Central Land Council

Rose Report Two

Land Degradation

Introduction

Land degradation is a problem on Aboriginal lands as it is elsewhere throughout Australia. On Aboriginal lands, however, degradation issues can differ because of the land uses that are practiced and the particular resources that those uses rely upon. Land degradation issues such as soil erosion, loss of vegetation and loss of plant and animals species can be seen in a different way by Aboriginal people because of their significance to Aboriginal land uses. Aboriginal perceptions of land degradation vary greatly with the level of exposure to particular problems and the impact of these problems on desired land uses.

Communicating about degradation

Aboriginal responses to questions about land degradation are clouded because of problems with communication arising from language difficulties, understanding the terminology used and the overall level of awareness of particular issues. It was clear, however, that in general the respondents see the issues of land degradation which concern mainstream land managers as a low priority. It is difficult to discuss land degradation with Aboriginal people because of the terminology used. The term "land degradation" itself is not widely understood. Translations which were often used to communicate the notion of degradation included "changes to the land", "problems on the land", "damage to the land" or more specifically suggestive translations such as "causing dust problems", "finish up all the grass" or "makes the soil wash away".

Aboriginal people do observe the changes to the land which other land managers call degradation. The perception of these changes is acute, given that people have an in-depth knowledge of the land and a sophisticated understanding of the interaction of plants and animals. However, it does not necessarily follow that observing and recognising such changes amounts to a recognition of the concept of "degradation". The notion of degradation amongst non-Aboriginal people is based on a concern that some changes to the land are not "natural" in that they harm the land and reduce its potential to produce resources in the future. The changes that Aboriginal people see are considered by them to be a "natural" result of use of the land, for example by a herd of cattle. If too many cattle use the land the changes are great, other animals may not be able to find food in this area, creek banks may be "messed up", natural waters made unusable.

But Aboriginal people do not take the further step to say that, beyond a certain point, these changes represent degradation. Such an assignation of categories is an abstraction which most Aboriginal people do not make. For example soil erosion in its various forms was generally not identified as a problem which required some active solution. Erosion was seen as a natural process which happens when it rains, and the rain will bring new growth to renew the land. Erosion is part of a natural cycle.

Perceptions of land degradation

Changes in the way that the land can produce resources are seen as part of the natural cycle. When there are less productive phases this is seen to be because of a lack of rain. Respondents repeatedly said that "the country changes more when it rains or when it is dry" than through the influence of particular land uses. For example when discussing the effects of cattle and horses on the country at Kunoth Bore on Hamilton Downs the respondents answered "dry times can be bad; hard work needed to move them around then." There was considerable difficulty in communicating the concept of land degradation. Discussions were based on changes to the country over time since the arrival of cattle and horses. Having too many cattle on the country was not seen as the cause of problems, but rather that there might not be enough rain to maintain the country for these animals. Changes after rain are seen as more important. People suggested that when it rains the country is all right again and this is not dependent on the uses that have been made of the country in between.

The effects of cattle, feral horses and camels on the country around Papunya was not seen as degradation. Respondents rejected the notion of degradation as far as it could be translated to them. Discussions about the impacts these animals have on the country resulted in the response that "they don't damage the soil, only in dry time make a mess around country." Further to this, the respondents said "country hasn't changed, still lots of bush tucker around here." In the initial response there is a distinction being drawn between damage to the soil and making a mess around country. From a different perspective both of these conditions could be considered land degradation.

Respondents rejection of the notion of degradation reflects difficulty in understanding the terminology and meaning of degradation. People were aware of the effects of these animals as they make a "mess". It is the connection between the sorts of effects that are observed and the use of the term degradation that is not being made in this case. Another respondent gave a different perspective on the effects of introduced animals on native species. "Lots of cattle around here and they don't cause problems for the bush tucker animals. The Dreaming animals live okay with those others (cattle horses etc.)." Here there is a recognition being made that the introduced animals do not have a Dreaming; however, this is not a problem for animals which do have a Dreaming.

