UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:CONS370/Projects/Indigenous Djap Wurrung resistance and community responses to threats against sacred birthing trees in Australia

2020-04-24T02:40:28Z

GabrielWan: /* References */

[[File:Djap_Wurrung_trees_have_been_used_for_around_50_generations_as_a_place_for_local_Aboriginal_women_to_give_birth.jpg|thumb|More than 260 Djap Wurrung trees in western Victoria are due to be bulldozed to make way for a 12km duplication of the Western Highway. Protesters, some who have been camping at the site for more than a year, fear a standoff with police will come to a head.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/22/protesters-defend-sacred-800-year-old-djap-wurrung-trees-as-police-deadline-looms|title=Protesters defend sacred 800-year-old Djap Wurrung trees as police deadline looms|last=|first=|date=|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>|337x337px]]
=== Summary ===
The '''Djap Wurrung''' (also spelt Djabwurrung, Tjapwurrung,or Djapwarrung) people are Aboriginal Australians whose Country (territory) is the volcanic plains of central Victoria<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. Djap Wurrung Country ranges from the Mount William Range of Gariwerd in the west to the Pyrenees range in the east, encompassing the Wimmera River flowing north and the headwaters of the Hopkins River flowing south<ref name=":14" />. On Djap Wurrung Country, there are over 3,000 sacred birthing trees that are over 800 years old <ref name=":14" />. Over 50 generations have been born on these cultural sites<ref name=":14" />. <blockquote>"Those trees are a part of us. The history of those trees is what makes us Djab Wurrung women. The stories of birthing, the stories of cooking, the story of those trees being culturally modified over hundreds of years is incredible." - Djab Wurrung woman Lidia Thorpe<ref name=":15">{{Cite news|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/western-highway-tree-protesters-may-be-arrested-this-week/11420640|title=Victorian Premier issues Western Hwy protesters ultimatum over sacred tree stalemate|last=Johnson|first=S.|date=August 20, 2019|work=ABC Ballarat News|access-date=}}</ref></blockquote>[[File:Dwembassyposter.jpg|thumb|A poster created by the Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy and land defenders, calling for increased support and allies to attend the camp.|380x380px]]The Victoria branch of the Australian Labor Party planned a four-lane highway extension alongside Major Road Projects of Victoria (MRVP), a division of Vic Roads (Roads Corporation of Victoria), that is set to destroy the landscape<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com/barking-up-the-wrong-tree/|title=Media Release: Barking Up The Wrong Tree.|last=Mahomet|first=Amanda|date=August 8, 2019|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The 12.5 kilometer construction project is called the ''Western Highway - Buangor to Ararat Project'' <ref name=":17">{{Cite news|url=https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/july/1561989600/sophie-cunningham/djab-wurrung-birthing-tree#mtr|title=The Djab Wurrung Birthing Tree|last=Cunningham|first=Sophie|date=July 19, 2019|work=The Monthly|access-date=}}</ref>.

In response, Djapp Wurrung community members Elder Aunty Sandra Onus and Zellanach Djab Mara set up the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy to prevent the destruction, with allies and activists<ref name=":15" />. The Embassy set up a camp on Country in June 2018 with the support of others opposing the project<ref name=":15" />. The community has taken “bold action thereby preventing work from starting and demanding the project is cancelled”.<ref name=":14" /> Though campaign is led by Djap Wurrung Traditional Owners, participants at the Camp include diverse groups of people.

Djab Wurrung people have suggested an alternative route “that would protect the sacred trees, and recommend that safety on the road can be maximised by lowering the speed limit”<ref name=":16" />. However, the government has refused to consider this alternative route.

On August 8th, 2019, 14 months after the peaceful camp blockade was set up on Country, police issued the Traditional Owners at the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy an eviction notice, “giving the Djab Wurrung people 14 days to vacate their sacred landscape to make way for the Western Highway duplication”<ref name=":16" />. The eviction notice was directed to police by Daniel Andrews, 48th Premier of Victoria since 2014 and state leader of the Australian Labor Party since 2010<ref name=":16" />.

Throughout 2019, Major Road Projects Victoria (MRVP) and their workers continued to have a presence on the land without the consent of the Djap Wurrung people and Embassy. Contractors conducting surveying works “continued to flout mandatory stop work periods” while Djab Wurrung Traditional Owners awaited mediation with MRPV<ref name=":16" />. Sovereign Djab Wurrung land protectors and their supporters had to continually escort workers off the land. [[File:Signsatcamp.jpg|thumb|Djap Wurrung Embassy Camp|334x334px]]<blockquote>''“Violation is the only appropriate word for these actions, as Djab Wurrung women and their supporters were forced to place themselves in the way of the contractors to protect the sacred birthing tree and a camp that has been a haven for women, gender diverse people and young children....The Djab Wurrung women continued to hold the space in the face of rising aggression and tension as the workers seemed determined to further intrude on the sacred landscape, approaching within metres of the sacred birthing tree and a culturally significant canoe tree.”'' <ref name=":14" /></blockquote>Legal action helped stall the project for months<ref name=":17" />. Mediation between the Djap Wurrung people and MRVP commenced September 18th, 2019<ref name=":14" />. In late 2019, 3.8km stretch of land was signed over to MRVP<ref name=":14" />. However, the camp continues to remain in place as of April 2020, and welcomes anyone to stay in an effort to protect old growth trees from being cut down during construction<ref name=":14" />. The Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy has posted and circulated a COVID-19 Health & Safety Protocol for all people planning on attending the camp.

'''COVID-19 Camp Protocol:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R7xeGf0zDipHKS2MtOUlXCDP1hW5Q3tqG3iEX1Is3r0/mobilebasic <ref name=":14" />.

'''How to Support the Djap Wurrung Embassy:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-GTkdfwZDfvW26yvRuOMmx4p4hM73Im5dxk-GMElSJI/edit?fbclid=IwAR3ReWqpal5cBZ0DlSFQv63D1smoa3-_cHKPjUX_bq3yqu1YA0leP9tQ9FU <ref name=":14" />.

==Description==
=====Colonialism in Australia=====

Australia's first recorded European contact was with the British navigator, Captain James Cook when he encountered the eastern coastline of Australia in 1770. <ref>(Cook, J. (1770) wiki "Cook's Journal: Daily Entries, 22 April 1770". Retrieved from http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700422.html)</ref> Later on, Cook claimed his discovery as a possession of the British Crown, which enabled the establishment of a new British colony in the Southern globe. The aim of colonization is to alleviate overpopulation in prison and expand the British Empire and its power through the acquirement of land. <ref name=":0">Australians together. (n.d) Colonisation.(Website) Retrived from https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation/#colonisationreference2</ref> Eight years after its initial discovery, the first fleet with convicts, marines and civilians arrived at Sydney Cove in 1788 for a penal settlement. After, European settlement spread as new colonies were established across the nation. Here are the few of the many regions that were significantly influenced by colonization.<ref name=":0" />
[[File:Territorial_History_of_Australia.jpg|thumb|381x381px|The development of the country's internal and external borders over time.]]

✓ Van Diemen’s Land, today’s Tasmania

✓ Port Phillip District, in what is now Victoria

✓ Moreton Bay, near Brisbane

✓ Adelaide, in South Australia

Cook’s discovery is recent in comparison to 60,000 years of development of more than 500 Aboriginal Nations, and their cultures, who existed at the time. <ref name=":1">Behrendt, 2013</ref>The Australian Indigenous community consisted of both the Aboriginal Nations and the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders have also coexisted in the land for more than 5,000 years. Unfortunately, these traditional custodians of the land suffered from immense social crisis due to European settlement. <ref name=":1" /> According to estimates, the “full-blood” Aboriginal population decreased by 96% from one million in 1788 to the remaining 58,000 in 1920s <ref name=":2">Harris, John.(2003). Aboriginal History, Vol. 27“Hiding the Bodies, the myth of humane colonization of Australia” https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73641/pdf/book.pdf</ref>. Although some disagree with the accuracy of this calculation by arguing it is an exaggeration, there is more than enough evidence to support the drastic decline in Aboriginal population between the 19th and early 20th century. <ref name=":2" />

[[File:Aboriginal attack Lake Hope.jpg|thumb|237x237px|New South Wales Mounted Police engaging Indigenous Australians during the Waterloo Creek Massacre of 1838. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C174087|title=Mounted police and blacks|last=W.Walton after Louisa and Godfrey Charles Mundy|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]

=====The Devastating Genocide=====

Lack of immunity against epidemics such as smallpox, influenza or measles that were introduced by the European’s arrival was one source of the large number of deaths amongst the Indigenous communities. According to Arthur Phillip, Captain of the first fleet, smallpox was responsible for killing half of the Indigenous population in Sydney within the first fourteen months of their arrival. <ref name=":0" /><ref>Bladen, F. M. (1892). ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (Vol. 1). C. Potter.</ref>

In addition to the threats to physiological health, intentional damages were a source of death and destruction. These damages included culture assimilation, acquisition of Indigenous land, sexual exploitation, physical abuse, and massacres of Indigenous communities; leading to the unfortunate reduction in Indigenous populations and tragic cultural genocide. Friction between the Europeans and the Natives was inevitable because of the long-term competition for resources and difference in lifestyles.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/colonial|title=Colonial period, 1788–1901|last=|first=|date=|website=Australian War Memorial|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Some consider colonization as a process of “introducing the superior western civilization” and believe that Aboriginal people were “doomed to extinction”;they omit the gruesome truth . The convenient assumption that “Aboriginal race extinction was irreversible” has made many felt exonerated from the unjust violence.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:Dovey-Mapping-Massacres.jpg|thumb|236x236px|A multimedia project led by the the Indigenous Australian artist is among the initiatives seeking to map the numerous sites where colonists massacred Aboriginal people]]
One of the most unsuccessful British settlements was undeniably in Van Diemen’s Land, also known Tasmania today. <ref name=":1" /> In 1803, British created an outpost on the Van Diemen’s Land. In the following year, evidence recorded 60 murders of Aborigines, possible when they were approaching the town. <ref>Elder, B. (2003). ''Blood on the wattle: Massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788''. Sydney: New Holland.</ref> In addition to disease, dispossession and intermarriage, the collapse of Aboriginal communities was also a result of the Black War. From 1824 to 1831 In 1830, an armed group known as the “Black Line” was ordered to remove tribes in Big River and Oyster Bay by Sir George Arthur. <ref>Kenyon, S.(1928) .''The Victorian Historical Magazine'',; J. Fenton, ''A History of Tasmania''; ''Historical Records of Australia'', ser. I, vols. XIX to XXII and XXVI; Kenyon Records at Public Library, Melbourne.</ref>The Black Line failed to remove all tribes from their settled district, indicating the Aboriginal resistance. In spite of the effort to resist, Aboriginal population of Tasmania sharply dropped from thousands to a few hundreds. <ref>Boyce, J. (2006). The Companion to Tasmanian History. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/F/Fabrication.html</nowiki></ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Colonisation|title=History of Australia, Colonisation|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The frontier war continued at the Wimmera, Victoria and caused more deaths in the late 1840s. <ref>Broome, Richard (1988). "''The Struggle for Australia : Aboriginal-European Warfare, 1770–1930''". In McKernan, Michael; Browne, Margaret; Australian War Memorial (eds.). ''Australia Two Centuries of War & Peace''. Canberra, A.C.T.: Australian War Memorial in association with Allen and Unwin, Australia. pp. 92–120. <nowiki>ISBN 0-642-99502-8</nowiki>.</ref>The Myall Creek massacre in New South Wales exemplified similar conflict in other parts of Australia as well. If one really pays attention to the timeline for the devastating century, they would notice that massacres took place frequently until 1928 and many were killed just for resisting. <ref name=":1" />

=====Historical Interpretations=====
[[File:The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier.jpg|thumb|The Cover Page of Henry Reynolds work|274x274px]]
In his ground-breaking work on Aboriginal studies, “The Other Side of the Frontier<nowiki>''</nowiki>, Henry Reynolds provides historical context through nuanced delineation of interactions between Indigenous communities and the Europeans. The presentation of Indigenous values is strongly focused on their respect for the land and natural resources. His work also sheds light upon the Aboriginal resistance against British conquest, enabling many to realize the inseparable community-led resistance intertwined with settler-colonial history. <ref name=":6">Reynolds, H. (2006). ''The other side of the frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia''. UNSW Press.</ref> By introducing the Indigenous lifestyles, cultures and conflicts with British, many topics avoided by previous literatures are mentioned and reinvestigated. Diction such as “invasion” is in juxtaposition with prior sources’ use of “settlement” .<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2393483.The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier|title=The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia by Henry Reynolds.|last=|first=|date=|website=Goodreads.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The discussion of Frontal War on VanDiemen’s Land put an emphasis on the “black” sides .<ref name=":6" /> Reynolds claims that the intention is not to make the audience simply regard Aboriginal people as victims, but his work did provide reasons for people to commemorate the sacrifices of the Frontier War. <ref name=":7" />Aside from Henry Reynolds, other historians such as Lyndall Ryan and Charles Rowley also recorded notorious atrocities against the Aboriginal communities during colonization. <ref name=":8">Windschuttle, K. (2003). The fabrication of Aboriginal history. ''Sydney Papers, The'', ''15''(1), 20.</ref>

Though many historians recognize the suffering of Aboriginal communities, there are opposing voices that doubt the validity of these works. Keith Windschuttle, a primary antagonizing historian, questions the evidence used in Reynolds and Ryan’s work and attacks almost all their opinions <ref name=":6" />. In ''The fabrication of Aboriginal history,'' Windschuttle explicitly claimed that the Aboriginal death numbers are “an amplification of the actual situation”. Ironically, when he accused Renolds and Ryan’s work of not using enough evidence, his own arguments are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and other unreliable sources.<ref name=":8" />Some of his opinions such as claiming that the skeletons near burial sites were kangaroos lacked support and could be extremely misleading. Unlike mainstream historians, Windschuttle believes the violence and extermination of the Aborigines can be justified if the British settlement was resisted. <ref name=":8" /> Even Windschuttle himself recognizes the inhumane attacks on the Van Diemen’s Land is responsible for the Aborigines’ extinction.<ref name=":8" /> Many other historians criticize Windschuttle for his failure to grasp the point. Many investigations regarding Aboriginal communities are not about the actual deaths or magnitude but about how European colonization has continually been destructive towards Aboriginal communities. Overall, the Aboriginal deaths from early settlement and resistance efforts may even be greater than the current records, we may not recognize the exact casualties given that many tribes did not use the same systems to record history . Like John Harris argues, “history tends to be written from the perspective of the powerful” .<ref name=":2" /> In this case, the European government who had more control over words recreated history from their own side rather than the Indigenous societies. Therefore, those who have more power in literature should be more considerate of both parties if they aim to publish unbiased work.

=====The Djap Wurrung=====
[[File:Map Victoria Aboriginal tribes (colourmap).jpg|thumb|Map of Victorian Aboriginal Territories categorized by tribes and language groups ]]
The Djap Wurrung’s, also known as the Djapwurrung or Tjapwurrung, presence on their land can be traced back to 40,000 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djab_wurrung|title=Djap Wurrung|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Today, the Djap Wurrung land spreads over 7,000 km2, from Mount Rouse to Hamilton. <ref name=":3">Tindale, Norman Barnett (1974). "Tjapwurong (VIC)". ''Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Australian National University Press. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-708-10741-6</nowiki>.''</ref> The Djap Wurrung societies are composed of at least eleven bands, following two different matrilineal systems.<ref name=":3" /> Their lifestyle is partially hunting and gathering, but there is also evidence of agriculture practices. Some aboriginal activists’ theories suggest that the traditional ball-kicking Aboriginal game initiated within the Wimmera tribe has inspired contemporary Australian football and the formation of its rules. <ref>Dawson, James (1881). ''Australian Aborigines: The Languages and Customs of Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia'' (PDF). Melbourne: George Robertson.</ref>Trees have intrinsic spiritual meanings in the Djap Wurrung culture.<ref name=":4">Richards, Thomas; Bennett, Catherine M; Webber, Harry (2013). "A post-contact Aboriginal mortuary tree from southwestern Victoria, Australia". ''Journal of Field Archaeology''. '''37''' (1): 62–72. doi:10.1179/0093469011z.0000000005.</ref> Births are witnessed by these trees and those who have passed on are buried near the trees. <ref name=":4" />

European settlement has made a great impact on the Djap Wurrung Nation. The first contact was marked in 1836, when the invasion began. <ref name=":5">Clark, Ian D. (1995). ''Scars in the Landscape: a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803–1859'' (PDF). AIATSIS. pp. 57–84. <nowiki>ISBN 0 85575 281 5</nowiki>.</ref> The resistance against European invasion included stealing sheep and driving off, while the settlers broke this resistance with massacre. By 1842, there were at least 35 reports of massacres, however very little of these developed into court investigations against the settlers. <ref name=":5" /> By 1841, some of the tribes were put into reserves and resistance to European invasion increased. According to estimates, the Djap Wurrung population shrunk from 2,050 to 615.<ref name=":27" /> About three quarters of the population pre-contact vanished due to disease, massacres, poison and starvation. <ref name=":27">Mallett, Ashley (2002). ''The Black Lords of Summer: The Story of the 1868 Aboriginal Tour of England and Beyond''. University of Queensland Press. pp. 169–175. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-702-23262-6</nowiki>.</ref> Later on, Djap Wurrung land also attracted large numbers of Europeans and Chinese that wanted to search for gold. <ref name=":5" />

=====Aboriginal People Today=====
Today, there are 250 unique language groups within the continent of Australia and only about three percent of Australian population claims Aboriginal heritage. <ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/aboriginal-australians/|title=Aboriginal Australians|last=Blakemore|first=Erin|authorlink=|date=|website=National Geographic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> In comparison to the existence of more than 500 nations before British colonization, this is a drastic decline. Though separated from their traditional land, confronting massacres and being exposed to diseases, the Indigenous communities are still resistant and adaptive to changes .<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":9" />[[File:Proceedings-Aborigines-Kevin-Rudd-Galiwnku-Island-peoples-February-2008.jpg|thumb|Aboriginal tribes from the Galiwnku Island gathering to watch the proceeding of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to apologize for the former Aboriginal mistreatments under the Australian governments. This apology only took place in 2008.|291x291px]]Contemporary Indigenous people live across urban, rural and remote areas of Australia.Many Federal laws explicitly discriminate against the Aboriginals, for example the Mental Deficiency Bill passed in 1939 which identified “inefficient groups”, including the “slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, and of course aboriginal people” .<ref name=":10">Tarpey-Brown, F. (2019). Glimpsing Cracks in the Present: Acts of Utopian Desire and Resistance at Gezi Park and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Studies in Arts and Humanities, 5(1), 67-76</ref> Though this Bill was soon abolished for serious racial discrimination, the earliest Federal law that applied to Aboriginal Australian’s rights was not passed until 1967. <ref name=":9" />. Even as recent as 1972, the Prime Minister still denied all Aboriginal land rights publicly in his national speech, as he considered Aboriginal land-use to be inefficient economically and socially. <ref name=":10" />

Major struggles for Aboriginal communities still involve the retainment of cultural heritage, loss of identity, as well as government recognition. The State of Victoria proposed a treaty with the Aboriginal population that recognizes Aboriginal sovereignty and provides compensation. Unfortunately, this is only a proposal and there have not been nation-wide treaty in Australia either, therefore making Australia as the only country that have not signed an authorized treaty with Indigenous peoples in the British Commonwealth. <ref name=":9" />

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a formal apology for the profound impact of colonization on Indigenous communities and recognized former mistreatments in the 2008 Federal Government Parliament. <ref name=":11">Tonkinson, R., & Berndt, R. M. (2018, April 19).Aboriginal Peoples In Australian Society. ''Encyclopeedia Britannica. '' Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Aboriginal-peoples-in-Australian-society</nowiki></ref> In the 1990’s, the agenda of “reconciliation” became clear, however, there have been limited actions taken or changes made regarding issues that Indigenous communities face. According to statistics, many Indigenous peoples are still disadvantaged in health, education and employment, however there are successful examples of those who overcome these barriers.<ref name=":11" /> The effective means include increased schooling and literacy as well as medical services training. <ref name=":1" /> The work of Aboriginal activists has also achieved some extent public approval and engagement with the non-Aboriginal communities, accompanied with increasing non-Aboriginal empathy towards heartbreaking mistreatment towards Aboriginal Australians, and a fascination to explore more about their diverse cultures. <ref name=":11" />
==Tenure arrangements==
The tenure of the Djap Wurrung community is customary. There is no legal document which declares their sovereignty to the land on the Western Highway and surrounding areas. However, the Djap Wurrung people describe themselves as the Traditional Owners.<ref name=":24">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com/why-we-are-here/https://dwembassy.com/why-we-are-here/|title=Why we are here.|last=|first=|date=|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> After the land belonging to the Djap Wurrung community was colonized by early settlers, their control of the land was increasingly lost. This also applies to many other Indigenous communities in Australia and around the world. Since the Djap Wurrung community is not recognized by the government as the owners of the land through legislation, there is no freehold or leasehold ownership. Presently, the official owner of the land is the Australian government .<ref name=":24" /> However, Indigenous communities throughout Australia, like the Djap Wurrung people, are fighting for their sovereignty, land rights and the retention of culturally significant areas.

==Administrative arrangements==
The Djap Wurrung Embassy have declared their sovereignty and “as survivors...will not concede [their] land rights” <ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Protect Sacred Trees. Save 80,000 years of culture.|last=|first=|date=|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The Aboriginal Heritage Act in 2006 promises to appropriately protect and manage the areas around the Western Highway. <ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-cultural-heritage-management-plan-western-highway-duplication|title=Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan Western Highway Duplication|last=Kanoa|first=Tim|date=|website=aboriginalvictoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Therefore, it is government’s duty to provide protection. This Act also provide the rules for management, as it must respect Aboriginal self-determination, and recognize Aboriginal communities as the Traditional Owners and primary guardians. <ref name=":12" />This Act establishes the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC), which is responsible for appointing Registered Aboriginal Parties and provides suggestions for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that applies rules to the entire state. <ref name=":12" />By working together with local Aboriginal groups, the VAHC can have an exhaustive assessment of the Act . If the Elders of Djap Wurrung are not satisfied with the cultural heritage protection, they can choose to report back to the Victorian Aboriginal Council that is responsible for monitoring protection. <ref name=":12" />.Reconciliation and full consent is necessary prior to any outsiders’ acts. In addition, this act also addresses that the Djap Wurrung have their own right to decide who can represent their cultural heritage. <ref name=":12" />

==Affected Stakeholders==
The Djap Wurrung people are the primary affected stakeholders in the community. They have been oppressed by the government for over 230 years. <ref>Lay, B. (2019, August 23). Tragic absurdity on the Western Highway. Retrieved April 21, 2020, from <nowiki>https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/tragic-absurdity-on-the-western-highway</nowiki></ref> Their main objectives are to protect the birthing trees which will be cut down to build an extension of the Western Highway. This project is known as project 2b. Some of these birthing trees had already been removed to build section 2a of the highway<ref name=":17" />. The birthing trees removed by the Australian government are culturally significant to the community as these trees have been directly connected to their ancestral territory. As they fight to keep these birthing trees alive, it is a symbol of the declaration of their sovereignty to the land.
[[File:Treetree.jpg|thumb|Women have given birth in the hollows of these trees for generations.]]
These birthing trees are where Aboriginal women give birth traditionally. Women would give birth by squatting against the trees during the final stages of birth. The baby would come out onto the paperbark. After birth, the baby comes in contact with the spirit of the land and establishes a relationship with the land<ref name=":23" />. Birthing trees are also a cultural gathering place, where Indingenous peoples can feel accepted after their rights and territory had been taken away from them through colonization<ref name=":21" />. As we learn how these trees are used by the Djap Wurrung and their cultural importance, we understand why they are affected stakeholders.

The Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy is also an affected stakeholder as they are an organization which was established to protect the sacred trees on the Western Highway. Although the leaders of this organization are Djap Wurrung traditional owners of the land, many non-Indigenous people have voiced their support for the Embassy. They recognize the connections between Indigenous communities and nature for generations in the region. They also realize the sovereignty to the land of the Aboriginal group and how they have been treated by the Australian government over generations.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
The Australian government and the Major Roads Project Authority are the primary interested stakeholders outside of the community. They would like to remove the Djap Wurrung birthing trees on the Western Highway. This project is known as the Western Highway Project. The section 2a of the highway had already been built, with strong public backlash. The estimate of trees to be removed was 221 trees to construct the highway. However, this number was significantly underestimated as the actual number of trees removed to construct 2a was 1350. A project to build the extension of the highway, 12.5 kilometers long, is known as section 2b. 260 culturally significant trees are under threat of being removed to make way for the highway. The state of Victoria’s government plans to work with Aboriginal locals through providing only monetary compensation but do not have any intentions to save the birthing trees, a fundamental aspect of the Djap Wurrung community.<ref name=":25">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com/why-we-are-here/https://dwembassy.com/why-we-are-here/|title=The Djab Wurrung Birthing Tree.|last=Cunningham|first=S|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>

A new proposed route which served the same purpose would have been more cost effective and safer than the removal of these culturally significant trees. This new route would require drivers to drive for two extra minutes to reach their destination. <ref name=":26" />The state of Victoria did not put in much effort to consider this new route or look at other alternatives to keep these birthing trees alive. They describe the Western Highway as “one of Victoria’s key trade routes, providing a link between the region’s primary producers with Melbourne’s domestic and export markets” .<ref name=":25" /> Through this, we see that the government does not have any of these Indigenous communities’ interests in mind. The convenience of drivers is more important than the cultural importance of these birthing trees to the Djap Wurrung community. The attempt for the Australian government to wipe out the trees is a symbol of their attempt to remove any claim of territory by the Djap Wurrung community.

==Discussion==
The intention of our case study is to spread knowledge about Djap Wurrung land management, community forestry and resistance in relation to threats against sacred birthing trees. We want to bring awareness to a current, ongoing dispute about a sacred grove of trees within a settler-state where no substantial treaty has been entered into between the government of Australia and the Indigenous people of Australia. We aim to demonstrate the strength and determination of the Djap Wurrung community, as land defenders and activists who put their own lives at risk in order to protect the sacred birthing trees. We also aim to highlight the important connections between birthing practices and the land.

Despite ongoing colonization, which presents itself through land theft, pollution, development and unsustainable farming and forestry practices, sacred places still exist. Cultural sites where the Djap Wurrung birthing trees live are alive and apart of an interconnected web of relationships that span across generations<ref name=":18">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/12/the-government-wants-to-bulldoze-my-inheritance-800-year-old-sacred-trees|title=“The government wants to bulldoze my inheritance: 800 year-old-sacred trees;
To sit in a tree that saw your people birthed, massacred, and now resist is a feeling that
the English language will never be able to capture”|last=Gorrie|first=Nayuka|date=April 12, 2019.|work=The Guardian (London).|access-date=}}</ref>. The Major Roads Project Authority and the Australian government have continually “undermined land defenders and positioned Djap Wurrung people as against the interests of the rest of the population”<ref name=":18" />. Regardless of colonial violence, these trees are Djap Wurrung people's “inheritance”, directly tied to their ancestral territories<ref name=":18" />. Their survival and the Djap Wurrung fight to keep them alive and safe are a “cultural obligation" and an assertion of their sovereignty<ref name=":18" />.

Critical issues in this case study include ''land'', ''Indigenous'' ''sovereignty'' and ''consent''.
====== Land ======
[[File:Gumtree.jpg|thumb|A close up of gum tree bark.]]Australia is among “the most deforested countries in the world” and is a large emitter of greenhouse gasses<ref name=":17" />. With the removal of forests, Australia’s carbon sinks would decline<ref name=":17" />. According to Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018, there is a downward trend of remnant vegetation, of biodiversity, of forest health<ref name=":19">{{Cite web|url=https://www.ces.vic.gov.au/reports/state-environment-2018|title=Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018|last=|first=|date=2018|website=Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The state of Victoria’s environmental health is “poor and, despite much good work, the tools used to manage it are ineffective”<ref name=":17" />.

It remains common practice to offset vegetation lost by planting new vegetation, however, “you cannot meaningfully offset any habitat tree”<ref name=":17" />. As old-growth river red gum trees, up to 800 years old with girths of more than 7 metres and standing over 30 metres tall, the birthing trees “provide habitat and nutrients for dozens of mammals and birds, and thousands of insect species”<ref name=":17" /><ref name=":19" />. Nearly 3,000 trees would need to be destroyed to enlarge the highway <ref name=":17" />. As a result, the state of Victoria’s biodiversity and vegetation cover would significantly decrease.
[[File:Signvicroads.jpg|thumb|The Djap Wurrung community has a myriad of supporters across Australia, and beyond. This is one of the signs from the camp.]]
Additionally, the trees have been “culturally modified, with fire, creating small room[s] in the base of the trunk[s]...[where] thousands of Djab Wurrung babies have been born...within it. The placentas of those babies have been buried under the Directions Trees”<ref name=":17" />. Overall, with the highway widening, historical trees which are important to Indigenous groups would need to be cut down. This will cause cultural and environmental damage to the region’s Indigenous communities. The tradeoffs for expanding this highway are short term benefit for citizens to arrive at their destination quicker, but significant long term loss of cultural identity for the Djap Wurrung people<ref name=":17" />.

====== Indigenous Sovereignty ======
[[File:Aboriginalart.jpg|thumb|Before Indigenous Australian art was ever put onto canvas, people would smooth over the soil to draw sacred designs which belonged to that particular ceremony. This is still practiced today.

Aboriginal art demonstrates an interconnectedness between people and the land, and is practiced today as an act of sovereignty and self-determination.
]]
The Djap Wurrung people are the rightful Traditional Owners of the Country that MRVP has been attempting to construct upon<ref name=":14" />. The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability claims to “proudly [acknowledge] Victoria’s Aboriginal community...as Australia’s first peoples and as the Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we rely”<ref name=":19" />. They also claim to recognise and value “the ongoing contribution of Aboriginal people and communities...[and] embrace the spirit of reconciliation, working towards the equality of outcomes and ensuring an equal voice”<ref name=":19" />. Victoria’s government claims it wants to work on a treaty with Aboriginal Victorians to create Australia’s first treaty <ref name=":17" />. However, most of the treaty revolves around compensation, not actual solutions for environmental and spiritual concerns to conserve the trees<ref name=":17" />.

Despite these political claims, the government and police continue to allow contractors and workers to violate protocols surrounding birthing trees, neglecting Djap Wurrung culture, sovereignty and land rights. As Indigenous people who have lived on Country for thousands and thousands of generations, Djap Wurrung people are sovereign, and their Lore (cultural teachings, traditional knowledge, governance practices) surrounding the sacred birthing trees must be upheld and prioritized above the State governance of Victoria<ref name=":14" />.

====== Consent ======
[[File:Handsoffcountry.jpg|thumb|"Hands off Country".]]
The Australian government's actions indicate that it is “committed to working with Aboriginal Victorians who don’t get in the way”<ref name=":17" />. The MRVP has proven that there is greater enthusiasm for governance solutions that are “material (involving compensation, for example) rather than solutions that require meaningful engagement with spiritual or environmental concerns”<ref name=":17" />.

The area where the trees reside is "a place of sanctuary in which Djab Wurrung sovereignty has never been ceded”<ref name=":16" />. The Djap Wurrung have a right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It allows them to “give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories….Once they have given their consent, they can withdraw it at any stage”<ref name=":20">{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/our-pillars/fpic/en/|title=Free, Prior and Informed Consent.|last=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)|first=|date=|website=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. FPIC also enables Djap Wurrung people to “negotiate the conditions under which the project will be designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated”<ref name=":20" />.

==Assessment==
[[File:Djap_Wurrung_Protests.jpg|thumb|338x338px|Djap Wurrung protesters sit out the front of the VicRoads office in Ararat.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/22/protesters-defend-sacred-800-year-old-djap-wurrung-trees-as-police-deadline-looms|title=Protesters defend sacred 800-year-old Djap Wurrung trees as police deadline looms|last=|first=|date=|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]
The asymmetrical power between the Australian Government and the Djap Wurrung is obvious. While there are plentiful historical records of European invasion and alterations of land use without asking for permission, this issue is ongoing. In this case, the culturally significant mother trees were removed by the government in order to build road. There were only a few families consulted before some of the sacred trees were removed. <ref name=":26">Hayman-Reber, M. (2018, June 18). Removal of sacred Djap Wurrung trees an 'act of cultural terrorism'. NITV News. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/06/18/removal-sacred-djap-wurrung-trees-act-cultural-terrorism</nowiki></ref>

Similar to many historical scenarios, the Australian government has dominating power over the Djap Wurrung community. The inconsiderate government actions can be easily justified by legislation, since legislation is formulated by the government authorities themselves. In the government’s perspective, construction actions on Djap Wurrung land is reasonable as long as it contributes to “progressive development”. Government power is employed in an imprudent manner without a proper evaluation of the consequences. What’s worse about this act is that the road building project had an alternative route that was arguably cheaper, safer, and more importantly without the destruction of the sacred trees . This implies that the government chooses to neglect the forests’ sacredness and any negative implications to Aboriginal groups, just because it is not their own culture at risk. This is not the only thing the government fails to grasp. They ignore the fact that Djap Wurrung territories were never ceded to federal control <ref name=":13" /> and the government did not ask for permission to be on their lands, which leads to the violation of Djap Wurrung’s rights and sovereignty. There should be more governance and negotiation on the Australian government's planning as well.

As Djap Wurrung’s responsibility of nurturing the trees has been more and more stripped away by VicRoads, they have resisted and fought against road construction. Given its profound effects, there is actually very few official studies that focus on this unfair incidence. They have gained global attention by self-broadcasting on social media platforms, and have only given a few interviews for news articles, as news can easily be manipulated by journalists or the government. The Djap Wurrung’s power is strengthened as more non-Aboriginal allies join to help resist encroachment. Their sovereignty could be respected if the Victorian government recognizes these damages to the land cannot be undone. The government should compensate the community and work towards including the Djap Wurrung in decision-making processes. Sadly, in reality, the Djap Wurrung camps set up by the community, activists and allies are still facing eviction. According to the Djap Wurrung, “no trees no treaty”; it is highly unlikely for them to sign any treaties with the government after the sacred trees’s removal. <ref name=":13" />

==Recommendations==
# It is well known that gathering places “encourage healing and wellbeing”, creating inclusive and empowering spaces<ref name=":21">{{Cite journal|last=Kingsley|first=Jonathan & Emily Munro-Harrison, Anne Jenkins, Alister Thorpe.|date=November 2018|title=“Here we
are part of a living culture”: Understanding the cultural determinants of health in
Aboriginal gathering places in Victoria, Australia.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.10.001|journal=Health & Place|volume=54|pages=210-220|via=}}</ref>. Cultural gathering places in particular provide a sense of place, especially for people who have been marginalized and affected by colonization<ref name=":21" />. In this case, the sacred trees are gathering places for women giving birth. The the land defender camp and Djap Wurrung community gatherings are also gathering places for both healing and resistance. '''''We recommend that these spaces be respected, and that the camp be allowed to remain as long as needed, as Djap Wurrung people continue to maintain their distinct connection to the land. No notices of eviction should be given to the members of the camp. No police, contractors or road workers should be allowed to access Djap Wurrung territory without free, prior, informed and ongoing consent. Negotiation processes should be respected and conducted on Djap Wurrung terms, led by Djap Wurrung community members rather than Australian government officials or companies. The right of the Djap Wurrung people to withdraw from any negotiated project must be respected.''''' [[File:People@camp.jpg|thumb|Community members, land defenders and allies at camp.]]
# The attempt to wipe out Djap Wurrung sacred places “must be seen as an attempt to wipe out their claim to them”, which serves to further dispossess Aboriginal peoples in Australia and “allow the state to continue its operations unhindered” by Aboriginal sovereignty<ref name=":18" />. '''''We recommend that Djap Wurrung knowledge be prioritized and adhered to in terms of the future of the trees that are on their territory, since Indigenous knowledge systems strengthen cultural identity, self-determination and ultimately health and wellbeing'''''<ref name=":21" />'''''.'''''
# Aboriginal women in Australia “collectively express a strong desire to maintain cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including birthing close to home and on their homelands, on Country<ref name=":22">{{Cite journal|last=Marriott|first=Rhonda & Tracy Reibel, Juli Coffin, Janinne Gliddon, Denese Griffin, Melanie Robinson, Anne-Marie Eades, Jade Maddox.|date=October, 2019|title=“Our culture, how it is to be us” — Listening to Aboriginal women about on Country urban birthing.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi. 2019.06.017|journal=Women and Birth|volume=32|pages=391-403|via=}}</ref>. Aboriginal birthing and elder women have “consistently reported ongoing cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including knowledge sharing across generations, family support, land-based rituals and practices, and “observance of extended family present at the time of or shortly after birth”; these practices are alive and well<ref name=":22" />. However, certain land-based birthing practices for Aboriginal women, including Djap Wurrung women, are at risk, as land continues to be developed and taken by the government for other purposes. The “inflexibility” of Australian health systems to meet the needs of Aboriginal women is unacceptable; Australian obstetricians, doctors, nurses and midwives “lack cultural awareness and understanding” of the importance of Aboriginal kinship and relationships with their territories<ref name=":22" />. Australia’s lack of progress towards providing a culturally secure environment for Indigenous populations is particularly evident in the area of childbirth<ref name=":23">{{Cite journal|last=Kildea|first=Sue & M. Wardaguga|date=August 3, 2009.|title=Childbirth in Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women.|url=https://link-springercom. ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-2599-9_26|journal=Childbirth Across Cultures|volume=|pages=pp 275-286.|via=}}</ref>. '''''We recommend that the Australian government pass specific laws, and hospitals create culturally-specific policies, that will address the rights of Aboriginal women to participate in cultural birthing practices, on their own terms, whether they are giving birth in a hospital, at home or on Country.''''' [[File:Birthtree2.jpg|thumb|"No Trees, No Treaty"]]
# Additionally, since Aboriginal women “regain culturally secure birthing practices when birth is brought back to the remote communities”<ref name=":22" /> where Aboriginal women are in charge of themselves and their own births, '''''we recommend that any areas identified as birthing spots on Country across Australia be rightfully returned to the communities to which they belong'''''. '''''We also recommend increased funding and educational opportunities for Aboriginal people who wish to work in health care, including obstetrics and maternity,''''' '''''in order to ensure that Aboriginal women who are giving birth in hospitals or urban settings are provided with access to Aboriginal care providers.'''''

'''Created by:'''

Zoe Li ''(Conservation Science)''

Hannah Stanley ''(Political Science, First Nations & Indigenous Studies)''

Gabriel Wan ''(Urban Forestry)''

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox CONS370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:CONS370/Projects/Indigenous Djap Wurrung resistance and community responses to threats against sacred birthing trees in Australia

2020-04-24T02:16:41Z

GabrielWan: /* References */

[[File:Djap_Wurrung_trees_have_been_used_for_around_50_generations_as_a_place_for_local_Aboriginal_women_to_give_birth.jpg|thumb|More than 260 Djap Wurrung trees in western Victoria are due to be bulldozed to make way for a 12km duplication of the Western Highway. Protesters, some who have been camping at the site for more than a year, fear a standoff with police will come to a head.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/22/protesters-defend-sacred-800-year-old-djap-wurrung-trees-as-police-deadline-looms|title=Protesters defend sacred 800-year-old Djap Wurrung trees as police deadline looms|last=|first=|date=|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>|337x337px]]
=== Summary ===
The '''Djap Wurrung''' (also spelt Djabwurrung, Tjapwurrung,or Djapwarrung) people are Aboriginal Australians whose Country (territory) is the volcanic plains of central Victoria<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. Djap Wurrung Country ranges from the Mount William Range of Gariwerd in the west to the Pyrenees range in the east, encompassing the Wimmera River flowing north and the headwaters of the Hopkins River flowing south<ref name=":14" />. On Djap Wurrung Country, there are over 3,000 sacred birthing trees that are over 800 years old <ref name=":14" />. Over 50 generations have been born on these cultural sites<ref name=":14" />. <blockquote>"Those trees are a part of us. The history of those trees is what makes us Djab Wurrung women. The stories of birthing, the stories of cooking, the story of those trees being culturally modified over hundreds of years is incredible." - Djab Wurrung woman Lidia Thorpe<ref name=":15">{{Cite news|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/western-highway-tree-protesters-may-be-arrested-this-week/11420640|title=Victorian Premier issues Western Hwy protesters ultimatum over sacred tree stalemate|last=Johnson|first=S.|date=August 20, 2019|work=ABC Ballarat News|access-date=}}</ref></blockquote>[[File:Dwembassyposter.jpg|thumb|A poster created by the Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy and land defenders, calling for increased support and allies to attend the camp.|380x380px]]The Victoria branch of the Australian Labor Party planned a four-lane highway extension alongside Major Road Projects of Victoria (MRVP), a division of Vic Roads (Roads Corporation of Victoria), that is set to destroy the landscape<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com/barking-up-the-wrong-tree/|title=Media Release: Barking Up The Wrong Tree.|last=Mahomet|first=Amanda|date=August 8, 2019|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The 12.5 kilometer construction project is called the ''Western Highway - Buangor to Ararat Project'' <ref name=":17">{{Cite news|url=https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/july/1561989600/sophie-cunningham/djab-wurrung-birthing-tree#mtr|title=The Djab Wurrung Birthing Tree|last=Cunningham|first=Sophie|date=July 19, 2019|work=The Monthly|access-date=}}</ref>.

In response, Djapp Wurrung community members Elder Aunty Sandra Onus and Zellanach Djab Mara set up the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy to prevent the destruction, with allies and activists<ref name=":15" />. The Embassy set up a camp on Country in June 2018 with the support of others opposing the project<ref name=":15" />. The community has taken “bold action thereby preventing work from starting and demanding the project is cancelled”.<ref name=":14" /> Though campaign is led by Djap Wurrung Traditional Owners, participants at the Camp include diverse groups of people.

Djab Wurrung people have suggested an alternative route “that would protect the sacred trees, and recommend that safety on the road can be maximised by lowering the speed limit”<ref name=":16" />. However, the government has refused to consider this alternative route.

On August 8th, 2019, 14 months after the peaceful camp blockade was set up on Country, police issued the Traditional Owners at the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy an eviction notice, “giving the Djab Wurrung people 14 days to vacate their sacred landscape to make way for the Western Highway duplication”<ref name=":16" />. The eviction notice was directed to police by Daniel Andrews, 48th Premier of Victoria since 2014 and state leader of the Australian Labor Party since 2010<ref name=":16" />.

Throughout 2019, Major Road Projects Victoria (MRVP) and their workers continued to have a presence on the land without the consent of the Djap Wurrung people and Embassy. Contractors conducting surveying works “continued to flout mandatory stop work periods” while Djab Wurrung Traditional Owners awaited mediation with MRPV<ref name=":16" />. Sovereign Djab Wurrung land protectors and their supporters had to continually escort workers off the land. [[File:Signsatcamp.jpg|thumb|Djap Wurrung Embassy Camp|334x334px]]<blockquote>''“Violation is the only appropriate word for these actions, as Djab Wurrung women and their supporters were forced to place themselves in the way of the contractors to protect the sacred birthing tree and a camp that has been a haven for women, gender diverse people and young children....The Djab Wurrung women continued to hold the space in the face of rising aggression and tension as the workers seemed determined to further intrude on the sacred landscape, approaching within metres of the sacred birthing tree and a culturally significant canoe tree.”'' <ref name=":14" /></blockquote>Legal action helped stall the project for months<ref name=":17" />. Mediation between the Djap Wurrung people and MRVP commenced September 18th, 2019<ref name=":14" />. In late 2019, 3.8km stretch of land was signed over to MRVP<ref name=":14" />. However, the camp continues to remain in place as of April 2020, and welcomes anyone to stay in an effort to protect old growth trees from being cut down during construction<ref name=":14" />. The Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy has posted and circulated a COVID-19 Health & Safety Protocol for all people planning on attending the camp.

'''COVID-19 Camp Protocol:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R7xeGf0zDipHKS2MtOUlXCDP1hW5Q3tqG3iEX1Is3r0/mobilebasic <ref name=":14" />.

'''How to Support the Djap Wurrung Embassy:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-GTkdfwZDfvW26yvRuOMmx4p4hM73Im5dxk-GMElSJI/edit?fbclid=IwAR3ReWqpal5cBZ0DlSFQv63D1smoa3-_cHKPjUX_bq3yqu1YA0leP9tQ9FU <ref name=":14" />.

==Description==
=====Colonialism in Australia=====

Australia's first recorded European contact was with the British navigator, Captain James Cook when he encountered the eastern coastline of Australia in 1770. <ref>(Cook, J. (1770) wiki "Cook's Journal: Daily Entries, 22 April 1770". Retrieved from http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700422.html)</ref> Later on, Cook claimed his discovery as a possession of the British Crown, which enabled the establishment of a new British colony in the Southern globe. The aim of colonization is to alleviate overpopulation in prison and expand the British Empire and its power through the acquirement of land. <ref name=":0">Australians together. (n.d) Colonisation.(Website) Retrived from https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation/#colonisationreference2</ref> Eight years after its initial discovery, the first fleet with convicts, marines and civilians arrived at Sydney Cove in 1788 for a penal settlement. After, European settlement spread as new colonies were established across the nation. Here are the few of the many regions that were significantly influenced by colonization.<ref name=":0" />
[[File:Territorial_History_of_Australia.jpg|thumb|381x381px|The development of the country's internal and external borders over time.]]

✓ Van Diemen’s Land, today’s Tasmania

✓ Port Phillip District, in what is now Victoria

✓ Moreton Bay, near Brisbane

✓ Adelaide, in South Australia

Cook’s discovery is recent in comparison to 60,000 years of development of more than 500 Aboriginal Nations, and their cultures, who existed at the time. <ref name=":1">Behrendt, 2013</ref>The Australian Indigenous community consisted of both the Aboriginal Nations and the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders have also coexisted in the land for more than 5,000 years. Unfortunately, these traditional custodians of the land suffered from immense social crisis due to European settlement. <ref name=":1" /> According to estimates, the “full-blood” Aboriginal population decreased by 96% from one million in 1788 to the remaining 58,000 in 1920s <ref name=":2">Harris, John.(2003). Aboriginal History, Vol. 27“Hiding the Bodies, the myth of humane colonization of Australia” https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73641/pdf/book.pdf</ref>. Although some disagree with the accuracy of this calculation by arguing it is an exaggeration, there is more than enough evidence to support the drastic decline in Aboriginal population between the 19th and early 20th century. <ref name=":2" />

[[File:Aboriginal attack Lake Hope.jpg|thumb|237x237px|New South Wales Mounted Police engaging Indigenous Australians during the Waterloo Creek Massacre of 1838. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C174087|title=Mounted police and blacks|last=W.Walton after Louisa and Godfrey Charles Mundy|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]

=====The Devastating Genocide=====

Lack of immunity against epidemics such as smallpox, influenza or measles that were introduced by the European’s arrival was one source of the large number of deaths amongst the Indigenous communities. According to Arthur Phillip, Captain of the first fleet, smallpox was responsible for killing half of the Indigenous population in Sydney within the first fourteen months of their arrival. <ref name=":0" /><ref>Bladen, F. M. (1892). ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (Vol. 1). C. Potter.</ref>

In addition to the threats to physiological health, intentional damages were a source of death and destruction. These damages included culture assimilation, acquisition of Indigenous land, sexual exploitation, physical abuse, and massacres of Indigenous communities; leading to the unfortunate reduction in Indigenous populations and tragic cultural genocide. Friction between the Europeans and the Natives was inevitable because of the long-term competition for resources and difference in lifestyles.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/colonial|title=Colonial period, 1788–1901|last=|first=|date=|website=Australian War Memorial|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Some consider colonization as a process of “introducing the superior western civilization” and believe that Aboriginal people were “doomed to extinction”;they omit the gruesome truth . The convenient assumption that “Aboriginal race extinction was irreversible” has made many felt exonerated from the unjust violence.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:Dovey-Mapping-Massacres.jpg|thumb|236x236px|A multimedia project led by the the Indigenous Australian artist is among the initiatives seeking to map the numerous sites where colonists massacred Aboriginal people]]
One of the most unsuccessful British settlements was undeniably in Van Diemen’s Land, also known Tasmania today. <ref name=":1" /> In 1803, British created an outpost on the Van Diemen’s Land. In the following year, evidence recorded 60 murders of Aborigines, possible when they were approaching the town. <ref>Elder, B. (2003). ''Blood on the wattle: Massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788''. Sydney: New Holland.</ref> In addition to disease, dispossession and intermarriage, the collapse of Aboriginal communities was also a result of the Black War. From 1824 to 1831 In 1830, an armed group known as the “Black Line” was ordered to remove tribes in Big River and Oyster Bay by Sir George Arthur. <ref>Kenyon, S.(1928) .''The Victorian Historical Magazine'',; J. Fenton, ''A History of Tasmania''; ''Historical Records of Australia'', ser. I, vols. XIX to XXII and XXVI; Kenyon Records at Public Library, Melbourne.</ref>The Black Line failed to remove all tribes from their settled district, indicating the Aboriginal resistance. In spite of the effort to resist, Aboriginal population of Tasmania sharply dropped from thousands to a few hundreds. <ref>Boyce, J. (2006). The Companion to Tasmanian History. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/F/Fabrication.html</nowiki></ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Colonisation|title=History of Australia, Colonisation|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The frontier war continued at the Wimmera, Victoria and caused more deaths in the late 1840s. <ref>Broome, Richard (1988). "''The Struggle for Australia : Aboriginal-European Warfare, 1770–1930''". In McKernan, Michael; Browne, Margaret; Australian War Memorial (eds.). ''Australia Two Centuries of War & Peace''. Canberra, A.C.T.: Australian War Memorial in association with Allen and Unwin, Australia. pp. 92–120. <nowiki>ISBN 0-642-99502-8</nowiki>.</ref>The Myall Creek massacre in New South Wales exemplified similar conflict in other parts of Australia as well. If one really pays attention to the timeline for the devastating century, they would notice that massacres took place frequently until 1928 and many were killed just for resisting. (Behrendt, 2013)<ref name=":1" />

=====Historical Interpretations=====
[[File:The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier.jpg|thumb|The Cover Page of Henry Reynolds work|274x274px]]
In his ground-breaking work on Aboriginal studies, “The Other Side of the Frontier<nowiki>''</nowiki>, Henry Reynolds provides historical context through nuanced delineation of interactions between Indigenous communities and the Europeans. The presentation of Indigenous values is strongly focused on their respect for the land and natural resources. His work also sheds light upon the Aboriginal resistance against British conquest, enabling many to realize the inseparable community-led resistance intertwined with settler-colonial history. <ref name=":6">Reynolds, H. (2006). ''The other side of the frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia''. UNSW Press.</ref> By introducing the Indigenous lifestyles, cultures and conflicts with British, many topics avoided by previous literatures are mentioned and reinvestigated. Diction such as “invasion” is in juxtaposition with prior sources’ use of “settlement” .<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2393483.The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier|title=The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia by Henry Reynolds.|last=|first=|date=|website=Goodreads.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The discussion of Frontal War on VanDiemen’s Land put an emphasis on the “black” sides .<ref name=":6" /> Reynolds claims that the intention is not to make the audience simply regard Aboriginal people as victims, but his work did provide reasons for people to commemorate the sacrifices of the Frontier War. <ref name=":7" />Aside from Henry Reynolds, other historians such as Lyndall Ryan and Charles Rowley also recorded notorious atrocities against the Aboriginal communities during colonization. <ref name=":8">Windschuttle, K. (2003). The fabrication of Aboriginal history. ''Sydney Papers, The'', ''15''(1), 20.</ref>

Though many historians recognize the suffering of Aboriginal communities, there are opposing voices that doubt the validity of these works. Keith Windschuttle, a primary antagonizing historian, questions the evidence used in Reynolds and Ryan’s work and attacks almost all their opinions <ref name=":6" />. In ''The fabrication of Aboriginal history,'' Windschuttle explicitly claimed that the Aboriginal death numbers are “an amplification of the actual situation”. Ironically, when he accused Renolds and Ryan’s work of not using enough evidence, his own arguments are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and other unreliable sources.<ref name=":8" />Some of his opinions such as claiming that the skeletons near burial sites were kangaroos lacked support and could be extremely misleading. Unlike mainstream historians, Windschuttle believes the violence and extermination of the Aborigines can be justified if the British settlement was resisted. <ref name=":8" /> Even Windschuttle himself recognizes the inhumane attacks on the Van Diemen’s Land is responsible for the Aborigines’ extinction.<ref name=":8" /> Many other historians criticize Windschuttle for his failure to grasp the point. Many investigations regarding Aboriginal communities are not about the actual deaths or magnitude but about how European colonization has continually been destructive towards Aboriginal communities. Overall, the Aboriginal deaths from early settlement and resistance efforts may even be greater than the current records, we may not recognize the exact casualties given that many tribes did not use the same systems to record history . Like John Harris argues, “history tends to be written from the perspective of the powerful” .<ref name=":2" /> In this case, the European government who had more control over words recreated history from their own side rather than the Indigenous societies. Therefore, those who have more power in literature should be more considerate of both parties if they aim to publish unbiased work.

=====The Djap Wurrung=====
[[File:Map Victoria Aboriginal tribes (colourmap).jpg|thumb|Map of Victorian Aboriginal Territories categorized by tribes and language groups ]]
The Djap Wurrung’s, also known as the Djapwurrung or Tjapwurrung, presence on their land can be traced back to 40,000 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djab_wurrung|title=Djap Wurrung|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Today, the Djap Wurrung land spreads over 7,000 km2, from Mount Rouse to Hamilton. <ref name=":3">Tindale, Norman Barnett (1974). "Tjapwurong (VIC)". ''Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Australian National University Press. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-708-10741-6</nowiki>.''</ref> The Djap Wurrung societies are composed of at least eleven bands, following two different matrilineal systems (Tindale, 1974).<ref name=":3" /> Their lifestyle is partially hunting and gathering, but there is also evidence of agriculture practices. Some aboriginal activists’ theories suggest that the traditional ball-kicking Aboriginal game initiated within the Wimmera tribe has inspired contemporary Australian football and the formation of its rules. <ref>Dawson, James (1881). ''Australian Aborigines: The Languages and Customs of Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia'' (PDF). Melbourne: George Robertson.</ref>Trees have intrinsic spiritual meanings in the Djap Wurrung culture.<ref name=":4">Richards, Thomas; Bennett, Catherine M; Webber, Harry (2013). "A post-contact Aboriginal mortuary tree from southwestern Victoria, Australia". ''Journal of Field Archaeology''. '''37''' (1): 62–72. doi:10.1179/0093469011z.0000000005.</ref> Births are witnessed by these trees and those who have passed on are buried near the trees. <ref name=":4" />

European settlement has made a great impact on the Djap Wurrung Nation. The first contact was marked in 1836, when the invasion began. <ref name=":5">Clark, Ian D. (1995). ''Scars in the Landscape: a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803–1859'' (PDF). AIATSIS. pp. 57–84. <nowiki>ISBN 0 85575 281 5</nowiki>.</ref> The resistance against European invasion included stealing sheep and driving off, while the settlers broke this resistance with massacre. By 1842, there were at least 35 reports of massacres, however very little of these developed into court investigations against the settlers. <ref name=":5" /> By 1841, some of the tribes were put into reserves and resistance to European invasion increased. According to estimates, the Djap Wurrung population shrunk from 2,050 to 615 (Mallet, 2002). About three quarters of the population pre-contact vanished due to disease, massacres, poison and starvation. <ref>Mallett, Ashley (2002). ''The Black Lords of Summer: The Story of the 1868 Aboriginal Tour of England and Beyond''. University of Queensland Press. pp. 169–175. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-702-23262-6</nowiki>.</ref> Later on, Djap Wurrung land also attracted large numbers of Europeans and Chinese that wanted to search for gold. <ref name=":5" />

=====Aboriginal People Today=====
Today, there are 250 unique language groups within the continent of Australia and only about three percent of Australian population claims Aboriginal heritage. <ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/aboriginal-australians/|title=Aboriginal Australians|last=Blakemore|first=Erin|authorlink=|date=|website=National Geographic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> In comparison to the existence of more than 500 nations before British colonization, this is a drastic decline. Though separated from their traditional land, confronting massacres and being exposed to diseases, the Indigenous communities are still resistant and adaptive to changes .<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":9" />[[File:Proceedings-Aborigines-Kevin-Rudd-Galiwnku-Island-peoples-February-2008.jpg|thumb|Aboriginal tribes from the Galiwnku Island gathering to watch the proceeding of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to apologize for the former Aboriginal mistreatments under the Australian governments. This apology only took place in 2008.|291x291px]]Contemporary Indigenous people live across urban, rural and remote areas of Australia.Many Federal laws explicitly discriminate against the Aboriginals, for example the Mental Deficiency Bill passed in 1939 which identified “inefficient groups”, including the “slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, and of course aboriginal people” .<ref name=":10">Tarpey-Brown, F. (2019). Glimpsing Cracks in the Present: Acts of Utopian Desire and Resistance at Gezi Park and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Studies in Arts and Humanities, 5(1), 67-76</ref> Though this Bill was soon abolished for serious racial discrimination, the earliest Federal law that applied to Aboriginal Australian’s rights was not passed until 1967. <ref name=":9" />. Even as recent as 1972, the Prime Minister still denied all Aboriginal land rights publicly in his national speech, as he considered Aboriginal land-use to be inefficient economically and socially. <ref name=":10" />

Major struggles for Aboriginal communities still involve the retainment of cultural heritage, loss of identity, as well as government recognition. The State of Victoria proposed a treaty with the Aboriginal population that recognizes Aboriginal sovereignty and provides compensation. Unfortunately, this is only a proposal and there have not been nation-wide treaty in Australia either, therefore making Australia as the only country that have not signed an authorized treaty with Indigenous peoples in the British Commonwealth. <ref name=":9" />

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a formal apology for the profound impact of colonization on Indigenous communities and recognized former mistreatments in the 2008 Federal Government Parliament. <ref name=":11">Tonkinson, R., & Berndt, R. M. (2018, April 19).Aboriginal Peoples In Australian Society. ''Encyclopeedia Britannica. '' Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Aboriginal-peoples-in-Australian-society</nowiki></ref> In the 1990’s, the agenda of “reconciliation” became clear, however, there have been limited actions taken or changes made regarding issues that Indigenous communities face. According to statistics, many Indigenous peoples are still disadvantaged in health, education and employment, however there are successful examples of those who overcome these barriers (Tokinson et al., 2018). The effective means include increased schooling and literacy as well as medical services training. <ref name=":1" /> The work of Aboriginal activists has also achieved some extent public approval and engagement with the non-Aboriginal communities, accompanied with increasing non-Aboriginal empathy towards heartbreaking mistreatment towards Aboriginal Australians, and a fascination to explore more about their diverse cultures. <ref name=":11" />
==Tenure arrangements==
The tenure of the Djap Wurrung community is customary. There is no legal document which declares their sovereignty to the land on the Western Highway and surrounding areas. However, the Djap Wurrung people describe themselves as the Traditional Owners (Why we are here, n.d). After the land belonging to the Djap Wurrung community was colonized by early settlers, their control of the land was increasingly lost. This also applies to many other Indigenous communities in Australia and around the world. Since the Djap Wurrung community is not recognized by the government as the owners of the land through legislation, there is no freehold or leasehold ownership. Presently, the official owner of the land is the Australian government (Why we are here, n.d). However, Indigenous communities throughout Australia, like the Djap Wurrung people, are fighting for their sovereignty, land rights and the retention of culturally significant areas.

