ARTICLE IN PRESS

0301-4797/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.je

�CorrespondE-mail addr

Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 866–875

www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Indigenous community-based fisheries in Australia

Jennifer Carter�, Greg Hill

Department of Environmental and Planning Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences,

University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, 4556 QLD, Australia

Received 19 July 2005; received in revised form 21 July 2006; accepted 24 October 2006

Available online 18 December 2006

Abstract

The commercial sea cucumber species known as Sandfish (Holothuria scabra) occurs intertidally and subtidally in the Northern

Territory of Australia, on or adjacent to Aboriginal land. A 4-yr program of community-based fisheries research with Aboriginal

Australians was implemented to assess the viability of indigenous Australians’ involvement in the wild-stock fishery. The research

involved extensive and intensive indigenous participation, unusual in Australian biophysical sciences research, during field survey and

habitat mapping, complemented by commercial catch data modelling and discussion of its implications. Field surveys produced Sandfish

distribution and site-specific density, and revealed some areas that were not commercially fished. Catch data modelling results suggested

that no additional effort could be sustained, however commercial fishers increased their effort, expanding their operations into the newly

mapped areas. These actions effectively precluded indigenous peoples’ aspirations of entry into the commercial fishery. The efficacy and

outcomes of participatory program design with indigenous Australians need critique in the absence of the political will and statutory

backing to provide equitable access to resources.

Crown Copyright r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Community-based fisheries; Indigenous Australians; Design principles

1. Introduction

1.1. Community-based fisheries management

The terms ‘community-based’ or ‘participatory’ researchare used to refer to a range of projects with varying degreesof citizen participation. As projects progress from thosewith simple contractual or consultation arrangements tomore complex collaborative and collegiate engagementstyles, increasing citizen participation occurs, resemblingsteps on a ‘ladder of citizen participation’ (Arnstein, 1969).More recently, the term ‘community-based’ tends to referto projects that are driven by community members, ratherthan those involving more passive forms of participation.

Community-based projects that link people and naturalresources are increasingly being adopted in fisheriesresearch, because of their underlying premise that humanactivities ultimately affect resource sustainability(Schramm and Hubert, 1996; Christie et al., 2002;

e front matter Crown Copyright r 2006 Published by Elsevie

nvman.2006.10.021

ing author. Tel.: +617 5459 4406; fax: +61 7 5430 2885.

ess: jcarter@usc.edu.au (J. Carter).

Shepherd et al., 2004). Such projects may lead tocommunity-based management, where a community estab-lishes and enforces harvest rules based on local knowledgeand locally adaptive management practices (Ruddle, 2001).Community-based fisheries’ management is linked withgovernance contexts because fisheries regulations includingmanagement rules, access permissions and enforcementpowers to investigate, board vessels and refer cases toauthorities, are usually devolved to the local level or to ajoint management structure. Political support for suchregimes emanates from a philosophy that resource userscan more effectively manage environmental resourcesbecause they observe and respond to local resource trends,simultaneously decreasing the enforcement costs of centralagencies. Some fisheries co-management governance mod-els additionally create spaces for sharing knowledge, valuesand cultural differences, and build a sense of shared place,history and identity (Jentoft et al., 1998; Ross andPickering, 2002; Anuchiracheeva et al., 2003).Developing community-based fisheries in cross-cultural

contexts requires mechanisms to enable indigenous peo-ples’ participation within projects, and structures for

r Ltd. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Carter, G. Hill / Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 866–875 867

knowledge exchange between all participants. For example,in recognition of existing culturally based resource accessrules, projects are designed so that senior indigenouslandowners approve and coordinate activities on theirrespective homelands (Carter et al., 2004). Harveststrategies such as gear restrictions; resource allocationamong familial groups within a community; reciprocalaccess arrangements between neighbouring estates; andseasonal or spatial closures where a resource is experien-cing significant depletion can be discussed and integratedwith non-indigenous stock assessment and technical advice(Ruddle, 2001).

Academic disagreement about the epistemological basisof knowledge fuels a debate about how knowledge shouldbe generated, and about the validity of different researchtechniques that attempt to span the inter-cultural divide(Patterson and Williams, 1998; Eversole, 2003). Anacceptable approach is often to align indigenous andnon-indigenous knowledge by recording and structuringindigenous knowledge within Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) and decision support tools (Costa-Neto,2000; Anuchiracheeva et al., 2003; Carter et al., 2004).Other activities incorporate joint resource surveys andforums for information exchange about species locations,behaviours, diets and predation effects, or for broader landuse and resource planning (Baker and Mutitjuli Commu-nity, 1992; Ruddle, 2001; Valbo-Jorgensen and Poulsen,2001; Carter et al., 2004; Shepherd et al., 2004). Suchshared dialogues increase the public knowledge-base andare inclusive of the social and economic needs of minoritygroups. An attempt to involve indigenous people in the seacucumber fishery in northern Australia to assist them insecuring a sustainable future provides an excellent casestudy. Except for the academic term ‘indigenous knowl-edge’, the term ‘Aboriginal’ is used throughout the casestudy to distinguish them from Torres Strait Islanders (theother indigenous people of Australia).

1.2. The sea cucumber fishery in the Northern Territory of

Australia

Some 20 species of sea cucumber, a bottom-dwellingmarine invertebrate, are suitable for use as trepang, orbeche-de-mer, which is the edible product made from theboiled, smoked and dried body wall (Hamel et al., 2001). Inthe Northern Territory of Australia, Holothuria scabra

[Jaeger] (known as Sandfish) is the only species of sufficientabundance and weight to fetch high prices on theinternational market. In this region, Sandfish occur in theintertidal zone and subtidally to 6m. Sandfish typicallyselect for low energy environments, such as inner lagoonsand bays, or areas close to reefs, seagrass, mangroves andother high nutrient areas (Long et al., 1996; Mercier et al.,2000; Hamel et al., 2001).