For Aboriginal people there appears no incompatibility between native animals and introduced animals using the land together. From the Aboriginal perspective there is little wrong with allowing use of the land as that is what animals do. At Mt Dennison pastoral lease where traditional owners for the area are seeking an excision for a living area people were reluctant to suggest that horses and cattle might damage country. An example of the discussion was; "Lots of waterholes on that country, lots of places for cattle to drink." Do the cattle have any effect on the country around those waterholes? "They're okay they come and get the water and go away." Do they stop the other animals from getting water on the country? "No they're okay, still get marlu (kangaroo)." Do they damage the waterholes, make the water muddy and no good to drink? "Yes, sometimes they damage them, make the water muddy, they put marks all around and mess it up." In this case it is worthwhile pointing out that without some leading discussion the conclusion that cattle and horses damage waterholes is perhaps not one the respondents would have made. An acceptance that waterholes are messed up is not necessarily an acceptance that degradation is being caused.

As Aboriginal people recognise changes on the land from different land uses there is a notion of what might be called "acceptable changes" as a result of land use decisions. For example at Karlampurlpa outstation on the Karlantijpa North Aboriginal Land Trust there is strong interest in developing a cattle enterprise. Before this venture began the traditional owners for the area were able to discuss how cattle would affect the country; "Those bullock could be eat some of that bush tucker, eat that bush potato, leaf only you know, that fruit is underground, bush orange, eat him, they eat that and the bush tomato. Some bullocks eat the juicy tomatoes and they can go for a long time without water then."

It was apparent that such things occurred and that the country would change in response to grazing pressure but these changes were acceptable. "They don't eat too much of the bush tucker, still plenty around." From some responses it was noted that there were changes which might be considered "unacceptable" and which could precipitate some remedial management action. Some respondents expressed concern over the effects of cattle and other feral animals on the country because of competition between these species and the native animals. "Bullock eat grass and kangaroos and other animals finish up." Others noted how their land use practices might be affected by the presence of these animals. "Can't make a fire because you kill em bullock." The point at which such "unacceptable changes" can actually be called land degradation is difficult to determine. Degradation related issues of concern to Aboriginal people

The Aboriginal people who were consulted during this research clearly recognise that the land has changed in a number of ways since the arrival of Europeans. Aboriginal patterns of mobility and the size of the population have also changed dramatically. With these changes much of the country which was regularly visited by family or tribal groups is now visited on an irregular basis depending on the availability of transport and the present tenure of that land. An overriding concern expressed by many people is that a lack of access, particularly in more remote areas, leads to the country becoming "sick". The land is not being looked after. The health of the land is diminished when the connection between custodians and the land is eroded, and the old people who carried out ceremonies and sang songs for country pass away. There is then a close connection between the ritual of spiritual observances and the health and natural rhythms of the land.

Such connections are clearly made in ceremonies which are carried out to ensure that the country will produce resources for the next season. In some areas significant changes to the natural environment occurred during the period where Aboriginal people were away from their lands in government settlements and missions. For example, people returning to Kintore after many years in Papunya found that many of the native animal species had gone from the country to be replaced by camels. The country had not been looked after and was seen as depleted or degraded. People see the reason for this was because there had been no-one living on country to take care of it, to carry out ceremonies and to burn.

Many people related that the land only remained healthy when there were Aboriginal people around to take care of it. When there is nobody looking after the land it becomes "sick". Degradation is seen as the result of non-use rather than over use, through lack of Aboriginal traditional management. A number of manifestations of land degradation, such as dust problems around the community and the loss of many small mammal species, were identified by many people as problems. Other problems which were identified arise from changes in the ability of the land to provide particular resources such as bush foods. On many outstations people expressed concern at the physical damage caused by feral and domestic stock. A consistent problem was damage to fences, taps, gardens and other infrastructure. These incursions were seen mainly as nuisances that resulted from sharing the country with animals.

In some cases the person or persons who owned the animals (if they were domestic stock) was blamed for not controlling the animals properly, however, the feral animals themselves were rarely blamed because they had a "right" to live on the country too. There was, however, general awareness of the damage that cattle and horses do to the outstation environment. Some of the responses in the Papunya region which demonstrate this are, "better to have less cattle and horses around because they knocked down fences and ate the garden, we might ask the Haasts Bluff mob to come and take them away. Sometimes we get a killer but the country is not green anymore."

At Alkipi outstation the responses to questions about the effects of cattle on the country were not particularly strong but some negative aspects were emphasised. As a result the people do not want to have any cattle or horses of their own around the outstation. "Since cattle come, dry, not much grass, cattle might be a bit greedy, robbing him too much." There are often severe land degradation problems on pastoral excision communities. The land use pressure from even a small population of people on these small areas, usually around one or two sq. km., is considerable. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic destroy natural vegetation and result in severe dust problems.

