New partnerships for managing large desert landscapes: experiences from the Martu Living Deserts Project

Additional keywords: conservation, country, culture, threatened species.

Australia is an extremely dry continent. Aridlands comprise ~46% of continental Australia, of which 59% (211 million ha) is owned and managed by its Traditional Owners (analysis based on maps in Altman 2014). Return of land to Traditional Owners has increased significantly over the past two decades through native title determinations and land buy backs.

Salmon and Gerritsen (2013) suggest that off-reserve conservation by Aboriginal people and pastoralists will be a necessary component of the overall conservation effort in Australia’s rangelands. In recent years, Indigenous land managed for conservation increased dramatically. For example, since the Australian Government’s Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) program began in 1997/98 there have been 72 IPAs declared by Traditional Owners covering 65 million ha across Australia as a whole with 20 of these (covering almost 50 million ha) within the aridlands (as at November 2015).

Managing land for conservation outcomes is challenging in vast, remote and sparsely populated areas. Indigenous ranger programs have been established to meet this challenge and are now estimated to employ 1400 people, including 600 people working in IPAs of which 562 are Indigenous Australians. However, as government funding is limited for Indigenous ranger positions, partnerships are increasingly being formed between Indigenous groups, environmental non-government organisations and private sector organisations to supplement and build on government funding and support.

Here, we outline one such partnership between Martu Traditional Owners, Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa (KJ; an indigenous corporation), The Nature Conservancy and BHP Billiton together in what is termed the Martu Living Deserts Project. This project supports capacity building across all of KJ’s programs and builds upon a strong foundation that was created with financial support from other partners such as the Australian Government (through its Working on Country and Caring for our Country programs) and the regional natural resource management organisation, Rangelands NRM Western Australia (Rangelands NRM). In addition to those partners, Martu and KJ have worked closely with government agencies such as the Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife, the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia and CSIRO that provide technical expertise for on-ground land management activities. The efforts of these organisations are also important in assisting Martu people achieve their aspirations. Building on foundational efforts of previous programs and partnerships is a common feature of conservation and natural resource management in Australia (e.g. Fitzsimons et al. 2013).

The Martu people of Australia’s Western Desert region have been living on and managing their land for thousands of years. Martu country has been described as ‘the harshest physical environment on earth ever inhabited by man before the Industrial Revolution’ (Gould 1969). It is perhaps for this reason, coupled with the region’s extreme remoteness, that Martu people were among the last Indigenous Australians to come into contact with European Australians, as recently as the 1960s. There are extensively documented accounts of Martu people, still alive today, having their first contact with ‘whitefellas’ as recently as 1964 (Davenport et al. 2005). Martu people moved off the land from the 1920s and 1960s with the encouragement of ‘whitefellas’ and the provision of more readily available food. After a long struggle, Martu were granted exclusive native title to their lands in 2002 – the second largest native title determination in Australian history (13.6 million ha or roughly twice the size of the Australian State of Tasmania or the US State of Alabama). The largest current determination is the 16.77 million ha Ngaanyatjarra lands, which adjoin Martu lands to the south-east. The Martu native title area extends over large parts of the Great Sandy, Little Sandy and Gibson Deserts (Fig. 1). After their native title was recognised, the priority for Martu people was to find a way to leverage those rights in a way that would enable them to go back to their country, teach young people about country and look after country. These cultural imperatives drove Martu people to seek partners they could work with to manage their land while improving economic opportunities for their people.

Fig. 1.  Martu country showing the location of the Martu Native Title Determination Area and Karlamilyi National Park.

Here, we outline the establishment of the Martu land management program, the values of Martu country that were identified for protection, the threats to those values, how those threats are being addressed, results so far, future directions and challenges, before drawing some conclusions.

Through KJ (based in Newman, in Western Australia’s Pilbara region) Martu people set about developing ways to fulfil their cultural imperatives and manage their lands. Early support came from several partners including the Australian and Western Australian governments and Rangelands NRM. Recognising the region’s immense ecological and cultural value, BHP Billiton and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) formed a partnership with KJ in 2010 to support Martu people in managing their lands as part of the Martu Living Deserts Project or Warrarnpa Kana in Martu wangka (language). BHP Billiton operates some of the world’s largest iron ore mines in the Pilbara to the west of Martu country and invests significantly in Pilbara communities. They are the principal corporate sponsor of this project. The Nature Conservancy is one of the world’s largest conservation organisations working to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. In Australia, TNC works in large landscapes to address pressing conservation threats. These include the tropical savannas of northern Australia (e.g. Fitzsimons and Looker 2012; Fitzsimons et al. 2012; Game et al. 2013), Gondwana Link and the Great Western Woodlands (e.g. Bradby 2013; Bradby et al. 2014; Fitzsimons et al. 2014), temperate bays and estuaries of southern Australia (Fitzsimons et al. 2015) and the aridlands of central Australia. In the Martu Living Deserts Project, TNC acts as the overall project manager providing conservation science, strategy, policy and sustainable finance expertise for the project.

