C O N T E N T S

Academic freedom.

By Don Driscoll

1

Conserving Western

Australia’s threatened

flora.

By Carole Elliott, Shane

Turner and Eric Bunn

4

Restore and Renew:

Providing evolution-

ary, environmental and

ecological information

to manage landscapes.

By Maurizio Rossetto

6

Restoration of Aus-

tralia’s degraded land-

scapes.

By Jody Gunn, Angela

Sanders and Matt ap-

pleby

7

Another policy pro-

cess for conserving

South East Queens-

land’s koalas.

By Jonathan Rhodes

8

The value of Aborigi-

nal bio-cultural

knowledge.

By Fred Cahir

10

How can we better

engage with indige-

nous knowledge,

people and country in

“mainstream” West-

ern ecology?

By Emilie Ens

12

Fire ignites ESA annual

conference.

By Samantha Lloyd

14

The ESA Bulletin M A R C H 2 0 1 9 V O L U M E 4 9 , I S S U E 1

Academic freedom President’s address, Brisbane, November 2018

Professor Don Driscoll

Deakin University

T his year the ESA has drafted a conference

statement, a statement of concern about

Australia's ecosystems that is aligned with

the conference theme. ‘Ecology in the

Anthropocene: addressing the grand challenge of

our time’ calls for specific urgent actions to be

addressed including, for example, substantial

increases in public investment in maintaining

Australia's ecosystems and revising or replacing

the current national environmental legislation,

which has presided over the ongoing decline of

biodiversity in this country. The statement was

supported by a show of hands at the conference,

with delegates showing overwhelming support.

The statement puts on record the feelings of our

society on this theme and contributes to what we

hope is growing momentum for change in this

area.

And change is needed across a broad range of

ecology and conservation, including with regard to

academic freedom. Over the past few months I've

seen some very serious violations of academic

freedom in relation to feral horse management,

including how that plays out for biodiversity

management. So let me move on to the main topic.

Academic Freedom and the case of feral

horses in the high country

Last year I discussed academic freedom, noting

that public service ecologists are gagged on

controversial issues. I argued this is a problem

because it means the general public are kept in the

dark and they can't make informed choices at the

ballot box. But my experience in the feral horse

debate has highlighted that it also provides an

opportunity for misinformation from vested

interests to fill the information void.

And this may be what has contributed to the

disastrous policy outcomes for feral horses in the

Australian alps. Here's a quote from Tom

Bagnet, ex-NSW Office of Environment and

Heritage, as reported in the media recently: "We

found it very difficult to talk to the media to

counter any of the claims being made about the

horses… Some of (the claims) were outlandish.”

Claims like: there's no impact,

and, it's deer that cause the damage, not horses.

The true impact of feral horses in the Australian Alps.

Credit: Graeme Worboys.

It is undeniable that feral horses are having significant

impact in the Australian Alps. Credit: Martin Shulz.

P a g e 2

T h

And if all of that wasn’t outlandish enough, we saw the

Kosciuszko wild horse heritage bill passed into law by the

NSW Parliament. The legislation was drafted initially by

financial vested interests and presented in the NSW

Parliament by Deputy Premier Barilaro, who receives

donations from the same financial vested interest. The

legislation requires national parks staff to maintain a

‘sustainable’ feral horse population in Kosciuszko National

Park and where there is a conflict between keeping horses

and the existing legal plan of management, the horses win

out. Mr Barilaro is on record

denying this latter point, but

it is written in the legislation.

Now when governments are

making costly and

environmentally damaging

decisions, scientists step up,

by tradition. In 1957 the

Australian Academy of Science (AAS) put out a report

“On the condition of the High Mountain Catchments of

New South Wales and Victoria” that led to stock exclusion

above 1,350 m and cancellation of "snow leases" in

Kosciuszko. In 1963 the Academy helped establish the

‘Kosciuszko Primitive Area’ which limited hydro and ski

development around the summit area. And now scientists

are stepping up again to inject evidence and argue the case

for keeping national parks as places for conserving native

Australian ecosystems.

In 2016, 42 scientists involved in alpine research and

conservation decision making wrote the Australian

Ecologists' Letter to the NSW Premier in support of

effective feral horse control, including the recommendation

to implement aerial culling.

In 2018, scientists on the

NSW scientific committee

published the preliminary

determination: feral horses

as a threatening process. We

also saw the AAS write to

the NSW Premier, more than

40 scientists authored papers

and >150 attended the Kosciuszko Science Conference

Sponsored by AAS (some of this work has now been

published in a special, open-access edition of Ecological

Management & Restoration).

The good news for university scientists is that universities

defend academic freedom. University scientists have

participated actively in bringing evidence about impacts

and approaches to management into the public spotlight,

and they do this without fear of retribution from their

employers; they are in fact supported by university policy.

For example, Deakin University's Academic Freedom

Policy states that within your area of expertise you have

the right to speak out without being subject to University

sanction and without fear of bullying, intimidation or

unfair treatment.

A disgraceful example of disregarding scientific advice,

but a good example of academic freedom, hit the media in

mid 2018. Professor David Watson resigned from the

NSW Threatened Species Scientific Committee after the

government flagrantly ignored the committee's advice by

passing their feral horse-protecting legislation. After this

very public protest, Professor Watson received an email

from his Vice Chancellor at Charles Sturt University, who

wrote, "I… just wanted to send you a message of support

for sticking to your principles on this."

