Journal of Hydrology xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / jhydrol

Principles and guidelines for good practice in Indigenous engagementin water planning

Sue Jackson a,⇑, Poh-Ling Tan b, Carla Mooney c, Suzanne Hoverman c, Ian White c

a CSIRO, Division of Ecosystem Sciences, PMB 44, Winnellie, NT 0822, Australiab Griffith Law School, Griffith University, Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland 4011, Australiac Socio-Legal Research Centre, Griffith University, Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland 4067, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxxx

Keywords:Water planningIndigenous water rightsNative titleIndigenous water valuesAustralian water management

0022-1694/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright � 2doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 89448415.E-mail address: sue.jackson@csiro.au (S. Jackson).

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, S., e(2012), doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

s u m m a r y

Indigenous rights, values and interests relating to water have been identified by Australia’s NationalWater Commission as a national priority area, requiring greater understanding, research attention andgovernment action. Yet Indigenous water values are rarely addressed in water planning, despite objec-tives in national policy requiring Indigenous participation and the identification of Indigenous social,spiritual and customary values in water plans. Water planners are presently equipped with a very limitednumber of engagement tools tailored to the water resource management context to redress the historicalneglect of Indigenous interests. In an Australian research project focused on water planning, seven par-ticipatory planning tools were employed in three Australian case studies with different social and hydro-logical characteristics to improve the way in which Indigenous values are elicited and incorporated and toenhance the status of Indigenous knowledge in water planning. The results from the two Murray DarlingBasin (MDB) case studies reveal the many ways in which Indigenous values have been adversely affectedby recent water resource developments and concomitant water scarcity. In the third case on the TiwiIslands in the Northern Territory, where land title to the entire water planning area is vested in Indige-nous traditional owners, methods were refined to ensure engagement and generate capacity to managethe development of a solely Indigenous-owned, first-generation Water Management Strategy, in collab-oration with a range of stakeholders. This paper describes the needs and aspirations of Indigenous people,the engagement strategies employed to elicit Indigenous knowledge, assess Indigenous values, and incor-porate the results into three developing water plans. In addition, it outlines a set of general principles toguide water planning in other regions and thereby to improve Indigenous access to water.

Crown Copyright � 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Over the past 35 years international conventions and protocolshave noted concern over Indigenous resource rights, e.g. the UnitedNations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 2003,Indigenous people declared that they would strive to protect andpreserve the availability and purity of water, and exercise theirright to cultural and spiritual relationships with water (IndigenousDeclaration on Water 2003). Changes to resource governance sys-tems will need to take account of the socio-economic impacts onIndigenous peoples who, in many parts of the world, continue tomaintain customary forms of management and rely on aquaticenvironments for their livelihoods and well-being. For example,neo-liberal reforms that create property in water to establishtradeable rights privilege private property over communal orjointly held property rights characteristic of most Indigenous

012 Published by Elsevier B.V. All

t al. Principles and guidelines

societies (Prasad, 2007). As growth and development imposeincreasing pressure on natural systems, it is critical that Indigenouscommunities are able to sustain customary use of water for theirlivelihoods (Finn and Jackson, 2011).

Australian Indigenous populations have a large stake in waterresource management arising from customary land and resourcerights, long traditions of water resource management and anextensive and growing land base (Behrendt and Thompson, 2004;Langton, 2006; Jackson and Altman, 2009). Indigenous peoplenow own close to 20% of the Australian land mass, much of it in re-mote regions where there has been limited water resource devel-opment. Indigenous economic disadvantage in these and otherAustralian regions provides further rationale to considering the so-cio-economic impacts of water reform.

Australia’s premier water policy, the National Water Initiative(NWI) (Australian Government, 2004), explicitly recognises Indige-nous interests in water, although the rights acknowledged are lim-ited (McFarlane, 2004). The NWI requires jurisdictions to includeIndigenous customary, social and spiritual objectives in water

rights reserved.

for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. J. Hydrol.

2 S. Jackson et al. / Journal of Hydrology xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

plans. Native title interests in water are to be taken into accountand Indigenous water use assessed and addressed in plans whichinvolve Indigenous communities in their development.

The Indigenous access and representation provisions of the NWIare ‘arguably the most underdeveloped of any area covered by theNWI’ (Tan, 2009), having received relatively little attention frompolicy makers, water managers and researchers. Recent nationalreviews of Indigenous access to water (Rural Solutions, 2008) con-firm that governments across Australia are in the early stages offormally recognising Indigenous peoples’ relationships with waterfor spiritual, cultural and economic purposes. It is of concern thatthe water planning frameworks in a number of jurisdictions are si-lent on the rights and interests of Indigenous people, and do notprovide for their engagement despite the statutory right to com-ment under the Native Title Act (Tan, 2009).

Despite the existence of the NWI guidelines for plans to imme-diately include consideration of Indigenous water use, water plansrarely specifically addresses Indigenous requirements (NationalWater Commission 2009, 2011). Plans in many jurisdictionsimplicitly assume that environmental flows will serve as a surro-gate for a mechanism to meet Indigenous social, cultural or spiri-tual requirements, if these are considered at all (Finn andJackson, 2011). Research conducted for the recent (third) biennialassessment of national progress on water reform found that whereassessments of Indigenous values are made, they usually involvedesktop reviews and reviews of government databases (NationalWater Commission, 2011), and not engaged participatory researchor well-resourced studies of the hydrological linkages betweenaquatic ecosystems and Indigenous use and values.

Some national progress has been seen in the creation of Indige-nous consultative groups and processes, but the challenge is tonow use ‘those engagement processes to more explicitly accountfor Indigenous water values and requirements in water planning’(National Water Commission, 2011: 44). Notwithstanding slowprogress, many water management agencies express strong inter-est in improving their practices and, in some instances, changingwater laws and policies to better address Indigenous expectationsand requirements.

Although the NWI provides a foundation to engage with Indig-enous people and meet their diverse water requirements, in prac-tice the institutional ‘infrastructure’ to guarantee outcomes of ahigh standard and positive effect is poorly developed. We arguethat this is a factor limiting the extent to which Australian waterplanning is meeting national policy objectives. Little guidance isprovided to water resource managers and regional bodies seekingto meet the objectives relating to Indigenous access and involve-ment; indeed there are no national guidelines to give effect tothe implied role of public participation in Australian water reform(Tan et al., 2008) and the methods, modes, and rationale of involv-ing Indigenous groups in the planning process are not specified.There are indeed substantial legal and other structural impedi-ments to increased Indigenous access to valuable water rights, par-ticularly for commercial purposes, however we argue thatimproved outcomes for Indigenous people will at a minimum re-quire their direct participation in water planning as well their in-formed contribution to water policy debates.