==Administrative arrangements==
The Djap Wurrung Embassy have declared their sovereignty and “as survivors...will not concede [their] land rights” <ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Protect Sacred Trees. Save 80,000 years of culture.|last=|first=|date=|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The Aboriginal Heritage Act in 2006 promises to appropriately protect and manage the areas around the Western Highway. <ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-cultural-heritage-management-plan-western-highway-duplication|title=Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan Western Highway Duplication|last=Kanoa|first=Tim|date=|website=aboriginalvictoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Therefore, it is government’s duty to provide protection. This Act also provide the rules for management, as it must respect Aboriginal self-determination, and recognize Aboriginal communities as the Traditional Owners and primary guardians. <ref name=":12" />This Act establishes the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC), which is responsible for appointing Registered Aboriginal Parties and provides suggestions for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that applies rules to the entire state. <ref name=":12" />By working together with local Aboriginal groups, the VAHC can have an exhaustive assessment of the Act . If the Elders of Djap Wurrung are not satisfied with the cultural heritage protection, they can choose to report back to the Victorian Aboriginal Council that is responsible for monitoring protection. <ref name=":12" />.Reconciliation and full consent is necessary prior to any outsiders’ acts. In addition, this act also addresses that the Djap Wurrung have their own right to decide who can represent their cultural heritage. <ref name=":12" />

==Affected Stakeholders==
The Djap Wurrung people are the primary affected stakeholders in the community. They have been oppressed by the government for over 230 years (Lay, 2019). Their main objectives are to protect the birthing trees which will be cut down to build an extension of the Western Highway. This project is known as project 2b. Some of these birthing trees had already been removed to build section 2a of the highway<ref name=":17" />. The birthing trees removed by the Australian government are culturally significant to the community as these trees have been directly connected to their ancestral territory. As they fight to keep these birthing trees alive, it is a symbol of the declaration of their sovereignty to the land.
[[File:Treetree.jpg|thumb|Women have given birth in the hollows of these trees for generations.]]
These birthing trees are where Aboriginal women give birth traditionally. Women would give birth by squatting against the trees during the final stages of birth. The baby would come out onto the paperbark. After birth, the baby comes in contact with the spirit of the land and establishes a relationship with the land<ref name=":23" />. Birthing trees are also a cultural gathering place, where Indingenous peoples can feel accepted after their rights and territory had been taken away from them through colonization<ref name=":21" />. As we learn how these trees are used by the Djap Wurrung and their cultural importance, we understand why they are affected stakeholders.

The Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy is also an affected stakeholder as they are an organization which was established to protect the sacred trees on the Western Highway. Although the leaders of this organization are Djap Wurrung traditional owners of the land, many non-Indigenous people have voiced their support for the Embassy. They recognize the connections between Indigenous communities and nature for generations in the region. They also realize the sovereignty to the land of the Aboriginal group and how they have been treated by the Australian government over generations.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
The Australian government and the Major Roads Project Authority are the primary interested stakeholders outside of the community. They would like to remove the Djap Wurrung birthing trees on the Western Highway. This project is known as the Western Highway Project. The section 2a of the highway had already been built, with strong public backlash. The estimate of trees to be removed was 221 trees to construct the highway. However, this number was significantly underestimated as the actual number of trees removed to construct 2a was 1350. A project to build the extension of the highway, 12.5 kilometers long, is known as section 2b. 260 culturally significant trees are under threat of being removed to make way for the highway. The state of Victoria’s government plans to work with Aboriginal locals through providing only monetary compensation but do not have any intentions to save the birthing trees, a fundamental aspect of the Djap Wurrung community (Cunningham, 2019).

A new proposed route which served the same purpose would have been more cost effective and safer than the removal of these culturally significant trees. This new route would require drivers to drive for two extra minutes to reach their destination (Hayman-Reber, 2018). The state of Victoria did not put in much effort to consider this new route or look at other alternatives to keep these birthing trees alive. They describe the Western Highway as “one of Victoria’s key trade routes, providing a link between the region’s primary producers with Melbourne’s domestic and export markets” (Cunningham, 2019). Through this, we see that the government does not have any of these Indigenous communities’ interests in mind. The convenience of drivers is more important than the cultural importance of these birthing trees to the Djap Wurrung community. The attempt for the Australian government to wipe out the trees is a symbol of their attempt to remove any claim of territory by the Djap Wurrung community.

==Discussion==
The intention of our case study is to spread knowledge about Djap Wurrung land management, community forestry and resistance in relation to threats against sacred birthing trees. We want to bring awareness to a current, ongoing dispute about a sacred grove of trees within a settler-state where no substantial treaty has been entered into between the government of Australia and the Indigenous people of Australia. We aim to demonstrate the strength and determination of the Djap Wurrung community, as land defenders and activists who put their own lives at risk in order to protect the sacred birthing trees. We also aim to highlight the important connections between birthing practices and the land.

Despite ongoing colonization, which presents itself through land theft, pollution, development and unsustainable farming and forestry practices, sacred places still exist. Cultural sites where the Djap Wurrung birthing trees live are alive and apart of an interconnected web of relationships that span across generations<ref name=":18">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/12/the-government-wants-to-bulldoze-my-inheritance-800-year-old-sacred-trees|title=“The government wants to bulldoze my inheritance: 800 year-old-sacred trees;
To sit in a tree that saw your people birthed, massacred, and now resist is a feeling that
the English language will never be able to capture”|last=Gorrie|first=Nayuka|date=April 12, 2019.|work=The Guardian (London).|access-date=}}</ref>. The Major Roads Project Authority and the Australian government have continually “undermined land defenders and positioned Djap Wurrung people as against the interests of the rest of the population”<ref name=":18" />. Regardless of colonial violence, these trees are Djap Wurrung people's “inheritance”, directly tied to their ancestral territories<ref name=":18" />. Their survival and the Djap Wurrung fight to keep them alive and safe are a “cultural obligation" and an assertion of their sovereignty<ref name=":18" />.

Critical issues in this case study include ''land'', ''Indigenous'' ''sovereignty'' and ''consent''.
====== Land ======
[[File:Gumtree.jpg|thumb|A close up of gum tree bark.]]Australia is among “the most deforested countries in the world” and is a large emitter of greenhouse gasses<ref name=":17" />. With the removal of forests, Australia’s carbon sinks would decline<ref name=":17" />. According to Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018, there is a downward trend of remnant vegetation, of biodiversity, of forest health<ref name=":19">{{Cite web|url=https://www.ces.vic.gov.au/reports/state-environment-2018|title=Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018|last=|first=|date=2018|website=Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The state of Victoria’s environmental health is “poor and, despite much good work, the tools used to manage it are ineffective”<ref name=":17" />.

It remains common practice to offset vegetation lost by planting new vegetation, however, “you cannot meaningfully offset any habitat tree”<ref name=":17" />. As old-growth river red gum trees, up to 800 years old with girths of more than 7 metres and standing over 30 metres tall, the birthing trees “provide habitat and nutrients for dozens of mammals and birds, and thousands of insect species”<ref name=":17" /><ref name=":19" />. Nearly 3,000 trees would need to be destroyed to enlarge the highway <ref name=":17" />. As a result, the state of Victoria’s biodiversity and vegetation cover would significantly decrease.
[[File:Signvicroads.jpg|thumb|The Djap Wurrung community has a myriad of supporters across Australia, and beyond. This is one of the signs from the camp.]]
Additionally, the trees have been “culturally modified, with fire, creating small room[s] in the base of the trunk[s]...[where] thousands of Djab Wurrung babies have been born...within it. The placentas of those babies have been buried under the Directions Trees”<ref name=":17" />. Overall, with the highway widening, historical trees which are important to Indigenous groups would need to be cut down. This will cause cultural and environmental damage to the region’s Indigenous communities. The tradeoffs for expanding this highway are short term benefit for citizens to arrive at their destination quicker, but significant long term loss of cultural identity for the Djap Wurrung people<ref name=":17" />.

====== Indigenous Sovereignty ======
[[File:Aboriginalart.jpg|thumb|Before Indigenous Australian art was ever put onto canvas, people would smooth over the soil to draw sacred designs which belonged to that particular ceremony. This is still practiced today.

Aboriginal art demonstrates an interconnectedness between people and the land, and is practiced today as an act of sovereignty and self-determination.
]]
The Djap Wurrung people are the rightful Traditional Owners of the Country that MRVP has been attempting to construct upon<ref name=":14" />. The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability claims to “proudly [acknowledge] Victoria’s Aboriginal community...as Australia’s first peoples and as the Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we rely”<ref name=":19" />. They also claim to recognise and value “the ongoing contribution of Aboriginal people and communities...[and] embrace the spirit of reconciliation, working towards the equality of outcomes and ensuring an equal voice”<ref name=":19" />. Victoria’s government claims it wants to work on a treaty with Aboriginal Victorians to create Australia’s first treaty <ref name=":17" />. However, most of the treaty revolves around compensation, not actual solutions for environmental and spiritual concerns to conserve the trees<ref name=":17" />.

Despite these political claims, the government and police continue to allow contractors and workers to violate protocols surrounding birthing trees, neglecting Djap Wurrung culture, sovereignty and land rights. As Indigenous people who have lived on Country for thousands and thousands of generations, Djap Wurrung people are sovereign, and their Lore (cultural teachings, traditional knowledge, governance practices) surrounding the sacred birthing trees must be upheld and prioritized above the State governance of Victoria<ref name=":14" />.

====== Consent ======
[[File:Handsoffcountry.jpg|thumb|"Hands off Country".]]
The Australian government's actions indicate that it is “committed to working with Aboriginal Victorians who don’t get in the way”<ref name=":17" />. The MRVP has proven that there is greater enthusiasm for governance solutions that are “material (involving compensation, for example) rather than solutions that require meaningful engagement with spiritual or environmental concerns”<ref name=":17" />.

The area where the trees reside is "a place of sanctuary in which Djab Wurrung sovereignty has never been ceded”<ref name=":16" />. The Djap Wurrung have a right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It allows them to “give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories….Once they have given their consent, they can withdraw it at any stage”<ref name=":20">{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/our-pillars/fpic/en/|title=Free, Prior and Informed Consent.|last=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)|first=|date=|website=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. FPIC also enables Djap Wurrung people to “negotiate the conditions under which the project will be designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated”<ref name=":20" />.

==Assessment==
[[File:Djap_Wurrung_Protests.jpg|thumb|338x338px|Djap Wurrung protesters sit out the front of the VicRoads office in Ararat.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/22/protesters-defend-sacred-800-year-old-djap-wurrung-trees-as-police-deadline-looms|title=Protesters defend sacred 800-year-old Djap Wurrung trees as police deadline looms|last=|first=|date=|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]
The asymmetrical power between the Australian Government and the Djap Wurrung is obvious. While there are plentiful historical records of European invasion and alterations of land use without asking for permission, this issue is ongoing. In this case, the culturally significant mother trees were removed by the government in order to build road. There were only a few families consulted before some of the sacred trees were removed <ref> Hayman-Reber, M. (2018, June 18). Removal of sacred Djap Wurrung trees an 'act of cultural terrorism'. NITV News. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/06/18/removal-sacred-djap-wurrung-trees-act-cultural-terrorism</nowiki></ref>.

Similar to many historical scenarios, the Australian government has dominating power over the Djap Wurrung community. The inconsiderate government actions can be easily justified by legislation, since legislation is formulated by the government authorities themselves. In the government’s perspective, construction actions on Djap Wurrung land is reasonable as long as it contributes to “progressive development”. Government power is employed in an imprudent manner without a proper evaluation of the consequences. What’s worse about this act is that the road building project had an alternative route that was arguably cheaper, safer, and more importantly without the destruction of the sacred trees . This implies that the government chooses to neglect the forests’ sacredness and any negative implications to Aboriginal groups, just because it is not their own culture at risk. This is not the only thing the government fails to grasp. They ignore the fact that Djap Wurrung territories were never ceded to federal control <ref name=":13" /> and the government did not ask for permission to be on their lands, which leads to the violation of Djap Wurrung’s rights and sovereignty. There should be more governance and negotiation on the Australian government's planning as well.

As Djap Wurrung’s responsibility of nurturing the trees has been more and more stripped away by VicRoads, they have resisted and fought against road construction. Given its profound effects, there is actually very few official studies that focus on this unfair incidence. They have gained global attention by self-broadcasting on social media platforms, and have only given a few interviews for news articles, as news can easily be manipulated by journalists or the government. The Djap Wurrung’s power is strengthened as more non-Aboriginal allies join to help resist encroachment. Their sovereignty could be respected if the Victorian government recognizes these damages to the land cannot be undone. The government should compensate the community and work towards including the Djap Wurrung in decision-making processes. Sadly, in reality, the Djap Wurrung camps set up by the community, activists and allies are still facing eviction. According to the Djap Wurrung, “no trees no treaty”; it is highly unlikely for them to sign any treaties with the government after the sacred trees’s removal. <ref name=":13" />

==Recommendations==
# It is well known that gathering places “encourage healing and wellbeing”, creating inclusive and empowering spaces<ref name=":21">{{Cite journal|last=Kingsley|first=Jonathan & Emily Munro-Harrison, Anne Jenkins, Alister Thorpe.|date=November 2018|title=“Here we
are part of a living culture”: Understanding the cultural determinants of health in
Aboriginal gathering places in Victoria, Australia.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.10.001|journal=Health & Place|volume=54|pages=210-220|via=}}</ref>. Cultural gathering places in particular provide a sense of place, especially for people who have been marginalized and affected by colonization<ref name=":21" />. In this case, the sacred trees are gathering places for women giving birth. The the land defender camp and Djap Wurrung community gatherings are also gathering places for both healing and resistance. '''''We recommend that these spaces be respected, and that the camp be allowed to remain as long as needed, as Djap Wurrung people continue to maintain their distinct connection to the land. No notices of eviction should be given to the members of the camp. No police, contractors or road workers should be allowed to access Djap Wurrung territory without free, prior, informed and ongoing consent. Negotiation processes should be respected and conducted on Djap Wurrung terms, led by Djap Wurrung community members rather than Australian government officials or companies. The right of the Djap Wurrung people to withdraw from any negotiated project must be respected.''''' [[File:People@camp.jpg|thumb|Community members, land defenders and allies at camp.]]
# The attempt to wipe out Djap Wurrung sacred places “must be seen as an attempt to wipe out their claim to them”, which serves to further dispossess Aboriginal peoples in Australia and “allow the state to continue its operations unhindered” by Aboriginal sovereignty<ref name=":18" />. '''''We recommend that Djap Wurrung knowledge be prioritized and adhered to in terms of the future of the trees that are on their territory, since Indigenous knowledge systems strengthen cultural identity, self-determination and ultimately health and wellbeing'''''<ref name=":21" />'''''.'''''
# Aboriginal women in Australia “collectively express a strong desire to maintain cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including birthing close to home and on their homelands, on Country<ref name=":22">{{Cite journal|last=Marriott|first=Rhonda & Tracy Reibel, Juli Coffin, Janinne Gliddon, Denese Griffin, Melanie Robinson, Anne-Marie Eades, Jade Maddox.|date=October, 2019|title=“Our culture, how it is to be us” — Listening to Aboriginal women about on Country urban birthing.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi. 2019.06.017|journal=Women and Birth|volume=32|pages=391-403|via=}}</ref>. Aboriginal birthing and elder women have “consistently reported ongoing cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including knowledge sharing across generations, family support, land-based rituals and practices, and “observance of extended family present at the time of or shortly after birth”; these practices are alive and well<ref name=":22" />. However, certain land-based birthing practices for Aboriginal women, including Djap Wurrung women, are at risk, as land continues to be developed and taken by the government for other purposes. The “inflexibility” of Australian health systems to meet the needs of Aboriginal women is unacceptable; Australian obstetricians, doctors, nurses and midwives “lack cultural awareness and understanding” of the importance of Aboriginal kinship and relationships with their territories<ref name=":22" />. Australia’s lack of progress towards providing a culturally secure environment for Indigenous populations is particularly evident in the area of childbirth<ref name=":23">{{Cite journal|last=Kildea|first=Sue & M. Wardaguga|date=August 3, 2009.|title=Childbirth in Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women.|url=https://link-springercom. ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-2599-9_26|journal=Childbirth Across Cultures|volume=|pages=pp 275-286.|via=}}</ref>. '''''We recommend that the Australian government pass specific laws, and hospitals create culturally-specific policies, that will address the rights of Aboriginal women to participate in cultural birthing practices, on their own terms, whether they are giving birth in a hospital, at home or on Country.''''' [[File:Birthtree2.jpg|thumb|"No Trees, No Treaty"]]
# Additionally, since Aboriginal women “regain culturally secure birthing practices when birth is brought back to the remote communities”<ref name=":22" /> where Aboriginal women are in charge of themselves and their own births, '''''we recommend that any areas identified as birthing spots on Country across Australia be rightfully returned to the communities to which they belong'''''. '''''We also recommend increased funding and educational opportunities for Aboriginal people who wish to work in health care, including obstetrics and maternity,''''' '''''in order to ensure that Aboriginal women who are giving birth in hospitals or urban settings are provided with access to Aboriginal care providers.'''''

'''Created by:'''

Zoe Li ''(Conservation Science)''

Hannah Stanley ''(Political Science, First Nations & Indigenous Studies)''

Gabriel Wan ''(Urban Forestry)''

==References==
<references/><ref>Cunningham, S. (2019, July 19). The Djab Wurrung Birthing Tree. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/july/1561989600/sophie-cunningham/djab-wurrung-birthing-tree#mtr</nowiki></ref>

{{Projectbox CONS370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:CONS370/Projects/Indigenous Djap Wurrung resistance and community responses to threats against sacred birthing trees in Australia

2020-04-24T02:07:16Z

GabrielWan: /* References */

[[File:Djap_Wurrung_trees_have_been_used_for_around_50_generations_as_a_place_for_local_Aboriginal_women_to_give_birth.jpg|thumb|More than 260 Djap Wurrung trees in western Victoria are due to be bulldozed to make way for a 12km duplication of the Western Highway. Protesters, some who have been camping at the site for more than a year, fear a standoff with police will come to a head.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/22/protesters-defend-sacred-800-year-old-djap-wurrung-trees-as-police-deadline-looms|title=Protesters defend sacred 800-year-old Djap Wurrung trees as police deadline looms|last=|first=|date=|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>|337x337px]]
=== Summary ===
The '''Djap Wurrung''' (also spelt Djabwurrung, Tjapwurrung,or Djapwarrung) people are Aboriginal Australians whose Country (territory) is the volcanic plains of central Victoria<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. Djap Wurrung Country ranges from the Mount William Range of Gariwerd in the west to the Pyrenees range in the east, encompassing the Wimmera River flowing north and the headwaters of the Hopkins River flowing south<ref name=":14" />. On Djap Wurrung Country, there are over 3,000 sacred birthing trees that are over 800 years old <ref name=":14" />. Over 50 generations have been born on these cultural sites<ref name=":14" />. <blockquote>"Those trees are a part of us. The history of those trees is what makes us Djab Wurrung women. The stories of birthing, the stories of cooking, the story of those trees being culturally modified over hundreds of years is incredible." - Djab Wurrung woman Lidia Thorpe<ref name=":15">{{Cite news|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/western-highway-tree-protesters-may-be-arrested-this-week/11420640|title=Victorian Premier issues Western Hwy protesters ultimatum over sacred tree stalemate|last=Johnson|first=S.|date=August 20, 2019|work=ABC Ballarat News|access-date=}}</ref></blockquote>[[File:Dwembassyposter.jpg|thumb|A poster created by the Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy and land defenders, calling for increased support and allies to attend the camp.|380x380px]]The Victoria branch of the Australian Labor Party planned a four-lane highway extension alongside Major Road Projects of Victoria (MRVP), a division of Vic Roads (Roads Corporation of Victoria), that is set to destroy the landscape<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com/barking-up-the-wrong-tree/|title=Media Release: Barking Up The Wrong Tree.|last=Mahomet|first=Amanda|date=August 8, 2019|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The 12.5 kilometer construction project is called the ''Western Highway - Buangor to Ararat Project'' <ref name=":17">{{Cite news|url=https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/july/1561989600/sophie-cunningham/djab-wurrung-birthing-tree#mtr|title=The Djab Wurrung Birthing Tree|last=Cunningham|first=Sophie|date=July 19, 2019|work=The Monthly|access-date=}}</ref>.

In response, Djapp Wurrung community members Elder Aunty Sandra Onus and Zellanach Djab Mara set up the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy to prevent the destruction, with allies and activists<ref name=":15" />. The Embassy set up a camp on Country in June 2018 with the support of others opposing the project<ref name=":15" />. The community has taken “bold action thereby preventing work from starting and demanding the project is cancelled”.<ref name=":14" /> Though campaign is led by Djap Wurrung Traditional Owners, participants at the Camp include diverse groups of people.

Djab Wurrung people have suggested an alternative route “that would protect the sacred trees, and recommend that safety on the road can be maximised by lowering the speed limit”<ref name=":16" />. However, the government has refused to consider this alternative route.

On August 8th, 2019, 14 months after the peaceful camp blockade was set up on Country, police issued the Traditional Owners at the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy an eviction notice, “giving the Djab Wurrung people 14 days to vacate their sacred landscape to make way for the Western Highway duplication”<ref name=":16" />. The eviction notice was directed to police by Daniel Andrews, 48th Premier of Victoria since 2014 and state leader of the Australian Labor Party since 2010<ref name=":16" />.

Throughout 2019, Major Road Projects Victoria (MRVP) and their workers continued to have a presence on the land without the consent of the Djap Wurrung people and Embassy. Contractors conducting surveying works “continued to flout mandatory stop work periods” while Djab Wurrung Traditional Owners awaited mediation with MRPV<ref name=":16" />. Sovereign Djab Wurrung land protectors and their supporters had to continually escort workers off the land. [[File:Signsatcamp.jpg|thumb|Djap Wurrung Embassy Camp|334x334px]]<blockquote>''“Violation is the only appropriate word for these actions, as Djab Wurrung women and their supporters were forced to place themselves in the way of the contractors to protect the sacred birthing tree and a camp that has been a haven for women, gender diverse people and young children....The Djab Wurrung women continued to hold the space in the face of rising aggression and tension as the workers seemed determined to further intrude on the sacred landscape, approaching within metres of the sacred birthing tree and a culturally significant canoe tree.”'' <ref name=":14" /></blockquote>Legal action helped stall the project for months<ref name=":17" />. Mediation between the Djap Wurrung people and MRVP commenced September 18th, 2019<ref name=":14" />. In late 2019, 3.8km stretch of land was signed over to MRVP<ref name=":14" />. However, the camp continues to remain in place as of April 2020, and welcomes anyone to stay in an effort to protect old growth trees from being cut down during construction<ref name=":14" />. The Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy has posted and circulated a COVID-19 Health & Safety Protocol for all people planning on attending the camp.

'''COVID-19 Camp Protocol:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R7xeGf0zDipHKS2MtOUlXCDP1hW5Q3tqG3iEX1Is3r0/mobilebasic <ref name=":14" />.

'''How to Support the Djap Wurrung Embassy:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-GTkdfwZDfvW26yvRuOMmx4p4hM73Im5dxk-GMElSJI/edit?fbclid=IwAR3ReWqpal5cBZ0DlSFQv63D1smoa3-_cHKPjUX_bq3yqu1YA0leP9tQ9FU <ref name=":14" />.

==Description==
=====Colonialism in Australia=====

Australia's first recorded European contact was with the British navigator, Captain James Cook when he encountered the eastern coastline of Australia in 1770. <ref>(Cook, J. (1770) wiki "Cook's Journal: Daily Entries, 22 April 1770". Retrieved from http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700422.html)</ref> Later on, Cook claimed his discovery as a possession of the British Crown, which enabled the establishment of a new British colony in the Southern globe. The aim of colonization is to alleviate overpopulation in prison and expand the British Empire and its power through the acquirement of land. <ref name=":0">Australians together. (n.d) Colonisation.(Website) Retrived from https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation/#colonisationreference2</ref> Eight years after its initial discovery, the first fleet with convicts, marines and civilians arrived at Sydney Cove in 1788 for a penal settlement. After, European settlement spread as new colonies were established across the nation. Here are the few of the many regions that were significantly influenced by colonization.<ref name=":0" />
[[File:Territorial_History_of_Australia.jpg|thumb|381x381px|The development of the country's internal and external borders over time.]]

✓ Van Diemen’s Land, today’s Tasmania

✓ Port Phillip District, in what is now Victoria

✓ Moreton Bay, near Brisbane

✓ Adelaide, in South Australia

Cook’s discovery is recent in comparison to 60,000 years of development of more than 500 Aboriginal Nations, and their cultures, who existed at the time. <ref name=":1">Behrendt, 2013</ref>The Australian Indigenous community consisted of both the Aboriginal Nations and the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders have also coexisted in the land for more than 5,000 years. Unfortunately, these traditional custodians of the land suffered from immense social crisis due to European settlement. <ref name=":1" /> According to estimates, the “full-blood” Aboriginal population decreased by 96% from one million in 1788 to the remaining 58,000 in 1920s <ref name=":2">Harris, John.(2003). Aboriginal History, Vol. 27“Hiding the Bodies, the myth of humane colonization of Australia” https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73641/pdf/book.pdf</ref>. Although some disagree with the accuracy of this calculation by arguing it is an exaggeration, there is more than enough evidence to support the drastic decline in Aboriginal population between the 19th and early 20th century. <ref name=":2" />

[[File:Aboriginal attack Lake Hope.jpg|thumb|237x237px|New South Wales Mounted Police engaging Indigenous Australians during the Waterloo Creek Massacre of 1838. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C174087|title=Mounted police and blacks|last=W.Walton after Louisa and Godfrey Charles Mundy|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]

=====The Devastating Genocide=====

Lack of immunity against epidemics such as smallpox, influenza or measles that were introduced by the European’s arrival was one source of the large number of deaths amongst the Indigenous communities. According to Arthur Phillip, Captain of the first fleet, smallpox was responsible for killing half of the Indigenous population in Sydney within the first fourteen months of their arrival. <ref name=":0" /><ref>Bladen, F. M. (1892). ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (Vol. 1). C. Potter.</ref>

In addition to the threats to physiological health, intentional damages were a source of death and destruction. These damages included culture assimilation, acquisition of Indigenous land, sexual exploitation, physical abuse, and massacres of Indigenous communities; leading to the unfortunate reduction in Indigenous populations and tragic cultural genocide. Friction between the Europeans and the Natives was inevitable because of the long-term competition for resources and difference in lifestyles.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/colonial|title=Colonial period, 1788–1901|last=|first=|date=|website=Australian War Memorial|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Some consider colonization as a process of “introducing the superior western civilization” and believe that Aboriginal people were “doomed to extinction”;they omit the gruesome truth . The convenient assumption that “Aboriginal race extinction was irreversible” has made many felt exonerated from the unjust violence.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:Dovey-Mapping-Massacres.jpg|thumb|236x236px|A multimedia project led by the the Indigenous Australian artist is among the initiatives seeking to map the numerous sites where colonists massacred Aboriginal people]]
One of the most unsuccessful British settlements was undeniably in Van Diemen’s Land, also known Tasmania today. <ref name=":1" /> In 1803, British created an outpost on the Van Diemen’s Land. In the following year, evidence recorded 60 murders of Aborigines, possible when they were approaching the town. <ref>Elder, B. (2003). ''Blood on the wattle: Massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788''. Sydney: New Holland.</ref> In addition to disease, dispossession and intermarriage, the collapse of Aboriginal communities was also a result of the Black War. From 1824 to 1831 In 1830, an armed group known as the “Black Line” was ordered to remove tribes in Big River and Oyster Bay by Sir George Arthur. <ref>Kenyon, S.(1928) .''The Victorian Historical Magazine'',; J. Fenton, ''A History of Tasmania''; ''Historical Records of Australia'', ser. I, vols. XIX to XXII and XXVI; Kenyon Records at Public Library, Melbourne.</ref>The Black Line failed to remove all tribes from their settled district, indicating the Aboriginal resistance. In spite of the effort to resist, Aboriginal population of Tasmania sharply dropped from thousands to a few hundreds. <ref>Boyce, J. (2006). The Companion to Tasmanian History. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/F/Fabrication.html</nowiki></ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Colonisation|title=History of Australia, Colonisation|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The frontier war continued at the Wimmera, Victoria and caused more deaths in the late 1840s. <ref>Broome, Richard (1988). "''The Struggle for Australia : Aboriginal-European Warfare, 1770–1930''". In McKernan, Michael; Browne, Margaret; Australian War Memorial (eds.). ''Australia Two Centuries of War & Peace''. Canberra, A.C.T.: Australian War Memorial in association with Allen and Unwin, Australia. pp. 92–120. <nowiki>ISBN 0-642-99502-8</nowiki>.</ref>The Myall Creek massacre in New South Wales exemplified similar conflict in other parts of Australia as well. If one really pays attention to the timeline for the devastating century, they would notice that massacres took place frequently until 1928 and many were killed just for resisting. (Behrendt, 2013)<ref name=":1" />

=====Historical Interpretations=====
[[File:The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier.jpg|thumb|The Cover Page of Henry Reynolds work|274x274px]]
In his ground-breaking work on Aboriginal studies, “The Other Side of the Frontier<nowiki>''</nowiki>, Henry Reynolds provides historical context through nuanced delineation of interactions between Indigenous communities and the Europeans. The presentation of Indigenous values is strongly focused on their respect for the land and natural resources. His work also sheds light upon the Aboriginal resistance against British conquest, enabling many to realize the inseparable community-led resistance intertwined with settler-colonial history. <ref name=":6">Reynolds, H. (2006). ''The other side of the frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia''. UNSW Press.</ref> By introducing the Indigenous lifestyles, cultures and conflicts with British, many topics avoided by previous literatures are mentioned and reinvestigated. Diction such as “invasion” is in juxtaposition with prior sources’ use of “settlement” .<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2393483.The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier|title=The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia by Henry Reynolds.|last=|first=|date=|website=Goodreads.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The discussion of Frontal War on VanDiemen’s Land put an emphasis on the “black” sides .<ref name=":6" /> Reynolds claims that the intention is not to make the audience simply regard Aboriginal people as victims, but his work did provide reasons for people to commemorate the sacrifices of the Frontier War. <ref name=":7" />Aside from Henry Reynolds, other historians such as Lyndall Ryan and Charles Rowley also recorded notorious atrocities against the Aboriginal communities during colonization. <ref name=":8">Windschuttle, K. (2003). The fabrication of Aboriginal history. ''Sydney Papers, The'', ''15''(1), 20.</ref>

Though many historians recognize the suffering of Aboriginal communities, there are opposing voices that doubt the validity of these works. Keith Windschuttle, a primary antagonizing historian, questions the evidence used in Reynolds and Ryan’s work and attacks almost all their opinions <ref name=":6" />. In ''The fabrication of Aboriginal history,'' Windschuttle explicitly claimed that the Aboriginal death numbers are “an amplification of the actual situation”. Ironically, when he accused Renolds and Ryan’s work of not using enough evidence, his own arguments are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and other unreliable sources.<ref name=":8" />Some of his opinions such as claiming that the skeletons near burial sites were kangaroos lacked support and could be extremely misleading. Unlike mainstream historians, Windschuttle believes the violence and extermination of the Aborigines can be justified if the British settlement was resisted. <ref name=":8" /> Even Windschuttle himself recognizes the inhumane attacks on the Van Diemen’s Land is responsible for the Aborigines’ extinction.<ref name=":8" /> Many other historians criticize Windschuttle for his failure to grasp the point. Many investigations regarding Aboriginal communities are not about the actual deaths or magnitude but about how European colonization has continually been destructive towards Aboriginal communities. Overall, the Aboriginal deaths from early settlement and resistance efforts may even be greater than the current records, we may not recognize the exact casualties given that many tribes did not use the same systems to record history . Like John Harris argues, “history tends to be written from the perspective of the powerful” .<ref name=":2" /> In this case, the European government who had more control over words recreated history from their own side rather than the Indigenous societies. Therefore, those who have more power in literature should be more considerate of both parties if they aim to publish unbiased work.

=====The Djap Wurrung=====
[[File:Map Victoria Aboriginal tribes (colourmap).jpg|thumb|Map of Victorian Aboriginal Territories categorized by tribes and language groups ]]
The Djap Wurrung’s, also known as the Djapwurrung or Tjapwurrung, presence on their land can be traced back to 40,000 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djab_wurrung|title=Djap Wurrung|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Today, the Djap Wurrung land spreads over 7,000 km2, from Mount Rouse to Hamilton. <ref name=":3">Tindale, Norman Barnett (1974). "Tjapwurong (VIC)". ''Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Australian National University Press. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-708-10741-6</nowiki>.''</ref> The Djap Wurrung societies are composed of at least eleven bands, following two different matrilineal systems (Tindale, 1974).<ref name=":3" /> Their lifestyle is partially hunting and gathering, but there is also evidence of agriculture practices. Some aboriginal activists’ theories suggest that the traditional ball-kicking Aboriginal game initiated within the Wimmera tribe has inspired contemporary Australian football and the formation of its rules. <ref>Dawson, James (1881). ''Australian Aborigines: The Languages and Customs of Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia'' (PDF). Melbourne: George Robertson.</ref>Trees have intrinsic spiritual meanings in the Djap Wurrung culture.<ref name=":4">Richards, Thomas; Bennett, Catherine M; Webber, Harry (2013). "A post-contact Aboriginal mortuary tree from southwestern Victoria, Australia". ''Journal of Field Archaeology''. '''37''' (1): 62–72. doi:10.1179/0093469011z.0000000005.</ref> Births are witnessed by these trees and those who have passed on are buried near the trees. <ref name=":4" />

European settlement has made a great impact on the Djap Wurrung Nation. The first contact was marked in 1836, when the invasion began. <ref name=":5">Clark, Ian D. (1995). ''Scars in the Landscape: a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803–1859'' (PDF). AIATSIS. pp. 57–84. <nowiki>ISBN 0 85575 281 5</nowiki>.</ref> The resistance against European invasion included stealing sheep and driving off, while the settlers broke this resistance with massacre. By 1842, there were at least 35 reports of massacres, however very little of these developed into court investigations against the settlers. <ref name=":5" /> By 1841, some of the tribes were put into reserves and resistance to European invasion increased. According to estimates, the Djap Wurrung population shrunk from 2,050 to 615 (Mallet, 2002). About three quarters of the population pre-contact vanished due to disease, massacres, poison and starvation. <ref>Mallett, Ashley (2002). ''The Black Lords of Summer: The Story of the 1868 Aboriginal Tour of England and Beyond''. University of Queensland Press. pp. 169–175. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-702-23262-6</nowiki>.</ref> Later on, Djap Wurrung land also attracted large numbers of Europeans and Chinese that wanted to search for gold. <ref name=":5" />

=====Aboriginal People Today=====
Today, there are 250 unique language groups within the continent of Australia and only about three percent of Australian population claims Aboriginal heritage. <ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/aboriginal-australians/|title=Aboriginal Australians|last=Blakemore|first=Erin|authorlink=|date=|website=National Geographic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> In comparison to the existence of more than 500 nations before British colonization, this is a drastic decline. Though separated from their traditional land, confronting massacres and being exposed to diseases, the Indigenous communities are still resistant and adaptive to changes .<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":9" />[[File:Proceedings-Aborigines-Kevin-Rudd-Galiwnku-Island-peoples-February-2008.jpg|thumb|Aboriginal tribes from the Galiwnku Island gathering to watch the proceeding of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to apologize for the former Aboriginal mistreatments under the Australian governments. This apology only took place in 2008.|291x291px]]Contemporary Indigenous people live across urban, rural and remote areas of Australia.Many Federal laws explicitly discriminate against the Aboriginals, for example the Mental Deficiency Bill passed in 1939 which identified “inefficient groups”, including the “slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, and of course aboriginal people” .<ref name=":10">Tarpey-Brown, F. (2019). Glimpsing Cracks in the Present: Acts of Utopian Desire and Resistance at Gezi Park and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Studies in Arts and Humanities, 5(1), 67-76</ref> Though this Bill was soon abolished for serious racial discrimination, the earliest Federal law that applied to Aboriginal Australian’s rights was not passed until 1967. <ref name=":9" />. Even as recent as 1972, the Prime Minister still denied all Aboriginal land rights publicly in his national speech, as he considered Aboriginal land-use to be inefficient economically and socially. <ref name=":10" />

Major struggles for Aboriginal communities still involve the retainment of cultural heritage, loss of identity, as well as government recognition. The State of Victoria proposed a treaty with the Aboriginal population that recognizes Aboriginal sovereignty and provides compensation. Unfortunately, this is only a proposal and there have not been nation-wide treaty in Australia either, therefore making Australia as the only country that have not signed an authorized treaty with Indigenous peoples in the British Commonwealth. <ref name=":9" />

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a formal apology for the profound impact of colonization on Indigenous communities and recognized former mistreatments in the 2008 Federal Government Parliament. <ref name=":11">Tonkinson, R., & Berndt, R. M. (2018, April 19).Aboriginal Peoples In Australian Society. ''Encyclopeedia Britannica. '' Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Aboriginal-peoples-in-Australian-society</nowiki></ref> In the 1990’s, the agenda of “reconciliation” became clear, however, there have been limited actions taken or changes made regarding issues that Indigenous communities face. According to statistics, many Indigenous peoples are still disadvantaged in health, education and employment, however there are successful examples of those who overcome these barriers (Tokinson et al., 2018). The effective means include increased schooling and literacy as well as medical services training. <ref name=":1" /> The work of Aboriginal activists has also achieved some extent public approval and engagement with the non-Aboriginal communities, accompanied with increasing non-Aboriginal empathy towards heartbreaking mistreatment towards Aboriginal Australians, and a fascination to explore more about their diverse cultures. <ref name=":11" />
==Tenure arrangements==
The tenure of the Djap Wurrung community is customary. There is no legal document which declares their sovereignty to the land on the Western Highway and surrounding areas. However, the Djap Wurrung people describe themselves as the Traditional Owners (Why we are here, n.d). After the land belonging to the Djap Wurrung community was colonized by early settlers, their control of the land was increasingly lost. This also applies to many other Indigenous communities in Australia and around the world. Since the Djap Wurrung community is not recognized by the government as the owners of the land through legislation, there is no freehold or leasehold ownership. Presently, the official owner of the land is the Australian government (Why we are here, n.d). However, Indigenous communities throughout Australia, like the Djap Wurrung people, are fighting for their sovereignty, land rights and the retention of culturally significant areas.

==Administrative arrangements==
The Djap Wurrung Embassy have declared their sovereignty and “as survivors...will not concede [their] land rights” <ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Protect Sacred Trees. Save 80,000 years of culture.|last=|first=|date=|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The Aboriginal Heritage Act in 2006 promises to appropriately protect and manage the areas around the Western Highway. <ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-cultural-heritage-management-plan-western-highway-duplication|title=Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan Western Highway Duplication|last=Kanoa|first=Tim|date=|website=aboriginalvictoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Therefore, it is government’s duty to provide protection. This Act also provide the rules for management, as it must respect Aboriginal self-determination, and recognize Aboriginal communities as the Traditional Owners and primary guardians. <ref name=":12" />This Act establishes the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC), which is responsible for appointing Registered Aboriginal Parties and provides suggestions for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that applies rules to the entire state. <ref name=":12" />By working together with local Aboriginal groups, the VAHC can have an exhaustive assessment of the Act . If the Elders of Djap Wurrung are not satisfied with the cultural heritage protection, they can choose to report back to the Victorian Aboriginal Council that is responsible for monitoring protection. <ref name=":12" />.Reconciliation and full consent is necessary prior to any outsiders’ acts. In addition, this act also addresses that the Djap Wurrung have their own right to decide who can represent their cultural heritage. <ref name=":12" />

==Affected Stakeholders==
The Djap Wurrung people are the primary affected stakeholders in the community. They have been oppressed by the government for over 230 years (Lay, 2019). Their main objectives are to protect the birthing trees which will be cut down to build an extension of the Western Highway. This project is known as project 2b. Some of these birthing trees had already been removed to build section 2a of the highway<ref name=":17" />. The birthing trees removed by the Australian government are culturally significant to the community as these trees have been directly connected to their ancestral territory. As they fight to keep these birthing trees alive, it is a symbol of the declaration of their sovereignty to the land.
[[File:Treetree.jpg|thumb|Women have given birth in the hollows of these trees for generations.]]
These birthing trees are where Aboriginal women give birth traditionally. Women would give birth by squatting against the trees during the final stages of birth. The baby would come out onto the paperbark. After birth, the baby comes in contact with the spirit of the land and establishes a relationship with the land<ref name=":23" />. Birthing trees are also a cultural gathering place, where Indingenous peoples can feel accepted after their rights and territory had been taken away from them through colonization<ref name=":21" />. As we learn how these trees are used by the Djap Wurrung and their cultural importance, we understand why they are affected stakeholders.

The Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy is also an affected stakeholder as they are an organization which was established to protect the sacred trees on the Western Highway. Although the leaders of this organization are Djap Wurrung traditional owners of the land, many non-Indigenous people have voiced their support for the Embassy. They recognize the connections between Indigenous communities and nature for generations in the region. They also realize the sovereignty to the land of the Aboriginal group and how they have been treated by the Australian government over generations.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
The Australian government and the Major Roads Project Authority are the primary interested stakeholders outside of the community. They would like to remove the Djap Wurrung birthing trees on the Western Highway. This project is known as the Western Highway Project. The section 2a of the highway had already been built, with strong public backlash. The estimate of trees to be removed was 221 trees to construct the highway. However, this number was significantly underestimated as the actual number of trees removed to construct 2a was 1350. A project to build the extension of the highway, 12.5 kilometers long, is known as section 2b. 260 culturally significant trees are under threat of being removed to make way for the highway. The state of Victoria’s government plans to work with Aboriginal locals through providing only monetary compensation but do not have any intentions to save the birthing trees, a fundamental aspect of the Djap Wurrung community (Cunningham, 2019).

A new proposed route which served the same purpose would have been more cost effective and safer than the removal of these culturally significant trees. This new route would require drivers to drive for two extra minutes to reach their destination (Hayman-Reber, 2018). The state of Victoria did not put in much effort to consider this new route or look at other alternatives to keep these birthing trees alive. They describe the Western Highway as “one of Victoria’s key trade routes, providing a link between the region’s primary producers with Melbourne’s domestic and export markets” (Cunningham, 2019). Through this, we see that the government does not have any of these Indigenous communities’ interests in mind. The convenience of drivers is more important than the cultural importance of these birthing trees to the Djap Wurrung community. The attempt for the Australian government to wipe out the trees is a symbol of their attempt to remove any claim of territory by the Djap Wurrung community.

==Discussion==
The intention of our case study is to spread knowledge about Djap Wurrung land management, community forestry and resistance in relation to threats against sacred birthing trees. We want to bring awareness to a current, ongoing dispute about a sacred grove of trees within a settler-state where no substantial treaty has been entered into between the government of Australia and the Indigenous people of Australia. We aim to demonstrate the strength and determination of the Djap Wurrung community, as land defenders and activists who put their own lives at risk in order to protect the sacred birthing trees. We also aim to highlight the important connections between birthing practices and the land.

Despite ongoing colonization, which presents itself through land theft, pollution, development and unsustainable farming and forestry practices, sacred places still exist. Cultural sites where the Djap Wurrung birthing trees live are alive and apart of an interconnected web of relationships that span across generations<ref name=":18">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/12/the-government-wants-to-bulldoze-my-inheritance-800-year-old-sacred-trees|title=“The government wants to bulldoze my inheritance: 800 year-old-sacred trees;
To sit in a tree that saw your people birthed, massacred, and now resist is a feeling that
the English language will never be able to capture”|last=Gorrie|first=Nayuka|date=April 12, 2019.|work=The Guardian (London).|access-date=}}</ref>. The Major Roads Project Authority and the Australian government have continually “undermined land defenders and positioned Djap Wurrung people as against the interests of the rest of the population”<ref name=":18" />. Regardless of colonial violence, these trees are Djap Wurrung people's “inheritance”, directly tied to their ancestral territories<ref name=":18" />. Their survival and the Djap Wurrung fight to keep them alive and safe are a “cultural obligation" and an assertion of their sovereignty<ref name=":18" />.

Critical issues in this case study include ''land'', ''Indigenous'' ''sovereignty'' and ''consent''.
====== Land ======
[[File:Gumtree.jpg|thumb|A close up of gum tree bark.]]Australia is among “the most deforested countries in the world” and is a large emitter of greenhouse gasses<ref name=":17" />. With the removal of forests, Australia’s carbon sinks would decline<ref name=":17" />. According to Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018, there is a downward trend of remnant vegetation, of biodiversity, of forest health<ref name=":19">{{Cite web|url=https://www.ces.vic.gov.au/reports/state-environment-2018|title=Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018|last=|first=|date=2018|website=Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The state of Victoria’s environmental health is “poor and, despite much good work, the tools used to manage it are ineffective”<ref name=":17" />.

It remains common practice to offset vegetation lost by planting new vegetation, however, “you cannot meaningfully offset any habitat tree”<ref name=":17" />. As old-growth river red gum trees, up to 800 years old with girths of more than 7 metres and standing over 30 metres tall, the birthing trees “provide habitat and nutrients for dozens of mammals and birds, and thousands of insect species”<ref name=":17" /><ref name=":19" />. Nearly 3,000 trees would need to be destroyed to enlarge the highway <ref name=":17" />. As a result, the state of Victoria’s biodiversity and vegetation cover would significantly decrease.
[[File:Signvicroads.jpg|thumb|The Djap Wurrung community has a myriad of supporters across Australia, and beyond. This is one of the signs from the camp.]]
Additionally, the trees have been “culturally modified, with fire, creating small room[s] in the base of the trunk[s]...[where] thousands of Djab Wurrung babies have been born...within it. The placentas of those babies have been buried under the Directions Trees”<ref name=":17" />. Overall, with the highway widening, historical trees which are important to Indigenous groups would need to be cut down. This will cause cultural and environmental damage to the region’s Indigenous communities. The tradeoffs for expanding this highway are short term benefit for citizens to arrive at their destination quicker, but significant long term loss of cultural identity for the Djap Wurrung people<ref name=":17" />.

====== Indigenous Sovereignty ======
[[File:Aboriginalart.jpg|thumb|Before Indigenous Australian art was ever put onto canvas, people would smooth over the soil to draw sacred designs which belonged to that particular ceremony. This is still practiced today.

Aboriginal art demonstrates an interconnectedness between people and the land, and is practiced today as an act of sovereignty and self-determination.
]]
The Djap Wurrung people are the rightful Traditional Owners of the Country that MRVP has been attempting to construct upon<ref name=":14" />. The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability claims to “proudly [acknowledge] Victoria’s Aboriginal community...as Australia’s first peoples and as the Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we rely”<ref name=":19" />. They also claim to recognise and value “the ongoing contribution of Aboriginal people and communities...[and] embrace the spirit of reconciliation, working towards the equality of outcomes and ensuring an equal voice”<ref name=":19" />. Victoria’s government claims it wants to work on a treaty with Aboriginal Victorians to create Australia’s first treaty <ref name=":17" />. However, most of the treaty revolves around compensation, not actual solutions for environmental and spiritual concerns to conserve the trees<ref name=":17" />.

Despite these political claims, the government and police continue to allow contractors and workers to violate protocols surrounding birthing trees, neglecting Djap Wurrung culture, sovereignty and land rights. As Indigenous people who have lived on Country for thousands and thousands of generations, Djap Wurrung people are sovereign, and their Lore (cultural teachings, traditional knowledge, governance practices) surrounding the sacred birthing trees must be upheld and prioritized above the State governance of Victoria<ref name=":14" />.

====== Consent ======
[[File:Handsoffcountry.jpg|thumb|"Hands off Country".]]
The Australian government's actions indicate that it is “committed to working with Aboriginal Victorians who don’t get in the way”<ref name=":17" />. The MRVP has proven that there is greater enthusiasm for governance solutions that are “material (involving compensation, for example) rather than solutions that require meaningful engagement with spiritual or environmental concerns”<ref name=":17" />.

The area where the trees reside is "a place of sanctuary in which Djab Wurrung sovereignty has never been ceded”<ref name=":16" />. The Djap Wurrung have a right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It allows them to “give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories….Once they have given their consent, they can withdraw it at any stage”<ref name=":20">{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/our-pillars/fpic/en/|title=Free, Prior and Informed Consent.|last=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)|first=|date=|website=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. FPIC also enables Djap Wurrung people to “negotiate the conditions under which the project will be designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated”<ref name=":20" />.

==Assessment==
[[File:Djap_Wurrung_Protests.jpg|thumb|338x338px|Djap Wurrung protesters sit out the front of the VicRoads office in Ararat.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/22/protesters-defend-sacred-800-year-old-djap-wurrung-trees-as-police-deadline-looms|title=Protesters defend sacred 800-year-old Djap Wurrung trees as police deadline looms|last=|first=|date=|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]
The asymmetrical power between the Australian Government and the Djap Wurrung is obvious. While there are plentiful historical records of European invasion and alterations of land use without asking for permission, this issue is ongoing. In this case, the culturally significant mother trees were removed by the government in order to build road. There were only a few families consulted before some of the sacred trees were removed <ref> Hayman-Reber, M. (2018, June 18). Removal of sacred Djap Wurrung trees an 'act of cultural terrorism'. NITV News. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/06/18/removal-sacred-djap-wurrung-trees-act-cultural-terrorism</nowiki></ref>.

Similar to many historical scenarios, the Australian government has dominating power over the Djap Wurrung community. The inconsiderate government actions can be easily justified by legislation, since legislation is formulated by the government authorities themselves. In the government’s perspective, construction actions on Djap Wurrung land is reasonable as long as it contributes to “progressive development”. Government power is employed in an imprudent manner without a proper evaluation of the consequences. What’s worse about this act is that the road building project had an alternative route that was arguably cheaper, safer, and more importantly without the destruction of the sacred trees . This implies that the government chooses to neglect the forests’ sacredness and any negative implications to Aboriginal groups, just because it is not their own culture at risk. This is not the only thing the government fails to grasp. They ignore the fact that Djap Wurrung territories were never ceded to federal control <ref name=":13" /> and the government did not ask for permission to be on their lands, which leads to the violation of Djap Wurrung’s rights and sovereignty. There should be more governance and negotiation on the Australian government's planning as well.

As Djap Wurrung’s responsibility of nurturing the trees has been more and more stripped away by VicRoads, they have resisted and fought against road construction. Given its profound effects, there is actually very few official studies that focus on this unfair incidence. They have gained global attention by self-broadcasting on social media platforms, and have only given a few interviews for news articles, as news can easily be manipulated by journalists or the government. The Djap Wurrung’s power is strengthened as more non-Aboriginal allies join to help resist encroachment. Their sovereignty could be respected if the Victorian government recognizes these damages to the land cannot be undone. The government should compensate the community and work towards including the Djap Wurrung in decision-making processes. Sadly, in reality, the Djap Wurrung camps set up by the community, activists and allies are still facing eviction. According to the Djap Wurrung, “no trees no treaty”; it is highly unlikely for them to sign any treaties with the government after the sacred trees’s removal. <ref name=":13" />

==Recommendations==
# It is well known that gathering places “encourage healing and wellbeing”, creating inclusive and empowering spaces<ref name=":21">{{Cite journal|last=Kingsley|first=Jonathan & Emily Munro-Harrison, Anne Jenkins, Alister Thorpe.|date=November 2018|title=“Here we
are part of a living culture”: Understanding the cultural determinants of health in
Aboriginal gathering places in Victoria, Australia.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.10.001|journal=Health & Place|volume=54|pages=210-220|via=}}</ref>. Cultural gathering places in particular provide a sense of place, especially for people who have been marginalized and affected by colonization<ref name=":21" />. In this case, the sacred trees are gathering places for women giving birth. The the land defender camp and Djap Wurrung community gatherings are also gathering places for both healing and resistance. '''''We recommend that these spaces be respected, and that the camp be allowed to remain as long as needed, as Djap Wurrung people continue to maintain their distinct connection to the land. No notices of eviction should be given to the members of the camp. No police, contractors or road workers should be allowed to access Djap Wurrung territory without free, prior, informed and ongoing consent. Negotiation processes should be respected and conducted on Djap Wurrung terms, led by Djap Wurrung community members rather than Australian government officials or companies. The right of the Djap Wurrung people to withdraw from any negotiated project must be respected.''''' [[File:People@camp.jpg|thumb|Community members, land defenders and allies at camp.]]
# The attempt to wipe out Djap Wurrung sacred places “must be seen as an attempt to wipe out their claim to them”, which serves to further dispossess Aboriginal peoples in Australia and “allow the state to continue its operations unhindered” by Aboriginal sovereignty<ref name=":18" />. '''''We recommend that Djap Wurrung knowledge be prioritized and adhered to in terms of the future of the trees that are on their territory, since Indigenous knowledge systems strengthen cultural identity, self-determination and ultimately health and wellbeing'''''<ref name=":21" />'''''.'''''
# Aboriginal women in Australia “collectively express a strong desire to maintain cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including birthing close to home and on their homelands, on Country<ref name=":22">{{Cite journal|last=Marriott|first=Rhonda & Tracy Reibel, Juli Coffin, Janinne Gliddon, Denese Griffin, Melanie Robinson, Anne-Marie Eades, Jade Maddox.|date=October, 2019|title=“Our culture, how it is to be us” — Listening to Aboriginal women about on Country urban birthing.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi. 2019.06.017|journal=Women and Birth|volume=32|pages=391-403|via=}}</ref>. Aboriginal birthing and elder women have “consistently reported ongoing cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including knowledge sharing across generations, family support, land-based rituals and practices, and “observance of extended family present at the time of or shortly after birth”; these practices are alive and well<ref name=":22" />. However, certain land-based birthing practices for Aboriginal women, including Djap Wurrung women, are at risk, as land continues to be developed and taken by the government for other purposes. The “inflexibility” of Australian health systems to meet the needs of Aboriginal women is unacceptable; Australian obstetricians, doctors, nurses and midwives “lack cultural awareness and understanding” of the importance of Aboriginal kinship and relationships with their territories<ref name=":22" />. Australia’s lack of progress towards providing a culturally secure environment for Indigenous populations is particularly evident in the area of childbirth<ref name=":23">{{Cite journal|last=Kildea|first=Sue & M. Wardaguga|date=August 3, 2009.|title=Childbirth in Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women.|url=https://link-springercom. ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-2599-9_26|journal=Childbirth Across Cultures|volume=|pages=pp 275-286.|via=}}</ref>. '''''We recommend that the Australian government pass specific laws, and hospitals create culturally-specific policies, that will address the rights of Aboriginal women to participate in cultural birthing practices, on their own terms, whether they are giving birth in a hospital, at home or on Country.''''' [[File:Birthtree2.jpg|thumb|"No Trees, No Treaty"]]
# Additionally, since Aboriginal women “regain culturally secure birthing practices when birth is brought back to the remote communities”<ref name=":22" /> where Aboriginal women are in charge of themselves and their own births, '''''we recommend that any areas identified as birthing spots on Country across Australia be rightfully returned to the communities to which they belong'''''. '''''We also recommend increased funding and educational opportunities for Aboriginal people who wish to work in health care, including obstetrics and maternity,''''' '''''in order to ensure that Aboriginal women who are giving birth in hospitals or urban settings are provided with access to Aboriginal care providers.'''''