In contrast to universities, scientists from NSW

government agencies have been completely gagged on

feral horse management, they literally cannot even say

'feral horse' in public. At the Kosciuszko Science

Conference, authorship of three papers was compromised

“The suppression of honest reporting to the public has abetted implementation of environmentally disastrous

policy…”

Denying academic freedom, and ignoring the advice of scien-

tists, can lead to further degradation and damage to our eco-

systems—A frustrating situation for all of us. Credit: Don

Driscoll.

P a g e 3

by three NSW agency staff having to withdraw their

names, and one entire paper was withdrawn. In the case

of the withdrawn paper, Professor David Eldridge of the

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) had

his paper withdrawn just before the conference. OEH

wanted so-called “emotive” terms, like ‘invasive’,

removed, and insisted on using ‘wild horse’ not ‘feral

horse’. However, 'wild

horse' gives the

misleading impression

that horses might be

native to Australia, while

'feral horse' and 'invasive'

are statements of fact.

There were accusations that an OEH officer was

instructed to tell the AAS that David was still overseas;

essentially OEH was going to lie to the Academy about

the reasons behind the paper's withdrawal. It implies that

there is a culture of bullying and intimidation against

scientists who wish to share their knowledge on

controversial topics, and highlights a deep-set culture

within the public service of pulling the wool over the

eyes of the public to protect environmentally damaging

ministers. These are actions that serve to weaken

democracy.

Academic freedom is a big deal. Denying academic

freedom to public service experts can make it easier for

environmentally damaging policies to be passed into

legislation. The suppression of honest reporting to the

public has abetted implementation of environmentally

disastrous policy by ensuring the public are inadequately

informed, and therefore are reducing the risk of a voter

backlash. My contention is that an under-informed

public may have contributed to the inaction on feral

horse management that has resulted in environmental

degradation, placed already threatened species at risk of

extinction and presided over ongoing animal welfare

disasters.

Scientists over the decades have been willing to step up

and bring their scientific knowledge to decision-makers

and the public. The

ecological community, and

no doubt other allied fields,

need to step up not just for

individual issues that can be

informed by our science,

but also in support of the

important role public service scientists should be able to

play in public discourse.

Finally, I want to highlight some ways that you can be

more involved with the ESA and keep the public engaged

in ecological research. There are new opportunities to

publish different kinds of articles in Austral Ecology,

including a forum section, ecological toolkit and natural

history notes. Also, ESA hot topics are now all published

after peer-review in Austral Ecology, making them a

great way to boost your publication record. The initiative

has been steadily expanding its scope and impact,

injecting the facts behind controversial topics into public

debate. Another exciting way to engage with the ESA is

through our working groups; these are teams of active

and enthusiastic members who are making things happen

for the ESA. ESA members are welcome to nominate

themselves to help contribute to the goals of these

groups.

Contact: d.driscoll@deakin.edu.au ¤

Scientists from NSW government agencies were gagged on feral horse management in 2018. Credit: Sydney Morning

Herald.

“The ecological community, and no doubt other allied fields, need

to step up…”

Carole Elliott, Shane Turner, Eric Bunn

King Park Science, Biodiversity and Conservation

Science; Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority; School of

Biological Science, University of Western Australia

C onserving a diverse range of plant species is

challenging—simply put there is no one solution

for all. Diversity of habitat, geography, seed

biology, ecology, abiotic or biotic interactions and

responsiveness to a range of threats means that a broad

toolbox of options is needed for effective conservation

management of Western Australia’s threatened flora.

At Kings Park Science, a science program with the

Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and

Attractions, the Conservation Biotechnology research

team undertake research into ex situ conservation of the

most difficult to propagate, or highly threatened, species.

They maintain 40 species in their cryopreservation

facilities and a further 50 species are maintained in tissue

culture under controlled conditions. In comparison, the

Kings Park Species Recovery group are mainly involved

with in situ conservation programs that range from

modelling potential localities for new translocated

populations to establishing benchmarks for measuring

translocation success and long-term sustainability. Many

threatened species have ended up in this predicament

through habitat loss due to two main activities—clearing

for agriculture and, more recently, mining.

Since British settlement in 1829 over 90% of the Western

Australian wheatbelt region has been cleared for

agriculture. Symonanthus bancroftii was thought to be

extinct as it had not been sighted since the 1940’s. In

1997 a single (male) plant was found in an area

previously used for road aggregate storage near the town

of Ardath (WA), followed by a female plant in 1998

(after an intensive search). These two plants were

successfully established in tissue culture (Panaia et al.,

2000). As part of this program, in 2001 a third (female)

plant was produced from in vitro germinated seed

(harvested from an ex situ container collection of

micropropagated plants grown in Kings Park). These

three genotypes were mass produced through

micropropagation and made available for translocation.