The research reported in this paper was designed to yield prac-tical guidance to water planners and managers, multi-stakeholderreference groups, and Indigenous communities new to water plan-ning. As part of an Australia wide research project focusing on thedevelopment of water planning tools in partnership with wateragencies and communities (Tan et al., 2012a), the research teamtested, evaluated and promoted a series of tailored participatoryplanning tools in three Australian jurisdictions. It is anticipatedthat this analysis will assist water agencies and Indigenous groupsto better negotiate the complex socio-political terrain of water

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, S., et al. Principles and guidelines(2012), doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

planning by building skills in collaborative cross-cultural planningand adaptive management.

Before turning to the case studies and the findings, we first pro-vide a brief overview of the Australian literature on Indigenouswater values, water rights and participation in water management.Following that section we introduce the methods and discussionarising from the case studies. A set of leading practice guidelinesis provided in the final substantive section.

2. Indigenous interests in water

Indigenous occupation of the Australian continent depended onknowledge of water distribution and use of technology to harvestwater and aquatic resources for tens of thousands of years (Ban-dler, 1993; Keen, 2004; Thorpe, 1928). Indigenous people devel-oped complex systems of water resource management and abody of knowledge sensitive to the continent’s range of climaticconditions and terrain, particularly high variability in rainfall (Da-vies et al., 2008). Access to territory and natural resources was reg-ulated through social convention and rules differed across thecontinent in response to the abundance and reliability of resources(Hiscock, 2008).

Since the late 1990s, the significance of water and rivers toIndigenous societies has grown as a topic of interest to researchers,lawyers engaged in native title processes, natural resource man-agement groups, and water resource managers. Within anthropol-ogy and geography there have been a number of studies explicitlydocumenting and analysing the ways in which Indigenous societiesattribute meaning to water and the place of water in their forma-lised systems of knowledge and social institutions (Langton 2002,2006; Strang, 2001; Toussaint et al., 2005; Weir, 2009; Rose,2004; Jackson, 2006; Yu, 2000). Much of this literature is drawnfrom ethnographic studies carried out in northern Australia, in re-gions such as the Kimberley, reflecting a geographical bias in ourgeneral knowledge of Indigenous societies. Water is examined asa feature of the Indigenous cultural landscape with significantattention devoted to the symbolic dimension of individual andgroup attachment to water bodies and to the role of water in con-necting people through social institutions that govern resourcemanagement. As well as examining the symbolic, metaphoricaland conceptual significance of water, studies also reveal the mate-rial use of water according to Indigenous custom. Many commen-tators refer to water’s economic significance as a vital elementunderpinning the Indigenous harvest and intra-community distri-bution of aquatic life (e.g. Behrendt and Thompson, 2004; Altman,2004; Strang, 2001; Jackson et al., 2011a, 2011b).

From this literature it is apparent that water plays a central rolein Australian Indigenous societies. All studies reviewed here ob-serve that groups conceptualise water sources and rivers as havingderived from the actions of mythic beings during the Dreaming,when the world attained its present shape and the socio-culturalinstitutions governing water use were formed (Barber and Rumley,2003; Langton, 2002; Toussaint et al., 2005; Yu, 2000). Water’svitality is underscored in these accounts, including those fromthe Murray-Darling Basin (Morgan et al., 2004; Weir, 2009). In con-texts where resources or places are under pressure, there may be atendency to focus on key places or sacred sites as people strive toretain their traditions (Kolig, 1996). However, affiliations to waterare much broader than those encompassed by the conventionalcultural heritage paradigm: these humanitarian values relate tonotions of sociality, sacredness, identity and life-giving (Jackson,2006).

More recently, analysis has been directed to the definition,explication and incorporation of Indigenous values relating towater in environmental planning and to Indigenous aspirations

for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. J. Hydrol.

1 Scope included definition of proposed work, roles and responsibilities ofparticipating parties, meeting arrangements and benefit-sharing (e.g. payments andreimbursements for participation).

S. Jackson et al. / Journal of Hydrology xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 3

for resource governance in catchment-scale institutions (Rea,2008; Morgan et al., 2004; Weir, 2009), particularly within thewater-stressed Murray-Darling Basin. The articulation betweencustomary and statutory water rights systems has been analysedin the legal and policy literature (O’Donnell, 2011; Lingiari Founda-tion, 2002; Behrendt and Thompson, 2004; Bartlett, 1997; Tan,1997). In brief, this literature describes the property rights grantedto Indigenous people under land rights regimes in those Australianstates with statutory land rights, such as the Northern Territory(O’Donnell, 2010; Jackson and Altman, 2009); as well as the effectof the Mabo decision and the Native Title Act. The Native Title Act1993 made possible some recognition of Indigenous rights to in-land waters under Australian law. Under the Act, rights to hunt,gather and fish for the purposes of satisfying the personal, domes-tic or non-commercial needs of native title holders can be exer-cised free from licensing or permit restrictions that otherwiseapply to such activities. The same exemption applies to culturaland spiritual activity and other kinds of activity which may be laterprescribed, provided the activity involves the exercise or enjoy-ment of native title rights and interests. According to McFarlane(2004), most if not all water resources (groundwater and surfacewater) within the Australian mainland are subject to native titleclaims. Tan (2009) has described the legal framework across Aus-tralia and analysed the way in which Indigenous participationand access are treated in statutory water law, as has O’Donnell(2011).

3. Case studies: planning context, methods and results

From August 2008 to July 2010 we worked in three regionsacross Australia – the Tiwi Islands in the Northern Territory(Hoverman and Ayre, 2011, this issue), the River Murray in SouthAustralia (Mooney and Tan, 2011, this issue), and the CentralCondamine Alluvium in Queensland (Tan et al., 2012a). Eachof these regions presents a distinctive context of Indigenousparticipation in water planning, from which our analysis willdraw general lessons intended to contribute to more effectiveparticipatory approaches.

3.1. Tiwi Islands, NT

The Tiwi Islands, Melville and Bathurst Islands, are located60 km off shore of Darwin, Northern Territory. In 2008, the North-ern Territory’s water agency, the Department of Natural Resources,the Environment, Arts and Sport (NRETAS) undertook to develop awater plan. The planning process was to be cognisant of Tiwi gov-ernance structures and human resource capacity and preparedwith the support of Tiwi landowners and the Tiwi Land Council(TLC).

The TLC, with its active Natural Resource Management (NRM)Committee, had demonstrated its commitment to managing theenvironment, with a comprehensive NRM strategy and a past his-tory of working with NRETAS to document water resources on theislands (Haig, 2003; Matsuyama and Haig, 2003).