'''Created by:'''

Zoe Li ''(Conservation Science)''

Hannah Stanley ''(Political Science, First Nations & Indigenous Studies)''

Gabriel Wan ''(Urban Forestry)''

==References==
<references/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/july/1561989600/sophie-cunningham/djab-wurrung-birthing-tree#mtr|title=The Djab Wurrung Birthing Tree|last=Cunningham|first=Sophie|date=July 2019|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=April 20, 2020}}</ref>
<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/tragic-absurdity-on-the-western-highway|title=Tragic absurdity on the Western Highway|last=Lay|first=Bronwyn|date=August 23, 2019|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=April 19, 2020}}</ref>
<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com/why-we-are-here/|title=Why we are here|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=April 20, 2020}}</ref>

{{Projectbox CONS370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:CONS370/Projects/Indigenous Djap Wurrung resistance and community responses to threats against sacred birthing trees in Australia

2020-04-24T02:04:30Z

GabrielWan: /* References */

[[File:Djap_Wurrung_trees_have_been_used_for_around_50_generations_as_a_place_for_local_Aboriginal_women_to_give_birth.jpg|thumb|More than 260 Djap Wurrung trees in western Victoria are due to be bulldozed to make way for a 12km duplication of the Western Highway. Protesters, some who have been camping at the site for more than a year, fear a standoff with police will come to a head.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/22/protesters-defend-sacred-800-year-old-djap-wurrung-trees-as-police-deadline-looms|title=Protesters defend sacred 800-year-old Djap Wurrung trees as police deadline looms|last=|first=|date=|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>|337x337px]]
=== Summary ===
The '''Djap Wurrung''' (also spelt Djabwurrung, Tjapwurrung,or Djapwarrung) people are Aboriginal Australians whose Country (territory) is the volcanic plains of central Victoria<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. Djap Wurrung Country ranges from the Mount William Range of Gariwerd in the west to the Pyrenees range in the east, encompassing the Wimmera River flowing north and the headwaters of the Hopkins River flowing south<ref name=":14" />. On Djap Wurrung Country, there are over 3,000 sacred birthing trees that are over 800 years old <ref name=":14" />. Over 50 generations have been born on these cultural sites<ref name=":14" />. <blockquote>"Those trees are a part of us. The history of those trees is what makes us Djab Wurrung women. The stories of birthing, the stories of cooking, the story of those trees being culturally modified over hundreds of years is incredible." - Djab Wurrung woman Lidia Thorpe<ref name=":15">{{Cite news|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/western-highway-tree-protesters-may-be-arrested-this-week/11420640|title=Victorian Premier issues Western Hwy protesters ultimatum over sacred tree stalemate|last=Johnson|first=S.|date=August 20, 2019|work=ABC Ballarat News|access-date=}}</ref></blockquote>[[File:Dwembassyposter.jpg|thumb|A poster created by the Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy and land defenders, calling for increased support and allies to attend the camp.|380x380px]]The Victoria branch of the Australian Labor Party planned a four-lane highway extension alongside Major Road Projects of Victoria (MRVP), a division of Vic Roads (Roads Corporation of Victoria), that is set to destroy the landscape<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com/barking-up-the-wrong-tree/|title=Media Release: Barking Up The Wrong Tree.|last=Mahomet|first=Amanda|date=August 8, 2019|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The 12.5 kilometer construction project is called the ''Western Highway - Buangor to Ararat Project'' <ref name=":17">{{Cite news|url=https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/july/1561989600/sophie-cunningham/djab-wurrung-birthing-tree#mtr|title=The Djab Wurrung Birthing Tree|last=Cunningham|first=Sophie|date=July 19, 2019|work=The Monthly|access-date=}}</ref>.

In response, Djapp Wurrung community members Elder Aunty Sandra Onus and Zellanach Djab Mara set up the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy to prevent the destruction, with allies and activists<ref name=":15" />. The Embassy set up a camp on Country in June 2018 with the support of others opposing the project<ref name=":15" />. The community has taken “bold action thereby preventing work from starting and demanding the project is cancelled”.<ref name=":14" /> Though campaign is led by Djap Wurrung Traditional Owners, participants at the Camp include diverse groups of people.

Djab Wurrung people have suggested an alternative route “that would protect the sacred trees, and recommend that safety on the road can be maximised by lowering the speed limit”<ref name=":16" />. However, the government has refused to consider this alternative route.

On August 8th, 2019, 14 months after the peaceful camp blockade was set up on Country, police issued the Traditional Owners at the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy an eviction notice, “giving the Djab Wurrung people 14 days to vacate their sacred landscape to make way for the Western Highway duplication”<ref name=":16" />. The eviction notice was directed to police by Daniel Andrews, 48th Premier of Victoria since 2014 and state leader of the Australian Labor Party since 2010<ref name=":16" />.

Throughout 2019, Major Road Projects Victoria (MRVP) and their workers continued to have a presence on the land without the consent of the Djap Wurrung people and Embassy. Contractors conducting surveying works “continued to flout mandatory stop work periods” while Djab Wurrung Traditional Owners awaited mediation with MRPV<ref name=":16" />. Sovereign Djab Wurrung land protectors and their supporters had to continually escort workers off the land. [[File:Signsatcamp.jpg|thumb|Djap Wurrung Embassy Camp|334x334px]]<blockquote>''“Violation is the only appropriate word for these actions, as Djab Wurrung women and their supporters were forced to place themselves in the way of the contractors to protect the sacred birthing tree and a camp that has been a haven for women, gender diverse people and young children....The Djab Wurrung women continued to hold the space in the face of rising aggression and tension as the workers seemed determined to further intrude on the sacred landscape, approaching within metres of the sacred birthing tree and a culturally significant canoe tree.”'' <ref name=":14" /></blockquote>Legal action helped stall the project for months<ref name=":17" />. Mediation between the Djap Wurrung people and MRVP commenced September 18th, 2019<ref name=":14" />. In late 2019, 3.8km stretch of land was signed over to MRVP<ref name=":14" />. However, the camp continues to remain in place as of April 2020, and welcomes anyone to stay in an effort to protect old growth trees from being cut down during construction<ref name=":14" />. The Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy has posted and circulated a COVID-19 Health & Safety Protocol for all people planning on attending the camp.

'''COVID-19 Camp Protocol:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R7xeGf0zDipHKS2MtOUlXCDP1hW5Q3tqG3iEX1Is3r0/mobilebasic <ref name=":14" />.

'''How to Support the Djap Wurrung Embassy:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-GTkdfwZDfvW26yvRuOMmx4p4hM73Im5dxk-GMElSJI/edit?fbclid=IwAR3ReWqpal5cBZ0DlSFQv63D1smoa3-_cHKPjUX_bq3yqu1YA0leP9tQ9FU <ref name=":14" />.

==Description==
=====Colonialism in Australia=====

Australia's first recorded European contact was with the British navigator, Captain James Cook when he encountered the eastern coastline of Australia in 1770. <ref>(Cook, J. (1770) wiki "Cook's Journal: Daily Entries, 22 April 1770". Retrieved from http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700422.html)</ref> Later on, Cook claimed his discovery as a possession of the British Crown, which enabled the establishment of a new British colony in the Southern globe. The aim of colonization is to alleviate overpopulation in prison and expand the British Empire and its power through the acquirement of land. <ref name=":0">Australians together. (n.d) Colonisation.(Website) Retrived from https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation/#colonisationreference2</ref> Eight years after its initial discovery, the first fleet with convicts, marines and civilians arrived at Sydney Cove in 1788 for a penal settlement. After, European settlement spread as new colonies were established across the nation. Here are the few of the many regions that were significantly influenced by colonization.<ref name=":0" />
[[File:Territorial_History_of_Australia.jpg|thumb|381x381px|The development of the country's internal and external borders over time.]]

✓ Van Diemen’s Land, today’s Tasmania

✓ Port Phillip District, in what is now Victoria

✓ Moreton Bay, near Brisbane

✓ Adelaide, in South Australia

Cook’s discovery is recent in comparison to 60,000 years of development of more than 500 Aboriginal Nations, and their cultures, who existed at the time. <ref name=":1">Behrendt, 2013</ref>The Australian Indigenous community consisted of both the Aboriginal Nations and the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders have also coexisted in the land for more than 5,000 years. Unfortunately, these traditional custodians of the land suffered from immense social crisis due to European settlement. <ref name=":1" /> According to estimates, the “full-blood” Aboriginal population decreased by 96% from one million in 1788 to the remaining 58,000 in 1920s <ref name=":2">Harris, John.(2003). Aboriginal History, Vol. 27“Hiding the Bodies, the myth of humane colonization of Australia” https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73641/pdf/book.pdf</ref>. Although some disagree with the accuracy of this calculation by arguing it is an exaggeration, there is more than enough evidence to support the drastic decline in Aboriginal population between the 19th and early 20th century. <ref name=":2" />

[[File:Aboriginal attack Lake Hope.jpg|thumb|237x237px|New South Wales Mounted Police engaging Indigenous Australians during the Waterloo Creek Massacre of 1838. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C174087|title=Mounted police and blacks|last=W.Walton after Louisa and Godfrey Charles Mundy|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]

=====The Devastating Genocide=====

Lack of immunity against epidemics such as smallpox, influenza or measles that were introduced by the European’s arrival was one source of the large number of deaths amongst the Indigenous communities. According to Arthur Phillip, Captain of the first fleet, smallpox was responsible for killing half of the Indigenous population in Sydney within the first fourteen months of their arrival. <ref name=":0" /><ref>Bladen, F. M. (1892). ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (Vol. 1). C. Potter.</ref>

In addition to the threats to physiological health, intentional damages were a source of death and destruction. These damages included culture assimilation, acquisition of Indigenous land, sexual exploitation, physical abuse, and massacres of Indigenous communities; leading to the unfortunate reduction in Indigenous populations and tragic cultural genocide. Friction between the Europeans and the Natives was inevitable because of the long-term competition for resources and difference in lifestyles.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/colonial|title=Colonial period, 1788–1901|last=|first=|date=|website=Australian War Memorial|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Some consider colonization as a process of “introducing the superior western civilization” and believe that Aboriginal people were “doomed to extinction”;they omit the gruesome truth . The convenient assumption that “Aboriginal race extinction was irreversible” has made many felt exonerated from the unjust violence.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:Dovey-Mapping-Massacres.jpg|thumb|236x236px|A multimedia project led by the the Indigenous Australian artist is among the initiatives seeking to map the numerous sites where colonists massacred Aboriginal people]]
One of the most unsuccessful British settlements was undeniably in Van Diemen’s Land, also known Tasmania today. <ref name=":1" /> In 1803, British created an outpost on the Van Diemen’s Land. In the following year, evidence recorded 60 murders of Aborigines, possible when they were approaching the town. <ref>Elder, B. (2003). ''Blood on the wattle: Massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788''. Sydney: New Holland.</ref> In addition to disease, dispossession and intermarriage, the collapse of Aboriginal communities was also a result of the Black War. From 1824 to 1831 In 1830, an armed group known as the “Black Line” was ordered to remove tribes in Big River and Oyster Bay by Sir George Arthur. <ref>Kenyon, S.(1928) .''The Victorian Historical Magazine'',; J. Fenton, ''A History of Tasmania''; ''Historical Records of Australia'', ser. I, vols. XIX to XXII and XXVI; Kenyon Records at Public Library, Melbourne.</ref>The Black Line failed to remove all tribes from their settled district, indicating the Aboriginal resistance. In spite of the effort to resist, Aboriginal population of Tasmania sharply dropped from thousands to a few hundreds. <ref>Boyce, J. (2006). The Companion to Tasmanian History. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/F/Fabrication.html</nowiki></ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Colonisation|title=History of Australia, Colonisation|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The frontier war continued at the Wimmera, Victoria and caused more deaths in the late 1840s. <ref>Broome, Richard (1988). "''The Struggle for Australia : Aboriginal-European Warfare, 1770–1930''". In McKernan, Michael; Browne, Margaret; Australian War Memorial (eds.). ''Australia Two Centuries of War & Peace''. Canberra, A.C.T.: Australian War Memorial in association with Allen and Unwin, Australia. pp. 92–120. <nowiki>ISBN 0-642-99502-8</nowiki>.</ref>The Myall Creek massacre in New South Wales exemplified similar conflict in other parts of Australia as well. If one really pays attention to the timeline for the devastating century, they would notice that massacres took place frequently until 1928 and many were killed just for resisting. (Behrendt, 2013)<ref name=":1" />

=====Historical Interpretations=====
[[File:The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier.jpg|thumb|The Cover Page of Henry Reynolds work|274x274px]]
In his ground-breaking work on Aboriginal studies, “The Other Side of the Frontier<nowiki>''</nowiki>, Henry Reynolds provides historical context through nuanced delineation of interactions between Indigenous communities and the Europeans. The presentation of Indigenous values is strongly focused on their respect for the land and natural resources. His work also sheds light upon the Aboriginal resistance against British conquest, enabling many to realize the inseparable community-led resistance intertwined with settler-colonial history. <ref name=":6">Reynolds, H. (2006). ''The other side of the frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia''. UNSW Press.</ref> By introducing the Indigenous lifestyles, cultures and conflicts with British, many topics avoided by previous literatures are mentioned and reinvestigated. Diction such as “invasion” is in juxtaposition with prior sources’ use of “settlement” .<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2393483.The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier|title=The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia by Henry Reynolds.|last=|first=|date=|website=Goodreads.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The discussion of Frontal War on VanDiemen’s Land put an emphasis on the “black” sides .<ref name=":6" /> Reynolds claims that the intention is not to make the audience simply regard Aboriginal people as victims, but his work did provide reasons for people to commemorate the sacrifices of the Frontier War. <ref name=":7" />Aside from Henry Reynolds, other historians such as Lyndall Ryan and Charles Rowley also recorded notorious atrocities against the Aboriginal communities during colonization. <ref name=":8">Windschuttle, K. (2003). The fabrication of Aboriginal history. ''Sydney Papers, The'', ''15''(1), 20.</ref>

Though many historians recognize the suffering of Aboriginal communities, there are opposing voices that doubt the validity of these works. Keith Windschuttle, a primary antagonizing historian, questions the evidence used in Reynolds and Ryan’s work and attacks almost all their opinions <ref name=":6" />. In ''The fabrication of Aboriginal history,'' Windschuttle explicitly claimed that the Aboriginal death numbers are “an amplification of the actual situation”. Ironically, when he accused Renolds and Ryan’s work of not using enough evidence, his own arguments are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and other unreliable sources.<ref name=":8" />Some of his opinions such as claiming that the skeletons near burial sites were kangaroos lacked support and could be extremely misleading. Unlike mainstream historians, Windschuttle believes the violence and extermination of the Aborigines can be justified if the British settlement was resisted. <ref name=":8" /> Even Windschuttle himself recognizes the inhumane attacks on the Van Diemen’s Land is responsible for the Aborigines’ extinction.<ref name=":8" /> Many other historians criticize Windschuttle for his failure to grasp the point. Many investigations regarding Aboriginal communities are not about the actual deaths or magnitude but about how European colonization has continually been destructive towards Aboriginal communities. Overall, the Aboriginal deaths from early settlement and resistance efforts may even be greater than the current records, we may not recognize the exact casualties given that many tribes did not use the same systems to record history . Like John Harris argues, “history tends to be written from the perspective of the powerful” .<ref name=":2" /> In this case, the European government who had more control over words recreated history from their own side rather than the Indigenous societies. Therefore, those who have more power in literature should be more considerate of both parties if they aim to publish unbiased work.

=====The Djap Wurrung=====
[[File:Map Victoria Aboriginal tribes (colourmap).jpg|thumb|Map of Victorian Aboriginal Territories categorized by tribes and language groups ]]
The Djap Wurrung’s, also known as the Djapwurrung or Tjapwurrung, presence on their land can be traced back to 40,000 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djab_wurrung|title=Djap Wurrung|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Today, the Djap Wurrung land spreads over 7,000 km2, from Mount Rouse to Hamilton. <ref name=":3">Tindale, Norman Barnett (1974). "Tjapwurong (VIC)". ''Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Australian National University Press. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-708-10741-6</nowiki>.''</ref> The Djap Wurrung societies are composed of at least eleven bands, following two different matrilineal systems (Tindale, 1974).<ref name=":3" /> Their lifestyle is partially hunting and gathering, but there is also evidence of agriculture practices. Some aboriginal activists’ theories suggest that the traditional ball-kicking Aboriginal game initiated within the Wimmera tribe has inspired contemporary Australian football and the formation of its rules. <ref>Dawson, James (1881). ''Australian Aborigines: The Languages and Customs of Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia'' (PDF). Melbourne: George Robertson.</ref>Trees have intrinsic spiritual meanings in the Djap Wurrung culture.<ref name=":4">Richards, Thomas; Bennett, Catherine M; Webber, Harry (2013). "A post-contact Aboriginal mortuary tree from southwestern Victoria, Australia". ''Journal of Field Archaeology''. '''37''' (1): 62–72. doi:10.1179/0093469011z.0000000005.</ref> Births are witnessed by these trees and those who have passed on are buried near the trees. <ref name=":4" />

European settlement has made a great impact on the Djap Wurrung Nation. The first contact was marked in 1836, when the invasion began. <ref name=":5">Clark, Ian D. (1995). ''Scars in the Landscape: a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803–1859'' (PDF). AIATSIS. pp. 57–84. <nowiki>ISBN 0 85575 281 5</nowiki>.</ref> The resistance against European invasion included stealing sheep and driving off, while the settlers broke this resistance with massacre. By 1842, there were at least 35 reports of massacres, however very little of these developed into court investigations against the settlers. <ref name=":5" /> By 1841, some of the tribes were put into reserves and resistance to European invasion increased. According to estimates, the Djap Wurrung population shrunk from 2,050 to 615 (Mallet, 2002). About three quarters of the population pre-contact vanished due to disease, massacres, poison and starvation. <ref>Mallett, Ashley (2002). ''The Black Lords of Summer: The Story of the 1868 Aboriginal Tour of England and Beyond''. University of Queensland Press. pp. 169–175. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-702-23262-6</nowiki>.</ref> Later on, Djap Wurrung land also attracted large numbers of Europeans and Chinese that wanted to search for gold. <ref name=":5" />

=====Aboriginal People Today=====
Today, there are 250 unique language groups within the continent of Australia and only about three percent of Australian population claims Aboriginal heritage. <ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/aboriginal-australians/|title=Aboriginal Australians|last=Blakemore|first=Erin|authorlink=|date=|website=National Geographic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> In comparison to the existence of more than 500 nations before British colonization, this is a drastic decline. Though separated from their traditional land, confronting massacres and being exposed to diseases, the Indigenous communities are still resistant and adaptive to changes .<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":9" />[[File:Proceedings-Aborigines-Kevin-Rudd-Galiwnku-Island-peoples-February-2008.jpg|thumb|Aboriginal tribes from the Galiwnku Island gathering to watch the proceeding of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to apologize for the former Aboriginal mistreatments under the Australian governments. This apology only took place in 2008.|291x291px]]Contemporary Indigenous people live across urban, rural and remote areas of Australia.Many Federal laws explicitly discriminate against the Aboriginals, for example the Mental Deficiency Bill passed in 1939 which identified “inefficient groups”, including the “slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, and of course aboriginal people” .<ref name=":10">Tarpey-Brown, F. (2019). Glimpsing Cracks in the Present: Acts of Utopian Desire and Resistance at Gezi Park and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Studies in Arts and Humanities, 5(1), 67-76</ref> Though this Bill was soon abolished for serious racial discrimination, the earliest Federal law that applied to Aboriginal Australian’s rights was not passed until 1967. <ref name=":9" />. Even as recent as 1972, the Prime Minister still denied all Aboriginal land rights publicly in his national speech, as he considered Aboriginal land-use to be inefficient economically and socially. <ref name=":10" />

Major struggles for Aboriginal communities still involve the retainment of cultural heritage, loss of identity, as well as government recognition. The State of Victoria proposed a treaty with the Aboriginal population that recognizes Aboriginal sovereignty and provides compensation. Unfortunately, this is only a proposal and there have not been nation-wide treaty in Australia either, therefore making Australia as the only country that have not signed an authorized treaty with Indigenous peoples in the British Commonwealth. <ref name=":9" />

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a formal apology for the profound impact of colonization on Indigenous communities and recognized former mistreatments in the 2008 Federal Government Parliament. <ref name=":11">Tonkinson, R., & Berndt, R. M. (2018, April 19).Aboriginal Peoples In Australian Society. ''Encyclopeedia Britannica. '' Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Aboriginal-peoples-in-Australian-society</nowiki></ref> In the 1990’s, the agenda of “reconciliation” became clear, however, there have been limited actions taken or changes made regarding issues that Indigenous communities face. According to statistics, many Indigenous peoples are still disadvantaged in health, education and employment, however there are successful examples of those who overcome these barriers (Tokinson et al., 2018). The effective means include increased schooling and literacy as well as medical services training. <ref name=":1" /> The work of Aboriginal activists has also achieved some extent public approval and engagement with the non-Aboriginal communities, accompanied with increasing non-Aboriginal empathy towards heartbreaking mistreatment towards Aboriginal Australians, and a fascination to explore more about their diverse cultures. <ref name=":11" />
==Tenure arrangements==
The tenure of the Djap Wurrung community is customary. There is no legal document which declares their sovereignty to the land on the Western Highway and surrounding areas. However, the Djap Wurrung people describe themselves as the Traditional Owners (Why we are here, n.d). After the land belonging to the Djap Wurrung community was colonized by early settlers, their control of the land was increasingly lost. This also applies to many other Indigenous communities in Australia and around the world. Since the Djap Wurrung community is not recognized by the government as the owners of the land through legislation, there is no freehold or leasehold ownership. Presently, the official owner of the land is the Australian government (Why we are here, n.d). However, Indigenous communities throughout Australia, like the Djap Wurrung people, are fighting for their sovereignty, land rights and the retention of culturally significant areas.

==Administrative arrangements==
The Djap Wurrung Embassy have declared their sovereignty and “as survivors...will not concede [their] land rights” <ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Protect Sacred Trees. Save 80,000 years of culture.|last=|first=|date=|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The Aboriginal Heritage Act in 2006 promises to appropriately protect and manage the areas around the Western Highway. <ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-cultural-heritage-management-plan-western-highway-duplication|title=Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan Western Highway Duplication|last=Kanoa|first=Tim|date=|website=aboriginalvictoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Therefore, it is government’s duty to provide protection. This Act also provide the rules for management, as it must respect Aboriginal self-determination, and recognize Aboriginal communities as the Traditional Owners and primary guardians. <ref name=":12" />This Act establishes the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC), which is responsible for appointing Registered Aboriginal Parties and provides suggestions for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that applies rules to the entire state. <ref name=":12" />By working together with local Aboriginal groups, the VAHC can have an exhaustive assessment of the Act . If the Elders of Djap Wurrung are not satisfied with the cultural heritage protection, they can choose to report back to the Victorian Aboriginal Council that is responsible for monitoring protection. <ref name=":12" />.Reconciliation and full consent is necessary prior to any outsiders’ acts. In addition, this act also addresses that the Djap Wurrung have their own right to decide who can represent their cultural heritage. <ref name=":12" />

==Affected Stakeholders==
The Djap Wurrung people are the primary affected stakeholders in the community. They have been oppressed by the government for over 230 years (Lay, 2019). Their main objectives are to protect the birthing trees which will be cut down to build an extension of the Western Highway. This project is known as project 2b. Some of these birthing trees had already been removed to build section 2a of the highway<ref name=":17" />. The birthing trees removed by the Australian government are culturally significant to the community as these trees have been directly connected to their ancestral territory. As they fight to keep these birthing trees alive, it is a symbol of the declaration of their sovereignty to the land.
[[File:Treetree.jpg|thumb|Women have given birth in the hollows of these trees for generations.]]
These birthing trees are where Aboriginal women give birth traditionally. Women would give birth by squatting against the trees during the final stages of birth. The baby would come out onto the paperbark. After birth, the baby comes in contact with the spirit of the land and establishes a relationship with the land<ref name=":23" />. Birthing trees are also a cultural gathering place, where Indingenous peoples can feel accepted after their rights and territory had been taken away from them through colonization<ref name=":21" />. As we learn how these trees are used by the Djap Wurrung and their cultural importance, we understand why they are affected stakeholders.

The Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy is also an affected stakeholder as they are an organization which was established to protect the sacred trees on the Western Highway. Although the leaders of this organization are Djap Wurrung traditional owners of the land, many non-Indigenous people have voiced their support for the Embassy. They recognize the connections between Indigenous communities and nature for generations in the region. They also realize the sovereignty to the land of the Aboriginal group and how they have been treated by the Australian government over generations.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
The Australian government and the Major Roads Project Authority are the primary interested stakeholders outside of the community. They would like to remove the Djap Wurrung birthing trees on the Western Highway. This project is known as the Western Highway Project. The section 2a of the highway had already been built, with strong public backlash. The estimate of trees to be removed was 221 trees to construct the highway. However, this number was significantly underestimated as the actual number of trees removed to construct 2a was 1350. A project to build the extension of the highway, 12.5 kilometers long, is known as section 2b. 260 culturally significant trees are under threat of being removed to make way for the highway. The state of Victoria’s government plans to work with Aboriginal locals through providing only monetary compensation but do not have any intentions to save the birthing trees, a fundamental aspect of the Djap Wurrung community (Cunningham, 2019).

A new proposed route which served the same purpose would have been more cost effective and safer than the removal of these culturally significant trees. This new route would require drivers to drive for two extra minutes to reach their destination (Hayman-Reber, 2018). The state of Victoria did not put in much effort to consider this new route or look at other alternatives to keep these birthing trees alive. They describe the Western Highway as “one of Victoria’s key trade routes, providing a link between the region’s primary producers with Melbourne’s domestic and export markets” (Cunningham, 2019). Through this, we see that the government does not have any of these Indigenous communities’ interests in mind. The convenience of drivers is more important than the cultural importance of these birthing trees to the Djap Wurrung community. The attempt for the Australian government to wipe out the trees is a symbol of their attempt to remove any claim of territory by the Djap Wurrung community.

==Discussion==
The intention of our case study is to spread knowledge about Djap Wurrung land management, community forestry and resistance in relation to threats against sacred birthing trees. We want to bring awareness to a current, ongoing dispute about a sacred grove of trees within a settler-state where no substantial treaty has been entered into between the government of Australia and the Indigenous people of Australia. We aim to demonstrate the strength and determination of the Djap Wurrung community, as land defenders and activists who put their own lives at risk in order to protect the sacred birthing trees. We also aim to highlight the important connections between birthing practices and the land.

Despite ongoing colonization, which presents itself through land theft, pollution, development and unsustainable farming and forestry practices, sacred places still exist. Cultural sites where the Djap Wurrung birthing trees live are alive and apart of an interconnected web of relationships that span across generations<ref name=":18">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/12/the-government-wants-to-bulldoze-my-inheritance-800-year-old-sacred-trees|title=“The government wants to bulldoze my inheritance: 800 year-old-sacred trees;
To sit in a tree that saw your people birthed, massacred, and now resist is a feeling that
the English language will never be able to capture”|last=Gorrie|first=Nayuka|date=April 12, 2019.|work=The Guardian (London).|access-date=}}</ref>. The Major Roads Project Authority and the Australian government have continually “undermined land defenders and positioned Djap Wurrung people as against the interests of the rest of the population”<ref name=":18" />. Regardless of colonial violence, these trees are Djap Wurrung people's “inheritance”, directly tied to their ancestral territories<ref name=":18" />. Their survival and the Djap Wurrung fight to keep them alive and safe are a “cultural obligation" and an assertion of their sovereignty<ref name=":18" />.

Critical issues in this case study include ''land'', ''Indigenous'' ''sovereignty'' and ''consent''.
====== Land ======
[[File:Gumtree.jpg|thumb|A close up of gum tree bark.]]Australia is among “the most deforested countries in the world” and is a large emitter of greenhouse gasses<ref name=":17" />. With the removal of forests, Australia’s carbon sinks would decline<ref name=":17" />. According to Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018, there is a downward trend of remnant vegetation, of biodiversity, of forest health<ref name=":19">{{Cite web|url=https://www.ces.vic.gov.au/reports/state-environment-2018|title=Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018|last=|first=|date=2018|website=Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The state of Victoria’s environmental health is “poor and, despite much good work, the tools used to manage it are ineffective”<ref name=":17" />.

It remains common practice to offset vegetation lost by planting new vegetation, however, “you cannot meaningfully offset any habitat tree”<ref name=":17" />. As old-growth river red gum trees, up to 800 years old with girths of more than 7 metres and standing over 30 metres tall, the birthing trees “provide habitat and nutrients for dozens of mammals and birds, and thousands of insect species”<ref name=":17" /><ref name=":19" />. Nearly 3,000 trees would need to be destroyed to enlarge the highway <ref name=":17" />. As a result, the state of Victoria’s biodiversity and vegetation cover would significantly decrease.
[[File:Signvicroads.jpg|thumb|The Djap Wurrung community has a myriad of supporters across Australia, and beyond. This is one of the signs from the camp.]]
Additionally, the trees have been “culturally modified, with fire, creating small room[s] in the base of the trunk[s]...[where] thousands of Djab Wurrung babies have been born...within it. The placentas of those babies have been buried under the Directions Trees”<ref name=":17" />. Overall, with the highway widening, historical trees which are important to Indigenous groups would need to be cut down. This will cause cultural and environmental damage to the region’s Indigenous communities. The tradeoffs for expanding this highway are short term benefit for citizens to arrive at their destination quicker, but significant long term loss of cultural identity for the Djap Wurrung people<ref name=":17" />.

====== Indigenous Sovereignty ======
[[File:Aboriginalart.jpg|thumb|Before Indigenous Australian art was ever put onto canvas, people would smooth over the soil to draw sacred designs which belonged to that particular ceremony. This is still practiced today.

Aboriginal art demonstrates an interconnectedness between people and the land, and is practiced today as an act of sovereignty and self-determination.
]]
The Djap Wurrung people are the rightful Traditional Owners of the Country that MRVP has been attempting to construct upon<ref name=":14" />. The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability claims to “proudly [acknowledge] Victoria’s Aboriginal community...as Australia’s first peoples and as the Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we rely”<ref name=":19" />. They also claim to recognise and value “the ongoing contribution of Aboriginal people and communities...[and] embrace the spirit of reconciliation, working towards the equality of outcomes and ensuring an equal voice”<ref name=":19" />. Victoria’s government claims it wants to work on a treaty with Aboriginal Victorians to create Australia’s first treaty <ref name=":17" />. However, most of the treaty revolves around compensation, not actual solutions for environmental and spiritual concerns to conserve the trees<ref name=":17" />.

Despite these political claims, the government and police continue to allow contractors and workers to violate protocols surrounding birthing trees, neglecting Djap Wurrung culture, sovereignty and land rights. As Indigenous people who have lived on Country for thousands and thousands of generations, Djap Wurrung people are sovereign, and their Lore (cultural teachings, traditional knowledge, governance practices) surrounding the sacred birthing trees must be upheld and prioritized above the State governance of Victoria<ref name=":14" />.

====== Consent ======
[[File:Handsoffcountry.jpg|thumb|"Hands off Country".]]
The Australian government's actions indicate that it is “committed to working with Aboriginal Victorians who don’t get in the way”<ref name=":17" />. The MRVP has proven that there is greater enthusiasm for governance solutions that are “material (involving compensation, for example) rather than solutions that require meaningful engagement with spiritual or environmental concerns”<ref name=":17" />.

The area where the trees reside is "a place of sanctuary in which Djab Wurrung sovereignty has never been ceded”<ref name=":16" />. The Djap Wurrung have a right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It allows them to “give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories….Once they have given their consent, they can withdraw it at any stage”<ref name=":20">{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/our-pillars/fpic/en/|title=Free, Prior and Informed Consent.|last=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)|first=|date=|website=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. FPIC also enables Djap Wurrung people to “negotiate the conditions under which the project will be designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated”<ref name=":20" />.

==Assessment==
[[File:Djap_Wurrung_Protests.jpg|thumb|338x338px|Djap Wurrung protesters sit out the front of the VicRoads office in Ararat.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/22/protesters-defend-sacred-800-year-old-djap-wurrung-trees-as-police-deadline-looms|title=Protesters defend sacred 800-year-old Djap Wurrung trees as police deadline looms|last=|first=|date=|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]
The asymmetrical power between the Australian Government and the Djap Wurrung is obvious. While there are plentiful historical records of European invasion and alterations of land use without asking for permission, this issue is ongoing. In this case, the culturally significant mother trees were removed by the government in order to build road. There were only a few families consulted before some of the sacred trees were removed <ref> Hayman-Reber, M. (2018, June 18). Removal of sacred Djap Wurrung trees an 'act of cultural terrorism'. NITV News. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/06/18/removal-sacred-djap-wurrung-trees-act-cultural-terrorism</nowiki></ref>.

Similar to many historical scenarios, the Australian government has dominating power over the Djap Wurrung community. The inconsiderate government actions can be easily justified by legislation, since legislation is formulated by the government authorities themselves. In the government’s perspective, construction actions on Djap Wurrung land is reasonable as long as it contributes to “progressive development”. Government power is employed in an imprudent manner without a proper evaluation of the consequences. What’s worse about this act is that the road building project had an alternative route that was arguably cheaper, safer, and more importantly without the destruction of the sacred trees . This implies that the government chooses to neglect the forests’ sacredness and any negative implications to Aboriginal groups, just because it is not their own culture at risk. This is not the only thing the government fails to grasp. They ignore the fact that Djap Wurrung territories were never ceded to federal control <ref name=":13" /> and the government did not ask for permission to be on their lands, which leads to the violation of Djap Wurrung’s rights and sovereignty. There should be more governance and negotiation on the Australian government's planning as well.

As Djap Wurrung’s responsibility of nurturing the trees has been more and more stripped away by VicRoads, they have resisted and fought against road construction. Given its profound effects, there is actually very few official studies that focus on this unfair incidence. They have gained global attention by self-broadcasting on social media platforms, and have only given a few interviews for news articles, as news can easily be manipulated by journalists or the government. The Djap Wurrung’s power is strengthened as more non-Aboriginal allies join to help resist encroachment. Their sovereignty could be respected if the Victorian government recognizes these damages to the land cannot be undone. The government should compensate the community and work towards including the Djap Wurrung in decision-making processes. Sadly, in reality, the Djap Wurrung camps set up by the community, activists and allies are still facing eviction. According to the Djap Wurrung, “no trees no treaty”; it is highly unlikely for them to sign any treaties with the government after the sacred trees’s removal. <ref name=":13" />

==Recommendations==
# It is well known that gathering places “encourage healing and wellbeing”, creating inclusive and empowering spaces<ref name=":21">{{Cite journal|last=Kingsley|first=Jonathan & Emily Munro-Harrison, Anne Jenkins, Alister Thorpe.|date=November 2018|title=“Here we
are part of a living culture”: Understanding the cultural determinants of health in
Aboriginal gathering places in Victoria, Australia.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.10.001|journal=Health & Place|volume=54|pages=210-220|via=}}</ref>. Cultural gathering places in particular provide a sense of place, especially for people who have been marginalized and affected by colonization<ref name=":21" />. In this case, the sacred trees are gathering places for women giving birth. The the land defender camp and Djap Wurrung community gatherings are also gathering places for both healing and resistance. '''''We recommend that these spaces be respected, and that the camp be allowed to remain as long as needed, as Djap Wurrung people continue to maintain their distinct connection to the land. No notices of eviction should be given to the members of the camp. No police, contractors or road workers should be allowed to access Djap Wurrung territory without free, prior, informed and ongoing consent. Negotiation processes should be respected and conducted on Djap Wurrung terms, led by Djap Wurrung community members rather than Australian government officials or companies. The right of the Djap Wurrung people to withdraw from any negotiated project must be respected.''''' [[File:People@camp.jpg|thumb|Community members, land defenders and allies at camp.]]
# The attempt to wipe out Djap Wurrung sacred places “must be seen as an attempt to wipe out their claim to them”, which serves to further dispossess Aboriginal peoples in Australia and “allow the state to continue its operations unhindered” by Aboriginal sovereignty<ref name=":18" />. '''''We recommend that Djap Wurrung knowledge be prioritized and adhered to in terms of the future of the trees that are on their territory, since Indigenous knowledge systems strengthen cultural identity, self-determination and ultimately health and wellbeing'''''<ref name=":21" />'''''.'''''
# Aboriginal women in Australia “collectively express a strong desire to maintain cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including birthing close to home and on their homelands, on Country<ref name=":22">{{Cite journal|last=Marriott|first=Rhonda & Tracy Reibel, Juli Coffin, Janinne Gliddon, Denese Griffin, Melanie Robinson, Anne-Marie Eades, Jade Maddox.|date=October, 2019|title=“Our culture, how it is to be us” — Listening to Aboriginal women about on Country urban birthing.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi. 2019.06.017|journal=Women and Birth|volume=32|pages=391-403|via=}}</ref>. Aboriginal birthing and elder women have “consistently reported ongoing cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including knowledge sharing across generations, family support, land-based rituals and practices, and “observance of extended family present at the time of or shortly after birth”; these practices are alive and well<ref name=":22" />. However, certain land-based birthing practices for Aboriginal women, including Djap Wurrung women, are at risk, as land continues to be developed and taken by the government for other purposes. The “inflexibility” of Australian health systems to meet the needs of Aboriginal women is unacceptable; Australian obstetricians, doctors, nurses and midwives “lack cultural awareness and understanding” of the importance of Aboriginal kinship and relationships with their territories<ref name=":22" />. Australia’s lack of progress towards providing a culturally secure environment for Indigenous populations is particularly evident in the area of childbirth<ref name=":23">{{Cite journal|last=Kildea|first=Sue & M. Wardaguga|date=August 3, 2009.|title=Childbirth in Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women.|url=https://link-springercom. ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-2599-9_26|journal=Childbirth Across Cultures|volume=|pages=pp 275-286.|via=}}</ref>. '''''We recommend that the Australian government pass specific laws, and hospitals create culturally-specific policies, that will address the rights of Aboriginal women to participate in cultural birthing practices, on their own terms, whether they are giving birth in a hospital, at home or on Country.''''' [[File:Birthtree2.jpg|thumb|"No Trees, No Treaty"]]
# Additionally, since Aboriginal women “regain culturally secure birthing practices when birth is brought back to the remote communities”<ref name=":22" /> where Aboriginal women are in charge of themselves and their own births, '''''we recommend that any areas identified as birthing spots on Country across Australia be rightfully returned to the communities to which they belong'''''. '''''We also recommend increased funding and educational opportunities for Aboriginal people who wish to work in health care, including obstetrics and maternity,''''' '''''in order to ensure that Aboriginal women who are giving birth in hospitals or urban settings are provided with access to Aboriginal care providers.'''''

'''Created by:'''

Zoe Li ''(Conservation Science)''

Hannah Stanley ''(Political Science, First Nations & Indigenous Studies)''

Gabriel Wan ''(Urban Forestry)''

==References==
<references/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/tragic-absurdity-on-the-western-highway|title=Tragic absurdity on the Western Highway|last=Lay|first=Bronwyn|date=August 23, 2019|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=April 19, 2020}}</ref>
<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com/why-we-are-here/|title=Why we are here|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=April 20, 2020}}</ref>

{{Projectbox CONS370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:CONS370/Projects/Indigenous Djap Wurrung resistance and community responses to threats against sacred birthing trees in Australia

2020-04-24T01:57:36Z

GabrielWan: /* References */

[[File:Djap_Wurrung_trees_have_been_used_for_around_50_generations_as_a_place_for_local_Aboriginal_women_to_give_birth.jpg|thumb|More than 260 Djap Wurrung trees in western Victoria are due to be bulldozed to make way for a 12km duplication of the Western Highway. Protesters, some who have been camping at the site for more than a year, fear a standoff with police will come to a head.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/22/protesters-defend-sacred-800-year-old-djap-wurrung-trees-as-police-deadline-looms|title=Protesters defend sacred 800-year-old Djap Wurrung trees as police deadline looms|last=|first=|date=|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>|337x337px]]
=== Summary ===
The '''Djap Wurrung''' (also spelt Djabwurrung, Tjapwurrung,or Djapwarrung) people are Aboriginal Australians whose Country (territory) is the volcanic plains of central Victoria<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. Djap Wurrung Country ranges from the Mount William Range of Gariwerd in the west to the Pyrenees range in the east, encompassing the Wimmera River flowing north and the headwaters of the Hopkins River flowing south<ref name=":14" />. On Djap Wurrung Country, there are over 3,000 sacred birthing trees that are over 800 years old <ref name=":14" />. Over 50 generations have been born on these cultural sites<ref name=":14" />. <blockquote>"Those trees are a part of us. The history of those trees is what makes us Djab Wurrung women. The stories of birthing, the stories of cooking, the story of those trees being culturally modified over hundreds of years is incredible." - Djab Wurrung woman Lidia Thorpe<ref name=":15">{{Cite news|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/western-highway-tree-protesters-may-be-arrested-this-week/11420640|title=Victorian Premier issues Western Hwy protesters ultimatum over sacred tree stalemate|last=Johnson|first=S.|date=August 20, 2019|work=ABC Ballarat News|access-date=}}</ref></blockquote>[[File:Dwembassyposter.jpg|thumb|A poster created by the Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy and land defenders, calling for increased support and allies to attend the camp.|380x380px]]The Victoria branch of the Australian Labor Party planned a four-lane highway extension alongside Major Road Projects of Victoria (MRVP), a division of Vic Roads (Roads Corporation of Victoria), that is set to destroy the landscape<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com/barking-up-the-wrong-tree/|title=Media Release: Barking Up The Wrong Tree.|last=Mahomet|first=Amanda|date=August 8, 2019|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The 12.5 kilometer construction project is called the ''Western Highway - Buangor to Ararat Project'' <ref name=":17">{{Cite news|url=https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/july/1561989600/sophie-cunningham/djab-wurrung-birthing-tree#mtr|title=The Djab Wurrung Birthing Tree|last=Cunningham|first=Sophie|date=July 19, 2019|work=The Monthly|access-date=}}</ref>.

In response, Djapp Wurrung community members Elder Aunty Sandra Onus and Zellanach Djab Mara set up the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy to prevent the destruction, with allies and activists<ref name=":15" />. The Embassy set up a camp on Country in June 2018 with the support of others opposing the project<ref name=":15" />. The community has taken “bold action thereby preventing work from starting and demanding the project is cancelled”.<ref name=":14" /> Though campaign is led by Djap Wurrung Traditional Owners, participants at the Camp include diverse groups of people.

Djab Wurrung people have suggested an alternative route “that would protect the sacred trees, and recommend that safety on the road can be maximised by lowering the speed limit”<ref name=":16" />. However, the government has refused to consider this alternative route.

On August 8th, 2019, 14 months after the peaceful camp blockade was set up on Country, police issued the Traditional Owners at the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy an eviction notice, “giving the Djab Wurrung people 14 days to vacate their sacred landscape to make way for the Western Highway duplication”<ref name=":16" />. The eviction notice was directed to police by Daniel Andrews, 48th Premier of Victoria since 2014 and state leader of the Australian Labor Party since 2010<ref name=":16" />.

Throughout 2019, Major Road Projects Victoria (MRVP) and their workers continued to have a presence on the land without the consent of the Djap Wurrung people and Embassy. Contractors conducting surveying works “continued to flout mandatory stop work periods” while Djab Wurrung Traditional Owners awaited mediation with MRPV<ref name=":16" />. Sovereign Djab Wurrung land protectors and their supporters had to continually escort workers off the land. [[File:Signsatcamp.jpg|thumb|Djap Wurrung Embassy Camp|334x334px]]<blockquote>''“Violation is the only appropriate word for these actions, as Djab Wurrung women and their supporters were forced to place themselves in the way of the contractors to protect the sacred birthing tree and a camp that has been a haven for women, gender diverse people and young children....The Djab Wurrung women continued to hold the space in the face of rising aggression and tension as the workers seemed determined to further intrude on the sacred landscape, approaching within metres of the sacred birthing tree and a culturally significant canoe tree.”'' <ref name=":14" /></blockquote>Legal action helped stall the project for months<ref name=":17" />. Mediation between the Djap Wurrung people and MRVP commenced September 18th, 2019<ref name=":14" />. In late 2019, 3.8km stretch of land was signed over to MRVP<ref name=":14" />. However, the camp continues to remain in place as of April 2020, and welcomes anyone to stay in an effort to protect old growth trees from being cut down during construction<ref name=":14" />. The Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy has posted and circulated a COVID-19 Health & Safety Protocol for all people planning on attending the camp.

'''COVID-19 Camp Protocol:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R7xeGf0zDipHKS2MtOUlXCDP1hW5Q3tqG3iEX1Is3r0/mobilebasic <ref name=":14" />.

'''How to Support the Djap Wurrung Embassy:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-GTkdfwZDfvW26yvRuOMmx4p4hM73Im5dxk-GMElSJI/edit?fbclid=IwAR3ReWqpal5cBZ0DlSFQv63D1smoa3-_cHKPjUX_bq3yqu1YA0leP9tQ9FU <ref name=":14" />.

==Description==
=====Colonialism in Australia=====

Australia's first recorded European contact was with the British navigator, Captain James Cook when he encountered the eastern coastline of Australia in 1770. <ref>(Cook, J. (1770) wiki "Cook's Journal: Daily Entries, 22 April 1770". Retrieved from http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700422.html)</ref> Later on, Cook claimed his discovery as a possession of the British Crown, which enabled the establishment of a new British colony in the Southern globe. The aim of colonization is to alleviate overpopulation in prison and expand the British Empire and its power through the acquirement of land. <ref name=":0">Australians together. (n.d) Colonisation.(Website) Retrived from https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation/#colonisationreference2</ref> Eight years after its initial discovery, the first fleet with convicts, marines and civilians arrived at Sydney Cove in 1788 for a penal settlement. After, European settlement spread as new colonies were established across the nation. Here are the few of the many regions that were significantly influenced by colonization.<ref name=":0" />
[[File:Territorial_History_of_Australia.jpg|thumb|381x381px|The development of the country's internal and external borders over time.]]

✓ Van Diemen’s Land, today’s Tasmania

✓ Port Phillip District, in what is now Victoria

✓ Moreton Bay, near Brisbane

✓ Adelaide, in South Australia

Cook’s discovery is recent in comparison to 60,000 years of development of more than 500 Aboriginal Nations, and their cultures, who existed at the time. <ref name=":1">Behrendt, 2013</ref>The Australian Indigenous community consisted of both the Aboriginal Nations and the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders have also coexisted in the land for more than 5,000 years. Unfortunately, these traditional custodians of the land suffered from immense social crisis due to European settlement. <ref name=":1" /> According to estimates, the “full-blood” Aboriginal population decreased by 96% from one million in 1788 to the remaining 58,000 in 1920s <ref name=":2">Harris, John.(2003). Aboriginal History, Vol. 27“Hiding the Bodies, the myth of humane colonization of Australia” https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73641/pdf/book.pdf</ref>. Although some disagree with the accuracy of this calculation by arguing it is an exaggeration, there is more than enough evidence to support the drastic decline in Aboriginal population between the 19th and early 20th century. <ref name=":2" />

[[File:Aboriginal attack Lake Hope.jpg|thumb|237x237px|New South Wales Mounted Police engaging Indigenous Australians during the Waterloo Creek Massacre of 1838. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C174087|title=Mounted police and blacks|last=W.Walton after Louisa and Godfrey Charles Mundy|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]

=====The Devastating Genocide=====

Lack of immunity against epidemics such as smallpox, influenza or measles that were introduced by the European’s arrival was one source of the large number of deaths amongst the Indigenous communities. According to Arthur Phillip, Captain of the first fleet, smallpox was responsible for killing half of the Indigenous population in Sydney within the first fourteen months of their arrival. <ref name=":0" /><ref>Bladen, F. M. (1892). ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (Vol. 1). C. Potter.</ref>

In addition to the threats to physiological health, intentional damages were a source of death and destruction. These damages included culture assimilation, acquisition of Indigenous land, sexual exploitation, physical abuse, and massacres of Indigenous communities; leading to the unfortunate reduction in Indigenous populations and tragic cultural genocide. Friction between the Europeans and the Natives was inevitable because of the long-term competition for resources and difference in lifestyles.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/colonial|title=Colonial period, 1788–1901|last=|first=|date=|website=Australian War Memorial|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Some consider colonization as a process of “introducing the superior western civilization” and believe that Aboriginal people were “doomed to extinction”;they omit the gruesome truth . The convenient assumption that “Aboriginal race extinction was irreversible” has made many felt exonerated from the unjust violence.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:Dovey-Mapping-Massacres.jpg|thumb|236x236px|A multimedia project led by the the Indigenous Australian artist is among the initiatives seeking to map the numerous sites where colonists massacred Aboriginal people]]
One of the most unsuccessful British settlements was undeniably in Van Diemen’s Land, also known Tasmania today. <ref name=":1" /> In 1803, British created an outpost on the Van Diemen’s Land. In the following year, evidence recorded 60 murders of Aborigines, possible when they were approaching the town. <ref>Elder, B. (2003). ''Blood on the wattle: Massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788''. Sydney: New Holland.</ref> In addition to disease, dispossession and intermarriage, the collapse of Aboriginal communities was also a result of the Black War. From 1824 to 1831 In 1830, an armed group known as the “Black Line” was ordered to remove tribes in Big River and Oyster Bay by Sir George Arthur. <ref>Kenyon, S.(1928) .''The Victorian Historical Magazine'',; J. Fenton, ''A History of Tasmania''; ''Historical Records of Australia'', ser. I, vols. XIX to XXII and XXVI; Kenyon Records at Public Library, Melbourne.</ref>The Black Line failed to remove all tribes from their settled district, indicating the Aboriginal resistance. In spite of the effort to resist, Aboriginal population of Tasmania sharply dropped from thousands to a few hundreds. <ref>Boyce, J. (2006). The Companion to Tasmanian History. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/F/Fabrication.html</nowiki></ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Colonisation|title=History of Australia, Colonisation|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The frontier war continued at the Wimmera, Victoria and caused more deaths in the late 1840s. <ref>Broome, Richard (1988). "''The Struggle for Australia : Aboriginal-European Warfare, 1770–1930''". In McKernan, Michael; Browne, Margaret; Australian War Memorial (eds.). ''Australia Two Centuries of War & Peace''. Canberra, A.C.T.: Australian War Memorial in association with Allen and Unwin, Australia. pp. 92–120. <nowiki>ISBN 0-642-99502-8</nowiki>.</ref>The Myall Creek massacre in New South Wales exemplified similar conflict in other parts of Australia as well. If one really pays attention to the timeline for the devastating century, they would notice that massacres took place frequently until 1928 and many were killed just for resisting. (Behrendt, 2013)<ref name=":1" />

=====Historical Interpretations=====
[[File:The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier.jpg|thumb|The Cover Page of Henry Reynolds work|274x274px]]
In his ground-breaking work on Aboriginal studies, “The Other Side of the Frontier<nowiki>''</nowiki>, Henry Reynolds provides historical context through nuanced delineation of interactions between Indigenous communities and the Europeans. The presentation of Indigenous values is strongly focused on their respect for the land and natural resources. His work also sheds light upon the Aboriginal resistance against British conquest, enabling many to realize the inseparable community-led resistance intertwined with settler-colonial history. <ref name=":6">Reynolds, H. (2006). ''The other side of the frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia''. UNSW Press.</ref> By introducing the Indigenous lifestyles, cultures and conflicts with British, many topics avoided by previous literatures are mentioned and reinvestigated. Diction such as “invasion” is in juxtaposition with prior sources’ use of “settlement” .<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2393483.The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier|title=The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia by Henry Reynolds.|last=|first=|date=|website=Goodreads.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The discussion of Frontal War on VanDiemen’s Land put an emphasis on the “black” sides .<ref name=":6" /> Reynolds claims that the intention is not to make the audience simply regard Aboriginal people as victims, but his work did provide reasons for people to commemorate the sacrifices of the Frontier War. <ref name=":7" />Aside from Henry Reynolds, other historians such as Lyndall Ryan and Charles Rowley also recorded notorious atrocities against the Aboriginal communities during colonization. <ref name=":8">Windschuttle, K. (2003). The fabrication of Aboriginal history. ''Sydney Papers, The'', ''15''(1), 20.</ref>

Though many historians recognize the suffering of Aboriginal communities, there are opposing voices that doubt the validity of these works. Keith Windschuttle, a primary antagonizing historian, questions the evidence used in Reynolds and Ryan’s work and attacks almost all their opinions <ref name=":6" />. In ''The fabrication of Aboriginal history,'' Windschuttle explicitly claimed that the Aboriginal death numbers are “an amplification of the actual situation”. Ironically, when he accused Renolds and Ryan’s work of not using enough evidence, his own arguments are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and other unreliable sources.<ref name=":8" />Some of his opinions such as claiming that the skeletons near burial sites were kangaroos lacked support and could be extremely misleading. Unlike mainstream historians, Windschuttle believes the violence and extermination of the Aborigines can be justified if the British settlement was resisted. <ref name=":8" /> Even Windschuttle himself recognizes the inhumane attacks on the Van Diemen’s Land is responsible for the Aborigines’ extinction.<ref name=":8" /> Many other historians criticize Windschuttle for his failure to grasp the point. Many investigations regarding Aboriginal communities are not about the actual deaths or magnitude but about how European colonization has continually been destructive towards Aboriginal communities. Overall, the Aboriginal deaths from early settlement and resistance efforts may even be greater than the current records, we may not recognize the exact casualties given that many tribes did not use the same systems to record history . Like John Harris argues, “history tends to be written from the perspective of the powerful” .<ref name=":2" /> In this case, the European government who had more control over words recreated history from their own side rather than the Indigenous societies. Therefore, those who have more power in literature should be more considerate of both parties if they aim to publish unbiased work.

=====The Djap Wurrung=====
[[File:Map Victoria Aboriginal tribes (colourmap).jpg|thumb|Map of Victorian Aboriginal Territories categorized by tribes and language groups ]]
The Djap Wurrung’s, also known as the Djapwurrung or Tjapwurrung, presence on their land can be traced back to 40,000 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djab_wurrung|title=Djap Wurrung|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Today, the Djap Wurrung land spreads over 7,000 km2, from Mount Rouse to Hamilton. <ref name=":3">Tindale, Norman Barnett (1974). "Tjapwurong (VIC)". ''Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Australian National University Press. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-708-10741-6</nowiki>.''</ref> The Djap Wurrung societies are composed of at least eleven bands, following two different matrilineal systems (Tindale, 1974).<ref name=":3" /> Their lifestyle is partially hunting and gathering, but there is also evidence of agriculture practices. Some aboriginal activists’ theories suggest that the traditional ball-kicking Aboriginal game initiated within the Wimmera tribe has inspired contemporary Australian football and the formation of its rules. <ref>Dawson, James (1881). ''Australian Aborigines: The Languages and Customs of Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia'' (PDF). Melbourne: George Robertson.</ref>Trees have intrinsic spiritual meanings in the Djap Wurrung culture.<ref name=":4">Richards, Thomas; Bennett, Catherine M; Webber, Harry (2013). "A post-contact Aboriginal mortuary tree from southwestern Victoria, Australia". ''Journal of Field Archaeology''. '''37''' (1): 62–72. doi:10.1179/0093469011z.0000000005.</ref> Births are witnessed by these trees and those who have passed on are buried near the trees. <ref name=":4" />

European settlement has made a great impact on the Djap Wurrung Nation. The first contact was marked in 1836, when the invasion began. <ref name=":5">Clark, Ian D. (1995). ''Scars in the Landscape: a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803–1859'' (PDF). AIATSIS. pp. 57–84. <nowiki>ISBN 0 85575 281 5</nowiki>.</ref> The resistance against European invasion included stealing sheep and driving off, while the settlers broke this resistance with massacre. By 1842, there were at least 35 reports of massacres, however very little of these developed into court investigations against the settlers. <ref name=":5" /> By 1841, some of the tribes were put into reserves and resistance to European invasion increased. According to estimates, the Djap Wurrung population shrunk from 2,050 to 615 (Mallet, 2002). About three quarters of the population pre-contact vanished due to disease, massacres, poison and starvation. <ref>Mallett, Ashley (2002). ''The Black Lords of Summer: The Story of the 1868 Aboriginal Tour of England and Beyond''. University of Queensland Press. pp. 169–175. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-702-23262-6</nowiki>.</ref> Later on, Djap Wurrung land also attracted large numbers of Europeans and Chinese that wanted to search for gold. <ref name=":5" />

=====Aboriginal People Today=====
Today, there are 250 unique language groups within the continent of Australia and only about three percent of Australian population claims Aboriginal heritage. <ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/aboriginal-australians/|title=Aboriginal Australians|last=Blakemore|first=Erin|authorlink=|date=|website=National Geographic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> In comparison to the existence of more than 500 nations before British colonization, this is a drastic decline. Though separated from their traditional land, confronting massacres and being exposed to diseases, the Indigenous communities are still resistant and adaptive to changes .<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":9" />[[File:Proceedings-Aborigines-Kevin-Rudd-Galiwnku-Island-peoples-February-2008.jpg|thumb|Aboriginal tribes from the Galiwnku Island gathering to watch the proceeding of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to apologize for the former Aboriginal mistreatments under the Australian governments. This apology only took place in 2008.|291x291px]]Contemporary Indigenous people live across urban, rural and remote areas of Australia.Many Federal laws explicitly discriminate against the Aboriginals, for example the Mental Deficiency Bill passed in 1939 which identified “inefficient groups”, including the “slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, and of course aboriginal people” .<ref name=":10">Tarpey-Brown, F. (2019). Glimpsing Cracks in the Present: Acts of Utopian Desire and Resistance at Gezi Park and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Studies in Arts and Humanities, 5(1), 67-76</ref> Though this Bill was soon abolished for serious racial discrimination, the earliest Federal law that applied to Aboriginal Australian’s rights was not passed until 1967. <ref name=":9" />. Even as recent as 1972, the Prime Minister still denied all Aboriginal land rights publicly in his national speech, as he considered Aboriginal land-use to be inefficient economically and socially. <ref name=":10" />

Major struggles for Aboriginal communities still involve the retainment of cultural heritage, loss of identity, as well as government recognition. The State of Victoria proposed a treaty with the Aboriginal population that recognizes Aboriginal sovereignty and provides compensation. Unfortunately, this is only a proposal and there have not been nation-wide treaty in Australia either, therefore making Australia as the only country that have not signed an authorized treaty with Indigenous peoples in the British Commonwealth. <ref name=":9" />

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a formal apology for the profound impact of colonization on Indigenous communities and recognized former mistreatments in the 2008 Federal Government Parliament. <ref name=":11">Tonkinson, R., & Berndt, R. M. (2018, April 19).Aboriginal Peoples In Australian Society. ''Encyclopeedia Britannica. '' Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Aboriginal-peoples-in-Australian-society</nowiki></ref> In the 1990’s, the agenda of “reconciliation” became clear, however, there have been limited actions taken or changes made regarding issues that Indigenous communities face. According to statistics, many Indigenous peoples are still disadvantaged in health, education and employment, however there are successful examples of those who overcome these barriers (Tokinson et al., 2018). The effective means include increased schooling and literacy as well as medical services training. <ref name=":1" /> The work of Aboriginal activists has also achieved some extent public approval and engagement with the non-Aboriginal communities, accompanied with increasing non-Aboriginal empathy towards heartbreaking mistreatment towards Aboriginal Australians, and a fascination to explore more about their diverse cultures. <ref name=":11" />
==Tenure arrangements==
The tenure of the Djap Wurrung community is customary. There is no legal document which declares their sovereignty to the land on the Western Highway and surrounding areas. However, the Djap Wurrung people describe themselves as the Traditional Owners (Why we are here, n.d). After the land belonging to the Djap Wurrung community was colonized by early settlers, their control of the land was increasingly lost. This also applies to many other Indigenous communities in Australia and around the world. Since the Djap Wurrung community is not recognized by the government as the owners of the land through legislation, there is no freehold or leasehold ownership. Presently, the official owner of the land is the Australian government (Why we are here, n.d). However, Indigenous communities throughout Australia, like the Djap Wurrung people, are fighting for their sovereignty, land rights and the retention of culturally significant areas.