After several translocation attempts, eighty plants were

successfully established across two sites with mature

female plants producing many viable seeds; in fact more

than 10,000 seeds were harvested over several years and

Conserving Western Australia’s threatened flora

P a g e 4

T h e E S A B u l l e t i n

The critically endangered Western Australian species Symonanthus bancroftii, in which a single male plant was rediscov-

ered in 1997, followed by the discovery of a single female plant in 1998. A) shows Ex situ micropropagation of S. bancroft-

ii growing in tissue culture; B) In situ translocation of S. bancroftii micropropagation derived greenstock. Credit: Eric

P a g e 5

seed banked. The take home message is to establish ex situ

security of as many plants as possible as a first priority,

then attempt translocation when convenient to do so.

In contrast to the experience with WA wheatbelt flora,

mining activities are more likely to affect narrow range

endemics restricted to

economically valuable mineral

deposits. Species impacted by

mining activities often have

several thousand healthy

plants, albeit within a small,

highly localised range. In

contrast, most threatened

species in agricultural areas possess few individuals that

are often scattered, so the focus with these is more on

rescuing and conserving what remains. In many cases

species impacted by future mining are intensively studied

prior to being impacted, which is a common requirement

for receiving permission to proceed with mining. For mine

impacted species the initial emphasis is on understanding

their ecology prior to disturbance, followed by

development of restoration tools to allow successful

repatriation of plants into suitable habitat to offset losses

due to mine associated activities.

For example, Ricinocarpos brevis is restricted to banded

ironstone ranges that have had conservation research

programs funded by mining companies, as this species has

been considerably impacted by iron ore mining. Research

into population genetics, reproductive ecology, seed

biology and propagation biology have helped inform in

situ translocation programs and formulated effective

conservation management actions. These insights have

seen the successful establishment of a large and healthy

translocated population on a waste rock landform adjacent

to natural populations, to

directly offset losses due to

mining, which in recent years

have begun to flower and fruit

(Turner et al., 2017). Plants

were established through a

variety of means including

direct seeding, cutting derived

greenstock and seed derived

greenstock using a number of different in situ treatments

and planting approaches.

Investment in threatened plant species research provides

critical information for the creation and maintenance of ex

situ germplasm collections and in situ translocations that

are integral for species that are on the verge of extinction.

While for other threatened species not directly impacted by

immediate habitat loss, research is better targeted towards

the development of experimental frameworks that identify

and refine the best approaches for future translocations

through a thorough understanding of the ecology of the

species in question and how it is regulated by its

environment.

Contact: carole.elliott@dbca.wa.gov.au ¤

“ Many threatened species have ended up in this predicament

through habitat loss...”

The threatened Western Australian species Ricinocarpos brevis, found in areas severely impacted by iron ore mining. A) In

situ translocation of R. brevis seedling greenstock after installation on a mining waste rock landform; B) Seventeen month

old seedling greenstock plant of R. brevis. Credit: Carole Elliott.

Maurizio Rossetto

National Herbarium of NSW, Royal Botanic Gardens and

Domain Trust

R estoration is a considerable global enterprise

valued in the trillions of dollars, and revolving

around international agreements that establish

global targets and commitments (see the Bonn Challenge

for example). The Restore & Renew project at Sydney’s

Royal Botanic Garden is establishing a large-scale

program of data collection and analyses with broad

applications for restoration and biodiversity management.

Considerable technical

and theoretical

advances have been

made in the

preservation and

restoration of native

vegetation, including

new insights on species

selection, site

preparation, planting

techniques, community

dynamics, ecological function and long-term monitoring.

However, the decision of where to source plant or seed

material remains a challenge. Environmental pressures

such as clearing and habitat fragmentation impact plant

communities by reducing the size and diversity of

populations and preventing landscape-level connectivity.

For re-established vegetation to be resilient and

ecologically adapted (and adaptable), it needs to possess

sufficient evolutionary potential to respond to selective

filtering now and into the future. Consequently,

evolutionary information can be used to infer the impacts

of restoration practices on the long- and short-term

viability of restored populations.

Restoration practices that maximise genetic diversity by

including more openly sourced material are increasingly

considered as more suitable for achieving self-sustaining

restoration targets. This is particularly relevant in in the

context of a changing climate and increasing habitat

fragmentation.

Guidelines have been developed for collecting seed from

local and/or mixed sources to account for the potential

risks associated with outbreeding vs. inbreeding

depression, within current vs. future climatic scenarios.

While these strategies are conceptually sound, they are

difficult to execute without the empirical data necessary

to identify those provenance boundaries on which they

are based. Where does ‘local’ end, and how do those

boundaries change across the distribution of a species or

between species? How are future climatic conditions

likely to impact the current distribution of target species?

Restore and Renew aims to equip restoration practitioners

and land managers with a summary of pertinent

evolutionary, environmental and ecological information

for around 200 plant species

commonly used in landscape

restoration. The information is

presented in a comprehensive,

user-friendly webtool that

informs seed sourcing and

restoration strategies without

being prescriptive.

To achieve its objectives, the

Restore and Renew sampling

strategy focuses on even representation across the

environmental and geographical distribution of each

species while maximising (when possible) between-

species overlaps. The samples collected for each species

are analysed using a high throughput, cost-effective

genome sequencing method (DArTseq). Each plant has a

unique DNA profile, and along with information on the

biology of a species, this profile provides valuable

information on current and historical factors that have

shaped its distribution. We summarise genomic and

environmental data for each of the target species to

determine the distribution of genetic variation across the

landscape, estimate the levels of connectivity within and

between populations, and define local genetic and

climatic boundaries.