In agreeing to develop a water allocation plan, the TLC insistedthat all consultations and any decision-making structures devel-oped must be consistent with Tiwi governance and procedural pro-tocols. Further, Tiwi control over decisions about issues thataffected their lands, waters and communities was mandatory. Assuch, we entered into a research agreement to guide the relation-ship and accepted TLC’s recommendation to adopt an iterative ap-proach, seeking feedback from TLC at various points to ensure theacceptability of adopted methods.

Meetings with community members identified significant chal-lenges: the lack of scientific understanding of the hydrological cy-cle; and little or no experience with water planning, its approaches

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, S., et al. Principles and guidelines(2012), doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

or its benefits. Perhaps most significantly, for the TLC and commu-nity members, there was little obvious need to begin a water plan-ning exercise as there appeared to be adequate water ofappropriate quality. Discussions with Tiwi and community leadersdid nonetheless identify a number of current trends that couldpotentially put pressure on existing water resources, including agrowing interest in the development of tourism and recreationand NT government plans for a ‘Growth Town’ on Bathurst Island.

Through an iterative process of holding community workshops,seeking feedback and intensely debriefing each event within theteam, it became clear that the more experiential the learning dur-ing the community meetings, the greater its engagement qualities,interest and impact. Workshop components needed to engage andinform regardless of levels of technical understanding or Englishliteracy. It also became clear that there were two main audiencesto engage in order to build capacity and elicit and share values,knowledge, issues and concerns around future water management.These were the Tiwi communities and the Tiwi opinion and deci-sion makers such as Trustees, Traditional Owners, TLC membersand Tiwi organisations like the Tiwi Shire Council. In effect a mul-ti-pronged approach to engagement in the water planning processwas adopted and refined through the application of participatory‘tools’ which featured workshops on customary estates, large scalemapping, aerial photographs and a physical 3 Dimension Ground-water model (Hoverman and Ayre, 2011 this issue),

All tools were evaluated both by community participants andthe project team and improvements made to the content andmethods. The 3D Physical Groundwater model was ranked as mostuseful (a finding that attendees at community meetings sup-ported), followed closely by ‘photo posters’ and ‘workshop photobooklets’ along with ‘visits to tanks, bores, and local water recrea-tional sites’.

3.2. River Murray, SA

The River Murray Water Allocation Plan (WAP) was adopted in2002 and a new plan was required under water legislation. In 2008several areas were identified as critical for the new plan, includingprovisions of the NWI relating to Indigenous access to water(Mooney and Tan, 2010; South Australian MDB NRM Board,2008). More specifically with respect to Indigenous access, a needto undertake socio-economic assessments to determine areas ofcultural significance and provide water to meet Indigenousrequirements was identified (SA MDB NRM Board August 2008).

There are currently approximately 2500 Indigenous people liv-ing in the area affected by the WAP (ABS, 2008), with the majorityof people identifying as Ngarrindjeri, a group recognised as thetraditional owners of the region (Anderson, 1997; Birckhead andGreiner, 2008). The value of water to the Ngarrindjerri, includingits cultural significance, is described elsewhere (see Birckheadand Greiner, 2008; Weir 2009).

We worked under an informal research protocol1 with a sub-group of the Ngarrindjeri Nation, the Nganguraku who describethemselves as ‘River People’. The Nganguraku, through MannumAboriginal Community Association Incorporated, own a rural prop-erty of 1050 hectares, Sugar Shack, close to Swan Reach on the Mur-ray River. Sugar Shack is managed for primary production (grazinggoats and cattle), environmental and cultural purposes. It has a wet-land complex that is recognised for its environmental significance(Jensen et al. 1996). Monitoring of the environmental conditionhas been underway for 10 years and a management plan was devel-oped to support an application for a water allocation under the 2002

for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. J. Hydrol.

4 S. Jackson et al. / Journal of Hydrology xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

WAP. With the limited exception of brief references to scar trees2

and burial sites on the property, the monitoring and managementplans have not incorporated any consideration of Indigenous valuesat Sugar Shack.

A gap analysis found that meeting Indigenous requirementspresented a considerable challenge for the Board. An under-repre-sentation of Indigenous people in the NRM Board’s communityengagement processes presented one hurdle (Mooney and Tan,2010). Water availability and the existing allocation regime pre-sented an even greater obstacle, for the system was ‘seriouslyover-allocated’ with insufficient water available after consumptiveextractions to maintain ecological function of the river, its flood-plains, wetlands and anabranches and backwaters (Stribley andGoode, 2008). The area subject to close scrutiny by the projectteam in partnership with the Nganguraku has been significantlyimpacted by both drought and low flows within the river channel,previously connected wetlands have been disconnected from themain channel and processes associated with the drought havereportedly affected river bank stability and other features (Stribleyand Goode, 2008). As a result:

The current drought and awareness of the need for a long termreduction in water extraction meant that there is some consider-able sensitivity about the idea of raising expectations for any groupof water users. There is no new water to be allocated to Indigenouspeople or any other users. . . (Mooney and Tan, 2010: 3 emphasisadded)

The planning process nonetheless provided potential to im-prove ecological conditions, an objective shared by Indigenouspeople of the region. In close consultation with the Ngangurakuand the NRM Board, including the Board’s Indigenous Facilitators,we defined three key objectives for the Murray case:

1. to develop and trial a procedure or method for exploring Indig-enous values;

2. examine in some detail the water requirements at a specificsite; and

3. explore if and how the current drought has affected Indigenousvalues at this site and the provision of water to meet Indigenousvalues.

A range of possible methods were reviewed: use and occupancymapping (Tobias 2000; Ward 2010), strategic perspectives analysis(Dale and Lane 1994), community workshops (Sarkissian et al.2009), rapid assessment of perceptions (Abrahams and Henderson,2010) and focus groups. The final approach adopted to elicit qual-itative data on Indigenous values involved a guided site visit withtraditional owners, the use of photo documentation and a focusgroup meeting. The choice of methods was based on the prefer-ences of the traditional owners as well as pragmatic considerationsof available time and resources. The site visit and a planning meet-ing took place on the first day and a focus group meeting on thesecond day. Photographs of places were taken at the site visitand helped to clarify areas and items of importance. These photoswere used in the final report. The focus was on identifying places,or things of value that were affected by the quantity and quality ofwater in the system. No attempt was made to quantitatively definethe relationship between Indigenous values and flow regime, or tospecify any volume of water required to protect or enhance thosevalues.

The Nganguraku requested that the results be written up as areport which they analysed for accuracy, critiqued in the evalua-tion phase and retained for their own use. Results from this preli-

2 The tree is usually a River Red Gum, scarred by the removal of bark for canoes,coolamons (wooden bowls) and shields.

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, S., et al. Principles and guidelines(2012), doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

minary investigation were presented to the NRM Board to informits approach to working with Indigenous people and their require-ments for water for cultural and other purposes. At the time ofwriting, the NRM Board is undertaking a project to extend thiswork to other Indigenous communities in the expectation that re-sults will inform provisions in the water allocation plan inpreparation.