Hill et al. (2012) developed a typology of indigenous engagement in environmental management – Indigenous-governed collaborations; Indigenous-driven co-governance; agency-driven co-governance; and agency governance. Hill et al. (2012) suggest that supporting Indigenous governance without, or with only a limited requirement for power sharing with other agencies sustains the distinct Indigenous cultural purposes underpinning Indigenous Ecological Knowledge, and benefits knowledge integration. The Martu Living Deserts Project most closely aligns with Indigenous-driven co-governance of their typology but differs in that it is not a government-formulated initiative, rather a joint interest of the traditional owners, KJ, BHP Billiton and TNC.

A key feature of the project and its land management program has been the will of the Martu people to manage their lands for what the wider community would identify as nature conservation. For thousands of years Martu people depended on their country for the provision of all the resources they needed to survive. Gadgil et al. (1993) note this dependency leads to Aboriginal people having a stake in conservation and the enhancement of biodiversity. As outlined below, Martu people have demonstrated that the restoration of their lands to a more ‘healthy’ state is high on their list of priorities.

Australia’s arid interior is one of the largest continuous areas of arid ecosystems in the world and is the most intact (Sanderson et al. 2002). The Martu native title determination area (NTDA) is in the north-west of these aridlands and at 13.6 million ha is one of the largest individual landholdings in Australia. Although many of Australia’s aridlands have suffered significantly over the past 200 years, Martu lands remain relatively intact. In all, 15 vertebrate animals (eight mammals, four birds and three reptiles) and 29 plants of international, national or state significance can still be found on Martu country (see Fig. 2 and Tables 1 and 2).

Fig. 2.  Recorded occurrences of a range of significant species on Martu country.

Table 1.  Fauna of international, national or state significance on Martu country (the Martu Native Title Determination Area and Karlamilyi National Park combined)
Data from the Atlas of Living Australia as at March 2015 and Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa as at December 2014

Table 2.  Flora of international, national or state significance surviving on Martu country (the Martu Native Title Determination Area and Karlamilyi National Park combined)
Data current at March 2015

Like most of Australia, Martu country has suffered several mammal extinctions since European settlement. Several species that once occurred in the arid zone, including on Martu country, have become extinct including the Lesser Bilby. Others like the Western Barred Bandicoot, Golden Bandicoot, Crest-tailed Mulgara and Mala (Rufous Hare-wallaby) can no longer be found on Martu country but survive in isolated pockets elsewhere such as offshore islands (Woinarski et al. 2014). Despite this, Martu country retains important populations of several animal species that are considered threatened in Australia and internationally (see Table 1), including the Greater Bilby and Black-flanked Rock-wallaby. In addition, Northern Quolls have recently been discovered on the northern border of Karlamilyi National Park (Turpin and Bamford 2014) and in 2014, Martu rangers observed breeding Australian Painted Snipe in wetlands south-west of Lake Dora in Karlamilyi National Park. A recent sighting of the cryptic Night Parrot in the Pilbara suggests this species might also be present on Martu country as there are at least four historical records near the Canning Stock Route in the Martu NTDA (Davis and Metcalf 2008).

There is a high diversity of arid zone reptiles in the bioregions intersected by Martu country, particularly skinks (genera Ctenotus and Lerista). Significantly, Lake Disappointment, which is within the Martu NTDA, is home to two reptile species found nowhere else on Earth. The Lake Disappointment Ground Gecko and Lake Disappointment Dragon are only known from low samphire shrubs fringing Lake Disappointment, foraging on bare salt crust between shrubs (Storr 1978; Doughty et al. 2007).