Restore and Renew was officially launched in mid-2017

and, although already accessible, the webtool will be

finalised and launched early 2019. We will continue to

add new species, as well as layers of information and

interpretative support.

Contact: maurizio.rossetto@rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au ¤

Restore and Renew; Providing evolutionary, environmental and ecological information to manage landscapes

P a g e 6

T h e E S A B u l l e t i n

“Restore and Renew aims to equip restoration practitioners

and land managers with a summary of pertinent

evolutionary, environmental and ecological information for

around 200 plant species... ”

P a g e 7

Restoration of Australia’s degraded landscapes Jody Gunn, Angela Sanders and Matt Appleby

Bush Heritage Australia

A t Bush Heritage Australia we protect some of the

most pristine and intact landscapes in the country.

These landscapes have retained ecosystem

function, have adequate representation of flora and fauna,

and healthy soils and water. This land may require a degree

of human intervention: managing invasive predators,

ensuring appropriate fire regimes, ensuring known cultural

and natural values are protected forever. But sometimes

our properties or partnerships require a more significant

level of intervention or restoration innovations. Restoration

may be required for different circumstances, but in all

cases, persistence, innovation, and dedication to working

with and learning from others have been consistent factors.

Scottsdale Reserve, NSW

Active land restoration has been a key component of our

work at Scottsdale Reserve since Bush Heritage first

started managing it in 2006, as parts of the reserve have

been cleared of vegetation, grazed by stock and cropped

since the 1870s. The 1,300 ha Reserve protects endangered

grassy box woodlands and temperate grasslands and

supports many rare birds, mammals, fish and reptiles.

Scottsdale is the site of a long-term project to restore 300

ha of degraded grassland and grassy woodland on the

valley floor and along creek lines. The team at Scottsdale,

along with partners Greening Australia and the Australian

National University, have been undertaking restoration

trials over many years, involving different revegetation

techniques and methods to reduce the impact of invasive

weeds. Key learnings from our work include:

• Low rates of a selective herbicide produce excellent

results in the treatment of African Lovegrass.

• Returning native grasslands requires persistence

through successions of weed invasions. Following

removal of African Lovegrass, we observe a flush

of exotic annual weeds that take about two years to

die down and a gradual recolonisation by native

species.

• Soil preparation is vital to getting seedlings to

establish and survive. Deep holes allow the roots to

quickly penetrate and weeds are suppressed (in the

short-term).

Fitz-Stirling region, WA

The region between the Fitzgerald River and the Stirling

Range National Parks in south west WA is a fragmented

landscape that has been largely dedicated to livestock

grazing and crops. The area has seen significant clearing

for agriculture, but patches of remnant bushland remain.

Over the past 15 years, Bush Heritage has been

reconnecting native vegetation in a 70 km stretch of this

landscape. Through property acquisition, shared

management arrangements, and active regeneration, Bush

Heritage now owns or co-manages 10,000 ha of land

where 2,500 ha has been restored. Success can largely be

attributed to planning, including spatial identification of

priority areas for restoration, and adaptive management

principles to ensure ongoing improvement. Highlights

from this work include:

• Millions of seeds from more than 270 different species

planted since 2003, creating diverse plant communities.

• Improved techniques for direct seeding.

• The return of many animals, including Honey Possums,

Western Spiny-tailed Geckoes, Black-gloved

Wallabies, Tammar Wallabies, Southern Emu Wrens

and Malleefowl.

Bush Heritage has management responsibilities across

more than 8 million hectares of land around Australia, in

partnership with many others including Aboriginal groups.

With increasing fragmentation, land degradation and a

rapidly changing climate there will be increasing need for

innovations in restoration ecology. Sharing our challenges,

failures and successes will help us continue to develop new

and more efficient restoration techniques.

Contact: info@bushheritage.org.au ¤

Mallefowl mound—a species that has returned to the Fitz-Stirling

region since restoration began. Credit: Amelia Caddy.

P a g e 8

T h e E S A B u l l e t i n

Jonathan Rhodes

University of Queensland

W hen you put a lot of people in places where

koalas hang out, the two rarely mix well.

South East Queensland (SEQ) is just such a

place. The region is the most densely populated part of

Queensland, with over 3.5 million people, but just by

chance, it is also home to some of the most significant

koala populations in the State. Unsurprisingly, as urban

development has expanded to accommodate more people,

we have seen a rapid decline in koalas in many areas,

including local extinctions. Koalas are threatened by

habitat loss, dog attacks, vehicle collisions, and disease and

it is often combinations of these acting together that drive

local koala population declines. As we move towards an

expected human population increase to 5.3 million people

in SEQ over the next 25 years, this situation could well

deteriorate further unless we find effective policy,

planning, and management solutions for koala

conservation.

In 2008, as a result of declining koala populations, the

State Government announced a set of new initiatives in

response to recommendations from a “Koala Task Force”.