These methods were evaluated in an informal discussion. Par-ticipants preferred this type of assessment over a formal, writtenevaluation and expressed satisfaction with the process: its inclu-siveness, scope and ways in which sensitive information was man-aged. Participants clearly valued the opportunity to talk about theirvalues and needs, having felt neglected by previous water manage-ment processes. The site visit was considered important, providingan opportunity for Nganguraku to show researchers (or planners)what they considered to be important and to discuss hydrologicalrelationships (see Mooney and Tan, 2011, this issue).

3.3. Condamine Alluvium, Qld

The trial of planning tools in the Condamine River system ofQueensland aimed to support a Water Resource Plan amendmentto address groundwater use in an over-allocated and environmen-tally sensitive area (Tan et al., 2012b). The Water Resource (Cond-amine and Balonne) Plan 2004 regulates taking of surface waterand, in 2009, an amendment to address groundwater managementwas initiated. The Department of Environment and Resource Man-agement (DERM) proposed that Indigenous interests be addressedin the planning process by means of Indigenous representation onthe Community Reference Panel (CRP) established to advise theresponsible Minister.

The water plan area encompasses the customary estates of fourIndigenous groups: the Barunggam, the Giabul, the Jarowair andthe Kambuwal. There was initial difficulty identifying representa-tives of these group but we met with all except the Jarowair peoplevia the regional NRM group’s Indigenous liaison officer. A suite ofmethods to engage Indigenous participants, articulate issues ofconcern and elevate the status of Indigenous knowledge in waterplanning deliberations was agreed to by researchers and Indige-nous participants. These included semi-structured interviews, vis-its to country, photographic recording and mapping of places ofsignificance, and a desktop review of published cultural heritagestudies (e.g. Potter et al. 2002; French 1989; Morwood, 1986; Tin-dale 1974). The literature review informed subsequent discussionswith Indigenous custodians, for example by identifying water sitesfrom which important medicine and food plants could be sourced(e.g. Lake Broadwater and soaks such as Gowrie Creek wetlands).Payment to compensate people for the time spent participatingin the project was negotiated with traditional owners. During sub-sequent field visits, traditional owners documented historical andcultural associations to the plan area and its water resources.Group boundaries were found to coincide with catchment or wa-tershed boundaries. The connections were revealed through narra-tives and confirmed by historical records and anthropological/archaeological studies.

The findings demonstrated severe impairment of Indigenouswater values as a result of deterioration of the physical conditionof key water sites and restricted accessibility. Traditional ownersreported fish kills from poor water quality, depleted stocks of foodand medicine plants, and in places, permanent natural springshave ceased to flow and historic ‘soaks’ have dried up (White2010). The capacity of the landscape to provide for AboriginalIndigenous people has been diminished by hydrological changesincluding loss of stream flow and depletion of the aquifer broughtabout by continued groundwater extraction for irrigated agricul-ture. The ability of traditional owners to pass on knowledge of

for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. J. Hydrol.

S. Jackson et al. / Journal of Hydrology xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 5

plant and animal use and to fulfil custodial responsibilities to man-age their country has also been impaired.

A series of recommendations to reduce groundwater extractionand improve the health of surface water bodies valued by the cus-todians was made to the CRP and communication materials gener-ated for the wider public, including schools and NRM groups. Thesole Indigenous member of the CRP did not attend meetings andthe CRP elected to not advise the Minister on these issues to avoidexacerbating competition for an over-allocated resource.

Further disappointment faced the research team and traditionalowners. An intention to use water agency groundwater data to re-veal the hydrological processes affecting key heritage sites, such assprings, was unrealised because few monitoring sites coincidedwith significant Indigenous sites. Of greater significance to projectoutcomes was the position taken by the DERM to act on ‘policy ad-vice’ and make no attempt to restore groundwater – surface waterconnections, thought to have been severed 30–40 years ago (Tanet al., 2012b).

Evaluation of the methods employed to engage Indigenous peo-ple revealed that photographing key sites ranked highest, followedby both informal discussions with the researcher and guided visitsto country followed by recorded interviews.

4. Discussion

In the three case studies, Indigenous rights, values and interestsrelating to water were jointly identified by the researchers andwater agencies as a priority area requiring greater understandingand research attention. This observation is not surprising giventhe Australia-wide experience of ineffective Indigenous participa-tion in water planning. Although in each case a range of tools wereemployed to improve participation in water planning, the extent towhich the activities influenced plan outcomes varied considerablyacross cases; a result strongly suggesting that a number of institu-tional impediments of a legal and political-economic nature con-tinue to constrain Indigenous access to water, irrespective of thequality of opportunity provided for Indigenous participation (Weir2009; Jackson and Morrison 2007; Behrendt and Thompson 2004).

In the Tiwi case, where traditional owners hold freehold title totheir land and constitute by far the largest ethnic group on the Is-lands, water delegates and their representative organisations werehighly influential in shaping the process in which engagement oc-curred. Due to the different planning contexts (the fact that theTiwi process was not intended to result in changes to water useor allocation amongst competing groups), it is not possible to di-rectly compare the outcomes of all three cases.

Two of the cases reported here were undertaken in highly con-tentious contexts in which water scarcity induced by over-alloca-tion and drought have diminished Indigenous people’srelationships to land and water. The legal framework for water re-source development did not recognise Indigenous rights to wateruntil 1993, and when native title was recognised, an onerousclaims process prevented many groups from the protection affor-ded by the Native Title Act. In South Australia the team workedwith an Indigenous group who had registered title over the rela-tively small area of land, whilst in the Condamine case-study, re-search was carried out with participants who had no title toland. A weak legal position and water scarcity now greatly con-strains the ability of Indigenous people to influence decisionsabout the sharing of water. In the Condamine, the Community Ref-erence Panel was not receptive to the water needs of Indigenouspeople and discussion centred on the threat to their own accessto water posed by an imminent cut to the consumptive pool. Thepractical effect of the moratorium on new licences in the Cond-amine meant that that an allocation for Indigenous purposes

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, S., et al. Principles and guidelines(2012), doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

would require the purchase of water from other users. In such acontext, incumbent water users were privileged when access tothe resource was debated and the needs of Indigenous people werenot prioritised. To act on the expectations of Indigenous communi-ties in these cases may have required reductions in the consump-tive water use of other users on a scale not considered acceptableby influential groups within the majority non-Indigenous popula-tion. For the simple fact of an ongoing power imbalance betweenIndigenous and non-Indigenous people in Australian society, waterplanning procedures will need to ensure that they not only providethe right conditions for participation and engagement, but thatthey give effect to Indigenous aspirations and values in water allo-cation decisions.