==Administrative arrangements==
The Djap Wurrung Embassy have declared their sovereignty and “as survivors...will not concede [their] land rights” <ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Protect Sacred Trees. Save 80,000 years of culture.|last=|first=|date=|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The Aboriginal Heritage Act in 2006 promises to appropriately protect and manage the areas around the Western Highway. <ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-cultural-heritage-management-plan-western-highway-duplication|title=Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan Western Highway Duplication|last=Kanoa|first=Tim|date=|website=aboriginalvictoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Therefore, it is government’s duty to provide protection. This Act also provide the rules for management, as it must respect Aboriginal self-determination, and recognize Aboriginal communities as the Traditional Owners and primary guardians. <ref name=":12" />This Act establishes the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC), which is responsible for appointing Registered Aboriginal Parties and provides suggestions for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that applies rules to the entire state. <ref name=":12" />By working together with local Aboriginal groups, the VAHC can have an exhaustive assessment of the Act . If the Elders of Djap Wurrung are not satisfied with the cultural heritage protection, they can choose to report back to the Victorian Aboriginal Council that is responsible for monitoring protection. <ref name=":12" />.Reconciliation and full consent is necessary prior to any outsiders’ acts. In addition, this act also addresses that the Djap Wurrung have their own right to decide who can represent their cultural heritage. <ref name=":12" />

==Affected Stakeholders==
The Djap Wurrung people are the primary affected stakeholders in the community. They have been oppressed by the government for over 230 years (Lay, 2019). Their main objectives are to protect the birthing trees which will be cut down to build an extension of the Western Highway. This project is known as project 2b. Some of these birthing trees had already been removed to build section 2a of the highway<ref name=":17" />. The birthing trees removed by the Australian government are culturally significant to the community as these trees have been directly connected to their ancestral territory. As they fight to keep these birthing trees alive, it is a symbol of the declaration of their sovereignty to the land.
[[File:Treetree.jpg|thumb|Women have given birth in the hollows of these trees for generations.]]
These birthing trees are where Aboriginal women give birth traditionally. Women would give birth by squatting against the trees during the final stages of birth. The baby would come out onto the paperbark. After birth, the baby comes in contact with the spirit of the land and establishes a relationship with the land<ref name=":23" />. Birthing trees are also a cultural gathering place, where Indingenous peoples can feel accepted after their rights and territory had been taken away from them through colonization<ref name=":21" />. As we learn how these trees are used by the Djap Wurrung and their cultural importance, we understand why they are affected stakeholders.

The Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy is also an affected stakeholder as they are an organization which was established to protect the sacred trees on the Western Highway. Although the leaders of this organization are Djap Wurrung traditional owners of the land, many non-Indigenous people have voiced their support for the Embassy. They recognize the connections between Indigenous communities and nature for generations in the region. They also realize the sovereignty to the land of the Aboriginal group and how they have been treated by the Australian government over generations.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
The Australian government and the Major Roads Project Authority are the primary interested stakeholders outside of the community. They would like to remove the Djap Wurrung birthing trees on the Western Highway. This project is known as the Western Highway Project. The section 2a of the highway had already been built, with strong public backlash. The estimate of trees to be removed was 221 trees to construct the highway. However, this number was significantly underestimated as the actual number of trees removed to construct 2a was 1350. A project to build the extension of the highway, 12.5 kilometers long, is known as section 2b. 260 culturally significant trees are under threat of being removed to make way for the highway. The state of Victoria’s government plans to work with Aboriginal locals through providing only monetary compensation but do not have any intentions to save the birthing trees, a fundamental aspect of the Djap Wurrung community (Cunningham, 2019).

A new proposed route which served the same purpose would have been more cost effective and safer than the removal of these culturally significant trees. This new route would require drivers to drive for two extra minutes to reach their destination (Hayman-Reber, 2018). The state of Victoria did not put in much effort to consider this new route or look at other alternatives to keep these birthing trees alive. They describe the Western Highway as “one of Victoria’s key trade routes, providing a link between the region’s primary producers with Melbourne’s domestic and export markets” (Cunningham, 2019). Through this, we see that the government does not have any of these Indigenous communities’ interests in mind. The convenience of drivers is more important than the cultural importance of these birthing trees to the Djap Wurrung community. The attempt for the Australian government to wipe out the trees is a symbol of their attempt to remove any claim of territory by the Djap Wurrung community.

==Discussion==
The intention of our case study is to spread knowledge about Djap Wurrung land management, community forestry and resistance in relation to threats against sacred birthing trees. We want to bring awareness to a current, ongoing dispute about a sacred grove of trees within a settler-state where no substantial treaty has been entered into between the government of Australia and the Indigenous people of Australia. We aim to demonstrate the strength and determination of the Djap Wurrung community, as land defenders and activists who put their own lives at risk in order to protect the sacred birthing trees. We also aim to highlight the important connections between birthing practices and the land.

Despite ongoing colonization, which presents itself through land theft, pollution, development and unsustainable farming and forestry practices, sacred places still exist. Cultural sites where the Djap Wurrung birthing trees live are alive and apart of an interconnected web of relationships that span across generations<ref name=":18">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/12/the-government-wants-to-bulldoze-my-inheritance-800-year-old-sacred-trees|title=“The government wants to bulldoze my inheritance: 800 year-old-sacred trees;
To sit in a tree that saw your people birthed, massacred, and now resist is a feeling that
the English language will never be able to capture”|last=Gorrie|first=Nayuka|date=April 12, 2019.|work=The Guardian (London).|access-date=}}</ref>. The Major Roads Project Authority and the Australian government have continually “undermined land defenders and positioned Djap Wurrung people as against the interests of the rest of the population”<ref name=":18" />. Regardless of colonial violence, these trees are Djap Wurrung people's “inheritance”, directly tied to their ancestral territories<ref name=":18" />. Their survival and the Djap Wurrung fight to keep them alive and safe are a “cultural obligation" and an assertion of their sovereignty<ref name=":18" />.

Critical issues in this case study include ''land'', ''Indigenous'' ''sovereignty'' and ''consent''.
====== Land ======
[[File:Gumtree.jpg|thumb|A close up of gum tree bark.]]Australia is among “the most deforested countries in the world” and is a large emitter of greenhouse gasses<ref name=":17" />. With the removal of forests, Australia’s carbon sinks would decline<ref name=":17" />. According to Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018, there is a downward trend of remnant vegetation, of biodiversity, of forest health<ref name=":19">{{Cite web|url=https://www.ces.vic.gov.au/reports/state-environment-2018|title=Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018|last=|first=|date=2018|website=Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The state of Victoria’s environmental health is “poor and, despite much good work, the tools used to manage it are ineffective”<ref name=":17" />.

It remains common practice to offset vegetation lost by planting new vegetation, however, “you cannot meaningfully offset any habitat tree”<ref name=":17" />. As old-growth river red gum trees, up to 800 years old with girths of more than 7 metres and standing over 30 metres tall, the birthing trees “provide habitat and nutrients for dozens of mammals and birds, and thousands of insect species”<ref name=":17" /><ref name=":19" />. Nearly 3,000 trees would need to be destroyed to enlarge the highway <ref name=":17" />. As a result, the state of Victoria’s biodiversity and vegetation cover would significantly decrease.
[[File:Signvicroads.jpg|thumb|The Djap Wurrung community has a myriad of supporters across Australia, and beyond. This is one of the signs from the camp.]]
Additionally, the trees have been “culturally modified, with fire, creating small room[s] in the base of the trunk[s]...[where] thousands of Djab Wurrung babies have been born...within it. The placentas of those babies have been buried under the Directions Trees”<ref name=":17" />. Overall, with the highway widening, historical trees which are important to Indigenous groups would need to be cut down. This will cause cultural and environmental damage to the region’s Indigenous communities. The tradeoffs for expanding this highway are short term benefit for citizens to arrive at their destination quicker, but significant long term loss of cultural identity for the Djap Wurrung people<ref name=":17" />.

====== Indigenous Sovereignty ======
[[File:Aboriginalart.jpg|thumb|Before Indigenous Australian art was ever put onto canvas, people would smooth over the soil to draw sacred designs which belonged to that particular ceremony. This is still practiced today.

Aboriginal art demonstrates an interconnectedness between people and the land, and is practiced today as an act of sovereignty and self-determination.
]]
The Djap Wurrung people are the rightful Traditional Owners of the Country that MRVP has been attempting to construct upon<ref name=":14" />. The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability claims to “proudly [acknowledge] Victoria’s Aboriginal community...as Australia’s first peoples and as the Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we rely”<ref name=":19" />. They also claim to recognise and value “the ongoing contribution of Aboriginal people and communities...[and] embrace the spirit of reconciliation, working towards the equality of outcomes and ensuring an equal voice”<ref name=":19" />. Victoria’s government claims it wants to work on a treaty with Aboriginal Victorians to create Australia’s first treaty <ref name=":17" />. However, most of the treaty revolves around compensation, not actual solutions for environmental and spiritual concerns to conserve the trees<ref name=":17" />.

Despite these political claims, the government and police continue to allow contractors and workers to violate protocols surrounding birthing trees, neglecting Djap Wurrung culture, sovereignty and land rights. As Indigenous people who have lived on Country for thousands and thousands of generations, Djap Wurrung people are sovereign, and their Lore (cultural teachings, traditional knowledge, governance practices) surrounding the sacred birthing trees must be upheld and prioritized above the State governance of Victoria<ref name=":14" />.

====== Consent ======
[[File:Handsoffcountry.jpg|thumb|"Hands off Country".]]
The Australian government's actions indicate that it is “committed to working with Aboriginal Victorians who don’t get in the way”<ref name=":17" />. The MRVP has proven that there is greater enthusiasm for governance solutions that are “material (involving compensation, for example) rather than solutions that require meaningful engagement with spiritual or environmental concerns”<ref name=":17" />.

The area where the trees reside is "a place of sanctuary in which Djab Wurrung sovereignty has never been ceded”<ref name=":16" />. The Djap Wurrung have a right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It allows them to “give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories….Once they have given their consent, they can withdraw it at any stage”<ref name=":20">{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/our-pillars/fpic/en/|title=Free, Prior and Informed Consent.|last=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)|first=|date=|website=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. FPIC also enables Djap Wurrung people to “negotiate the conditions under which the project will be designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated”<ref name=":20" />.

==Assessment==
[[File:Djap_Wurrung_Protests.jpg|thumb|338x338px|Djap Wurrung protesters sit out the front of the VicRoads office in Ararat.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/22/protesters-defend-sacred-800-year-old-djap-wurrung-trees-as-police-deadline-looms|title=Protesters defend sacred 800-year-old Djap Wurrung trees as police deadline looms|last=|first=|date=|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]
The asymmetrical power between the Australian Government and the Djap Wurrung is obvious. While there are plentiful historical records of European invasion and alterations of land use without asking for permission, this issue is ongoing. In this case, the culturally significant mother trees were removed by the government in order to build road. There were only a few families consulted before some of the sacred trees were removed <ref> Hayman-Reber, M. (2018, June 18). Removal of sacred Djap Wurrung trees an 'act of cultural terrorism'. NITV News. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/06/18/removal-sacred-djap-wurrung-trees-act-cultural-terrorism</nowiki></ref>.

Similar to many historical scenarios, the Australian government has dominating power over the Djap Wurrung community. The inconsiderate government actions can be easily justified by legislation, since legislation is formulated by the government authorities themselves. In the government’s perspective, construction actions on Djap Wurrung land is reasonable as long as it contributes to “progressive development”. Government power is employed in an imprudent manner without a proper evaluation of the consequences. What’s worse about this act is that the road building project had an alternative route that was arguably cheaper, safer, and more importantly without the destruction of the sacred trees . This implies that the government chooses to neglect the forests’ sacredness and any negative implications to Aboriginal groups, just because it is not their own culture at risk. This is not the only thing the government fails to grasp. They ignore the fact that Djap Wurrung territories were never ceded to federal control <ref name=":13" /> and the government did not ask for permission to be on their lands, which leads to the violation of Djap Wurrung’s rights and sovereignty. There should be more governance and negotiation on the Australian government's planning as well.

As Djap Wurrung’s responsibility of nurturing the trees has been more and more stripped away by VicRoads, they have resisted and fought against road construction. Given its profound effects, there is actually very few official studies that focus on this unfair incidence. They have gained global attention by self-broadcasting on social media platforms, and have only given a few interviews for news articles, as news can easily be manipulated by journalists or the government. The Djap Wurrung’s power is strengthened as more non-Aboriginal allies join to help resist encroachment. Their sovereignty could be respected if the Victorian government recognizes these damages to the land cannot be undone. The government should compensate the community and work towards including the Djap Wurrung in decision-making processes. Sadly, in reality, the Djap Wurrung camps set up by the community, activists and allies are still facing eviction. According to the Djap Wurrung, “no trees no treaty”; it is highly unlikely for them to sign any treaties with the government after the sacred trees’s removal. <ref name=":13" />

==Recommendations==
# It is well known that gathering places “encourage healing and wellbeing”, creating inclusive and empowering spaces<ref name=":21">{{Cite journal|last=Kingsley|first=Jonathan & Emily Munro-Harrison, Anne Jenkins, Alister Thorpe.|date=November 2018|title=“Here we
are part of a living culture”: Understanding the cultural determinants of health in
Aboriginal gathering places in Victoria, Australia.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.10.001|journal=Health & Place|volume=54|pages=210-220|via=}}</ref>. Cultural gathering places in particular provide a sense of place, especially for people who have been marginalized and affected by colonization<ref name=":21" />. In this case, the sacred trees are gathering places for women giving birth. The the land defender camp and Djap Wurrung community gatherings are also gathering places for both healing and resistance. '''''We recommend that these spaces be respected, and that the camp be allowed to remain as long as needed, as Djap Wurrung people continue to maintain their distinct connection to the land. No notices of eviction should be given to the members of the camp. No police, contractors or road workers should be allowed to access Djap Wurrung territory without free, prior, informed and ongoing consent. Negotiation processes should be respected and conducted on Djap Wurrung terms, led by Djap Wurrung community members rather than Australian government officials or companies. The right of the Djap Wurrung people to withdraw from any negotiated project must be respected.''''' [[File:People@camp.jpg|thumb|Community members, land defenders and allies at camp.]]
# The attempt to wipe out Djap Wurrung sacred places “must be seen as an attempt to wipe out their claim to them”, which serves to further dispossess Aboriginal peoples in Australia and “allow the state to continue its operations unhindered” by Aboriginal sovereignty<ref name=":18" />. '''''We recommend that Djap Wurrung knowledge be prioritized and adhered to in terms of the future of the trees that are on their territory, since Indigenous knowledge systems strengthen cultural identity, self-determination and ultimately health and wellbeing'''''<ref name=":21" />'''''.'''''
# Aboriginal women in Australia “collectively express a strong desire to maintain cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including birthing close to home and on their homelands, on Country<ref name=":22">{{Cite journal|last=Marriott|first=Rhonda & Tracy Reibel, Juli Coffin, Janinne Gliddon, Denese Griffin, Melanie Robinson, Anne-Marie Eades, Jade Maddox.|date=October, 2019|title=“Our culture, how it is to be us” — Listening to Aboriginal women about on Country urban birthing.|url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi. 2019.06.017|journal=Women and Birth|volume=32|pages=391-403|via=}}</ref>. Aboriginal birthing and elder women have “consistently reported ongoing cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including knowledge sharing across generations, family support, land-based rituals and practices, and “observance of extended family present at the time of or shortly after birth”; these practices are alive and well<ref name=":22" />. However, certain land-based birthing practices for Aboriginal women, including Djap Wurrung women, are at risk, as land continues to be developed and taken by the government for other purposes. The “inflexibility” of Australian health systems to meet the needs of Aboriginal women is unacceptable; Australian obstetricians, doctors, nurses and midwives “lack cultural awareness and understanding” of the importance of Aboriginal kinship and relationships with their territories<ref name=":22" />. Australia’s lack of progress towards providing a culturally secure environment for Indigenous populations is particularly evident in the area of childbirth<ref name=":23">{{Cite journal|last=Kildea|first=Sue & M. Wardaguga|date=August 3, 2009.|title=Childbirth in Australia: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women.|url=https://link-springercom. ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-2599-9_26|journal=Childbirth Across Cultures|volume=|pages=pp 275-286.|via=}}</ref>. '''''We recommend that the Australian government pass specific laws, and hospitals create culturally-specific policies, that will address the rights of Aboriginal women to participate in cultural birthing practices, on their own terms, whether they are giving birth in a hospital, at home or on Country.''''' [[File:Birthtree2.jpg|thumb|"No Trees, No Treaty"]]
# Additionally, since Aboriginal women “regain culturally secure birthing practices when birth is brought back to the remote communities”<ref name=":22" /> where Aboriginal women are in charge of themselves and their own births, '''''we recommend that any areas identified as birthing spots on Country across Australia be rightfully returned to the communities to which they belong'''''. '''''We also recommend increased funding and educational opportunities for Aboriginal people who wish to work in health care, including obstetrics and maternity,''''' '''''in order to ensure that Aboriginal women who are giving birth in hospitals or urban settings are provided with access to Aboriginal care providers.'''''

'''Created by:'''

Zoe Li ''(Conservation Science)''

Hannah Stanley ''(Political Science, First Nations & Indigenous Studies)''

Gabriel Wan ''(Urban Forestry)''

==References==
<references/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com/why-we-are-here/|title=Why we are here|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=April 20, 2020}}</ref>

{{Projectbox CONS370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:CONS370/Projects/Indigenous Djap Wurrung resistance and community responses to threats against sacred birthing trees in Australia

2020-04-23T19:48:38Z

GabrielWan: /* Interested Outside Stakeholders */

=== Summary ===
The '''Djap Wurrung''' (also spelt Djabwurrung, Tjapwurrung,or Djapwarrung) people are Aboriginal Australians whose Country (territory) is the volcanic plains of central Victoria (DW Embassy). Djap Wurrung Country ranges from the Mount William Range of Gariwerd in the west to the Pyrenees range in the east, encompassing the Wimmera River flowing north and the headwaters of the Hopkins River flowing south (DW Embassy). On Djap Wurrung Country, there are over 3,000 sacred birthing trees that are over 800 years old (DW Embassy). Over 50 generations have been born on these cultural sites (DW Embassy). <blockquote>"Those trees are a part of us. The history of those trees is what makes us Djab Wurrung women. The stories of birthing, the stories of cooking, the story of those trees being culturally modified over hundreds of years is incredible." - Djab Wurrung woman Lidia Thorpe (Johnson)</blockquote>The Victoria branch of the Australian Labor Party planned a four-lane highway extension alongside Major Road Projects of Victoria (MRVP), a division of Vic Roads (Roads Corporation of Victoria), that is set to destroy the landscape. The 12.5 kilometer construction project is called the ''Western Highway - Buangor to Ararat Project'' (Cunningham, 2019).

In response, Djapp Wurrung community members Elder Aunty Sandra Onus and Zellanach Djab Mara set up the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy to prevent the destruction, with allies and activists (Johnson, 2019). The Embassy set up a camp on Country in June 2018 with the support of others opposing the project (Johnson, 2019). The community has taken “bold action thereby preventing work from starting and demanding the project is cancelled” (DW Embassy). Though campaign is led by Djap Wurrung Traditional Owners, participants at the Camp include diverse groups of people.

Djab Wurrung people have suggested an alternative route “that would protect the sacred trees, and recommend that safety on the road can be maximised by lowering the speed limit” (Mahomet, 2019). However, the government has refused to consider this alternative route.

On August 8th, 2019, 14 months after the peaceful camp blockade was set up on Country, police issued the Traditional Owners at the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy an eviction notice, “giving the Djab Wurrung people 14 days to vacate their sacred landscape to make way for the Western Highway duplication” (Mahomet, 2019). The eviction notice was directed to police by Daniel Andrews, 48th Premier of Victoria since 2014 and state leader of the Australian Labor Party since 2010 (Mahomet, 2019 & Victoria Labour).

Throughout 2019, Major Road Projects Victoria (MRVP) and their workers continued to have a presence on the land without the consent of the Djap Wurrung people and Embassy. Contractors conducting surveying works “continued to flout mandatory stop work periods” while Djab Wurrung Traditional Owners awaited mediation with MRPV (Mahomet, 2019). Sovereign Djab Wurrung land protectors and their supporters had to continually escort workers off the land. [[File:Signsatcamp.jpg|thumb|Djap Wurrung Embassy Camp|334x334px]]<blockquote>''“Violation is the only appropriate word for these actions, as Djab Wurrung women and their supporters were forced to place themselves in the way of the contractors to protect the sacred birthing tree and a camp that has been a haven for women, gender diverse people and young children....The Djab Wurrung women continued to hold the space in the face of rising aggression and tension as the workers seemed determined to further intrude on the sacred landscape, approaching within metres of the sacred birthing tree and a culturally significant canoe tree.” (DW Embassy)''</blockquote>Legal action helped stall the project for months (Cunningham, 2019). Mediation between the Djap Wurrung people and MRVP commenced September 18th, 2019 (DW Embassy). In late 2019, 3.8km stretch of land was signed over to MRVP (DW Embassy). However, the camp continues to remain in place as of April 2020, and welcomes anyone to stay in an effort to protect old growth trees from being cut down during construction (DW Embassy). The Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy has posted and circulated a COVID-19 Health & Safety Protocol for all people planning on attending the camp.

'''COVID-19 Camp Protocol:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R7xeGf0zDipHKS2MtOUlXCDP1hW5Q3tqG3iEX1Is3r0/mobilebasic (DW Embassy).

'''How to Support the Djap Wurrung Embassy:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-GTkdfwZDfvW26yvRuOMmx4p4hM73Im5dxk-GMElSJI/edit?fbclid=IwAR3ReWqpal5cBZ0DlSFQv63D1smoa3-_cHKPjUX_bq3yqu1YA0leP9tQ9FU (DW Embassy).

==Description==
Description of the community forestry case study – Where located; history; national or regional context (if appropriate)

=====Colonialism in Australia=====

Australia's first recorded European contact was with the British navigator, Captain James Cook when he encountered the eastern coastline of Australia in 1770. <ref>(Cook, J. (1770) wiki "Cook's Journal: Daily Entries, 22 April 1770". Retrieved from http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700422.html)</ref> Later on, Cook claimed his discovery as a possession of the British Crown, which enabled the establishment of a new British colony in the Southern globe. The aim of colonization is to alleviate overpopulation in prison and expand the British Empire and its power through the acquirement of land. <ref name=":0">Australians together. (n.d) Colonisation.(Website) Retrived from https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation/#colonisationreference2</ref> Eight years after its initial discovery, the first fleet with convicts, marines and civilians arrived at Sydney Cove in 1788 for a penal settlement. After, European settlement spread as new colonies were established across the nation. Here are the few of the many regions that were significantly influenced by colonization.<ref name=":0" />

✓ Van Diemen’s Land, today’s Tasmania

✓ Port Phillip District, in what is now Victoria

✓ Moreton Bay, near Brisbane

✓ Adelaide, in South Australia

Cook’s discovery is recent in comparison to 60,000 years of development of more than 500 Aboriginal Nations, and their cultures, who existed at the time. <ref name=":1">Behrendt, 2013</ref>The Australian Indigenous community consisted of both the Aboriginal Nations and the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders have also coexisted in the land for more than 5,000 years. Unfortunately, these traditional custodians of the land suffered from immense social crisis due to European settlement. <ref name=":1" /> According to estimates, the “full-blood” Aboriginal population decreased by 96% from one million in 1788 to the remaining 58,000 in 1920s <ref name=":2">Harris, John.(2003). Aboriginal History, Vol. 27“Hiding the Bodies, the myth of humane colonization of Australia” https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73641/pdf/book.pdf</ref>. Although some disagree with the accuracy of this calculation by arguing it is an exaggeration, there is more than enough evidence to support the drastic decline in Aboriginal population between the 19th and early 20th century. <ref name=":2" />
[[File:Aboriginal attack Lake Hope.jpg|thumb|280x280px|New South Wales Mounted Police engaging Indigenous Australians during the Waterloo Creek Massacre of 1838. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C174087|title=Mounted police and blacks|last=W.Walton after Louisa and Godfrey Charles Mundy|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]

=====The devastating genocide=====

Lack of immunity against epidemics such as smallpox, influenza or measles that were introduced by the European’s arrival was one source of the large number of deaths amongst the Indigenous communities. According to Arthur Phillip, Captain of the first fleet, smallpox was responsible for killing half of the Indigenous population in Sydney within the first fourteen months of their arrival. <ref name=":0" /><ref>Bladen, F. M. (1892). ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (Vol. 1). C. Potter.</ref>

In addition to the threats to physiological health, intentional damages were a source of death and destruction. These damages included culture assimilation, acquisition of Indigenous land, sexual exploitation, physical abuse, and massacres of Indigenous communities; leading to the unfortunate reduction in Indigenous populations and tragic cultural genocide. Friction between the Europeans and the Natives was inevitable because of the long-term competition for resources and difference in lifestyles.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/colonial|title=Colonial period, 1788–1901|last=|first=|date=|website=Australian War Memorial|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Some consider colonization as a process of “introducing the superior western civilization” and believe that Aboriginal people were “doomed to extinction”;they omit the gruesome truth . The convenient assumption that “Aboriginal race extinction was irreversible” has made many felt exonerated from the unjust violence.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:Dovey-Mapping-Massacres.jpg|thumb|280x280px|A multimedia project led by the the Indigenous Australian artist is among the initiatives seeking to map the numerous sites where colonists massacred Aboriginal people]]
One of the most unsuccessful British settlements was undeniably in Van Diemen’s Land, also known Tasmania today. <ref name=":1" /> In 1803, British created an outpost on the Van Diemen’s Land. In the following year, evidence recorded 60 murders of Aborigines, possible when they were approaching the town. <ref>Elder, B. (2003). ''Blood on the wattle: Massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788''. Sydney: New Holland.</ref> In addition to disease, dispossession and intermarriage, the collapse of Aboriginal communities was also a result of the Black War. From 1824 to 1831 In 1830, an armed group known as the “Black Line” was ordered to remove tribes in Big River and Oyster Bay by Sir George Arthur. <ref>Kenyon, S.(1928) .''The Victorian Historical Magazine'',; J. Fenton, ''A History of Tasmania''; ''Historical Records of Australia'', ser. I, vols. XIX to XXII and XXVI; Kenyon Records at Public Library, Melbourne.</ref>The Black Line failed to remove all tribes from their settled district, indicating the Aboriginal resistance. In spite of the effort to resist, Aboriginal population of Tasmania sharply dropped from thousands to a few hundreds. <ref>Boyce, J. (2006). The Companion to Tasmanian History. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/F/Fabrication.html</nowiki></ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Colonisation|title=History of Australia, Colonisation|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The Myall Creek massacre in New South Wales exemplified similar conflict in other parts of Australia as well. If one really pays attention to the timeline for the devastating century, they would notice that massacres took place frequently until 1928 and many were killed just for resisting. (Behrendt, 2013)<ref name=":1" />

=====How should history be interpreted=====

In his ground-breaking work on Aboriginal studies, “The Other Side of the Frontier<nowiki>''</nowiki>, Henry Reynolds provides historical context through nuanced delineation of interactions between Indigenous communities and the Europeans. The presentation of Indigenous values is strongly focused on their respect for the land and natural resources. His work also sheds light upon the Aboriginal resistance against British conquest, enabling many to realize the inseparable community-led resistance intertwined with settler-colonial history. <ref name=":6">Reynolds, H. (2006). ''The other side of the frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia''. UNSW Press.</ref> By introducing the Indigenous lifestyles, cultures and conflicts with British, many topics avoided by previous literatures are mentioned and reinvestigated. Diction such as “invasion” is in juxtaposition with prior sources’ use of “settlement” .<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2393483.The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier|title=The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia by Henry Reynolds.|last=|first=|date=|website=Goodreads.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The discussion of Frontal War on VanDiemen’s Land put an emphasis on the “black” sides .<ref name=":6" /> Reynolds claims that the intention is not to make the audience simply regard Aboriginal people as victims, but his work did provide reasons for people to commemorate the sacrifices of the Frontier War. <ref name=":7" />Aside from Henry Reynolds, other historians such as Lyndall Ryan and Charles Rowley also recorded notorious atrocities against the Aboriginal communities during colonization. <ref name=":8">Windschuttle, K. (2003). The fabrication of Aboriginal history. ''Sydney Papers, The'', ''15''(1), 20.</ref>

Though many historians recognize the suffering of Aboriginal communities, there are opposing voices that doubt the validity of these works. Keith Windschuttle, a primary antagonizing historian, questions the evidence used in Reynolds and Ryan’s work and attacks almost all their opinions <ref name=":6" />. In ''The fabrication of Aboriginal history,'' Windschuttle explicitly claimed that the Aboriginal death numbers are “an amplification of the actual situation”. Ironically, when he accused Renolds and Ryan’s work of not using enough evidence, his own arguments are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and other unreliable sources.<ref name=":8" />Some of his opinions such as claiming that the skeletons near burial sites were kangaroos lacked support and could be extremely misleading. Unlike mainstream historians, Windschuttle believes the violence and extermination of the Aborigines can be justified if the British settlement was resisted. <ref name=":8" /> Even Windschuttle himself recognizes the inhumane attacks on the Van Diemen’s Land is responsible for the Aborigines’ extinction.<ref name=":8" /> Many other historians criticize Windschuttle for his failure to grasp the point. Many investigations regarding Aboriginal communities are not about the actual deaths or magnitude but about how European colonization has continually been destructive towards Aboriginal communities. Overall, the Aboriginal deaths from early settlement and resistance efforts may even be greater than the current records, we may not recognize the exact casualties given that many tribes did not use the same systems to record history . Like John Harris argues, “history tends to be written from the perspective of the powerful” .<ref name=":2" /> In this case, the European government who had more control over words recreated history from their own side rather than the Indigenous societies. Therefore, those who have more power in literature should be more considerate of both parties if they aim to publish unbiased work.

=====The Djap Wurrung=====

The Djap Wurrung’s, also known as the Djapwurrung or Tjapwurrung, presence on their land can be traced back to 40,000 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djab_wurrung|title=Djap Wurrung|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Today, the Djap Wurrung land spreads over 7,000 km2, from Mount Rouse to Hamilton. <ref name=":3">Tindale, Norman Barnett (1974). "Tjapwurong (VIC)". ''Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Australian National University Press. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-708-10741-6</nowiki>.''</ref> The Djap Wurrung societies are composed of at least eleven bands, following two different matrilineal systems (Tindale, 1974).<ref name=":3" /> Their lifestyle is partially hunting and gathering, but there is also evidence of agriculture practices. Some aboriginal activists’ theories suggest that the traditional ball-kicking Aboriginal game initiated within the Wimmera tribe has inspired contemporary Australian football and the formation of its rules. <ref>Dawson, James (1881). ''Australian Aborigines: The Languages and Customs of Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia'' (PDF). Melbourne: George Robertson.</ref>Trees have intrinsic spiritual meanings in the Djap Wurrung culture.<ref name=":4">Richards, Thomas; Bennett, Catherine M; Webber, Harry (2013). "A post-contact Aboriginal mortuary tree from southwestern Victoria, Australia". ''Journal of Field Archaeology''. '''37''' (1): 62–72. doi:10.1179/0093469011z.0000000005.</ref> Births are witnessed by these trees and those who have passed on are buried near the trees. <ref name=":4" />

European settlement has made a great impact on the Djap Wurrung Nation. The first contact was marked in 1836, when the invasion began. <ref name=":5">Clark, Ian D. (1995). ''Scars in the Landscape: a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803–1859'' (PDF). AIATSIS. pp. 57–84. <nowiki>ISBN 0 85575 281 5</nowiki>.</ref> The resistance against European invasion included stealing sheep and driving off, while the settlers broke this resistance with massacre. By 1842, there were at least 35 reports of massacres, however very little of these developed into court investigations against the settlers. <ref name=":5" /> By 1841, some of the tribes were put into reserves and resistance to European invasion increased. According to estimates, the Djap Wurrung population shrunk from 2,050 to 615 (Mallet, 2002). About three quarters of the population pre-contact vanished due to disease, massacres, poison and starvation. <ref>Mallett, Ashley (2002). ''The Black Lords of Summer: The Story of the 1868 Aboriginal Tour of England and Beyond''. University of Queensland Press. pp. 169–175. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-702-23262-6</nowiki>.</ref> Later on, Djap Wurrung land also attracted large numbers of Europeans and Chinese that wanted to search for gold. <ref name=":5" />

=====Aboriginal people Today=====

[[File:Proceedings-Aborigines-Kevin-Rudd-Galiwnku-Island-peoples-February-2008.jpg|thumb|Aboriginal tribes from the Galiwnku Island gathering to watch the proceeding of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to apologize for the former Aboriginal mistreatments under the Australian governments. This apology only took place in 2008.|317x317px]]Today, there are 250 unique language groups within the continent of Australia and only about three percent of Australian population claims Aboriginal heritage. <ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/aboriginal-australians/|title=Aboriginal Australians|last=Blakemore|first=Erin|authorlink=|date=|website=National Geographic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> In comparison to the existence of more than 500 nations before British colonization, this is a drastic decline. Though separated from their traditional land, confronting massacres and being exposed to diseases, the Indigenous communities are still resistant and adaptive to changes .<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":9" />

Contemporary Indigenous people live across urban, rural and remote areas of Australia.Many Federal laws explicitly discriminate against the Aboriginals, for example the Mental Deficiency Bill passed in 1939 which identified “inefficient groups”, including the “slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, and of course aboriginal people” .<ref name=":10">Tarpey-Brown, F. (2019). Glimpsing Cracks in the Present: Acts of Utopian Desire and Resistance at Gezi Park and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Studies in Arts and Humanities, 5(1), 67-76</ref> Though this Bill was soon abolished for serious racial discrimination, the earliest Federal law that applied to Aboriginal Australian’s rights was not passed until 1967. <ref name=":9" />. Even as recent as 1972, the Prime Minister still denied all Aboriginal land rights publicly in his national speech, as he considered Aboriginal land-use to be inefficient economically and socially. <ref name=":10" />

Major struggles for Aboriginal communities still involve the retainment of cultural heritage, loss of identity, as well as government recognition. The State of Victoria proposed a treaty with the Aboriginal population that recognizes Aboriginal sovereignty and provides compensation. Unfortunately, this is only a proposal and there have not been nation-wide treaty in Australia either, therefore making Australia as the only country that have not signed an authorized treaty with Indigenous peoples in the British Commonwealth. <ref name=":9" />

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a formal apology for the profound impact of colonization on Indigenous communities and recognized former mistreatments in the 2008 Federal Government Parliament. <ref name=":11">Tonkinson, R., & Berndt, R. M. (2018, April 19).Aboriginal Peoples In Australian Society. ''Encyclopeedia Britannica. '' Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Aboriginal-peoples-in-Australian-society</nowiki></ref> In the 1990’s, the agenda of “reconciliation” became clear, however, there have been limited actions taken or changes made regarding issues that Indigenous communities face. According to statistics, many Indigenous peoples are still disadvantaged in health, education and employment, however there are successful examples of those who overcome these barriers (Tokinson et al., 2018). The effective means include increased schooling and literacy as well as medical services training. <ref name=":1" /> The work of Aboriginal activists has also achieved some extent public approval and engagement with the non-Aboriginal communities, accompanied with increasing non-Aboriginal empathy towards heartbreaking mistreatment towards Aboriginal Australians, and a fascination to explore more about their diverse cultures. <ref name=":11" />
==Tenure arrangements==
The tenure of the Djap Wurrung community is customary. There is no legal document which declares their sovereignty to the land on the Western Highway and surrounding areas. However, the Djap Wurrung people describe themselves as the Traditional Owners (Why we are here, n.d). After the land belonging to the Djap Wurrung community was colonized by early settlers, their control of the land was increasingly lost. This also applies to many other Indigenous communities in Australia and around the world. Since the Djap Wurrung community is not recognized by the government as the owners of the land through legislation, there is no freehold or leasehold ownership. Presently, the official owner of the land is the Australian government (Why we are here, n.d). However, Indigenous communities throughout Australia, like the Djap Wurrung people, are fighting for their sovereignty, land rights and the retention of culturally significant areas.

==Administrative arrangements==
Administrative arrangements. Describe the management authority and the reporting system.

The Djap Wurrung Embassy have declared their sovereignty and “as survivors...will not concede [their] land rights” <ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Protect Sacred Trees. Save 80,000 years of culture.|last=|first=|date=|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The Aboriginal Heritage Act in 2006 promises to appropriately protect and manage the areas around the Western Highway. <ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-cultural-heritage-management-plan-western-highway-duplication|title=Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan Western Highway Duplication|last=Kanoa|first=Tim|date=|website=aboriginalvictoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Therefore, it is government’s duty to provide protection. This Act also provide the rules for management, as it must respect Aboriginal self-determination, and recognize Aboriginal communities as the Traditional Owners and primary guardians. <ref name=":12" />This Act establishes the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC), which is responsible for appointing Registered Aboriginal Parties and provides suggestions for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that applies rules to the entire state. <ref name=":12" />By working together with local Aboriginal groups, the VAHC can have an exhaustive assessment of the Act . If the Elders of Djap Wurrung are not satisfied with the cultural heritage protection, they can choose to report back to the Victorian Aboriginal Council that is responsible for monitoring protection. <ref name=":12" />.Reconciliation and full consent is necessary prior to any outsiders’ acts. In addition, this act also addresses that the Djap Wurrung have their own right to decide who can represent their cultural heritage. <ref name=":12" />

==Affected Stakeholders==
The Djap Wurrung people are the primary affected stakeholders in the community. They have been oppressed by the government for over 230 years (Lay, 2019). Their main objectives are to protect the birthing trees which will be cut down to build an extension of the Western Highway. This project is known as project 2b. Some of these birthing trees had already been removed to build section 2a of the highway (Cunningham, 2019). The birthing trees removed by the Australian government are culturally significant to the community as these trees have been directly connected to their ancestral territory. As they fight to keep these birthing trees alive, it is a symbol of the declaration of their sovereignty to the land.

These birthing trees are where Aboriginal women give birth traditionally. Women would give birth by squatting against the trees during the final stages of birth. The baby would come out onto the paperbark. After birth, the baby comes in contact with the spirit of the land and establishes a relationship with the land (Kildea, 2009). Birthing trees are also a cultural gathering place, where Indingenous peoples can feel accepted after their rights and territory had been taken away from them through colonization (Kingsley, 2018). As we learn how these trees are used by the Djap Wurrung and their cultural importance, we understand why they are affected stakeholders.

The Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy is also an affected stakeholder as they are an organization which was established to protect the sacred trees on the Western Highway. Although the leaders of this organization are Djap Wurrung traditional owners of the land, many non-Indigenous people have voiced their support for the Embassy. They recognize the connections between Indigenous communities and nature for generations in the region. They also realize the sovereignty to the land of the Aboriginal group and how they have been treated by the Australian government over generations.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
The Australian government and the Major Roads Project Authority are the primary interested stakeholders outside of the community. They would like to remove the Djap Wurrung birthing trees on the Western Highway. This project is known as the Western Highway Project. The section 2a of the highway had already been built, with strong public backlash. The estimate of trees to be removed was 221 trees to construct the highway. However, this number was significantly underestimated as the actual number of trees removed to construct 2a was 1350. A project to build the extension of the highway, 12.5 kilometers long, is known as section 2b. 260 culturally significant trees are under threat of being removed to make way for the highway. The state of Victoria’s government plans to work with Aboriginal locals through providing only monetary compensation but do not have any intentions to save the birthing trees, a fundamental aspect of the Djap Wurrung community (Cunningham, 2019).

A new proposed route which served the same purpose would have been more cost effective and safer than the removal of these culturally significant trees. This new route would require drivers to drive for two extra minutes to reach their destination (Hayman-Reber, 2018). The state of Victoria did not put in much effort to consider this new route or look at other alternatives to keep these birthing trees alive. They describe the Western Highway as “one of Victoria’s key trade routes, providing a link between the region’s primary producers with Melbourne’s domestic and export markets” (Cunningham, 2019). Through this, we see that the government does not have any of these Indigenous communities’ interests in mind. The convenience of drivers is more important than the cultural importance of these birthing trees to the Djap Wurrung community. The attempt for the Australian government to wipe out the trees is a symbol of their attempt to remove any claim of territory by the Djap Wurrung community.

==Discussion==
The intention of our case study is to spread knowledge about Djap Wurrung land management, community forestry and resistance in relation to threats against sacred birthing trees. We want to bring awareness to a current, ongoing dispute about a sacred grove of trees within a settler-state where no substantial treaty has been entered into between the government of Australia and the Indigenous people of Australia. We aim to demonstrate the strength and determination of the Djap Wurrung community, as land defenders and activists who put their own lives at risk in order to protect the sacred birthing trees. We also aim to highlight the important connections between birthing practices and the land.

Despite ongoing colonization, which presents itself through land theft, pollution, development and unsustainable farming and forestry practices, sacred places still exist. Cultural sites where the Djap Wurrung birthing trees live are alive and apart of an interconnected web of relationships that span across generations (Gorrie, 2019). The Major Roads Project Authority and the Australian government have continually “undermined land defenders and positioned Djap Wurrung people as against the interests of the rest of the population” (Gorrie, 2019). Regardless of colonial violence, these trees are Djap Wurrung people's “inheritance”, directly tied to their ancestral territories (Gorrie, 2019). Their survival and the Djap Wurrung fight to keep them alive and safe are a “cultural obligation" and an assertion of their sovereignty (Gorrie, 2019).

Critical issues in this case study include ''land'', ''Indigenous'' ''sovereignty'' and ''consent''.

====== Land ======
Australia is among “the most deforested countries in the world” and is a large emitter of greenhouse gasses (Cunningham, 2019). With the removal of forests, Australia’s carbon sinks would decline (Cunningham, 2019). According to Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018, there is a “downward trend of remnant vegetation, of biodiversity, of forest health”. The state of Victoria’s environmental health is “poor and, despite much good work, the tools used to manage it are ineffective” (Cunningham, 2019).

It remains common practice to offset vegetation lost by planting new vegetation, however, “you cannot meaningfully offset any habitat tree” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018 & Cunningham, 2019). As old-growth river red gum trees, up to 800 years old with girths of more than 7 metres and standing over 30 metres tall, the birthing trees “provide habitat and nutrients for dozens of mammals and birds, and thousands of insect species” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018 & Cunningham, 2019). Nearly 3,000 trees would need to be destroyed to enlarge the highway (Cunningham, 2019). As a result, the state of Victoria’s biodiversity and vegetation cover would significantly decrease.

Additionally, the trees have been “culturally modified, with fire, creating small room[s] in the base of the trunk[s]...[where] thousands of Djab Wurrung babies have been born...within it. The placentas of those babies have been buried under the Directions Trees” (Cunningham, 2019). Overall, with the highway widening, historical trees which are important to Indigenous groups would need to be cut down. This will cause cultural and environmental damage to the region’s Indigenous communities. The tradeoffs for expanding this highway are short term benefit for citizens to arrive at their destination quicker, but significant long term loss of cultural identity for the Djap Wurrung people (Cunningham, 2019).

====== Indigenous Sovereignty ======
The Djap Wurrung people are the rightful Traditional Owners of the Country that MRVP has been attempting to construct upon (DW Embassy). The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability claims to “proudly [acknowledge] Victoria’s Aboriginal community...as Australia’s first peoples and as the Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we rely” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018). They also claim to recognise and value “the ongoing contribution of Aboriginal people and communities...[and] embrace the spirit of reconciliation, working towards the equality of outcomes and ensuring an equal voice” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018) . Victoria’s government claims it wants to work on a treaty with Aboriginal Victorians to create Australia’s first treaty (Cunningham, 2019). However, most of the treaty revolves around compensation, not actual solutions for environmental and spiritual concerns to conserve the trees (Cunningham, 2019).

Despite these political claims, the government and police continue to allow contractors and workers to violate protocols surrounding birthing trees, neglecting Djap Wurrung culture, sovereignty and land rights. As Indigenous people who have lived on Country for thousands and thousands of generations, Djap Wurrung people are sovereign, and their Lore (cultural teachings, traditional knowledge, governance practices) surrounding the sacred birthing trees must be upheld and prioritized above the State governance of Victoria (DW Embassy).

====== Consent ======
The Australian government's actions indicate that it is “committed to working with Aboriginal Victorians who don’t get in the way” (Cunningham, 2019). The MRVP has proven that there is greater enthusiasm for governance solutions that are “material (involving compensation, for example) rather than solutions that require meaningful engagement with spiritual or environmental concerns” (Cunningham, 2019).

The area where the trees reside is "a place of sanctuary in which Djab Wurrung sovereignty has never been ceded” (Mahomet, 2019). The Djap Wurrung have a right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It allows them to “give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories….Once they have given their consent, they can withdraw it at any stage” (FAO). FPIC also enables Djap Wurrung people to “negotiate the conditions under which the project will be designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated” (FAO).

==Assessment==
The asymmetrical power between the Australian Government and the Djap Wurrung is obvious. While there are plentiful historical records of European invasion and alterations of land use without asking for permission, this issue is ongoing. In this case, the culturally significant mother trees were removed by the government in order to build road. There were only a few families consulted before the sacred trees were removed. <ref> Hayman-Reber, M. (2018, June 18). Removal of sacred Djap Wurrung trees an 'act of cultural terrorism'. NITV News. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/06/18/removal-sacred-djap-wurrung-trees-act-cultural-terrorism</nowiki></ref>

Similar to many historical scenarios, the Australian government has dominating power over the Djap Wurrung community. The inconsiderate government actions can be easily justified by legislation, since legislation is formulated by the government authorities themselves. In the government’s perspective, construction actions on Djap Wurrung land is reasonable as long as it contributes to “progressive development”. Government power is employed in an imprudent manner without a proper evaluation of the consequences. What’s worse about this act is that the road building project had an alternative route that was arguably cheaper, safer, and more importantly without the destruction of the sacred trees . This implies that the government chooses to neglect the forests’ sacredness and any negative implications to Aboriginal groups, just because it is not their own culture at risk. This is not the only thing the government fails to grasp. They ignore the fact that Djap Wurrung territories were never ceded to federal control <ref name=":13" /> and the government did not ask for permission to be on their lands, which leads to the violation of Djap Wurrung’s rights and sovereignty. There should be more governance on the Australian government's planning as well.

As Djap Wurrung’s power to nurture the trees were stripped away, they began to perform their right to resist and fight against road construction. Given its profound effects, there is actually very few official studies that focus on this unfair incidence. Attention are only caught by self-broadcasting on social media platforms and news articles that could easily be manipulated by the government. The Djap Wurrung’s power is strengthened as more non-Aboriginal allies join to help resist encroachment. Their sovereignty could be respected if the Victorian government recognizes these damages cannot be undone, compensating the community and working towards including the Djap Wurrung in decision-making processes. Sadly, in reality, the Djap Wurrung camps set up by the community, activists and allies are facing eviction. According to the Djap Wurrung communities’ “no trees no treaty”, it is highly unlikely for them to sign treaties with the government after the sacred trees’s removal. <ref name=":13" />

==Recommendations==
# It is well known that gathering places “encourage healing and wellbeing”, creating inclusive and empowering spaces (Kingsley, 2018). Cultural gathering places in particular provide a sense of place, especially for people who have been marginalized and affected by colonization (Kingsley, 2018). In this case, the sacred trees are gathering places for women giving birth. The the land defender camp and Djap Wurrung community gatherings are also gathering places for both healing and resistance. '''''We recommend that these spaces be respected, and that the camp be allowed to remain as long as needed, as Djap Wurrung people continue to maintain their distinct connection to the land. No notices of eviction should be given to the members of the camp. No police, contractors or road workers should be allowed to access Djap Wurrung territory without free, prior, informed and ongoing consent. Negotiation processes should be respected and conducted on Djap Wurrung terms, led by Djap Wurrung community members rather than Australian government officials or companies. The right of the Djap Wurrung people to withdraw from any negotiated project must be respected.'''''
# The attempt to wipe out Djap Wurrung sacred places “must be seen as an attempt to wipe out their claim to them”, which serves to further dispossess Aboriginal peoples in Australia and “allow the state to continue its operations unhindered” by Aboriginal sovereignty (Gorrie, 2019). '''''We recommend that Djap Wurrung knowledge be prioritized and adhered to in terms of the future of the trees that are on their territory, since Indigenous knowledge systems strengthen cultural identity, self-determination and ultimately health and wellbeing (Kingsley, 2018).'''''
# Aboriginal women in Australia “collectively express a strong desire to maintain cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including birthing close to home and on their homelands, on Country (Marriott, 2019). Aboriginal birthing and elder women have “consistently reported ongoing cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including knowledge sharing across generations, family support, land-based rituals and practices, and “observance of extended family present at the time of or shortly after birth”; these practices are alive and well (Marriott, 2019). However, certain land-based birthing practices for Aboriginal women, including Djap Wurrung women, are at risk, as land continues to be developed and taken by the government for other purposes. The “inflexibility” of Australian health systems to meet the needs of Aboriginal women is unacceptable; Australian obstetricians, doctors, nurses and midwives “lack cultural awareness and understanding” of the importance of Aboriginal kinship and relationships with their territories (Marriott, 2019). Australia’s lack of progress towards providing a culturally secure environment for Indigenous populations is particularly evident in the area of childbirth (Kildea, 2009). '''''We recommend that the Australian government pass specific laws, and hospitals create culturally-specific policies, that will address the rights of Aboriginal women to participate in cultural birthing practices, on their own terms, whether they are giving birth in a hospital, at home or on Country.'''''
# Additionally, since Aboriginal women “regain culturally secure birthing practices when birth is brought back to the remote communities” where Aboriginal women are in charge of themselves and their own births, '''''we recommend that any areas identified as birthing spots on Country across Australia be rightfully returned to the communities to which they belong'''''. '''''We also recommend increased funding and educational opportunities for Aboriginal people who wish to work in health care, including obstetrics and maternity,''''' '''''in order to ensure that Aboriginal women who are giving birth in hospitals or urban settings are provided with access to Aboriginal care providers.'''''

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox CONS370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:CONS370/Projects/Indigenous Djap Wurrung resistance and community responses to threats against sacred birthing trees in Australia

2020-04-23T19:46:59Z

GabrielWan: /* Affected Stakeholders */

=== Summary ===
The '''Djap Wurrung''' (also spelt Djabwurrung, Tjapwurrung,or Djapwarrung) people are Aboriginal Australians whose Country (territory) is the volcanic plains of central Victoria (DW Embassy). Djap Wurrung Country ranges from the Mount William Range of Gariwerd in the west to the Pyrenees range in the east, encompassing the Wimmera River flowing north and the headwaters of the Hopkins River flowing south (DW Embassy). On Djap Wurrung Country, there are over 3,000 sacred birthing trees that are over 800 years old (DW Embassy). Over 50 generations have been born on these cultural sites (DW Embassy). <blockquote>"Those trees are a part of us. The history of those trees is what makes us Djab Wurrung women. The stories of birthing, the stories of cooking, the story of those trees being culturally modified over hundreds of years is incredible." - Djab Wurrung woman Lidia Thorpe (Johnson)</blockquote>The Victoria branch of the Australian Labor Party planned a four-lane highway extension alongside Major Road Projects of Victoria (MRVP), a division of Vic Roads (Roads Corporation of Victoria), that is set to destroy the landscape. The 12.5 kilometer construction project is called the ''Western Highway - Buangor to Ararat Project'' (Cunningham, 2019).

In response, Djapp Wurrung community members Elder Aunty Sandra Onus and Zellanach Djab Mara set up the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy to prevent the destruction, with allies and activists (Johnson, 2019). The Embassy set up a camp on Country in June 2018 with the support of others opposing the project (Johnson, 2019). The community has taken “bold action thereby preventing work from starting and demanding the project is cancelled” (DW Embassy). Though campaign is led by Djap Wurrung Traditional Owners, participants at the Camp include diverse groups of people.

Djab Wurrung people have suggested an alternative route “that would protect the sacred trees, and recommend that safety on the road can be maximised by lowering the speed limit” (Mahomet, 2019). However, the government has refused to consider this alternative route.

On August 8th, 2019, 14 months after the peaceful camp blockade was set up on Country, police issued the Traditional Owners at the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy an eviction notice, “giving the Djab Wurrung people 14 days to vacate their sacred landscape to make way for the Western Highway duplication” (Mahomet, 2019). The eviction notice was directed to police by Daniel Andrews, 48th Premier of Victoria since 2014 and state leader of the Australian Labor Party since 2010 (Mahomet, 2019 & Victoria Labour).

Throughout 2019, Major Road Projects Victoria (MRVP) and their workers continued to have a presence on the land without the consent of the Djap Wurrung people and Embassy. Contractors conducting surveying works “continued to flout mandatory stop work periods” while Djab Wurrung Traditional Owners awaited mediation with MRPV (Mahomet, 2019). Sovereign Djab Wurrung land protectors and their supporters had to continually escort workers off the land. [[File:Signsatcamp.jpg|thumb|Djap Wurrung Embassy Camp|334x334px]]<blockquote>''“Violation is the only appropriate word for these actions, as Djab Wurrung women and their supporters were forced to place themselves in the way of the contractors to protect the sacred birthing tree and a camp that has been a haven for women, gender diverse people and young children....The Djab Wurrung women continued to hold the space in the face of rising aggression and tension as the workers seemed determined to further intrude on the sacred landscape, approaching within metres of the sacred birthing tree and a culturally significant canoe tree.” (DW Embassy)''</blockquote>Legal action helped stall the project for months (Cunningham, 2019). Mediation between the Djap Wurrung people and MRVP commenced September 18th, 2019 (DW Embassy). In late 2019, 3.8km stretch of land was signed over to MRVP (DW Embassy). However, the camp continues to remain in place as of April 2020, and welcomes anyone to stay in an effort to protect old growth trees from being cut down during construction (DW Embassy). The Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy has posted and circulated a COVID-19 Health & Safety Protocol for all people planning on attending the camp.

'''COVID-19 Camp Protocol:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R7xeGf0zDipHKS2MtOUlXCDP1hW5Q3tqG3iEX1Is3r0/mobilebasic (DW Embassy).

'''How to Support the Djap Wurrung Embassy:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-GTkdfwZDfvW26yvRuOMmx4p4hM73Im5dxk-GMElSJI/edit?fbclid=IwAR3ReWqpal5cBZ0DlSFQv63D1smoa3-_cHKPjUX_bq3yqu1YA0leP9tQ9FU (DW Embassy).

