building resilience in indigenous communities through engagement

biosecurity built on science

CRC Plant Biosecurity Research Symposium28 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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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 withintegrity. 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 EngagementWhereas 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 mōhioMā te mōhio, ka māramaMā te mārama, ka mātauMa te mātau, ka ora


Thank-you and Kia ora,

For more information, please email

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

building resilience in indigenous communities through engagement

Science