From the 1600s, members of some Aboriginal commu-nities of the Northern Territory harvested Sandfish tosupply Macassan traders, and this activity remains part of

Aboriginal oral tradition (Russell, 2004). The trade ceasedin the early 20th century due to imposed taxes (Macknight,1976). In 1991, the Northern Territory Department ofPrimary Industry and Fisheries issued six licences tocommercial fishers, none of whom were Aboriginal, to re-develop the ‘trepang’ fishery under temporary, conservativemanagement arrangements. (Although technically incor-rect, the term ‘trepang’ is commonly used in northernAustralia to refer to the species collected, the product, andthe fishery).In 1995, commercial fishers approached representatives

of some Aboriginal communities seeking their help assuppliers of Sandfish for their industry. Many Aboriginaland non-Aboriginal people believed that Aboriginal com-munities could gain increased financial independence byharvesting Sandfish under their own commercial licence;however, government authorities were not ready to expandthe fishery because they had limited knowledge about thespecies. A research grant was available to help provideinformation about the fishery and determine whether extraeffort in the fishery could be allocated to Aboriginal peoplewishing to participate in the recently re-opened fishery.Representatives of two Aboriginal communities requestedthat the project be applied in their homelands, and Section2, below, describes the subsequent application of thatproject (referred to as the ‘trepang’ project).

1.3. Research aim

While the conduct of the ‘trepang’ project is brieflydescribed below, the aim of this paper is to describe thereasons for the failure of a community-based fisheriesinitiative with indigenous people in Australia. It tests thenotion that the inclusive, community-based project designwith participatory mechanisms and knowledge exchangestructures (described in Section 2) would provide therequired information to government authorities, anddemonstrate the capacity of Aboriginal people to becomeinvolved in the fishery. However, as no community-basedfishery, nor any Aboriginal involvement in the fishery, hasbeen established to this day, Section 4 analyses theunderlying barriers to successful indigenous community-based fisheries in Australia. The principles summarized byWeinstein (2000), which were based on previous successfulcase studies, provide a framework for evaluating the(failure of the) community-based program. Future require-ments for the establishment of indigenous community-based fisheries in Australia are suggested.

2. The ‘trepang’ project

2.1. Study areas

The two study areas, the Maningrida region and theCobourg Peninsula, are located in the monsoonal tropicalsavannas of Arnhem Land along Australia’s northerncoastline (Fig. 1). Arnhem Land spans most of the region

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Study areas.

J. Carter, G. Hill / Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 866–875868

of the Northern Territory known as the Top End. TheNorthern Territory is one of two Australian territoriesadministered by its national government, and ArnhemLand (both terrestrial and intertidal zones) is held underinalienable freehold title by Aboriginal groups under theCommonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Terri-

tory) Act 1976.Maningrida is around 380 km east-northeast of Darwin,

the capital city of the Northern Territory. Maningrida isthe central town in a region comprising the clan estates ofsome 11 different language groups, and the name is used inthis paper to refer to the entire region. The Maningridapopulation stands at around 800 people in the dry seasonand around 1200 in the wet season.

The Cobourg Peninsula, around 220 km to the northeastof Darwin, comprises the land-based Garig Gunak BarluNational Park of 2207 km2, as well as the surroundingintertidal waters. The Cobourg Peninsula is home to anestimated 300 persons from four clan groups of the singleIwaidja-speaking language group, most of whom live onnearby Croker Island outside the park boundaries. GarigGunak Barlu operates under co-management arrange-ments through the Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary Board,which comprises four senior Aboriginal clan grouprepresentatives and four government officers.

Both coastal study areas are situated within the low-gradient Northern Australian Continental Shelf (NACS),which is less than 200m in depth. The 20m isobath occursmore than 10 km from shore, ensuring a low-wave energyenvironment except during storms and tropical cyclone

activity. During the dry season (March–August), theprevailing easterly winds drive currents predominantlyfrom east to west; however, during the North-WestMonsoon currents flow from west to east. Both localitiesexperience a mesotidal range of 3m and sea surfacetemperature variability of around 6 1C. The CobourgRegion has no major drainage systems and an annualmedian rainfall of 1200–1400mm with a mean annualrunoff of 500–1000mm. In comparison, the Maningridaregion, which has five drainage systems, has an annualmedian rainfall of 1000–1200mm and a mean annualrunoff of 250–500mm. Extensive fine-grained substratesoccur around river mouths where sediments mix and inareas of reduced water currents and turbulence. Muddyforeshores occur to the landward side of the islands, asriver outflow combines with backflow from currentspassing islands and, less frequently, sandy beaches inter-spersed by rocky foreshores occur on the more exposedside. River discharge increases during heavy rains of thewet season, altering salinity and sedimentation.

3. Trepang project methodology and results

The objectives of the trepang project were to gather andexchange indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge aboutSandfish, conduct participatory field survey and mapping,model commercial catch data and present results tocommunity members in discussion forums. Further detailcan be found in Carter (2001).

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Carter, G. Hill / Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 866–875 869

3.1. Indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge exchange

Aboriginal knowledge of Sandfish and the trepangfishery were gathered during semi-structured discussions,in which non-indigenous knowledge was also presented in atwo-way dialogue. Aboriginal groups in Australia ownspecific tracts of land, and consequent rights to exploitresources apply to specific areas for both ‘owners’ and‘managers’ (Williams, 1982). The senior landowner has thecultural authority to make decisions involving his or herestate, and thus is usually deferred to for involvement inany activity related to their homeland estate. Thus thenumber of people directly involved in discussions for eachestate was small, although members of the families werepresent during discussions and throughout all projectactivities. A local person fluent in the dominant languageof the area facilitated discussion. Table 1 summarizes thedata recorded into issue clusters, designed to demonstratethe utility of indigenous knowledge during the researchrather than provide specific detail, since specific informa-tion such as Sandfish localities would violate the intellec-tual property rights of Aboriginal people and the agreedproject confidentiality protocols (as did, in fact, happen asdescribed below).