Water planners and managers will therefore need to take thelong-term requirements of Indigenous people into account in pre-cautionary, transparent, flexible, and equitable approaches to allo-cation, particularly given predictions of heightened water scarcityin southern Australia arising from climate change (CSIRO, 2008)and greater demand in the north (Pusey, 2011). Such approachesmay require changes to water laws and policies. Mechanisms forspecial purpose water licences (NSW) and Indigenous water re-serves (Queensland, Northern Territory) have been developed asa means of redressing the historical alienation of Indigenous landand water rights (see Behrendt and Thompson 2004; O’Donnell,2011).

In the Tiwi case, the sense of group inquiry was enhanced as thewater planner discussed hydrological concepts and understandingwhilst inspecting particular water features and sites. For example,the group visited a bore, spent time testing ways of determiningthe watertable height, and discussed groundwater level fluctua-tions and recharge. They visited a local spring-fed swimming-holeand discussed water dependent ecosystems and the water cycle.Over time, the set of engagement tools improved participationand inclusiveness; greater numbers of people showed interest inthe project and some took on awareness-raising tasks. The toolselicited and shared both Western scientific and Tiwi knowledge,contributed to social learning and produced information usefulfor inclusion in the Water Resource Strategy. In the Murray, thevisits to the property were mutually beneficial; providing anopportunity for researchers, with help from Nganguraku, to appre-ciate water-related values and for the Nganguraku to explore ideasabout non-consumptive water allocations with researchers.

We argue that there is much that planners and Indigenous rep-resentative groups can do to improve Indigenous outcomes fromwater use decisions, even within existing statutory and policyframeworks. Based on the results of the case studies describedabove and insights from research reported elsewhere (Jacksonet al. 2009), the authors propose a set of principles that, if adoptedby water planners as a guide, will improve Indigenous participa-tion in water planning and access to water.

5. Principles and guidelines for good practice in water planning

5.1. Draw on available Indigenous knowledge

An important prerequisite to meeting Indigenous water needs isa greater general awareness of Indigenous concepts of ‘country’,the nature and extent of Indigenous interests in water, and theirrelationship to other Indigenous values (Rose 1996; Langton2006; Howitt 2001). Indigenous knowledge, values, and contempo-rary practices can contribute to environmental restoration andmanagement (Baker and Davies, 2001). Despite the expectationsof the NWI, Indigenous knowledge is currently under-utilised inwater resource assessments and planning, particularly environ-mental flow studies (Cranney and Tan, 2011). The National Water

for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. J. Hydrol.

6 S. Jackson et al. / Journal of Hydrology xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Commission is of the view that if water planning can recogniseIndigenous hydrological knowledge it may assist in building thecapacity of Indigenous leaders to participate in water planning,policy and management (2011).

Some water agencies are keen to learn more from Indigenousexperts and have commissioned studies of Indigenous hydrologicalknowledge to inform their water plans. Indigenous knowledge alsoincludes values and beliefs about environmental ethics, such aswater sharing principles, and the origins of life, landscapes and so-cial arrangements for managing land and water. All of this knowl-edge can be drawn upon by non-Indigenous people participating inwater planning who may be prompted to also reflect upon theirown ethical frameworks and normative values.

For instance, the Western Australian Department of Water hasshown strong interest in Indigenous hydrological knowledge, com-missioning many studies in areas where water use is growing. Forexample, the Ord River region (Barber and Rumley 2003), the Pil-bara region (Rumley and Barber 2004) and the La Grange regionsouth of Broome (Yu 2000). These studies describe the rich knowl-edge held by Indigenous groups, the value systems and institutionsthat govern Indigenous resource use and management, and thecontemporary aspirations for greater involvement in watermanagement.

Our research shows that Indigenous groups are very keen tocontribute their knowledge and to see their values recognised inwater allocation decisions. Participatory approaches that revolvearound visits to customary estates are highly engaging. Group dis-cussions were often held outdoors during reconnaissance trips toheighten experiential learning, with questions and input arisingfrom participation in collective activities.

5.2. Involvement through all stages of the water planning cycle

A water planning cycle consists of a number of stages: assessingwater resources, setting management objectives, deliberating overtrade-offs, and evaluating and monitoring plan implementation.Indigenous people are entitled to be involved in all stages of thewater planning cycle and yet this does not occur. Indigenous rep-resentative organisations, such as the Tiwi Land Council, assistedwater planners to ensure that they knew who to work with beforeplanning commenced and provided advice on engagement proto-cols consistent with systems of local Indigenous resourcegovernance.

A study of Indigenous stakeholder interests in the plan areaprior to developing a water plan (an Indigenous engagement strat-egy) will assist water planners to identify Indigenous groups andorganisations, describe the interests and document their capacityand information needs. This step will also assist in monitoringand evaluating plan implementation. It might also be useful to con-sider a process analogous to future act notification under section29 of the Native Title Act 19933 (Cth) to ensure that Indigenous peo-ple with an interest in water planning processes are accorded oppor-tunities to actively participate when water plans are undertaken.

Concerted effort should be made to ensure that gender differ-ences are recognised in planning processes. With a few exceptions,women were not well engaged in the Tiwi consultation process,despite increasingly elaborate and purposeful efforts to rectifythe exclusion. Whereas in the Murray case study the key partici-pants were women and the gender balance was in their favour.

3 This section provides a mechanism for governments and others to notify nativetitle holders or claimants of an intention to carry out an act that may affect nativetitle. In Western Australia, the Department of Water considers native title decisions inwater licence assessments by notifying native title holders, or their representativebody, of new applications to take water and provides them with an opportunity tocomment (Western Australian Government, 2010).

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, S., et al. Principles and guidelines(2012), doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

5.3. Address diversity of Indigenous interests in water and the broaderlandscape

Our research reveals that Indigenous people involved in watermanagement often have interests in many aspects of water man-agement and use and not all groups will have the same priorities.Yet there is a tendency for water managers and stakeholders to as-sume that Indigenous people are only interested in ‘cultural values’or heritage management, such as protection of sacred sites (Jack-son, 2006). This can result in their exclusion from considerationsrelating to commercial opportunities to develop enterprises (suchas grazing and cultural tourism in the River Murray case) and envi-ronmental management and monitoring activities.

In the Tiwi case, water delegates and other Tiwi leaders werevery interested in water supply and infrastructure issues as a resultof problems encountered with community groundwater supply. Acoordinated approach by the water services provider, the water re-source agency and the WPT team ensured that all water-related is-sues raised at workshops received attention, whether they relatedto water supply or the hydrological cycle and water resources.

