Building resilience in Indigenous communities through engagement

biosecurity built on science
CRC Plant Biosecurity Research Symposium
28 March 2017 | Canberra
Project 4041-Building resilience in Indigenous
communities through engagement
Alby Marsh - Plant and Food Research
Linda Ford – Charles Darwin University
Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre

Banana freckle disease
Mimosa Pigra
Watermelon Green Mottle Mosaic Virus
Psa
Queensland Fruit Fly
Kauri dieback, Phytophthora infestants
Tomato Potato Psyllid
Myrtle rust
Why do we need engagement?

To enhance the ability of indigenous communities
and relevant regulatory authorities and industries
to better manage social, cultural, environmental
and economic impacts of biosecurity threats, and
to participate in biosecurity strategies by describing
and evaluating bicultural engagement models that
build empowerment and ownership in indigenous
communities and their response to those threats
Project aim

Australian Team:
Dr Linda Ford
Prof Ruth Wallace
Ms Kathy Guthadjaka
Ms Johanna Funk
Ms Pawinee Yuhun
New Zealand Team:
Mr Alby Marsh
Ms Jenny Green
Ms Johanna John
Our Team

A support and reference networks to develop, enhance and grow familiarity and understanding of the
indigenous engagement models.
 Indigenous Reference Group (IRG)
An Indigenous Reference Group will monitor and advise the team of regional and local variations to the
model.
 Industry Advisory Network (IAN)
An Industry Advisory Network will provide feedback, guidance and support to the team on use of the
models from an industry and stakeholder perspective.
Support and Reference Networks

Indigenous Engagement Models

Aboriginal Indigenous Engagement
Model

Model
Finding the right palm, bearing
the ripe fruit
depends on the season.
The season may come early or
late, depending on the seasonal
patterns.
Identify the right combination of
people with the right
knowledge, at the right time.
Know that some relationships
may not be ready when you
expect, determine or think they
will. The variables affecting this
are different for each set of data
you seek, and the site on which
it is based. Identifying the kind
of relationship required in this
first critical step will determine
the success rates of your
fieldwork and data collection.

Model
Peel off the shells and wrap in a
bark package. The shells need to
be removed to allow the soaking
process to soften the kernels.
The cracked kernels are then
wrapped to contain them for
soaking
and softening.
Examine the knowledge for its inner nature.
Engagement with the community requires you to
interact and nurture the connections you have made.
The sourcing of the nuts, as well as the paperbark are
in vastly different locations, representing the time
and effort required to follow due processes and
protocols.
Dissect and examine your expectations of the
relationship, and how the people and their
knowledge appear in relation to that. This also
enables building of relationships and evaluation of
the process that all will follow. This step lets you
know if the research should progress as planned, or if
it needs more time to be refined, redirected or
discarded.

Model
Soak until the kernels are soft.
The leaching process is required
for the kernel to soften and
enable the
cyanide to be released.
Allow time for the Indigenous community to
consider whether or not to support your
project. These considerations demonstrate
culturally appropriate behavior. As much as
possible, immerse yourself in language,
culture, and the settings of the research site
to ensure your project and data collection
can include a collaborative approach to the
ways people live and manage the sites. This is
when your communication capacity with
Indigenous people could encounter a
required shift in order to work with the range
of paradigms that govern the data you are
sourcing.

Model
Crush with the right stones. Two
stones are used to crush the
kernel into a pulp, to enable
more leaching to occur in order
to detox the kernel.
Once the expectations have been
softened, they require more
‘crushing’ to remove their rigid
cultural preconceptions. The
testing of this rigidity is done by a
set of special ‘stones’ or methods
with complementary
characteristics; negotiation and
debate of meaning and
representation, value of
information and knowledge that is
being shared. This enables more
refining in the following step.

Model
Another rigorous detoxification
process is required in order to
fully remove toxins from the
crushed kernels. Soak again to
further soften and let more of
the poison out, then grind into
meal.
More time is required to
continue to let out the toxicity of
possible conflict in paradigms.
Now that the rigidity of the
expectations have been adapted
by the start of this process, this
ensures rigour and depth of
interrogation of approaches to
data collection.

Model
Form into a cake for eating. The
cake needs to be the right size
and shape in order to cook
properly.
Now the consolidated and
re-constituted knowledge, or
findings, can be developed into
dissemination-ready formats, so
that others can access the data
and learn from it.

Model
Know when to leave in the coals,
when it needs more heat on
certain parts, and then when it is
fully cooked.
This requires more time and
care, so that the access to
discussion of the knowledge and
findings is digestible; not under-
prepared, or over analysed.
Over-cooking, burning or under-
cooking can make you ill if
consumed. The likelihood of
findings in these states is that
they will be discarded and not
accepted.

Model
After this rigorous preparation,
the loaf is shared. Some is for
sacred, private ceremonial
practices and some for public
consumption.
The cultural protocols involved in
Traditional Ecological Knowledge is
that it exists within a wider
cosmological context; one that
involves significant and sacred
stories as scientific practice and
theories. Some of this knowledge is
meant for private use, due to
complex roles and responsibilities
within each community and clan
group. Therefore, open access to all
knowledge associated with data
collections should never be
assumed or expected.

Yolŋu Explanation
To work together, have faith in each other
that we are being honest, and working with
integrity. You need to put your faith in people. We are
connected through our relationships with each other, as
well as the land and clans we are born or adopted into.
Each individual inherits a role and responsibility to their
gurrut-u, and through these relationships, there is order.
What it Means for Engagement
Whereas western science can rely only on proven findings, this
principle calls on those involved to have faith that people you work
with will do the right thing and act in honesty. Following cues for
relationship terms and ways of communicating and learning can help
you understand how people relate to one another. A lot of
introductions take time and detail covering how people are related to
each other, to gain an understanding of one’s role within society.
Children grow up learning this, and
are more often referred to as their gurrut-u or skin name
(the group they belong to) rather than their
individual name. This is the significance
of gurrut-u and Märri-yulkthirr.

 Korero mai mā – need to activate now!
 Connect to other research and researchers
 Industry Advisory Network (IAN) & Indigenous Reference Group (IRG)
 Series of workshops – build familiarity
 Champions
 Customisable model – adaptable
 Consistency in method for engagement
 Action can be initiated by government, industry or community
What next?

End user advocate response
“I am very impressed to see the research work on plant biosecurity in
Australia as we harvest native species to produce jams and other products to
sell on the Australian domestic and international market. It is about time that
indigenous researchers took the lead to develop a culturally appropriate
engagement model to help protect our native plants from incursions.”
»Pat Torres, Mayi Harvests & Mamanyjun Cultural Services, Australia
“MPI is investigating ways to improve how we engage with Māori to better
understand the potential impact of new pests and diseases on Māori values.
MPI supports the work that PFR is leading to develop new tools to ensure
that our engagement with Māori is effective, which will lead to better
biosecurity outcomes.”
»Mike Taylor, Manager Biosecurity Response, Ministry for Primary
Industries, New Zealand

Mā te whakaatu, Ka mōhio
Mā te mōhio, ka mārama
Mā te mārama, ka mātau
Ma te mātau, ka ora

Thank-you and Kia ora,
For more information, please email
alby.marsh@plantandfood.co.nz
linda.ford@cdu.edu.au

Building resilience in Indigenous communities through engagement

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Building resilience in Indigenous communities through engagement

Similar to Building resilience in Indigenous communities through engagement (20)

More from Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre

More from Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Building resilience in Indigenous communities through engagement