In addition, other features, such as Lake Disappointment itself, which is a nationally significant wetland, are recognised for their geomorphology, waterbird and other values (Environment Australia 2001), whereas other assets such as the Percival Lakes and Lake Auld have been identified as having bioregional significance (Kendrick 2001). Martu country includes a diverse range of landscapes. It covers part of three bioregions (Great Sandy Desert, Little Sandy Desert and Gibson Desert) and five subregions (Trainor, Rudall, Mackay, McLarty and Lateritic Plain) (Department of the Environment 2012). The region includes areas recommended for future reservation by the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA 1975) – Lake Disappointment and Percival Lakes, and adjoins another – Rudall River – that was subsequently reserved (now called Karlamilyi National Park).

The Martu native title determination area surrounds the 1.28 million ha Karlamilyi National Park and adjoins the 6.7 million ha Birriliburu IPAs to the south, which in turn is part of an interconnected network of desert IPA covering more than 40 million ha – a large proportion of the relatively intact Australian aridlands. As such, managing the assets contained within the Martu lands makes this project of global significance for intact desert landscapes and significantly enhances what is the largest desert conservation network in the world.

For Martu, achieving healthy country is a process which begins with yaninpa ngurrarakarti (going to country), continues with ngurraku ninti (knowledge of country) and completes the cycle with kanyirninpa ngurrara (holding/caring for country) (Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa 2013).

KJ, who on behalf of and in consultation with the Martu people, have been looking after country through land management (Kanyirninpa Ngurrara) and culture and heritage programs (Puntura-ya Ninti), undertook a planning process with the Martu people. The resulting Healthy Country Plan was developed using an adapted version of The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Action Planning approach (Moorcroft 2012). The Healthy Country Planning process uses an adaptive approach whereby the results of regular monitoring of specified indicators inform a continuing planning cycle. Plans are amended and updated as required so that work stays on track to achieve an agreed vision (e.g. Moorcroft 2012). The Martu Kanyirninpa Ngurra Plan (referred to as the Martu Healthy Country Plan) sets out Martu aspirations for management of their ngurra (country) from 2013 to 2023.

By using this methodology in placing Martu people and their aspirations for their country at the heart of the planning process, the project aims to avoid the pitfall of treating ‘Indigenous people as workers executing plans developed by others rather than as genuine partners in the design and implementation of management plans’ (Petty et al. 2015; p. 140).

The Martu healthy country planning process identified and reached consensus on Martu people’s vision for their future when their children grow up and they will go back to country easily; have the ninti (knowledge), people, money and equipment to look after country; have plenty of bush tucker (kuwiyi and mirrka); have jobs for themselves and their young people; see young people learn both ways; and keep Jukurrpa (dreaming) and ninti strong.

To assist in achieving this vision Martu people identified eight key values they want to protect on their lands (KJ 2013):

Knowledge of traditional Martu ways of living in and from their lands is inextricably linked to Martu people’s sense of their existence. Although changes to Martu lifestyles since contact with European Australians has affected this knowledge, the survival today of elders who were born in pujiman (bushman) times means that relative to many other Aboriginal groups’ knowledge remains strong. The continuance of this knowledge is critical for the cultural wellbeing of Martu people and the effective ongoing management of the land for multiple objectives.

Martu people have a strong connection to their country and a cultural imperative to live on, and look after, it. As a result they highly value opportunities that enable them to derive a livelihood from remaining on their country and managing it to maintain its values particularly as they relate to the availability of bush foods.

Although all Martu country is important to Martu people there are several specific sites that are particularly significant and sacred. Knowledge of these places and adherence to certain practices in relation to them are important for Martu people.

Martu country supports a rich diversity of small vertebrates important to Martu people. Its intact nature, partly as a consequence of its extreme remoteness and long and continuing history of management by traditional owners, means that it remains a viable habitat for a range of species listed as threatened due to losses elsewhere (see Table 1).

The availability of freshwater is a critical success factor for the survival of wildlife in this desert landscape. In pujiman days it was also critical for Martu people as they moved through their country and remains extremely important for Martu people today. Ephemeral sources include rockholes, lakes and claypans whereas more permanent sources include soaks, springs and waterholes within river systems. More than a thousand freshwater sources have been identified and mapped on Martu lands (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.  Waterholes known to Martu people on their country, indicated by brown text (Source: Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa).

Martu country contains three major river and lake systems that flow particular during and after periods of heavy rain. Unlike most river systems, however, they do not flow towards the sea but rather drain into large desert lakes like the iconic Lake Disappointment (Kumpupirntily).

