 Wagga Wagga Barapa Barapa Gomeroi/Kamilaroi ¬ ard « GW5 ! ( R iver Deniliquin ¬ « ( ! " ) Maraura Mutthi Mutthi ¬ « GW6 ¬ « CANBERRA Nari Nari Tum GW1 ¬ « Ngarabal ( ! GW8 GW3 Murra Ngiyampaa u y r t River Riv ive er Nyeri Nyeri Albury iver R Tati Tati Loddon ca ! ( M pe R Shepparton Wadi Wadi o Kaurna itta Av ( ! O ven Wemba Wemba Peramangk pas s Riv Horsham Weki Weki M ¬ « er River itt Cam ( ! GW2 Wiradjuri a ( ! Ngunnawal/Ngunawal R Bendigo Seymour Yorta Yorta ive Wolgalu r ( ! G Ngambri ou lb u Ngarigu r n R iv e r Dja Dja Wurrung Latji Latji Barapa Barapa MELBOURNE Ngintait " ) Mutthi Mutthi Dhudhuroa Tati Tati Barapa Barapa Dja Dja Wurrung Wemba Wemba Nari Nari Nyeri Nyeri Taungurung Wiradjuri Watjobaluk Tati Tati Waywurru This map is published as a guide to Wergaia Taungurung Yaithmathang Traditional Owner groups within the Wadi Wadi Yorta Yorta Murray-Darling Basin and may not Wemba Wemba Weki Weki capture all Traditional Owner groups Wiradjuri within the Basin. Yorta Yorta " ) capital city GW1 Australian Capital Territory (groundwater) GW8 Murray Alluvium GW15 Gwydir Alluvium ! ( main town GW2 Goulburn-Murray GW9 Murrumbidgee Alluvium GW18 NSW Border Rivers Alluvium state border GW3 Wimmera-Mallee (groundwater) GW10 Lachlan Alluvium GW19 Queensland Border Rivers–Moonie main rivers GW4 South Australian Murray Region GW11 NSW Murray–Darling Basin Fractured Rock GW21 Condamine-Balonne groundwater ¬ «GW1 water resource plan code GW5 Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges GW6 NSW Murray–Darling Basin Porous Rock GW12 Macquarie–Castlereagh Alluvium GW13 NSW Great Artesian Basin Shallow GW22 Warrego-Paroo-Nebine § GW7 Darling Alluvium GW14 Namoi Alluvium Source: - Geoscience Australia © Topo 250K data (Series 3), Geoscience Australia © Topo 2.5 million data (2003) 0 100 200 km - Murray-Darling Basin Authority © Murray-Darling Basin Water Resource Plan Areas - Groundwater Figure 2. Map showing the First Nation groups of the MDB (within surface water planning areas) (Source: MDBA, 2018) Valuing water: The Australian perspective 6 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 1.2 How this case study has been developed Australia is made up of hundreds of different and distinct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, each with their own culture, language, beliefs and practices. The Murray-Darling Basin has at least 48 Aboriginal nations within the Basin’s jurisdiction, which spans four states and one territory (Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory; see Figure 2). The Basin includes all or portions of the boundaries of the following Aboriginal nations: Barkindji (Paakintji), Barunggam, Bidjara, Bigambul, Budjiti, Barapa Barapa, Barkindji, Dhudhuroa, Dja Dja Wurrung, Euahlayi, Gamilaroi, Githabul, Gunggari, Gwamu (Kooma), Jarowair, Kambuwal, Kunja, Kwiambul, Latji Latji, Maljangapa, Mandandanji, Mardigan, Murrawarri, Maraura, Mutti Mutti, Nari Nari, Ngarrindjeri, Ngemba, Ngiyampaa, Ngintait, Ngunnawal, Nyeri Nyeri, Tatti Tatti, Taungurung, Wadi Wadi, Wailwan, Wakka Wakka, Wamba Wamba, Waywurru, Wegi Wegi, Wergaia, Wiradjuri, Wolgalu, Wotjobaluk, Yaitmathang, Yita Yita and Yorta Yorta. This case study has been led by Phil Duncan, a Gomeroi man from northern New South Wales. Phil has spent more than 39 years personally and professionally committed to improving the way Aboriginal people are engaged in water management. At the time of writing, Phil holds the position of Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Community Committee and is on the Board of the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator. A small number of Aboriginal people were engaged in the development of this story to provide examples of their own experiences and insights. To provide an idea of the breadth of First Nations people’s experiences in the Basin, geographical, institutional, political and gender diversity was considered. Independent of publishing a single case study, a much broader process of engagement and documentation is warranted to effectively understand the unique connections and values that Aboriginal people within the Basin hold, and to adequately include these people in management of water. Culturally appropriate engagement with Aboriginal communities requires broader consultation than is often the case for other communities. Decision making in Aboriginal communities can appear slow and unstructured to outsiders. The reality is that everyone has a right to be heard, and complex networks of family, knowledge and capacity are used to ensure that decision making is inclusive and leaves no-one behind. Regardless of cultural concerns, it is essential when dealing with marginalised communities that engagement offers the opportunity for broad-based learning, leaving these communities better able to engage with government and the broader community in the future. Broad-based engagement captures the diversity of perspectives within the community and is a learning experience for the non-Aboriginal participants, as well and helping them to envisage an alternative future. Historically, and as is still too often the case, parties engage narrowly with Aboriginal individuals with the intent of gaining ‘approval’ or reaching an agreement that appears consensual to unrelated third parties. Within the constraints of time, we have obtained a sample of first-person perspectives that encompass gender and geographical diversity. They are the perspectives of capable, articulate individuals, with whom we have pre-existing relationships of trust. Their words that we have reproduced here represent our interpretation of how their perspectives relate to the objectives of the report. Cultural protocol requires us and the end users of this report to meet them on Country and hear their story on their own terms. This case study contains interviews with individuals from three of the Basin’s Aboriginal nations: Gwamu, Barapa Barapa and Ngarrindjeri. Each of these Aboriginal nations has been active in the First Nations water rights arena since before the inception of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan (2012) (the Basin Plan) and the Commonwealth Water Act 2007. These three nations have also established key relationships and partnerships to be involved in the co-design and implementation of on-Country projects directly related to water planning and management initiatives, which proactively engage local First Nations people in the project from start to finish. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 7 Their stories will assist in sharing the Australian experience of how society can benefit from Aboriginal people’s knowledge, relationships, cultural and environmental practices, and protocols in the Aboriginal water rights arena. These stories will also provide testimony that the foundation to establish meaningful and sustainable relationships and partnerships is based on inclusion and respect. In developing this case study, we have also reviewed a large body of reference literature covering Aboriginal water rights in Australia. This case study represents the authors’ interpretations of these documents, the conversations we have had during the course of writing it, and our experiences with Aboriginal communities and water management across Australia. Box 2: Aboriginal nations in the Murray-Darling Basin Gwamu – South West Queensland – Indigenous Land & Sea Council Property The Gwamu Nation were able to negotiate the purchase of two key properties that hold cultural significance to the Gwamu Nations People. The two properties were purchased in mid-1990’s and have a Management Board in place to guide the opportunities for both rural properties. The Nebine is a significant water resource for the Gwamu Nation and its people. Cheryl Buchanan was interviewed for the Gwamu case study. She is a proud Gwamu woman and Traditional Owner from the Kooma Nation. Barapa Barapa – Victoria – Recognised Aboriginal Party The Barapa Barapa Nation is a Recognised Aboriginal Party that straddles the great Murray River and incorporates the Gunbower Wetland within the Nation’s boundaries. The Barapa are the Traditional Owners of the lands north and south of the Murray River around Cohuna, Australia and are working with natural resource agencies, the North Central Catchment Management Authority, to identify and map cultural assets on traditional lands, particularly in relation to water resources. The Gunbower Yemurriki Mapping project was developed through participatory cultural mapping processes to demonstrate the community connection to water and the wider cultural landscape. Yemurriki is the Barapa word for Country. The mapping project incorporates and depicts stories, totems, and places identified within the landscape. All the information included is what the Barapa consider public and educational. Aunty Esther Kirby was interviewed for the Barapa Barapa case study. She is a proud Barapa Barapa woman who has strong ties with the hugely successful Gunbower Environmental Flows project. Robyn MacKay from North Central Catchment Management Authority was also interviewed. Ngarrindjeri – South Australia – Native Title Determined & Land & Sea Country Plan The Ngarrindjeri Sea Country Plan was prepared by Ngarrindjeri people to help government agencies, natural resource managers, researchers, industry and the wider Australian community to better understand rights and responsibilities to their Yarluwar-Ruwe (Sea Country). Ngarrindjeri Sea Country includes the lower Murray River, Lakes, Coorong and adjacent marine and land areas. The vision for their Sea Country is based on the relationship between their people and their Sea Country, which goes back to Creation. The river, lakes, wetlands/nurseries, Coorong estuary and sea have sustained them culturally and economically for tens of thousands of years. Derek Walker from the Narrindjerri Ngopamouli Group was interviewed for the Ngarrindjeri case study. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 8 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 1.3 Water management context 1.3.1 Water policy in the Murray-Darling Basin Development of legislation and water policy reform in the Basin has been driven by droughts, and shaped and constrained by the legacy of past decisions. Events and decisions that have shaped water policy include: 1. Initial settler expansion into the Basin, which led to major ecological impacts from overgrazing, land clearing, mining and early irrigation 2. The involvement of governments in water policy from the late 19th century, which prefigured the 20th century focus on large, state-financed infrastructure mega-projects to develop water resources and regulate the rivers of the Basin for national development 3. a focus on efficiency by the 1980s, arising from environmental and economic concerns of drought; this was the point at which policy began to address the environmental impacts of Basin development (Mallawaarachchi et al., 2020) 4. The growth of the water market in the mid-1990s which saw hydrological schemes and water rights become popular, leading to the widespread overallocation of water resources. 5. The millennium drought of 1997–2009, which led to detailed reforms of rules for trading and sharing water in the Basin, and a consequent reduction in water use to a more sustainable level. This section provides the background and context to water policy development in the Basin. Section 4.1 outlines in more detail the evolution of Indigenous water rights and their relationship with broader water policy since the introduction of the Native Title Act 1993. 1.3.2 Institutional framework Box 3: National versus State arrangements Australia’s legislation is made up of two parts – Commonwealth or national law, which is overarching, and State law, which lies within this. Each state and territory has its own State legislation which must come under the Commonwealth legislation. Australia’s basin planning takes place in a federal constitutional framework, where states have constitutional responsibility and jurisdiction for land and water management. The Australian National Government has a national leadership role on some matters, while on other matters state governments agreed to collaborate with, or have referred limited powers to, the National Government. In Australia, the National Government is referred to as either the Commonwealth or Federal Government (in this case study we use National). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 9 Major water reforms over the past 30 years have provided the Australian Government with a more active role in the management of the Basin’s waters. In 2008, the states referred some of their water resource management powers to the Australian Government. These referrals allowed the Australian Government to define economic and environmental constraints to the states’ water resources management powers. Management of the Basin’s water resources is now shared between the Australian Government and the state governments; the states maintain responsibility for most land and water management in the context of a higher-order, Basin-scale framework agreed with the Australian Government and other states (Gardner et al., 2018). The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) is the principal government agency in charge of managing the water resources of the Basin in an integrated and sustainable manner. The MDBA is an independent statutory agency that leads the planning and management of Basin water resources in conjunction with other Australian Government, Basin state government and local agencies; industry groups; scientists; and research organisations. The MDBA reports to the Australian Government Minister for Water Resources. State governments have agreed to implement the Basin Plan (2012), which was developed under Commonwealth legislation. Legal instruments that the states use to manage water must be consistent with this legislation. However, there are still significant differences in written law and legal precedent among the states, especially with regard to laws that specifically affect Aboriginal people. Therefore, there are significant differences in the way that cultural values are recognised and considered across the Basin. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 10 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 2 Recognising the cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 2.1 History and context In the Aboriginal world view, people and Country (including lands, waterways and seas) are interdependent entities that are intrinsically linked in the landscape through cultural and spiritual significance. This means that there is no separation of nature and culture—the health of the natural environment and the cultural wellbeing of Aboriginal people are directly influenced by the health of the cultural landscapes. Over millennia, Aboriginal people have sustainably managed the lands, waters and natural resources for the health of their Country and their peoples. They have understood the importance of water and its centrality to life, and have cherished it accordingly. Indigenous Australians’ traditional ecological knowledge, like their stories, is passed down from generation to generation and continues up to this day. This has allowed them to live in a symbiotic relationship with the land and water. They used it, lived from it and nurtured it. Their use was sustainable, and continues to be so today, where possible. The dispossession of Aboriginal people, and then mismanagement of their lands and waters, with a disregard for culture, knowledge and understanding, has meant that they have witnessed the detrimental effects upon both their peoples and the environment, for they exist in harmony and in pain with their traditional Country. Aboriginal rights and obligations over water have a long history in Australia (Hart et al., 2020). Although Aboriginal rights have existed for millennia, colonisation denied the existence of those rights. Around 50,000 years ago, there was holistic Aboriginal custodianship of land and water. In 1788, British colonisation began as Australia was declared terra nullius (a ‘land belonging to no-one’). It was only in 1967 that Aboriginal people were granted voting rights and census recognition. Several markers of Aboriginal rights from the 1960s onwards are relevant to cultural values of water in the Basin are shown in Figure 3. A personal perspective by Cheryl Buchanan is provided below to illustrate the impact of British colonisation and subsequent displacement of Aboriginal people in her region. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 11 Figure 3. Markers of Aboriginal rights in recent history relevant to the MDB. (Source: Alluvium Consulting) Box 4: Example – Cheryl Buchanan’s story – the displacement of Aboriginal people from their Traditional Lands “My name is Cheryl Buchanan. I’m a very proud Gwamu woman from the Gwamu nation in Southwest Queensland. Our Western border is [760 kilometres] from Cunnamulla and we go right across the Eastern boundary is St. George, and we go down to a portion of the Culgoa floodplain and up to an area near Morven. …What people have to understand is that about 150 years ago or more, they decided to open up that South Western country to pastoral lands. And so what happened through the 1800s was a lot of massacres took place. And so, in the area where my clan is from near the Nebine up through the Nebine area, there was a massacre at Bendena. And so, my great granny was a survivor. She was only a baby as her mother was one of the survivors of that. And we had very few people left from our mom and those who were left became slaves on stations, domestics, and the women were domestics. And, what happened was that, when they changed the laws and legislation in Queensland, they decided that, and it was the industrial awards for workers, that Aboriginal people had to be paid. Well you know exactly what happened. They rounded up everyone and said, “You’ve got to go, we’re not here.” Some were removed there as well. So some of our family ended up in Cherbourg, which is 900,000 kilometres from Cunnamulla. And some ended up in Woorabinda, which is even further. And this is the story for nearly all of us.” — Cheryl Buchanan, Kooma Nation, Queensland 2020 Valuing water: The Australian perspective 12 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 2.2 The Murray-Darling Basin Australia continues its journey of dealing with increasing water demands in a highly variable and changing climate. There is increasing progress in recognising and involving First Nations people in restoring sustainable management. First Nations people and other Australians have demanded that Australia respond to water scarcity and threats to water quality. A critical component of the response has been an ambitious water planning process, with significant focus on the Murray-Darling Basin, but also including water planning initiatives across the continent. The Basin (Figure 4) is one of the major river systems in Australia and one of those under the most pressure. It is more than 2,500 km long, contains 16 internationally significant Ramsar-listed wetlands, and accounts for 40 percent of Australia’s agricultural produce (MDBA, 2021a). More than 2.2 million people live in the Basin, including people from more than 40 different First Nations. The Basin has significant economic and social importance, including to Aboriginal nations. It is a large basin, covering an area the size of South Africa, or of France and Germany combined. The Basin covers four Australian states and one territory. Although challenges in implementation remain, Australia’s experience can offer a range of lessons and is an example of one approach that is being undertaken by a country and its communities committed to river basin planning and implementation. Figure 4. The extent of Australia’s Murray Darling Basin and the major Australian towns within it (Source: MDBA, n.d.) Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 13 2.3 Cultural values 2.3.1 Connection to country The ‘Dreaming’ is the dimension of sacred eternal time when ancestors’ spirits came up out of the earth and down from the sky to shape the land, rocks, rivers, mountains, forests and deserts (teachings from the grandfather of Phil Duncan, one of the case study authors). The spirit ancestors created all the people, animals and plants that were to live in the Country, and laid down the laws, customs and codes of conduct that Aboriginal people’s lives were to follow. Across Australia, connection to Country is an intrinsic birthright for Aboriginal people. Generally speaking, connection to Country includes land and water, plants and animals to create a greater understanding of the Dreaming and songlines relating to each family, clan and nation. Aboriginal philosophy— the Dreaming—is based on the interrelatedness of all people and things. This means that people are related to their cultural environment and that all Aboriginal people are related to each other in some way. All relationships are important, and any situation will be resolved by calculating the relative importance of the relationship involved. The Dreaming is continuous and present, a cycle of life without beginning or end, a parallel and all-inclusive reality. It is something mystic and beyond words—a feeling of harmony of the universe, in tune with the rhythm of the land, waters and constellations. Dreaming is the life of the spirit and imagination, expressed in Aboriginal people’s cultural responsibilities to care for and repair Country. Most of all, the Dreaming can be described as a religious experience—the spiritual tie that binds Aboriginal people to the land, waters and stars, that they belong to, that own them. The sun, moon and all the stars are Dreaming figures. Box 5: Songline Definition – Oxford Dictionary (In Australian Aboriginal belief) a route through the landscape which is believed to have been 1.  travelled during the Dreamtime (or Alcheringa) and which features a series of landmarks thought to have related to events during this time. ‘An expert song-man, by listening to their order of succession, would count how many times his hero crossed the river, or scaled a ridge, and be able to calculate where, and how far along a Songline he was.’ 1.1 A Traditional song or recording a journey made during the Dreamtime. ‘The dance became an important part of setting the structure of who we are, what our songs and songlines are.’ ‘And all of their Dreamtime stories, all of their songlines are all about the plants and the animals and the stories of how everything came to be.’ Aboriginal songlines are interwoven into the Dreaming tracks through nations and trace the creative journeys of the spirit ancestors, whose power is concentrated in Dreaming places or sacred sites. The Dreaming of a place is its physical nature; the animal, bird, fish or plant associated with it; the creative power of its spiritual ancestor; the rituals to maintain its life force; and all associated Dreaming stories, both sacred (secret) and outside (public) versions. An Aboriginal person’s Dreaming is the place where that person’s spirit came from and to which it must return. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 14 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Box 6: Example – Phil Duncan’s Songline My Dreaming – Boobera Lagoon, Gomeroi Country “My Song Line / Dreaming - “Garriya” – Long ago, the Garriya terrorised the local people around Boobera Lagoon. Garriya had travelled down to the Boobera Lagoon from up near Yetman, his tracks making the watercourses past Toomelah. Garriya prevented the people from hunting and gathering food. No-one could paddle a canoe, or even fish from the bank, because Garriya had developed a taste for human flesh. The people asked Dhulala to attempt to kill Garriya so that they could live and hunt in peace. Dhulala was a Headman of Noona on the Barwon and was known as a great warrior. Dhulala went to the lagoon early one morning and stood on the bank, peering through the mists for Garriya. After some time he saw a ripple on the water, then Garriya’s dark shape emerged from a hole, his fiery eyes glaring. Dhulala hurled his spear but it only glanced of Garriya’s skin. He threw several spears and clubs with all his force, but they had no effect on Garriya. He took up another, and then another and kept throwing spears till he had no more. Garriya charged Dhulala, mouth open and fangs flashing. Dhulala fled across the plain with Garriya sliding after him. Garriay gave chase, the earth piling up against his chest, like the bow-wave before a canoe, winding about like a huge snake and travelling at great pace. In the distance Dhulala caught sight of a Bambul tree, the mother-in-law of Garriya and the only living thing that Garriya feared. Reaching the tree with Garriya still hard on his heals, Dhulala threw himself at it and clung to its trunk. When Garriya saw that Dhulala had reached the Bambul tree, he skidded to a halt and returned to the lagoon along the channels he had made. The channels which he had carved in the land in pursuit of Dhulala remained, empty in the dry times and filling up with water when it rained. Today the Garriya is still in Boobera Lagoon. Local Aboriginal people still keep the law that no-one should go into the lagoon or stay close to the banks after sundown.” — Transcribed by Brad Moggridge, 2009 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 15 Since colonisation, the removal of rights to cultural way of life by removal from Country, family, Clan and Nation structures, and knowledge keepers has had vast impacts. The impacts are physical, emotional, tangible and intangible on the identity and cultural spirituality of individuals, communities, clans and the many Nations that have occupied Australia since time immemorial. Most importantly, this impacted Aboriginal people’s ability to continue a ‘cultural way of life’. Traditional ecological knowledge, like stories and songlines, is passed from