During discussions, each senior landowner explained(confidential) fine-scale detail about the location ofSandfish on their estates and, at times, on the estates ofother landowners. Localities where trepang were ‘washedup too quick on the beach’ because of substrate character-istics were described, for example, Sandfish were in ‘hardersand’, ‘in behind where it’s sheltered at [y] Point’. Fine-scale detail about ‘mud’, ‘not rock, too hard’ and ‘seagrass’habitat was also added, with qualifiers such as the ‘mud istoo deep near the mouth of the [y] River’. Tidal, lunar,and seasonal influences on sea cucumber presence wereexplained, with community members stressing the impor-tance of low tide, calm conditions and spring tides(although subtidal stocks could be collected [and surveyed]during neap tides). During cyclones and the wet season,strong winds and waves roll Sandfish on to the shore andcan damage Sandfish habitat in the short-term, which

Table 1

Clusters of indigenous knowledge that helped to progress the research

Issue clusters Data recorded

Locality Distribution on clan estates

Wider regional distribution

Ecology Habitat description

Tidal/lunar influences

Seasonality

Food and predators

History Macassan oral stories

Management Current stocks

Harvest tactics

Species-specific information

Issue clusters are grouped when similar information is derived from various

interpretations about the information are also noted.

increases risk of the fishery to collapse at fine spatial andtemporal scales. Natural predators in the region includesharks, porpoise, turtles and fish.Aboriginal landowners relayed information about the

history of Macassan contact and collaboration in Sandfishcollection. Macassans only harvested in daylight because a‘Mangadjarra [Macassan] was eaten by a crocodile in the[y] River’, indicating there were sufficient stocks tosustain a daylight fishery. (Sandfish are more detectableat night when they are more likely to emerge from thesubstrate within which they rest). Macassans worked anarea for a few days, then moved on after collecting severallarge sugar bags. Small Sandfish, as well as someindividuals of the larger size classes, were left as brood-stock. A particular mangrove root was necessary duringproduct processing, otherwise the eventual product heldlittle value.

3.2. Participatory field survey and mapping

Both study areas were surveyed by stratifying the regioninto sampling zones on the basis of indigenous knowledgeabout Sandfish localities. At times, cultural restrictions onaccess to some zones were enforced for the projectduration, due to the death of senior landowners. Suchcultural restrictions have implications for research designscomprising systematic or replicable sampling that derivefrom a positivist paradigm (approaches that guide researchinto the systematic and replicable search for a universal,objective truth) in that they may require a shift in focusfrom complete experimental design toward success inprocess and outcome (Alpert, 1995).Sandfish at this locality have differing detectabilities at

different depths, due to water visibility, and a multiplesampling strategy was necessary within each samplingzone. Intertidal transect walks occurred at low tide, butsubtidal survey was conducted by boat. Where the waterclarity allowed (usually to 2m depth), Sandfish werecounted from boat transects. Beyond this depth anunderwater video camera was deployed (which wasunsuccessful in shallow water because of motor turbu-

# respondents Interpretation

12 Fine in-situ detail

19 Noted during past travels

13 Substrate/vegetation/water

16 Related to ease of detection

8 Lack of influence

10 New biophysical information

15 Variable information

6 Variable, difficult to quantify

19 Variable, difficult to quantify

9 Colour differentiation

respondents (the number is recorded). The researcher’s notes that aided

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Carter, G. Hill / Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 866–875870

lence). Sandfish were not discernible by either method inparticularly turbid areas, and beam trawls were usedminimally in these areas to prevent destruction to theseabed. Transect lengths were variable because of highlyvariable water quality, so start and end points wererecorded from wide-area differential global positioningsystem (DGPS). Sample timing followed suggestions ofAboriginal peoples that it occur around low tide, and incalm conditions. A substrate sample from each transectwas taken, and particle size analysis conducted (Bowles,1986) to classify the substrate of each transect and assistsubstrate mapping.

Aboriginal participants were present during all surveys,but participants varied with each clan estate visited,reflecting familial groups and connections to their home-lands. Aboriginal people searched for Sandfish duringintertidal and boat transects and on video footage, andhelped deploy the camera and beam trawl. They obtainedsubstrate samples, passing them on for analysis. Theirinput increased the accuracy of abundance estimatesbecause they frequently pointed out Sandfish missed duringthe transect count. They dug into the substrate to revealburied Sandfish on the basis of observing various tracks inthe substrate.

Sandfish density was extrapolated from transect countsusing the Ratio Method for transects of differing lengths(Krebs, 1989). Sandfish density (m�2) ranged from.005+.001m�2 to .018+.001m�2 at Maningrida, andfrom .004+.003m�2 to .044+.048m�2 at Cobourg (Car-ter, 2001), showing variations of at least an order ofmagnitude and large standard errors relative to the mean.Variability probably reflects the harvested areas, as well asthe non-harvested areas located by Aboriginal people,because similar variation elsewhere is attributed tocommercial fishing effects (Hamel et al., 2001).

Because satellite remote sensing and GIS methods areuseful in developing shallow water fisheries, it wasanticipated that mapping the survey-derived finer-grainedsubstrates (such as muddy sand or mud) that arecharacteristic of Sandfish habitat, and bathymetry, woulddelineate Sandfish habitat and estimate the population.Intertidal sediment substrates are easily detected from lowtide satellite imagery (Yates et al., 1993). Subtidally, thesatellite signal is complicated by a mix of water depth,underlying substrate type, suspended sediments, season,tidal stage and flow (Lyzenga, 1978, 1981; Lyon et al.,1992; Maritorena et al., 1994); although multiple satelliteimages spanning different conditions can unravel theseconfounding variables (Quinn et al., 1985; Zainal et al.,1993).