Wood collection for fires and for artefact manufacture often impacts heavily on the surrounding country. The most common response to these problems is the desire to move and live elsewhere, away from the dust and other problems. Because the prospects for such a move are poor (unless people return to larger communities with consequent social problems) many people look on the excision area as temporary and put up with poor conditions because "we are just sitting down here until we get our country back."

Problems with damage to traditional country over which Aboriginal people have no title or control is often a concern. At Irrerlirre community on McDonald Downs pastoral lease damage from bullocks to sacred sites on the station lease land was a concern, however, the respondents said that the pastoralist reacted to these concerns by removing cattle from the area. On the basis of the testimonies of many respondents such a cooperative relationship between pastoralists and excision occupants is the exception rather than the rule. In many cases the impacts of pastoralism on the country were not seen as a concern. One respondent spoke of a time when the pastoral lease on his traditional land had 13,000 head of cattle. In those days he said the country was being damaged. But since then the country had recovered and it was good again. If he had access to this country now pastoralism was one of the main land uses he would like to carry out there. When asked if the country was as good now as it was in those days he responded "well I think they have less rain now than they used to. The old people used to make sure that it rained. They did all the ceremony. Now most of them have gone and it only rains every now and then."

Some respondents linked the presence of feral animals in large numbers with changes to the country because nobody is looking after (i.e. managing) them. The country gets "messed up" when feral animals are not looked after. Such views are more closely aligned with the "mainstream" view that feral animals cause land degradation; however, the majority of respondents saw changes on the country from grazing animals or overuse of country as of far less significance than the changes which occur after rain. Good rains are seen as far more important for the condition of the land than grazing, which is usually seen to cause only short term effects. The perception of changes to the land depends on the time scale over which observations are made. It was often the case that people dismissed questions about changes to the land caused by overgrazing or other land use practices. These would be set right after rain, that is, given time the country would recover and short term changes were not to be worried about. It was not that the short term condition of the land was not being recognised, but rather that changes over this scale of time were not being emphasised.

The particular way Aboriginal respondents view the importance of changes to the land is based on a different set of priorities and understandings. It may be posited that in pre-contact traditional land use Aboriginal people would have been aware of loss of condition of the land as it had such an immediate effect on livelihood and may have warranted a move to more productive areas. However, unlike societies based wholly on agricultural production, there was not a need for intensive preparation of the land to ensure ongoing productivity. The land recovered its productive capacity after rain. The emphasis was on using the available resources on a rotational basis within the land area to which people belonged.

This may be an underlying cultural assumption which may help to explain why people today do not focus upon the issues that European land managers call degradation. Changes to resources are seen as a natural part of the way resources are depleted and then naturally replenished. While the response from the Aboriginal people I spoke to indicates that degradation is not a priority issue, many respondents did note that cattle grazing affected the country. Bush tucker species such as kangaroos and emus were said to be less common in grazed country and problems with dust were common. "Cattle country, goanna can't get fat, nothing, got to wait until rain." However, these effects were often passed off as being minor considerations. "Don't worry about the bullock, he just making dust out in the bush." At Pulardi Bore, which is an outstation on the Yuelamu Land Trust (formerly Mt Allan pastoral lease) land degradation was not seen as an issue. The cattle from the Aboriginal managed Yuelamu Cattle Company do not come into the area very often.

Following some further discussion of these issues the respondents said that cattle have some impact on bush tucker but that it all comes back after rain. At Atitjere, trees from Tangentyere Council and an abundance of water make this a very green community, especially because of recent rain at the time of the visit. However, community members said that in the dry times there was a dust problem. They were aware of this problem and taking some steps to combat it. The community environment was the focus of many concerns with plans for a number of developments including revegetation and amenity tree planting works to improve the living environment.

The community had recently worked with ATSIC to develop a plan for future development of services and infrastructure. The issue of landcare beyond the community area was not a priority. It is worth noting that, in the ATSIC plan, landcare works within the community were of the lowest priority. Discussions conducted in Arrernte communities showed that in general people are not concerned about land degradation on a broad scale. Instead they focused on the problems of degradation which occur around communities, including dust problems and lack of vegetation for shade. At Kulpitarra community, west of Hermannsburg, the community environment was a concern. Tree planting works had been carried out with the assistance of Tangentyere Council. The need for this work was based on a perceived problem of dust in the community said to be caused by camels.

"Sometimes we get a lot of dust out here, I think camels come here, they make a lot of mess. Before the camels came here there was plenty feed all over this place. Even after some rain there is still nothing growing on the ground like it was."