These responses included commitments to map koala

habitat, introduce a new State Planning Regulatory

Provision, and achieve a net gain in koala habitat across

SEQ by 2020. Yet, despite the implementation of many of

Another policy process for conserving South East Queensland’s

koalas; will it be different this time around?

Koalas populations within South East Queensland are declining due to a number of threatening processes, including habi-

tat loss, dog attacks, vehicle collisions and diseases. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

P a g e 9

these measures a study of ours in 2015 showed little sign of a

slow-down in koala declines (e.g., up to an 80% decline over

20 years in some areas), with some indication that the rate of

decline may have even accelerated. In response to this

evidence, the then Queensland Environment Minister, Steven

Miles, appointed a new independent panel to review the

limitations of the current policy and provide

recommendations to the State Government for a new policy

direction for conserving koalas in SEQ. The Panel consisted

of myself (as Chair), Antra Hood (MinterEllison), Alistair

Melzer (Central Queensland University), Al Mucci

(Dreamworld), and brought together expertise in koala

ecology, conservation science, koala population

management, planning law, and policy.

The Panel’s approach was to first review the existing policies

through policy analysis

and wide-ranging

consultation with

stakeholders across the

general public, industry,

NGOs, and governments.

Then to make new

evidence-based

recommendations to the

State Government for

better conserving koalas

in SEQ. The review highlighted a number of key factors

contributing to the failure to halt the decline in koalas is

SEQ. These included: (1) a lack of strategic approach to

koala conservation, (2) an over-reliance on the planning

framework that addresses future threats, but does not address

existing threats, (3) where planning regulation does address

koala habitat protection it is too limited in scope, (4)

inadequate habitat mapping, and (5) a lack of coordination to

tackle multiple threating processes. The Panel’s detailed

recommendations to the State Government to address these

deficiencies were released in 2017 and cover six key areas

ranging from coordination, to habitat protection and threat

management, to monitoring and evaluation. At the core of

the Panel’s recommendations is the identified need for a

more collaborative approach among governments, industry,

and the community to koala conservation and a more

coordinated and strategic approach to habitat protection and

threat reduction. The State Government have accepted the

majority of the Panel’s recommendations and are currently in

the process of developing a new koala conservation strategy

in response.

After many attempts to develop effective policy for koala

conservation in SEQ with limited success, why should it be

any different this time? With an extra 2 million people

expected to be living in SEQ in 25 years’ time, urban

development is not going to stop and so completely

eliminating further habitat loss is going to be difficult, both

from a political and economic point of view. Add to this

that many threats associated with existing urban

development are already present and are now very difficult

to remove. The Panel’s recommendations make it clear

that, under these conditions, we must take a much more

strategic approach to prioritise koala populations where

there is a good change of ensuring their long-term

persistence. The proposed SEQ Strategic Assessment

under the EPBC Act may help with this by identifying key

strategic priority areas for koalas and other threatened

species. If so, this would be a step in the right direction and

suggests things could be different this time around. Yet,

this would still require strengthening of regulation to

protect koala habitat and a new coordinated investment in

threat reduction strategies.

In the Panel’s Final Report

we also make a big deal of

ensuring a coordinated

response across

governments, industry, and

the community to address

koala conservation. The

setting up of a Ministerial

Koala Advisory Council to

facilitate this coordination

and communication across governments, industry, and

conservation NGOs is a good sign that a mechanism may

be in place to achieve this. There have only been two

meetings of the Koala Advisory Council so far, but I sense

that there is a real desire to work together towards better

outcomes for koalas. This is encouraging, and again, could

indicate things will be different this time around.

Only time will tell if this process is the catalyst for

effectively protecting koalas in SEQ. I have been

impressed with the relative openness of the process and the

desire of stakeholders to work together, so that is a good

sign. As always, the devil is in the detail and until we see

the overall strategy that emerges it is difficult to gauge

whether it will likely succeed or not. Yet, my view is that,

if this new direction for koala conservation is to be

successful it must be serious about strategically prioritising

areas where the long-term persistence of koalas can

realistically be achieved. The alternative is a gradual

accumulation of koala local extinctions right across the

region until it is too late.

For further information: j.rhodes@uq.edu.au

The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly

the personal views of the author. ¤

“At the core of the Panel’s recommendations is the identified

need for a more collaborative approach among governments, industry, and the community to

koala conservation...”

Fred Cahir

Associate Professor in Aboriginal History, Federation

University Australia.

I came to appreciate keenly the value of Aboriginal

bio-cultural knowledge in a less than glamorous

way. Some thirty years ago, I had too much to drink

at a friend’s wedding in Fremantle WA and woke the

next afternoon to discover I had swapped my car for a

bicycle. Wanting to turn my folly into something noble, I

decided to cycle across the continent to Melbourne. I set

off a month later laden with ‘necessities’ such as a super

8 camera, a bundle of favourite tapes and a Walkman -

and very little else. Not surprisingly, my youth, blond

hair and naïve belief that I could cycle my way out of

trouble landed me in the middle of the Nullarbor Plain

without water and food. I cycled pathetically slowly to

the nearest road station one

hundred kilometres away.

I subsequently cycled most

of the deserts of Australia—

using whenever possible

what Aboriginal bio-cultural

knowledge I could attain in

order to (pragmatically

speaking) survive and

(philosophically speaking)

satisfy my longing to belong.