If a water advisory committee’s approach to water planning isunderpinned by the simplistic assumption that Indigenous peo-ple’s interests are vastly different to those of the dominant popula-tion, shared values and opportunities for consensus-building canbe overlooked.

5.4. Build capacity for Indigenous representatives to capably fulfil ademanding role

Planning processes tend to rely on one or two Indigenous repre-sentatives on advisory committees as the means of engaging andobtaining community input to water resource assessments andallocation decisions; this was especially evident in the Condaminestudy. There are, however, numerous problems associated withthis representative model of consultation (e.g. the difficulties fac-ing one or two individuals in representing numerous land ownergroups). For instance, without adequate support it is difficult forIndigenous representatives to fulfil their responsibilities to othergroup members, particularly amongst widely dispersed popula-tions. The technical and legal complexity of many of the hydrolog-ical issues and entitlement frameworks addressed by advisorygroups may also inhibit effective participation.

In the River Murray study, representation was managed byclearly and narrowly defining the area of study. Given the historyof the region, the issue of representation may be less clear andmore contentious in other parts of the river. In the Tiwi trial, rep-resentation and input was enhanced by the appointment of eighttraditional owners (one each from the eight land owning group)as water delegates. The role of these eight people was to work withthe Tiwi Land Council, the water agency and researchers on thewater planning process. Thus, these senior men acquitted theircustodial obligations, even though further delegation was madeto Tiwi Land Rangers who have day-to-day carriage of NRMmatters.

Around Australia, agencies, catchment management groups andothers, such as Land Councils, can be found working together tosupport and improve Indigenous participation in water planning.The more strategic of these efforts include:

? seeking input to the selection of representatives from LandCouncils, Indigenous NRM groups and Native Title PrescribedBody Corporations;

? assisting Indigenous representatives to develop an engagementplan outlining how they will interact with their community andrepresent them in water allocation advisory committeemeetings;

for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. J. Hydrol.

S. Jackson et al. / Journal of Hydrology xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 7

? supporting a separate Indigenous advisory group from which asmall number of representatives can be chosen to serve on themulti-stakeholder water advisory committee;

? providing funds to Indigenous representatives to travel to meet-ings of wider Indigenous community to seek comment on waterplanning agenda items; and

? producing and distributing plain English documents and visualtools to convey complex information on hydrology, water man-agement procedures and water allocation impacts.

5.5. Include Indigenous people in environmental flow assessment andmanagement

Where Indigenous values are considered, water plans tend toassume that rules-based environmental provisions will meet Indig-enous social, cultural or spiritual requirements and little effort ismade to test whether environmental flows are adequate to thistask (Finn and Jackson, 2011).The River Murray and Condaminecases revealed the neglect of Indigenous people from environmen-tal water research and allocations. In some regions (the MurrayDarling Basin, for example) the environmental allocations havebeen inadequate. Traditional owner groups in many water-stressedareas of the Basin are challenging the exclusive focus given to eco-logical criteria in determination of these environmental flows(Weir, 2009). Indigenous groups such as the Ngarrindjeri and theMurray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations alliance of tradi-tional owners are developing their own ideas for adapting andimproving environmental flows to meet their needs.

Water resource assessments for plans will need to significantlyincrease the attention given to sociological factors in their environ-mental flow assessment techniques for example. Research under-way in north Australia is seeking to understand the eco-hydrological relationships between Indigenous water values andthe flow regime in order to assess and mitigate the impacts of flowalteration on Indigenous aquatic resource use for example (Jacksonet al., 2011a, 2011b).

5.6. Indigenous water requirements need to be determined for eachwater plan as a matter of priority

The NWI Guidelines for Water Plans and Planning Processesstate that plans should include consideration of Indigenous wateruse. Yet it is rare to see a water plan that specifically addressesIndigenous requirements for direct use or other requirements.Methods employed in the River Murray case sought to make expli-cit the flow linkages to Indigenous values at the Sugar Shack prop-erty, a vital step in determining flows that will meet Indigenousrequirements (King and Brown, 2006). At the wider Murray-Dar-ling Basin scale, consideration is being given to new type of entitle-ments to meet Indigenous groups’ non-consumptive waterrequirements. The concept of a ‘cultural flow’ has emerged as away for Indigenous groups to make a case for Indigenous waterallocations and decision-making rights on the basis of cultural dif-ference or identity (Weir, 2009).

There is little doubt that the intangible values that Indigenouspeople regard as critical to their sense of identity, cultural prac-tices, spiritual beliefs, customary management practices and liveli-hoods, are difficult to quantify and therefore can be overlookedwhen other water users are competing for clearly defined amountsof water. Furthermore, allocating water for Indigenous use may bedifficult in the highly over-allocated systems such as the Murrayand the Condamine Alluvial. To ensure that the NWI objectivesare met, priority attention should be given to determining Indige-nous water requirements in all new water plans, and as existingwater plans are revised.

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, S., et al. Principles and guidelines(2012), doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

5.7. Monitor and evaluate plan objectives

Planners need to know how to engage with communities to en-hance participation as well as how to evaluate the effect of Indig-enous participation. The current management system does notrequire or encourage monitoring of participation and the extentto which Indigenous people are accessing water. Nationally consis-tent indicators should be developed to monitor the performance ofwater plan objectives relating to Indigenous access and participa-tion in planning and management. Reporting against these indica-tors would encourage the development of measurable targets.

6. Conclusion

Just as water planning was the domain of engineers andhydrologists in early-era water management, the shift required byNWI-driven reform has meant that new skills are required for aparticipatory approach to planning, especially regarding Indigenousengagement. Australia’s National Water Commission has recentlyconfirmed that Indigenous water values remain poorly addressedin water planning (2011), despite objectives in national policyrequiring Indigenous participation in water planning and improvedaccess to water and the emergence of new consultation mecha-nisms . As a consequence, the cultural and economic expectationsof Indigenous Australians remain an ‘unmet demand on the watersystem’ according to the most recent review of Australian waterreform (National Water Commission, 2011: 9).

Indigenous participation that gives effect to national policyrequirements requires sensitive and targeted approaches, andmany water management agencies could gain assistance fromthe guidelines that have been discussed. Our research has shownpractical ways in which this can be carried out, supported by eval-uation of these methods by Indigenous participants. Results showthese methods appealed to a range of people, were suited to thecapacities and experience of the groups affected and encourageddiscussion and learning. With an emphasis on visual and experien-tial activities, the tools enabled participants to share and exchangelocal and Western scientific understanding of the hydrological sys-tems and socio-cultural values.

