Dillon, Rodney --- "Seeing the Sea: Science, Change and Indigenous Sea Rights" [2002] MarStudies 7; (2002) 123 Maritime Studies 12
Seeing the Sea: Science, Change and Indigenous Sea Rights[1]
Rodney Dillon[2]
Introduction
As is customary in Aboriginal society, I would like to acknowledge the two local Traditional Owner groups, the Bindal people and the Wulgurukaba people.
My name is Rodney Dillon. I am a Palawa Aboriginal man from Tasmania and the Commissioner elected for the Tasmania Zone of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). As one of 19 ATSIC Commissioners, I have portfolio respon-sibilities, and one of these responsibilities is the ‘Sea Rights Portfolio’. It is in this capacity that I would like to provide some insight into the Sea Rights of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. It is also my duty to pass on the concerns that Australia’s indigenous groups are currently raising about marine management and research practices, and the adverse impact that other professional groups have on the sea and its resources.
Traditions and Customs
We have inherited rich traditions, beliefs and customs about the sea from our ancestors. Fundamental to the way we interact with the sea is our belief that we are a part of the sea, and the sea is a part of us, always has been and always will be. This belief is maintained through our stories passed down from one generation to the next. This intimate attachment to the sea affects the way we interact with it. We never abuse it by unnecessarily taking or destroying the creatures and plants that live in it. It is sufficient for us to only take what is needed to feed our families, and share or exchange with neigh-bouring groups. Our traditions strongly dis-courage individual greed and the treatment of nature with disrespect. Traditional ways were and are sensible ways for managing the sea and marine resources.
When white settlers first came to Australia, they assumed we did not have ownership of the land and the sea. In order to justify their taking possession of our estates, they assumed we were constantly moving around the landscapes, like animals, and therefore had no particular attach-ment to the land and sea. They failed to realise that we had protocols and elaborate laws in place to protect the rights of owners, managers and custodians of particular tracts of land and sea. These customs were strictly followed and any individual or group found trespassing or taking fish without the permission of the custodians would be punished under traditional law.
Custodians who owned and managed specific areas had, and still have, a very detailed knowledge of the environment in which they lived. This knowledge, accumulated over thousands of years, was applied to ensure that our taking of sea resources would not have a noticeable impact on marine biodiversity. Our traditional ways recognise the importance of sustainable harvest. What we take from the sea is sufficient to meet the immediate needs of the family group. A number of mechanisms were also put in place to ensure the survival of certain species. For example, persons with a totemic affiliation to particular species (e.g. turtle) were not allowed to kill and eat those very species.
We observe, listen to, and learn from the sea. Our traditional knowledge has been passed on from generation to generation through stories, songs, dances and other practices. This know-ledge system and our environmental philosophy has led us to adopt sensible and sustainable marine management practices. As custodians and managers of the marine environment, I reckon we’ve done a pretty good job. The first white settlers were quick to notice the abundance of fish and shellfish in estuaries, on the littoral zone and offshore. Schools of migrating fish, some stretching over several kilometres, could be seen moving up and down the coastline or up the rivers and creeks. But where have these schools of mullet, tailor, bream and other fish gone?
Inadequacies with Marine Management and Fishing Practices
The first significant assault on our marine environment in Australia started with whalers and sealers who set up processing stations at various locations in Tasmania, on islands off Tasmania and along the southern coastline on the mainland. These stations were utilised to process literally millions of whales and seals over a comparatively short period of time. The industry was soon brought to its knees as a consequence of its own greed that led to the near extinction of several species targeted by operators.
The history of the whaling industry provides a perfect example of what can be expected as a result of engaging in intensive harvesting activities that violate and abuse nature. Unfortunately, since the collapse of the whaling industry, ‘whitefellows’ have not learnt a great deal about what sustainability really means. A number of fish, shark and mammal species have since become extinct, and the population levels of other species have become so critically low that their natural behaviour has been altered forever, including migratory patterns. Do you as marine scientists honestly believe that other species, presently considered not endangered, will not follow on the extinction path?
The squandering, pilfering and wanton destruction of marine species is still taking place today. I firmly believe that fishing quotas set by state, territory and Commonwealth governments are much too high to ensure the survival of most commercial fish species. The number of licensed professional fishing operators is also too high. For example, the combined number of scallop harvesting licences issued by the Commonwealth, Victorian and Tasmanian Governments to professionals operating in Bass Strait I believe exceeds 200. It is basic common sense that hundreds of harvesters operating in this comparatively small area, using the sophisticated dredging methods currently available, cannot possibly expect their practices to be sustainable.
While Aboriginal people take fish to feed our family and maintain our cultural practices, multinational companies and other large commercial fishing operators take fish to feed their banks, supply tons of fish to markets around the world or even stockpile where it involves more lucrative species. It is simply not good practice to take the fish merely because it’s there. The current philosophy driving the development of fisheries policies is to exploit as many resources from the marine environment as can possibly be done while ensuring that fish populations are maintained at sustainable levels. The thresholds set by fisheries management agencies in relation to amount of take for each species are considered safe on the basis that some marine scientists are prepared to provide data to support the claims of these managers. Unfortunately, the views of both scientists and government managers involved in fisheries often lack objectivity, as they are influenced by the potential economic gains of the fishing industry and backlash from the industry should thresholds be significantly lowered. Unless much lower threshold levels are set, we are quickly heading towards a collapse of fisheries in Australia.