"Erosion as a natural process"

Discussions about the level of concern over erosion problems generally elicited the response that erosion is a natural process which happens all the time, irrespective of what people do on the country. Erosion associated with roads and tracks is said to have always occurred, with no suggestion that it was more common in the present than in the past. Respondents at Yuelamu identified erosion on tracks as one of the most serious problems on their country. "Water comes along, big water, cuts across and damages roads and little creeks." Following some further discussion that this problem might be overcome if roads were put in different places respondents said, "before cattle came here then they weren't so bad."

The suggestion that the problem might be overcome by better location of roads was seen as fanciful because such problems were said to have always occurred on this country. Erosion along roads and tracks was a topic upon which many people agreed. It is not seen as a particularly important issue but more of a nuisance. Erosion "happens all the time, wash away all them roads when the rain finish they keep on work." From early times, "same story, all road been wash away". Before kardiya (white people) came, did the country wash away then too? "Well those roads used to wash away too when I was a kid, no grader, no bulldozer then, and those old people used to come around clean it up. Kardiya working, people used to come out shovel and crowbar, make that road again. Those blackfella roads plenty all the same roads." Several respondents suggested that erosion was well known to Aboriginal people.

It occurred before Europeans came to the country, on tracks made by Aboriginal people. Aboriginal recognition of the causes of land degradation Degradation, or the concept of degradation which was communicated during the interviews, was seen to be more related to a lack of rain than to misuse of the country. There is an obvious recognition of the need to control cattle numbers as the food goes and cattle become poor, so the country must be seen as being less able to provide food and therefore perhaps as degraded. However, this is seen as a natural phenomenon exacerbated by a lack of rain. The changes that occur after a good rain are of such magnitude and rapidity that the changes resulting from land use over a longer period of time are not seen as significant. These issues were recognised by many respondents as occurring during "dry times when there's no rain, that's when you get problems."

Such problems were difficult to discuss as they were not a high priority. People equated land degradation to lack of grass for cattle feed and excessive dust. Suggestions that these problems represented damage occurring to the country were dismissed. "When something change you've got to shift all your cattle, when rain comes then you can shift them all back again." One respondent made the following observation. "The country never changes, stones never change, trees never change, – only one time – dry time – that's a big change, trees die, cattle die." Rain is seen as the best way to remedy this situation. "Slow rain is good, fast rain can make the flood water but nothing will grow."

On the former Utopia pastoral lease which is now Aboriginal freehold land held by the Angarapa Aboriginal Land Trust there is a range of opinion about land use activities such as pastoralism and the effect it has on the country. Since the land was returned to Aboriginal control people have settled back onto their country in a number of outstations on their traditional land. Over most of the Angarapa Aboriginal Land Trust pastoral activities have been largely curtailed, resulting in the land returning to a condition approaching that before pastoralism was introduced.

Two groups of traditional owners have maintained interest in having small herds of cattle on their country while others are not interested in having cattle on their land. These groups living at Atite (Mosquito Bore) and at Utopia homestead (Ankerrapw) do not think that cattle cause degradation on the country. Other outstation communities do not want to have cattle on their country for a number of reasons, primary amongst these is a perceived adverse impact on bush tucker. The community at Mulga Bore, an excision on Atartinga pastoral lease, were keen to improve the community environment by planting trees and shrubs to keep the dust down. The impact of cattle on the country was identified as an issue. Respondents said that it was important to keep cattle numbers down to look after the countryside.

It was interesting to get this clear response from this community. The pastoralist managing Atartinga pastoral lease is widely recognised for his environmentally conscious management and a concern over land degradation. The lease itself is considered to be very lightly stocked so that the country is in very good condition. An awareness of degradation problems in the community may have developed in this case through exposure to the attitudes and practices of the pastoralist. At Mt Solitaire outstation, on Hamilton Downs pastoral lease, the effect of cattle on the country was enough for people to decide that they would not have any of their own because they reduce bush tucker. "We don't want to have our own cattle for the outstation. There are already lots of cattle around here from the station (Hamilton Downs). Sometimes cattle are good for the country, sometimes make it dry. Before the cattle came out to this country there were big mobs of kangaroo, now only some." Again there was the suggestion that the country would come back after rain.