My interest in Aboriginal bio-cultural knowledge

essentially revolved around the topic of water and food

during my bicycle sojourns into the Tanami, Gibson,

Great Victoria and the central deserts. When I returned to

a domestic patch of land on Wadawurrung country in

Ballarat, I became a self-confessed bush food fanatic in a

period before it had entered into niche cafes or

supermarkets. It may come as a surprise that the majority

of the Aboriginal bio-cultural knowledge about foods I

was able to gather easily at that point in time was from

white fella’s records. The invader’s diaries,

reminiscences, letters, journals and ledgers revealed a

great deal of reliance on Aboriginal bio-cultural

knowldege.

I began to see that my harebrained experience—and ‘road

to Melbourne’ experience on the Nullarbor Plain—was

analogous to some degree to what most of the early white

pioneers experienced, magnified by 10. Many of them

uncomfortably related how upon taking Aboriginal land

they now considered their own, they had no idea of how

to make a hut, let alone find their hut; no idea how to put

out a low intensity (cool burn) fire let alone make one; no

idea how to steer a canoe let alone make one. In perilous

situations, especially revolving around water, fire, shelter

and sustenance, they were pathetically helpless.

One party of colonists related that their party, on the

verge of expiring from thirst, implored a local clan they

chanced upon for water via hand signals. The local clans’

people saved the day by pointing to the very ground

under their soles and indicated for them to dig—upon

which water seeped up through the ground.

Similarly, the colonial records speak frequently about

Aboriginal people saving white fellas from bushfire.

Dame Mary Gilmore (1934) wrote extensively of her

pioneering experiences in

New South Wales, and

vividly recalled how local

Aboriginal people would

educate them in how to

fight fire by: “running for

bushes, putting them into

the immigrants’ hands,

and showing how to beat

back the flame as it licked

up the grass.”

Gilmore further noted how white people in the bush

considered Aboriginal knowledge and skills in

extinguishing bush fires to be indispensable. Gilmore

wrote that she and her contemporaries were in “constant

wonder” at how easily the Aboriginal teachers would

check a fire before it grew too big for close handling, or

start a return fire when and where it was safest.

Gilmore continued to describe the variation in fire

management techniques practiced by Aboriginal people

and the colonists:

“There was a difference between the blacks’ method and

the white’s. The white man used large bushes and tired

himself out with their weight and by heavy blows; the

blacks took small bushes and used little and light action.

The whites expended the energy of panic; the blacks

acted in familiarity, as knowing how and what to do.

They used arm action only, where the white man used his

whole body. Where, as a last resort, the white man lit a

The value of Aboriginal bio-cultural knowledge

P a g e 1 0

T h e E S A B u l l e t i n

“...Aboriginal knowledge and skills in extinguishing bushfires

was indispensable.”

P a g e 1 1

roaring and continuous fire-break, the aboriginal set the

lubras to make tiny flares, each separate, each put out in

turn, and all lit roughly in line. The beaters they used were

so small that they hunkered to do the lighting and beating.

The aboriginals said that not only must fire be met by fire,

but that it could only be fought while still not too hot to be

handled closely; that when it became so hot that it burnt

and exhausted men it had to be met from a distance. They

also said that a big fire as a fire break was as dangerous

as a big fire itself…I have seen a whole station in panic -

men, women and children nearly killing themselves with

frantic and wasteful effort; and then a handful of blacks

and lubras under their chief come and have the fire

contained and checked in no time.”

The severe fracturing of Aboriginal bio-cultural knowledge

at the hand of colonisation has cost Australia dearly—but

fortunately, Aboriginal people are renowned for their

resilience, and generosity. We have but to ask.

Contact: f.cahir@federation.edu.au ¤

Aboriginal bio-cultural knowledge includes extensive knowledge on managing ecosystems and landscapes, including the

management of wildfires. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

“The severe fracturing of Aboriginal bio-cultural

knowledge at the hand of colonization has cost Australia

dearly…”

Emilie Ens

Department of Environmental Sciences, Macquarie

University

T he international Aichi Targets of the Convention

on Biological Diversity and IPBES Indigenous

and local knowledge operating principles as well

as the national Environmental Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 all mandate inclusion

of Indigenous people and knowledge in ecology and

conservation. However how can we actually achieve this

on the ground?

Like many Australians, I received a public school

education that was devoid of teachings about Australia’s

rich and diverse Aboriginal history. Seemingly by chance

and due to an underlying curiosity, during my

undergraduate degree in Ecology at UNSW, I undertook

two Australian Indigenous Studies units run by Aunty

Barb Nicholson as a compulsory requirement to

undertake units outside students’ main course of study.

Also by chance, my PhD (in ecology at the University of

Wollongong) took me to Booderee National Park where I

studied Bitou Bush invasion; however, I also came to

experience Aboriginal involvement in National Park

management and made friends with some Traditional

Owners who were also studying at the University of

Wollongong. These early serendipitous experiences laid

the foundation for the decade of work I have now done in

close collaboration with many Aboriginal people and

communities across Australia. My Aboriginal colleagues

would say these experiences happened for a reason…

they weren’t by chance.