A range of transformation algorithms were applied tothe images, including depth-invariant equations of bottomtype change (Lyzenga, 1978, 1981), a principal componentstransformation with axes rotation (Khan et al., 1992), andseveral band ratios and reclassifications (Amos and Alfoldi,1979; Han et al., 1994; Menges et al., 1998). Thetransformed images were assessed against water depth

(digitized from nautical charts), and the substrate classifi-cations (generated from particle size analysis of thesubstrate) within a GIS based on ArcView 3.1 software.Despite previous success in combining satellite imagery andGIS modelling to map intertidal and subtidal zones (Hilland Ahmad, 1992; Michalek et al., 1993; Zainal et al.,1993), this study showed limited success because thegenerally turbid water of this locality meant that waterdepth, bottom type and suspended sediments were almostcertainly confused. The most accurate technique was agreen/red transformation that mapping subtidal waters to2m only, at an overall mapping accuracy of 79%. Notechniques reliably discerned bottom type (Carter, 2001).The techniques successful for one image were neitherapplicable for images captured under differing environ-mental conditions, nor transferable to other localities (evenunder similar environmental conditions).Despite recent calls to standardize the low cost, ad hoc,

coastal habitat mapping approaches of the past (Mumbyand Harborne, 1999), standardized techniques cannot beapplied to differing times and localities in Top End waters.Scene-specific processing is crucial in future studies, yet asingle satellite image is insufficient to untangle theconfounding variables of water depth, sediment load andsubstrate type in the subtidal zone. Thus habitat delinea-tion by these sophisticated mapping methods is virtuallyimpossible in the Northern Territory tropical waters, anddonor-funded objectives were not met.

3.3. Commercial catch data modelling

Biomass dynamics (or surplus production) models,combined with field-based research, are useful in adeveloping fishery when accurate biological parametersare lacking (Hamel et al., 2001). Because these modelsacknowledge that exploited fish populations show inherentnatural variability, uncertainty in a fishery is assumed andpopulation response to a range of alternative managementscenarios is predicted (Hilborn and Walters, 1992). A longtime-series of yield-effort data is not required and thereforea stock need not be overexploited in order to retro-spectively find the optimal yield.A simple catch per unit effort (CPUE) was calculated

from the summed catch (recorded gutted weight) and effort(recorded number of fisher days, including search time) of1462 commercial logbook records from 1991 to 1998 byyear. Annual catch data for the pooled fishery rangedbetween 3.7 t in 1991 to a peak of 87.3 t in 1994 after whichcatch declined. Annual effort ranged between 17 daysfished in 1991 to a maximum of 423 days fished in 1998.The catch rate was input to biomass dynamics modelling,based on the difference equation of the Schaeffer model(Hilborn and Walters, 1992). The model estimated amaximum surplus production of around 169.2 t yr�1 usinga standing stock size of 122.3 t (Carter, 2001).The data input to the biomass dynamics model was

pooled for the entire region of the Northern Territory

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Carter, G. Hill / Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 866–875 871

fishery because of insufficient time-series data at fine-scalelocalities to generate a meaningful result. Pooling the dataassumes that biomass is equally distributed across thisregion, and this is clearly not the case for Sandfish, asfound in the survey results. The relatively short time series,incomplete knowledge of stock size based on variabledensity estimates, and variable effort between areas,suggests that relying on the maximum surplus productionfigure is dangerous. Substantially different parametervalues could generate the same likelihood of data, butimply different management strategies.

Results of the modelling were discussed during commu-nity meetings with landowners, rangers and communitymembers, who used the discussions for decision-makingabout their involvement in the fishery. Based on thecommunity discussions, Aboriginal people decided topursue aquaculture-based solutions for involvement inthe fishery. A final report written about the project wasshown to attendees, and the contents of each chapter in thereport systematically and thoroughly explained. Seniorlandowners of each clan estate/family group were visited,and the contents of the report explained to them. Allpeople endorsed submission of the report to the relevantauthorities and granting agency, trusting its content andthe confidentiality arrangements.

Although all stakeholders, including government autho-rities, acknowledged the data quality and modellinglimitations, there was no other data to guide fisheriesmanagement authorities in their decisions about furtherlicensing in the fishery. Species that aggregate areparticularly vulnerable to collapse (Shepherd et al., 2004)and high densities in some localities can mask any decreasein total stock abundances elsewhere. Thus the decision tonot allow increased participation/licensing in the fishery isconsistent with a precautionary approach to managing thefishery. Yet the in-ability of the sophisticated mapping toscale-up field survey data and the poor quality of the datain project effectively prevented further exploration ofindigenous peoples’ involvement in the fishery (for politicalreasons as explained below), despite the fact that surveyresults indicated unfished areas that were not included inthe modelling exercise.

4. Discussion and evaluation

4.1. Project developments

Participants and institutional staff acknowledged theproject as highly successful and ‘best practice’ in partici-patory engagement with indigenous Australians. Aborigi-nal people expressed their appreciation of the participatorynature of the project and desired further such projects bedeveloped. Government authorities used the results in theirdecision-making and commercial fishers increased fishingeffort.