Also, modern technology has become too smart for the fish – far too effective to give the fish a chance. Locating schools of fish is now increasingly and effectively done through remote satellite-operated technology. This does not give the fish a chance to hide anywhere. It is overkill. Scientists are helping professional operators in the process and are equally guilty. Detailed research is currently carried out to map the ocean floor and associated resources. This process is partly driven to identify species considered commercially viable so that new fisheries can be established and professional fishing licenses issued by government departments.
Government officials, professional fishing operators and scientists need to involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people fully in their processes, recognise our know-ledge of the ecosystem, and involve us in decision-making processes and the management of the oceans. They don’t necessarily know more than we do about the marine environment just because they have spent 10 years at university. We have at least 50,000 years of cumulative knowledge about the oceans. It is time professional groups recognise the value of that knowledge and start relying on it to develop sound marine management policies and practices.
Consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People
To a large extent, the environmental mess we are in today can be attributed to the entrenched attitude of governments, researchers and industries refusing to either consult local indigenous groups on sea-related matters, or fully take into consideration the advice they have received. It is arrogant on the part of marine managers and other government officials involved in sea issues not to actively seek our views and input into the development of conservation, fisheries and other policies affecting the sea and its resources.
Seeking our full involvement in the management of fisheries and other ocean-related activities is equally important. Not doing so represents a violation of our rights as Traditional Owners. Ignoring our ability to sensibly manage the oceans also means that serious mismanagement practices will continue to affect the marine environment. We ought to be consulted and given an opportunity to fully participate in the management of various marine issues, in particular fisheries management. Indigenous people have so far been excluded from fisheries management boards on the basis of certain criteria set by legislation. The current criteria give preference for board membership nomination to individuals who are directly involved in the professional fishing industry as well as key government managers and academics. As a result, indigenous people are not represented on the Management Advisory Committees of Commonwealth fisheries. It is time to review fisheries legislation to ensure that indigenous people can access membership of these committees in their capacity as Traditional Owners and managers. Other processes could also be developed to ensure that the knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is incorporated into fisheries management.
Involvement of indigenous people in the management of marine parks is another area in need of attention. Unless we are involved in the setting up and management of marine parks, marine-protected areas and other marine reserves, there can be no reconciliation. On occasion, national parks managers have considered our traditional hunting practices as one of several factors representing a threat to the marine environment. Aboriginal people from northern Australia find it offensive to be told, for example, that they are not allowed to take dugong to feed their families because the practice is not sustainable. Local Aboriginal groups know whether or not their own practices are sustainable – they don’t need ‘whitefellas’ to accuse them of irresponsible environmental management, especially given their track record in managing the environment. Being asked to stop the long practice of hunting dugong now means that their culture is at risk. Environment managers also said for 20 years that indigenous people in northern Australia were not allowed to take crocodiles. The species was on the brink of extinction, not because of our practices, but because ‘whitefellas’ commercially exploited crocodiles for their skins. If national parks authorities had consulted with the Aboriginal communities about the management of crocodiles, this situation would never have developed.
Unless we are directly involved in decision-making processes concerning environmental management, these malpractices and accusa-tions will continue to take place. The refusal to incorporate indigenous knowledge and practices in environmental management hurts the environment and costly mistakes are being made. It is somewhat ironic that, whilst environmental managers have failed to fully involve indigenous people in the management of marine parks, they have not acknowledged the fact that we are directly responsible for leaving a legacy of pristine environments. It is these environments that are used by environ-ment management agencies to declare national parks. Environment managers can no longer justify their decision-making processes on the basis of their scientific knowledge. The science applied by the non-indigenous community has got cracks in it. It is time white scientists and environment managers acknowledge our 50,000 years of wisdom, give us credit for it, and start practicing, or at least let us practice, our ways.
The last point I wish to make concerning consultation with indigenous people is that our traditional knowledge should not be recorded and used by scientists as if it was their know-ledge. Indigenous communities feel strongly about remaining in control of their intellectual property. Ecological knowledge passed on from generation to generation belongs to community groups and must not be used without their consent. Many scientists in the past have come to communities and made use of the information as if it was theirs. Every time this happens, it contributes to the process of dispossession of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The trend should instead be reversed so that we, the indigenous people of Australia, are involved in managing the environment and fully able to enjoy our culture. This cannot be achieved until our sea rights are adequately recognised by governments in Australia.
Recognition of Indigenous Sea Rights
The fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had full ownership of the sea and its resources and possessed an intimate knowledge of the marine environment was conveniently ignored by the first white settlers, and we continue to be marginalised by current government policies, legislation and practices. We have never relinquished our ownership of, and usufructuary rights to, the sea.