Traditionally up to 120 plant species were used by Martu for food. Many of these are still used today including fruits (e.g. bush tomato), roots, seeds, grasses, herbs, nectar, gum and fungi. Management of the landscape particularly through fire has always been and remains important to Martu people as a means of stimulating the production of food from plants.

Hunting is an important aspect of Martu culture and a traditional source of protein. Some species are no longer abundant enough to be hunted and are the subject of active management for their conservation. Others like the Euro (Kirti Kirti), Emu (Karlaya) and Sand Monitor (Parnajarrpa) remain part of the Martu diet. Martu have also taken to hunting introduced animals for food particularly cats, and also camels and rabbits.

Though largely intact on Martu lands, particularly when compared with other parts of arid Australia, the values identified by Martu people are negatively impacted by several significant threats.

Camels in particular are a significant problem on Martu lands. First brought to Australia in 1860, camels remained in use as a means of transportation in the arid centre of the country until the early decades of the 20th century when they were progressively superseded by the automobile. Many camels were subsequently released into the wild and formed the founders of the extensive feral camel population in Australia today. Feral camels place significant grazing pressure on the environment by reducing the available food for native browsers and birds, selectively grazing particular plant species and hindering recruitment, trampling fragile vegetation leading to erosion particularly on sand dune systems and seriously degrading and sometimes destroying waterholes and soaks used by native species (Edwards et al. 2008).

Martu people have used fire for thousands of years to manage their lands for higher food production. In pujiman days, this created a heterogeneous landscape with a range of habitat types in various stages of post fire recovery and maturation. This in turn supported a more diverse range of animal species (Bird et al. 2013). After Martu people moved off the land from the 1950s and 1960s their fire practices changed significantly and quickly resulting in dramatically increased fire size and intensity (Burrows et al. 2006). This meant that when fires do occur in the hot season as a result of lightning, they are larger and highly destructive, resulting in a more homogenous landscape.

The Canning Stock Route traverses Martu country from north-east to south-west. A permit system operates to assist in managing movement of four wheel drive tourists along this track. At times, however, tourists travel along the track without a permit, venture off the stock route or visit sacred sites that are not appropriate for visitors. This causes issues for Martu people including damaging vegetation, the occasional need for Martu to rescue them and the offence caused by ignoring Martu cultural norms.

When development is unplanned and poorly carried out it can cause unacceptable environmental and cultural damage that can be difficult or impossible to rectify in such remote areas.

Knowledge of Martu country (ninti) is extensive and has been passed from one generation to the next for millennia. This knowledge is essential for Martu to be able to carry out their obligations to look after country and keep their culture alive and strong. When Martu people moved off the land in the 1950s and 1960s, the transfer of this ninti to younger generations was more difficult and remains of high concern for surviving Martu elders.

It is believed that cats first became feral in Australia around Sydney in 1820 and in Australia’s north-west by 1870, with one record close to Martu country at Nullagine from ~1888 (Abbott 2008). Cats prey heavily on birds, lizards and small mammals and have been demonstrated to be a significant factor in the demise of many native species across Australia. The Red Fox also poses a significant threat. Many of the mammal extinctions in the Western Desert can be at least partly attributable to the spread of foxes (Kinnear et al. 2002).

The major weed on Martu country is Buffel Grass, grown widely across Australia’s pastoral lands as fodder. It is a vigorous coloniser that out-competes native grasses particularly near water sources and water-gaining habitats.

There are few roads on Martu country. They assist Martu rangers manage their country but can also increase access for others and lead to the creation of other tracks, which destroy vegetation, provide access to areas that are culturally sensitive and act as pathways for weed and feral predator encroachment.

Empty ngurra (no Martu on country) is a major threat to Martu culture and the ongoing management of country. Martu have been managing their country for thousands of years. The movement of Martu into missions, stations and towns in the middle of the last century led to their country becoming ‘sick’. Without Martu on country, fires became larger and more destructive, water sources lost quality and native species declined.

Martu country is already a very harsh environment in which to survive with extremely high temperatures in the hot season and unreliable rainfall. Martu are concerned that the climate is getting even hotter and drier with the effect of climate change also likely to lead to more extreme flooding events.

The partners in the Martu Living Deserts Project are working together to support Martu communities and help them achieve their aspirations to look after their country (by mitigating these identified threats) in balance with sustainable economic development. As part of the project, KJ employs ~17 staff out of its Newman office and a further 40, predominantly Martu people, on country in a variety of ranger and allied positions. In addition, they employ ~240 Martu each year in casual ranger positions working on country.