Aboriginal participation and knowledge was crucial tosuccess of the project, as without prior knowledge of

sampling localities and an enhanced ability to locateindividual Sandfish, survey results would have been lessaccurate. Participatory field survey demonstrated equity incollaboration between indigenous and non-indigenousparticipants, and generated maps of Sandfish locationsthat were not commercially fished at the time. Commercialfishers apparently had little detailed knowledge aboutSandfish locations, concentrating their effort on a fewknown areas.However, there has been no subsequent move to initiate

and develop indigenous community-based fisheries. Thelimitations of the mapping techniques for scaling-up fieldsurvey findings, and of the catch data modelling, were(necessarily) to fulfill research objectives and fisherymanagers decided that issuing additional licences was notwarranted on the basis of the results obtained with thesemethodologies. Project design needs careful attention whenattempting to initiate indigenous community fisheries.The (confidential) report containing the research results

was forwarded to the granting agency through a series ofinstitutions and stakeholders who collaborated to supportthe research. Intellectual property arrangements wereagreed upon at the start of the project; however, the reportwas cited soon after, during a public consultation process,suggesting it had circulated beyond its intended (confiden-tial) audience. After that, existing commercial fishersincreased effort, and commenced fishing in the previouslyunfished areas that had been identified during this researchon the basis of indigenous knowledge. Indigenous peoplewere unable to instigate legal challenges because of thecosts involved. Thus indigenous participation and knowl-edge that informed field survey and the mapping exercisewere appropriated and commercially exploited. Otherapproaches (discussed below) such as adaptive manage-ment or trial experimental harvest, combined with pro-tected areas for the research, such as sea closures, may havebeen more useful approaches to facilitate indigenouspeople’s involvement in the fishery.Because this community-based research project has not

been effective in establishing the desired outcome forAboriginal participants (the establishment of a community-based fishery), the broader social, political and economiccontext in which the project was undertaken needs to beevaluated (Quintana and Morse, 2005). A theoreticalframework of principles is described below, and used toprovide insights into the initiation and support ofindigenous community-based fisheries in Australia.

4.2. A framework for the design of community-based

fisheries

Eight design principles for successful community-basedfisheries regimes are summarized by Weinstein (2000),based on successful case studies. Of these, three operatingprinciples—resource use within clearly defined geographicand social boundaries, a match between contributions andbenefits of users, and user-designed group operational

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Carter, G. Hill / Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 866–875872

rules–function from within institutions, including commu-nity-based institutions. Three more generalized manage-ment principles of monitoring, sanctions and conflictresolution are developed and implemented by the resourceusers. The seventh principle for successful community-based fisheries requires that government agencies and otherresource users recognize the legitimacy of the community-based system. Lastly, the above seven principles mayoperate within an eighth principle, that of nested enter-prises, where enterprises are nested within structures thatoperate across larger geographic scales such as regions ornations.

Weinstein (2000) argues that the success of community-based fisheries in Canada and Japan can be attributed totheir alignment with the eight design principles. Someeffective Aboriginal fisheries in Canada rely on kinshiprights to defined territories, distribution of benefits, andaccess permissions that stipulate enforcements on harvestseasons, locations, and methods. However, recent changesfrom community-enabling legislation to that which prior-itises property rights may jeopardize their success unlessindigenous communal rights are incorporated along withnon-indigenous public and private rights. Some inshore,sedentary, community-based fisheries in Japan havesuccessfully linked indigenous management systems withfishing cooperatives. Operational rules are jointly devisedbetween community and government, but the cooperativeis the unit of management and undertakes conflictresolution, while the transferability of rights is limited tothe cooperative. In both nations, small territories andtenures can be scaled within nested enterprises, whilemaintaining their independence as local management units.

Clearly the first three operating principles of definedgeographical and social boundaries, matching contribu-tions, and user-defined rules, were present at both localitieswhere the trepang project was conducted. Participants holdstrong and inviolable people-place connections, as clanestate boundaries are well articulated and adhered to by allcommunity members. Aboriginal people contributed theirsubstantial time and effort across 4 years to the project,while institutional stakeholders adhered to known fisherymanagement techniques. User-defined resource use rulesare distinctive and part of indigenous oral tradition.However, these principles are not necessarily recognizedby outsiders to the system.

People constantly reported the location and quantities ofSandfish throughout the period of the project, suggestingthat the fourth principle, i.e., monitoring, is ongoing withinthe indigenous domain where there is agreement aboutresource ownership and use. Intra-communal sanctions fortransgressing operational rules and methods of conflictresolution (Williams, 1982) are also unambiguous, butrarely enforceable outside the indigenous domain. Again,the fifth and sixth principles are extant but have littlerelevance beyond the immediate Aboriginal community.Thus the efficacy of the first six design principles forestablishing successful community-based fisheries are

severely restricted without the operation of the seventhprinciple, that of valid, legitimate and binding recognitionby outside fishers and agencies.The eighth principle of nested enterprises was frequently

discussed by all community members during variousdiscussion forums. They suggested collecting trepang fromtheir homeland estates, transporting it to a central shed(e.g., in the town of Maningrida) where it would be smokedand dried until sufficient quantities were available tobackload on flights to Darwin. Thus the operating unitof the clan estate could easily be nested within acommunity-based or cooperative arrangement, to be over-seen by elders, rangers, or other nominated representativesof the community. Again, the articulation of the manage-ment unit into the nested structure requires endorsementand support under the seventh principle to be effective.Clearly the seventh principle, that of legitimized and

validated acknowledgement for, and respect of, thecommunity-based system is lacking in indigenous commu-nity-based fisheries management in Australia. Access toresources and their management is determined by non-indigenous political and economic forces rather thanindigenous priorities or biological sustainability, as is thecase elsewhere (Quintana and Morse, 2005). Some oft-neglected political and legal concerns include determiningthe purpose of the fishery and who should benefit from it(Weinstein, 2000). For example, community-based man-agement is ineffective when outsiders (and/or locals) poachthe resource and often government authorities respond byincreasing control which eventually encourages all resi-dents to break the communal management regime (Christieet al., 2002). In contrast, sustainable fisheries requiresupport of, rather then erosion of, local community controlin the design and implementation of their regime.

