Technical Information
Are landscapes that are culturally important to Aboriginal people being managed appropriately?
This document describes the sources of information, advice, methods, indicators and data processing procedures used to develop the reports. Reliability of data, as well as metadata attributes, are also described.
State NRM Plan Guiding Target:
Increase understanding of the condition of landscapes (geological and culturally important features).
State NRM Plan Representative Measure:
Condition of above and below ground geological features and landscapes, including those that are culturally important for Aboriginal people.
Data collection period:
2000–2014
Expected frequency of reporting:
Annual Data sources:
1. The Department of State Development, Aboriginal Affairs Reconciliation (DSD-AAR) 2. Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth project – Murray Futures
Indicators used:
1. Number of Aboriginal sites, objects and remains that are entered on to the central archive over time are tracked in these reports, however, there is no not enough information collected to assess the condition and trends of these sites and artefacts.
Methods of data collection and processing:
1. The number of sites on the central archive were obtained via Department of State Development, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation
2. Aboriginal Engagement Officers were contacted for each region to discuss whether the landscape condition was monitored at Aboriginal heritage sites. In general sites are not monitored from the perspective of Aboriginal heritage, but the landscape may have been monitored for other purposes.
3. Maps were made using the Aboriginal Language Map (D.Horton, 1994) (with minor alterations as suggested by NRM regional staff) and the following SDE layers, features were coloured using regional colour tab at top of the reports:-
AMLR: Coastal environment (COASTAL.CconservationAssessmentCells)
AW: Rockholes, springs and soaks (selection from: TOPO.GeoData250k_WaterPoints) EP: Coastal environment (COASTAL.CconservationAssessmentCells)
NY: Coastal environment (COASTAL.CconservationAssessmentCells)
SAAL: Cooper Creek and Cooper Creek North (selection from: TOPO.WaterCourse)
SAMDB: Wetlands associated with the River Murray (from: LANDCAPE.Wetlands_Murray, CONSERVATION.RamsarReserves, ADMIN.PrescribedWaterCourse)
SE: Coorong (LANDCAPE.Wetlands_Murray, CONSERVATION.RamsarReserves, ADMIN.PrescribedWaterCourse) and Blue Lake (ADMIN.SAWaterTitle) NOTE: Tindale Aboriginal language map used in SE, because map better reflects languages in region.
Trend and condition analyses:
The current condition of culturally important landscapes is unknown. Trends in the condition are also unknown.
Future reporting measures:
Aboriginal landscapes are more than the physical environment, they include the values, uses, laws, and stories associated with the land and sea. Each of these elements is connected and imbedded within each other. Future reports could include cultural
indicators to measure condition, including the number of people on the land, their engagement with natural resource
management, values of land and sea, and health of people and land. A few of these elements are addressed in the report card:
How many Aboriginal people are involved in NRM?
SAMDB and SE are in the process of identifying Aboriginal land use values in some landscapes within the region. It may be possible to monitor landscape condition from an Aboriginal perspective once this is achieved.
The following government agencies contributed to this report:
1. Department of State Development, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation 2. Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) The following non-government agencies contributed to this report:
None.
Key stakeholders:
Local Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal Statewide Advisory Committee, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, State Aboriginal Heritage Committee, Natural Resources Management Council, Natural Resources Management Boards, DEWNR Aboriginal Engagement Officers, SA Native Title Services.
Information reliability scoring:
Information is scored for reliability based on average scores given for information currency and applicability, and its level of spatial representation (Tables 1–3).
Table 1. Information currency Reliability Criteria
5 Information up to 3 years old 4 Information up to 5 years old 3 Information up to 7 years old 2 Information up to 10 years old 1 Information >10 years old
Table 2. Applicability of the information Reliability Criteria
5 All data based on direct indicators of the measure 4 Most data based on direct indicators of the measure 3 Most data based on indirect indicators of the measure 2 All data based on indirect indicators of the measure 1 Data are based on expert opinion of the measure
Table 3. Spatial representation of information (sampling design) Reliability Criteria
5 Information is collected from across the whole region/state (or whole distribution of asset within the region/state) using a stratified sampling design
4 Information is collected from across the whole region/state (or whole distribution of asset within the region/state) using a sampling design that is not stratified
3 Information is collected from an area that represents less than half the spatial distribution of the asset within the region/state
2 Information is collected from an area that represents less than 25% the spatial distribution of the asset within the region/state
1 Information is collected from an area that represents less than 5% the spatial distribution of the asset within the region/state or spatial representation unknown
There is no information to assess the condition of features or landscapes that are culturally important to Aboriginal communi ties.
Reliability of data can not be scored.
