GEOG20003 Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Native Title Act 1993, Corporate Social Responsibility, Indigenous Rights
16 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
LECTURE 12A: SUE JACKSON
• Indigenous water policy + rights
o Changing laws in 90’s – little consideration given to Indigenous people
• Little correlation between Native Title land claim, and claims on water – weak links
Water Reform (late 90’s early 2000’s)
• Mandatory for every state to change laws to correlate with federal laws
• Institutional changing to water rights – reforms of water
• Native Title Act 1993: envisages claims to water
• 2004: Aus water policy first recognised Indigenous rights
o More direct participation in planning – allocation to various users
• National Water Policy 2004: Environmental + consumptive uses supposed to be balanced
o Account for Indigenous values
o Consider Native Title
• CSIRO: established program to assist Indigenous communities to develop own policy with water
o Don’t just react to policy, get own view – empowered
• Government: committed to involving Indigenous representatives on planning boards
• Concern of water markets: capping water use locks new stakeholders out
o Those claiming Native Title may have to buy in to the water market
• Policy development: strategic indigenous reserve
o Reserve a portion of water for Indigenous use in near future after Native Title claim received + infrastructure planning
o Successfully implemented in some areas of the Northern Territory
• Capacity building of Indigenous leadership in water planning + development – skills based + leadership training
LECTURE 12B: CONCLUSIONS
CONCEPTS
Knowledge: always situated, often contested, no stable meaning
• Knowing nature: no fixed meaning, contested, constructed culturally
• Contestation is the source of environmental conflict
• Clash of knowledges + epistemologies – underlying source of conflict
• Env history: phases of ecological transformation in Aus history, changing human nature relationships
o Accidental + deliberation environmental degradation
• Indigenous environment re-engagement
Neoclassical Economics, Political Economy, Ecological Economics: how issues pf production (economy) are linked to issue of distribution
(politics)
• Political Economy: study of wealth, production (economy) + distribution (politics) are intertwined
o Need to understand economic + social relations to understand the nature of wealth
o An analytical approach that says the economy can only be understood through lens of politics
o Capitalism, exploit labour + natural capital to accumulate profit, effects unevenly felt, environmental degradation
• Policy v Political Economy:
o Policy: problem solving, solution-orientated
o Political Economy: seeks to explain primarily, broad logics of production + distributive consequences of logic of
production
• Ecological Economics: critique of neoclassical economic approaches
o See economy as embedded within society + environment
Actors: who is acting + why
• Different types of environmental actors
o Movements (important in agenda setting, can draw in a wide variety of different groups), NGO’s, political parties,
corporations
o NGO: pluralism, corporatism, authoritarianism + post structuralism (different theories of NGO’s)
• Power: positive v negative
• Political parties: env issues come to centre of political debates, what can traditional politics do in terms of env change
• Corporations: don’t dismiss all as detrimental to the environment, not all just profit from positives environmental actions
o Be sceptical of green wash, corporate social responsibility
Governance: how we take part + make decisions + steer change
• Governance is not government
• Government: exercise of state power, founded on political sovereign authority, top down, uniform rules
• Governance: broad processes, mechanisms + organisation – political actors try to influence environmental outcomes
o Complex decision making
o Less hierarchical, more about alliances
o Less prescriptive
o Not enforceable through law
• Shift in political authority
o Government to governance – shift in political power + authority
o Involves many non-state actors – business, civil society, government scales
o No single actor dominates
o Actors have control over resources + tech – must be enrolled in change processes
o Change involves cooperation + negotiation
Power: how is influence wielded, what are their strategies, how do they build agreement or generate conflict
• Negative:
o Narrow view: power is something you can hold + deploy + exert over others
o Broader view: degree to which grievances are prevented from being given political expression
Document Summary
Indigenous water policy + rights: changing laws in 90"s little consideration given to indigenous people. Little correlation between native title land claim, and claims on water weak links. Water reform (late 90"s early 2000"s: mandatory for every state to change laws to correlate with federal laws. Institutional changing to water rights reforms of water. Native title act 1993: envisages claims to water. 2004: aus water policy first recognised indigenous rights: more direct participation in planning allocation to various users. Those claiming native title may have to buy in to the water market. Reserve a portion of water for indigenous use in near future after native title claim received + infrastructure planning. Successfully implemented in some areas of the northern territory: capacity building of indigenous leadership in water planning + development skills based + leadership training. Knowledge: always situated, often contested, no stable meaning: contestation is the source of environmental conflict, clash of knowledges + epistemologies underlying source of conflict.