4.3. Legitimation of indigenous community-based fisheries

Ruddle (2001) cites numerous examples of successfulprojects based on indigenous knowledge and practices suchas species localities, taxonomies, limited entry, seasonaland area closures, seasonal, spatial, gear and size restric-tions, appropriation rights, stock assessments based onaggregating breeding stock, impact assessments, mapping,and local hydrography. These approaches rely on validconnections between resources, the users, the state reg-ulators and agencies in the resource management system.On the contrary, promotion of indigenous knowledge andcommunity-based programs is often seen as subversive orromantic (Sandall, 2001). At other times the knowledge isseen as useful, but is appropriated and exploited (as in thiscase) by outside users including transnational interests(such as pharmaceuticals) who rely on ‘ancient’ knowledgewithout a mutual obligation to apply the principle ofmatched contributions and benefits to support thosecontributing from a less privileged position (Greene, 2004).Securing legal protection and rights to harvest sea

cucumbers through property rights or Indigenous Land

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Carter, G. Hill / Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 866–875 873

Use Agreements, with compensation and buy-backschemes for existing fishers, are key discussions forAustralian natural resource management (Gibbs, 2003).Such buy-back schemes could have been developed in thetrepang project to redress the inequity of access to fisheriesby Aboriginal groups. Legal challenges are prohibitivelycostly to community groups who, instead, opt for exploringan alternative idea (such as aquaculture of Sandfish asraised in this study which is also very costly).

Official legal recognition of indigenous rights andresponsibilities is necessary so that indigenous people canuse and benefit from their estate resources. The Northern

Territory of Australia Fisheries Act 2005 [Section 53(i)]states that:

‘‘Unless and to the extent to which it is expressed to doso but without derogating from any other law in force inthe Territory, nothing in a provision of this Act or aninstrument of a judicial or administrative character madeunder it shall limit the right of Aboriginals who havetraditionally used the resources of an area of land or waterin a traditional manner from continuing to use thoseresources in that area in that manner.’’

However, these provisions are limited in their capacity toprotect Aboriginal property rights, as ‘traditional’ activitiescan be overturned by other interests. The legislationassumes traditional activities were purely subsistence-based, and not trade or exchange based. Yet Aboriginalpeople exchanged Sandfish with Macassan traders forcenturies, and traded within other domestic and interna-tional resource trade exchanges (Ross and Pickering, 2002;Russell, 2004). In cognizance of the Canadian legal rulingsdescribed by Weinstein (2000), expanding the understand-ing of ‘traditional’ resource-based activities to include a‘commercial’ component, could enable legislation to moreadequately recognize and protect indigenous propertyinterests and rights in environmental resources.

In the first Australian native title claim to the seas atCroker Island in the Northern Territory, indigenous peoplewere granted non-exclusive sea rights. There was nodispute that traditional laws and customs existed, but thejudgement was made on the basis that Macassans had notbeen refused entry to fish in previous centuries and thus apublic right to fish existed. However, Russell (2004) arguesthat there is substantial evidence to show there werecomplex economic, cultural and psychological interactionsbetween indigenous people and Macassan fishers thatvaried locally. Although Aboriginal people did notgenerally exclude Macassan fishers, the right to excludewas part of traditional practice and was recognized byMacassans, who were at times excluded from certain areas.The trepang fishery had mutual benefit for both parties,including trade, as Aboriginal people collected Sandfish inexchange for Macassan goods. Had this mutual agreementbeen properly understood by the courts, exclusive searights may have been the outcome and could easily have ledto indigenous community-based fisheries in many parts ofAustralia. Russell (2004) asserts that there is a justifiable

case to re-think the basis to Australian indigenous searights claims and to resuscitate negotiated arrangementsthat existed prior to European settlement.Indigenous fishers in Australia have lost their position in

the fishing industry, despite the lucrative trades that existedprior to European settlement (Ross and Pickering, 2002).Australia has never negotiated a treaty with its indigenouspeople, and thus inclusion of indigenous people inenvironmental management issues often results fromnegotiatory approaches to planning, which sometimesresult in a negotiated land use agreement. However, eventhese agreements have not received adequate governmentsupport required for them to operate effectively at a legaland political level (Langton et al., 2004). Joint managementagreements often fall far short on implementing the rightsand responsibilities of resource management that could beconferred from indigenous land and sea property rights(Nettheim et al., 2002; Ross and Pickering, 2002).

4.4. Suggestions for future community-based fisheries

initiatives

Once the political and legal support for community-based fisheries is secured, other barriers to sustainablemanagement (e.g., the need for further research beforeapportioning resource allocations) can be overcome bymore adaptive research designs, which align with manyculturally based resource management systems. Adaptivemanagement is typically based on progressive feedbackfrom field experimentation. Harvest strategies that dependon stock size involve annually setting the target harvest tobe some linear function of population size, but requireknowledge of that population size. Because of the inherentvariability of Sandfish density in this region, small-scaleadaptive harvesting by indigenous fishery entrants, forexample, in the non-commercially fished areas foundduring the field survey, may be useful, but this wouldrequire the cooperation of all public, private and indigen-ous stakeholders. Alternatively, the declaration of areasclosed to commercial fishing (e.g., through indigenous seaclosures) could serve to host carefully controlled adaptiveharvest experiments and help to foster indigenous aspira-tions in community-based fisheries management. Again,such sea closures require political and legislative support.Despite paradigmatic shifts in environmental studies that

incorporate community-based approaches, many programsfail to bridge the intercultural divide about ways ofunderstanding, the management systems of indigenousand non-indigenous environmental managers, and thesystematic and entrenched disadvantage of indigenouspeople. Even those who use both qualitative and quanti-tative data seldom explore the epistemological and colonialposition of their discipline (Patterson and Williams, 1998).Despite indigenous people’s historical knowledge ofmanagement techniques, such as the period and quantityof harvest at any one locality and the retention ofbroodstock, there is still a reliance on determining surplus

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Carter, G. Hill / Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 866–875874

production available for harvest to develop harvest planswhich, when implemented, require monitoring and en-forcement, and rely on technical expertize and governmentregulatory frameworks (Weinstein, 2000). The futility ofchasing linear research approaches when other jointlydevised and adaptive approaches might be more appro-priate, is illustrated by this case study.