These Martu men’s and women’s ranger teams:

• Manage feral herbivores and predators through culling and baiting in collaboration with the Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife and Department of Agriculture and Food.

• Conduct cool season burns that are smaller and less intense than hot summer wild fires and result in a more diverse range of habitat types for threatened species.

• Map, maintain and monitor waterholes (Fig. 3).

• Actively manage threatened species like the Greater Bilby and the Black-flanked Rock-wallaby (including a population translocated by KJ in conjunction with the Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife). This is achieved, for example, through cool season burning and feral cat control.

• Engage tourists by checking permits and giving presentations at major camping sites along the Canning Stock Route.

• Remove Buffel Grass from key sites to protect important assets such as near sacred sites and tourist hotspots.

As at June 2015 more than 26 000 camels and 2000 donkeys have been removed from Martu lands since 2009 as part of the Project (see Fig. 4). The reduced number of camels that were able to be culled in recent years suggests the population of camels on Martu country has fallen significantly. The lower number of culled animals in recent years is not a result of reduced effort but rather of herds being fewer in number and harder to find. Preliminary results by the (then) Department of Environment and Conservation in 2011 showed significant evidence of historical grazing by camels but promising vegetation recovery and limited grazing following intensive culling efforts and good rainfall (Anon. 2011; Clarke 2011). This positive effect of camel culling is supported by anecdotal observations by Martu rangers of the improved health of their country especially around waterholes.

Fig. 4.  Number of feral herbivores culled on Martu country (Source: Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa).

With the support of the Department of Parks and Wildlife, the area baited for feral cats has increased to 40 000 ha. This aims to keep down the numbers of this key introduced predator of young rock-wallabies. Although more work is required to demonstrate the effect this program is having on other native wildlife populations, monitoring of the original and translocated rock-wallaby populations shows they remain healthy. A further six rock-wallaby populations have been confirmed around Parnngurr in Karlamilyi National Park, resulting in a total of eight known populations of this threatened flagship species on Martu country.

The women’s ranger teams continue to monitor the presence of significant species on Martu country as part of their work, using Cybertracker. Species recorded include those of special interest to Martu (e.g. Australian Bustard and Euro); ferals (e.g. camels and cats); and threatened species (e.g. Great Desert Skink and Black-flanked Rock-wallaby. This data helps to form an ongoing record of species presence, which can be used for analysis of species distributions.

Cool season burning is one of the significant activities for the Martu rangers during the cool field season and now accounts for ~170 000 ha per annum. This helps to reinstate a traditional patchy burning regime that existed on Martu country before European contact. Following a return to country from the mid-1980s, this mosaic burning pattern has been re-established on parts of Martu country particularly around Martu communities. Fig. 5 shows the changing fire patterns that occurred in an area south of Parnngurr over time from pujiman days through to the present. The Martu Living Deserts Project, in conjunction with other partners, is helping to extend this cool season burning to more remote parts of Martu country.

Fig. 5.  Fires between Yulpul and Parnngurr rockhole – comparative burning patterns on Martu country over time. The images above are from aerial photographs (1954) and satellite images (1973 and 2000) of the Yulpul region just south of Parnngurr (total area is 144 km²). This area has always been an important location for living, hunting and gathering. The areas in red are recent burns at the time the image was made. The images show the dramatic effects of wildfire that devastated the country when the Martu mosaic in the area collapsed during the years when they left their homelands. With the return of Martu people to the area in 2000, some mosaic burning regime has been re-established (R. Bliege Bird, N. Taylor, D. W. Bird, B. F. Codding, C. Taylor, F. Walsh, unpubl. data).

More than 70 waterholes have been cleaned. This includes the removal of dead camels and built-up silt, which then allows clean water to become available. In combination with the control of camels, this has resulted in a sustained supply of high quality water for the benefit of people and wildlife. The waterhole database now contains a total of 1118 records of individual waterholes many mapped with the aid of helicopters or visited during return to country and ranger trips.

Over the past 5 years almost 350 Martu have been employed by KJ making KJ, the largest employer of Martu people (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 6.  Numbers of Martu employed by Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa (Source: Kanyirninpa Jukurrpa).