generation to generation; this continues today, in a modern way of learning. There is a significant responsibility to continue to educate the next generations about their Dreaming stories. The Dreaming is the remote past of the spirit ancestors, which lives in the Aboriginal nation legends handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation for the past 65,000 years. In story, song, poetry, art, drama and dance, the Dreaming tells how the spirit ancestors formed and gave life to the land, water and Aboriginal people’s cultural landscapes where they have lived. The Dreaming also laid down the lore—the structure of society, rituals to maintain the life of the land and waters, and rules for Aboriginal people’s behaviours when interacting with the cultural resources in a culturally appropriate manner. For many Aboriginal people, the Dreaming explains the origin of the universe, the workings of nature (Mother Earth) and the nature of humanity, including the cycle of life and death. It shapes the structures of Aboriginal people’s life by regulating kinships, family life and the relations between the people, with a network of obligations to people, land, water and spirits, via the Dreaming. Personal perspectives by Aunty Esther Kirby and Cheryl Buchanan are presented below on their respective connections to Country. Box 7: Example – Aunty Esther Kirby’s connection to Country and water “I was born on the Murrumbidgee River, but I was reared up on the Murray River, which I have the utmost respect for because that river is one of the life bloods of the nation. It feeds us and the river is just beautiful and that. We’re trying to protect it against these irrigators and that. We don’t want to stop the irrigators from using things because they’re growing the food and whatever else, but they do have to pay respects to our land and make sure that they are not cutting across any cultural stuff. That’s my personal interest to taking care of the rivers… If I see anyone doing the wrong thing, I’ll bring it to the attention of the Aboriginal organisation that is supposed to be taking care of it. The cultural side of it - most of the Barapa mob that go out onto Country are concerned about the country where the water, how much water’s going in and the growth of some of our medicine plants and food plants that are out there. …I go out there and make sure that our waterways are okay and that our animals that are out there, we’ve got different varieties of kangaroo that are out there that I hadn’t seen for a while. They’re there and we got a lot of kangaroos and emu in there.” — Aunty Esther Kirby, Barapa Barapa, Victoria 2020 Valuing water: The Australian perspective 16 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Box 8: Example – Cheryl Buchanan’s connection Country - Gwamu “Connection to country was an interesting one out in the Southwestern area in that you weren’t actually living on your traditional country, you lived in... Well, I lived in a town called Cunnamulla, a small country town. So whenever we had to go to country, it was either we were going somewhere, we had to get in the car, make an effort to go there. And the gates were locked, no access to country whatsoever. So none of us owned any country within our traditional lands. So, it was a very different connection I think, that you would expect if you were born and lived on your traditional country. And it wasn’t until the end of the 1990s, when we, our nation, that is, were lucky because of being dispossessed peoples to get two properties that were purchased by the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Murra Murra and Bendee Downs. So, my mother for example, used to get on a bus from Brisbane, travel out to Cunnamulla. They used to pay all their own way to get to the properties whenever they had meetings. And so here they were suddenly with this huge responsibility and no one to give them any kind of guidance. And so that was a very tough journey, but it was also a very fulfilling journey I believe, because people were excited and ecstatic that for the first time in how many, 150 whatever it was years that were 200 years or less, that people could finally walk on country and know that this was our traditional land. This was our country that we’re walking on it. These are our waters that we’re dipping our feet into. These are our waters that we’re fishing on. And I think that in itself changed the way that people begin to see themselves.” — Cheryl Buchanan, Kooma Nation, Queensland 2020 Box 9: Global experience – Cultural values related to water around the world Communities around the globe have developed a variety of cultural norms, institutions, artefacts that are related to managing water extremes. Myths, tales, literature, stories and cultural beliefs that widely spread among people, as well as physical sites of significance, often contain a large number of water-related historical themes and that are often used to managing water extremes, especially in the absent of formal legal and institutional frameworks. For example, cultural and religious beliefs have played a significant role in protecting pristine water environment in China’s Yunnan and Tibet provinces. In Yunnan, many ethnic groups regard water sources and primary forests as being where gods live and thus have forbidden human activities, as well as livestock, for the past centuries1. In Tibet, several lakes, such as Yumco Lake, are regarded as holy and important to the reincarnation of the living Buddha. Such religious beliefs and cultural norms have contributed to the protection of the pristine water environment in these regions. Islamic teachings have played an important role in addressing the water scarcity issue that is commonly faced by many Muslim nations. At the 4th conference of Islamic environment ministers, water shortage was highlighted as one of the most pressing environmental issue facing the region. Water is regarded of ultimate importance in the religion. Besides being used as a purifier, paradise is described in the Qur’an as ‘Gardens beneath which rivers flow’. There are various Islamic teachings have reflected solutions to such challenges. The main principles in Islamic teachings include that every human has a right to clean water and also that water is precious resource which must not be wasted even during abundance. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 17 Many sites of significance were constructed for the cause of flood control in China. For example, a UNESCO World Heritage site, the 71-meter Leshan Giant Buddha sits at the confluence of three rivers, namely, Min River, Qingyi River, and Dadu River, in the east of Leshan City in Sichuan Province. The construction of the Budda was initiated by a monk called Hai Tong in the year of 713 in the Tang Dynasty. To address the suffering of the people from frequent floods and boat accidents, Hai Tong decided to carve a Budda statue facing the confluence hoping to control the tempestuous water spirit. Today, the Leshan Budda has become one of the most frequently visited sites of significance in southwestern China. 2.3.2 Sites of significance An Australian Aboriginal sacred site is a place deemed significant and meaningful by Aboriginal people based on their cultural and spiritual beliefs and customs. It may include any feature in the landscape; in coastal areas, these may lie under water. The site’s status is derived from an association with some aspect of social and cultural tradition, which is related to spiritual ancestral beings, collectively known as the Dreaming, who created both physical and social aspects of the world. The site may have its access restricted based on gender, clan or other Aboriginal grouping, or other factors. Sites of significance— rivers, banks, cultural sites (birthing, men’s, women’s), campgrounds, middens, rock engravings, scar trees—provide the cultural foundation for an intrinsic connection for past, present and future First Nations Australians. Important sites across Australia are constantly being discovered and recorded for posterity and the continued cultural education of the next generations. An Aboriginal historical place could be the site of ancestral life, a colonial era massacre or another significant historical event. It may have associations with an important person or be an example of wider political, social, spiritual, economic or historical events or trends. An Aboriginal historical place could have a physical artefact (tangible heritage), such as a rock marking, a shell midden, foundations, a burial site or a building. The significance may be in the intangible heritage of ceremony, story or song of a place. The historical place may have both tangible and intangible heritage (Moggridge et al., 2019). Aboriginal historical places are identified through collaborative research, in partnership with Aboriginal Peoples and communities, that may include oral histories, archival sources, historical records and archaeological investigations. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 18 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Box 10: Example – Barapa Barapa cultural and ecological values Aboriginal archaeology has a central role to play among the myriad government agencies and professional disciplines involved in land and water management of the Murray River Basin in south-eastern Australia. In a study by Pardoe & Hutton (2020), researchers compared managed water flows to archaeological records which provides secure evidence of how people lived at the Murray River floodplain wetlands before European colonisation. Seasonal residential patterns and economic activities of large populations were reconstructed using archaeological, environmental, and hydrological information. The study painted a picture of people living in large groupings – villages and hamlets – around water bodies that are ecological ‘hot spots’ within the forest. Identifying the preferred locations of village sites suggests that changing environmental water delivery from large area forest flooding to targeted smaller water bodies that form ecological hot spots throughout the river floodplain landscape would maximise the cultural benefits of limited environmental water. The study suggests that traditional Aboriginal land use in the form of the distribution of Aboriginal sites can act as an environmental proxy to inform heritage, land and water management policy and practices that seek to restore the ecological and cultural health of the Murray River (Pardoe & Hutton, 2020). As a result of this engagement process, the Barapa Barapa are now actively participating in the delivery of the environmental watering program which also delivers a cultural benefit. The Victorian Environmental Water Holder is actively seeking opportunities like this to deliver shared environmental, social and cultural benefits with other groups at sites across the state. Figure 6. Gunbower Wetland (Source: North Central Catchment Management Authority) Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 19 2.3.3 Social and economic values of water to First Nations People There remains a significant social and economic disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, which has been a focus of the ‘closing the gap’ movement in recent decades. Water can play a key role in increasing opportunities for Aboriginal people. As an essential component of Country, healthy water underpins a range of intangible mental, social and cultural benefits. Participating in the management of water can create direct employment and economic benefits for the individuals involved, as well as creating opportunities for other ‘experiential’ non-use economic ventures where Aboriginal custodians host guests on Country. Examples of social and economic benefits include: 1. greater opportunities for cultural education on Country, particularly on the river and wetland systems 2. increased native fish populations, and greater ability to hunt and gather 3. healthier native vegetation, including vegetation with medicinal values 4. greater opportunities for cultural ecotourism for regional tourists 5. greater opportunities for Aboriginal cottage industries, tool making, art and cultural ceremonies (e.g. fish festivals, community events celebrating culture and connection to Country) 6. greater workforce participation, to the extent that the program helps Indigenous people get jobs, leading to increased economic output 7. increased labour productivity through improved Indigenous health 8. better social, cultural and emotional wellbeing of individuals and communities 9. cost savings to governments through lower expenditures on public health, policing, corrective services and public housing. Economic returns are generated by new Indigenous business ventures, including the associated tax component of this revenue that is received by government. Employment programs in the natural resource management arena have been shown to reduce social problems in Indigenous communities. Prevention of social problems is almost always cheaper than addressing the symptoms of neglect. Therefore, the cost savings to governments are potentially very large and represent a real benefit— even before considering the benefits enjoyed by Indigenous individuals and their communities from being healthier and having a lower incidence of crime. Provided that intellectual property is protected, further benefits for Aboriginal communities and the nation as a whole can be generated from Indigenous traditional knowledge about land, water and sea management; culture; medicinal properties of flora and fauna; and so on. Employment programs help keep Indigenous knowledge in active use and help disseminate it to new generations. This practice has potential economic value—currently and in the future. There are also non-use values associated with traditional knowledge, stemming from the importance of this knowledge to Indigenous culture, spirituality and belief systems. These benefits are difficult to measure in dollars but are nevertheless critical motivators for Aboriginal participants and thus a key element of the success of programs. Employment programs also make positive contributions to environmental outcomes and protection of Aboriginal cultural sites. These outcomes represent nonmarket economic benefits to Australia. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 20 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Box 11: Indigenous Ranger projects Indigenous Ranger projects were first funded in 2007 through the former Working on Country Program. They support Indigenous people to combine traditional knowledge with conservation training to protect and manage their land, sea and culture (NIAA, 2020). This includes activities such as bushfire mitigation, protection of threatened species, and biosecurity compliance. Indigenous ranger groups also develop partnerships with research, education, philanthropic and commercial organisations to share skills and knowledge, engage with schools, and generate additional income and jobs in the environmental, biosecurity, heritage and other sectors (NIAA, 2020). As of August 2030, there were 127 nationally funded Indigenous Ranger groups, with 895 Indigenous rangers and coordinators reported in Australia (NIAA, 2020). Whilst these programs have been implemented successfully across other parts of Australia, Ranger programs are currently only in the inception phase within the MDB. Indigenous Ranger projects in Australia generate economic, employment, cultural, social, environmental and health benefits for Aboriginal communities. The 2013 national Landcare report on the review of the Caring for our Country initiative reported that 64 percent of ranger groups were managing key threatening processes, 41 percent were managing weeds of national significance, and 35 percent were involved in protective activities relating to threatened fauna (National Landcare Program, 2013). Although these benefits are not the main focus of this case study, they are nevertheless an important component of program outcomes, and demonstrate the success of such programs in parts of Australia outside the Murray-Darling Basin. The economic and employment benefits arising from ranger programs are both direct and indirect. With respect to direct benefits, in an assessment of the economic and employment outcomes of the Working on Country program, it was observed that the daily wages paid under the program represent a significant improvement on the median gross income for Indigenous people (The Allen Consulting Group, 2011). Aboriginal rangers also play an important role in providing community leadership and role models. Interviewees reported a strong interest in ranger employment among school students and linked improved school attendances to the prospect of possible future ranger employment (National Landcare Program, 2013). Some ranger groups have formed partnerships with schools to provide a junior ranger program and/or ranger traineeships as part of the high school curriculum. The skills and experience Aboriginal rangers gain from their training and work experience also increase their chances of being able to participate in the external economy (National Landcare Program, 2013). For example, there may be opportunities for ecotourism, bioprospecting, fire management services, wildlife harvesting, feral animal and weed control, research support work, or carbon offsetting projects. This can benefit Aboriginal communities by diversifying their economies through multiple sources of income. 2.3.4 Managing, maintaining, and caring for water Throughout Australia, a functioning water industry existed long before the arrival of Europeans, known as the ‘original water industry’. The original water industry has existed in Australia for millennia, operating across the many sectors that the contemporary water industry covers (e.g. potable water, water management), as well as more broadly in industries such as agriculture and aquaculture. The industry’s operators and managers are First Nations people who have managed water and water-associated activities in many ways before and since European settlement. The nature of the original water industry reflects Indigenous culture, practice and knowledge (Frangos et al., 2020). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 21 The original water industry’s broad reach included the operation and management of fisheries, which sustained Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. It included aquaculture practices or businesses that also acted as sustainable food and material sources, the management of water resources for drinking and other use, and a wastewater sector that used and managed waterways and the broader environment as a waste removal system. Each of these sectors was managed in an integrated manner, and the connections between sectors were deeply understood, as were the connections between these activities and local water sources (Frangos et al., 2020). Figure 7. Brewarrina Fish passage (Source: Provided by Tracy MacDonald) A personal perspective by Cheryl Buchanan on the role of women in caring for water is presented below. Box 12: Water as women’s business “Water intrinsically is very much a lot of women’s business. But we talk about connectivity, and what connectivity means is that we don’t live in isolation. So the water doesn’t live in isolation to the land, doesn’t live in isolation to the birds, the animals, and all the macroinvertebrates and everything else that’s going on. So everything is connected. And within that realm, what I have found I think, is that women tend more to want to be very protective. And I think that’s part of our makeup as well, just as women, because we’re the child bearers. I think that we automatically want to have that... we have that protective instinct, and we tend more as women, I think, to really care about what is happening with the water to a point where it hurts your heart, it hurts your spirit to see things going on. And there are a lot of men who are able to have that same kind of sense of belonging and everything else. And to take that cultural responsibility on.” — Cheryl Buchanan, Kooma Nation, Queensland 2020 Valuing water: The Australian perspective 22 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous knowledge, practices and beliefs around water provide value. Indigenous science and economics present value to contemporary industry at a technical level, as well as at a strategic level (Nursey-Bray et al., 2019). A number of key cultural concepts offer value in a strategic or conceptual sense, if applied in the current industry (Frangos et al., 2020): 1. Custodianship – First Nations Australians are renowned for their custodianship and care for Country, providing excellent environmental outcomes in nearly all water-related activities undertaken. As a result of this organic environmentalism, Indigenous solutions are naturally sustainable. 2. Natural control system – A result of the custodial nature of Indigenous culture and the connection to Country is the ability to integrate human activity within a local ecosystem, interlocking natural indicators or signals with management of human activity within the original water industry. 3. Distribution and decentralisation – First Nations Australians were far more evenly dispersed throughout the country than Australia’s population is today. This meant that a decentralised or distributed economy was a necessity. The dispersion and low population densities meant that specialisation and trade or collaboration between nations was a necessity and a common part of culture. 4. Shared economy – Sharing is deeply rooted in Indigenous culture. The sharing nature of Indigenous culture meant that there was a great deal of equity among and between discrete groups. This also meant that resources were efficiently distributed. A personal perspective by Cheryl Buchanan on the value of Indigenous knowledge surrounding water is presented below. Box 13: The value of Indigenous Australian knowledge surrounding water “That’s a really important thing to understand because we actually have 75,000 years of knowledge, traditional knowledge. 75,000 years of all that ecological knowledge and all that spiritual knowledge. It’s there for us. It’s there for the taking. And so to move forward, I think that there’s a lot of money being thrown all over the place. It’s only very recently that Aboriginal people even became part of the picture of water and water issues in this country. There are many old people who’ve now passed on, who were talking about the importance of listening to them. And saying that... don’t build dams that destroy our fish traps. Don’t put in ways that do this because you’re doing is blocking the Mundagutta serpent from being able to move freely through our waterways and no one listened it fell on deaf ears.” — Cheryl Buchanan, Kooma Nation, Queensland 2020 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 23 3 “Measuring” or “considering” the cultural values of water Cultural values are holistic and intangible, and consequently difficult to quantify. Their value is revealed by the weight that they are given during the decision-making process. Inclusion of Aboriginal people who can articulate the cultural value of water in decision making is therefore essential to adequately valuing the cultural aspects of water. When cultural values are considered in the same forum as economic, social and environmental values, with the custodians of cultural values present, the cultural aspects can be said to have been properly ‘valued’. The extent to which these cultural values are shared and elevated within the broader community depends on the arguments made by Aboriginal people, and how they are accepted by the broader community and decision makers. The First Peoples’ Water Engagement Council (FPWEC) provided advice to government regarding Aboriginal participation in water planning (FPWEC, 2012). This advice provided a broad description of ‘Aboriginal water’ and the decision-making principles required to support it. The FPWEC advances a holistic view of water within Aboriginal people’s cultural and spiritual life that precludes a simple technical or legal definition of ‘Aboriginal water’. Aboriginal water values are complex and interconnected. Their practical definition will be embedded in many parts of the decision-making framework that governs water, from legislation to subordinate regulations, and the informal procedural precedents set by local decision makers. The FPWEC reaffirmed the holistic value of water and the connection between the health of people and Country. Its advice to government considered the economic outcomes in a slightly different way to the cultural, social and environmental outcomes, which it considered to be closely linked. This separate consideration facilitates the use of different mechanisms to achieve Aboriginal water outcomes—first, participation in strategic water planning, where water could be allocated specifically to Aboriginal people for cultural flows and, second, participation in the planning and delivery of environmental water. Victoria’s Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has been proactive in adopting and implementing the recommendations from the FPWEC, and to date has been successful in implementating these policies in some key regions outside the Basin. One example is the success of Victoria’s Aboriginal Water Program for the Gunaikurnai people, as described in Section 4.5. Active participation of Aboriginal people in the decision-making framework does not just elevate the consideration of cultural values but can become an expression of cultural values itself. Figure 1.1 (in Section 1.2) shows a map developed by the MDBA, the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) and the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN) identifying the nations within each of the surface water planning areas of the Basin. A similarly complex map has also been developed for the groundwater planning areas. Together, these maps illustrate a complex and ancient system of kinship, language and culture, and the way that the Aboriginal nations of the Basin are connected through hydrology. Implementation of the decision-making policy developed by the FPWEC would facilitate the inclusion of all of these nations in the development and revision of the relevant water plans, using the principles of free, prior and informed consent. Adopting these principles would require, among other things, the use of accessible language, Aboriginal selection of appropriate community representatives, and timelines that allow for effective dialogue. In this way, the structures that give effect to the engagement policy become a contemporary expression of an ancient and ongoing culture with respect to water. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 24 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 3.1 Tradeable water and cultural values In Australia, the granting of a tradeable water entitlement separate from land title is a de facto valuation by the Crown of the water’s use at the water’s market rate. The fact that Aboriginal people hold so little of the Basin’s water entitlement despite making up such a large part of its population indicates that the Crown has, historically at least, placed a very low value on Aboriginal cultural aspects of water (Hartwig et al., 2020). Although several governments in the Basin have recently committed to supporting Aboriginal water entitlements, nonmarket valuation by Jackson et al. (2019) suggests that the public’s valuation of Aboriginal water is higher than the Crown’s. For Indigenous Australians, there is a complicated relationship between cultural values and the water trading system. This is because Aboriginal people do not see their Country and its water resources as something to be traded, and they do not put a price on their culture. It is important to understand that decoupling land and water rights and legislation conflicts with the way Aboriginal Australians engage with cultural landscapes in a holistic way. Box 14: Global experience – Monetary valuation compared with participatory and deliberative approaches • Among the monetary valuation methods, the most commonly used are stated preference techniques (willingness to pay, willingness to accept), which are capable of capturing non-use values, such as social and cultural values. • Participatory and deliberative approaches to valuing water offer advantages over monetary methods. They include quantitative and qualitative techniques (e.g. surveys, interviews), participatory and deliberative tools (e.g. focus groups, citizens juries, participatory or rapid rural appraisal, Delphi panels), and methods expressing preferences in nonmonetary but quantifiable terms (e.g. preference assessment, time use studies, Q-methodology). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 25 4 Realising the cultural values of water This case study presents several approaches to advancing Aboriginal cultural values in Australia. In general, cultural values are more embedded in the management of land, rather than water, in Australia, so approaches applied in land management can serve as an example for water management in some instances. The approaches range from high-level and symbolic statements of intent, through participatory mechanisms, to on-ground management (see Table 1). The approaches are complementary and should be employed together, where possible. Table 1. Approaches to advancing Aboriginal cultural values in Australia Approaches Tools Examples Recognising • Policy statements • Echuca Declaration (Indigenous and non-indigenous) • World Bank policy • National Water Initiative Measuring • Mapping exercises • Aboriginal waterway assessments • Advisory committees • First Peoples Water Engagement Council • Aboriginal representation • MDBA board member Realising • Legislation and regulation • Native Title Act • Land use agreements • Indigenous Protected Areas • Aboriginal ranger programs • Traditional Owner Settlements 4.1 Legislation and policy instruments Indigenous water rights were not included in early legislation and regulations in the Murray-Darling Basin. Throughout the 1980s, growing development pressures and salinity problems in the Basin precipitated the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative and subsequent legislative reforms in 1992–93. Indigenous water rights were not included in this policy framework (Taylor et al., 2016). Around the same time, the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 was introduced. This recognised native title holders’ rights to use water for domestic and personal purposes; however, it did not recognise their right to negotiate over water. With the growth of the water market in the mid-1990s, water rights were identified as the ‘new frontier’ in the northern part of the Basin. Hydrological schemes were used to ‘tame’ northern Basin resources for settler expansion, impacting on First Nations people’s ways of life (Taylor et al., 2016). In the southern part of the Basin, slow progress in addressing the overallocation of surface water, the increase of dryland salinity affecting the Murray River and environmental concerns arising from the 1997–2009 millennium drought led to a second suite of more detailed reforms (Taylor et al., 2016). Valuing water: The Australian perspective 26 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Implementation of the New South Wales Water Management Act 2000 gave Aboriginal people access to Specific Purpose Aboriginal Cultural Access Licences and exemptions for otherwise mandatory water licences under native title rights. Water-sharing plans under this Act establish the rules for trading and sharing water, and water access licences give the licence holder the right to a share of the available water in a particular area or water source. Importantly, water access licences are not needed for native title rights under the Act. However, water is required under the Act for a positive native title determination; many determinations specify 0 megalitres (ML) (Hartwig et al., 2020). Specific Purpose Aboriginal Cultural Access Licences allow Aboriginal people or entities to access water for personal, domestic, cultural and spiritual purposes (limited to 10 ML). Specific Purpose Aboriginal Community Development Water Access Licences support Aboriginal businesses, but only in coastal areas and under high flow, and in some groundwater systems with water-sharing plans (up to 500 ML). The rules for these licences are discriminatory and show the inequity in water planning. In 2004, the Council of Australian Governments established the National Water Initiative (NWI), which aimed to address transboundary issues and return the Basin water system to health. The NWI policy document, combined with the Commonwealth Water Act 2007, establishes the national water market and National Water Commission and remains the ‘blueprint’ for water management reform in Australia. The NWI agreement requires jurisdictions to provide for Indigenous access to water resources through planning processes, and inclusion of Indigenous customary, social and spiritual objectives in water plans (Jackson et al., 2009). However, this consideration of Aboriginal people and their connection to water is as a footnote and does not give adequate recognition to Indigenous water rights (Taylor et al., 2016). The North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA) initiated the Indigenous Water Policy Group (IWPG) in 2006. The IWPG was formed to address Indigenous rights, responsibilities and interests in water, and to develop institutional arrangements for Indigenous participation in the NWI. The IWPG has highlighted that Indigenous rights and interests span social, cultural, environmental and economic interests. The National Water Quality Management Strategy was reviewed in 2009 to address cultural and spiritual values. It now provides, as an attachment, an illustrated process for incorporating Indigenous cultural and spiritual values in water quality planning. The National Water Quality Management Strategy was updated in 2018 and is now called the Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality (DAWE, 2018). On 6 August 2009, NAILSMA released the Mary River Statement, formally declaring the following key rights for Aboriginal peoples (NAILSMA, 2009). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 27 Box 15: Mary River Statement “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 people 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 United Nations 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. 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… …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 people cannot remain on the margins of discussions about development in the north.” The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was introduced by the MDBA in 2012 and includes a section on Indigenous values and uses (Part 14 of Chapter 10). The Basin Plan is a bipartisan agreement about how the water that flows through the Basin is managed to ensure its long-term health. It provides an integrated and strategic framework for water reform, consistent with the requirements of the Commonwealth Water Act 2007. Part 14 of Chapter 10 of the Basin Plan contains: • objectives and outcomes based on Indigenous values and uses • clauses on consultation and preparation of water resource plans • a clause regarding cultural flows • a clause on the retention of current protection of Indigenous values and uses. If a water resource plan is prepared by a Basin state, it is expected that the MDBA will consult with relevant Indigenous organisations in relation to whether the requirements of this part have been met, for the purposes of paragraph 63(3)(b) of the Act. The Basin Plan is binding on state governments and requires states to engage with Basin representative Aboriginal groups, including MLDRIN and NBAN. States must develop legislation or policy to give effect to the Basin Plan, deliver its outcomes and engage appropriately with First Nations communities. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 28 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Aboriginal water units and initiatives have been established in some Basin states. In 2012, the New South Wales Government established Australia’s first Aboriginal water unit, the Aboriginal Water Initiative (AWI). The role of the AWI team of Aboriginal water staff was to re-engage New South Wales Aboriginal people in water management and planning (Moggridge et al., 2019). Creation of the AWI was primarily based on the objectives and principles of the New South Wales Water Management Act 2000, and to meet the requirements of the Basin Plan. This was achieved through involvement with planning mechanisms, including water-sharing and water resource plans, floodplain management plans and long-term environmental water plans. The AWI also provided advice to stakeholder advisory and water panels, provided cultural awareness training for New South Wales Government staff, built the capacity of the community to better understand water planning through direct engagement and resources, established guidance and protocols, provided input into most new water-sharing plans, and built the capacity of Aboriginal team members. The AWI received a small amount of annual funding through New South Wales Treasury from the Australian Government’s Closing the Gap program, but this ceased at the end of 2016, and the AWI ceased operating in early 2017 (Moggridge et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2016). The NAILSMA 2012 policy paper Indigenous people’s right to the commercial use and management of water on their traditional territories was important in presenting the concept of Strategic Indigenous Reserves (SIRs)—places where water is reserved for Indigenous communities to have guaranteed access— to address Indigenous disadvantage in northern Australia. NAILSMA published the policy paper to present the concept of SIRs as a means to advance Indigenous economic development, to address Indigenous disadvantage in northern Australia, and to enhance Indigenous community participation in water management processes being developed by governments (NAILSMA IWPG, 2013). More recently, the Queensland drought of 2013–2015 led to amendments to the Queensland Water Act 2000 to permit Aboriginal water use for traditional activities or cultural purposes, making traditional use a nonlicensed activity. A timeline of the events described above is summarised in Figure 8. Figure 8. Timeline of recent policy changes related to Aboriginal water rights (Source: Alluvium Consulting) Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 29 Box 16: National versus state arrangements Australia’s legislation has two components: Commonwealth law, which is overarching, and state and territory law. These two different mechanisms for policy can exist within the same Aboriginal clans, families and nations on the same