==Description==
Description of the community forestry case study – Where located; history; national or regional context (if appropriate)

=====Colonialism in Australia=====

Australia's first recorded European contact was with the British navigator, Captain James Cook when he encountered the eastern coastline of Australia in 1770. <ref>(Cook, J. (1770) wiki "Cook's Journal: Daily Entries, 22 April 1770". Retrieved from http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700422.html)</ref> Later on, Cook claimed his discovery as a possession of the British Crown, which enabled the establishment of a new British colony in the Southern globe. The aim of colonization is to alleviate overpopulation in prison and expand the British Empire and its power through the acquirement of land. <ref name=":0">Australians together. (n.d) Colonisation.(Website) Retrived from https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation/#colonisationreference2</ref> Eight years after its initial discovery, the first fleet with convicts, marines and civilians arrived at Sydney Cove in 1788 for a penal settlement. After, European settlement spread as new colonies were established across the nation. Here are the few of the many regions that were significantly influenced by colonization.<ref name=":0" />

✓ Van Diemen’s Land, today’s Tasmania

✓ Port Phillip District, in what is now Victoria

✓ Moreton Bay, near Brisbane

✓ Adelaide, in South Australia

Cook’s discovery is recent in comparison to 60,000 years of development of more than 500 Aboriginal Nations, and their cultures, who existed at the time. <ref name=":1">Behrendt, 2013</ref>The Australian Indigenous community consisted of both the Aboriginal Nations and the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders have also coexisted in the land for more than 5,000 years. Unfortunately, these traditional custodians of the land suffered from immense social crisis due to European settlement. <ref name=":1" /> According to estimates, the “full-blood” Aboriginal population decreased by 96% from one million in 1788 to the remaining 58,000 in 1920s <ref name=":2">Harris, John.(2003). Aboriginal History, Vol. 27“Hiding the Bodies, the myth of humane colonization of Australia” https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73641/pdf/book.pdf</ref>. Although some disagree with the accuracy of this calculation by arguing it is an exaggeration, there is more than enough evidence to support the drastic decline in Aboriginal population between the 19th and early 20th century. <ref name=":2" />
[[File:Aboriginal attack Lake Hope.jpg|thumb|280x280px|New South Wales Mounted Police engaging Indigenous Australians during the Waterloo Creek Massacre of 1838. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C174087|title=Mounted police and blacks|last=W.Walton after Louisa and Godfrey Charles Mundy|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]

=====The devastating genocide=====

Lack of immunity against epidemics such as smallpox, influenza or measles that were introduced by the European’s arrival was one source of the large number of deaths amongst the Indigenous communities. According to Arthur Phillip, Captain of the first fleet, smallpox was responsible for killing half of the Indigenous population in Sydney within the first fourteen months of their arrival. <ref name=":0" /><ref>Bladen, F. M. (1892). ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (Vol. 1). C. Potter.</ref>

In addition to the threats to physiological health, intentional damages were a source of death and destruction. These damages included culture assimilation, acquisition of Indigenous land, sexual exploitation, physical abuse, and massacres of Indigenous communities; leading to the unfortunate reduction in Indigenous populations and tragic cultural genocide. Friction between the Europeans and the Natives was inevitable because of the long-term competition for resources and difference in lifestyles.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/colonial|title=Colonial period, 1788–1901|last=|first=|date=|website=Australian War Memorial|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Some consider colonization as a process of “introducing the superior western civilization” and believe that Aboriginal people were “doomed to extinction”;they omit the gruesome truth . The convenient assumption that “Aboriginal race extinction was irreversible” has made many felt exonerated from the unjust violence.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:Dovey-Mapping-Massacres.jpg|thumb|280x280px|A multimedia project led by the the Indigenous Australian artist is among the initiatives seeking to map the numerous sites where colonists massacred Aboriginal people]]
One of the most unsuccessful British settlements was undeniably in Van Diemen’s Land, also known Tasmania today. <ref name=":1" /> In 1803, British created an outpost on the Van Diemen’s Land. In the following year, evidence recorded 60 murders of Aborigines, possible when they were approaching the town. <ref>Elder, B. (2003). ''Blood on the wattle: Massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788''. Sydney: New Holland.</ref> In addition to disease, dispossession and intermarriage, the collapse of Aboriginal communities was also a result of the Black War. From 1824 to 1831 In 1830, an armed group known as the “Black Line” was ordered to remove tribes in Big River and Oyster Bay by Sir George Arthur. <ref>Kenyon, S.(1928) .''The Victorian Historical Magazine'',; J. Fenton, ''A History of Tasmania''; ''Historical Records of Australia'', ser. I, vols. XIX to XXII and XXVI; Kenyon Records at Public Library, Melbourne.</ref>The Black Line failed to remove all tribes from their settled district, indicating the Aboriginal resistance. In spite of the effort to resist, Aboriginal population of Tasmania sharply dropped from thousands to a few hundreds. <ref>Boyce, J. (2006). The Companion to Tasmanian History. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/F/Fabrication.html</nowiki></ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Colonisation|title=History of Australia, Colonisation|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The Myall Creek massacre in New South Wales exemplified similar conflict in other parts of Australia as well. If one really pays attention to the timeline for the devastating century, they would notice that massacres took place frequently until 1928 and many were killed just for resisting. (Behrendt, 2013)<ref name=":1" />

=====How should history be interpreted=====

In his ground-breaking work on Aboriginal studies, “The Other Side of the Frontier<nowiki>''</nowiki>, Henry Reynolds provides historical context through nuanced delineation of interactions between Indigenous communities and the Europeans. The presentation of Indigenous values is strongly focused on their respect for the land and natural resources. His work also sheds light upon the Aboriginal resistance against British conquest, enabling many to realize the inseparable community-led resistance intertwined with settler-colonial history. <ref name=":6">Reynolds, H. (2006). ''The other side of the frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia''. UNSW Press.</ref> By introducing the Indigenous lifestyles, cultures and conflicts with British, many topics avoided by previous literatures are mentioned and reinvestigated. Diction such as “invasion” is in juxtaposition with prior sources’ use of “settlement” .<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2393483.The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier|title=The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia by Henry Reynolds.|last=|first=|date=|website=Goodreads.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The discussion of Frontal War on VanDiemen’s Land put an emphasis on the “black” sides .<ref name=":6" /> Reynolds claims that the intention is not to make the audience simply regard Aboriginal people as victims, but his work did provide reasons for people to commemorate the sacrifices of the Frontier War. <ref name=":7" />Aside from Henry Reynolds, other historians such as Lyndall Ryan and Charles Rowley also recorded notorious atrocities against the Aboriginal communities during colonization. <ref name=":8">Windschuttle, K. (2003). The fabrication of Aboriginal history. ''Sydney Papers, The'', ''15''(1), 20.</ref>

Though many historians recognize the suffering of Aboriginal communities, there are opposing voices that doubt the validity of these works. Keith Windschuttle, a primary antagonizing historian, questions the evidence used in Reynolds and Ryan’s work and attacks almost all their opinions <ref name=":6" />. In ''The fabrication of Aboriginal history,'' Windschuttle explicitly claimed that the Aboriginal death numbers are “an amplification of the actual situation”. Ironically, when he accused Renolds and Ryan’s work of not using enough evidence, his own arguments are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and other unreliable sources.<ref name=":8" />Some of his opinions such as claiming that the skeletons near burial sites were kangaroos lacked support and could be extremely misleading. Unlike mainstream historians, Windschuttle believes the violence and extermination of the Aborigines can be justified if the British settlement was resisted. <ref name=":8" /> Even Windschuttle himself recognizes the inhumane attacks on the Van Diemen’s Land is responsible for the Aborigines’ extinction.<ref name=":8" /> Many other historians criticize Windschuttle for his failure to grasp the point. Many investigations regarding Aboriginal communities are not about the actual deaths or magnitude but about how European colonization has continually been destructive towards Aboriginal communities. Overall, the Aboriginal deaths from early settlement and resistance efforts may even be greater than the current records, we may not recognize the exact casualties given that many tribes did not use the same systems to record history . Like John Harris argues, “history tends to be written from the perspective of the powerful” .<ref name=":2" /> In this case, the European government who had more control over words recreated history from their own side rather than the Indigenous societies. Therefore, those who have more power in literature should be more considerate of both parties if they aim to publish unbiased work.

=====The Djap Wurrung=====

The Djap Wurrung’s, also known as the Djapwurrung or Tjapwurrung, presence on their land can be traced back to 40,000 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djab_wurrung|title=Djap Wurrung|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Today, the Djap Wurrung land spreads over 7,000 km2, from Mount Rouse to Hamilton. <ref name=":3">Tindale, Norman Barnett (1974). "Tjapwurong (VIC)". ''Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Australian National University Press. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-708-10741-6</nowiki>.''</ref> The Djap Wurrung societies are composed of at least eleven bands, following two different matrilineal systems (Tindale, 1974).<ref name=":3" /> Their lifestyle is partially hunting and gathering, but there is also evidence of agriculture practices. Some aboriginal activists’ theories suggest that the traditional ball-kicking Aboriginal game initiated within the Wimmera tribe has inspired contemporary Australian football and the formation of its rules. <ref>Dawson, James (1881). ''Australian Aborigines: The Languages and Customs of Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia'' (PDF). Melbourne: George Robertson.</ref>Trees have intrinsic spiritual meanings in the Djap Wurrung culture.<ref name=":4">Richards, Thomas; Bennett, Catherine M; Webber, Harry (2013). "A post-contact Aboriginal mortuary tree from southwestern Victoria, Australia". ''Journal of Field Archaeology''. '''37''' (1): 62–72. doi:10.1179/0093469011z.0000000005.</ref> Births are witnessed by these trees and those who have passed on are buried near the trees. <ref name=":4" />

European settlement has made a great impact on the Djap Wurrung Nation. The first contact was marked in 1836, when the invasion began. <ref name=":5">Clark, Ian D. (1995). ''Scars in the Landscape: a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803–1859'' (PDF). AIATSIS. pp. 57–84. <nowiki>ISBN 0 85575 281 5</nowiki>.</ref> The resistance against European invasion included stealing sheep and driving off, while the settlers broke this resistance with massacre. By 1842, there were at least 35 reports of massacres, however very little of these developed into court investigations against the settlers. <ref name=":5" /> By 1841, some of the tribes were put into reserves and resistance to European invasion increased. According to estimates, the Djap Wurrung population shrunk from 2,050 to 615 (Mallet, 2002). About three quarters of the population pre-contact vanished due to disease, massacres, poison and starvation. <ref>Mallett, Ashley (2002). ''The Black Lords of Summer: The Story of the 1868 Aboriginal Tour of England and Beyond''. University of Queensland Press. pp. 169–175. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-702-23262-6</nowiki>.</ref> Later on, Djap Wurrung land also attracted large numbers of Europeans and Chinese that wanted to search for gold. <ref name=":5" />

=====Aboriginal people Today=====

[[File:Proceedings-Aborigines-Kevin-Rudd-Galiwnku-Island-peoples-February-2008.jpg|thumb|Aboriginal tribes from the Galiwnku Island gathering to watch the proceeding of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to apologize for the former Aboriginal mistreatments under the Australian governments. This apology only took place in 2008.|317x317px]]Today, there are 250 unique language groups within the continent of Australia and only about three percent of Australian population claims Aboriginal heritage. <ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/aboriginal-australians/|title=Aboriginal Australians|last=Blakemore|first=Erin|authorlink=|date=|website=National Geographic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> In comparison to the existence of more than 500 nations before British colonization, this is a drastic decline. Though separated from their traditional land, confronting massacres and being exposed to diseases, the Indigenous communities are still resistant and adaptive to changes .<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":9" />

Contemporary Indigenous people live across urban, rural and remote areas of Australia.Many Federal laws explicitly discriminate against the Aboriginals, for example the Mental Deficiency Bill passed in 1939 which identified “inefficient groups”, including the “slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, and of course aboriginal people” .<ref name=":10">Tarpey-Brown, F. (2019). Glimpsing Cracks in the Present: Acts of Utopian Desire and Resistance at Gezi Park and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Studies in Arts and Humanities, 5(1), 67-76</ref> Though this Bill was soon abolished for serious racial discrimination, the earliest Federal law that applied to Aboriginal Australian’s rights was not passed until 1967. <ref name=":9" />. Even as recent as 1972, the Prime Minister still denied all Aboriginal land rights publicly in his national speech, as he considered Aboriginal land-use to be inefficient economically and socially. <ref name=":10" />

Major struggles for Aboriginal communities still involve the retainment of cultural heritage, loss of identity, as well as government recognition. The State of Victoria proposed a treaty with the Aboriginal population that recognizes Aboriginal sovereignty and provides compensation. Unfortunately, this is only a proposal and there have not been nation-wide treaty in Australia either, therefore making Australia as the only country that have not signed an authorized treaty with Indigenous peoples in the British Commonwealth. <ref name=":9" />

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a formal apology for the profound impact of colonization on Indigenous communities and recognized former mistreatments in the 2008 Federal Government Parliament. <ref name=":11">Tonkinson, R., & Berndt, R. M. (2018, April 19).Aboriginal Peoples In Australian Society. ''Encyclopeedia Britannica. '' Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Aboriginal-peoples-in-Australian-society</nowiki></ref> In the 1990’s, the agenda of “reconciliation” became clear, however, there have been limited actions taken or changes made regarding issues that Indigenous communities face. According to statistics, many Indigenous peoples are still disadvantaged in health, education and employment, however there are successful examples of those who overcome these barriers (Tokinson et al., 2018). The effective means include increased schooling and literacy as well as medical services training. <ref name=":1" /> The work of Aboriginal activists has also achieved some extent public approval and engagement with the non-Aboriginal communities, accompanied with increasing non-Aboriginal empathy towards heartbreaking mistreatment towards Aboriginal Australians, and a fascination to explore more about their diverse cultures. <ref name=":11" />
==Tenure arrangements==
The tenure of the Djap Wurrung community is customary. There is no legal document which declares their sovereignty to the land on the Western Highway and surrounding areas. However, the Djap Wurrung people describe themselves as the Traditional Owners (Why we are here, n.d). After the land belonging to the Djap Wurrung community was colonized by early settlers, their control of the land was increasingly lost. This also applies to many other Indigenous communities in Australia and around the world. Since the Djap Wurrung community is not recognized by the government as the owners of the land through legislation, there is no freehold or leasehold ownership. Presently, the official owner of the land is the Australian government (Why we are here, n.d). However, Indigenous communities throughout Australia, like the Djap Wurrung people, are fighting for their sovereignty, land rights and the retention of culturally significant areas.

==Administrative arrangements==
Administrative arrangements. Describe the management authority and the reporting system.

The Djap Wurrung Embassy have declared their sovereignty and “as survivors...will not concede [their] land rights” <ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Protect Sacred Trees. Save 80,000 years of culture.|last=|first=|date=|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The Aboriginal Heritage Act in 2006 promises to appropriately protect and manage the areas around the Western Highway. <ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-cultural-heritage-management-plan-western-highway-duplication|title=Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan Western Highway Duplication|last=Kanoa|first=Tim|date=|website=aboriginalvictoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Therefore, it is government’s duty to provide protection. This Act also provide the rules for management, as it must respect Aboriginal self-determination, and recognize Aboriginal communities as the Traditional Owners and primary guardians. <ref name=":12" />This Act establishes the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC), which is responsible for appointing Registered Aboriginal Parties and provides suggestions for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that applies rules to the entire state. <ref name=":12" />By working together with local Aboriginal groups, the VAHC can have an exhaustive assessment of the Act . If the Elders of Djap Wurrung are not satisfied with the cultural heritage protection, they can choose to report back to the Victorian Aboriginal Council that is responsible for monitoring protection. <ref name=":12" />.Reconciliation and full consent is necessary prior to any outsiders’ acts. In addition, this act also addresses that the Djap Wurrung have their own right to decide who can represent their cultural heritage. <ref name=":12" />

==Affected Stakeholders==
The Djap Wurrung people are the primary affected stakeholders in the community. They have been oppressed by the government for over 230 years (Lay, 2019). Their main objectives are to protect the birthing trees which will be cut down to build an extension of the Western Highway. This project is known as project 2b. Some of these birthing trees had already been removed to build section 2a of the highway (Cunningham, 2019). The birthing trees removed by the Australian government are culturally significant to the community as these trees have been directly connected to their ancestral territory. As they fight to keep these birthing trees alive, it is a symbol of the declaration of their sovereignty to the land.

These birthing trees are where Aboriginal women give birth traditionally. Women would give birth by squatting against the trees during the final stages of birth. The baby would come out onto the paperbark. After birth, the baby comes in contact with the spirit of the land and establishes a relationship with the land (Kildea, 2009). Birthing trees are also a cultural gathering place, where Indingenous peoples can feel accepted after their rights and territory had been taken away from them through colonization (Kingsley, 2018). As we learn how these trees are used by the Djap Wurrung and their cultural importance, we understand why they are affected stakeholders.

The Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy is also an affected stakeholder as they are an organization which was established to protect the sacred trees on the Western Highway. Although the leaders of this organization are Djap Wurrung traditional owners of the land, many non-Indigenous people have voiced their support for the Embassy. They recognize the connections between Indigenous communities and nature for generations in the region. They also realize the sovereignty to the land of the Aboriginal group and how they have been treated by the Australian government over generations.

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are interested stakeholders, outside the community, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Discussion==
The intention of our case study is to spread knowledge about Djap Wurrung land management, community forestry and resistance in relation to threats against sacred birthing trees. We want to bring awareness to a current, ongoing dispute about a sacred grove of trees within a settler-state where no substantial treaty has been entered into between the government of Australia and the Indigenous people of Australia. We aim to demonstrate the strength and determination of the Djap Wurrung community, as land defenders and activists who put their own lives at risk in order to protect the sacred birthing trees. We also aim to highlight the important connections between birthing practices and the land.

Despite ongoing colonization, which presents itself through land theft, pollution, development and unsustainable farming and forestry practices, sacred places still exist. Cultural sites where the Djap Wurrung birthing trees live are alive and apart of an interconnected web of relationships that span across generations (Gorrie, 2019). The Major Roads Project Authority and the Australian government have continually “undermined land defenders and positioned Djap Wurrung people as against the interests of the rest of the population” (Gorrie, 2019). Regardless of colonial violence, these trees are Djap Wurrung people's “inheritance”, directly tied to their ancestral territories (Gorrie, 2019). Their survival and the Djap Wurrung fight to keep them alive and safe are a “cultural obligation" and an assertion of their sovereignty (Gorrie, 2019).

Critical issues in this case study include ''land'', ''Indigenous'' ''sovereignty'' and ''consent''.

====== Land ======
Australia is among “the most deforested countries in the world” and is a large emitter of greenhouse gasses (Cunningham, 2019). With the removal of forests, Australia’s carbon sinks would decline (Cunningham, 2019). According to Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018, there is a “downward trend of remnant vegetation, of biodiversity, of forest health”. The state of Victoria’s environmental health is “poor and, despite much good work, the tools used to manage it are ineffective” (Cunningham, 2019).

It remains common practice to offset vegetation lost by planting new vegetation, however, “you cannot meaningfully offset any habitat tree” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018 & Cunningham, 2019). As old-growth river red gum trees, up to 800 years old with girths of more than 7 metres and standing over 30 metres tall, the birthing trees “provide habitat and nutrients for dozens of mammals and birds, and thousands of insect species” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018 & Cunningham, 2019). Nearly 3,000 trees would need to be destroyed to enlarge the highway (Cunningham, 2019). As a result, the state of Victoria’s biodiversity and vegetation cover would significantly decrease.

Additionally, the trees have been “culturally modified, with fire, creating small room[s] in the base of the trunk[s]...[where] thousands of Djab Wurrung babies have been born...within it. The placentas of those babies have been buried under the Directions Trees” (Cunningham, 2019). Overall, with the highway widening, historical trees which are important to Indigenous groups would need to be cut down. This will cause cultural and environmental damage to the region’s Indigenous communities. The tradeoffs for expanding this highway are short term benefit for citizens to arrive at their destination quicker, but significant long term loss of cultural identity for the Djap Wurrung people (Cunningham, 2019).

====== Indigenous Sovereignty ======
The Djap Wurrung people are the rightful Traditional Owners of the Country that MRVP has been attempting to construct upon (DW Embassy). The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability claims to “proudly [acknowledge] Victoria’s Aboriginal community...as Australia’s first peoples and as the Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we rely” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018). They also claim to recognise and value “the ongoing contribution of Aboriginal people and communities...[and] embrace the spirit of reconciliation, working towards the equality of outcomes and ensuring an equal voice” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018) . Victoria’s government claims it wants to work on a treaty with Aboriginal Victorians to create Australia’s first treaty (Cunningham, 2019). However, most of the treaty revolves around compensation, not actual solutions for environmental and spiritual concerns to conserve the trees (Cunningham, 2019).

Despite these political claims, the government and police continue to allow contractors and workers to violate protocols surrounding birthing trees, neglecting Djap Wurrung culture, sovereignty and land rights. As Indigenous people who have lived on Country for thousands and thousands of generations, Djap Wurrung people are sovereign, and their Lore (cultural teachings, traditional knowledge, governance practices) surrounding the sacred birthing trees must be upheld and prioritized above the State governance of Victoria (DW Embassy).

====== Consent ======
The Australian government's actions indicate that it is “committed to working with Aboriginal Victorians who don’t get in the way” (Cunningham, 2019). The MRVP has proven that there is greater enthusiasm for governance solutions that are “material (involving compensation, for example) rather than solutions that require meaningful engagement with spiritual or environmental concerns” (Cunningham, 2019).

The area where the trees reside is "a place of sanctuary in which Djab Wurrung sovereignty has never been ceded” (Mahomet, 2019). The Djap Wurrung have a right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It allows them to “give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories….Once they have given their consent, they can withdraw it at any stage” (FAO). FPIC also enables Djap Wurrung people to “negotiate the conditions under which the project will be designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated” (FAO).

==Assessment==
The asymmetrical power between the Australian Government and the Djap Wurrung is obvious. While there are plentiful historical records of European invasion and alterations of land use without asking for permission, this issue is ongoing. In this case, the culturally significant mother trees were removed by the government in order to build road. There were only a few families consulted before the sacred trees were removed. <ref> Hayman-Reber, M. (2018, June 18). Removal of sacred Djap Wurrung trees an 'act of cultural terrorism'. NITV News. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/06/18/removal-sacred-djap-wurrung-trees-act-cultural-terrorism</nowiki></ref>

Similar to many historical scenarios, the Australian government has dominating power over the Djap Wurrung community. The inconsiderate government actions can be easily justified by legislation, since legislation is formulated by the government authorities themselves. In the government’s perspective, construction actions on Djap Wurrung land is reasonable as long as it contributes to “progressive development”. Government power is employed in an imprudent manner without a proper evaluation of the consequences. What’s worse about this act is that the road building project had an alternative route that was arguably cheaper, safer, and more importantly without the destruction of the sacred trees . This implies that the government chooses to neglect the forests’ sacredness and any negative implications to Aboriginal groups, just because it is not their own culture at risk. This is not the only thing the government fails to grasp. They ignore the fact that Djap Wurrung territories were never ceded to federal control <ref name=":13" /> and the government did not ask for permission to be on their lands, which leads to the violation of Djap Wurrung’s rights and sovereignty. There should be more governance on the Australian government's planning as well.

As Djap Wurrung’s power to nurture the trees were stripped away, they began to perform their right to resist and fight against road construction. Given its profound effects, there is actually very few official studies that focus on this unfair incidence. Attention are only caught by self-broadcasting on social media platforms and news articles that could easily be manipulated by the government. The Djap Wurrung’s power is strengthened as more non-Aboriginal allies join to help resist encroachment. Their sovereignty could be respected if the Victorian government recognizes these damages cannot be undone, compensating the community and working towards including the Djap Wurrung in decision-making processes. Sadly, in reality, the Djap Wurrung camps set up by the community, activists and allies are facing eviction. According to the Djap Wurrung communities’ “no trees no treaty”, it is highly unlikely for them to sign treaties with the government after the sacred trees’s removal. <ref name=":13" />

==Recommendations==
# It is well known that gathering places “encourage healing and wellbeing”, creating inclusive and empowering spaces (Kingsley, 2018). Cultural gathering places in particular provide a sense of place, especially for people who have been marginalized and affected by colonization (Kingsley, 2018). In this case, the sacred trees are gathering places for women giving birth. The the land defender camp and Djap Wurrung community gatherings are also gathering places for both healing and resistance. '''''We recommend that these spaces be respected, and that the camp be allowed to remain as long as needed, as Djap Wurrung people continue to maintain their distinct connection to the land. No notices of eviction should be given to the members of the camp. No police, contractors or road workers should be allowed to access Djap Wurrung territory without free, prior, informed and ongoing consent. Negotiation processes should be respected and conducted on Djap Wurrung terms, led by Djap Wurrung community members rather than Australian government officials or companies. The right of the Djap Wurrung people to withdraw from any negotiated project must be respected.'''''
# The attempt to wipe out Djap Wurrung sacred places “must be seen as an attempt to wipe out their claim to them”, which serves to further dispossess Aboriginal peoples in Australia and “allow the state to continue its operations unhindered” by Aboriginal sovereignty (Gorrie, 2019). '''''We recommend that Djap Wurrung knowledge be prioritized and adhered to in terms of the future of the trees that are on their territory, since Indigenous knowledge systems strengthen cultural identity, self-determination and ultimately health and wellbeing (Kingsley, 2018).'''''
# Aboriginal women in Australia “collectively express a strong desire to maintain cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including birthing close to home and on their homelands, on Country (Marriott, 2019). Aboriginal birthing and elder women have “consistently reported ongoing cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including knowledge sharing across generations, family support, land-based rituals and practices, and “observance of extended family present at the time of or shortly after birth”; these practices are alive and well (Marriott, 2019). However, certain land-based birthing practices for Aboriginal women, including Djap Wurrung women, are at risk, as land continues to be developed and taken by the government for other purposes. The “inflexibility” of Australian health systems to meet the needs of Aboriginal women is unacceptable; Australian obstetricians, doctors, nurses and midwives “lack cultural awareness and understanding” of the importance of Aboriginal kinship and relationships with their territories (Marriott, 2019). Australia’s lack of progress towards providing a culturally secure environment for Indigenous populations is particularly evident in the area of childbirth (Kildea, 2009). '''''We recommend that the Australian government pass specific laws, and hospitals create culturally-specific policies, that will address the rights of Aboriginal women to participate in cultural birthing practices, on their own terms, whether they are giving birth in a hospital, at home or on Country.'''''
# Additionally, since Aboriginal women “regain culturally secure birthing practices when birth is brought back to the remote communities” where Aboriginal women are in charge of themselves and their own births, '''''we recommend that any areas identified as birthing spots on Country across Australia be rightfully returned to the communities to which they belong'''''. '''''We also recommend increased funding and educational opportunities for Aboriginal people who wish to work in health care, including obstetrics and maternity,''''' '''''in order to ensure that Aboriginal women who are giving birth in hospitals or urban settings are provided with access to Aboriginal care providers.'''''

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox CONS370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:CONS370/Projects/Indigenous Djap Wurrung resistance and community responses to threats against sacred birthing trees in Australia

2020-04-23T19:45:22Z

GabrielWan: /* Tenure arrangements */

=== Summary ===
The '''Djap Wurrung''' (also spelt Djabwurrung, Tjapwurrung,or Djapwarrung) people are Aboriginal Australians whose Country (territory) is the volcanic plains of central Victoria (DW Embassy). Djap Wurrung Country ranges from the Mount William Range of Gariwerd in the west to the Pyrenees range in the east, encompassing the Wimmera River flowing north and the headwaters of the Hopkins River flowing south (DW Embassy). On Djap Wurrung Country, there are over 3,000 sacred birthing trees that are over 800 years old (DW Embassy). Over 50 generations have been born on these cultural sites (DW Embassy). <blockquote>"Those trees are a part of us. The history of those trees is what makes us Djab Wurrung women. The stories of birthing, the stories of cooking, the story of those trees being culturally modified over hundreds of years is incredible." - Djab Wurrung woman Lidia Thorpe (Johnson)</blockquote>The Victoria branch of the Australian Labor Party planned a four-lane highway extension alongside Major Road Projects of Victoria (MRVP), a division of Vic Roads (Roads Corporation of Victoria), that is set to destroy the landscape. The 12.5 kilometer construction project is called the ''Western Highway - Buangor to Ararat Project'' (Cunningham, 2019).

In response, Djapp Wurrung community members Elder Aunty Sandra Onus and Zellanach Djab Mara set up the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy to prevent the destruction, with allies and activists (Johnson, 2019). The Embassy set up a camp on Country in June 2018 with the support of others opposing the project (Johnson, 2019). The community has taken “bold action thereby preventing work from starting and demanding the project is cancelled” (DW Embassy). Though campaign is led by Djap Wurrung Traditional Owners, participants at the Camp include diverse groups of people.

Djab Wurrung people have suggested an alternative route “that would protect the sacred trees, and recommend that safety on the road can be maximised by lowering the speed limit” (Mahomet, 2019). However, the government has refused to consider this alternative route.

On August 8th, 2019, 14 months after the peaceful camp blockade was set up on Country, police issued the Traditional Owners at the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy an eviction notice, “giving the Djab Wurrung people 14 days to vacate their sacred landscape to make way for the Western Highway duplication” (Mahomet, 2019). The eviction notice was directed to police by Daniel Andrews, 48th Premier of Victoria since 2014 and state leader of the Australian Labor Party since 2010 (Mahomet, 2019 & Victoria Labour).

Throughout 2019, Major Road Projects Victoria (MRVP) and their workers continued to have a presence on the land without the consent of the Djap Wurrung people and Embassy. Contractors conducting surveying works “continued to flout mandatory stop work periods” while Djab Wurrung Traditional Owners awaited mediation with MRPV (Mahomet, 2019). Sovereign Djab Wurrung land protectors and their supporters had to continually escort workers off the land. [[File:Signsatcamp.jpg|thumb|Djap Wurrung Embassy Camp|334x334px]]<blockquote>''“Violation is the only appropriate word for these actions, as Djab Wurrung women and their supporters were forced to place themselves in the way of the contractors to protect the sacred birthing tree and a camp that has been a haven for women, gender diverse people and young children....The Djab Wurrung women continued to hold the space in the face of rising aggression and tension as the workers seemed determined to further intrude on the sacred landscape, approaching within metres of the sacred birthing tree and a culturally significant canoe tree.” (DW Embassy)''</blockquote>Legal action helped stall the project for months (Cunningham, 2019). Mediation between the Djap Wurrung people and MRVP commenced September 18th, 2019 (DW Embassy). In late 2019, 3.8km stretch of land was signed over to MRVP (DW Embassy). However, the camp continues to remain in place as of April 2020, and welcomes anyone to stay in an effort to protect old growth trees from being cut down during construction (DW Embassy). The Djap Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy has posted and circulated a COVID-19 Health & Safety Protocol for all people planning on attending the camp.

'''COVID-19 Camp Protocol:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R7xeGf0zDipHKS2MtOUlXCDP1hW5Q3tqG3iEX1Is3r0/mobilebasic (DW Embassy).

'''How to Support the Djap Wurrung Embassy:''' https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-GTkdfwZDfvW26yvRuOMmx4p4hM73Im5dxk-GMElSJI/edit?fbclid=IwAR3ReWqpal5cBZ0DlSFQv63D1smoa3-_cHKPjUX_bq3yqu1YA0leP9tQ9FU (DW Embassy).

==Description==
Description of the community forestry case study – Where located; history; national or regional context (if appropriate)

=====Colonialism in Australia=====

Australia's first recorded European contact was with the British navigator, Captain James Cook when he encountered the eastern coastline of Australia in 1770. <ref>(Cook, J. (1770) wiki "Cook's Journal: Daily Entries, 22 April 1770". Retrieved from http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700422.html)</ref> Later on, Cook claimed his discovery as a possession of the British Crown, which enabled the establishment of a new British colony in the Southern globe. The aim of colonization is to alleviate overpopulation in prison and expand the British Empire and its power through the acquirement of land. <ref name=":0">Australians together. (n.d) Colonisation.(Website) Retrived from https://australianstogether.org.au/discover/australian-history/colonisation/#colonisationreference2</ref> Eight years after its initial discovery, the first fleet with convicts, marines and civilians arrived at Sydney Cove in 1788 for a penal settlement. After, European settlement spread as new colonies were established across the nation. Here are the few of the many regions that were significantly influenced by colonization.<ref name=":0" />

✓ Van Diemen’s Land, today’s Tasmania

✓ Port Phillip District, in what is now Victoria

✓ Moreton Bay, near Brisbane

✓ Adelaide, in South Australia

Cook’s discovery is recent in comparison to 60,000 years of development of more than 500 Aboriginal Nations, and their cultures, who existed at the time. <ref name=":1">Behrendt, 2013</ref>The Australian Indigenous community consisted of both the Aboriginal Nations and the Torres Strait Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders have also coexisted in the land for more than 5,000 years. Unfortunately, these traditional custodians of the land suffered from immense social crisis due to European settlement. <ref name=":1" /> According to estimates, the “full-blood” Aboriginal population decreased by 96% from one million in 1788 to the remaining 58,000 in 1920s <ref name=":2">Harris, John.(2003). Aboriginal History, Vol. 27“Hiding the Bodies, the myth of humane colonization of Australia” https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73641/pdf/book.pdf</ref>. Although some disagree with the accuracy of this calculation by arguing it is an exaggeration, there is more than enough evidence to support the drastic decline in Aboriginal population between the 19th and early 20th century. <ref name=":2" />
[[File:Aboriginal attack Lake Hope.jpg|thumb|280x280px|New South Wales Mounted Police engaging Indigenous Australians during the Waterloo Creek Massacre of 1838. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C174087|title=Mounted police and blacks|last=W.Walton after Louisa and Godfrey Charles Mundy|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>]]

=====The devastating genocide=====

Lack of immunity against epidemics such as smallpox, influenza or measles that were introduced by the European’s arrival was one source of the large number of deaths amongst the Indigenous communities. According to Arthur Phillip, Captain of the first fleet, smallpox was responsible for killing half of the Indigenous population in Sydney within the first fourteen months of their arrival. <ref name=":0" /><ref>Bladen, F. M. (1892). ''Historical Records of New South Wales'' (Vol. 1). C. Potter.</ref>

In addition to the threats to physiological health, intentional damages were a source of death and destruction. These damages included culture assimilation, acquisition of Indigenous land, sexual exploitation, physical abuse, and massacres of Indigenous communities; leading to the unfortunate reduction in Indigenous populations and tragic cultural genocide. Friction between the Europeans and the Natives was inevitable because of the long-term competition for resources and difference in lifestyles.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/colonial|title=Colonial period, 1788–1901|last=|first=|date=|website=Australian War Memorial|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Some consider colonization as a process of “introducing the superior western civilization” and believe that Aboriginal people were “doomed to extinction”;they omit the gruesome truth . The convenient assumption that “Aboriginal race extinction was irreversible” has made many felt exonerated from the unjust violence.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:Dovey-Mapping-Massacres.jpg|thumb|280x280px|A multimedia project led by the the Indigenous Australian artist is among the initiatives seeking to map the numerous sites where colonists massacred Aboriginal people]]
One of the most unsuccessful British settlements was undeniably in Van Diemen’s Land, also known Tasmania today. <ref name=":1" /> In 1803, British created an outpost on the Van Diemen’s Land. In the following year, evidence recorded 60 murders of Aborigines, possible when they were approaching the town. <ref>Elder, B. (2003). ''Blood on the wattle: Massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788''. Sydney: New Holland.</ref> In addition to disease, dispossession and intermarriage, the collapse of Aboriginal communities was also a result of the Black War. From 1824 to 1831 In 1830, an armed group known as the “Black Line” was ordered to remove tribes in Big River and Oyster Bay by Sir George Arthur. <ref>Kenyon, S.(1928) .''The Victorian Historical Magazine'',; J. Fenton, ''A History of Tasmania''; ''Historical Records of Australia'', ser. I, vols. XIX to XXII and XXVI; Kenyon Records at Public Library, Melbourne.</ref>The Black Line failed to remove all tribes from their settled district, indicating the Aboriginal resistance. In spite of the effort to resist, Aboriginal population of Tasmania sharply dropped from thousands to a few hundreds. <ref>Boyce, J. (2006). The Companion to Tasmanian History. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.utas.edu.au/library/companion_to_tasmanian_history/F/Fabrication.html</nowiki></ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia#Colonisation|title=History of Australia, Colonisation|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The Myall Creek massacre in New South Wales exemplified similar conflict in other parts of Australia as well. If one really pays attention to the timeline for the devastating century, they would notice that massacres took place frequently until 1928 and many were killed just for resisting. (Behrendt, 2013)<ref name=":1" />

=====How should history be interpreted=====

In his ground-breaking work on Aboriginal studies, “The Other Side of the Frontier<nowiki>''</nowiki>, Henry Reynolds provides historical context through nuanced delineation of interactions between Indigenous communities and the Europeans. The presentation of Indigenous values is strongly focused on their respect for the land and natural resources. His work also sheds light upon the Aboriginal resistance against British conquest, enabling many to realize the inseparable community-led resistance intertwined with settler-colonial history. <ref name=":6">Reynolds, H. (2006). ''The other side of the frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia''. UNSW Press.</ref> By introducing the Indigenous lifestyles, cultures and conflicts with British, many topics avoided by previous literatures are mentioned and reinvestigated. Diction such as “invasion” is in juxtaposition with prior sources’ use of “settlement” .<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2393483.The_Other_Side_of_the_Frontier|title=The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia by Henry Reynolds.|last=|first=|date=|website=Goodreads.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The discussion of Frontal War on VanDiemen’s Land put an emphasis on the “black” sides .<ref name=":6" /> Reynolds claims that the intention is not to make the audience simply regard Aboriginal people as victims, but his work did provide reasons for people to commemorate the sacrifices of the Frontier War. <ref name=":7" />Aside from Henry Reynolds, other historians such as Lyndall Ryan and Charles Rowley also recorded notorious atrocities against the Aboriginal communities during colonization. <ref name=":8">Windschuttle, K. (2003). The fabrication of Aboriginal history. ''Sydney Papers, The'', ''15''(1), 20.</ref>

Though many historians recognize the suffering of Aboriginal communities, there are opposing voices that doubt the validity of these works. Keith Windschuttle, a primary antagonizing historian, questions the evidence used in Reynolds and Ryan’s work and attacks almost all their opinions <ref name=":6" />. In ''The fabrication of Aboriginal history,'' Windschuttle explicitly claimed that the Aboriginal death numbers are “an amplification of the actual situation”. Ironically, when he accused Renolds and Ryan’s work of not using enough evidence, his own arguments are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and other unreliable sources.<ref name=":8" />Some of his opinions such as claiming that the skeletons near burial sites were kangaroos lacked support and could be extremely misleading. Unlike mainstream historians, Windschuttle believes the violence and extermination of the Aborigines can be justified if the British settlement was resisted. <ref name=":8" /> Even Windschuttle himself recognizes the inhumane attacks on the Van Diemen’s Land is responsible for the Aborigines’ extinction.<ref name=":8" /> Many other historians criticize Windschuttle for his failure to grasp the point. Many investigations regarding Aboriginal communities are not about the actual deaths or magnitude but about how European colonization has continually been destructive towards Aboriginal communities. Overall, the Aboriginal deaths from early settlement and resistance efforts may even be greater than the current records, we may not recognize the exact casualties given that many tribes did not use the same systems to record history . Like John Harris argues, “history tends to be written from the perspective of the powerful” .<ref name=":2" /> In this case, the European government who had more control over words recreated history from their own side rather than the Indigenous societies. Therefore, those who have more power in literature should be more considerate of both parties if they aim to publish unbiased work.

=====The Djap Wurrung=====

The Djap Wurrung’s, also known as the Djapwurrung or Tjapwurrung, presence on their land can be traced back to 40,000 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djab_wurrung|title=Djap Wurrung|last=|first=|date=|website=Wikipedia|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Today, the Djap Wurrung land spreads over 7,000 km2, from Mount Rouse to Hamilton. <ref name=":3">Tindale, Norman Barnett (1974). "Tjapwurong (VIC)". ''Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Australian National University Press. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-708-10741-6</nowiki>.''</ref> The Djap Wurrung societies are composed of at least eleven bands, following two different matrilineal systems (Tindale, 1974).<ref name=":3" /> Their lifestyle is partially hunting and gathering, but there is also evidence of agriculture practices. Some aboriginal activists’ theories suggest that the traditional ball-kicking Aboriginal game initiated within the Wimmera tribe has inspired contemporary Australian football and the formation of its rules. <ref>Dawson, James (1881). ''Australian Aborigines: The Languages and Customs of Several Tribes of Aborigines in the Western District of Victoria, Australia'' (PDF). Melbourne: George Robertson.</ref>Trees have intrinsic spiritual meanings in the Djap Wurrung culture.<ref name=":4">Richards, Thomas; Bennett, Catherine M; Webber, Harry (2013). "A post-contact Aboriginal mortuary tree from southwestern Victoria, Australia". ''Journal of Field Archaeology''. '''37''' (1): 62–72. doi:10.1179/0093469011z.0000000005.</ref> Births are witnessed by these trees and those who have passed on are buried near the trees. <ref name=":4" />

European settlement has made a great impact on the Djap Wurrung Nation. The first contact was marked in 1836, when the invasion began. <ref name=":5">Clark, Ian D. (1995). ''Scars in the Landscape: a register of massacre sites in western Victoria, 1803–1859'' (PDF). AIATSIS. pp. 57–84. <nowiki>ISBN 0 85575 281 5</nowiki>.</ref> The resistance against European invasion included stealing sheep and driving off, while the settlers broke this resistance with massacre. By 1842, there were at least 35 reports of massacres, however very little of these developed into court investigations against the settlers. <ref name=":5" /> By 1841, some of the tribes were put into reserves and resistance to European invasion increased. According to estimates, the Djap Wurrung population shrunk from 2,050 to 615 (Mallet, 2002). About three quarters of the population pre-contact vanished due to disease, massacres, poison and starvation. <ref>Mallett, Ashley (2002). ''The Black Lords of Summer: The Story of the 1868 Aboriginal Tour of England and Beyond''. University of Queensland Press. pp. 169–175. <nowiki>ISBN 978-0-702-23262-6</nowiki>.</ref> Later on, Djap Wurrung land also attracted large numbers of Europeans and Chinese that wanted to search for gold. <ref name=":5" />

=====Aboriginal people Today=====

[[File:Proceedings-Aborigines-Kevin-Rudd-Galiwnku-Island-peoples-February-2008.jpg|thumb|Aboriginal tribes from the Galiwnku Island gathering to watch the proceeding of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to apologize for the former Aboriginal mistreatments under the Australian governments. This apology only took place in 2008.|317x317px]]Today, there are 250 unique language groups within the continent of Australia and only about three percent of Australian population claims Aboriginal heritage. <ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/aboriginal-australians/|title=Aboriginal Australians|last=Blakemore|first=Erin|authorlink=|date=|website=National Geographic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> In comparison to the existence of more than 500 nations before British colonization, this is a drastic decline. Though separated from their traditional land, confronting massacres and being exposed to diseases, the Indigenous communities are still resistant and adaptive to changes .<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":9" />

Contemporary Indigenous people live across urban, rural and remote areas of Australia.Many Federal laws explicitly discriminate against the Aboriginals, for example the Mental Deficiency Bill passed in 1939 which identified “inefficient groups”, including the “slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, and of course aboriginal people” .<ref name=":10">Tarpey-Brown, F. (2019). Glimpsing Cracks in the Present: Acts of Utopian Desire and Resistance at Gezi Park and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. Studies in Arts and Humanities, 5(1), 67-76</ref> Though this Bill was soon abolished for serious racial discrimination, the earliest Federal law that applied to Aboriginal Australian’s rights was not passed until 1967. <ref name=":9" />. Even as recent as 1972, the Prime Minister still denied all Aboriginal land rights publicly in his national speech, as he considered Aboriginal land-use to be inefficient economically and socially. <ref name=":10" />

Major struggles for Aboriginal communities still involve the retainment of cultural heritage, loss of identity, as well as government recognition. The State of Victoria proposed a treaty with the Aboriginal population that recognizes Aboriginal sovereignty and provides compensation. Unfortunately, this is only a proposal and there have not been nation-wide treaty in Australia either, therefore making Australia as the only country that have not signed an authorized treaty with Indigenous peoples in the British Commonwealth. <ref name=":9" />

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a formal apology for the profound impact of colonization on Indigenous communities and recognized former mistreatments in the 2008 Federal Government Parliament. <ref name=":11">Tonkinson, R., & Berndt, R. M. (2018, April 19).Aboriginal Peoples In Australian Society. ''Encyclopeedia Britannica. '' Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Aboriginal-peoples-in-Australian-society</nowiki></ref> In the 1990’s, the agenda of “reconciliation” became clear, however, there have been limited actions taken or changes made regarding issues that Indigenous communities face. According to statistics, many Indigenous peoples are still disadvantaged in health, education and employment, however there are successful examples of those who overcome these barriers (Tokinson et al., 2018). The effective means include increased schooling and literacy as well as medical services training. <ref name=":1" /> The work of Aboriginal activists has also achieved some extent public approval and engagement with the non-Aboriginal communities, accompanied with increasing non-Aboriginal empathy towards heartbreaking mistreatment towards Aboriginal Australians, and a fascination to explore more about their diverse cultures. <ref name=":11" />
==Tenure arrangements==
The tenure of the Djap Wurrung community is customary. There is no legal document which declares their sovereignty to the land on the Western Highway and surrounding areas. However, the Djap Wurrung people describe themselves as the Traditional Owners (Why we are here, n.d). After the land belonging to the Djap Wurrung community was colonized by early settlers, their control of the land was increasingly lost. This also applies to many other Indigenous communities in Australia and around the world. Since the Djap Wurrung community is not recognized by the government as the owners of the land through legislation, there is no freehold or leasehold ownership. Presently, the official owner of the land is the Australian government (Why we are here, n.d). However, Indigenous communities throughout Australia, like the Djap Wurrung people, are fighting for their sovereignty, land rights and the retention of culturally significant areas.

==Administrative arrangements==
Administrative arrangements. Describe the management authority and the reporting system.

The Djap Wurrung Embassy have declared their sovereignty and “as survivors...will not concede [their] land rights” <ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=https://dwembassy.com|title=Protect Sacred Trees. Save 80,000 years of culture.|last=|first=|date=|website=DW Embassy|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>. The Aboriginal Heritage Act in 2006 promises to appropriately protect and manage the areas around the Western Highway. <ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.aboriginalvictoria.vic.gov.au/aboriginal-cultural-heritage-management-plan-western-highway-duplication|title=Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan Western Highway Duplication|last=Kanoa|first=Tim|date=|website=aboriginalvictoria|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> Therefore, it is government’s duty to provide protection. This Act also provide the rules for management, as it must respect Aboriginal self-determination, and recognize Aboriginal communities as the Traditional Owners and primary guardians. <ref name=":12" />This Act establishes the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council (VAHC), which is responsible for appointing Registered Aboriginal Parties and provides suggestions for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that applies rules to the entire state. <ref name=":12" />By working together with local Aboriginal groups, the VAHC can have an exhaustive assessment of the Act . If the Elders of Djap Wurrung are not satisfied with the cultural heritage protection, they can choose to report back to the Victorian Aboriginal Council that is responsible for monitoring protection. <ref name=":12" />.Reconciliation and full consent is necessary prior to any outsiders’ acts. In addition, this act also addresses that the Djap Wurrung have their own right to decide who can represent their cultural heritage. <ref name=":12" />

==Affected Stakeholders==
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are affected stakeholders, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Interested Outside Stakeholders==
Social actors (stakeholders, user groups) who are interested stakeholders, outside the community, their main relevant objectives, and their relative power

==Discussion==
The intention of our case study is to spread knowledge about Djap Wurrung land management, community forestry and resistance in relation to threats against sacred birthing trees. We want to bring awareness to a current, ongoing dispute about a sacred grove of trees within a settler-state where no substantial treaty has been entered into between the government of Australia and the Indigenous people of Australia. We aim to demonstrate the strength and determination of the Djap Wurrung community, as land defenders and activists who put their own lives at risk in order to protect the sacred birthing trees. We also aim to highlight the important connections between birthing practices and the land.

Despite ongoing colonization, which presents itself through land theft, pollution, development and unsustainable farming and forestry practices, sacred places still exist. Cultural sites where the Djap Wurrung birthing trees live are alive and apart of an interconnected web of relationships that span across generations (Gorrie, 2019). The Major Roads Project Authority and the Australian government have continually “undermined land defenders and positioned Djap Wurrung people as against the interests of the rest of the population” (Gorrie, 2019). Regardless of colonial violence, these trees are Djap Wurrung people's “inheritance”, directly tied to their ancestral territories (Gorrie, 2019). Their survival and the Djap Wurrung fight to keep them alive and safe are a “cultural obligation" and an assertion of their sovereignty (Gorrie, 2019).

Critical issues in this case study include ''land'', ''Indigenous'' ''sovereignty'' and ''consent''.

====== Land ======
Australia is among “the most deforested countries in the world” and is a large emitter of greenhouse gasses (Cunningham, 2019). With the removal of forests, Australia’s carbon sinks would decline (Cunningham, 2019). According to Victorian State of the Environment Report 2018, there is a “downward trend of remnant vegetation, of biodiversity, of forest health”. The state of Victoria’s environmental health is “poor and, despite much good work, the tools used to manage it are ineffective” (Cunningham, 2019).

It remains common practice to offset vegetation lost by planting new vegetation, however, “you cannot meaningfully offset any habitat tree” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018 & Cunningham, 2019). As old-growth river red gum trees, up to 800 years old with girths of more than 7 metres and standing over 30 metres tall, the birthing trees “provide habitat and nutrients for dozens of mammals and birds, and thousands of insect species” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018 & Cunningham, 2019). Nearly 3,000 trees would need to be destroyed to enlarge the highway (Cunningham, 2019). As a result, the state of Victoria’s biodiversity and vegetation cover would significantly decrease.

Additionally, the trees have been “culturally modified, with fire, creating small room[s] in the base of the trunk[s]...[where] thousands of Djab Wurrung babies have been born...within it. The placentas of those babies have been buried under the Directions Trees” (Cunningham, 2019). Overall, with the highway widening, historical trees which are important to Indigenous groups would need to be cut down. This will cause cultural and environmental damage to the region’s Indigenous communities. The tradeoffs for expanding this highway are short term benefit for citizens to arrive at their destination quicker, but significant long term loss of cultural identity for the Djap Wurrung people (Cunningham, 2019).

====== Indigenous Sovereignty ======
The Djap Wurrung people are the rightful Traditional Owners of the Country that MRVP has been attempting to construct upon (DW Embassy). The Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability claims to “proudly [acknowledge] Victoria’s Aboriginal community...as Australia’s first peoples and as the Traditional Owners and custodians of the land and water on which we rely” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018). They also claim to recognise and value “the ongoing contribution of Aboriginal people and communities...[and] embrace the spirit of reconciliation, working towards the equality of outcomes and ensuring an equal voice” (Victorian State of the Environment Report, 2018) . Victoria’s government claims it wants to work on a treaty with Aboriginal Victorians to create Australia’s first treaty (Cunningham, 2019). However, most of the treaty revolves around compensation, not actual solutions for environmental and spiritual concerns to conserve the trees (Cunningham, 2019).

Despite these political claims, the government and police continue to allow contractors and workers to violate protocols surrounding birthing trees, neglecting Djap Wurrung culture, sovereignty and land rights. As Indigenous people who have lived on Country for thousands and thousands of generations, Djap Wurrung people are sovereign, and their Lore (cultural teachings, traditional knowledge, governance practices) surrounding the sacred birthing trees must be upheld and prioritized above the State governance of Victoria (DW Embassy).

====== Consent ======
The Australian government's actions indicate that it is “committed to working with Aboriginal Victorians who don’t get in the way” (Cunningham, 2019). The MRVP has proven that there is greater enthusiasm for governance solutions that are “material (involving compensation, for example) rather than solutions that require meaningful engagement with spiritual or environmental concerns” (Cunningham, 2019).

The area where the trees reside is "a place of sanctuary in which Djab Wurrung sovereignty has never been ceded” (Mahomet, 2019). The Djap Wurrung have a right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), which is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It allows them to “give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories….Once they have given their consent, they can withdraw it at any stage” (FAO). FPIC also enables Djap Wurrung people to “negotiate the conditions under which the project will be designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated” (FAO).

==Assessment==
The asymmetrical power between the Australian Government and the Djap Wurrung is obvious. While there are plentiful historical records of European invasion and alterations of land use without asking for permission, this issue is ongoing. In this case, the culturally significant mother trees were removed by the government in order to build road. There were only a few families consulted before the sacred trees were removed. <ref> Hayman-Reber, M. (2018, June 18). Removal of sacred Djap Wurrung trees an 'act of cultural terrorism'. NITV News. Retrieved from <nowiki>https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/06/18/removal-sacred-djap-wurrung-trees-act-cultural-terrorism</nowiki></ref>

Similar to many historical scenarios, the Australian government has dominating power over the Djap Wurrung community. The inconsiderate government actions can be easily justified by legislation, since legislation is formulated by the government authorities themselves. In the government’s perspective, construction actions on Djap Wurrung land is reasonable as long as it contributes to “progressive development”. Government power is employed in an imprudent manner without a proper evaluation of the consequences. What’s worse about this act is that the road building project had an alternative route that was arguably cheaper, safer, and more importantly without the destruction of the sacred trees . This implies that the government chooses to neglect the forests’ sacredness and any negative implications to Aboriginal groups, just because it is not their own culture at risk. This is not the only thing the government fails to grasp. They ignore the fact that Djap Wurrung territories were never ceded to federal control <ref name=":13" /> and the government did not ask for permission to be on their lands, which leads to the violation of Djap Wurrung’s rights and sovereignty. There should be more governance on the Australian government's planning as well.

As Djap Wurrung’s power to nurture the trees were stripped away, they began to perform their right to resist and fight against road construction. Given its profound effects, there is actually very few official studies that focus on this unfair incidence. Attention are only caught by self-broadcasting on social media platforms and news articles that could easily be manipulated by the government. The Djap Wurrung’s power is strengthened as more non-Aboriginal allies join to help resist encroachment. Their sovereignty could be respected if the Victorian government recognizes these damages cannot be undone, compensating the community and working towards including the Djap Wurrung in decision-making processes. Sadly, in reality, the Djap Wurrung camps set up by the community, activists and allies are facing eviction. According to the Djap Wurrung communities’ “no trees no treaty”, it is highly unlikely for them to sign treaties with the government after the sacred trees’s removal. <ref name=":13" />

==Recommendations==
# It is well known that gathering places “encourage healing and wellbeing”, creating inclusive and empowering spaces (Kingsley, 2018). Cultural gathering places in particular provide a sense of place, especially for people who have been marginalized and affected by colonization (Kingsley, 2018). In this case, the sacred trees are gathering places for women giving birth. The the land defender camp and Djap Wurrung community gatherings are also gathering places for both healing and resistance. '''''We recommend that these spaces be respected, and that the camp be allowed to remain as long as needed, as Djap Wurrung people continue to maintain their distinct connection to the land. No notices of eviction should be given to the members of the camp. No police, contractors or road workers should be allowed to access Djap Wurrung territory without free, prior, informed and ongoing consent. Negotiation processes should be respected and conducted on Djap Wurrung terms, led by Djap Wurrung community members rather than Australian government officials or companies. The right of the Djap Wurrung people to withdraw from any negotiated project must be respected.'''''
# The attempt to wipe out Djap Wurrung sacred places “must be seen as an attempt to wipe out their claim to them”, which serves to further dispossess Aboriginal peoples in Australia and “allow the state to continue its operations unhindered” by Aboriginal sovereignty (Gorrie, 2019). '''''We recommend that Djap Wurrung knowledge be prioritized and adhered to in terms of the future of the trees that are on their territory, since Indigenous knowledge systems strengthen cultural identity, self-determination and ultimately health and wellbeing (Kingsley, 2018).'''''
# Aboriginal women in Australia “collectively express a strong desire to maintain cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including birthing close to home and on their homelands, on Country (Marriott, 2019). Aboriginal birthing and elder women have “consistently reported ongoing cultural practices associated with childbirth”, including knowledge sharing across generations, family support, land-based rituals and practices, and “observance of extended family present at the time of or shortly after birth”; these practices are alive and well (Marriott, 2019). However, certain land-based birthing practices for Aboriginal women, including Djap Wurrung women, are at risk, as land continues to be developed and taken by the government for other purposes. The “inflexibility” of Australian health systems to meet the needs of Aboriginal women is unacceptable; Australian obstetricians, doctors, nurses and midwives “lack cultural awareness and understanding” of the importance of Aboriginal kinship and relationships with their territories (Marriott, 2019). Australia’s lack of progress towards providing a culturally secure environment for Indigenous populations is particularly evident in the area of childbirth (Kildea, 2009). '''''We recommend that the Australian government pass specific laws, and hospitals create culturally-specific policies, that will address the rights of Aboriginal women to participate in cultural birthing practices, on their own terms, whether they are giving birth in a hospital, at home or on Country.'''''
# Additionally, since Aboriginal women “regain culturally secure birthing practices when birth is brought back to the remote communities” where Aboriginal women are in charge of themselves and their own births, '''''we recommend that any areas identified as birthing spots on Country across Australia be rightfully returned to the communities to which they belong'''''. '''''We also recommend increased funding and educational opportunities for Aboriginal people who wish to work in health care, including obstetrics and maternity,''''' '''''in order to ensure that Aboriginal women who are giving birth in hospitals or urban settings are provided with access to Aboriginal care providers.'''''