It is worth drawing attention to new allocation mechanismssuch as Indigenous water reserves which will provide plannerswith a legal mechanism to potentially address Indigenous waterrequirements. These reserves may provide for commercial usebut no applications have as yet been made for licences in Queens-land. This is of significance, considering the emphasis that govern-ments’ place on Indigenous reserves in providing access forIndigenous people, and is an area which requires further research.There appears to be greater interest in the uptake of this provisionin the Northern Territory, where agricultural use is growing andthe Indigenous community holds substantial rights to land (O’Don-nell, 2011).

In that jurisdiction and other northern states, Indigenous lead-ers from land-owning communities are aware that some policymakers and primary industries are increasingly interested in usingthe substantial water resources of the north, especially as climatechange predictions show that Australia’s south-eastern food-bowlis likely to become drier (North Australian Indigenous Land,2010). In other parts of Australia where Indigenous communitieshave either had claims to land and water defeated in courts, orare still struggling to assert their resource rights, the stake inengaging in the process of water planning is just as high. This re-search whilst demonstrating practical means of engagement, alsoprovides evidence that increased access to water where no‘‘new’’ water is allocated will require governments to utilise waterbuy-back schemes or manage environmental water to addressidentified Indigenous interests.

for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. J. Hydrol.

8 S. Jackson et al. / Journal of Hydrology xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Acknowledgments

The project team acknowledge the contribution made by Indig-enous participants in the three case study locations. Claudia Bald-win provided valuable comments on an early draft. We are gratefulto two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism.

References

Abrahams, J., Henderson, R., 2010. Pilot Project for Community Engagement inWater Conservation in Ali Curung, PowerWater, Darwin.

Altman, J., 2004. Indigenous interests and water property rights. Dialogue 23, 29–43.

Anderson, S. 1997. Aboriginal Archaeology, History and Oral History at Swan ReachMission, South Australia. Masters in Arts Honours. University of New England,Armidale.

ABS, 2008. 4610.0.55.007 – Water and the Murray-Darling Basin: A StatisticalProfile 2000-01, 2005-06.

Australian Government, 2004. The National Water Initiative Inter-governmentalAgreement, Canberra.

Baker, R., Davies, J., et al. (Eds.), 2001. Working on Country: ContemporaryIndigenous Management of Australia’s Lands and Coastal Regions. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Bandler, H., 1993. Expertise in water resources exploitation in Australian prehistory.Water and the Environment: Newsletter of the Water Research Foundation ofAustralia., 313.

Barber, K., Rumley, H., 2003. Gunanurang (Kununurra) Big River, Aboriginal CulturalValues of the Ord River and Wetlands. Western Australian Water and RiversCommission, Perth.

Bartlett, R., 1997. Native title to water. In: Bartlett, R., Gardner, A., Mascher, S. (Eds.),Water law in Western Australia: comparative studies and options for reform.Centre of Commercial and Resources Law, University of Western Australia:Perth, pp. 125–160.

Behrendt, J., Thompson, P., 2004. The recognition and protection of Aboriginal andinterests in New South Wales rivers. J. Ind. Policy 3, 37–140.

Birckhead, J., Greiner, R., et al. 2008. Economic and cultural values of water to theNjarrindjeri people of the lower lakes, Cooorong and Murray mouth,Unpublished Report to CSIRO.

Cranney, K., Tan, P., 2011. Old knowledge in freshwater: why Traditional EcologicalKnowledge is essential for determining Environmental flows in Water Plans.Aust. J Nat. Resour. Policy Law.

CSIRO, 2008. Water availability in the Murray-Darling Basin. A report to theAustralian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin SustainableYields Project, Canberra.

Dale, A., Lane, M., 1994. Strategic perspectives analysis: a procedure forparticipatory and social impact assessment. Soc. Nat. Resour. 7, 253–267.

Davies, J., White, J., et al., 2008. Applying the sustainable livelihoods approach inAustralian desert Aboriginal development. The Rangeland J 30, 55–65.

Finn, M., Jackson, S., 2011. Protecting indigenous values in water management: achallenge to conventional environmental flow assessments. Ecosystems onlinefirst.

French, M., 1989. Conflict on the Condamine: Aborigines and the European Invasion.Toowoomba: Darling Downs Institute Press.

Haig, T., Knapton, A., Matsuyama, A., 2003, Water resources of Tiwi Islands, Mainreport, Tiwi Islands Water Study, Department of Infrastructure, Planning andEnvironment, Natural Systems Division, Darwin, Northern Territory.

Hiscock, P., 2008. Archaeology of Ancient Australia. Routledge, London.Hoverman, S., Ayre, M., 2011. Planning for Tiwi Water Resources Future. J. Hydrol.,

this issue.Howitt, R., 2001. Rethinking Resource Management: Justice Sustainability and

Indigenous Peoples. Routledge, London.Jackson, S., 2006. Compartmentalising culture: the articulation and consideration of

Indigenous values in water resource management. Aust Geogr 37, 19–31.Jackson, S., Altman, J., 2009. Indigenous rights and water policy: perspectives from

tropical north Australia. Aust. Ind. Law Rev. 13, 27–48.Jackson, S., Morrison, J., 2007. Indigenous perspectives on water management,

reforms and implementation. In: Hussey, K., Dovers, S. (Eds.), Managing Waterfor Australia: the Social and Institutional Challenges. CSIRO, Canberra, pp. 23–41.

Jackson, S., Tan, P., Altman, J., 2009. Indigenous Fresh Water Planning Forum:Proceedings, Outcomes and Recommendations. An Unpublished Report to theNational Water Commission, Canberra.

Jackson, S., Tan, P.-L., Nolan, S., 2011, Tools to enhance public participation andconfidence in the development of the Howard East aquifer water plan, NorthernTerritory. J. Hydrol. this issue.

Jackson, S., Finn, M., Woodward, E., Featherston, P., 2011b. Indigenous socio-economic values and river flows. Trop. Rivers Coast. Know. CSIRO, Darwin.

Jensen, A., Paton, P., Mowbray, T., Simpson, D., Kinnear, S., Nichols, S., 1996. WetlandAtlas of the South Australian Murray Valley. South Australian River MurrayWetlands Management Committee. South Australian Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Keen, I., 2004. Aboriginal Economy and Society: Australia at the Threshold ofColonisation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, S., et al. Principles and guidelines(2012), doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

Kolig, E., 1996. Thrilling the clay of our bodies: natural sites and the construction ofsacredness in Australian Aboriginal and Austrian traditions, and in new agephilosophy. Anthropological Forum 7, 351–381.

King, J., Brown, C., 2006. Environmental flows: striking the balance betweendevelopment and resource protection. Ecology and Society 11, 1–26.