The solutions to land degradation

This research found that there is a low level of both awareness and concern about land degradation issues on Aboriginal land. Given this situation questions were raised as to how Aboriginal people might solve these problems, as they perceive them. A response which summarises the view of a small number of respondents is that the "Government mob should help that station mob fix up the country. It isn't us mob who have all the cattle around here. They have them here for a long time we can't do any thing about that." Many Aboriginal people have little control over pastoralism on their lands. People often profess little understanding of what land degradation is.

When an explanation is provided, for example that abuse of the country through grazing too many animals is damaging the land, they are perplexed. One group's tongue-in-cheek solution to land degradation was "we should get rid of the kardiya pastoralists." Then on a more serious note they suggested "we could get rid of the problem by making big rain." A high proportion of respondents did not see control of feral animals as a way to overcome degradation problems. In any case, resort to such seemingly fanciful plans is a low priority when the basic requirements of life such as adequate housing and water supplies are still beyond reach. The majority of respondents have some experience or knowledge of feral animal control programs. In areas where feral animals are numerous many people have first hand knowledge of control programs through the involvement of community members or because the programs have involved some level of community consultation. However, a point which was repeatedly made was that the motives for these programs were not understood.

Respondents recognised that the programs were implemented to reduce animal numbers but the reason for wanting to reduce numbers was often not understood. "Why would they want to get rid of these animals, they aren't doing any harm, just living on the country." In some areas feral animal populations are seen as belonging to the country. Because they have grown up on the land they deserve to be able to continue to live there in peace. Where land degradation caused by feral animals was pointed out, the typical response was that some sort of control program was not really necessary.

The notion that feral animals could or should be controlled does not fit easily into the Aboriginal world view. (This may be seen to follow from the idea that traditionally, Aboriginal people see their environment as inseparable from themselves, whereas the notion of management requires that environment is seen as a separate entity upon which individuals can act.) Natural phenomena are seen to be controlled by laws of the Dreaming and not by the activities of individuals. When respondents discussed the effects of overgrazing on country there was generally a reluctance to accept that the country was being damaged. Using the land is seen as good, provided the uses are appropriate under Aboriginal Law, the land is being productive and demonstrating its fertility. When the productivity declines this is put down to a lack of rain and when there is good rain the country will recover.

Summary

The overall priority of land degradation issues for the majority of Aboriginal people is low. There is more emphasis placed on gaining access to a basic level of services such as water, health and housing. While these needs remain, Aboriginal people will not be able to place the same emphasis on land degradation issues as do other sectors of society. Aboriginal people perceive land degradation issues differently to Europeans. The general level of awareness of land degradation issues (as they are understood by European land managers) among Aboriginal people in central Australia is extremely low.

Conversely, the nature of the "degradation" issues which concern Aboriginal people is not well understood by the broader society. When discussing land degradation issues the terminology usually associated with these issues was not understood by Aboriginal people consulted. For example, it was possible to discuss how the country might change when there are too many cattle but not to discuss the concept of overgrazing. There is also an inability for some people to take appropriate action even where they are concerned over land degradation issues. Aboriginal people are not well informed about organisations and institutions that deal with land management issues. The majority of land management organisations are seen as inappropriate for Aboriginal needs. Aboriginal people need access to information which is appropriate for their current level of awareness and the current problems they perceive. There have, to date, been few opportunities for Aboriginal people to access this sort of information.

One of the main ways Aboriginal people get information about land management is through exposure to the practices and attitudes of other Aboriginal land managers. An effective avenue for the provision of new information would be through demonstration projects, visits to other land holders and communities and workshops or meetings on Aboriginal land

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Land Councils, ATSIC and representative Aboriginal organisations: Support Aboriginal landowners in initiating Aboriginal landcare programs based on their particular aspirations and concerns for their country through; supporting initiatives to provide greater access by Aboriginal landowners to national, State and Territory land management and Landcare programs integrating the development of Aboriginal landcare programs with employment and training programs based on community aspirations seeking to establish ongoing funding support for Aboriginal land management and landcare programs based on the continuing need for stewardship of the arid lands.

It is recommended that government departments and land management agencies use the information on Aboriginal aspirations and perceptions provided in this report to: Assess the relevance of their programs for Aboriginal land managers. Review their programs for Aboriginal land managers taking into account the need for: effective and ongoing local and regional consultation processes to improve the relevance of their programs at the local level. identifications of the land management and degradation problems which are priorities for Aboriginal people and those which are not. the provision of information in a form and at a level that is relevant to the intended users of that information. Develop communication strategies for discussing land management issues which are not Aboriginal priorities.