==References==
<references/>

{{Projectbox CONS370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:APBI200/Soil Memes

2019-04-01T05:39:48Z

GabrielWan: /* Final Exam Meme */ new section

== Montmorillonite Meme ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=[[File:Montmorillonite Meme.jpg|thumb|Montmorillonite's shrink-swell properties allow for greater retention of water and plant nutrients]]
}}

== The Definition of Clay ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Definition_of_Clay.png
}}

== Chocolate Wednesdays ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= [[File:Screen Shot 2019-02-23 at 7.07.12 PM.png|thumb|Chocolate Wednesdays]]
}}

== Soil Compaction by Kevin Malone ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Screen_Shot_2019-02-14_at_11.53.45_AM.png#file
}}

== a sand castle building tip ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=File:Sand_Castle.jpg&oldid=545364
}}

== Soil horizon meme ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://imgflip.com/i/2vw6b1
}}

== ... bacterial farts. SN: 65697757 ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://media.giphy.com/media/crYAYbNvXE2BhOOinq/giphy.gif
}}

== The Struggle- Diana Satkauskas ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= [[File:The Struggle.png|thumb|Soil Meme]]
}}

== Soil Colour Meme ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Soil_Colour_Meme.jpg
}}

== Someone fix me :') ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Someone_fix_me.png
}}

== Chocolate Wednesday's ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:54518464_2307406839531548_3315998233238437888_n.jpg
}}

== why do A and B horizon don't have kids ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= https://imgflip.com/i/2wuax5
}}

== https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:If_farmers_would_stop.pngIf farmers would stop ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:If_farmers_would_stop.png
}}

== Called out ==
[[File:Called_out.jpg|thumb|called out]]

== At This Point, I'm Too Afraid To Ask ==
{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= https://wiki.ubc.ca/images/d/d9/APBI_200_Soil_Meme.jpg
}}

== [[File:Soil Meme ttulissi.jpg|thumb|soil meme]] ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=
}}

== Pikachu phosphorous meme - Shruti Sridhar ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= https://imgflip.com/i/2x0yoh

}}

== Plant thoughts ==
[[:File:Plant thoughts.jpg|https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Plant_thoughts.jpg]]

== Nutrient Cycles ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= [[File:Nutrient Cycles.jpg|thumb|APBI 200 Soil Meme]]
}}

== Soil Colour ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Soil_Colour.jpg
}}

== You and soil under mulch after winter ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= http://www.livememe.com/koy2zdt.jpg

}}

== Is it pronounce hummus or humus? ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Hummus_or_Humus.jpg
}}

== It's tru tho ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Its_true_tho.png
}}

== Brian the Gardener ==

[[File:Bad Luck Brian the Gardener.jpg|thumb|meme for apbi200]]

== Soil science is real science. ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=
}}
[[File:SOIL SCIENCE is real science!.jpg|thumb|This meme is mocking people who don't understand the intricacies and complexity of soil science.]]

== Montmorillonite is Bae ==

https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Montmorillonite_is_Bae.jpg

}}

== B horizons ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:B_horizons.jpg
}}

== Soil Meme ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Soil_Meme_Yippee.jpg#filelinks

}}

== lab soil texture experiment ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Soil_texture_experiment.jpg
}}

== When you don't know the answer ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=[[File:Soil Meme.png|thumb|When Sandra knows your name but you don't know the answer; LEACHING]]
}}

== "the look on my face... " ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:The_look_on_my_face_when.jpg
}}

== "Honest Work" by Kara Lindsay ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Soil_meme_2019.jpg
}}

== Tragic Realization- Samuel Tuffin ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:55529920_2817309068493282_9201989782689808384_n.jpg
}}

== Maury ==

https://imgflip.com/i/2xacwq{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=
}}

== Soil horizons ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:11221.jpg
}}

== Thats none of my business ==

{{APBI200_Meme
|https://imgflip.com/i/2xb3wk|URL= https://imgflip.com/i/2xb3wk
}}

== Tateum Cava 53041018: Soil meme ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://imgflip.com/i/2xb5mf
}}

== Walking to Forestry building ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Walking_to_Forestry_building.jpg
}}

== I haven't aged ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:I_haven%27t_aged.jpg
}}

== Soil is Life ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Soil_is_Life.jpg
}}

== [[File:Add this to your tinder profile and you will get laid by tortuous soil girls...guaranteed!.gif|thumb|APBI 200 soil meme]]Add this to your to your tinder profile and you will get laid by tortuous soil girls...guaranteed! ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=
}}

== If there's one thing I know it's this ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=
https://wiki.ubc.ca/images/6/65/Loam_meme.png
}}

== Serena Sturton's Soil Meme ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Serena_Sturton%27s_Soil_Meme.jpg
}}

== Hannah O'Toole's Soil Meme ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= https://imgflip.com/i/2xcy4x

== https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Tardigrade_meme_by_Iris_Zeng.png ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=
}}

== Daile (Iris) Zeng's soil meme ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Tardigrade_meme_by_Iris_Zeng.png
}}

== I'm fine ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=[[File:I‘m fine.jpg|thumb|when you can not tell the soil texture by hand-texturing]]
}}

== Iris/Soil Acidity ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Soil_acidity.jpg
}}

== understand soil science student lingo ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=[[File:Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 7.11.25 PM.png|thumb|soil science meme]]
}}

== Soil Definition ==
[[File:Clay_Definition_Meme.jpg|thumb|I generated this meme through imgflip.comhttps://imgflip.com/i/2xds2p?merp=1554013261.8664]]

== Tristen Brush soil meme ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=
[[File:Soil meme.png|thumb]]
}}

== [[File:APBI 200 Conductivity Meme.jpg|thumb|Hydraulic Conductivity meme]] ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=
}}

== Soil Microbe ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Screen_Shot_2019-03-31_at_12.23.07_PM.png
}}

== What's Your Favorite Color? ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Whatsyourfavoritecolor.jpg
}}

== Watching Water Drip ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= [[File:Watching Water Drip.png|thumb|APBI bonus]]
}}

== Look at the soil deposit by environment ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:BioMeme.jpg
}}

== Everything gets fixed ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Everything_gets_fixed.jpg
}}

== Mass ion effect ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Mass_Ion_Effect_Meme.jpg
}}

== organic layer has better thermal conductivity ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Thermal_conductivity_meme.jpg
}}

== ABC's Horizons ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:ABC%27s_Horizons.jpg#filelinks
}}

[http://File:ABC%27s_Horizons.jpg#filelinks File:ABC%27s_Horizons.jpg#filelinks]

== LOAM!? ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= [[File:2xfqa7.jpg|thumb|POST MALOAM]]
}}

== [[File:What's your favourite colour?.jpg|thumb|what's your favourite colour?]] ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=
}}

== Soil horizon ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=[[File:Screen Shot 2019-03-31 at 8.18.01 PM.png|thumb|Soil horizon meme]]
}}

== Aggregation ==

[[File:2xfzfq.jpg|thumb]]
{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=
}}

== Water when the soil is porous ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL=[[File:Water when the soil is porous.jpg|thumb|soil meme]]
}}

== Final Exam Meme ==

{{APBI200_Meme
||URL= [[File:Soil Meme - GW.jpg|thumb|Gabriel Wan's (88631841) Soil Meme - APBI 200 Bonus]]
}}

File:Soil Meme - GW.jpg

2019-04-01T05:37:09Z

GabrielWan: User created page with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Gabriel Wan's (88631841) Soil Meme - APBI 200 Bonus}}
|date=2019-03-31
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:GabrielWan|GabrielWan]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

[[Category:APBI200]]

Course:APBI200/Review and Reflect

2019-04-01T05:11:36Z

GabrielWan: /* Soil Science Articles on Wikipedia and SoilWeb200 e-textbook */ new section

== Quiz Sections ==

{{APBI
|URL=
|Date=
|Authors=
|Summary=Although the SoilWeb200 e-texbook serves as a helpful alternative method for learning the course information, the quiz sections could be modified to improve this resource for student’s learning. I think that the quiz sections of the e-text could be modified to better aid students in learning the course material. More specifically, if the quizzes could display some sort of a total score at the end to show which questions students answered correctly in each quiz. This in place of showing the correct answer for one question each time would be more practical because students could then view how they did overall. Also, I think students would benefit greatly if the quizzes had a better way to navigate through the quiz questions. Instead of having to click ‘next’ or ‘previous’ each time for some quizzes that have more than 50 questions. This makes it more difficult for students to assess how they performed on the quizzes. However, I find the navigation process for the e-text itself very smooth. The information is laid out in a simple manner and it makes finding topics easy and convenient. In addition, the images are useful and the textboxes of information are organized in an effectual way. I am extremely grateful that we have this resource available to us to ensure our success in this course.

}}

== Review and reflect of Soil Web 200 ==

{{APBI
|URL=
|Date=
|Authors=
|Summary=Overall, the Soil Web 200 provides students with easily-accessible online study material. It has clear-structured course modules and sufficient quizzes, which is very helpful for students to do self-study. For further improvement, I would suggest to only show the correct answers after the student finishes answering all the questions (it is not necessarily be all the questions of the quiz because students might only want to do some of them). Checking the answer right after answering each question would significantly distract the student’s attention and therefore, they are not able to finish the quiz under “exam condition”. Also, I would suggest summarizing the questions and the relevant knowledge this student got wrong at the end of the quiz. It would be extremely helpful for student to self-reflect and target at specific points when reviewing, and therefore to achieve productive study.

}}

{{APBI
|URL=http://soilweb200.landfood.ubc.ca/interactions-among-soil-components/5-soil-water-air-interactions/
|Date=February 22, 2019
|Authors=Faculty of Land and Food Systems
|Summary=In this section, macropores and micropores are well-defined. The examples listed are clear and enhancing understanding, and it is great that movement of air and water is talked about in relation to the pore sizes. To improve, I think it would be even better if hydraulic conductivity could be included in this section, so that students could more easily understand why water moves slower through smaller pores.
In the following “effect of water on thermal properties” section, where properties including thermal conductivity, soil heat capacity, thermal admittance, and thermal diffusivity are present and discussed in charts, I feel like it would be better if the units of the aforementioned properties could be explained to help with understanding, since many students do not have a strong background in physics. Also, personally, I do not find the graphs useful but rather, seeing them as confusing. I mean, of course lines representing organic layer would lie beneath mineral layer ones, as there is more air in organic layer, bringing both heat capacity and thermal conductivity down, but how are the graphs helping students with the concepts? Only modest effectiveness is shown and additionality (the difference made by having those graphs) is low.
In general, I feel like the e-textbook may convey information better if important words (eg: terms, formulas, things to pay attention to, etc.) are color-coded, bolded or highlighted (but I do understand the fixing process may be time-consuming).

}}

== SoilWeb 200 Reflection ==

The SoilWeb 200 materials are overall an effective source that helps when reviewing or clarifying different topics. The quizzes are great when studying and helping to improve understanding. The detailed answers are helpful and informative. One unit that would be helpful to elaborate on would be a small section on buffering capacity. Another topic that could be more detailed could be the Soil Organic Matter unit. The components of soil organic matter could be included, specifically the non-humic substances and their characteristics and the humic substances and their characteristics. Fulvic acid, Humic acid, and Humin could also be covered more extensively on their traits and what they do. Soil organic matter importance would also be useful to include to help further understand how soil organic matter and other soil properties relate to one another. Since Soil Organic Matter was covered in class several times it might be beneficial for students to be able to review the material in soil web, since the current section only briefly mentions organic matter and mostly discusses decomposition.

== Soil Meme Corporate Microbes ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://wiki.ubc.ca/File:Capitalist_Microbes_Soil_meme.png
|Date= March 20
|Authors= Kristi Ellerbroek[[File:Capitalist_Microbes_Soil_meme.png]]
|Summary=

<gallery>
[[File:Capitalist Microbes Soil meme.png|thumb|for a class :)]]
</gallery>
}}

Kristi Ellerbroek
58306267

== Question 1 ==

{{APBI
|URL=http://soilweb200.landfood.ubc.ca/soil-components/
|Summary=I found SoilWeb200 to be a very useful resource when studying for exams as it gives a great summary of each topic as well as providing some specific examples. In particular, the soil components topic is very well organized and helps the readers understand the different components. There are a lot of formulas in the soil components topic (mineral, organic, water, air) such as bulk density, particle density, soil porosity, Darcy’s law, soil water content, and etc. It would be very convenient for users if there is a page with all the formulas on it, so students can perform lab calculations quickly using the page, as well have an easier time memorizing all the formulas. Furthermore, the quiz provided on SoilWeb200 was convenient to study for exams, but I think it can be improved if it displays the overall score of the quiz when completed. I also found it cumbersome to navigate through questions that are from topics not tested on the upcoming exam. For example, both the mineral and organic components are mixed into the SoilWeb200 soil components quiz, but mineral (midterm 1) and organic (midterm 2) components are tested in different midterms. Nonetheless, SoilWeb200 is a great study resource for students and can be further improved with more modification. (by Paul Liu, 68077031)
}}

== SoilWeb 200, section quiz suggestions ==

{{APBI
|URL=
|Date=
|Authors=
|Summary=

The formatting of soil-web 200 e-textbook looks tidy and easy understanding. Each time when I get troubles in solving problem sets or lab questions, I always check the information posted there. However, I remember when I do the short answer questions in section quiz of each unit, I have no space to input my thoughts, and it's kind of strange design that students can only click on the multiple questions but for the short answer questions, the only thing to do is look at the answer instead of typing down the thinking process. My suggestion for this problem is to leave a blank space under the short answer questions and let students to input their words. And only typing the words in the blank space, the answers will appear after clicking on 'Next' button. From my point, this function could reduce the chances that student cheat the answers and pretend they know what the knowledges are. Therefore, students might be aware what are problems by comparing and contrasting their thoughts and standard answers. Another suggestion I want to give is to provide the short answers related topics besides the section quiz. Specifically, sometimes I still cannot get the point after looking through the answers. For strengthen the understanding the knowledge, it's better to provide a more relevant topics which provide a correct direction for students.

Finnley He
91651752

}}

== Adding more hyperlinks to soilweb200 pages ==

{{APBI
|URL=http://soilweb200.landfood.ubc.ca/interactions-among-soil-components/4-soil-acidity/
|Date=No date provided
|Authors=Krzic, M., K. Wiseman, L. Dampier, S. Grand, J. Wilson and D. Gaumont-Guay
|Summary=
1. It may be helpful to have more Wikipedia-esque links within pages which connect to other concepts in the course. For example, in the ''Soil Acidity'' subsection of "Interactions Among Soil Components", it may be helpful to link to the section concerning "plant nutrient availability" by turning those words into a link pointing towards the relevant section of the e-text. Or, under "Sources of Soil Acidity", "mineral weathering" could be a link to the relevant section on that topic. This is the page discussed as an example: http://soilweb200.landfood.ubc.ca/interactions-among-soil-components/4-soil-acidity/ . This concept could however be applied to most of the pages on soilweb200. This may help students expand their knowledge of course content through a more organic, interest-driven process wherein concepts can be linked together automatically by the user. I personally advocate for this as I often find myself learning many interesting concepts by following hyperlinks when reading a wikipedia article out of the ease of access to these concepts that a hyperlink provides. - Matthew Bavis
}}

== Ways to improve the SoilWeb200 e-textbook ==

{{APBI
|URL= http://soilweb200.landfood.ubc.ca
|Date= N/A
|Authors= N/A
|Summary= 1

The SoilWeb200 e-textbook is very user-friendly. It has lots of useful information, and section quizzes are definitely a highlight. A way to improve the website and allow for maximum understanding and usefulness, I think LFS should consider adding another section as a glossary. While comparing the e-textbook to Wikipedia, I noticed how Wikipedia had each jargon term hyperlinked to a whole new page with more information. A way to help students trying to learn material is if they could click on a word such as ‘hyphae’ and be brought to that word on the site’s glossary as a quick definition. Or, if it were to be simpler, to superscript such words so when one hovers over the superscript with their mouse, a description would appear above without leaving the entire page itself. This suggestion applies to the whole website and not only certain subsections, but an idea for a specific area would be for the management section of the site. I think it would be interesting if for the different type of soil degradation, or soil erosion scenarios that a or multiple real-life case-studies were provided to give more context and lead to a more holistic learning style.

Nina Andrascik
42607317

}}

== review and reflect ==

{{APBI
|URL=
|Date=March 28, 2019
|Authors=
|Summary=1. There is one important improvement that I think the SoilWeb200 e-textbook should have in order to improve the learning experience. The SoilWeb200 e-textbook should be more closely correlated with the course material covered in APBI 200. Although the e-textbook has comprehensive information about most of the materials covered in the course, there are still many topics that are not included on the e-textbook. For example, the section about nutrient cycles on the SoilWeb200 e-textbook has very limited information. The nutrient cycles are very important concepts for this course. And without additional information about this section, it is very difficult to learn and review for the topic. On the other hand, the SoilWeb200 e-textbook includes part of the material covered in lectures only. The materials covered in the lab of this course is not featured on the SoilWeb200 e-textbook. It would be easier to review for lab materials if the content is featured on the e-textbook. And it would make the SoilWeb200 e-textbook a more useful source for learning the materials in this course. (Allen Li 88599543)

}}

{{APBI
|URL=
|Date=
|Authors=
|Summary= Soil Web 200 provides students with clear and easy to find online learning materials. It has structured learning modules and quizzes in each category, which are very helpful for students to learn on their own. But when students do the quizzes, it have to click next or pervious and answers will come out after each questions. Also some informations that students learned during APBI200 is limited in soilweb200. For improvements,I suggest that the correct answer be shown only after the student has answered all the questions. Also it should let students choose individual questions that they want to do because sometimes students already know some questions. In addition, it can have some midterm questions or overall exam that could cover all the section quizzes and provide marks after student finished. It can be more helpful for studying.

Wendy Liu 45216637

}}

== Q1 ==

{{APBI
|URL=
|Date=
|Authors=
|Summary= In order to get familiar with the concept that we learned from APBI 200, SoilWeb 200 gives us the opportunity to practice more questions and gives us more information about specific topic such as organic matter, soil acidity, and etc... After using it to review for my midterms, I found out it being useful to me by giving me more detailed information than from the lecture ppt. However, it doesn’t cover all of the topics like heat that we had learned in class .For me, I think it will be great if add some additional related video such as the factors of soil formation and nutrients cycles can help me more easily memorize in mind and build a more complete foundation of this subject.

Erin Lin 54577440

}}

== Review and reflect on APBI 200 Question 3 ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.soilsofcanada.ca/soil-formation/soil-formation.php
|Date= No date provided
|Authors= No author provided but it was from the University of Saskatchewan
|Summary= On top of SoilWeb200 and the slides posted onto the APBI 200 wiki, I found a website useful for soil formation, classification and orders. The website is called Soils of Canada. It helped me clarify the differences of soil formation factors and processes and was also an additional tool for the orders and classification. This website does not help with any of the material covered in the first half of the course other than soil formation factors. It is not a comprehensive tool for the whole course, but it helped in the parts that I personally found more confusing and hard to learn. The videos provided in the lecture from UBC were also helpful but did not lay out the information as well. What I liked about this website is that I can easily compare and contrast either the differing soil orders or soil formation process/factor right in a simple format that helped me understand it faster and clearer.

}}

== Tateum Cava 53041018: Review and Reflect ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlyDyQT6_WE
|Date= May 14, 2014
|Authors= DR. Phil Schoeneberger
|Summary=
Youtube videos serve as a good platform for me to visualize what I am learning. I had trouble differentiating the different soil horizons in the field. In this video, DR. PHIL has an effective method in classifying each horizon. His method is analyzing the soils physical properties first, example being colour change between horizons, and the last step is naming what you think the soil horizon is. He says that naming the horizon last instead of first makes you less bias in deciding what the soil horizon actually is. Online videos are important to me because they teach the same content in a different way that I can sometimes understand better. Video tutorials are also good because I can attentively watch and rewind the video.

}}

== Review & Reflect ==

{{APBI
|URL=
|Date=
|Authors=
|Summary=

While sometimes useful for catching up on missed lectures, I often times found myself frustrated using SoilWeb200. To begin with, the material is very disorganized, compared to the structure of the lectures. It was very confusing trying to read something ahead of class, as the materials covered could be all over the website. I quickly learned that doing that would just lead to more confusion. Another thing I have a problem with is that it is very vague at times. There isn't much written material about some of the topics. I was told at the beginning of the course that this would be equivalent to a textbook for the course, but was very underwhelmed by what it actually is. Compared to Wikipedia, I would say it's about the same. Wikipedia might be a little less detailed though. I couldn't really find an effective study tool for this course other than Sandra's lecture notes, and even then those can be a bit vague if I don't have the notes for that particular class.

}}

== Search Bar for SoilWeb200 ==

{{APBI
|URL=http://soilweb200.landfood.ubc.ca/
|Date=unknown
|Authors= Faculty of Land and Food Systems
|Summary= One thing I believe would be very helpful for students is to have a search bar on SoilWeb 200 that only pulls up pages from the SoilWeb200 website. The search bar at the moment pulls up random articles that are not at all pertinent to what we are learning. On SoilWeb200 I found it very hard to find the information I was looking for under the headings given. Sometimes the topic I was unsure of did not seem to fit any of them and I would spend 20 minutes trying to find what I needed and then end up realizing the information was not even there. If there was a search bar which only showed SoilWeb200 pages, it could pull up all of the articles with those keywords and save students a lot of time. If not a search bar, then an index would be just as helpful. I think ease of use is really important for a resource. If a site is hard to navigate, it pushes people away from getting the help they need.

}}

== Review and Reflect ==

{{APBI
|URL= soilweb200.landfood.ubc.ca/soil-classification/4-canadian-system-of-soil-classification/
|Date= n.a.
|Authors= n.a.
|Summary= For the first question I would like to review the soil classification page in SoilWeb200, this page has the soil order classifications and clear identified diagnostic horizon and characteristics of different orders which is helpful for students to take the systematic information of and it emphasized the key point we need to know in this chapter. However, a picture of the orders and the diagnostic horizon of each order could be more helpful for people to memorize the information. For example, the pictures that show in class notes could be added here, therefore the word description gets to connect with the picture while we get confused about the each of them we can see another one and give us a better understanding.

}}

== Soil Science ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_science
|Date=Last edited February 16, 2019
|Authors=Wikipedia
|Summary=
2. I can't say that I never used a Wikipedia article in this course to help me through a problem set or fill in holes where I felt they existed but, they have many downfalls. I also used each section of SoilWeb to help me with studying for midterms. The Wikipedia article and other soil science related ones I have read have a few issues. They are much too complicated and in-depth for our needs usually. SoilWeb is written for this course so it will have just the right amount of information when for each topic. Content-wise, SoilWeb definitely prevails. The Wikipedia article also doesn't go in depth about most of the actual science. It simply has links to other pages for "areas of research" which I suppose is how Wikipedia is set up to work but SoilWeb has what you need to learn when you get to the page. The specific Wikipedia articles for each sub-topic such as potassium cycle or soil compaction are stated in a much less digestible way than the SoilWeb equivalent. The only benefit to the Wikipedia articles is it can be quicker to find what you need or search for it whereas I found myself hunting for content sometimes on SoilWeb or I would end up on a page I had already learned.

}}

== Question 3 - Review & Reflect ==

{{APBI
|URL=http://www.fao.org/3/r4082e/r4082e00.htm#Contents
|Date=1985
|Authors=C. Brouwer, A. Goffeau, M. Heibloem
|Summary= I found this website helpful because of the neat organization of all the chapters and the flow of the material. It helped me understand the lab and lecture concepts due to the concise and easy-to-comprehend texts and pictures. Although I appreciate the soilweb200 material, I resorted to this site way more because in soilweb200 the material does not have a consistent flow and information on one topic is all over the site under different sections and it does not go in the same flow as lecture materials so the quizzes are only helpful for the final, not the midterms.

}}

== Review and Reflect Question 1 ==

{{APBI
|URL=
|Date=
|Authors=
|Summary= The glossary and quizzes provided by SoilWeb200 are very helpful for my learning. The glossary is very comprehensive and detailed where I can always find answers when I have confusion about basic concepts. The quizzes further assist in integrating my knowledge and understanding. One thing I want to point out is that some content in the glossary and quizzes are not covered in class but mixed with class material. It might be better if there is a separate section for extra learning material which enables the students who are interested to easily explore but also saves time for other students in exam preparation. Besides, each section quiz has 40 to 50 questions making it hard for us to review the questions we get wrong. If the section quizzes could be divided into small chapters and have a summary at the end reflecting our performance, the practice might be more effective.

}}

== Additional Study Material in Soilweb - Question 1 ==

{{APBI
|URL= http://soilweb200.landfood.ubc.ca/
|Date= March 31st 2019
|Authors= Kyle Bishop
|Summary= The soilweb textbook is a quick and easy way to get a refresher of content or receive clarification on a certain topic. Soilweb contains necessary information required for APBI 200 and it provides that information in a well laid out, organized manner. As students, we have a responsibility to memorize this content and prepare it in a way that we can easily remember it and apply it during a midterm or exam setting. Section quizzes are an effective way of gauging the amount of information you have retained from the previous unit, but some people take separate routes when testing their knowledge. If soilweb had some specific “flash card” like program that enabled students to constantly review a subset of important terms, definitions and material, I believe students would jump at the opportunity. This almost seems too luxurious to have premade study material, but it could help engage students and help improve their knowledge on soilweb topics.
The addition of an end of unit summary highlighting key topics could benefit students and inclusion of more practice problems aside from the section quizzes could help gage understanding. I largely believe in repetition and exposure to a large array of problem types so you aren’t taken by surprise in an exam situation. Reading over and memorizing content is one thing, but applying your knowledge into a question is a whole new way of testing your understanding.

}}

== Review and reflect - Shruti Sridhar ==

{{APBI
|URL=
|Date=
|Authors=
|Summary=

The SoilWeb200 is a reliable and user-friendly resource that I have used during this course. I find it useful because I am able to revise key concepts after studying the lecture notes which helps me ensure that I have not missed out anything. Specifically, the glossary is helpful because I have trouble remembering technical words and it provided me with a comprehensive list that I could go through to find a word that I didn't understand. I also didn’t feel the need to use a physical textbook for terms and definitions because of this feature. One thing that I particularly like are the links and videos provided in certain sections, they’re engaging and they facilitate my understanding of related topics. I feel like it would help if such links and videos were in more sections, especially in the sections related to soil chemistry. However, the e-textbook is not very comprehensive and there are certain sections that have very limited or no information at all and the only study material that I use for these topics is the lecture notes. In the future, I also hope that all the information could be organized more effectively as it is quite time consuming to find a particular topic in the e-textbook.

-Shruti Sridhar (69145357)
}}

== Soils of Canada - Orders ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://monoliths.soilweb.ca/
|Date=Unknown
|Authors=University of British Columbia
|Summary=This was one of my favourite resources that I used during the term, but it's time for some truth bombs! This site needs to be updated so that it is a useful and easy to navigate archive. With almost 200 monolith samples assembled over the past four decades, the restriction of only being able to sort and search through the models by parent material and order alone makes it very limiting. In addition there is no way to preview any details of the monoliths outside of their archival code and name without opening a new window or tab.

I propose that this site would be much more accessible if the archive had more ways to search for monoliths. Since it is a virtual collection of visual items, perhaps using a website layout that is designed as an image gallery? That way searches would pull up the images of the monoliths in addition to their X-XX NAME code, and allow for quick visual comparison of different or similar characteristics.

The practice question section under "Tutorials" is also a great resource that helps teaching how to analyze the monoliths and their characteristics. Unfortunately, the website is not laid out in a way that makes these resources as easy to use a study material. The SoilWeb site does a much better job at it, but there are accessibility issues with the section quizzes. Updating these resources so that they are mobile friendly would also make them significantly more useful as a student resource!

SN: 65697757

}}

== Q1: Suggestions on glossary and quizzes section ==

{{APBI
|URL=http://soilweb200.landfood.ubc.ca/glossary/
|Date=
|Authors=
|Summary=1

}}

I will answer question 1 because I have some suggestions on soil glossary section and the quiz section.
Firstly, for the glossary section, it is really helpful for reviewing the key definition when working on the assignment. However, it takes a long time to find the words especially when the word can be expressed in another way. It would be better if there is a keyword search system inside the glossary section. There is one for the whole soilweb, but it is less efficient because of some irrelevant things often pop out.
Secondly, I like the quiz section a lot because it tests out whether you have mastered the key point or not. But it is not organized in the order of our lecture notes, so even though it can help with finals, it will be inconvenient for us for the midterms review. For example, the organic matter part we cover after midterm 1 is actually mixed up with the first part of the quiz section. Also, it will be better if there is more explanation for the choice questions.

--Yiyang 32386377

== Can Soil Microbes Slow Climate Change? ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-soil-microbes-slow-climate-change/
|Date= March 26,2019
|Authors= John J. Berger in Scientific American
|Summary= This article is about how increasing fungi to bacteria ratios in soil will not only increase the health the soil but also increase the soils ability to remove carbon dioxide from the air and store it in soils. This finding was found by one scientist, David Johnson, but has received many critiques about his research. To decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Johnson believes that storing it in soil is the best solution. In his research he found that increasing the fungi to bacteria ratio (more fungi) increased carbon dioxide removal and also increase crop yield because microbes help restore balance in degraded soil making the microbiome more efficient. However, other scientists claim that this is not the best method as soils will eventually reach a cap on the amount of carbon they can hold and there as other methods to increase the ratio i.e. reducing tillage.
This information is important to me because as an Environmental Science student, the major issue that we discuss is climate change. Since climate change is such a major concern and affects the planet in many different ways, it’s something that needs to be slowed down in any possible way- big or small. This article is about how soil microbes, which relates to our soil organism/biology section, and how their impact on soil might be able to slow climate change which is one of the small ways that can make a big difference.

}}

== Review and Reflect ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_science
|Date=March 31, 2019
|Authors= Wikipedia
|Summary=1. I think sections in the Soil Web need more detail such as the Soil Organisms section. A lot of the important information about these organism were only shown to us in class and if did not have enough time to catch those notes I would not be able to refer to the Soil Web for that missing information.
2. The Wikipedia page on soil science (I used another source because there was no link provided) does go into material we learned in class such as SOM, soil compaction, etc. The Soil Web e-text is definitely easier to understand and provides a great summary of the material we went over this term. The Wikipedia page needs more information overall divided into the categories we learned soil physics, chemistry, biology and management.
3. There are almost no other outside resources for ALL information in this course that are not the textbook or lecture notes. I did find that videos (like the ones show in lab of Prof. Schmidt from SFU) were very helpful for my understanding. As well as the website where the video was from provided an excellent resource to the material because it wasn’t covered that in-depth in class.

}}

== Soil Science Articles on Wikipedia and SoilWeb200 e-textbook ==

{{APBI
|URL= http://soilweb200.landfood.ubc.ca
|Date=
|Authors=
|Summary=

Answer to Question #2:

The SoilWeb200 e-textbook material provided an easy to understand method of learning some course concepts which were difficult to understand or hard to remember. Due to this, I was able to utilize the website especially prior to midterms to review the course material. I was also able to take advantage of the quizzes in the e-textbook as they provided me with answers after I have attempted a question. This helps me significantly as I now know how much I know about the section of the course and which areas I need to study on. I also appreciate the photos added to some of the pages on the e-book to help me better learn the material. I am a visual learner, and this benefits me significantly. Therefore, I believe that the SoilWeb200 e-textbook is a fantastic resource to take advantage of for all students in the course.

On the other hand, I have also read many soil science articles on Wikipedia. Several Wikipedia pages had mostly text and not many photos, which made it difficult for me to understand the content. Furthermore, anyone from around the world is able to edit the pages on Wikipedia, whereas in SoilWeb200, the public is unable to make changes to the content of the pages. This makes it a more credible source compared to Wikipedia. As a result, I have found that the SoilWeb200 e-textbook was easier for me to understand course materials when compared to Wikipedia. To improve Wikipedia, I suggest adding more relevant photos of the various topics as this will help people learn the material more easily. (Gabriel Wan – 88631841)

}}

Course:APBI200/Soil in the News

2019-04-01T04:34:02Z

GabrielWan: /* Sask. farmers concerned about early melt, lack of soil moisture */ new section

== Reviewing the New York Times' "A Secret Superpower, Right in Your Backyard" ==

Name: Amy Sigsworth
Student number: 4697501
News source: The New York Times
Title: A Secret Superpower, Right in Your Backyard
Date: March 6, 2018
Author: Kendra Pierre-Louis
URL:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/climate/yard-garden-global-warming.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSoil&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=collection

Summary:

A PhD candidate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Carly Ziter) is studying the potential for carbon sequestration in soils around Madison, Wisconsin. Samples were taken from 100 different sites including forests, grasslands, and open spaces (i.e. parks, golf courses). Additionally, samples were taken from residential lots which encompasses almost half of Madison. The results of her research, published in the journal Ecological Applications, found that backyard soils have a high potential for sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. Ziter has found that these soils can lock in more carbon than grasslands or urban forests. These results may influence urban development by including more green space to counteract emissions produced by erecting large buildings and other urban developments. It also may encourage individuals and home owners to minimize pavement in lieu of grass or greenery.

At first I found the article misleading (i.e. urban lawns sequester more carbon than forests or grasslands). However, towards the end of it, they quote an unrelated researcher (Marco Keiluweit) who points out that not all carbon sequestering power is in the soil. The article does a good job at showing the importance of soil in mitigating emissions while keeping it simple enough to understand. It also mentions that there is a great water storage capacity in forest soils. This is likely due to less impaction and more pores in those soils compared to urban green settings. Overall, I liked this article and thought that it might have a positive impact on current ideas surrounding soil.

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-get-arsenic-and-other-toxic-substances-out-of-baby-food/
|Date=January 4, 2019
|Authors=THE EDITORS
|Summary=
This article shows the correlation between the sources of groundwater, the soil, the food we eat and health related issues.
Arsenic is a metalloid often found in water and in soils. It is released in the environment by natural processes such as weathering and erosion of volcanic rocks and ash but also by human actions. The principal sources of arsenic in Canada are related to industrial emissions in metal refinery facilities and power generating stations (Wang and Mulligan, 2006). Although activities like mining, wood preserving, combustion of coal and use of arsenical pesticides are also important sources of contamination to water and soil.
Once the substance is released in the environment, it becomes available to be absorbed by plants. Currently researches are being conducted to evaluate the risks associated with human exposure to arsenic but it is believed that children are at higher risk not only because of type of food ingested but also because of their smaller body weight. According to Rasheed, Kay, Slack, Gong (2018), the arsenic found in raw rice is unavoidable, but some measures like using low arsenic water on crops and on rice cooking could reduce dietary intake.

}}

== Blowing soil concerning, 'disappointing' for P.E.I. farmers ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-blowing-top-soil-winter-climate-change-1.5014814
|Date= February 11, 2019
|Authors= Laura Meader
|Summary= The article highlights how a lack of snow cover is one of the main factors contributing to the amount of soil being blown from the fields in Prince Edward Island. It is discussed in the article that the early arrival of winter makes it difficult for farmers to preemptively plant cover crops to protect their fields from these harsh conditions and restore soil nutrients. In addition, due to the rapid change in weather, there were cases where the seeded plants did not properly germinate. Overall, the extreme weather is making it more challenging for farmers to prepare for these unpredictable events. However, it is mentioned in the article that extensive research is being conducted on ways to protect the soil and provide further education for farmers and aid them if similar events occur in the future.

This article helped further my understanding of the impact that alterations in the factors of soil formation may have on soils. In particular, this article highlighted how the varying climate heavily impacted farmers growing their crops. The rapid decrease in temperature, lack of snowfall, and windy conditions provided challenges for keeping the soil on the ground and posed as a large problem for farmers. While the lack of snow covering the fields is one of the main reasons for why the soil is being blown from the fields, it can also be an important indicator towards one of the profound impacts that climate change has on our ecosystem services.

}}

== When Earthquakes Liquefy Soil, Devastation Can Follow ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/world/liquefaction-earthquakes.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSoil&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
|Date=October 1st, 2018
|Authors=Henry Fountain
|Summary=
The news introduces the definition of liquefaction, some conditions that make the soil become vulnerable to liquefaction during the earthquake and the devastating effects that liquefaction brought to Indonesia. Liquefaction happens when a quake strikes an area with loose moist soil that has been shaken violently, causing the soil behaves like a liquid or suspension with frightening results. Wet and loosely-packed soil, which comprises more sands are more vulnerable to liquefaction. The earthquake makes soil lose strength and stiffness. Consequently, liquefied soil flows like water and loses its ability to support building structures, which is life-threatening to humans in earthquakes.

Liquefaction is related to changing soil physical properties. The earthquake causes significant compaction which would lead to liquefaction. As the water drains out from macropores, the soil porosity decreases and bulk density increases. The original soil structure — for instance, the pore distribution — is completely messed up. As a result, a series of soil physical properties would be altered such as the water and nutrient infiltration and retention, aeration. Additionally, after recovering from the earthquake, the crops which were originally suitable for this soil might not be able to grow well after the earthquake.

}}

== More Data, More Land Reclamation Success ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.soils.org/discover-soils/story/more-data-more-land-reclamation-success
|Date= 02/13/19
|Authors= Adityarup “Rup” Chakravorty
|Summary= The article is about returning soil to its original state (or close to) after the previously undisturbed land has had a pipeline placed in it or, land reclamation. The article focuses on the strategy of collecting soil over such a vast distance and using different amounts of lime and fertilizers to restore a healthy pH level overall. With soil pH levels varying within a mile, it was planned to sample every half mile in order for accurate supplements of the soil. This topic relates very closely to our soil chemistry unit and learning about the importance of soil pH with the optimal pH of soils in resulting in nutrient availability for plants. Within the 350 soil samples collected along the pipeline, there was a range of pH from 4.5 to 8.5. Normally, soil pH "goldilocks zone" is within 5.5 to 7. With this information, they decided to change strategies of adding 2 tons of lime per acre of soil to adding almost no lime to half of the pipeline and almost 3 tons per acre along a quarter of the pipeline. Because the team took many samples, they were able to target the optimal pH level for the majority of the soil. This resulted in fast regrowth of plants and restoration of the land to its original state. This article is important to me because I place a lot of value on green-land on Earth's surface and the fact that we as a population mustn't waste the resources at our disposal.

}}

== Soil becomes fertile ground for climate action ==

'''URL:''' https://www.greenbiz.com/article/soil-becomes-fertile-ground-climate-action

'''Date:''' Feb 25, 2019

'''Authors:''' Holly Secon

This article focuses on soil quality and how it relates to sustainability. Fertile soil has been rapidly degrading and agriculture and ranching companies are investing into healthy soil initiatives. Soil is an important part of climate solution since it is a large carbon store, regulates water, filters pollutants, and supports plants. Many companies have been looking into different techniques such as cover cropping, crop rotation, carbon farming, and regenerative grazing to regenerate the degraded lands. Furthermore, increased funding and research projects have been dedicated to this cause. Recently, a standard was set for the measurements of soil health. Since reports are warning of massive impacts of current farming practices, actions must be taken.

This article relates to our APBI 200 course's later topics such as soil degradation and soil fertility. It is important because our food is grown from agriculture, and if the soil is degraded, either more land must be cleared or the land must be restored to continue agricultural practices. This will ultimately affect the climate, and so researching into restoration is the most sustainable solution.

== Farmers in the Midwest Face Decades of Recovery as Flooding Strips Away Crucial Soil ==

URL= https://earther.gizmodo.com/farmers-in-the-midwest-face-decades-of-recovery-as-floo-1833436732

Date= 03/21/2019

Authors= Brian Kahn

The main concern of this article is the extreme erosion of soils in Nebraska following devastating floods. This is a major concern for the state because much of its industry relies on farming which is dependent on the maintenance of nutrient-rich soils that can support plant like for crops like wheat, corn, and soybean. The rich loam soils of the area were washed away by the extent of the flooding and sand was deposited. With some areas receiving as much as 24 inches, some farmers are being advised to abandon the land altogether. This relates to APBI topics because it is about the texture of the soil and how that affects plant life, water retention, and nutrient retention. This affects me because a similar flood happened in Colorado in 2008 and was devastating for the many farmers in my community.

}}

== Study finds Okanagan Lake a ‘surprising source of carbon dioxide’ ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://globalnews.ca/news/4992674/study-finds-okanagan-lake-a-surprising-source-of-carbon-dioxide/
|Date= February 23, 2019
|Authors= Doyle Potenteau
|Summary= This news article reported the founding in the Okanagan Lake of its unexpected storage of carbon dioxide. A study conducted by Melanie Jones shows that the lake’s cool water contains bicarbonates that can be transferred in to soil by irrigation. Carbon dioxide in soil can dissociate and contribute to atmospheric carbon emissions. However, carbon dioxide is essential for plant growth. Plant converts from carbon to plant roots and leaves, then release oxygen to the atmosphere. The bicarbonates in irrigation water cause the release of CO2, which contribute the rising level of atmospheric CO2. However, the CO2 also helps plant growth, which can promote heterotrophic respiration, absorbing more CO2.

Carbon is everywhere on the earth; it is abundant in soil organic matter. Carbon dioxide is a typical example of greenhouse gas which contribute to global warming. Hence, soil is crucial in global carbon balance, greenhouse gas and climate change. Photosynthesis of plants and heterotrophic respiration forms the basic structure of carbon cycle. This concept is included in soil biology studied in class. This news is important to understand how carbon is balanced in atmosphere and soil, and soil is a complex body and a single change of its components can lead to multiple consequences.

}}

== Rotating use of farmland will bring a harvest of new growth ==

{{APBI
|URL=http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201903/19/WS5c9042f4a3106c65c34ef565.html
|Date=Mar 19, 2019
|Authors=Hu Yongqi
|Summary=This news article talks about China’s new strategy of rotating the use of farmland to increase sustainability. The Chinese government will subsidize farmlands that lie fallow for one year or rotate between corn or soybean”. This article closely relates to the soil fertility and soil degradation topics in this course. The Chinese government’s new strategy would discourage monocropping which would deplete the soil of certain nutrients and lead to increased erosion rates. The Chinese government encouraged two soil management strategies, fallowing land and crop rotation. Fallowing soil is a more sustainable land management strategy since it would give farmlands time to replenish nutrients and lead to increased soil fertility. On the other hand, rotating to growing soybeans and corn can also increase the soil’s fertility, as these two crops’ roots accumulate fertilizing nitrogen because these crops have nitrogen-fixing bacteria on their nodules. Crop rotation also reduces soil erosion since it improves soil stability by alternating between crops with different root depths. I am fascinated by this article as did not know that farmers need to rotate crops for farmlands to stay healthy and that farmlands need a ‘break’ from growing crops. Finally, I think having proper soil management strategies is a very vital component to ensure the efficiency of agriculture production and soil health. (by Paul Liu, 68077031)
}}

== Farmers in the Midwest Face Decades of Recovery as Flooding Strips Away Crucial Soil ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://earther.gizmodo.com/farmers-in-the-midwest-face-decades-of-recovery-as-floo-1833436732
|Date= March 21, 2019
|Authors= Brian Kahn
|Summary= Floods in the Midwest of the United States are proving to cause harm to farmers and their land. In the Nebraska region, flooding caused intense damage to infrastructure and soil, with estimates of up to 440 million dollars in crop losses. The recent flooding was due to extreme moisture content in the soil proceeding winter. Possibly due to climate change, more snow fell as winter rain in Nebraska than before. Water began to runoff the saturated soil and created the damaging floods. In this process, topsoil was washed away with the floodwaters.

In other areas, the floodwaters cut deep into the ground. Water weight contributed to additional compaction of the soil. Large amounts of sand and silt were transported and deposited, which creates problems because they lack both the nutrients and structure of the original soil. Farmers in Nebraska are now facing management decisions and must choose between replanting or recovery for the affected fields. For the ones hit the hardest, it is more cost-effective for them to give up their land than to implement recovery.

This news article is extremely relevant to many of the topics covered in APBI 200. Learning about the water runoff in soils explains why the flooding was so extreme in this case, because saturated soils have no infiltration capacity. Additionally, learning about soil textures and structures and their effect on plant growth explains why large amounts of deposited sand and silt is a problem for farmers.

[Adriana Burton 36958643]
}}

== Fire's effect on soil moisture, runoff ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.soils.org/discover-soils/story/fire-effects-soil-moisture-runoff
|Date= December 12, 2018
|Authors= Penelope Hillemann

This article introduces the interaction of soil's water and fire which acts as a natural disturbance in the ecosystem, and access how will soil's water balance the external changes. The researchers set an experimental model that imitates the wildfire's impact for water balance of a burnt site, and ultimately figure out there're multiple ways that water leaves out. Evapotranspiration occurs when water moves as vapor through pores in the leaves. When the vegetation on the soil surface burnt, evapotranspiration is significantly reduced meaning that less amount of water is moved out. Another mode of water movement is surface runoff, the wildfire burning out those organic layers which store more moisture on the forest floor will cause high infiltration. In other words, heavy rains can supply more water than the ground can absorb. Generally, the degree of fire severity determines the soil's moisture, and the burnt sites turn wetter since the change of evapotranspiration is much greater than change in runoff. Inversely, the high severity will become drier since the runoff changes is lower than that in the evapotranspiration (2018, Hillemann)

This article is an important finding that closely connected with soil's water retention capacity, soil heat capacity and thermal conductivity. The amount of heat in fire transfers to the underground depends on the fire's severity and the soil structure. The forest fire is a common issue around us and it needs to attract more and more attention from the public to minimize the resources loss.

Finnley He (Zhifang He)
91651752

}}

== Short post on the news “Can Soil Microbes Slow Climate Change?” ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-soil-microbes-slow-climate-change/
|Date= March 26th, 2019
|Authors= John J. Berger
|Summary= To relieve the severe climate change, some experts put forwards a method called “carbon farming”, which inspires the author to write this news. The aim of the piece of news is to introduce an experiment on carbon farming conducted by a microbiologist David Johnson. The method that Johnson used for this experiment is increase the soil fungal to bacterial ratio.

This news is important to me that I am interested in how to alleviate climate change and I am learning soil science currently. Related to the biology part we have learnt in class, we could tell that although both fungi and bacteria could decompose organic matter into humic substance, fungi are more beneficial because it could help control diseases. Hence, it might keep plants healthy and absorb more carbon from the atmosphere.

To conclude, soil carbon sequestration is not a sustainable way because carbon store capacity is limited in soil but we could still apply carbon farming to control climate change in short term.

Chiyan Huang (73251621)

}}

== Can Microbes Slow Climate Change? ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-soil-microbes-slow-climate-change/
|Date=2019-03-26
|Authors=John J. Berger
|Summary=This article relates to the soil organisms portion of the course. It describes experimental research conducted by a researcher named David Johnson. Johnson asserts that by increasing the fungal to bacterial ratio in soils, carbon sequestration of agricultural land can be vastly improved. By applying vermiculture compost to soil, he was able to vastly increase the growth of cover crops, resulting in carbon capture of ~16 metric tons per hectare. He also claims that with a larger proportion of fungi in the soil, less carbon dioxide is released out of the soil by heterotrophic respiration. The article is unclear on a direct causation between the application of vermiculture, increased fungal ratio and increased plant growth (which is the mechanism of carbon sequestration involved). Critics state that his approach is not easy to replicate in that his vermiculture approach may not have the same desired effect on a wide range of soil types, and that the increased carbon sequestration may not be directly due to the increased fungal to bacterial ratio. Furthermore, soils have a certain limit of carbon that can be absorbed depending on various factors, and is not a continuous, ever-accumulating process which limits the usefulness of Johnson's approach for permanent carbon capture.
Summary by: Matthew Bavis
}}

== Tackling China’s soil pollution may be harder than fighting pm2.5 ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-03-08/tackling-chinas-soil-pollution-may-be-harder-than-fighting-pm25-101389509.html
|Date=March 8, 2019, 4:51PM
|Authors=Shen Fan, Qi Xiaomei, Zhao Runhua and Zhou Tailai
|Summary=This news article described the issues of the severe soil pollution in China. The main source of soil pollution is from the agricultural use of pesticides and fertilizers. And industrial activities are also significant sources of soil pollution. The chemicals from pesticides and fertilizers accumulated within the soil throughout the years of agricultural development. The current levels of toxic chemicals within the soil would have significant effects on plant growth. The news report claimed that there are various cases of toxic crops produced on polluted soils in China. The contaminant in the polluted soil is mainly heavy metals, which is very difficult to remove. Not only should people limit the use of pesticides and fertilizers, but they should also devise methods to alleviate the current conditions of the soil. For example, they could use microorganisms such as fungus to extract the heavy metals and other toxic contaminants from the soil. However, the main issue with this topic is that most crop producers in China has limited knowledge about soil science. People would continue to use pesticides and fertilizers to enhance the production of crops. And the soil condition would continue to deteriorate if there are no regulations for the use of pesticides and fertilizers. (Allen Li 88599543)

}}

== Are no-fun fungi keeping fertilizer from plants? ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.soils.org/discover-soils/story/are-no-fun-fungi-keeping-fertilizer-from-plants
|Date=March 27, 2019
|Authors=Adityarup “Rup” Chakravorty
|Summary=The key findings from this news report is that Crops cannot grow without phosphorus. More than 45 million tons of phosphate fertilizer is expected to be used worldwide in 2019. But only a small amount of added phosphorus ends up in crops. Fertilizer costs are important for farmers in south Florida, and phosphorus rock, the most widely used source of phosphate fertilizer, is in short supply worldwide. It is believed that phosphorite resources can only be used in the next 50-200 years. Fungi release phosphorus from minerals (rocks) and organic matter (decaying matter) and thus play a significant role in the phosphorus cycle in the soil. From there, the plant absorbs the phosphorus released. "But under certain environmental conditions, fungi may be one of the causes of phosphorus deficiency. Some fungi extract minerals from elements dissolved in soil water. This process is called "bioprecipitation”.However, Without freed-up phosphorus, crops can’t grow successfully. So many farmers in south Florida have kept adding phosphorus to soils. In a continuing cycle, most of this phosphorus becomes unavailable to plants.

This is important to me because this research could also help unravel how land use influences fungal communities in soil. It may also help us better understand vital soil-phosphorus dynamics.And I learned that fungi play a tremendous role in cycling phosphorus within soils. This report relate to topics of soil biological of fungi and phosphorus-cycle in APBI 200. By--Wendy Liu (45216637).}}

== Our drying soils: The invisible crisis under our feet ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.eco-business.com/news/our-dying-soils-the-invisible-crisis-under-our-feet/
|Date= 19 March 2018
|Authors=Vaidehi Shah
|Summary=Soils are essential for life because they are many species' habitat, provide the medium for plant growth,and provide foods for people to consume. Due to the advancement of technology, industrial agriculture, and unsustainable development, soil degradation becomes a severe issue nowadays. The Food and Agricultural Organization lead a project, which promotes an alternative farming method instead of the traditional practices which may have direct harm to the soil. Because of the FAO project, the production increases and soils have been well protected. We, humans, are the main cause of soil degradation, and now we should have an awareness of soil degradation and try to help restore and preserve the health of the soil. Just like what David Montgomery, professor of earth and space sciences, said,” Soil health is like human health; it is hard to define, but you sure know when you don’t have it.” The healthiness of the soil had direct correlation not only to the quality of our life but also the lives of the future generation.

This is important to me because I rely on soil for food, and everyone of you also rely on soil to live, and we should work together to preserve it.This article relates to soil degradation in the APBI 200 course.
Erin Lin (54577440)

}}

== Can Soil Microbes Slow Climate Change? ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-soil-microbes-slow-climate-change/
|Date=March 26, 2019
|Authors=John J. Berger
|Summary=This article is about a potential method to reduce carbon emissions: using agricultural soil as a store. This article points out that, as much of today's earth is used for agriculture, the idea of "carbon farming" is becoming a more and more possible way to combat climate change. However, the big question this is whether or not farmers can engage in these carbon-capturing activities while maintaining high yields for their crops. The scientist featured in this article says that this issue can be solved by increasing the fungal-to-bacteria ratio because fungi use carbon more efficiently, allowing the soil to release less CO2. This was found to improve the soil’s ability to store CO2 by tenfold, though the results are controversial. It was also found that a higher fungal-to-bacteria ratio improves the C/N ratio to encourage plant growth, which relates to the topics of soil microbes and fertility in soil science. Though these results have yet to be replicated on a larger scale, climate change is an enormous issue today and any proposed solution to reduce the effects of CO2 emissions is a step in the right direction. Therefore, this article represents another much-needed method that we can combine with other sustainable actions to fight CO2 emissions and climate change in the long run. This issue is close to my heart as well as my degree, which is why this article intrigued me.

}}

== Tateum Cava 53041018: Soil in the News ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.soils.org/discover-soils/story/what-do-gardens-bring-to-urban-ecosystems
|Date= March 13, 2019, Soil Science Society of America
|Authors= Martha Pings
|Summary=
The news report discusses a research project that is ongoing. The research project entails gardens in urban ecosystems, and their importance. The report goes into detail about the benefits of "healthy soil". They refer to healthy soil as soil with enough organic matter and nutrients to encourage good plant growth. The research project also entails researchers gathering soil and plant samples for 20 different lab tests. This article relates to APBI 200 because they test the soils water retention and fertility. We tested water retention by doing tests such as hand texturing/taste testing to determine the relative portions of sand, silt, and clay in the soil. A soil with a high relative portion of sand has poor water retention, and a soil with a high relative portion of clay retains water well. Article is important to me because this group encourages urban gardening, and if everyone had a garden there would be less green-house gas emissions in the long-run.

}}

== Terroir trouble: B.C. vineyards harm soil quality, UBC study says ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://vancouversun.com/life/food/terroir-trouble-b-c-vineyards-harm-soil-quality-ubc-study-says
|Date= July 17, 2016
|Authors= Glenda Luymes
|Summary= The article explained that vineyards increase the amount of microbial activity, causing possibly more nutrient availability but fungal abundance was shown to go down. The article was really comparing the differences of a managed vineyard and a vineyard that grows on uncultivated soils with little intervention. Luymes explained how the managed vineyards are causing significant changes in the soils that it the vineyard is planted in, which could cause the flavour of the grapes to change. The uncultivated, less intervention technique could be a better alternative to get better quality grapes and thus, a better quality wine.

This article is important to me because I am concerned with what conventional agriculture does to the land it is being planted up but even more so to what it is doing to the quality of the food it is producing. Less management of agriculture may be more cost effective for a better product. It relates to the course APBI 200 because of microbial activity and the nutrient cycling within soils and how vegetation impacts those cycles.

}}

== Better water testing, safer produce ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.soils.org/discover-soils/story/better-water-testing-safer-produce
|Date= March 20, 2019
|Authors= Penelope Hillemann
|Summary= This news is about the effects of different water quality on the quantity of E. coli in plants, since eating uncooked vegetables like lettuce cannot kill E. coli people can lead to bad healthy outcomes. The other way to eliminate E. coli is back to the plants in soil. In addition, water that used to drainage plants is a good conductor of E. coli. Therefore scientists collect water sample monthly and then send them to three different laboratories, to test how well the method result were produced. I interested in this news because it is about our daily life and healthy and me personaly eat a lot of lettuce in food like salad, so I am curious about the result scientists get about the safty of eating this and solutions for situation like that. This news also relative to the APBI 200 course material and detailly the organisms in soil and how can these bactirias effects the growth of plants. The connection between course and my real life give me a specific example of the concept I learned in class and I can understand both of them better by making these connections.

}}

== The Caribbean Has A 'Dirty' Solution For Climate Change ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.forbes.com/sites/daphneewingchow/2019/03/10/regenerative-agriculture/#21ffb79f6661
|Date= Mar 10, 2019
|Authors= Daphne Ewing-Chow
|Summary= Article looks at regenerative agricultural practices being done in the Caribbean. Things like managed grazing, agroforestry, and organic farming all allow the soil to generate more organic matter, and hence improve the soil's ability to retain important nutrient. The article also mentions that these practices improve the soil's ability to sequester carbon. The potential upsides from restoring these degraded soils is enormous. Better soils increase food security, and reduce negative impacts on water supply. Another big upside is that the soils have the potential to sequester a significant amount of carbon, allowing some of these Caribbean countries to become carbon neutral.

This is relevant to me because climate change is a global issue that is relevant to everyone. I also come from a developing country and realize the importance of the soil's ability to meet the food demands of the people on it. Improving the soil quality is an easy way to improve the quality of life of the people.

}}

== Right green for crop, environment, wallet ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.soils.org/discover-soils/story/right-green-crop-environment-wheat
|Date= January 16, 2019
|Authors= Adityarup “Rup” Chakravorty
|Summary= This news introduced a new technology that can control the nitrogen in soil more efficiently so that can maximum the soil productivity. Fertilization act a necessary role in silviculture and agriculture. The productivity of crops influences the price and economy directly and influence the quality of worlds' life indirectly. This is very important and will bring effect to everyone's life. This news is relate to the Nitrogen cycle and Soil chemical in lecture. If the nitrogen fertilizers is too much, the plant will look lush and green, but the ability of fruit and flower will decrease. If the nitrogen content in soil is too low, plant growth is likely to be slow with weak spindly stems and small leaves. It is very important to keep the nitrogen concentration perfect to keep the maximum productivity. This new tools can help us observe the nitrogen content in soil easily and helps us control easily. This will make agriculture more effective and crops can remain on the maximum profivity. This can also reduce the waste of over fertilized.