Field survey, mapping and GIS analyses lend themselvesto interdisciplinarity and intercultural research because oftheir visual, field-intensive and structural flexibility inincorporating ethnobiology (local knowledge of biologicalresources) with other data (Dahdouh-Guebas, 2002; Carteret al., 2004). Qualitative resource information can be inputto a GIS as text, for example, the suggestions byindigenous people that temporary Sandfish absence duringthe survey was due to water movement regimes, whichconcurs with Kerr et al., (1993) that water movement(waves and currents) may be a limiting factor in Sandfishdistribution. A range of depth contours, digitized fromnautical charts, might be combined with masking of reefs,rocky areas or known habitat features to identify localizedSandfish patterns within bays, noting proximity to fresh-water discharge, underlying bathymetry and other factorsthat favour the accumulation of organic sediments atdifferent seasons. The importance of such design principlesis that knowledge is refined over time in small areas in waysthat correspond with the geographic and social boundariesof clan estates. Small management units can be aggregatedwithin nested enterprises that collectively satisfy the supplyand demand requirements of a sustainable fishery.

This research rejects the notion that the inclusive,community-based project design with participatory me-chanisms and knowledge exchange structures would(alone) solve the issue of facilitating the emergence of theindigenous community-based fishery. This research sup-ports Weinstein’s (2000) argument that while community-based fisheries have their inherent difficulties, the solutionsoffered by inclusive and equitable participation of allstakeholders can contribute to sustainable fisheries in manynations. However, this research argues that withoutconcomitant political and statutory backing to supportcommunity-based initiatives, the outcomes for indigenousAustralians will continue to be dismal.

5. Conclusion

Fisheries management can be developed from commu-nity-based strategies, and especially in indigenous Australiawhere many culturally based harvest and managementrules operate today. However, these strategies may bedisregarded by fishers from outside the community in theabsence of recognition and enforcement by public autho-rities. Mechanisms that link legislation, policy and manage-ment need to be articulated and enforced with allstakeholders, not only those in the indigenous domain.These mechanisms require agreed protocols and account-abilities between stakeholders, to avoid institutions shifting

costs and responsibilities to community groups that haveinsufficient initial capacity to succeed. Extensive supportfor, and enforcement of, facilitated resource-use arrange-ments is required within valid agreements that havepolitical and legal backing. The sustainability paradigmin Australia needs urgent overhaul because, althoughenvironmental sustainability is becoming well-established,the social and cultural dimensions of sustainability areafforded little protection within the agenda.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the traditional owners ofManingrida and the Cobourg Peninsula for allowing,supporting and participating in this research. The re-viewers’ comments have helped to focus the paper and togenerate a more valuable research contribution, for whichthey are sincerely thanked. Adjunct Professor DavidHollinsworth from the University of Queensland, providedinvaluable comment on the redraft of this paper. Environ-ment Australia funded the research through the NorthernTerritory Parks and Wildlife Commission. Staff of theNorthern Territory Department of Primary Industry andFisheries helped with videocamera development, supply ofthe beam trawl, and commercial catch data modelling, andprovided invaluable advice throughout the duration of theproject. Ms Renee Bartolo drafted the location map.

References

Alpert, P., 1995. Integrated conservation and development: applying

ecological research at integrated conservation and development

projects. Ecological Applications 5, 857–860.

Amos, C., Alfoldi, T., 1979. The determination of suspended sediment

concentration in a macrotidal system using Landsat data. Journal of

Sedimentary Petrology 49, 159–174.

Anuchiracheeva, S., Demaine, H., Shivakoti, G., Ruddle, K., 2003.

Systematizing local knowledge using GIS; fisheries management in

Bang Saphan Bay, Thailand. Ocean and Coastal Management 46,

1049–1068.

Arnstein, S., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the

American Institute of Planners 35, 216–224.

Baker, L., 1992. Mutitjulu Community. Comparing two views of the

landscape: Aboriginal traditional ecological knowledge and modern

scientific knowledge. Rangeland Journal 14, 174–189.

Bowles, J., 1986. Engineering properties of soils and their measurement,

third ed. McGraw-Hill International Editions, Singapore.

Carter, J., 2001. Collaborative ecological research with indigenous

Australians: the trepang project. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy

in Science thesis. Charles Darwin University, Darwin.

Carter, J., Ngallametta, J., Norman, P., 2004. Participatory resource-use

planning in northern Australia. In: Thwaites, R., Carter, J., Norman,

P. (Eds.), Community-Based Resource Planning: Studies from

Zimbabwe and Northern Australia. Australian Centre for Interna-

tional Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp. 65–80.

Christie, P., White, A., Deguit, E., 2002. Starting point or solution?

Community-based marine protected areas in the Philippines. Journal

of Environmental Management 66, 441–454.

Costa-Neto, E., 2000. Sustainable development and traditional knowl-

edge: a case study in a Brazilian artisanal fishermen’s community.

Sustainable Development 8, 89–95.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Carter, G. Hill / Journal of Environmental Management 85 (2007) 866–875 875

Dahdough-Guebas, F., 2002. The use of remote sensing and GIS in the

sustainable management of tropical coastal ecosystems. Environment,

Development and Sustainability 4, 93–112.

Eversole, R., 2003. Managing the pitfalls of participatory development:

some insight from Australia. World Development 31, 781–795.

Gibbs, M., 2003. Indigenous rights to natural resources in Australia and

New Zealand: Kereru, Dugong and Pounamu. Australasian Journal of

Environmental Management 10, 138–151.

Greene, S., 2004. Indigenous people incorporated? Culture as politics,

culture as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting. Current

Anthropology 45, 210–237.

Hamel, J., Conand, C., Pawson, D., Mercier, A., 2001. The sea cucumber

Holothuria scabra (Holothuroidea: Echinodermata): its biology and

exploitation as beche-de-mer. Advances in Marine Biology 41,

129–223.