Langton, M., 2006. Earth, wind, fire and water: the social and spiritual constructionof water in Aboriginal societies. In: David, B., Barker, B., McNiven, I. (Eds.), TheSocial Archaeology of Australian Indigenous Landscapes. Aboriginal StudiesPress, Canberra, pp. 139–160.

Langton, M., 2002. Freshwater. In: Foundation, Lingiari. (Ed.), Background BriefingPapers: Indigenous Rights to Waters. Lingiari Foundation, Broome, pp. 43–64.

Lingiari Foundation, 2002. Onshore water rights. A discussion booklet for theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Lingiari Foundation, Broome.

Matsuyama, A., Haig, T., 2003. Tiwi Islands Water Study, vol. 2. Water Resources ofTiwi Islands, Traditional Knowledge Report. Northern Territory.

McFarlane, B., 2004. The National Water Initiative and Acknowledging IndigenousInterests in Planning. Paper presented to the National Water Conference,Sydney 29 November 2004.

Mooney, C., Tan, P., 2010. Informant Report – Cultural Water Values at Sugar Shack,South Australia.

Mooney, C, Tan, P., 2011. South Australia’s River Murray water planning:contestation and complexity. J. Hydrol. this issue.

Morgan, M., Strelein, L., Weir, J., 2004. Indigenous Rights to Water in the MurrayDarling Basin. Australian Institute of Indigenous and Islander Studies, Canberra.

Morwood, M.J., 1986. The Archaeology of Art: Excavations at Maidenwell and GattonShelters, S.E. Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 3, 88–132.

National Water Commission, 2009. Australian Water Reform 2009 – SecondBiennial Assessment of Progress in Implementation of the National WaterInitiative. Canberra.

National Water Commission, 2011. The National Water Initiative – SecuringAustralia’s Water Future: 2011 Assessment, NWC. Canberra.

North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, 2009. Mary RiverStatement, http://www.nailsma.org.au/nailsma/forum/downloads/NAILSMA_Mary-River-Statement_Web.pdf (accessed 12.08.10.).

O’Donnell, M., 2011. Indigenous rights in water in North Australia, TRaCK Report,North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, Darwin.

Potter, C., Moles, S., Connors, L., Postle, P., 2002. Conversations on the Condamine:An oral history from the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin. Envirobook,Annandale.

Prasad, N., 2007. Social policies and water sector reform. Markets, Business andRegulation – Paper No. 3. United Nations Research Institute for SocialDevelopment, Geneva.

Pusey, B. 2011. Aquatic Biodiversity in Northern Australia: Patterns, Threats andFuture, Northern Territory University Press, Darwin.

Rea, N and Anmatyerr Water Project Team, 2008. Provision for Cultural Values inWater Management: The Anmatyerr Story, Land & Water Australia Final Report18, Canberra.

Rumley, H., Barber, K., 2004. We Used to Get Our Water Free: Identification andProtection of Aboriginal Cultural Values of the Pilbara Region. Water and RiversCommission of Western Australia, Perth.

Rose, D.B., 1996. Nourishing Terrains: Australian Aboriginal views of Landscape andWilderness. Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra.

Rose, D.B., 2004. Freshwater Rights and Biophilia: Indigenous AustralianPerspectives. Dialogue 23, 35–43.

Rural Solutions, S., 2008. Aboriginal Access to Water Across Australia. Departmentof Water, Government of South Australia, Adelaide.

Sarkissian, W., Bunjamin-Mau, Wiwik., with Cook, A., Walsh, K., Vajda, S., 2009.SpeakOut: The Step-by-Step Guide to SpeakOuts and Community Workshops.Earthscan, London.

South Australian MDB NRM Board 2008, Water Allocation Plan for the River MurrayPrescribed Watercourse Concept Statement, Government of South Australia,August 2008.

Strang, V., 2001. Negotiating the River: cultural tributaries in Far North Queensland.In: Bender, B., Winer, M. (Eds.), Contested Landscapes: Movement. Exile andPlace. Berg, Oxford, pp. 69–86.

Stribley, L., Goode, J. 2008. River Murray Environmental Watering Framework,Government of South Australia, Adelaide.

Tan, P., 1997. Native Title and Freshwater Resources. In: Horrigan, B., Young, S.,(Eds.), Commercial Implications of Native Title. Federation Press. Sydney. pp.157–190.

Tan, P., et al. 2008. Collaborative water planning: context and practice literaturereview, Brisbane, Griffith University. 1, 152.

Tan, P., 2009. National Indigenous Water Planning Forum: A review of the legalbasis for Indigenous access to water, An unpublished report prepared for theNational Water Commission, Canberra.

Tan, P. -L., Bowmer, K., Mackenzie, J., 2012a. Deliberative tools for meeting thechallenges of water planning in Australia. J. Hydrol. this issue.

Tan, P.-L., Baldwin, C., White, I., Burry K., 2012b. Addressing overallocation in theCondamine Alluvium in Queensland. J. Hydrol. this issue.

Thorpe, W., 1928. Water supply of the Aborigines. The Australian MuseumMagazine 3, 233–237.

Tindale, N., 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. ANU Press, Canberra.Tobias, T., 2000. Chief Kerry’s Moose A guidebook to Landuse and Occupancy

Mapping, Research and Data Collection. Ecotrust, Canada.Toussaint, S., Sullivan, P., Mulardy, M., Yu, S., 2005. Water ways in Aboriginal

Australia: an interconnected analysis. Anthropological Forum. 15, 61–74.

for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. J. Hydrol.

S. Jackson et al. / Journal of Hydrology xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 9

Ward, N., 2010. Use-and-occupancy mapping in the Murray–Darling Basin:articulating contemporary connection to country. Ecological Society ofAustralia (ESA) Annual Conference, Canberra, December 6–10, 2010.

Weir, J., 2009. Murray River Country: an Ecological Dialogue with TraditionalOwners. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

Western Australian Government, 2010, La Grange Groundwater Allocation Plan,Water Resource Allocation and Planning Series, Report No. 25, Department ofWater, Perth.

White, I., 2010. Impacts of groundwater extraction on Indigenous access and use ofwater resources in the Central Condamine Alluvium. Water Planning ToolsProject Report.

Please cite this article in press as: Jackson, S., et al. Principles and guidelines(2012), doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.015

Yu, S., 2000. Ngapa Kunangkul: Living Water. Report on the Indigenous CulturalValues of Groundwater in the La Grange Sub–basin. Western Australian Waterand Rivers Commission, Perth.

Web references

Indigenous Peoples Kyoto Water Declaration: Third World Water Forum, Kyoto,Japan, March 2003 at <http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3886&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html> (27.06.11.).

for good practice in Indigenous engagement in water planning. J. Hydrol.