}}

== Can Soil Microbes Slow Climate Change? ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-soil-microbes-slow-climate-change/
|Date=March 26, 2019
|Authors=John J. Berger
|Summary=This article begins pointing out the global carbon issues our world is facing. There are some scientists that think that we should store carbon in the soil to combat the amount that is in the air. The scientist focused on in this article is David Johnson and he believes this can be done while keeping a balance to agricultural used soils. He thinks the way to achieve this balance is implementing the use of microbe-rich solution to aid in plants pulling CO2 from the air. He claims that as the ratio of fungi to bacteria in soil increases, the soil becomes more efficient in utilizing carbon and thus storing it. Other scientists are skeptical about his results, but they continue to test long term and attempt to recreate his results.
This is important to me because of the environmental challenges we as a human race are facing. Our current carbon use is negatively impacting every aspect of the environment and is increasing at exponential rates. These need to be slowed if we have hopes of keeping the global temperature rise under 2°C from pre-industrial temperature. The younger generation (me) are faced with these challenges and how to attempt to keep our world as livable as possible for us and future generations. This relates to what we’ve been learning because we have talked about microbes in soil and throughout the course have touched on the responsibility of humans to the soil and how to attempt to use it responsibly.

}}

== "How to Turn Dirt Into Soil" ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-03-08/how-to-turn-dirt-into-soil/
|Date=March 8, 2019
|Authors=Anne Biklé, David R. Montgomery
|Summary=A biologist and a geologist couple who needed to put their potted plants into their backyard soil find out that the soil has glacial till parent material very close to the surface and has thus turned into dirt, making it hard for them to plant anything. They decide to add organic matter to their soil to revive it; They used wood chips, coffee grounds, fallen leaves and oyster/mussel shells to create mulch for their garden. After four years, they discover that the mulch and compost have turned into humus and that their soil has come back to life and now contains soil organisms such as earthworms and mites and now they can grow their plants and food crops such as kale. They realize that all they needed to do bring back life into their garden was to increase the soil’s carbon content by adding organic matter.
This article is very interesting and relates to the material learned in this class as it talks about the real-life applications of the course content. For example, we learned that organic matter is very crucial for soil fauna and flora as it helps with aeration, drainage, water retention and much more. In summary, organic matter transforms the soil and resurrects it.

}}

== Soil pollution ‘jeopardizing’ life on Earth, UN agency warns on World Day ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/12/1027681
|Date= December 5, 2018
|Authors= The Food and Agriculture Organization, UN
|Summary= The article exposes some severe problems about soil degradation caused by “thousands of chemicals used in every-day lives” and “tonnes of urban, industrial and agricultural waste” (UN News 2018). It also points out the significance of soil regarding not only providing food but also mitigating poverty. Professor Rattan Lal was awarded the Glinka World Soil Prize for his contribution to “soil organic carbon restoration” and “improvement of soil structure” (UN News 2018). Food and Agriculture Organization emphasizes that every person can help to solve the problems in soil degradation and solid contamination by using products with recycled packaging.

This article relates to several topics covered in APBI 200—N/P cycle, soil organic matter, and soil structure. Excess chemicals would break the N/P cycles in the soil, resulting in imbalanced chemical composition. This might also lead to a decrease in soil organisms since many of them require a certain pH to survive. Professor Rattan Lal restores soil organic carbon to increase organic matter in the soil helping with soil aggregation and the cation exchange capacity of the soil. A good soil structure requires well-developed soil aggregates with a mix of macro- and micropores. This type of soil has good water infiltration and nutrient retention as well as good aeration for plant roots and soil organisms.

}}

== Skepticism of Plans for Soil Remediation in the Comox Valley ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.mycomoxvalleynow.com/52320/contaminated-union-bay-soil-to-be-disposed-of-on-site/
|Date=March 29, 2019
|Authors=James Wood
|Summary= James Wood writes about contaminated soil that has been dug out of Vancouver Island development and developers plans to deal with it. This soil was "contaminated railbed soil" and was removed during land clearing without any pre-established plan to deal with it. This was allowed as they were issued a permit by the Ministry of Transportation which granted them access to clear land in order to construct a road The article states that the soil was out of risk of riparian contamination as it was more than 50 metres away from a nearby creek and that erosion and leaching were not a worry as the piles were covered by plastic sheetings with "additional erosion and sediment controls installed around them". The article is vague in it's ending stating that the soil will be managed on site but points out that what management looks like can vary greatly depending on a number of variables.

Although the tone of the article is optimistic- my learnings within APBI 200 makes me sceptical of this optimism. The article states that the plastic sheeting was found to be in need of repair after heavy snowfall. I wonder if this soil would have received enough moisture or wind exposure during this time to cause movement of these contaminants to surrounding soil and from there depending on conditions and soil structure move horizontally and vertically across soil horizons effectively introducing these contaminants into soil systems that will not receive remediation.

}}

== The City’s Buried Treasure Isn’t Under the Dirt. It Is the Dirt. ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/nyregion/the-citys-buried-treasure-isnt-under-the-dirt-it-is-the-dirt.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSoil&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
|Date= July 25th,2018
|Authors= Richard Schiffman
|Summary=
This article reports on the status of soils in urban areas, particularly in New York City. Much of New York’s soil found at construction sites has continued to be classified as toxic waste, resulting in the disposal of two to three million tons of soil a year. This waste is often unnecessary because toxic waste is often limited to the soil’s surface, resulting in the waste of the perfectly safe soil underneath it. This waste is significant because as climate change continues to impact the city, soil could be useful for various adaptation methods. One example of this is the need for soil to build levees, protecting communities from rising sea levels. To address this problem a program called PUREsoil NYC has been launched to create demand for soils sourced from construction sites, using them to replace contaminated soils in community gardens. This is the first soil exchange of its kind facilitated by a city government, and it has already saved construction companies an estimated $30 million that would have been spent on transportation of soils to landfills. The program’s main goal is to expose New Yorkers to all that the city’s soil has to offer. In addition the article mentioned the opening of a soil museum in Brooklyn.

}}

== Can Soil Microbes Slow Climate Change? ==

{{APBI
|URL=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-soil-microbes-slow-climate-change/
|Date=March 26, 2019
|Authors=John J. Berger, Scientific American
|Summary=''"Johnson, a trim 67-year-old microbiologist who is as comfortable using the latest metagenomics technology as he is shoveling cow manure into a composter, thinks society can only maximize carbon storage, increase soil’s water-holding capacity and grow plentiful crops if it restores the soil microbiome. “We currently have very degraded soils physically, chemically, but mostly biologically,” he says. “Microbes restore this balance.”"''

With carbon emissions hitting all time highs as we barrel further into our technological future, we are no doubt heading towards catastrophe if we continue the way we are. While many scientists are looking at conservation, resource management, government policy and taxation as ways to slow carbon emissions, some are looking beneath our feet.

It is estimated that half of the world's topsoil has been lost over the past 150 years, and poor management practices have lead to increased degradation. What is missing, says Dr. David Johnson of New Mexico State University, is fungus. There's too much bacteria in our soil, and bacteria off-gass CO2 (unless you're talking about that wild recently discovered deep sea bacteria that absorbs CO2, but our soils aren't at the bottom of the ocean just yet), and so far it seems that increasing the fungal to bacterial ratio can help surface plants absorb more CO2 and overall release less CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Soil management practices may actually be what is killing these fungal networks within the soil. Tilling and tearing apart the top soil is a great way to mix in nutrients but not a great way to preserve mycelium, therefore in competition with bacterial microbes with their single-celled advantage, fungi often loses. While unfortunately peer-reviewed confirmation of these findings are yet to be published, it wouldn't hurt to stop assaulting the soil microbiota and let them do what they do best in carbon and nitrogen cycling.

SN: 65697757

}}

== Eden Project investigates soil future with Plymouth University ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-46866713
|Date= 15 January 2019
|Authors= BBC UK, official authors not referenced
|Summary= In the article I am summarizing, the main idea is based around a study conducted by Plymouth University at the Eden Project site in Cornwall. The study revolves around a study on the topsoil at the project, and the fact that it consists of a mix of wastes from the nearby town, and rests in a location that was previously a post-industrial clay pit. The current project is about moving forward with the soils, and how they can tailor it to support different types of ecosystems, such as the outback in Australia, for one. This is important to me for the reason that being able to tailor soils in order to be able to grow different crops from different biomes in the same vicinity could be extremely useful for combating issues such as world hunger. The costs and problems associated with shipping could be cut out of the process. This relates most to the field of soil chemical and organic properties, as well as soil processes.
}}

== Sask. farmers concerned about early melt, lack of soil moisture ==

{{APBI
|URL= https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/sask-farmers-crop-report-early-melt-concerned-1.5071025
|Date= March 25th, 2019
|Authors= Jason Warick
|Summary=

This CBC article explains how the farmers in Saskatchewan are worried about a lack of precipitation, which affects the amount of moisture in the soil. This is the second straight year Saskatchewan soils have received inadequate moisture. In the province of Saskatchewan, most areas received only 60-80 percent of the soil moisture required; and other areas received as low as 40 percent of required soil moisture. Shannon Chant, the crop extension specialist with the Ministry of Agriculture, explained how some fields are better at retaining moisture than others. Zero-till or low-till fields are better at trapping water and stop water from moving into streams and rivers.

Two identifiable factors of soil formation have impacted the amount of moisture in the Saskatchewan soils; climate and topography. In climate, when winters are wet with high precipitation, the rainwater will contact the soil and be stored inside. In addition, during higher temperatures, snow will be melt and be utilized as a substitute for rainwater for the soil. With a lack of soil moisture, the farmers in Saskatchewan should use a soil with a soil texture consisting of more clay and silt percentage as these particles have a better water retention than sand particles. In topography, soil moisture (precipitation) likes to move from a high elevation to a low elevation. When the farmland is situation at an area in high elevation, the soil moisture will be transferred downwards to streams and rivers. Therefore, it is important to put farm areas at a lower elevation to not lose soil moisture along with soil nutrients.

}}

Thread:User talk:GabrielWan/Clarification Request: Creative Commons License/reply

2019-01-15T06:35:09Z

GabrielWan: Reply to Clarification Request: Creative Commons License

Hi Deb,

The email notifying me that you had sent me a message was stuck in my inbox, so I apologize for the late reply. I was able to add my name to the end of my project and I would love to apply a Creative Commons License. However, I am unsure of how to do this. Are you able to assist me?

Gabriel

Course:FRST370/Projects/Forest management in Ban Thung Yao community in Thailand

2019-01-15T06:30:04Z

GabrielWan:

Ban Thung Yao village is located in the Lamphun province of Northern Thailand. Members of the community have been managing the forests since their settlement in 1915. They depend on the forest to extract both timber and non-timber based products such as mushrooms, bamboo shoots, medicinal plants and herbs. The women in Ban Thing Yao community play a significant role in securing the local people’s rights and their heritage. They contribute to managing the forest by patrolling, maintaining the nursery, keeping records of violators, and organizing local knowledge-sharing events. When the Royal Forest Department announced Ban Thung Yao community forest as a National Park in 1987, the women’s group in the community expressed their displeasure the strongest.
==Description==
Northern Thailand has a population of 10.5 million, with 17 million hectares of land. The area of our case study, the Ban Thung Yao Village is located in this region. Five mountain ranges “run north-south with elevations ranging between 550 and 2,500m and valley floors varying from 200 to 500m above sea level” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). There is 1,000 to 4,000 millimeters (mm) of rainfall per year and two distinct dry and rainy seasons. During the dry season, the temperature tops out at 40°C. The median temperature is 25°C. During the cold dry season, the lowest temperature is 0°C. Thailand has a population of 69 million people, with a 0.4% growth rate and 51 million of hectares of land. The population density is 123 persons/km2. 80% of the population currently lives in rural areas, however we have seen an increase towards urbanization in recent decades. In 1965, “only 13 percent of the population lived in urban areas, with 23 percent in 1990, declining to 21 percent in 2000” (Lakanavichian, S, 2006).
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-25_at_8.34.12_PM.png|thumb|Map of Ban Thung Yao Village|281x281px]]There are two main types of forest in this region, evergreen and deciduous, with variations of altitude, soil, rainfall and other factors in each type. In deciduous forests, there are “dry dipterocarp, dry mixed deciduous, and moist mixed deciduous” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). In evergreen forests, there are “lower montane, coniferous, and dry evergreen” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The most valued type of forest is the mixed deciduous forest, as this type contains teak, a hardwood species which is highly demanded. Over 70% of Thai people are involved in agriculture related occupations. Other main areas of work include manufacturing and service industries. To obtain agricultural supplies, most people in local communities go to river valleys to collect them. The Chiang Mai valley has been the most successful in Northern Thailand, which is 124 kilometres from Ban Thung Yao community.
==Tenure arrangements==
The highest level of land ownership in Thailand is the ''Chanode Thidin''. The person in possession of this certificate can sell, transfer, or mortgage the property. In urban areas, full title deeds are more common, which serves the same purpose as the ''Chanode Thidin.''The most prevalent tenure certificates in Thailand include the ''NS.3 ''and ''NS.3.A. ''Holders with these certificates have the right to farm the land and use them as collateral to borrow money. The next most prevalent tenure certificates include ''PBT.5''and ''PBT.6''certificates. PBT certificates land tax receipts but do not give the holder land title. However, the land can be farmed and residences can be built, but cannot be sold or used as loan collateral. The land can be taken away by the ''Royal Forest Department’s Forest Village Programme''at any point for reforestation or reallocation purposes. The purpose of PBT certificates is to give the farmers of the local community a feeling of ownership so that they now are motivated to spend their time to work on the land and to stay in the area. The land remains apart of the state, in this case. It is estimated that approximately 90% of property owners in Thailand do not have legal ownership to the property. Land title is primarily held by men, whether it be the NS or the PBT certificates.

==Administrative arrangements==

The First and Second National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (1961-1971) was implemented to increase economic growth through building roads, electricity, and water supply networks. Although Thailand as a country has prospered economically, income distribution and the quality of life of local people have declined during the early 1970’s. The Third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976) was needed to emphasise on “social development, reduction of the population growth rate, and income distribution” (p.7). Amidst the Fourth Plan period (1977-1981), the future plans of the government were uncertain, as a result, there was an economic downturn. As a result, the Fifth and Sixth Plans (1982-1991) focused on economic stability and bringing the population out of poverty. The Seventh Plan (1992-1996) wanted to promote sustainable development especially in economic growth and stability, “income distribution, developing human resources, and enhancing the quality of life and the environment” (Forest Management Bureau, 2009). The eighth plan (1997-2001) primarily was focused on the Thai people. The country wanted to create a balance between the development of the economy, society, and environment. However, a drawback occurred as another economic crisis ensued. The state wanted to restore economic stability in the country. The ninth plan (2002-2006) continued the goals of the eighth plan with the population in mind. The plan promised to improve the economic crisis at the time and sustainable development with the Thai people in mind. The ninth plan was considered a success. The economy of the nation grew 5.7 percent a year on average. Poverty fell, and the quality of life improved for the people. Health insurance covered most of the population from sickness as drug problems decreased.

The Community Forestry Bill was proposed in 1990. The bill outlines the rules local community members must follow when utilizing state-owned forests. The bill was altered six times in the 1990’s to 2000 with intense debates between “community groups, development and conservation NGOs, the Royal Forest Department, and academics” (Korpela, E et al, 2006). When it was finalized, a critical aspect included that local communities were allowed to live in the forest if they were able to show that they could conserve it. The local community did not like the idea that the forest management was state-led, so it was changed. The final draft was prepared by an alliance of academics and NGOs, also known as the “people’s version”. This version outlined the ability of local communities to enter use the forests. The people’s version was endorsed by the House of Representatives twice, first in 1996 and again in 2002. Sadly, the Senate rejected the key points of the adjusted proposal and made changes to the bill to restrict the villager’s power to the forests in Thailand. Currently, there has been no agreement between the parties as the years pass.

==Affected Stakeholders==
A main reason why deforestation was high in Thailand for the last century is the growing rural population. Protection policies of deforestation in Thailand has been ineffective due to inadequate attention to the needs of the local people. Deforestation is a way for local Thai communities to meet their basic needs such as food and income. The country has been well known for exporting rice and upland crops to sell to all around the world for profit. Vital concerns on the subject of the exploitation of natural resources are frequently brought forward, particularly on Thailand’s forests. Although many legislations have been brought forward to protect the forests, the intended goals of the legislations were not met on many occasions. Thus, deforestation is a major threat to the future welfare of the Thai people, especially in rural areas. Past management programs have been advocating for state-controlled forests. Local people in forests were posed as threats to the state control of the forests, without considering the reliance of the local communities to the forests for many things, such as food and income. Aside from other natural resources local communities can utilize in forests such as lumber, the amount of water in the local communities is also a key issue. Water is able to supply the local community with electricity, generated locally by hydro plants. During high water levels, the community can utilize electricity all day. During low water levels, electricity is only accessible on Saturdays and Sundays. This is due to the fact that water must be saved up to produce crops, the local communities main source of food and income. Despite the fact that forest loss directly impacts the amount of water in the local community, many communities have continued to log. The reason is that the lumber cut down is able to be used as supplies to build houses. These houses can then be sold to timber merchants for a profit. In many cases, a sale of one small house can equal to one full year of agricultural income.

==Ban Thung Yao Village (Affected Stakeholder)==
The Ban Thung Yao Community was established when a group of men and women settled in the area in 1915. There are over 180 families in this community alone. Eight years after their settlement in 1923, the first village chief of Ban Thung Yao declared 9.6 hectares of watershed forest as a protected area to address water shortage problems” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The land in the community is split into three categories; housing areas, agricultural land, and community forest. In the community forest category, there are two subcategories; protected areas, and “areas set aside for the utilization of timber and non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The community forest has aided the socio-cultural, economic and environmental development of the Ban Thung Yao Village. The villagers in the community can utilize the forests in the community, however, are unable to mortgage, lease, or sell the land for income. Currently, “the village community forest manages 400 hectares of forestland, with 12 women making up more than a third of the executive committee” (Upadhyay, B, 2013).
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.53.00_PM.png|thumb|Non-timber forest products collected by gender]]
Women in participation of community forestry in the community were assigned to protect “traditional knowledge, wisdom, spiritual beliefs and rituals related to forestry, keeping records of customary laws on forest protection and conservation, and in fund management and often advocated for local ownership of non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). In addition, they were also involved in forest patrolling and reporting violations to the forest executive community. Men practicing community forestry were focused on hunting for poisonous insects in the forest at night, and exploring new routes and longer trails in the forest” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). They also enforced written agreements and laws, particularly on logging, tree cutting in specified areas and forest patrolling. A study into the Ban Thung Yao community showed that women in the community are more knowledgeable about market demand for forest products compared to men. Women who sell vegetables and other items collected from the forest are able to meet the demands of their own household but are also able to generate income by selling these items. Some members of the Ban Thung Yao Village utilize its forest to extract medicinal plants and herbs to set up their herbal enterprises. As doing so, the people in the Ban Thung Yao Community who purchase alcoholic drinks regularly will have an alternative to try to drink herbal drinks. The herbal enterprise has become a major successes the business has become well known nationally in Thailand. The owner of the medicinal enterprise, Ms. Srongporn, began “collaborating with other farmers and non-timber forest product collectors to buy raw materials, as at times the raw materials collected from Ban Thung Yao forest are not enough to meet the market demand” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). [[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.31.52_PM.png|thumb|Forest products and revenue]]The Ban Thung Yao community has become one of the most gender equitable community forestry communities in ensuring equal participation from both genders. The community has inspired other local communities in Thailand to have equal gender participation in their communities. This study shows that women in this community are very open to building their knowledge to issues such as “climate change, community-based climate change adaptation, REDD+ and agroforestry” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). When developing forest policies, the differing work between men and women in the community should be considered; such as roles, responsibilities, skills, and knowledge in community forest management. Phakee Wannasak is the leader of the women’s group of the local community we are studying in this case study, the Ban Thung Yao village. The women’s group was “established in 1977 by Thailand’s Community Development Department in Ban Thung Yao village, in the province of Lamphun”(Upadhyay, B. Forest Heroine, 2016). When the Royal Forest Department (RFD) announced Ban Thung Yao community forest as a National Park in 1987, the women’s group in the community expressed their displeasure the strongest. Phakee instilled confidence into the other members of the women’s group to resist. In 1989, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation proposed an annual distribution of $2,455 to the forest in the Ban Thung Yao community. In return, the community forest would need to follow the regulations of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. Phakee discussed with the members of the women’s group, and brought out the potential issue of losing rights to the forest and its resources. This would greatly affect the daily life of the community. The women’s group of Ban Thung Yao collectively decided to decline this offer.The Ban Thung Yao Community Forest produces 28 types of wild vegetables, 13 kinds of wild fruit, 25 types of mushrooms, and 20 various kinds of herbal plants. These natural vegetables and fruit total to $30,630, displaying the economic value of the forest. In the present, Phakee is determined to secure the customary rights of the people in the local community and passing it to the next generation. She allocates a large portion of her time towards the younger generation, telling them the history of the Ban Thung Yao Community Forest and the customary beliefs of the people. She wishes that like her, the younger generation of the community can learn from the past to improve the forest in the futureForest products and revenue.

==Interested Stakeholders==
Before the ''Royal Forest Department (RFD)'' came into existence in 1896, forest lands were property of the king, rulers of provinces, and landlords. Since the existence of the RFD, all forested areas were owned by the state. The main objective of the RFD was to turn these state-owned forests into money-makers. The RFD will sell concession rights to receive royalties. Since 1989, the RFD needed to adjust their objective into part production, part protection. In the early 1900’s the forest cover in Thailand was over 70%. Thailand had the second fastest deforestation rate in Asia, with Nepal being the fastest.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_10.37.50_PM.png|thumb|Forest Cover in Thailand]]In 1985, only 29% of forest land remained in Thailand. The North East, East, Central and South regions in Thailand has very little forested land remaining. Northern Thailand has the highest forest cover. However, this is also the same region where deforestation is the highest in the country. Many areas in the North have been logged and have now become grassland. Commercial logging is also a method for government to generate its revenue by way of foreign exchange with other countries. Logging concessions were given to companies to cut timber in the local forests by the government. The government believed that the companies would be able to respect the extraction quotas. However, the concessions did not put the restrictions set by the government into its interests. Deforested areas were left to be regenerated by themselves and were often damaged further by the local communities collecting firewood and agricultural expansion. The government decided to put an end to concessions in 1977 and reduced timber production by 50% two years later. During the 1980’s Thailand grew into a net importer of timber supplies. In 1988, the Royal Thai Government set further regulations after hundreds of villagers were killed in floods and mudslides in Southern Thailand. The main suspected cause of the floods and mudslides was due to the intense deforestation. In 1989, a complete ban from logging was put in place and partnerships between the RFD and logging concessions had formally ended. 15 percent of the total land in Thailand were dedicated towards forest conservation. These areas formerly were committed towards timber production and economic forests. It was during this time where the Thai government understood the dangers of losing forest cover in the country. The dangers of logging in Thailand can be seen by the increased runoff on steep slopes and in watershed areas. This can lead to nutrient depletion and soil erosion. As Thailand loses its forest cover, many animals have become endangered and some even extinct. Areas near the foot of a river, faces the threat of “flooding, sedimentation of water bodies, and decreased availability of water during the dry season” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The idea of forest management has been a tense subject in Thailand. Forest guards and environmental activists have been threatened and/or physically attacked in many areas of Thailand. In some cases, activists have been murdered acting against powerful business people who are in favour of forest exploitation. It is no secret that some government officials are currently involved in illegal logging trade. This is why it may not be in the best interest of the members of the local community to announce their displeasure of logging activities as it will result in a lot of trouble for themselves. The involvement of local communities in policy making has been extremely limited, as most of the policies are decided by the state. When asked about policy making, the local villagers believe that they deserve to be more involved in decision making.

==Assessment==
Organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) are incapable of developing community forest management, as it faces the weight of state legislations. It is clear that there remains an absence of a national policy to recognize the rights of the community in the local forests. As more communities become involved in managing national forests, we can observe the possibility of community forest management in Thailand. The local community defending their rights against private interests are only able to protect the natural resources if they receive support from the state, legally. The local community does not have economic interest in forest exploitation, but rather economic interest of forest protection. This is an important aspect leading towards sustainable forest management. The practice of Community Forest Management (CFM) will be dependent on the government and the Royal Forestry Department (RFD). One of the reasons why villagers have decided to deforest and use the land for agriculture is the revenue received. The villagers would need to wait for a long time for the trees to grow in comparison where farmers could quickly turn their crops into sales if used for agriculture. If incentives were given to the villagers to manage the forest by the state, the villagers will be more inclined to withdraw the idea of deforestation and using the land for agriculture. Economic incentives should be given to local communities which work to manage their local forest. This will also improve the wellbeing of the members of the local community and improve their ability to manage forests. The 7 major factors preventing people’s involvement in sustainable forest management are “the State’s authorities, centralized management decision-making, inappropriate attitudes towards local people and forest use, lack of trust and strong commitments, lack of knowledge and skills to work with people, non-existent or uncommunicated incentives, and a lack of legal support” (Makarabhirom, n.d). Analyzing data collection in the forest site is effective in changing the forest management operations to fit their needs. Therefore, when the local people interact with the forests, they are able to collect data of the forest, along with their participation in community forest management. Community forest management can generate income for the local community, as well as train the local people to manage natural resources.

==Recommendations==
Ecological stress between tribal communities, landless farmers, and businessmen has increased as time passed by. We can project that the well-being of the local communities in the future will worsen if the groups are unable to come to terms. Research into local Thailand communities show that men and women are equally knowledgeable and concerned about forest use in their community. Some people find it surprising that men are very encouraging in women’s participation of managing the forest. Most members in local communities are profiled with “insecure land ownership, low incomes, and low levels of education, in a country whose recent economic performances has created soaring expectations of material well-being” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). As population grows in communities, resources becoming more limited, and outside business stakeholders, there will be a constant need to overuse the natural resources.The local community faces the dilemma of to use or to not use forest resources. Communities in Northern Thailand can see the advantages of protecting forest resources. However, the people need the resources for food, household needs, and income to improve their daily life. The outlook of the usage of forests have changed immensely over time. In the past, primary role of forests was to produce timber. Local communities now use forests to collect food, fuel, fodder, and construction materials. In some cases, the local villagers also have a cultural and or spiritual attachment towards the forests. To develop a community forest program in Thailand, more power must be given to the local community. The state and powerful organizations such as the Royal Forest Department (RFD) must change their philosophy from a centralized to a more decentralized forest management and forest conservation in order for community forestry to happen in Thailand. Currently, forest in Thailand is managed by a “few high level officials in the national-level committees such as the National Forest Policy Committee, the Wildlife Protection Committee and the National Park Committee” (Makarabhirom, n.d). However, the goals of these committees do not align with meeting the needs of the local communities. In addition, the committees are appointed by political sectors, politicising forest management in Thailand. In recent years, the idea of Community Forestry has grown rapidly in Thailand as the country has been looking for a more sustainable way to manage forests. However, organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) and a number of other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) continue to question the capability of local communities to manage the resources of the forest sustainably. In most local communities, a strong leader is required to lead the community in managing resources in any community forest as the leader ties the members of the community together and represents them in decision-making. Most of the forests in Thailand is state owned, and there is no intention of the state to protect the rights of the local people. Some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are working with the local communities to manage forest resources as they act as an intermediary between the forest officers and the local communities.

==References==
Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R. (1993, August). Forest management in Northern Thailand: A rural Thai perspective, 263-275. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001671859390020I</nowiki>

Forest Management Bureau, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Thailand Forestry Outlook Study. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am617e/am617e00.pdf</nowiki>

Korpela, E., Bosselmann, A., Kahala, L., Ohtonen, H., Ruotsalainen, A., Sengvue, S., . . . Yli-Hinkkala, M. (2006, January). Community Forestry And Agrofrestry In Thailand- Case Study Of Ban Thung Soong Village Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240623799_COMMUNITY_FORESTRY_AND_AGROFORESTY_IN_THAILAND_-_CASE_STUDY_OF_BAN_THUNG_SOONG_VILLAGE</nowiki>

Lakanavichian, S. (2006, February). Case Studies in South and East Asia: Forest Ownership, Forest Resource Tenure and Sustainable Forest Management. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/forestry/10809-09f8870885bd8d85106e0a87cd906b784.pdf</nowiki>

Makarabhirom, P. (n.d.). People’s participation in forest management in Thailand: Constraints and the way out. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/1503/attach/3ws-15-permsak.pdf</nowiki>

Salam, M. A., Noguchi, T., & Pothitan, R. (2006). Community forest management in thailand: Current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development.''New Forests, 31''(2), 273-291. doi:10.1007/s11056-005-7483-8

Upadhyay, B., Arpornsilp, R., & Soontornwong, S. (2013, August 1). Gender and Community Forests in a Changing Landscape: Lessons From Ban Thung Yao, Thailand. Retrieved October 3, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000053</nowiki>

Upadhyay, B., Forest Heroine: Phakee Wannasak wards off threats to community-led forest governance. (2016, October 30). Retrieved October 2, 2018, from <nowiki>https://forestsnews.cifor.org/21608/forest-heroine-phakee-wannasak-wards-off-threats-to-community-led-forest-governance?fnl=en</nowiki>

Wataru, F., Ganjanapan, A., & Shin’ichi, S. (n.d.). “Community Forest” and Thai Rural Society. Retrieved October 10 from <nowiki>https://kyotoreview.org/issue-2-disaster-and-rehabilitation/community-forest-and-thai-rural-society/</nowiki><references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=Gabriel Wan
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Forest management in Ban Thung Yao community in Thailand

2018-11-28T07:43:33Z

GabrielWan: /* Description */

Course:FRST370/Projects/Forest management in Ban Thung Yao community in Thailand

2018-11-28T07:43:16Z

GabrielWan: /* Description */

Ban Thung Yao village is located in the Lamphun province of Northern Thailand. Members of the community have been managing the forests since their settlement in 1915. They depend on the forest to extract both timber and non-timber based products such as mushrooms, bamboo shoots, medicinal plants and herbs. The women in Ban Thing Yao community play a significant role in securing the local people’s rights and their heritage. They contribute to managing the forest by patrolling, maintaining the nursery, keeping records of violators, and organizing local knowledge-sharing events. When the Royal Forest Department announced Ban Thung Yao community forest as a National Park in 1987, the women’s group in the community expressed their displeasure the strongest.

==Description==
Northern Thailand has a population of 10.5 million, with 17 million hectares of land. The area of our case study, the Ban Thung Yao Village is located in this region. Five mountain ranges “run north-south with elevations ranging between 550 and 2,500m and valley floors varying from 200 to 500m above sea level” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). There is 1,000 to 4,000 millimeters (mm) of rainfall per year and two distinct dry and rainy seasons. During the dry season, the temperature tops out at 40°C. The median temperature is 25°C. During the cold dry season, the lowest temperature is 0°C. Thailand has a population of 69 million people, with a 0.4% growth rate and 51 million of hectares of land. The population density is 123 persons/km2. 80% of the population currently lives in rural areas, however we have seen an increase towards urbanization in recent decades. In 1965, “only 13 percent of the population lived in urban areas, with 23 percent in 1990, declining to 21 percent in 2000” (Lakanavichian, S, 2006).
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-25_at_8.34.12_PM.png|thumb|Map of Ban Thung Yao Village|281x281px]]There are two main types of forest in this region, evergreen and deciduous, with variations of altitude, soil, rainfall and other factors in each type. In deciduous forests, there are “dry dipterocarp, dry mixed deciduous, and moist mixed deciduous” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). In evergreen forests, there are “lower montane, coniferous, and dry evergreen” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The most valued type of forest is the mixed deciduous forest, as this type contains teak, a hardwood species which is highly demanded. Over 70% of Thai people are involved in agriculture related occupations. Other main areas of work include manufacturing and service industries. To obtain agricultural supplies, most people in local communities go to river valleys to collect them. The Chiang Mai valley has been the most successful in Northern Thailand, which is 124 kilometres from Ban Thung Yao community.
==Tenure arrangements==
The highest level of land ownership in Thailand is the ''Chanode Thidin''. The person in possession of this certificate can sell, transfer, or mortgage the property. In urban areas, full title deeds are more common, which serves the same purpose as the ''Chanode Thidin.''The most prevalent tenure certificates in Thailand include the ''NS.3 ''and ''NS.3.A. ''Holders with these certificates have the right to farm the land and use them as collateral to borrow money. The next most prevalent tenure certificates include ''PBT.5''and ''PBT.6''certificates. PBT certificates land tax receipts but do not give the holder land title. However, the land can be farmed and residences can be built, but cannot be sold or used as loan collateral. The land can be taken away by the ''Royal Forest Department’s Forest Village Programme''at any point for reforestation or reallocation purposes. The purpose of PBT certificates is to give the farmers of the local community a feeling of ownership so that they now are motivated to spend their time to work on the land and to stay in the area. The land remains apart of the state, in this case. It is estimated that approximately 90% of property owners in Thailand do not have legal ownership to the property. Land title is primarily held by men, whether it be the NS or the PBT certificates.

==Administrative arrangements==

The First and Second National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (1961-1971) was implemented to increase economic growth through building roads, electricity, and water supply networks. Although Thailand as a country has prospered economically, income distribution and the quality of life of local people have declined during the early 1970’s. The Third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976) was needed to emphasise on “social development, reduction of the population growth rate, and income distribution” (p.7). Amidst the Fourth Plan period (1977-1981), the future plans of the government were uncertain, as a result, there was an economic downturn. As a result, the Fifth and Sixth Plans (1982-1991) focused on economic stability and bringing the population out of poverty. The Seventh Plan (1992-1996) wanted to promote sustainable development especially in economic growth and stability, “income distribution, developing human resources, and enhancing the quality of life and the environment” (Forest Management Bureau, 2009). The eighth plan (1997-2001) primarily was focused on the Thai people. The country wanted to create a balance between the development of the economy, society, and environment. However, a drawback occurred as another economic crisis ensued. The state wanted to restore economic stability in the country. The ninth plan (2002-2006) continued the goals of the eighth plan with the population in mind. The plan promised to improve the economic crisis at the time and sustainable development with the Thai people in mind. The ninth plan was considered a success. The economy of the nation grew 5.7 percent a year on average. Poverty fell, and the quality of life improved for the people. Health insurance covered most of the population from sickness as drug problems decreased.

The Community Forestry Bill was proposed in 1990. The bill outlines the rules local community members must follow when utilizing state-owned forests. The bill was altered six times in the 1990’s to 2000 with intense debates between “community groups, development and conservation NGOs, the Royal Forest Department, and academics” (Korpela, E et al, 2006). When it was finalized, a critical aspect included that local communities were allowed to live in the forest if they were able to show that they could conserve it. The local community did not like the idea that the forest management was state-led, so it was changed. The final draft was prepared by an alliance of academics and NGOs, also known as the “people’s version”. This version outlined the ability of local communities to enter use the forests. The people’s version was endorsed by the House of Representatives twice, first in 1996 and again in 2002. Sadly, the Senate rejected the key points of the adjusted proposal and made changes to the bill to restrict the villager’s power to the forests in Thailand. Currently, there has been no agreement between the parties as the years pass.

==Affected Stakeholders==
A main reason why deforestation was high in Thailand for the last century is the growing rural population. Protection policies of deforestation in Thailand has been ineffective due to inadequate attention to the needs of the local people. Deforestation is a way for local Thai communities to meet their basic needs such as food and income. The country has been well known for exporting rice and upland crops to sell to all around the world for profit. Vital concerns on the subject of the exploitation of natural resources are frequently brought forward, particularly on Thailand’s forests. Although many legislations have been brought forward to protect the forests, the intended goals of the legislations were not met on many occasions. Thus, deforestation is a major threat to the future welfare of the Thai people, especially in rural areas. Past management programs have been advocating for state-controlled forests. Local people in forests were posed as threats to the state control of the forests, without considering the reliance of the local communities to the forests for many things, such as food and income. Aside from other natural resources local communities can utilize in forests such as lumber, the amount of water in the local communities is also a key issue. Water is able to supply the local community with electricity, generated locally by hydro plants. During high water levels, the community can utilize electricity all day. During low water levels, electricity is only accessible on Saturdays and Sundays. This is due to the fact that water must be saved up to produce crops, the local communities main source of food and income. Despite the fact that forest loss directly impacts the amount of water in the local community, many communities have continued to log. The reason is that the lumber cut down is able to be used as supplies to build houses. These houses can then be sold to timber merchants for a profit. In many cases, a sale of one small house can equal to one full year of agricultural income.

==Ban Thung Yao Village (Affected Stakeholder)==
The Ban Thung Yao Community was established when a group of men and women settled in the area in 1915. There are over 180 families in this community alone. Eight years after their settlement in 1923, the first village chief of Ban Thung Yao declared 9.6 hectares of watershed forest as a protected area to address water shortage problems” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The land in the community is split into three categories; housing areas, agricultural land, and community forest. In the community forest category, there are two subcategories; protected areas, and “areas set aside for the utilization of timber and non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The community forest has aided the socio-cultural, economic and environmental development of the Ban Thung Yao Village. The villagers in the community can utilize the forests in the community, however, are unable to mortgage, lease, or sell the land for income. Currently, “the village community forest manages 400 hectares of forestland, with 12 women making up more than a third of the executive committee” (Upadhyay, B, 2013).
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.53.00_PM.png|thumb|Non-timber forest products collected by gender]]
Women in participation of community forestry in the community were assigned to protect “traditional knowledge, wisdom, spiritual beliefs and rituals related to forestry, keeping records of customary laws on forest protection and conservation, and in fund management and often advocated for local ownership of non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). In addition, they were also involved in forest patrolling and reporting violations to the forest executive community. Men practicing community forestry were focused on hunting for poisonous insects in the forest at night, and exploring new routes and longer trails in the forest” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). They also enforced written agreements and laws, particularly on logging, tree cutting in specified areas and forest patrolling. A study into the Ban Thung Yao community showed that women in the community are more knowledgeable about market demand for forest products compared to men. Women who sell vegetables and other items collected from the forest are able to meet the demands of their own household but are also able to generate income by selling these items. Some members of the Ban Thung Yao Village utilize its forest to extract medicinal plants and herbs to set up their herbal enterprises. As doing so, the people in the Ban Thung Yao Community who purchase alcoholic drinks regularly will have an alternative to try to drink herbal drinks. The herbal enterprise has become a major successes the business has become well known nationally in Thailand. The owner of the medicinal enterprise, Ms. Srongporn, began “collaborating with other farmers and non-timber forest product collectors to buy raw materials, as at times the raw materials collected from Ban Thung Yao forest are not enough to meet the market demand” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). [[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.31.52_PM.png|thumb|Forest products and revenue]]The Ban Thung Yao community has become one of the most gender equitable community forestry communities in ensuring equal participation from both genders. The community has inspired other local communities in Thailand to have equal gender participation in their communities. This study shows that women in this community are very open to building their knowledge to issues such as “climate change, community-based climate change adaptation, REDD+ and agroforestry” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). When developing forest policies, the differing work between men and women in the community should be considered; such as roles, responsibilities, skills, and knowledge in community forest management. Phakee Wannasak is the leader of the women’s group of the local community we are studying in this case study, the Ban Thung Yao village. The women’s group was “established in 1977 by Thailand’s Community Development Department in Ban Thung Yao village, in the province of Lamphun”(Upadhyay, B. Forest Heroine, 2016). When the Royal Forest Department (RFD) announced Ban Thung Yao community forest as a National Park in 1987, the women’s group in the community expressed their displeasure the strongest. Phakee instilled confidence into the other members of the women’s group to resist. In 1989, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation proposed an annual distribution of $2,455 to the forest in the Ban Thung Yao community. In return, the community forest would need to follow the regulations of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. Phakee discussed with the members of the women’s group, and brought out the potential issue of losing rights to the forest and its resources. This would greatly affect the daily life of the community. The women’s group of Ban Thung Yao collectively decided to decline this offer.The Ban Thung Yao Community Forest produces 28 types of wild vegetables, 13 kinds of wild fruit, 25 types of mushrooms, and 20 various kinds of herbal plants. These natural vegetables and fruit total to $30,630, displaying the economic value of the forest. In the present, Phakee is determined to secure the customary rights of the people in the local community and passing it to the next generation. She allocates a large portion of her time towards the younger generation, telling them the history of the Ban Thung Yao Community Forest and the customary beliefs of the people. She wishes that like her, the younger generation of the community can learn from the past to improve the forest in the futureForest products and revenue.

==Interested Stakeholders==
Before the ''Royal Forest Department (RFD)'' came into existence in 1896, forest lands were property of the king, rulers of provinces, and landlords. Since the existence of the RFD, all forested areas were owned by the state. The main objective of the RFD was to turn these state-owned forests into money-makers. The RFD will sell concession rights to receive royalties. Since 1989, the RFD needed to adjust their objective into part production, part protection. In the early 1900’s the forest cover in Thailand was over 70%. Thailand had the second fastest deforestation rate in Asia, with Nepal being the fastest.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_10.37.50_PM.png|thumb|Forest Cover in Thailand]]In 1985, only 29% of forest land remained in Thailand. The North East, East, Central and South regions in Thailand has very little forested land remaining. Northern Thailand has the highest forest cover. However, this is also the same region where deforestation is the highest in the country. Many areas in the North have been logged and have now become grassland. Commercial logging is also a method for government to generate its revenue by way of foreign exchange with other countries. Logging concessions were given to companies to cut timber in the local forests by the government. The government believed that the companies would be able to respect the extraction quotas. However, the concessions did not put the restrictions set by the government into its interests. Deforested areas were left to be regenerated by themselves and were often damaged further by the local communities collecting firewood and agricultural expansion. The government decided to put an end to concessions in 1977 and reduced timber production by 50% two years later. During the 1980’s Thailand grew into a net importer of timber supplies. In 1988, the Royal Thai Government set further regulations after hundreds of villagers were killed in floods and mudslides in Southern Thailand. The main suspected cause of the floods and mudslides was due to the intense deforestation. In 1989, a complete ban from logging was put in place and partnerships between the RFD and logging concessions had formally ended. 15 percent of the total land in Thailand were dedicated towards forest conservation. These areas formerly were committed towards timber production and economic forests. It was during this time where the Thai government understood the dangers of losing forest cover in the country. The dangers of logging in Thailand can be seen by the increased runoff on steep slopes and in watershed areas. This can lead to nutrient depletion and soil erosion. As Thailand loses its forest cover, many animals have become endangered and some even extinct. Areas near the foot of a river, faces the threat of “flooding, sedimentation of water bodies, and decreased availability of water during the dry season” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The idea of forest management has been a tense subject in Thailand. Forest guards and environmental activists have been threatened and/or physically attacked in many areas of Thailand. In some cases, activists have been murdered acting against powerful business people who are in favour of forest exploitation. It is no secret that some government officials are currently involved in illegal logging trade. This is why it may not be in the best interest of the members of the local community to announce their displeasure of logging activities as it will result in a lot of trouble for themselves. The involvement of local communities in policy making has been extremely limited, as most of the policies are decided by the state. When asked about policy making, the local villagers believe that they deserve to be more involved in decision making.

==Assessment==
Organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) are incapable of developing community forest management, as it faces the weight of state legislations. It is clear that there remains an absence of a national policy to recognize the rights of the community in the local forests. As more communities become involved in managing national forests, we can observe the possibility of community forest management in Thailand. The local community defending their rights against private interests are only able to protect the natural resources if they receive support from the state, legally. The local community does not have economic interest in forest exploitation, but rather economic interest of forest protection. This is an important aspect leading towards sustainable forest management. The practice of Community Forest Management (CFM) will be dependent on the government and the Royal Forestry Department (RFD). One of the reasons why villagers have decided to deforest and use the land for agriculture is the revenue received. The villagers would need to wait for a long time for the trees to grow in comparison where farmers could quickly turn their crops into sales if used for agriculture. If incentives were given to the villagers to manage the forest by the state, the villagers will be more inclined to withdraw the idea of deforestation and using the land for agriculture. Economic incentives should be given to local communities which work to manage their local forest. This will also improve the wellbeing of the members of the local community and improve their ability to manage forests. The 7 major factors preventing people’s involvement in sustainable forest management are “the State’s authorities, centralized management decision-making, inappropriate attitudes towards local people and forest use, lack of trust and strong commitments, lack of knowledge and skills to work with people, non-existent or uncommunicated incentives, and a lack of legal support” (Makarabhirom, n.d). Analyzing data collection in the forest site is effective in changing the forest management operations to fit their needs. Therefore, when the local people interact with the forests, they are able to collect data of the forest, along with their participation in community forest management. Community forest management can generate income for the local community, as well as train the local people to manage natural resources.

==Recommendations==
Ecological stress between tribal communities, landless farmers, and businessmen has increased as time passed by. We can project that the well-being of the local communities in the future will worsen if the groups are unable to come to terms. Research into local Thailand communities show that men and women are equally knowledgeable and concerned about forest use in their community. Some people find it surprising that men are very encouraging in women’s participation of managing the forest. Most members in local communities are profiled with “insecure land ownership, low incomes, and low levels of education, in a country whose recent economic performances has created soaring expectations of material well-being” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). As population grows in communities, resources becoming more limited, and outside business stakeholders, there will be a constant need to overuse the natural resources.The local community faces the dilemma of to use or to not use forest resources. Communities in Northern Thailand can see the advantages of protecting forest resources. However, the people need the resources for food, household needs, and income to improve their daily life. The outlook of the usage of forests have changed immensely over time. In the past, primary role of forests was to produce timber. Local communities now use forests to collect food, fuel, fodder, and construction materials. In some cases, the local villagers also have a cultural and or spiritual attachment towards the forests. To develop a community forest program in Thailand, more power must be given to the local community. The state and powerful organizations such as the Royal Forest Department (RFD) must change their philosophy from a centralized to a more decentralized forest management and forest conservation in order for community forestry to happen in Thailand. Currently, forest in Thailand is managed by a “few high level officials in the national-level committees such as the National Forest Policy Committee, the Wildlife Protection Committee and the National Park Committee” (Makarabhirom, n.d). However, the goals of these committees do not align with meeting the needs of the local communities. In addition, the committees are appointed by political sectors, politicising forest management in Thailand. In recent years, the idea of Community Forestry has grown rapidly in Thailand as the country has been looking for a more sustainable way to manage forests. However, organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) and a number of other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) continue to question the capability of local communities to manage the resources of the forest sustainably. In most local communities, a strong leader is required to lead the community in managing resources in any community forest as the leader ties the members of the community together and represents them in decision-making. Most of the forests in Thailand is state owned, and there is no intention of the state to protect the rights of the local people. Some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are working with the local communities to manage forest resources as they act as an intermediary between the forest officers and the local communities.

==References==
Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R. (1993, August). Forest management in Northern Thailand: A rural Thai perspective, 263-275. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001671859390020I</nowiki>

Forest Management Bureau, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Thailand Forestry Outlook Study. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am617e/am617e00.pdf</nowiki>

Korpela, E., Bosselmann, A., Kahala, L., Ohtonen, H., Ruotsalainen, A., Sengvue, S., . . . Yli-Hinkkala, M. (2006, January). Community Forestry And Agrofrestry In Thailand- Case Study Of Ban Thung Soong Village Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240623799_COMMUNITY_FORESTRY_AND_AGROFORESTY_IN_THAILAND_-_CASE_STUDY_OF_BAN_THUNG_SOONG_VILLAGE</nowiki>

Lakanavichian, S. (2006, February). Case Studies in South and East Asia: Forest Ownership, Forest Resource Tenure and Sustainable Forest Management. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/forestry/10809-09f8870885bd8d85106e0a87cd906b784.pdf</nowiki>

Makarabhirom, P. (n.d.). People’s participation in forest management in Thailand: Constraints and the way out. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/1503/attach/3ws-15-permsak.pdf</nowiki>

Salam, M. A., Noguchi, T., & Pothitan, R. (2006). Community forest management in thailand: Current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development.''New Forests, 31''(2), 273-291. doi:10.1007/s11056-005-7483-8

Upadhyay, B., Arpornsilp, R., & Soontornwong, S. (2013, August 1). Gender and Community Forests in a Changing Landscape: Lessons From Ban Thung Yao, Thailand. Retrieved October 3, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000053</nowiki>

Upadhyay, B., Forest Heroine: Phakee Wannasak wards off threats to community-led forest governance. (2016, October 30). Retrieved October 2, 2018, from <nowiki>https://forestsnews.cifor.org/21608/forest-heroine-phakee-wannasak-wards-off-threats-to-community-led-forest-governance?fnl=en</nowiki>

Wataru, F., Ganjanapan, A., & Shin’ichi, S. (n.d.). “Community Forest” and Thai Rural Society. Retrieved October 10 from <nowiki>https://kyotoreview.org/issue-2-disaster-and-rehabilitation/community-forest-and-thai-rural-society/</nowiki><references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Forest management in Ban Thung Yao community in Thailand

2018-11-28T07:42:32Z

GabrielWan: /* Description */

Add your summary here

==Description==
Northern Thailand has a population of 10.5 million, with 17 million hectares of land. The area of our case study, the Ban Thung Yao Village is located in this region. Five mountain ranges “run north-south with elevations ranging between 550 and 2,500m and valley floors varying from 200 to 500m above sea level” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). There is 1,000 to 4,000 millimeters (mm) of rainfall per year and two distinct dry and rainy seasons. During the dry season, the temperature tops out at 40°C. The median temperature is 25°C. During the cold dry season, the lowest temperature is 0°C. Thailand has a population of 69 million people, with a 0.4% growth rate and 51 million of hectares of land. The population density is 123 persons/km2. 80% of the population currently lives in rural areas, however we have seen an increase towards urbanization in recent decades. In 1965, “only 13 percent of the population lived in urban areas, with 23 percent in 1990, declining to 21 percent in 2000” (Lakanavichian, S, 2006).
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-25_at_8.34.12_PM.png|thumb|Map of Ban Thung Yao Village|281x281px]]There are two main types of forest in this region, evergreen and deciduous, with variations of altitude, soil, rainfall and other factors in each type. In deciduous forests, there are “dry dipterocarp, dry mixed deciduous, and moist mixed deciduous” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). In evergreen forests, there are “lower montane, coniferous, and dry evergreen” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The most valued type of forest is the mixed deciduous forest, as this type contains teak, a hardwood species which is highly demanded. Over 70% of Thai people are involved in agriculture related occupations. Other main areas of work include manufacturing and service industries. To obtain agricultural supplies, most people in local communities go to river valleys to collect them. The Chiang Mai valley has been the most successful in Northern Thailand, which is 124 kilometres from Ban Thung Yao community.
==Tenure arrangements==
The highest level of land ownership in Thailand is the ''Chanode Thidin''. The person in possession of this certificate can sell, transfer, or mortgage the property. In urban areas, full title deeds are more common, which serves the same purpose as the ''Chanode Thidin.''The most prevalent tenure certificates in Thailand include the ''NS.3 ''and ''NS.3.A. ''Holders with these certificates have the right to farm the land and use them as collateral to borrow money. The next most prevalent tenure certificates include ''PBT.5''and ''PBT.6''certificates. PBT certificates land tax receipts but do not give the holder land title. However, the land can be farmed and residences can be built, but cannot be sold or used as loan collateral. The land can be taken away by the ''Royal Forest Department’s Forest Village Programme''at any point for reforestation or reallocation purposes. The purpose of PBT certificates is to give the farmers of the local community a feeling of ownership so that they now are motivated to spend their time to work on the land and to stay in the area. The land remains apart of the state, in this case. It is estimated that approximately 90% of property owners in Thailand do not have legal ownership to the property. Land title is primarily held by men, whether it be the NS or the PBT certificates.

==Administrative arrangements==

The First and Second National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (1961-1971) was implemented to increase economic growth through building roads, electricity, and water supply networks. Although Thailand as a country has prospered economically, income distribution and the quality of life of local people have declined during the early 1970’s. The Third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976) was needed to emphasise on “social development, reduction of the population growth rate, and income distribution” (p.7). Amidst the Fourth Plan period (1977-1981), the future plans of the government were uncertain, as a result, there was an economic downturn. As a result, the Fifth and Sixth Plans (1982-1991) focused on economic stability and bringing the population out of poverty. The Seventh Plan (1992-1996) wanted to promote sustainable development especially in economic growth and stability, “income distribution, developing human resources, and enhancing the quality of life and the environment” (Forest Management Bureau, 2009). The eighth plan (1997-2001) primarily was focused on the Thai people. The country wanted to create a balance between the development of the economy, society, and environment. However, a drawback occurred as another economic crisis ensued. The state wanted to restore economic stability in the country. The ninth plan (2002-2006) continued the goals of the eighth plan with the population in mind. The plan promised to improve the economic crisis at the time and sustainable development with the Thai people in mind. The ninth plan was considered a success. The economy of the nation grew 5.7 percent a year on average. Poverty fell, and the quality of life improved for the people. Health insurance covered most of the population from sickness as drug problems decreased.

The Community Forestry Bill was proposed in 1990. The bill outlines the rules local community members must follow when utilizing state-owned forests. The bill was altered six times in the 1990’s to 2000 with intense debates between “community groups, development and conservation NGOs, the Royal Forest Department, and academics” (Korpela, E et al, 2006). When it was finalized, a critical aspect included that local communities were allowed to live in the forest if they were able to show that they could conserve it. The local community did not like the idea that the forest management was state-led, so it was changed. The final draft was prepared by an alliance of academics and NGOs, also known as the “people’s version”. This version outlined the ability of local communities to enter use the forests. The people’s version was endorsed by the House of Representatives twice, first in 1996 and again in 2002. Sadly, the Senate rejected the key points of the adjusted proposal and made changes to the bill to restrict the villager’s power to the forests in Thailand. Currently, there has been no agreement between the parties as the years pass.

==Affected Stakeholders==
A main reason why deforestation was high in Thailand for the last century is the growing rural population. Protection policies of deforestation in Thailand has been ineffective due to inadequate attention to the needs of the local people. Deforestation is a way for local Thai communities to meet their basic needs such as food and income. The country has been well known for exporting rice and upland crops to sell to all around the world for profit. Vital concerns on the subject of the exploitation of natural resources are frequently brought forward, particularly on Thailand’s forests. Although many legislations have been brought forward to protect the forests, the intended goals of the legislations were not met on many occasions. Thus, deforestation is a major threat to the future welfare of the Thai people, especially in rural areas. Past management programs have been advocating for state-controlled forests. Local people in forests were posed as threats to the state control of the forests, without considering the reliance of the local communities to the forests for many things, such as food and income. Aside from other natural resources local communities can utilize in forests such as lumber, the amount of water in the local communities is also a key issue. Water is able to supply the local community with electricity, generated locally by hydro plants. During high water levels, the community can utilize electricity all day. During low water levels, electricity is only accessible on Saturdays and Sundays. This is due to the fact that water must be saved up to produce crops, the local communities main source of food and income. Despite the fact that forest loss directly impacts the amount of water in the local community, many communities have continued to log. The reason is that the lumber cut down is able to be used as supplies to build houses. These houses can then be sold to timber merchants for a profit. In many cases, a sale of one small house can equal to one full year of agricultural income.

==Ban Thung Yao Village (Affected Stakeholder)==
The Ban Thung Yao Community was established when a group of men and women settled in the area in 1915. There are over 180 families in this community alone. Eight years after their settlement in 1923, the first village chief of Ban Thung Yao declared 9.6 hectares of watershed forest as a protected area to address water shortage problems” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The land in the community is split into three categories; housing areas, agricultural land, and community forest. In the community forest category, there are two subcategories; protected areas, and “areas set aside for the utilization of timber and non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The community forest has aided the socio-cultural, economic and environmental development of the Ban Thung Yao Village. The villagers in the community can utilize the forests in the community, however, are unable to mortgage, lease, or sell the land for income. Currently, “the village community forest manages 400 hectares of forestland, with 12 women making up more than a third of the executive committee” (Upadhyay, B, 2013).
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.53.00_PM.png|thumb|Non-timber forest products collected by gender]]
Women in participation of community forestry in the community were assigned to protect “traditional knowledge, wisdom, spiritual beliefs and rituals related to forestry, keeping records of customary laws on forest protection and conservation, and in fund management and often advocated for local ownership of non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). In addition, they were also involved in forest patrolling and reporting violations to the forest executive community. Men practicing community forestry were focused on hunting for poisonous insects in the forest at night, and exploring new routes and longer trails in the forest” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). They also enforced written agreements and laws, particularly on logging, tree cutting in specified areas and forest patrolling. A study into the Ban Thung Yao community showed that women in the community are more knowledgeable about market demand for forest products compared to men. Women who sell vegetables and other items collected from the forest are able to meet the demands of their own household but are also able to generate income by selling these items. Some members of the Ban Thung Yao Village utilize its forest to extract medicinal plants and herbs to set up their herbal enterprises. As doing so, the people in the Ban Thung Yao Community who purchase alcoholic drinks regularly will have an alternative to try to drink herbal drinks. The herbal enterprise has become a major successes the business has become well known nationally in Thailand. The owner of the medicinal enterprise, Ms. Srongporn, began “collaborating with other farmers and non-timber forest product collectors to buy raw materials, as at times the raw materials collected from Ban Thung Yao forest are not enough to meet the market demand” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). [[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.31.52_PM.png|thumb|Forest products and revenue]]The Ban Thung Yao community has become one of the most gender equitable community forestry communities in ensuring equal participation from both genders. The community has inspired other local communities in Thailand to have equal gender participation in their communities. This study shows that women in this community are very open to building their knowledge to issues such as “climate change, community-based climate change adaptation, REDD+ and agroforestry” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). When developing forest policies, the differing work between men and women in the community should be considered; such as roles, responsibilities, skills, and knowledge in community forest management. Phakee Wannasak is the leader of the women’s group of the local community we are studying in this case study, the Ban Thung Yao village. The women’s group was “established in 1977 by Thailand’s Community Development Department in Ban Thung Yao village, in the province of Lamphun”(Upadhyay, B. Forest Heroine, 2016). When the Royal Forest Department (RFD) announced Ban Thung Yao community forest as a National Park in 1987, the women’s group in the community expressed their displeasure the strongest. Phakee instilled confidence into the other members of the women’s group to resist. In 1989, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation proposed an annual distribution of $2,455 to the forest in the Ban Thung Yao community. In return, the community forest would need to follow the regulations of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. Phakee discussed with the members of the women’s group, and brought out the potential issue of losing rights to the forest and its resources. This would greatly affect the daily life of the community. The women’s group of Ban Thung Yao collectively decided to decline this offer.The Ban Thung Yao Community Forest produces 28 types of wild vegetables, 13 kinds of wild fruit, 25 types of mushrooms, and 20 various kinds of herbal plants. These natural vegetables and fruit total to $30,630, displaying the economic value of the forest. In the present, Phakee is determined to secure the customary rights of the people in the local community and passing it to the next generation. She allocates a large portion of her time towards the younger generation, telling them the history of the Ban Thung Yao Community Forest and the customary beliefs of the people. She wishes that like her, the younger generation of the community can learn from the past to improve the forest in the futureForest products and revenue.