Han, L., Rundquist, C., Liu, L., Fraser, R., 1994. The spectral res-

ponses of algal chlorophyll in water with varying levels of sus-

pended sediment. International Journal of Remote Sensing 15,

3707–3718.

Hilborn, R., Walters, C., 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment:

Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Hill, G., Ahmad, W., 1992. The application of Landsat Thematic Mapper

data for estimating the area of trochus shell habitat at Yorke Island,

Australia. Asian-Pacific Remote Sensing Journal 5, 9–16.

Jentoft, S., McCay, B., Wilson, D., 1998. Social theory and fisheries co-

management. Marine Policy 22, 423–436.

Kerr, A., Stoffel, E., Yoon, R., 1993. Abundance distribution of

Holothuroids (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) on a Windward and

Leeward Fringing Coral Reef, Buam, Mariana Islands. Bulletin of

Marine Science 52, 780–791.

Khan, M., Fadlallah, Y., Al-Hinai, K., 1992. Thematic mapping of

subtidal coastal habitats in the western Arabian Gulf using Landsat

TM data–Abu Ali Bay, Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Remote

Sensing 13, 605–614.

Krebs, C., 1989. Ecological Methodology. Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.,

New York.

Langton, M., Tehan, M., Palmer, L., Shain, K., 2004. Melbourne

University Press, Carlton.

Long, B., Skewes, D., Dennis, I., Poiner, R., Pitcher, T., Taranto, F.,

Manson, I., Baxter, P., Polon, B., Karre, B., Evans, C., Milton, D.,

1996. Distribution and abundance of becde-de-mer on Torres Strait

Reefs, Final report to Queensland Fisheries Management Authority.

CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Brisbane, p. 95.

Lyon, J., Lunetta, R., Williams, D., 1992. Airborne multispectral scanner

data for evaluating bottom sediment types and water depths of the St.

Marys River, Michigan. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote

Sensing 58, 951–956.

Lyzenga, D., 1978. Passive remote sensing techniques for mapping water

depth and bottom features. Applied Optics 17, 379–383.

Lyzenga, D., 1981. Remote sensing of bottom reflectance and water

attenuation parameters in shallow water using aircraft and Landsat

data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2, 71–82.

Macknight, C.C., 1976. The voyage to Marege’: Macassan trepangers in

northern Australia. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Maritorena, S., Morel, A., Gentili, B., 1994. Diffuse reflectance of oceanic

shallow waters: influence of water depth and bottom albedo.

Limnology and Oceanography 39, 1689–1703.

Menges, C., Hill, G., Ahmad, W., 1998. Landsat TM data and potential

feeding grounds for threatened marine turtle species in northern

Australia. International Journal of Remote Sensing 19, 1207–1221.

Mercier, A., Battaglene, S., Hamel, J., 2000. Periodic movement,

recruitment and size-related distribution of the sea cucumber

Holothuria scabra in Solomon Islands. Hydrobiologia 440, 81–100.

Michalek, J., Wagner, T., Luczkovich, J., Stoffle, R., 1993. Multispectral

change vector analysis for monitoring coastal marine environments.

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 59, 381–384.

Mumby, P., Harborne, A., 1999. Development of a systematic classification

scheme of marine habitats to faciltate regional management and mapping

of Caribbean coral reefs. Biological Conservation 88, 155–163.

Nettheim, G., Meyers, G., Craig, D., 2002. Aboriginal Studies Press,

Canberra.

Patterson, M., Williams, D., 1998. Paradigms and problems: the practice

of social science in natural resource management. Society and Natural

Resources 11, 279–295.

Quinn, N., Dalzall, P., Kojis, B., 1985. Landsat as a management tool for

mapping shallow water habitats in Papua New Guinea. Proceedings of

the Fifth International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti 6, 545–550.

Quintana, J., Morse, S., 2005. Social interactions and resource ownership

in two private protected areas of Paraguay. Journal of Environmental

Management 77, 64–78.

Ross, A., Pickering, K., 2002. The politics of reintegrating Australian

aboriginal and American Indian indigenous knowledge into resource

management: the dynamics of resource appropriation and cultural

revival. Human Ecology 30, 187–214.

Ruddle, K., 2001. Systems of knowledge: dialogue, relationships and

process. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2, 277–304.

Russell, D., 2004. Aboriginal-Makassan interactions in the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries in northern Australia and contemporary sea rights

claims. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1, 3–17.

Sandall, R., 2001. The Culture Cult: Designer Tribalism and Other Essays.

Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Schramm Jr., H., Hubert, W., 1996. Ecosystem management: implications

for fisheries management. Fisheries 21, 6–11.

Shepherd, S., Martinez, P., Toral-Granda, M., Edgar, G., 2004. The

Galapagos sea cucumber fishery: management improves as stocks

decline. Environmental Conservation 31, 102–110.

Valbo-Jorgensen, J., Poulsen, A., 2001. Using local knowledge as a

research tool in the study of river fish biology: experiences from the

Mekong. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2, 253–276.

Weinstein, M., 2000. Pieces of the puzzle: solutions for community-based

fisheries management from native Canadians, Japanese cooperatives,

and Common Property Researchers. Georgetown International

Environmental Law Review 12, 375–412.

Williams, N., 1982. A boundary is to cross: observations on Yolngu

boundaries and permission. In: Williams, N., Hunn, E. (Eds.),

Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gath-

erers. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Yates, M., Jones, A., McGrorty, S., Goss-Custard, J., 1993. The use of

satellite imagery to determine the distribution of intertidal surface

sediments of The Wash, England. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

36, 333–344.

Zainal, A., Dalby, D., Robinson, I., 1993. Monitoring marine ecological

changes on the East Coast of Bahrain with Landsat TM. Photogram-

metric Engineering and Remote Sensing 59, 415–421.