This report is linked to the following reports:
1. How many Aboriginal people are involved in NRM?
2. Is the condition of our geological features and iconic landscapes improving?
Metadata description:
Project/Dataset name: DSD-AAR central archive
Abstract/description Number of Aboriginal sites, objects and remains that have been entered on to the central archive (per NRM region)
Data types Numerical
Organisation/ DEWNR business area that
sponsors/holds/manages the data
Department of State Development, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation
Date range Date: 2000 – 2014
Study area Statewide
Data format Excel spreadsheet
Data distribution rules Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Is the dataset source data (raw),
value-add data
(analysed/summarised) or final indicator/score data?
Raw data
Photo credit details:
Title: Desert Parks 2010 170 Owner: DEWNR
SAMDB: Rivlandstrams(22) – The River Murray and floodplains Owner: Natural Resources SAMDB
SE: South East Aboriginal Focus Group, cultural water event at Millicent.
Owner: Natural Resources SE
Scientific literature referred to in the report:
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. (2013). Environmental Monitoring Report, Murray Futures, Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth. Government of South Australia. Accessed online (June 2014)
Horton, D (ed.) 1994, The Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (Aboriginal Studies Press), Canberra, ACT.
Mancini, H. (2013). Ecological condition assessment of Cooper Creek (SA) wetlands, reported to the South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resource Management Board, Pt Augusta.
Robinson, C., Smyth, D. & Whitehead, P.J. (2004). Bush tucker, bush pets and bush threats: cooperative management of feral animals in Australia’s Kakadu National Park. Conservation Biology, 19(5): 1385-1391.
Background information into the protection offered by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1998
Wiltshire & Wallis (2008). A history of Aboriginal heritage protection legislation in South Australia, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 25(2): 98-114.
Following information is for internal information only. Some details will not be published online.
Author/s:
External reviewers:
People/departments consulted:
Aboriginal Engagement Officers: Phil McNamara (SAMDB), Bruce MacPherson (AW), Jackie Watts (SAAL), David New, Lachlan Sutherland (SE), Max Barr, Deborah Furbank (NY).
Information that was omitted and reason:
Where we are at: Interpretation of the “where we are at” score should be either: getting better, getting worse or stable.
Where we are at = unknown.
1. AMLR: Story of Tjilbruke was used to identify Aboriginal heritage sites along the southern coastal landscape. The NRM region did not provide any information on monitoring, Aboriginal engagement, or cultural site condition.
2. AW: There is a strong partnership in the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM region between the traditional natural resource managers and those employed by DEWNR. Fresh water sources are particularly important to Aboriginal communities and are Aboriginal heritage sites. The condition of waterholes in the AW region is improved through projects that provide resources (ie vehicles, food) to Aboriginal communities, who visit waterholes, clean them up and tell their stories to the next generation. These projects have a clear cultural focus as well as an environmental one.
3. EP: Information comes from Regional Development Australia, Culture and Heritage page.
http://www.eyreregion.com.au/life-here/lifestyle/culture-and-heritage 4. There is no report for KI
5. NY: The Yorke Peninsula coastline contains a number of Aboriginal heritage sites. DEWNR supports the Aboriginal community at Point Pierce in a number of projects that improve the environmental condition in the area. Some monitoring exists (shorebird monitoring) but results were not provided to calculate a condition score for the region.
6. SAAL: There are a number of projects that look at the condition of the land, in which there are Aboriginal heritage sites (some data are published). These projects are multidisciplinary and tend to look at sites that are valuable to a number of
stakeholders (Aboriginal, tourism, mining, pastoralists). This report is interested namely in assessments of the fresh water sources and the management plans designed to balance values and uses (Cooper Creek condition assessment report).
7. SAMDB: The Murray-River and associated wetlands were identified as being important to Aboriginal communities. DEWNR supports a number of projects that engage with Aboriginal communities and support improving the environmental condition of the areas. The overall condition of the River Murray is reported on in separate report, which is linked in the text.
8. SE: The Murray-River, Coorong and Lower Lakes were again identified as being important to Aboriginal communities. DEWNR has engaged with the South East Aboriginal Focus Group and the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority to cooperatively manage the natural resources in the SE including parts of the Murray, the Coorong and Lower Lakes. The condition of the Coorong and Lower Lakes is monitored through the Living Murray project. Results of the 2012-13 monitoring in summarised in the DEWNR (2013) report “Environmental monitoring report: Murray features, Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth”.
Key information gaps:
Trends in the condition of Aboriginal landscapes and current status of Aboriginal landscapes are unknown.
The number of sites recorded for entry on the Central Archive does not reflect the amount of survey work being undertaken in the regions. Without recording and monitoring it is difficult to map and assess site distribution or condition on an individual o r landscape level
Information about most sites is kept confidential. Knowledge of sacred sites is learned through a process of initiation and gaining an understanding of Aboriginal law. It is, by definition, not public knowledge. This is why the existence of many sites might not be broadcast to the wider world even when they are threatened.