land, which often makes governance complex. For example, native title is engaged through Commonwealth arrangements, but local Aboriginal land councils are engaged through state arrangements (in New South Wales only). A Committee on Aboriginal Water Interests (CAWI) was formed in 2020 by the National Water Reform Committee (NWRC). The NWRC provides an advisory and oversight role for ministers, with a specific focus on progressing national water reform to progress the NWI and other national agreements. In November 2020, CAWI was formed as part of the renewal of the NWI to (National Water Reform Committee, 2020): • identify priority national Indigenous water reform directions, including identifying national Aboriginal water policy principles • support the development of a national policy framework • inform the development of additions and/or amendments to the NWI. The CAWI will report and provide advice to the NWRC. Box 17: Global experience – Recognising legal persona to protect the world’s rivers Contemporary practices to codify the rules that regulate the management of water resources development are increasingly being used to safeguard cultural values. There is an increasing recognition of the inextricable and reciprocal relationship between the social and economic wellbeing of human societies and the rivers and water that sustain them. While water has traditionally been subject to a dominant legal regime of property-based ownership, recognising the legal persona of rivers confers a bundle of rights that means that the river cannot be owned and has the right to be represented in court. In 2008, Ecuador took the extraordinary step of enshrining the legal rights of nature – or Pacha mama - in its national constitution, which includes its natural water bodies. As the first country to do so, it established the highest legal protections for nature that exist in Western law. In the case of the Vicabamba River, where the river was being harmed by road construction, the first rights of nature case decided in Ecuador ordered the termination of the road widening in order to enforce the rights of nature. In December 2016, the states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand in India passed an order to preserve and conserve rivers Ganga and Yamuna, and declared the rivers, and all their tributaries, streams, every natural water flowing with continuous or intermittent flow, as juristic/legal persons/living entities, having the status of a legal person with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. The Court additionally observed that doing so was important to preserve the faith of millions of Indians who have many religious practices associated with these rivers. In New Zealand, the ancestral connection of the Māori people to the Whanganui River was recognized on March 15, 2017. The government passed the “Te Awa Tupua Whanganui River Claims Settlement Bill” providing “personhood” status to the Whanganui River, one of the largest rivers Valuing water: The Australian perspective 30 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin on the North Island of New Zealand. This river has come to be recognized as having “all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person” – something that the Māori have believed all along. The Yurok Tribe based near the southern border of Oregon has granted personhood to a river in northern California, the Klamath River, making it the first know River in North America to have the same legal rights as a human, at least under tribal law, after years of water utilization and climate change having led to reduced water flows in the river and fewer salmon – one of the tribe’s main food sources. Rights of Nature are the beginning of a new legal paradigm emerging in different regions and communities. Granting rivers and other ecosystems legal personality could be an effective way to protect those ecosystems, and the various values associated, from being harmed by human activities. Most importantly, it establishes a whole new perspective on our relationship with the environment and nature. 4.2 Cultural flows and cultural water An important milestone in Aboriginal water rights in the Murray-Darling Basin was the adoption of the Echuca Declaration in 2007. The Aboriginal nations of the southern Basin came together at Echuca and agreed on a definition of cultural flows (MLDRIN, 2007): “Cultural Flows are water entitlements that are legally and beneficially owned by the Nations of a sufficient and adequate quantity and quality to improve the spiritual, cultural, natural, environmental, social, and economic conditions of those Nations. These are our inherent rights.” The declaration was subsequently adopted by NBAN in 2010. It is an affirmation of water rights that provides a holistic interpretation of how First Nations people seek to manage water contemporary Australia. Importantly, the declaration is the result of an extensive process of organisation and consultation, where communities and Nations from a vast area gather to discuss their shared interests. Embedded within the declaration is the concept of self-determination. In specifying legal ownership of entitlement as a defining characteristic of cultural flows, Aboriginal Australians have identified a need to act independently, but have also acknowledged the contemporary legal system of water entitlements as a framework that, if reformed, they can work within to advance their own interests. The numerous ways in which water entitlements can improve the conditions of nations also points to the complex and interconnected values that water holds. Dedicated cultural flows are not consistently part of the water management system in Australia. Achieving cultural flows will take time. Informed by the Echuca Declaration, the MDBA National Cultural Flows Research Project (2011–2018) sought to establish a national framework for cultural flows. The planning and research committee for the project included MLDRIN and NBAN (the two peak Traditional Owner organisations in the Basin that focus on natural resource management), and NAILSMA (MDBA, 2021b). The project’s purpose was to secure a future in which Aboriginal water allocations are embedded within Australia’s water planning and management regimes, delivering cultural, spiritual, social, environmental and economic benefit to communities in the Basin and beyond. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 31 Research outcomes included (Munro, n.d.): • clearer understanding of value and scope of cultural flows • methods for defining cultural values and quantifying cultural flow requirements • monitoring and indicator frameworks • identified opportunities for policy, legislative and governance reform. A national framework for cultural flows has been developed from the findings of the National Cultural Flows Research Project. Under the framework, the values of cultural water use can be described and measured for the first time. The framework shows that it is possible to measure and deliver cultural flow outcomes (MDBA, 2021b). Developing a new Basin-wide approach to cultural flows will take time, but from the project comes a method for determining, delivering and assessing cultural flows. The project highlights key future work to increase capacity in Aboriginal communities to advocate for and manage cultural flow allocations to protect Aboriginal values and interests in water (MDBA, 2021b). Box 18: Global experience – The World Bank’s environmental and social safeguards policies—the case of VPHEP The World Bank’s social safeguards policies recognise that cultural heritage provides continuity in tangible and intangible forms between the past, present and future. The World Bank–funded Vishnugad Pipalkoti Hydro Electric Project (VPHEP), located on a tributary of the Ganges River in India and approved in 2011, has been stalled because of religious and cultural concerns. A complaint about the project eventually led to its inspection by the World Bank Inspection Panel, which claimed that ‘there is no river water available for religious and cultural rituals like bathing festival, funeral rites, river worship etc.’. 4.3 Engagement and governance arrangements Although there is a recognised legal system for identifying Aboriginal land rights through the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 and the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993, recognition and consideration of water rights are far less formalised. The cultural flows paradigm has been initiated and developed by Aboriginal Australians across the Basin and northern Australia; so far, it relies on commitments made through policies rather than legislation. Government agencies have shown significant commitment to increasing the capacity of Aboriginal organisations to represent their members and identify cultural values through their support of MLDRIN and NBAN, and the program of Aboriginal Waterways Assessments (see Section 4.5). Without formalised statutory obligations, the success of on-ground initiatives to identify and enhance the cultural values of water currently relies heavily on the commitment of frontline staff working at project and program level, and the organisational capacity or cultural strength of the First Nations community. This can lead to patchy progress, with different nations in different places progressing through the cultural flows framework at different paces, depending on the state of local relationships. However, a flexible policy approach also allows local relationships to develop according to the needs and capacity of the local Aboriginal community, which may not be possible with a more prescriptive approach. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 32 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin In the current context, three elements appear to be critical to the success of initiatives to advance cultural values of water: • binding obligations on agency staff to engage via high-level policy commitments • long-term relationships between Aboriginal people and frontline agency staff • cultural strength and organisational capacity within the Aboriginal community. The progress being made at local levels provides examples of the outcomes that can be achieved through recognising cultural values, and creates momentum to formalise commitments in legislation. 4.4 Institutions Myriad agencies and stakeholders work to advance First Nations people’s cultural values of water in the Basin. Organisations’ obligations and rights regarding cultural values are often defined in legislative and policy instruments. Organisations’ agendas can be complementary or competing, creating further complexity. The major types of organisations in the Basin are described below. First Nations are often represented by an organisation that fulfils a contemporary statutory role while also reflecting traditional ways of organising. Examples of these are local Aboriginal land councils in New South Wales and Registered Aboriginal Parties in Victoria. These organisations have roles under the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 and the Victorian Cultural Heritage Act 2006, respectively. The organisations have an agreed process for selecting members and staff according to customary law and other contemporary considerations. Representative organisations can fulfil other roles when partner organisations are seeking to understand the views of the nation they represent. For example, the Victorian Government and catchment management authorities have a policy of consulting via Registered Aboriginal Parties to fulfil the government’s obligations under the Water Act 1989, due to their established and transparent governance arrangements. Government agencies involved in managing the Basin have legislative and policy obligations to consider cultural values of water when executing their functions. Government agencies include: • government departments • statutory authorities • government-owned corporations • the MDBA. There is increasing recognition of the value of representation of First Nations people at senior levels. Aboriginal individuals have recently been appointed to the boards of several statutory authorities, including the MDBA. In some cases, consideration of Aboriginal candidates for board positions is official policy. Nongovernment organisations (NGOs), including philanthropic organisations, and universities can be valuable partners for Aboriginal organisations and people. They can act independently from government policy, and often have skills, capabilities and resources that Aboriginal organisations may lack. University researchers bring a wealth of expertise and techniques that can help First Nations people identify and reconnect with their cultural values—the Barapa Barapa experience cited in this case study is an example. There are numerous examples of philanthropic organisations purchasing large properties for the purpose of nature conservation, and entering into partnerships with First Nations people to manage the land and water to enhance cultural values. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 33 The FPEWC developed a policy for improving the recognition of First Nations people’s water rights and for increasing the engagement of First Nations people in water issues (FPEWC, 2012). The policy presented 15 principles across the themes of: • governance and decision making • Aboriginal water • Aboriginal economic water. The governance principles require that decision-making structures include Aboriginal people as self-determining Traditional Owners, who are involved in all stages of the decision-making process, especially the preparatory early stages. The principles of Aboriginal water describe its complexity, how it interacts with environmental water, and the work required to identify and quantify it. The principles of Aboriginal economic water draw links with high-level government commitments to improving Aboriginal wellbeing and describe how Aboriginal economic water will fit into the framework of consumptive water allocations. Like the Echuca Declaration, the policy stipulates that the water must be owned by Aboriginal people who enjoy the same rights as other entitlement holders. Many of the policy principles are being implemented in various jurisdictions across the Basin. Culturally appropriate engagement processes are gradually being developed, and governments have committed to helping Aboriginal people access water for economic development. Indigenous Australians are increasingly involved in the planning of environmental water in both advisory roles and decision- making roles; in some cases, this is required by legislation. However, environmental considerations still supersede cultural needs in the case of conflict, and engagement tends to be overly narrow, often relying on key individuals to act within a western framework rather than promoting broad, community-based decision making. Although governments have committed to investigate opportunities for Aboriginal water entitlements, most systems are already fully allocated or overallocated. In combination with declining inflows due to climate change, this makes the realisation of Aboriginal economic water and cultural flows a politically challenging task. Despite the challenges, public sentiment is often more receptive than institutional sentiment to reallocation of water to Aboriginal people (Jackson et al., 2019). 4.5 On-ground actions There are a range of positive examples of Aboriginal Australians’ involvement in water management and the realisation of cultural values. The National Cultural Flows Research Project introduced the concept of Aboriginal Waterways Assessments (AWAs), which are closely based on the New Zealand Māori method of Cultural Health Index. These assessments can take many forms, depending on the nature and preferences of the nation and its members. The common characteristic is a group of people from a nation visiting a water site together and recording its cultural values. The conversations can be recorded in any format, and are used as a reference for the nation and its members to reconnect with Country and pass on stories from one generation to another. The results of the assessments remain the intellectual property of the people who provided the stories and are to be used to benefit the nation during engagement or negotiation with external stakeholders. Reconnecting with community and Country is an essential step for Aboriginal nations to be able to engage meaningfully with the contemporary system of water governance. Dispossession of land and the forcible removal of people from their communities have damaged intergenerational transfer of knowledge and understanding. Participants in AWAs often remark that, after getting back on Country with their community, they begin to recall stories and connections that they had thought were forgotten, and hear their friends and family speaking enthusiastically in ways they had not heard before. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 34 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous ranger programs are growing and multiplying across Australia, including in the Murray-Darling Basin. In September 2020, the Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous River Rangers Program was announced by the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia as part of the Murray-Darling Communities Investment Package. The $3.1 million program will establish five Indigenous river ranger groups dedicated to improving waterway health across the Basin (NIAA, 2020). Through the program, at least 27 full-time Indigenous rangers will be employed by Indigenous organisations to use their knowledge and connection to Country to contribute to environmental, cultural and waterway health in the Basin. The new groups will operate for 12 months and commenced on 1 July 2021. The National Indigenous Affairs Agency will deliver the program (NIAA, 2020). Ranger programs, like AWAs, offer an opportunity for a community to come together on Country and connect with its cultural values. Active participation in land and water management also provides economic opportunities through employment. Currently, examples of Aboriginal rangers participating in the monitoring, evaluation and reporting process for environmental water deliveries are in their inception. Aboriginal people often have intimate knowledge of ecological processes and values that complements scientific data to identify critical areas to monitor. On-ground activities for monitoring the response of flora and fauna to environmental water deliveries fulfils cultural obligations to care for Country, provides mental and physical health benefits for participants, and promotes social cohesion. Working alongside researchers gives Aboriginal people the opportunity to learn skills that help them understand how their Country works and how to measure its health. Non-Indigenous researchers are shown new perspectives and ways to ‘read’ the land that can generate significant and penetrating hypotheses to test. In particular, the Aboriginal Australian perspective is challenging some of the unconscious assumptions western scientists hold about ‘natural’ processes and ecological equilibrium. Box 19: Indigenous Protected Areas Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) are areas of land and sea in Australia that are voluntarily managed by Indigenous groups as protected areas for biodiversity conservation through voluntary agreements with the Australian Government. They are an important part of the National Reserve System, which is the network of formally recognised parks, reserves and protected areas across Australia. There are currently 78 dedicated IPAs, which account for 46 percent of the National Reserve System; however, none are established within the Murray-Darling Basin (DAWE, 2021). Although most are not in the Basin, Indigenous ranger jobs and Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) are providing essential environmental management and protection across vast areas of Australia. This work—controlling and eradicating feral animals and noxious weeds, protecting threatened species, reducing greenhouse gas pollution and supporting critical research—delivers results from which all Australians benefit. The unique conservation and cultural management that Indigenous rangers perform keeps lands and seas healthy in a multitude of ways. Ranger programs are offering a template for how Aboriginal people could be involved in management of water resources and aquatic habitat. Gaining a commitment from government to implement programs such as these in the Basin is a high priority for Aboriginal communities. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 35 The beneficial effects of the Indigenous ranger and IPA programs go even deeper. There is evidence of reductions in alcohol-related issues, increased movement from welfare to work, lower rates of incarceration and inspiring stories of motivated kids who declare at school they ‘want to be a ranger’. These powerful stories have been told many times by Indigenous people. It is vital for Australian public policy that we all understand, own and support what are now world-leading programs. The challenge and opportunity exist to secure and grow this success with more communities, with more rangers and on more lands across Australia. The evidence supporting a significant expansion of the Indigenous ranger and IPA programs is compelling. It backs recent calls for a long-term commitment from policy makers to support viable futures for Indigenous Australians on their traditional Country. It would also keep the environment of some of the most special parts of Australia—places of great beauty and natural significance—healthy and vibrant. Various reports highlight the positive role that the Australian Government can play in securing these programs and increasing their beneficial effects. The Australian Government and state and territory governments have much to reflect on and address in terms of policy and programs that have failed to deliver for Indigenous Australians. It is vital that we collectively identify and support approaches and models that do succeed. Indigenous rangers and IPAs are such models. This is a contemporary story of opportunity and hope based on practical outcomes, and alleviation of economic and social disadvantages. It is about the future, but it builds on millennia of cultural strength and connection to Country. The challenge for us all is to respond to the calls from Indigenous landowners and managers to strengthen, secure and invest in this work for the benefit of all Australians. Australia’s Oceans Policy recognises the responsibilities and interests of Indigenous people in ocean environments. The policy’s objectives include ‘to involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the use, conservation and management of Australia’s marine jurisdiction’ (Vince et al., 2015). As a result, Australia’s first regional marine plan—the South-east Regional Marine Plan—was released in 2004. One of the actions identified in the plan is the development of sea Country plans as a potential vehicle for Indigenous involvement in natural resources use and management. Sea Country planning aims to help Indigenous people negotiate with other marine managers and users to develop policies and institutional arrangements that are respectful of Indigenous people’s rights, interests and responsibilities in sea Country (Ngarrindjeri Nation, 2007). Victoria’s Aboriginal Water Program has an objective of making unallocated water available for Aboriginal Victorians. A recent positive outcome of this program is the allocation of 2 gigalitres of unallocated water from the Mitchell River in coastal southeast Victoria to the Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Corporation to manage for shared environmental and social benefits. The allocation will allow the Gunaikurnai community to reconnect with water and Country, and achieve benefits for itself and the broader community (Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Association, 2020). Achieving similar outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin is complicated by the fact that river systems are fully allocated, meaning that water for Aboriginal groups will need to be accessed from the market. However, as the Gunaikurnai community comes together in the coming years to determine governance arrangements and objectives for their water, this case has the potential to be an example for groups and jurisdictions within the Basin. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 36 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 5 General lessons from the Australian experience There has been a significant shift to address the disadvantage in Aboriginal communities in Australia and to acknowledge First Nations cultural values in water management. The following insights and reflections are based on experiences, guidance and advice from Indigenous communities, and from agencies responsible for the integration of cultural values and perspectives into water management in the Murray-Darling Basin. They highlight the need for Aboriginal Australians to be more proactively engaged in water planning and management across the Basin. Box 20: Example – Employment opportunities and business operations under the Narrandjerri Land and Sea Country Plan The Ngarrindjeri Land and Sea Country Plan provides the framework to organise various benefits, and a segue into economic, employment, cultural, social and health wellbeing (Ngarrindjeri Nation, 2007). By mapping these outcomes to the Council of Australian Governments priorities for closing the gap, ranger programs are making positive inroads in addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Some groups are more successful than others. The literature suggests that it takes time for ranger teams to operate as a cohesive unit and build capacity through training and experience. The Narrindjerri have business operations in the South Australian fishery and own a 25 percent share of the pippy fishery ‘Kuti’, as well as a flourishing native bush and flower business that supplies South Australia and an international market. The success of each business module is underpinned by a strong employment platform that the Ngarrindjeri Nation Land and Sea Country Plan provides the opportunity for. In summary, sea country plans aim to (Ngarrindjeri Nation, 2007): • improve Indigenous participation in marine planning and management • address a range of cultural, ecological and economic issues, and enable Indigenous people to identify opportunities to derive greater social and economic benefit from the management of sea Country • facilitate Indigenous participation in sea Country management at appropriate geographical and cultural scales • help others develop greater understanding of Indigenous people’s sea Country interests and responsibilities. Figure 9. The Coorong National Park, part of Narrandjerri Country (Source: SA Department for Environment and Water) Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 37 As discussed in this case study, Aboriginal people and communities of Australia have had little involvement in formal water management processes in the past. This has resulted in knowledge gaps and inequitable access for Aboriginal Australians to provide adequate and appropriate input into water management, water-sharing planning and relevant legislation. While this case study reflects on this lack of opportunity in the past, it also notes the significant commitment from key Australian Government and state and territory government institutions to increase the engagement and integration of Aboriginal cultural values and perspectives into water planning and management. These include key government agencies and individuals involved in development and implementation of the Basin Plan and other water-sharing plans in the Basin. There has been a significant shift to address the disadvantage in Aboriginal communities, which has been a major barrier for governments to overcome in recent times. There is now strong focus to ensure meaningful and respectful conversations when consulting with Aboriginal Australians on water and natural resource management, and a fresh opportunity to reverse the current status. In recent years, there has been a far greater opportunity for Aboriginal Australians to be involved in the direction of the Australian water sector using a range of approaches emerging from Indigenous people and key representative organisations. Below is a personal perspective by Aunty Esther Kirby on her vision for the future of water in the Basin. Box 21: Aunty Esther’s vision for the future of water in the Murray-Darling Basin I’d like to see our young people, and not just Aboriginal, but non-Aboriginal people as well, learn to value what they’ve got around. After this coronavirus, surely they’re learning to value things like water and how we use it and who we share it with. And make sure our animals out there and our ducks and everything that’s out there, they’re getting a fair share of water. And our trees and everything. Because if you don’t have water you won’t have trees, and you won’t have too much else. You might as well kiss it goodbye. Australia needs to wake up to themselves and really value the natural commodities that they have instead of going out trying to destroy it. There’s plenty there to be shared around. I would like them to see what we pretty much got now, or what we had a few years ago. More trees, the water being taken care of. And for them to be able to go out and sit under a tree and go fishing and catch fish or go camping at the bush and see the markings on the ground and on the trees that tell them that them old fellows were there and they looked after that land pretty good. That land has been shared out and it’s been a little bit depleted. But all and all, there’s still a lot of things out there, like natural stuff, water and trees, places to camp, places to get firewood. — Aunty Esther Kirby, Barapa Barapa, Victoria 2020 Valuing water: The Australian perspective 38 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 5.1 Insights and recommendations from the experience in Australia The following is a summary of insights and recommendations emerging from the Australian experience for improving the opportunities for Aboriginal Australians and their cultural values to be included in water management decisions and implementation: • Improve understanding and capacity of Aboriginal people and communities to participate in water-sharing, water access and water management processes. This includes providing sufficient resources to increase the capability of Aboriginal communities—to enable a higher level of understanding, interpretation and active engagement by these communities in water planning and policy development. • Incorporate Aboriginal cultural values and perspectives, as well as cultural science and knowledge, into water policy and planning to increase sustainable use of water in the context of natural resource management. Provide credible evidence of Aboriginal people’s cultural values and methodologies related to water management. • Increase comparative research projects, which apply social science methodologies for comparing different cultures, to better inform governments and NGOs on Aboriginal issues in relation to water management, and how these issues need to be interpreted and included in water planning and sharing plans. • Improve access to opportunities for Aboriginal communities to enter into water industries and markets. • Integrate water management issues into Indigenous community planning (which is often focused on business and social matters), providing for more efficient use of existing resources, and enabling linkages with other land and environmental management initiatives. • Improve networks and partnerships with local, regional and national government agencies; NGOs; research bodies; and private industry, in relation to water sharing, planning and management. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 39 References Allen Consulting Group. (2011). Assessment of the economic and employment outcomes of the Working on Country program. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Armstrong, L. (2016). The state of reconciliation in Australia 2016: Our history, our story, our future. Reconciliation Australia. DAWE. (2018). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. DAWE. (2021). Indigenous Protected Areas. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. https://www.environment.gov.au/land/indigenous-protected-areas FPWEC. (2012). Slides: Policy framework: FPWEC: First Peoples’ Water Engagement Council. First Peoples’ Water Engagement Council. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=indig enous-water-justice-symposium Frangos, M., Moggridge, B., Webb, T., Bassani, T., & Duncan, P. (2020). The original water industry: Establishing an Indigenous voice in the modern water industry. Online Journal of the Australian Water Association, 5(2). https://www.awa.asn.au/resources/latest-news/business/diversity/original-water-industry Gardner, A., Bartlett, R., Gray, J., & Nelson, R. (2018). Water resources law (2nd ed.). LexisNexis. Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Association. (2020). Water for Gunaikurnai Country. Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Association. https://gunaikurnai.org.au/water-for-gunaikurnai-country/ Hart, B., Byron, N., Bond, N., Pollino, C., & Stewardson, M. (Eds.). (2020). Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: Its future management, volume 1 (1st ed.). Elsevier. Hartwig, L., Jackson, S., & Osborne, N. (2020). Trends in Aboriginal water ownership in New South Wales, Australia: The continuities between colonial and neoliberal forms of dispossession. Land Use Policy, 99, 104869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104869 Jackson, S., Tan, P. L., & Altman, J. (2009). Indigenous Fresh Water Forum: Proceedings, outcomes and recommendations. National Water Commission. Jackson, S., Hatton MacDonald, D., & Bark, R. H. (2019). Public attitudes to inequality in water distribution: Insights from preferences for water reallocation from irrigators to Aboriginal Australians. Water Resources Research, 55(7), 6033–6048. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025011 Mallawaarachchi, T., Auricht, C. M., Loch, A., Adamson, D. C., & Quiggin, J. (2020). Water allocation in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin: Managing change under heightened uncertainty. Economic Analysis and Policy, 66, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.01.001 MDBA. (2018). A guide to Traditional Owner groups for water resource plan areas: surface water. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. MDBA. (2021a). The Murray-Darling Basin and why it’s important. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/importance-murray-darling-basin MDBA. (2021b). Water for First Nations people. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/ about-basin/water-for-first-nations-people MDBA. (n.d.). Map showing the extent of the Murray Darling Basin. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/importance-murray-darling-basin/where-basin MLDRIN. (2007). MLDRIN Echuca Declaration 2007. Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations. https://www.mldrin.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Echuca-Declaration-Final-PDF.pdf Valuing water: The Australian perspective 40 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Moggridge, B., Betterridge, L., & Thompson, R. (2019). Integrating Aboriginal cultural values into water planning: A case study from New South Wales, Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 26(3), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2019.1650837 Munro, A. (n.d.). National Cultural Flows Research Project. NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. NAILSMA. (2009). Mary River Statement. Kantri Laif, December, 4–7. NAILSMA IWPG. (2013). Indigenous people’s right to the commercial use and management of water on their traditional territories: An Indigenous water policy position—the strategic Indigenous reserve (NAILSMA Knowledge Series, Issue 017/2013). North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd. https://web.archive.org/web/20160316141950/http://www.nailsma.org.au/sites/default/files/publications/ KS%200172013%20SIR%20Policy%20Paper_110313.pdf National Landcare Program. (2013). Caring for our Country achievements report 2008–2013. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. National Water Reform Committee. (2020). Sub-Committee on Indigenous Water Interests Fact Sheet. National Water Reform Committee. Ngarrindjeri Nation. (2007). Ngarrindjeri Nation Yarluwar-Ruwe plan: Caring for Ngarrindjeri sea Country and culture (Prepared on behalf of the Ngarrindjeri Nation by the Ngarrindjeri Tendi, the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee, the Ngarrindjeri Native Title Management Committee). Ngarrindjeri Land and Progress Association. NIAA. (2020). Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous River Rangers Program grant opportunity information. National Indigenous Australians Agency. NIAA. (2021). Indigenous ranger programs. National Indigenous Australians Agency. https://www.niaa.gov.au/ indigenous-affairs/environment/indigenous-ranger-program Nursey-Bray, M., Palmer, R., Smith, T. F., & Rist, P. (2019). Old ways for new days: Australian Indigenous peoples and climate change. International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 24(5), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13549839.2019.1590325 Pardoe, C., & Hutton, D. (2020). Aboriginal heritage as ecological proxy in southeastern Australia: A Barapa wetland village. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 10, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486 563.2020.1821400 Taylor, K. S., Moggridge, B. J., & Poelina, A. (2016). Australian Indigenous water policy and the impacts of the ever-changing political cycle. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 20(2), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13241583.2017.1348887 Vince, J., Smith, A. D. M., Sainsbury, K. J., Cresswell, I. D., Smith, D. C., & Haward, M. (2015). Australia’s oceans policy: Past, present and future. Marine Policy, 57, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.02.014 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 41 Valuing water: The Australian perspective 42 Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin The Australian Water Partnership is an Australian Government international cooperation initiative helping developing countries in the Indo-Pacific region, and beyond, work towards the sustainable management of their water resources. Australian Water Partnership UC Innovation Centre (Bldg 22), University Drive South, Canberra ACT 2617, Australia T +61 2 6206 8320 E contact@waterpartnership.org.au waterpartnership.org.au