Since receiving my PhD in 2008, I have co-developed

many cross-cultural ecology research projects around

wetland, biodiversity and bio-cultural conservation in

partnership with Aboriginal Elders, Rangers, schools and

communities from around Australia. A core outcome of

this work has always been a collective desire to raise

awareness of the benefits, challenges and importance of

How can we better engage with Indigenous knowledge, people and Country in “mainstream” Western ecology?

P a g e 1 2

T h e E S A B u l l e t i n

There is an increasing desire across academia, government agencies, staff and consultants to incorporate both Indige-

nous and Western methods and knowledge to managing Australia’s ecosystems. For example, Macquarie University is

partnering with Indigenous rangers to conduct biodiversity surveys. Credit: Emilie Ens.

P a g e 1 3

collaborative and cross-cultural ecological and

environmental management in Australia. By cross-cultural

we mean incorporating both Indigenous and Western ways

of knowing, doing and communicating. We have won

several awards including the 2014 Banksia Award for

Indigenous Leadership in Sustainability and the 2017

Eureka Prize for Innovation in Citizen Science.

As a result of this work, other academic, government staff,

consultants, students and so forth often approach me and

express their desire to also work with Indigenous people

and learn more about Indigenous knowledge. However,

they tend to say that they have been unsuccessful or don’t

know where to start. Here I provide some advice from my

experiences, and assert the need for time, patience and

resources to build strong partnerships with Indigenous

knowledge custodians and Traditional Owners.

At the outset, non-Indigenous Australians need to

recognise that we are following a long legacy of

Aboriginal mistreatment in

Australia, including from

researchers and

governments. Many

Aboriginal people still feel

the pain and discrimination

of past and indeed current

events. Any contact with

Indigenous knowledge

custodians and Traditional

Owners must begin with a

sincere apology for past wrong doings and a genuine desire

to do things differently. This requires a clear expression of

your intent. Why do you want to engage Indigenous

people, knowledge or Country? If you want to engage

Indigenous people respectfully and create a meaningful

working relationship, you must strive for mutual benefit

and work with your Indigenous collaborator/s to identify

what they want out of the partnership. How will your

Indigenous colleagues benefit, from their perspective?

Indigenous people must also be adequately paid for their

time and knowledge.

The best collaborations are co-developed, which often

requires Western scientists or non-Indigenous stakeholders

to devolve the power we are so accustomed to when

initiating projects. Social scientists describe this form of

research or project delivery as participatory or

collaborative action (research). There are numerous

typologies of participation that one can read about to

ascertain what level of stakeholder participation your

project will have.

Perhaps the best advice is to approach the relevant

Indigenous organisation or community and start the

conversation. Have a yarn and take time to discuss ideas

and issues around your desired project. Do your homework

and find out about the organisation, mob, or person you

want to work with. Don’t come in naïve but equally, don’t

come in thinking you know everything, because we don’t!

Read the work of researchers, government departments and

other organisations that have long standing relationships

with Aboriginal people and ask for their advice on how to

make cross-cultural relationships and projects work. The

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Studies also has a wealth of information on Indigenous

studies and preferred Indigenous methodologies.

As my long-time colleague and adopted abuji

(grandmother) Mrs C W Daniels OAM (recently deceased)

always said to me and her other disciples: the biggest word

is Commitment. If you are committed to something it will

commit to you. Don’t give up. She was a strong advocate

of the Australian way—

Indigenous and non-

Indigenous ways coming

together to better manage

this precious Country we all

live in and want future

generations to enjoy. It’s

time that we reconcile the

wrongs of the past and start

to respect and include the

First Australians in

Australian ecology and conservation… after all they

created this landscape (e.g. through fire and species

movement) and lived off it for more than 40,000 years with

far less damage than Europeans have made over recent

centuries.

Aboriginal culture and language encodes Australia’s

ecological history. People are an integral part of ecology. It

is a crying shame that we are letting the richness of

Aboriginal culture, language and knowledge slip through

our fingers because we don’t have enough time and

money. We need to make time and find the resources to

create more inclusive Australian ecological knowledge and

management actions that serve to protect our highly

diverse and linked biological and cultural (bio-cultural)

heritage.

Contact: emilie.ens@mq.edu.au ¤

“Aboriginal culture and language encodes Australia’s ecological

history...”

P a g e 1 4

T h e E S A B u l l e t i n

Samantha Lloyd

South East Queensland Fire and Biodiversity Consortium

T here was a buzz in the air as the South East

Queensland Fire and Biodiversity Consortium

(SEQFBC) Annual Fire Forum began at the 2018

annual ESA conference. With an impressive line-up of

engaging and skilled speakers, the Forum was well

supported by SEQFBC partners and ESA attendees alike,

and there was much chatter and swapping of business cards

and numbers after the event.

Working with ESA, the SEQFBC coordinated the half-day

Forum, providing the opportunity for SEQFBC Forum

attendees to experience an ESA conference, and for ESA

members to attend a SEQFBC Fire Forum as part of the

conference program. The Forum was very well received

and resulted in over 160 registrations from SEQFBC

partners and friends, who would not otherwise have

attended the ESA conference. Attendees were surveyed

post the forum with overwhelmingly positive comments,

including “interaction with ESA attendees” and

“networking with both Forum and ESA attendees, and

opportunity to see ESA talks”. Such responses clearly

demonstrate the success of the event and the benefit

attendees gained from the partnership with ESA.