Meanwhile, the process of dispossession that has taken place over the last two centuries has had a tremendous impact on all of our people. Our ancestors were shot dead or rounded up, taken away by Government officials and resettled on missions or settlements so that white settlers could make use of our lands and seas without hindrance from the Traditional Owners. These practices had an immediate impact on our people. Our ancestors and people alive today have all been affected by a poor diet made up primarily of non-traditional foods. We have been denied the right to make decisions concerning our land and sea estates. We are afflicted by introduced diseases and have an appallingly low average life expectancy. We have been ridiculed for attempting to pass on our traditions, practices and knowledge about the environment. In short, we have now earned the label of ‘the most disadvantaged group in Australia’.
Our physical and spiritual well-being is closely tied to us regaining access to and ownership of our sea estates. While some progress has been made in Australia towards recognition of land rights, the recognition of our sea rights is entirely lacking. The Native Title Act 1993 does not enable us to regain exclusive possession of our sea estates. It does not even allow us to enjoy exclusive use of the marine resources. If we are lucky enough to be recognised native title holders of a patch of sea, following the lengthy bureaucratic and legal process that native title is, this recognition still does not give us the right to freely make use of the resources. That is, we are told that we, Traditional Owners, have to share the fish, shellfish and other resources with other user groups. In effect this means we have to compete with pro-fessional fishing operators who use state of the art technology to scoop up huge quantities of fish. This intensive culling of fish stocks clearly has an impact on many coastal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that are now struggling to feed their families. The Native Title Act also tells us we have no rights to negotiate with other parties who intend to carry out some acts that will have an impact on the marine resources and environment, such as the issuing of new fishing licences, drilling for oil and gas, setting up new tourism or shipping ventures and so on. Does this system amount to any justice? Not from where I stand. We are treated as criminals if we go diving and collect, say, 20 or 30 abalone to feed our families.
Other Western nations (e.g. Canada and New Zealand) have provided for the recognition of indigenous sea rights and have, to the best of my knowledge, duly compensated these people. For us in Australia, the legal system has not provided any justice. We need our sea rights recognised urgently. Recognition needs to be at the national level rather than at the level of the group or individual who each have to go to court to put their case. If the Commonwealth and State/territory Governments don’t watch it and don’t act soon, there will be an upheaval. We will present our case to international forums until our rights are recognised. Our sea rights go beyond being able to freely make use of marine areas and their resources. We need to be able to have a say in any decision-making process directly or indirectly impacting on our sea estates. The practices at sea (massive take through intensive fishing, pollution, etc.), farming, mining and other practices all contribute to a change in the marine environ-ment and, in turn, a decline in Aboriginal culture. The environment is suffering just like our culture is.
Conclusion
The unsanctioned acquisition, control and management of our traditional marine environments by the Crown and its continued management by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, and their pushing aside indigenous peoples, is the direct cause of the large-scale degradation of our marine environment seen over the last two centuries.
White people who came here 200 years ago assumed control over, and claimed ownership of, the marine environment and ignored the complex relationship developed between Indigenous people and the sea over thousands of years. The link was maintained and reinforced through mythology, stories, and other beliefs and customs. Understanding of the sea thereby became much more narrow-minded, focusing almost entirely on what could be plundered and how much financial gains could be made. Respect for the sea was almost completely wiped out.
I know many marine scientists think seriously about ensuring that the marine environment is looked after and that biodiversity is maintained so that future generations can enjoy the sea. Everyone is aware, for example, of the great efforts made by Greenpeace just to protect a single species from extinction. I am also aware that there are many other conservation groups and scientists out there who are directly involved in conservation research and promotion. But is this a case of too little too late? We should never have to face the prospects of yet another species being added to the endangered list as a direct result of irresponsible human actions. This situation can be avoided by pulling right back and taking a good look at what impact humans are having on the sea. One needs to seriously question whether or not the marine resources will survive for next generations to enjoy given the total number of fishing trawlers operating in Australian waters and the overall catch per day. From an indigenous perspective, it isn’t sustainable.
The activities of researchers should also be called into question. Research is a two-edged sword. While some research is being directly applied to assist in preventing the extinction of species, other research is being utilised by governments to make inadequate fisheries policies (e.g. to identify new fisheries for commercial gains, develop more sophisticated and effective fishing technology, or provide justification for unreasonably high fisheries quotas).
Indigenous people do not support the accumulation of knowledge that will be used to the detriment of the sea. We have much respect for the sea – the sea is like our mother, she looks after us. Would anyone want to murder or hurt their own mother? If that is considered unethical, then surely polluting the sea, pillaging its resources, drilling for oil and gas, etc., must be seen as a crime against nature and, in turn, displaying a lack of respect towards the traditional custodians of the sea. I urge you to involve us in providing good advice to you – consult us at every opportunity.
[1] Paper presented at the ‘Changes in the Marine Environment’ Conference jointly hosted by the Australian Marine Sciences Association and the New Zealand Marine Sciences Society, Townsville, 3-6 July 2001.
[2] ATSIC Commissioner – Tasmania Zone.