Research by Social Ventures Australia (2014) has found that KJ’s on-country programs, including the Martu Living Deserts Project, have delivered a wide range of positive social, economic and cultural outcomes. They estimated this value to be $55 million over five financial years (FY10–FY14) from a $20 million investment: a Social Return on Investment ratio of 3 : 1 (i.e. for every dollar invested, ~$3 of social, economic and cultural value was created). Martu people are the primary beneficiaries of this value. The Australian and Western Australian Governments also benefit through reductions in justice and welfare costs. Social Ventures Australia (2014) estimates that, over the 5-year period, KJ’s activities saved 41 years of Aboriginal incarceration, saving the Western Australian Government $3.7 million. A further $4.2 million in savings also occurred over this period through a reduction in alcohol-related crime.

By working together in this innovative project, the partners are providing Martu people with the opportunity and capacity to look after their country as they know how by assisting with ‘Western’ land conservation planning, logistics and financing/economics. As noted by Barbour and Schlesinger (2012; p. 36), ‘Indigenous Australians do not want to become spectators in the research process, giving away knowledge, or labourers to Western conservation agendas. They want to be active partners in developing better understandings of the environment and implementers of management that reflects shared agendas’.

Plans for the long-term funding of the project are also ongoing with the support of all the partners involved. Ultimate success for the project such as the sustained availability of resources for Martu to care for their country, the intergenerational maintenance of knowledge and the recovery of threatened species, will be measured in decades to come. For the present and near-term future, the positive improvements in the health of the country and the people encourages everyone involved to keep working hard to maintain and strengthen the project for the benefit of all involved. The nature of the partnership that governs the project (a corporate funder, an environmental not-for-profit non-government organisation and a local indigenous delivery partner) and the fact that all parties contribute to project decision-making, has proven a successful formula to date. The ongoing support of other agencies, such as the national and state governments, adds further to improving opportunities for Martu to manage their country. Consistent with the findings of Popova (2014), the collaborative work between the partners that brings a variety of skill sets to the project aimed at fulfilling the conservation objectives of the traditional owners has been successful in improving the indigenous economy, social wellbeing and the environment.

Strategies and actions that continually engage Martu people at the centre of the project are critical to its success. Davies et al. (2011, p. 147) found that ‘engagement with land management can lead desert Aboriginal people to feel that their own actions are consistent with their own sense of the right and proper way for them to behave towards land, family and community. This increased ‘sense of control’ impacts positively on health by moderating the impact of sustained stress from health risk factors in the environment and lifestyle’. Examples of this in the project include the Martu Leadership Development Program and the online Community Access Library that stores more than 30 000 media items (such as documentary films). Both these initiatives are very popular with Martu people and not only keep them informed and engaged in the project but provide the information for them to be involved in setting the project’s priority activities.

As the project matures it also aims to further diversify its funding sources. One example of that is to explore the potential traditional burning as a form of carbon abatement to generate revenue for the project, based on successful models in northern Australia (e.g. Walton and Fitzsimons 2015). For the Martu native title area, this could potentially include reducing emissions from spinifex burning and through the accumulation of woody biomass from mulga species.

Like other parts of the Australian aridlands, the immense geographical scale of the project area makes field work logistics, finding home bases for employees and communications a major undertaking. The seasonality of the region with the extreme heat and potential flood conditions during the hot season means field work is generally limited to cooler months.

In addition, there are complexities inherent in working on country across different tenures. For example, Karlamilyi National Park lies at the heart of, and is surrounded by, the Martu native title determination area. Managed by the Western Australian Government’s Department of Parks and Wildlife, the national park operates according to different governing instruments. Although KJ and the Department of Parks and Wildlife already collaborate closely on several land management programs, opportunities exist for further work to achieve shared aspirations for conservation.

The Martu Living Deserts Project is proving to be a successful ongoing partnership providing initially positive results for land management, nature conservation and for Martu wellbeing. The remoteness and harsh conditions of Martu country are two of the contributing factors to this success. Although not immune from the threat of altered fire regimes and introduced species, these factors have resulted in less inappropriate development and a relatively intact environment. This remoteness also meant contact with non-indigenous Australians came relatively late meaning that traditional pujiman (bushmen) survive today, capable of passing onto younger generations their knowledge of how to look after country.

The ability of KJ as an organisation to maintain a focus on their land management and Martu cultural programs has also been a significant factor in success to date. By helping to build KJ’s capacity and investing in their programs, the project has built further on the backing of a wide variety of partners to support Martu people in achieving their aspirations for country.