Speaker summary

With a focus on fire management and private land

conservation, the SEQFBC Annual Fire Forum sought to

showcase projects that support successful partnerships

between private landholders and public land managers (or

other stakeholders) for improved fire management

outcomes:

“The key is working with private landowners who own the

vast majority of bushland in Australia and face an ever-

increasing threat from bushfire. There is an enormous

amount of knowledge out there in the community, and as

scientists and land managers we need to get a lot better at

building trust and initiating partnerships that empower

Fire ignites ESA annual conference

Speakers at the Queensland Fire and Biodiversity consortium included PhD students, local government, and land manag-

ers. Credit: Samantha Lloyd.

P a g e 1 5

landowners to better manage fire

risk for the protection of life,

property and the environment” - Dr

Sam Lloyd, Manager, SEQFBC

Keynote speaker Richard Geddes

(National Bushfire Manager, Bush

Heritage Australia) inspired us with

his breathtaking landscape photos

and discussion on the contrast

between devastating unplanned

wildfire and carefully managed

planned burning. He discussed some

of the challenges facing private land

managers, including working to

improve fire regimes by reducing the

extent and severity of large

unplanned fires, which may take

years and not initially align with

ecological objectives or political

funding cycles. He highlighted

partnerships with indigenous land managers and how

traditional aboriginal burning practices were essential to

success.

City of Gold Coast demonstrated how local government

can undertake meaningful fire-associated flora and fauna

monitoring (including invertebrate pitfall trapping and

identifying ants to morphospecies), showcasing a

meticulous fire monitoring project in Austinville

Conservation Area with some very interesting results,

including variation in species composition between burnt

and unburnt sites.

A favourite presentation of the day was a partnership

spanning 40 years between private landholder Di Collier

(Connondale Ranges, Sunshine Coast), Sunshine Coast

Council officer Michael Reif and Land for Wildlife

Program Manager Deb Metters. Di was a vibrant and

engaging speaker, who moved the audience with her

journey from someone who initially “hated” fire (because

of the mismanagement she had experienced firsthand) to

someone who utilises fire as a land management tool:

“The strategic use of fire as a property management tool

has been the element that has put the icing on the cake as

far as rehabilitating my property. Over time, as my land

has changed, I have become a changed person too, where I

feel more connected to the landscape and in conversation

with it, listening to its gentle whisperings” - Di Collier

Another favourite was the presentation by Kerry Jones and

Lyndon Davies, Kabi Kabi First Nations decedents of

Bunya Bunya Country Aboriginal Corporation (BBCAC)

and Susie Chapman of Healthy Land and Water (HLW).

Again showcasing the value of collaboration, they spoke

about the successful partnership between BBCAC, HLW

and Stockland at their Caloundra South development,

Aura. Kerry and Lyndon spoke about the value of

reintroducing traditional fire management practices into

the landscape, the importance of Stockland’s willingness to

partner and some of the innovative work they have been

leading.

Program Manager at Queensland Trust for Nature, Tanya

Pritchard, provided the perfect ending to the forum,

reflecting on the value of fire as a land management tool,

the challenges facing private land managers and closing

the gender gap between men and women as active fire

managers.

The essence of the event was perfectly captured by

indigenous fire practitioner Lyndon Davies:

We're still here today and we've all got a job to do. The

plants and animals don't care who does it...if the land's

happy the fellas are happy too”.

Dr Sam Lloyd and the SEQFBC would like to extend their

gratitude to the ESA for supporting an event that illustrated

the value of practitioner and stakeholder engagement, and

celebrated partnerships and whose success provided a

multitude of benefits for attendees and organisers alike.

We hope to see similar events at ESA conferences in the

future.

Contact: slloyd@seqcatchments.com.au ¤

The Consortium was a great success and attracted a wide and varied audience. Credit:

Samantha Lloyd.

ESA Office

Gail Spina

PO Box 2187

Windsor QLD 4030

Phone: 07 3357 3029

Mob: 0409 279 068

E-mail: executiveofficer@ecolsoc.org.au

The Ecological Society of Australia Ltd (ESA) is the

peak group of ecologists in Australia, with over 1500

members from all states and territories. The ESA has

an impressive 50 year history supporting ecologists,

promoting ecology and ecological research. We aim to

create a community of knowledge and understanding

amongst ecologists, and reach out to those working in

related fields. We invite you to join us in our efforts to

promote the scientific study of all organisms in relation

to their environment, and encourage the application of

ecological principles in the development, use and

conservation of Australia's natural resources. The ESA

is a Registered Environmental Organisation with the

Department of the Environment, and Registered

Charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-

profits Commission. The ESA has Deductible Gift

Recipient status.

Ecological Society of Australia Ltd

www.ecolsoc.org.au

Copyright Notice:

Items printed in this Bulletin should not be reproduced without the permission of the ESA or the author of the

material. Opinions expressed by contributors do no necessarily represent the views of the ESA, unless otherwise

stated. Any mention of companies or products in the Bulletin are not endorsements.

Stratum by Matt Clancy