Whale are our kin, our memory and our responsibility

Introduction

It is incumbent upon governments and conservation NGOs to incorporate Indigenous Knowledges into conservation and land management programs to be consistent with self-determination as defined by the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People. This has been acknowledged in international agreements including the Kuming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the Nagoya Protocol of Access and Benefit Sharing. In Australia, where there are significant shortcomings in achieving this (see Goolmeer et al. 2022a), it is now consistently reflected in reporting and strategy documents (i.e. Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements 2020; Cresswell et al. 2021). We are also beginning to see more frequent uptake of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in the protection of our most threatened species (Goolmeer and van Leeuwen 2023).

We welcome this development as a step towards Traditional and Western frameworks working collaboratively and cooperatively. However, here we argue that the uptake of TEK for the purpose of conservation, although highly pragmatic, does not represent self-determination for Traditional Custodians in and of itself. True self-determination in caring for Country, requires not only the use of TEK, but also the adoption of the principles and priorities that have kept Country healthy for tens of thousands of years, and meaningful partnerships between Traditional Custodians, conservationists, and Government (Woodward et al. 2020). The adoption of Indigenous Knowledges must be Indigenous-led and driven, encompassing culture, Country and kin.

TEK is not isolated, siloed facts and information. It is a body of integrated and interrelated knowledge that is both specific and encompasses every aspect of Country and the entities that inhabit it. Our knowledge systems are holistic and all encompassing. TEK must be recognised, upheld and integrated in the environmental context in the same way that the knowledge of Traditional Custodians has been introduced in the health sector, where Indigenous understandings and definitions of health (Gee et al. 2014) have been identified and integrated into the delivery of health programs. This example demonstrates how other sectors are working in partnership with TEK. Conservation and land management has an opportunity to take a further step by incorporating TEK into contemporary land management frameworks with Country, and its care, at its core.

As Traditional Custodians, our culture places us in Country, and as part of Country, as much a part of the landscape as the plants and other animals, the rocks, earth, waters, skies and spirits. Our place in Country is defined by Lore/Law (a concept which encompasses both a body of wisdom (Lore) and an associated rules system (Law)) which establishes our kinship with individual species, and it spiritually and physically defines our responsibilities to Country. Through this Lore/Law we are responsible to our human and non-human Kin and Ancestors in the same way that Country cares for us (Suchet-Pearson et al. 2013). We cannot practice our Culture without taking account of these responsibilities. However, this inherent association with Country and species is not prevalent or regularly referenced in contemporary approaches to conservation or natural resource management.

Much of the focus in conservation is the protection of threatened species, a task which we are failing to adequately fund (Wintle et al. 2019) and is becoming increasingly challenging as the list of species threatened with extinction grows ever longer (Woinarski et al. 2019; Legge et al. 2023). We applaud the efforts of conservationists who work tirelessly in a space which is inadequately valued and resourced by governments and philanthropy. However, although the work of the movement is critical, their priorities do not reflect the entirety of our obligations to Country and the species of special significance to Traditional Custodians as defined by our Lore/Law.

When a species declines in an order consistent with threatened species listing, it represents a failure to meet our cultural responsibility. Further, once a species is listed, simply managing population level threats does not address our responsibility to preserve all significant knowledge held and represented by a species, nor does it ensure that cultural and spiritual responsibility is accounted for.

In this perspective piece we outline our view on caring for Country by acknowledging and protecting Culturally Significant Entities, a term we adopt from Goolmeer et al. (2022b). Culturally Significant Entities, or CSEs, are species and ecological communities of cultural significance to Indigenous Australians. We highlight Australia’s responsibility to ensure Traditional Custodians lead the definition and restoration of healthy Country. In addition, we emphasise that non-Indigenous people who hold relevant Western knowledge have a responsibility to work in partnership with Traditional Custodians under the guidance of Indigenous Knowledge Holders. We use two species of whale to articulate our vision.

Discussion

The example of these two whale species highlights the inability of contemporary conservation approaches to effectively protect the tangible and intangible elements of Cultural Heritage and knowledge associated with a species. We see an opportunity to ensure that Traditional Custodians can care for species of cultural significance as CSEs within the national environmental regulatory framework and ensure their ongoing connection with and care for the species. Current reform of Australian Environment and Cultural Heritage Legislation provides an opportunity to enable these levels of care. We will not allow an opportunity such as this to pass without progressing this cause.

It’s also important to recognise that changes to legislation alone will not guarantee greater consideration of Indigenous Knowledge and the value of species. For instance, the Species at Risk Act 2002 (Canada), which mandates a legal requirement to consult Indigenous peoples, has a less than 50% inclusion rate of Indigenous Knowledge and values in recovery and management plans (Hill et al. 2019). While tailored legislation sets a clear mandate, legislation is just the first step.

Realignment of policy and practice to promote the traditional management of CSEs will also be required, and indeed could achieve much even without legislation change. Only robust and flexible policy can accommodate a place-based approach to protect and manage CSEs in a traditional management setting. A foundational policy principle must be that upon recognition of a CSE, their care must be guided by Traditional Custodians and must not impinge upon the rights of Indigenous peoples which are established under other legal frameworks. This care of CSEs, and by extension Country, through legislative change, policy and practice can be guided by Traditional ways of knowing. Through the sharing of this ancient and sacred knowledge, responsibility will also be imparted to non-Indigenous Australians, who will have earned and gained a place in Caring for this land.

Australia has endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which recognises the connection and responsibility of Indigenous people to their Country. We call on the Australian Government to use this issue as an opportunity to begin the implementation of UNDRIP under Australian law, in the process of law reform and in the policy of the Australian Government. It is incumbent on the Australian Government and people to work with us to find a way to support the care of CSEs.