==Interested Stakeholders==
Before the ''Royal Forest Department (RFD)'' came into existence in 1896, forest lands were property of the king, rulers of provinces, and landlords. Since the existence of the RFD, all forested areas were owned by the state. The main objective of the RFD was to turn these state-owned forests into money-makers. The RFD will sell concession rights to receive royalties. Since 1989, the RFD needed to adjust their objective into part production, part protection. In the early 1900’s the forest cover in Thailand was over 70%. Thailand had the second fastest deforestation rate in Asia, with Nepal being the fastest.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_10.37.50_PM.png|thumb|Forest Cover in Thailand]]In 1985, only 29% of forest land remained in Thailand. The North East, East, Central and South regions in Thailand has very little forested land remaining. Northern Thailand has the highest forest cover. However, this is also the same region where deforestation is the highest in the country. Many areas in the North have been logged and have now become grassland. Commercial logging is also a method for government to generate its revenue by way of foreign exchange with other countries. Logging concessions were given to companies to cut timber in the local forests by the government. The government believed that the companies would be able to respect the extraction quotas. However, the concessions did not put the restrictions set by the government into its interests. Deforested areas were left to be regenerated by themselves and were often damaged further by the local communities collecting firewood and agricultural expansion. The government decided to put an end to concessions in 1977 and reduced timber production by 50% two years later. During the 1980’s Thailand grew into a net importer of timber supplies. In 1988, the Royal Thai Government set further regulations after hundreds of villagers were killed in floods and mudslides in Southern Thailand. The main suspected cause of the floods and mudslides was due to the intense deforestation. In 1989, a complete ban from logging was put in place and partnerships between the RFD and logging concessions had formally ended. 15 percent of the total land in Thailand were dedicated towards forest conservation. These areas formerly were committed towards timber production and economic forests. It was during this time where the Thai government understood the dangers of losing forest cover in the country. The dangers of logging in Thailand can be seen by the increased runoff on steep slopes and in watershed areas. This can lead to nutrient depletion and soil erosion. As Thailand loses its forest cover, many animals have become endangered and some even extinct. Areas near the foot of a river, faces the threat of “flooding, sedimentation of water bodies, and decreased availability of water during the dry season” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The idea of forest management has been a tense subject in Thailand. Forest guards and environmental activists have been threatened and/or physically attacked in many areas of Thailand. In some cases, activists have been murdered acting against powerful business people who are in favour of forest exploitation. It is no secret that some government officials are currently involved in illegal logging trade. This is why it may not be in the best interest of the members of the local community to announce their displeasure of logging activities as it will result in a lot of trouble for themselves. The involvement of local communities in policy making has been extremely limited, as most of the policies are decided by the state. When asked about policy making, the local villagers believe that they deserve to be more involved in decision making.

==Assessment==
Organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) are incapable of developing community forest management, as it faces the weight of state legislations. It is clear that there remains an absence of a national policy to recognize the rights of the community in the local forests. As more communities become involved in managing national forests, we can observe the possibility of community forest management in Thailand. The local community defending their rights against private interests are only able to protect the natural resources if they receive support from the state, legally. The local community does not have economic interest in forest exploitation, but rather economic interest of forest protection. This is an important aspect leading towards sustainable forest management. The practice of Community Forest Management (CFM) will be dependent on the government and the Royal Forestry Department (RFD). One of the reasons why villagers have decided to deforest and use the land for agriculture is the revenue received. The villagers would need to wait for a long time for the trees to grow in comparison where farmers could quickly turn their crops into sales if used for agriculture. If incentives were given to the villagers to manage the forest by the state, the villagers will be more inclined to withdraw the idea of deforestation and using the land for agriculture. Economic incentives should be given to local communities which work to manage their local forest. This will also improve the wellbeing of the members of the local community and improve their ability to manage forests. The 7 major factors preventing people’s involvement in sustainable forest management are “the State’s authorities, centralized management decision-making, inappropriate attitudes towards local people and forest use, lack of trust and strong commitments, lack of knowledge and skills to work with people, non-existent or uncommunicated incentives, and a lack of legal support” (Makarabhirom, n.d). Analyzing data collection in the forest site is effective in changing the forest management operations to fit their needs. Therefore, when the local people interact with the forests, they are able to collect data of the forest, along with their participation in community forest management. Community forest management can generate income for the local community, as well as train the local people to manage natural resources.

==Recommendations==
Ecological stress between tribal communities, landless farmers, and businessmen has increased as time passed by. We can project that the well-being of the local communities in the future will worsen if the groups are unable to come to terms. Research into local Thailand communities show that men and women are equally knowledgeable and concerned about forest use in their community. Some people find it surprising that men are very encouraging in women’s participation of managing the forest. Most members in local communities are profiled with “insecure land ownership, low incomes, and low levels of education, in a country whose recent economic performances has created soaring expectations of material well-being” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). As population grows in communities, resources becoming more limited, and outside business stakeholders, there will be a constant need to overuse the natural resources.The local community faces the dilemma of to use or to not use forest resources. Communities in Northern Thailand can see the advantages of protecting forest resources. However, the people need the resources for food, household needs, and income to improve their daily life. The outlook of the usage of forests have changed immensely over time. In the past, primary role of forests was to produce timber. Local communities now use forests to collect food, fuel, fodder, and construction materials. In some cases, the local villagers also have a cultural and or spiritual attachment towards the forests. To develop a community forest program in Thailand, more power must be given to the local community. The state and powerful organizations such as the Royal Forest Department (RFD) must change their philosophy from a centralized to a more decentralized forest management and forest conservation in order for community forestry to happen in Thailand. Currently, forest in Thailand is managed by a “few high level officials in the national-level committees such as the National Forest Policy Committee, the Wildlife Protection Committee and the National Park Committee” (Makarabhirom, n.d). However, the goals of these committees do not align with meeting the needs of the local communities. In addition, the committees are appointed by political sectors, politicising forest management in Thailand. In recent years, the idea of Community Forestry has grown rapidly in Thailand as the country has been looking for a more sustainable way to manage forests. However, organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) and a number of other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) continue to question the capability of local communities to manage the resources of the forest sustainably. In most local communities, a strong leader is required to lead the community in managing resources in any community forest as the leader ties the members of the community together and represents them in decision-making. Most of the forests in Thailand is state owned, and there is no intention of the state to protect the rights of the local people. Some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are working with the local communities to manage forest resources as they act as an intermediary between the forest officers and the local communities.

==References==
Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R. (1993, August). Forest management in Northern Thailand: A rural Thai perspective, 263-275. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001671859390020I</nowiki>

Forest Management Bureau, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Thailand Forestry Outlook Study. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am617e/am617e00.pdf</nowiki>

Korpela, E., Bosselmann, A., Kahala, L., Ohtonen, H., Ruotsalainen, A., Sengvue, S., . . . Yli-Hinkkala, M. (2006, January). Community Forestry And Agrofrestry In Thailand- Case Study Of Ban Thung Soong Village Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240623799_COMMUNITY_FORESTRY_AND_AGROFORESTY_IN_THAILAND_-_CASE_STUDY_OF_BAN_THUNG_SOONG_VILLAGE</nowiki>

Lakanavichian, S. (2006, February). Case Studies in South and East Asia: Forest Ownership, Forest Resource Tenure and Sustainable Forest Management. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/forestry/10809-09f8870885bd8d85106e0a87cd906b784.pdf</nowiki>

Makarabhirom, P. (n.d.). People’s participation in forest management in Thailand: Constraints and the way out. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/1503/attach/3ws-15-permsak.pdf</nowiki>

Salam, M. A., Noguchi, T., & Pothitan, R. (2006). Community forest management in thailand: Current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development.''New Forests, 31''(2), 273-291. doi:10.1007/s11056-005-7483-8

Upadhyay, B., Arpornsilp, R., & Soontornwong, S. (2013, August 1). Gender and Community Forests in a Changing Landscape: Lessons From Ban Thung Yao, Thailand. Retrieved October 3, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000053</nowiki>

Upadhyay, B., Forest Heroine: Phakee Wannasak wards off threats to community-led forest governance. (2016, October 30). Retrieved October 2, 2018, from <nowiki>https://forestsnews.cifor.org/21608/forest-heroine-phakee-wannasak-wards-off-threats-to-community-led-forest-governance?fnl=en</nowiki>

Wataru, F., Ganjanapan, A., & Shin’ichi, S. (n.d.). “Community Forest” and Thai Rural Society. Retrieved October 10 from <nowiki>https://kyotoreview.org/issue-2-disaster-and-rehabilitation/community-forest-and-thai-rural-society/</nowiki><references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Forest management in Ban Thung Yao community in Thailand

2018-11-28T07:41:56Z

GabrielWan: /* Interested Stakeholders */

Add your summary here

==Description==
Northern Thailand has a population of 10.5 million, with 17 million hectares of land. The area of our case study, the Ban Thung Yao Village is located in this region. Five mountain ranges “run north-south with elevations ranging between 550 and 2,500m and valley floors varying from 200 to 500m above sea level” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). There is 1,000 to 4,000 millimeters (mm) of rainfall per year and two distinct dry and rainy seasons. During the dry season, the temperature tops out at 40°C. The median temperature is 25°C. During the cold dry season, the lowest temperature is 0°C. Thailand has a population of 69 million people, with a 0.4% growth rate and 51 million of hectares of land. The population density is 123 persons/km2. 80% of the population currently lives in rural areas, however we have seen an increase towards urbanization in recent decades. In 1965, “only 13 percent of the population lived in urban areas, with 23 percent in 1990, declining to 21 percent in 2000” (Lakanavichian, S, 2006). There are two main types of forest in this region, evergreen and deciduous, with variations of altitude, soil, rainfall and other factors in each type. In deciduous forests, there are “dry dipterocarp, dry mixed deciduous, and moist mixed deciduous” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). In evergreen forests, there are “lower montane, coniferous, and dry evergreen” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The most valued type of forest is the mixed deciduous forest, as this type contains teak, a hardwood species which is highly demanded. Over 70% of Thai people are involved in agriculture related occupations. Other main areas of work include manufacturing and service industries. To obtain agricultural supplies, most people in local communities go to river valleys to collect them. The Chiang Mai valley has been the most successful in Northern Thailand, which is 124 kilometres from Ban Thung Yao community.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-25_at_8.34.12_PM.png|thumb|Map of Ban Thung Yao Village|281x281px]]

==Tenure arrangements==
The highest level of land ownership in Thailand is the ''Chanode Thidin''. The person in possession of this certificate can sell, transfer, or mortgage the property. In urban areas, full title deeds are more common, which serves the same purpose as the ''Chanode Thidin.''The most prevalent tenure certificates in Thailand include the ''NS.3 ''and ''NS.3.A. ''Holders with these certificates have the right to farm the land and use them as collateral to borrow money. The next most prevalent tenure certificates include ''PBT.5''and ''PBT.6''certificates. PBT certificates land tax receipts but do not give the holder land title. However, the land can be farmed and residences can be built, but cannot be sold or used as loan collateral. The land can be taken away by the ''Royal Forest Department’s Forest Village Programme''at any point for reforestation or reallocation purposes. The purpose of PBT certificates is to give the farmers of the local community a feeling of ownership so that they now are motivated to spend their time to work on the land and to stay in the area. The land remains apart of the state, in this case. It is estimated that approximately 90% of property owners in Thailand do not have legal ownership to the property. Land title is primarily held by men, whether it be the NS or the PBT certificates.

==Administrative arrangements==

The First and Second National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (1961-1971) was implemented to increase economic growth through building roads, electricity, and water supply networks. Although Thailand as a country has prospered economically, income distribution and the quality of life of local people have declined during the early 1970’s. The Third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976) was needed to emphasise on “social development, reduction of the population growth rate, and income distribution” (p.7). Amidst the Fourth Plan period (1977-1981), the future plans of the government were uncertain, as a result, there was an economic downturn. As a result, the Fifth and Sixth Plans (1982-1991) focused on economic stability and bringing the population out of poverty. The Seventh Plan (1992-1996) wanted to promote sustainable development especially in economic growth and stability, “income distribution, developing human resources, and enhancing the quality of life and the environment” (Forest Management Bureau, 2009). The eighth plan (1997-2001) primarily was focused on the Thai people. The country wanted to create a balance between the development of the economy, society, and environment. However, a drawback occurred as another economic crisis ensued. The state wanted to restore economic stability in the country. The ninth plan (2002-2006) continued the goals of the eighth plan with the population in mind. The plan promised to improve the economic crisis at the time and sustainable development with the Thai people in mind. The ninth plan was considered a success. The economy of the nation grew 5.7 percent a year on average. Poverty fell, and the quality of life improved for the people. Health insurance covered most of the population from sickness as drug problems decreased.

The Community Forestry Bill was proposed in 1990. The bill outlines the rules local community members must follow when utilizing state-owned forests. The bill was altered six times in the 1990’s to 2000 with intense debates between “community groups, development and conservation NGOs, the Royal Forest Department, and academics” (Korpela, E et al, 2006). When it was finalized, a critical aspect included that local communities were allowed to live in the forest if they were able to show that they could conserve it. The local community did not like the idea that the forest management was state-led, so it was changed. The final draft was prepared by an alliance of academics and NGOs, also known as the “people’s version”. This version outlined the ability of local communities to enter use the forests. The people’s version was endorsed by the House of Representatives twice, first in 1996 and again in 2002. Sadly, the Senate rejected the key points of the adjusted proposal and made changes to the bill to restrict the villager’s power to the forests in Thailand. Currently, there has been no agreement between the parties as the years pass.

==Affected Stakeholders==
A main reason why deforestation was high in Thailand for the last century is the growing rural population. Protection policies of deforestation in Thailand has been ineffective due to inadequate attention to the needs of the local people. Deforestation is a way for local Thai communities to meet their basic needs such as food and income. The country has been well known for exporting rice and upland crops to sell to all around the world for profit. Vital concerns on the subject of the exploitation of natural resources are frequently brought forward, particularly on Thailand’s forests. Although many legislations have been brought forward to protect the forests, the intended goals of the legislations were not met on many occasions. Thus, deforestation is a major threat to the future welfare of the Thai people, especially in rural areas. Past management programs have been advocating for state-controlled forests. Local people in forests were posed as threats to the state control of the forests, without considering the reliance of the local communities to the forests for many things, such as food and income. Aside from other natural resources local communities can utilize in forests such as lumber, the amount of water in the local communities is also a key issue. Water is able to supply the local community with electricity, generated locally by hydro plants. During high water levels, the community can utilize electricity all day. During low water levels, electricity is only accessible on Saturdays and Sundays. This is due to the fact that water must be saved up to produce crops, the local communities main source of food and income. Despite the fact that forest loss directly impacts the amount of water in the local community, many communities have continued to log. The reason is that the lumber cut down is able to be used as supplies to build houses. These houses can then be sold to timber merchants for a profit. In many cases, a sale of one small house can equal to one full year of agricultural income.

==Ban Thung Yao Village (Affected Stakeholder)==
The Ban Thung Yao Community was established when a group of men and women settled in the area in 1915. There are over 180 families in this community alone. Eight years after their settlement in 1923, the first village chief of Ban Thung Yao declared 9.6 hectares of watershed forest as a protected area to address water shortage problems” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The land in the community is split into three categories; housing areas, agricultural land, and community forest. In the community forest category, there are two subcategories; protected areas, and “areas set aside for the utilization of timber and non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The community forest has aided the socio-cultural, economic and environmental development of the Ban Thung Yao Village. The villagers in the community can utilize the forests in the community, however, are unable to mortgage, lease, or sell the land for income. Currently, “the village community forest manages 400 hectares of forestland, with 12 women making up more than a third of the executive committee” (Upadhyay, B, 2013).
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.53.00_PM.png|thumb|Non-timber forest products collected by gender]]
Women in participation of community forestry in the community were assigned to protect “traditional knowledge, wisdom, spiritual beliefs and rituals related to forestry, keeping records of customary laws on forest protection and conservation, and in fund management and often advocated for local ownership of non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). In addition, they were also involved in forest patrolling and reporting violations to the forest executive community. Men practicing community forestry were focused on hunting for poisonous insects in the forest at night, and exploring new routes and longer trails in the forest” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). They also enforced written agreements and laws, particularly on logging, tree cutting in specified areas and forest patrolling. A study into the Ban Thung Yao community showed that women in the community are more knowledgeable about market demand for forest products compared to men. Women who sell vegetables and other items collected from the forest are able to meet the demands of their own household but are also able to generate income by selling these items. Some members of the Ban Thung Yao Village utilize its forest to extract medicinal plants and herbs to set up their herbal enterprises. As doing so, the people in the Ban Thung Yao Community who purchase alcoholic drinks regularly will have an alternative to try to drink herbal drinks. The herbal enterprise has become a major successes the business has become well known nationally in Thailand. The owner of the medicinal enterprise, Ms. Srongporn, began “collaborating with other farmers and non-timber forest product collectors to buy raw materials, as at times the raw materials collected from Ban Thung Yao forest are not enough to meet the market demand” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). [[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.31.52_PM.png|thumb|Forest products and revenue]]The Ban Thung Yao community has become one of the most gender equitable community forestry communities in ensuring equal participation from both genders. The community has inspired other local communities in Thailand to have equal gender participation in their communities. This study shows that women in this community are very open to building their knowledge to issues such as “climate change, community-based climate change adaptation, REDD+ and agroforestry” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). When developing forest policies, the differing work between men and women in the community should be considered; such as roles, responsibilities, skills, and knowledge in community forest management. Phakee Wannasak is the leader of the women’s group of the local community we are studying in this case study, the Ban Thung Yao village. The women’s group was “established in 1977 by Thailand’s Community Development Department in Ban Thung Yao village, in the province of Lamphun”(Upadhyay, B. Forest Heroine, 2016). When the Royal Forest Department (RFD) announced Ban Thung Yao community forest as a National Park in 1987, the women’s group in the community expressed their displeasure the strongest. Phakee instilled confidence into the other members of the women’s group to resist. In 1989, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation proposed an annual distribution of $2,455 to the forest in the Ban Thung Yao community. In return, the community forest would need to follow the regulations of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. Phakee discussed with the members of the women’s group, and brought out the potential issue of losing rights to the forest and its resources. This would greatly affect the daily life of the community. The women’s group of Ban Thung Yao collectively decided to decline this offer.The Ban Thung Yao Community Forest produces 28 types of wild vegetables, 13 kinds of wild fruit, 25 types of mushrooms, and 20 various kinds of herbal plants. These natural vegetables and fruit total to $30,630, displaying the economic value of the forest. In the present, Phakee is determined to secure the customary rights of the people in the local community and passing it to the next generation. She allocates a large portion of her time towards the younger generation, telling them the history of the Ban Thung Yao Community Forest and the customary beliefs of the people. She wishes that like her, the younger generation of the community can learn from the past to improve the forest in the futureForest products and revenue.

==Interested Stakeholders==
Before the ''Royal Forest Department (RFD)'' came into existence in 1896, forest lands were property of the king, rulers of provinces, and landlords. Since the existence of the RFD, all forested areas were owned by the state. The main objective of the RFD was to turn these state-owned forests into money-makers. The RFD will sell concession rights to receive royalties. Since 1989, the RFD needed to adjust their objective into part production, part protection. In the early 1900’s the forest cover in Thailand was over 70%. Thailand had the second fastest deforestation rate in Asia, with Nepal being the fastest.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_10.37.50_PM.png|thumb|Forest Cover in Thailand]]In 1985, only 29% of forest land remained in Thailand. The North East, East, Central and South regions in Thailand has very little forested land remaining. Northern Thailand has the highest forest cover. However, this is also the same region where deforestation is the highest in the country. Many areas in the North have been logged and have now become grassland. Commercial logging is also a method for government to generate its revenue by way of foreign exchange with other countries. Logging concessions were given to companies to cut timber in the local forests by the government. The government believed that the companies would be able to respect the extraction quotas. However, the concessions did not put the restrictions set by the government into its interests. Deforested areas were left to be regenerated by themselves and were often damaged further by the local communities collecting firewood and agricultural expansion. The government decided to put an end to concessions in 1977 and reduced timber production by 50% two years later. During the 1980’s Thailand grew into a net importer of timber supplies. In 1988, the Royal Thai Government set further regulations after hundreds of villagers were killed in floods and mudslides in Southern Thailand. The main suspected cause of the floods and mudslides was due to the intense deforestation. In 1989, a complete ban from logging was put in place and partnerships between the RFD and logging concessions had formally ended. 15 percent of the total land in Thailand were dedicated towards forest conservation. These areas formerly were committed towards timber production and economic forests. It was during this time where the Thai government understood the dangers of losing forest cover in the country. The dangers of logging in Thailand can be seen by the increased runoff on steep slopes and in watershed areas. This can lead to nutrient depletion and soil erosion. As Thailand loses its forest cover, many animals have become endangered and some even extinct. Areas near the foot of a river, faces the threat of “flooding, sedimentation of water bodies, and decreased availability of water during the dry season” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The idea of forest management has been a tense subject in Thailand. Forest guards and environmental activists have been threatened and/or physically attacked in many areas of Thailand. In some cases, activists have been murdered acting against powerful business people who are in favour of forest exploitation. It is no secret that some government officials are currently involved in illegal logging trade. This is why it may not be in the best interest of the members of the local community to announce their displeasure of logging activities as it will result in a lot of trouble for themselves. The involvement of local communities in policy making has been extremely limited, as most of the policies are decided by the state. When asked about policy making, the local villagers believe that they deserve to be more involved in decision making.

==Assessment==
Organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) are incapable of developing community forest management, as it faces the weight of state legislations. It is clear that there remains an absence of a national policy to recognize the rights of the community in the local forests. As more communities become involved in managing national forests, we can observe the possibility of community forest management in Thailand. The local community defending their rights against private interests are only able to protect the natural resources if they receive support from the state, legally. The local community does not have economic interest in forest exploitation, but rather economic interest of forest protection. This is an important aspect leading towards sustainable forest management. The practice of Community Forest Management (CFM) will be dependent on the government and the Royal Forestry Department (RFD). One of the reasons why villagers have decided to deforest and use the land for agriculture is the revenue received. The villagers would need to wait for a long time for the trees to grow in comparison where farmers could quickly turn their crops into sales if used for agriculture. If incentives were given to the villagers to manage the forest by the state, the villagers will be more inclined to withdraw the idea of deforestation and using the land for agriculture. Economic incentives should be given to local communities which work to manage their local forest. This will also improve the wellbeing of the members of the local community and improve their ability to manage forests. The 7 major factors preventing people’s involvement in sustainable forest management are “the State’s authorities, centralized management decision-making, inappropriate attitudes towards local people and forest use, lack of trust and strong commitments, lack of knowledge and skills to work with people, non-existent or uncommunicated incentives, and a lack of legal support” (Makarabhirom, n.d). Analyzing data collection in the forest site is effective in changing the forest management operations to fit their needs. Therefore, when the local people interact with the forests, they are able to collect data of the forest, along with their participation in community forest management. Community forest management can generate income for the local community, as well as train the local people to manage natural resources.

==Recommendations==
Ecological stress between tribal communities, landless farmers, and businessmen has increased as time passed by. We can project that the well-being of the local communities in the future will worsen if the groups are unable to come to terms. Research into local Thailand communities show that men and women are equally knowledgeable and concerned about forest use in their community. Some people find it surprising that men are very encouraging in women’s participation of managing the forest. Most members in local communities are profiled with “insecure land ownership, low incomes, and low levels of education, in a country whose recent economic performances has created soaring expectations of material well-being” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). As population grows in communities, resources becoming more limited, and outside business stakeholders, there will be a constant need to overuse the natural resources.The local community faces the dilemma of to use or to not use forest resources. Communities in Northern Thailand can see the advantages of protecting forest resources. However, the people need the resources for food, household needs, and income to improve their daily life. The outlook of the usage of forests have changed immensely over time. In the past, primary role of forests was to produce timber. Local communities now use forests to collect food, fuel, fodder, and construction materials. In some cases, the local villagers also have a cultural and or spiritual attachment towards the forests. To develop a community forest program in Thailand, more power must be given to the local community. The state and powerful organizations such as the Royal Forest Department (RFD) must change their philosophy from a centralized to a more decentralized forest management and forest conservation in order for community forestry to happen in Thailand. Currently, forest in Thailand is managed by a “few high level officials in the national-level committees such as the National Forest Policy Committee, the Wildlife Protection Committee and the National Park Committee” (Makarabhirom, n.d). However, the goals of these committees do not align with meeting the needs of the local communities. In addition, the committees are appointed by political sectors, politicising forest management in Thailand. In recent years, the idea of Community Forestry has grown rapidly in Thailand as the country has been looking for a more sustainable way to manage forests. However, organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) and a number of other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) continue to question the capability of local communities to manage the resources of the forest sustainably. In most local communities, a strong leader is required to lead the community in managing resources in any community forest as the leader ties the members of the community together and represents them in decision-making. Most of the forests in Thailand is state owned, and there is no intention of the state to protect the rights of the local people. Some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are working with the local communities to manage forest resources as they act as an intermediary between the forest officers and the local communities.

==References==
Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R. (1993, August). Forest management in Northern Thailand: A rural Thai perspective, 263-275. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001671859390020I</nowiki>

Forest Management Bureau, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Thailand Forestry Outlook Study. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am617e/am617e00.pdf</nowiki>

Korpela, E., Bosselmann, A., Kahala, L., Ohtonen, H., Ruotsalainen, A., Sengvue, S., . . . Yli-Hinkkala, M. (2006, January). Community Forestry And Agrofrestry In Thailand- Case Study Of Ban Thung Soong Village Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240623799_COMMUNITY_FORESTRY_AND_AGROFORESTY_IN_THAILAND_-_CASE_STUDY_OF_BAN_THUNG_SOONG_VILLAGE</nowiki>

Lakanavichian, S. (2006, February). Case Studies in South and East Asia: Forest Ownership, Forest Resource Tenure and Sustainable Forest Management. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/forestry/10809-09f8870885bd8d85106e0a87cd906b784.pdf</nowiki>

Makarabhirom, P. (n.d.). People’s participation in forest management in Thailand: Constraints and the way out. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/1503/attach/3ws-15-permsak.pdf</nowiki>

Salam, M. A., Noguchi, T., & Pothitan, R. (2006). Community forest management in thailand: Current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development.''New Forests, 31''(2), 273-291. doi:10.1007/s11056-005-7483-8

Upadhyay, B., Arpornsilp, R., & Soontornwong, S. (2013, August 1). Gender and Community Forests in a Changing Landscape: Lessons From Ban Thung Yao, Thailand. Retrieved October 3, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000053</nowiki>

Upadhyay, B., Forest Heroine: Phakee Wannasak wards off threats to community-led forest governance. (2016, October 30). Retrieved October 2, 2018, from <nowiki>https://forestsnews.cifor.org/21608/forest-heroine-phakee-wannasak-wards-off-threats-to-community-led-forest-governance?fnl=en</nowiki>

Wataru, F., Ganjanapan, A., & Shin’ichi, S. (n.d.). “Community Forest” and Thai Rural Society. Retrieved October 10 from <nowiki>https://kyotoreview.org/issue-2-disaster-and-rehabilitation/community-forest-and-thai-rural-society/</nowiki><references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Forest management in Ban Thung Yao community in Thailand

2018-11-28T07:40:42Z

GabrielWan: /* Ban Thung Yao Village (Affected Stakeholder) */

Add your summary here

==Description==
Northern Thailand has a population of 10.5 million, with 17 million hectares of land. The area of our case study, the Ban Thung Yao Village is located in this region. Five mountain ranges “run north-south with elevations ranging between 550 and 2,500m and valley floors varying from 200 to 500m above sea level” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). There is 1,000 to 4,000 millimeters (mm) of rainfall per year and two distinct dry and rainy seasons. During the dry season, the temperature tops out at 40°C. The median temperature is 25°C. During the cold dry season, the lowest temperature is 0°C. Thailand has a population of 69 million people, with a 0.4% growth rate and 51 million of hectares of land. The population density is 123 persons/km2. 80% of the population currently lives in rural areas, however we have seen an increase towards urbanization in recent decades. In 1965, “only 13 percent of the population lived in urban areas, with 23 percent in 1990, declining to 21 percent in 2000” (Lakanavichian, S, 2006). There are two main types of forest in this region, evergreen and deciduous, with variations of altitude, soil, rainfall and other factors in each type. In deciduous forests, there are “dry dipterocarp, dry mixed deciduous, and moist mixed deciduous” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). In evergreen forests, there are “lower montane, coniferous, and dry evergreen” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The most valued type of forest is the mixed deciduous forest, as this type contains teak, a hardwood species which is highly demanded. Over 70% of Thai people are involved in agriculture related occupations. Other main areas of work include manufacturing and service industries. To obtain agricultural supplies, most people in local communities go to river valleys to collect them. The Chiang Mai valley has been the most successful in Northern Thailand, which is 124 kilometres from Ban Thung Yao community.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-25_at_8.34.12_PM.png|thumb|Map of Ban Thung Yao Village|281x281px]]

==Tenure arrangements==
The highest level of land ownership in Thailand is the ''Chanode Thidin''. The person in possession of this certificate can sell, transfer, or mortgage the property. In urban areas, full title deeds are more common, which serves the same purpose as the ''Chanode Thidin.''The most prevalent tenure certificates in Thailand include the ''NS.3 ''and ''NS.3.A. ''Holders with these certificates have the right to farm the land and use them as collateral to borrow money. The next most prevalent tenure certificates include ''PBT.5''and ''PBT.6''certificates. PBT certificates land tax receipts but do not give the holder land title. However, the land can be farmed and residences can be built, but cannot be sold or used as loan collateral. The land can be taken away by the ''Royal Forest Department’s Forest Village Programme''at any point for reforestation or reallocation purposes. The purpose of PBT certificates is to give the farmers of the local community a feeling of ownership so that they now are motivated to spend their time to work on the land and to stay in the area. The land remains apart of the state, in this case. It is estimated that approximately 90% of property owners in Thailand do not have legal ownership to the property. Land title is primarily held by men, whether it be the NS or the PBT certificates.

==Administrative arrangements==

The First and Second National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (1961-1971) was implemented to increase economic growth through building roads, electricity, and water supply networks. Although Thailand as a country has prospered economically, income distribution and the quality of life of local people have declined during the early 1970’s. The Third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976) was needed to emphasise on “social development, reduction of the population growth rate, and income distribution” (p.7). Amidst the Fourth Plan period (1977-1981), the future plans of the government were uncertain, as a result, there was an economic downturn. As a result, the Fifth and Sixth Plans (1982-1991) focused on economic stability and bringing the population out of poverty. The Seventh Plan (1992-1996) wanted to promote sustainable development especially in economic growth and stability, “income distribution, developing human resources, and enhancing the quality of life and the environment” (Forest Management Bureau, 2009). The eighth plan (1997-2001) primarily was focused on the Thai people. The country wanted to create a balance between the development of the economy, society, and environment. However, a drawback occurred as another economic crisis ensued. The state wanted to restore economic stability in the country. The ninth plan (2002-2006) continued the goals of the eighth plan with the population in mind. The plan promised to improve the economic crisis at the time and sustainable development with the Thai people in mind. The ninth plan was considered a success. The economy of the nation grew 5.7 percent a year on average. Poverty fell, and the quality of life improved for the people. Health insurance covered most of the population from sickness as drug problems decreased.

The Community Forestry Bill was proposed in 1990. The bill outlines the rules local community members must follow when utilizing state-owned forests. The bill was altered six times in the 1990’s to 2000 with intense debates between “community groups, development and conservation NGOs, the Royal Forest Department, and academics” (Korpela, E et al, 2006). When it was finalized, a critical aspect included that local communities were allowed to live in the forest if they were able to show that they could conserve it. The local community did not like the idea that the forest management was state-led, so it was changed. The final draft was prepared by an alliance of academics and NGOs, also known as the “people’s version”. This version outlined the ability of local communities to enter use the forests. The people’s version was endorsed by the House of Representatives twice, first in 1996 and again in 2002. Sadly, the Senate rejected the key points of the adjusted proposal and made changes to the bill to restrict the villager’s power to the forests in Thailand. Currently, there has been no agreement between the parties as the years pass.

==Affected Stakeholders==
A main reason why deforestation was high in Thailand for the last century is the growing rural population. Protection policies of deforestation in Thailand has been ineffective due to inadequate attention to the needs of the local people. Deforestation is a way for local Thai communities to meet their basic needs such as food and income. The country has been well known for exporting rice and upland crops to sell to all around the world for profit. Vital concerns on the subject of the exploitation of natural resources are frequently brought forward, particularly on Thailand’s forests. Although many legislations have been brought forward to protect the forests, the intended goals of the legislations were not met on many occasions. Thus, deforestation is a major threat to the future welfare of the Thai people, especially in rural areas. Past management programs have been advocating for state-controlled forests. Local people in forests were posed as threats to the state control of the forests, without considering the reliance of the local communities to the forests for many things, such as food and income. Aside from other natural resources local communities can utilize in forests such as lumber, the amount of water in the local communities is also a key issue. Water is able to supply the local community with electricity, generated locally by hydro plants. During high water levels, the community can utilize electricity all day. During low water levels, electricity is only accessible on Saturdays and Sundays. This is due to the fact that water must be saved up to produce crops, the local communities main source of food and income. Despite the fact that forest loss directly impacts the amount of water in the local community, many communities have continued to log. The reason is that the lumber cut down is able to be used as supplies to build houses. These houses can then be sold to timber merchants for a profit. In many cases, a sale of one small house can equal to one full year of agricultural income.

==Ban Thung Yao Village (Affected Stakeholder)==
The Ban Thung Yao Community was established when a group of men and women settled in the area in 1915. There are over 180 families in this community alone. Eight years after their settlement in 1923, the first village chief of Ban Thung Yao declared 9.6 hectares of watershed forest as a protected area to address water shortage problems” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The land in the community is split into three categories; housing areas, agricultural land, and community forest. In the community forest category, there are two subcategories; protected areas, and “areas set aside for the utilization of timber and non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The community forest has aided the socio-cultural, economic and environmental development of the Ban Thung Yao Village. The villagers in the community can utilize the forests in the community, however, are unable to mortgage, lease, or sell the land for income. Currently, “the village community forest manages 400 hectares of forestland, with 12 women making up more than a third of the executive committee” (Upadhyay, B, 2013).
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.53.00_PM.png|thumb|Non-timber forest products collected by gender]]
Women in participation of community forestry in the community were assigned to protect “traditional knowledge, wisdom, spiritual beliefs and rituals related to forestry, keeping records of customary laws on forest protection and conservation, and in fund management and often advocated for local ownership of non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). In addition, they were also involved in forest patrolling and reporting violations to the forest executive community. Men practicing community forestry were focused on hunting for poisonous insects in the forest at night, and exploring new routes and longer trails in the forest” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). They also enforced written agreements and laws, particularly on logging, tree cutting in specified areas and forest patrolling. A study into the Ban Thung Yao community showed that women in the community are more knowledgeable about market demand for forest products compared to men. Women who sell vegetables and other items collected from the forest are able to meet the demands of their own household but are also able to generate income by selling these items. Some members of the Ban Thung Yao Village utilize its forest to extract medicinal plants and herbs to set up their herbal enterprises. As doing so, the people in the Ban Thung Yao Community who purchase alcoholic drinks regularly will have an alternative to try to drink herbal drinks. The herbal enterprise has become a major successes the business has become well known nationally in Thailand. The owner of the medicinal enterprise, Ms. Srongporn, began “collaborating with other farmers and non-timber forest product collectors to buy raw materials, as at times the raw materials collected from Ban Thung Yao forest are not enough to meet the market demand” (Upadhyay, B, 2013).The Ban Thung Yao community has become one of the most gender equitable community forestry communities in ensuring equal participation from both genders. The community has inspired other local communities in Thailand to have equal gender participation in their communities. This study shows that women in this community are very open to building their knowledge to issues such as “climate change, community-based climate change adaptation, REDD+ and agroforestry” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). When developing forest policies, the differing work between men and women in the community should be considered; such as roles, responsibilities, skills, and knowledge in community forest management. Phakee Wannasak is the leader of the women’s group of the local community we are studying in this case study, the Ban Thung Yao village. The women’s group was “established in 1977 by Thailand’s Community Development Department in Ban Thung Yao village, in the province of Lamphun”(Upadhyay, B. Forest Heroine, 2016). When the Royal Forest Department (RFD) announced Ban Thung Yao community forest as a National Park in 1987, the women’s group in the community expressed their displeasure the strongest. Phakee instilled confidence into the other members of the women’s group to resist. In 1989, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation proposed an annual distribution of $2,455 to the forest in the Ban Thung Yao community. In return, the community forest would need to follow the regulations of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. Phakee discussed with the members of the women’s group, and brought out the potential issue of losing rights to the forest and its resources. This would greatly affect the daily life of the community. The women’s group of Ban Thung Yao collectively decided to decline this offer.The Ban Thung Yao Community Forest produces 28 types of wild vegetables, 13 kinds of wild fruit, 25 types of mushrooms, and 20 various kinds of herbal plants. These natural vegetables and fruit total to $30,630, displaying the economic value of the forest. In the present, Phakee is determined to secure the customary rights of the people in the local community and passing it to the next generation. She allocates a large portion of her time towards the younger generation, telling them the history of the Ban Thung Yao Community Forest and the customary beliefs of the people. She wishes that like her, the younger generation of the community can learn from the past to improve the forest in the futureForest products and revenue.[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.31.52_PM.png|thumb|Forest products and revenue]]

==Interested Stakeholders==
Before the ''Royal Forest Department (RFD)'' came into existence in 1896, forest lands were property of the king, rulers of provinces, and landlords. Since the existence of the RFD, all forested areas were owned by the state. The main objective of the RFD was to turn these state-owned forests into money-makers. The RFD will sell concession rights to receive royalties. Since 1989, the RFD needed to adjust their objective into part production, part protection. In the early 1900’s the forest cover in Thailand was over 70%. Thailand had the second fastest deforestation rate in Asia, with Nepal being the fastest. In 1985, only 29% of forest land remained in Thailand. The North East, East, Central and South regions in Thailand has very little forested land remaining. Northern Thailand has the highest forest cover. However, this is also the same region where deforestation is the highest in the country. Many areas in the North have been logged and have now become grassland. Commercial logging is also a method for government to generate its revenue by way of foreign exchange with other countries. Logging concessions were given to companies to cut timber in the local forests by the government. The government believed that the companies would be able to respect the extraction quotas. However, the concessions did not put the restrictions set by the government into its interests. Deforested areas were left to be regenerated by themselves and were often damaged further by the local communities collecting firewood and agricultural expansion. The government decided to put an end to concessions in 1977 and reduced timber production by 50% two years later. During the 1980’s Thailand grew into a net importer of timber supplies. In 1988, the Royal Thai Government set further regulations after hundreds of villagers were killed in floods and mudslides in Southern Thailand. The main suspected cause of the floods and mudslides was due to the intense deforestation. In 1989, a complete ban from logging was put in place and partnerships between the RFD and logging concessions had formally ended. 15 percent of the total land in Thailand were dedicated towards forest conservation. These areas formerly were committed towards timber production and economic forests. It was during this time where the Thai government understood the dangers of losing forest cover in the country. The dangers of logging in Thailand can be seen by the increased runoff on steep slopes and in watershed areas. This can lead to nutrient depletion and soil erosion. As Thailand loses its forest cover, many animals have become endangered and some even extinct. Areas near the foot of a river, faces the threat of “flooding, sedimentation of water bodies, and decreased availability of water during the dry season” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The idea of forest management has been a tense subject in Thailand. Forest guards and environmental activists have been threatened and/or physically attacked in many areas of Thailand. In some cases, activists have been murdered acting against powerful business people who are in favour of forest exploitation. It is no secret that some government officials are currently involved in illegal logging trade. This is why it may not be in the best interest of the members of the local community to announce their displeasure of logging activities as it will result in a lot of trouble for themselves. The involvement of local communities in policy making has been extremely limited, as most of the policies are decided by the state. When asked about policy making, the local villagers believe that they deserve to be more involved in decision making.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_10.37.50_PM.png|thumb|Forest Cover in Thailand]]

==Assessment==
Organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) are incapable of developing community forest management, as it faces the weight of state legislations. It is clear that there remains an absence of a national policy to recognize the rights of the community in the local forests. As more communities become involved in managing national forests, we can observe the possibility of community forest management in Thailand. The local community defending their rights against private interests are only able to protect the natural resources if they receive support from the state, legally. The local community does not have economic interest in forest exploitation, but rather economic interest of forest protection. This is an important aspect leading towards sustainable forest management. The practice of Community Forest Management (CFM) will be dependent on the government and the Royal Forestry Department (RFD). One of the reasons why villagers have decided to deforest and use the land for agriculture is the revenue received. The villagers would need to wait for a long time for the trees to grow in comparison where farmers could quickly turn their crops into sales if used for agriculture. If incentives were given to the villagers to manage the forest by the state, the villagers will be more inclined to withdraw the idea of deforestation and using the land for agriculture. Economic incentives should be given to local communities which work to manage their local forest. This will also improve the wellbeing of the members of the local community and improve their ability to manage forests. The 7 major factors preventing people’s involvement in sustainable forest management are “the State’s authorities, centralized management decision-making, inappropriate attitudes towards local people and forest use, lack of trust and strong commitments, lack of knowledge and skills to work with people, non-existent or uncommunicated incentives, and a lack of legal support” (Makarabhirom, n.d). Analyzing data collection in the forest site is effective in changing the forest management operations to fit their needs. Therefore, when the local people interact with the forests, they are able to collect data of the forest, along with their participation in community forest management. Community forest management can generate income for the local community, as well as train the local people to manage natural resources.

==Recommendations==
Ecological stress between tribal communities, landless farmers, and businessmen has increased as time passed by. We can project that the well-being of the local communities in the future will worsen if the groups are unable to come to terms. Research into local Thailand communities show that men and women are equally knowledgeable and concerned about forest use in their community. Some people find it surprising that men are very encouraging in women’s participation of managing the forest. Most members in local communities are profiled with “insecure land ownership, low incomes, and low levels of education, in a country whose recent economic performances has created soaring expectations of material well-being” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). As population grows in communities, resources becoming more limited, and outside business stakeholders, there will be a constant need to overuse the natural resources.The local community faces the dilemma of to use or to not use forest resources. Communities in Northern Thailand can see the advantages of protecting forest resources. However, the people need the resources for food, household needs, and income to improve their daily life. The outlook of the usage of forests have changed immensely over time. In the past, primary role of forests was to produce timber. Local communities now use forests to collect food, fuel, fodder, and construction materials. In some cases, the local villagers also have a cultural and or spiritual attachment towards the forests. To develop a community forest program in Thailand, more power must be given to the local community. The state and powerful organizations such as the Royal Forest Department (RFD) must change their philosophy from a centralized to a more decentralized forest management and forest conservation in order for community forestry to happen in Thailand. Currently, forest in Thailand is managed by a “few high level officials in the national-level committees such as the National Forest Policy Committee, the Wildlife Protection Committee and the National Park Committee” (Makarabhirom, n.d). However, the goals of these committees do not align with meeting the needs of the local communities. In addition, the committees are appointed by political sectors, politicising forest management in Thailand. In recent years, the idea of Community Forestry has grown rapidly in Thailand as the country has been looking for a more sustainable way to manage forests. However, organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) and a number of other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) continue to question the capability of local communities to manage the resources of the forest sustainably. In most local communities, a strong leader is required to lead the community in managing resources in any community forest as the leader ties the members of the community together and represents them in decision-making. Most of the forests in Thailand is state owned, and there is no intention of the state to protect the rights of the local people. Some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are working with the local communities to manage forest resources as they act as an intermediary between the forest officers and the local communities.

==References==
Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R. (1993, August). Forest management in Northern Thailand: A rural Thai perspective, 263-275. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001671859390020I</nowiki>

Forest Management Bureau, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Thailand Forestry Outlook Study. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am617e/am617e00.pdf</nowiki>

Korpela, E., Bosselmann, A., Kahala, L., Ohtonen, H., Ruotsalainen, A., Sengvue, S., . . . Yli-Hinkkala, M. (2006, January). Community Forestry And Agrofrestry In Thailand- Case Study Of Ban Thung Soong Village Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240623799_COMMUNITY_FORESTRY_AND_AGROFORESTY_IN_THAILAND_-_CASE_STUDY_OF_BAN_THUNG_SOONG_VILLAGE</nowiki>

Lakanavichian, S. (2006, February). Case Studies in South and East Asia: Forest Ownership, Forest Resource Tenure and Sustainable Forest Management. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/forestry/10809-09f8870885bd8d85106e0a87cd906b784.pdf</nowiki>

Makarabhirom, P. (n.d.). People’s participation in forest management in Thailand: Constraints and the way out. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/1503/attach/3ws-15-permsak.pdf</nowiki>

Salam, M. A., Noguchi, T., & Pothitan, R. (2006). Community forest management in thailand: Current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development.''New Forests, 31''(2), 273-291. doi:10.1007/s11056-005-7483-8

Upadhyay, B., Arpornsilp, R., & Soontornwong, S. (2013, August 1). Gender and Community Forests in a Changing Landscape: Lessons From Ban Thung Yao, Thailand. Retrieved October 3, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000053</nowiki>

Upadhyay, B., Forest Heroine: Phakee Wannasak wards off threats to community-led forest governance. (2016, October 30). Retrieved October 2, 2018, from <nowiki>https://forestsnews.cifor.org/21608/forest-heroine-phakee-wannasak-wards-off-threats-to-community-led-forest-governance?fnl=en</nowiki>

Wataru, F., Ganjanapan, A., & Shin’ichi, S. (n.d.). “Community Forest” and Thai Rural Society. Retrieved October 10 from <nowiki>https://kyotoreview.org/issue-2-disaster-and-rehabilitation/community-forest-and-thai-rural-society/</nowiki><references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Forest management in Ban Thung Yao community in Thailand

2018-11-28T07:37:55Z

GabrielWan: /* Description */

Add your summary here

==Description==
Northern Thailand has a population of 10.5 million, with 17 million hectares of land. The area of our case study, the Ban Thung Yao Village is located in this region. Five mountain ranges “run north-south with elevations ranging between 550 and 2,500m and valley floors varying from 200 to 500m above sea level” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). There is 1,000 to 4,000 millimeters (mm) of rainfall per year and two distinct dry and rainy seasons. During the dry season, the temperature tops out at 40°C. The median temperature is 25°C. During the cold dry season, the lowest temperature is 0°C. Thailand has a population of 69 million people, with a 0.4% growth rate and 51 million of hectares of land. The population density is 123 persons/km2. 80% of the population currently lives in rural areas, however we have seen an increase towards urbanization in recent decades. In 1965, “only 13 percent of the population lived in urban areas, with 23 percent in 1990, declining to 21 percent in 2000” (Lakanavichian, S, 2006). There are two main types of forest in this region, evergreen and deciduous, with variations of altitude, soil, rainfall and other factors in each type. In deciduous forests, there are “dry dipterocarp, dry mixed deciduous, and moist mixed deciduous” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). In evergreen forests, there are “lower montane, coniferous, and dry evergreen” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The most valued type of forest is the mixed deciduous forest, as this type contains teak, a hardwood species which is highly demanded. Over 70% of Thai people are involved in agriculture related occupations. Other main areas of work include manufacturing and service industries. To obtain agricultural supplies, most people in local communities go to river valleys to collect them. The Chiang Mai valley has been the most successful in Northern Thailand, which is 124 kilometres from Ban Thung Yao community.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-25_at_8.34.12_PM.png|thumb|Map of Ban Thung Yao Village|281x281px]]

==Tenure arrangements==
The highest level of land ownership in Thailand is the ''Chanode Thidin''. The person in possession of this certificate can sell, transfer, or mortgage the property. In urban areas, full title deeds are more common, which serves the same purpose as the ''Chanode Thidin.''The most prevalent tenure certificates in Thailand include the ''NS.3 ''and ''NS.3.A. ''Holders with these certificates have the right to farm the land and use them as collateral to borrow money. The next most prevalent tenure certificates include ''PBT.5''and ''PBT.6''certificates. PBT certificates land tax receipts but do not give the holder land title. However, the land can be farmed and residences can be built, but cannot be sold or used as loan collateral. The land can be taken away by the ''Royal Forest Department’s Forest Village Programme''at any point for reforestation or reallocation purposes. The purpose of PBT certificates is to give the farmers of the local community a feeling of ownership so that they now are motivated to spend their time to work on the land and to stay in the area. The land remains apart of the state, in this case. It is estimated that approximately 90% of property owners in Thailand do not have legal ownership to the property. Land title is primarily held by men, whether it be the NS or the PBT certificates.

==Administrative arrangements==

The First and Second National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (1961-1971) was implemented to increase economic growth through building roads, electricity, and water supply networks. Although Thailand as a country has prospered economically, income distribution and the quality of life of local people have declined during the early 1970’s. The Third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976) was needed to emphasise on “social development, reduction of the population growth rate, and income distribution” (p.7). Amidst the Fourth Plan period (1977-1981), the future plans of the government were uncertain, as a result, there was an economic downturn. As a result, the Fifth and Sixth Plans (1982-1991) focused on economic stability and bringing the population out of poverty. The Seventh Plan (1992-1996) wanted to promote sustainable development especially in economic growth and stability, “income distribution, developing human resources, and enhancing the quality of life and the environment” (Forest Management Bureau, 2009). The eighth plan (1997-2001) primarily was focused on the Thai people. The country wanted to create a balance between the development of the economy, society, and environment. However, a drawback occurred as another economic crisis ensued. The state wanted to restore economic stability in the country. The ninth plan (2002-2006) continued the goals of the eighth plan with the population in mind. The plan promised to improve the economic crisis at the time and sustainable development with the Thai people in mind. The ninth plan was considered a success. The economy of the nation grew 5.7 percent a year on average. Poverty fell, and the quality of life improved for the people. Health insurance covered most of the population from sickness as drug problems decreased.

The Community Forestry Bill was proposed in 1990. The bill outlines the rules local community members must follow when utilizing state-owned forests. The bill was altered six times in the 1990’s to 2000 with intense debates between “community groups, development and conservation NGOs, the Royal Forest Department, and academics” (Korpela, E et al, 2006). When it was finalized, a critical aspect included that local communities were allowed to live in the forest if they were able to show that they could conserve it. The local community did not like the idea that the forest management was state-led, so it was changed. The final draft was prepared by an alliance of academics and NGOs, also known as the “people’s version”. This version outlined the ability of local communities to enter use the forests. The people’s version was endorsed by the House of Representatives twice, first in 1996 and again in 2002. Sadly, the Senate rejected the key points of the adjusted proposal and made changes to the bill to restrict the villager’s power to the forests in Thailand. Currently, there has been no agreement between the parties as the years pass.

==Affected Stakeholders==
A main reason why deforestation was high in Thailand for the last century is the growing rural population. Protection policies of deforestation in Thailand has been ineffective due to inadequate attention to the needs of the local people. Deforestation is a way for local Thai communities to meet their basic needs such as food and income. The country has been well known for exporting rice and upland crops to sell to all around the world for profit. Vital concerns on the subject of the exploitation of natural resources are frequently brought forward, particularly on Thailand’s forests. Although many legislations have been brought forward to protect the forests, the intended goals of the legislations were not met on many occasions. Thus, deforestation is a major threat to the future welfare of the Thai people, especially in rural areas. Past management programs have been advocating for state-controlled forests. Local people in forests were posed as threats to the state control of the forests, without considering the reliance of the local communities to the forests for many things, such as food and income. Aside from other natural resources local communities can utilize in forests such as lumber, the amount of water in the local communities is also a key issue. Water is able to supply the local community with electricity, generated locally by hydro plants. During high water levels, the community can utilize electricity all day. During low water levels, electricity is only accessible on Saturdays and Sundays. This is due to the fact that water must be saved up to produce crops, the local communities main source of food and income. Despite the fact that forest loss directly impacts the amount of water in the local community, many communities have continued to log. The reason is that the lumber cut down is able to be used as supplies to build houses. These houses can then be sold to timber merchants for a profit. In many cases, a sale of one small house can equal to one full year of agricultural income.

==Ban Thung Yao Village (Affected Stakeholder)==
The Ban Thung Yao Community was established when a group of men and women settled in the area in 1915. There are over 180 families in this community alone. Eight years after their settlement in 1923, the first village chief of Ban Thung Yao declared 9.6 hectares of watershed forest as a protected area to address water shortage problems” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The land in the community is split into three categories; housing areas, agricultural land, and community forest. In the community forest category, there are two subcategories; protected areas, and “areas set aside for the utilization of timber and non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The community forest has aided the socio-cultural, economic and environmental development of the Ban Thung Yao Village. The villagers in the community can utilize the forests in the community, however, are unable to mortgage, lease, or sell the land for income. Currently, “the village community forest manages 400 hectares of forestland, with 12 women making up more than a third of the executive committee” (Upadhyay, B, 2013).

Women in participation of community forestry in the community were assigned to protect “traditional knowledge, wisdom, spiritual beliefs and rituals related to forestry, keeping records of customary laws on forest protection and conservation, and in fund management and often advocated for local ownership of non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). In addition, they were also involved in forest patrolling and reporting violations to the forest executive community. Men practicing community forestry were focused on hunting for poisonous insects in the forest at night, and exploring new routes and longer trails in the forest” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). They also enforced written agreements and laws, particularly on logging, tree cutting in specified areas and forest patrolling. A study into the Ban Thung Yao community showed that women in the community are more knowledgeable about market demand for forest products compared to men. Women who sell vegetables and other items collected from the forest are able to meet the demands of their own household but are also able to generate income by selling these items. Some members of the Ban Thung Yao Village utilize its forest to extract medicinal plants and herbs to set up their herbal enterprises. As doing so, the people in the Ban Thung Yao Community who purchase alcoholic drinks regularly will have an alternative to try to drink herbal drinks. The herbal enterprise has become a major successes the business has become well known nationally in Thailand. The owner of the medicinal enterprise, Ms. Srongporn, began “collaborating with other farmers and non-timber forest product collectors to buy raw materials, as at times the raw materials collected from Ban Thung Yao forest are not enough to meet the market demand” (Upadhyay, B, 2013).The Ban Thung Yao community has become one of the most gender equitable community forestry communities in ensuring equal participation from both genders. The community has inspired other local communities in Thailand to have equal gender participation in their communities. This study shows that women in this community are very open to building their knowledge to issues such as “climate change, community-based climate change adaptation, REDD+ and agroforestry” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). When developing forest policies, the differing work between men and women in the community should be considered; such as roles, responsibilities, skills, and knowledge in community forest management. Phakee Wannasak is the leader of the women’s group of the local community we are studying in this case study, the Ban Thung Yao village. The women’s group was “established in 1977 by Thailand’s Community Development Department in Ban Thung Yao village, in the province of Lamphun”(Upadhyay, B. Forest Heroine, 2016). When the Royal Forest Department (RFD) announced Ban Thung Yao community forest as a National Park in 1987, the women’s group in the community expressed their displeasure the strongest. Phakee instilled confidence into the other members of the women’s group to resist. In 1989, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation proposed an annual distribution of $2,455 to the forest in the Ban Thung Yao community. In return, the community forest would need to follow the regulations of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. Phakee discussed with the members of the women’s group, and brought out the potential issue of losing rights to the forest and its resources. This would greatly affect the daily life of the community. The women’s group of Ban Thung Yao collectively decided to decline this offer.The Ban Thung Yao Community Forest produces 28 types of wild vegetables, 13 kinds of wild fruit, 25 types of mushrooms, and 20 various kinds of herbal plants. These natural vegetables and fruit total to $30,630, displaying the economic value of the forest. In the present, Phakee is determined to secure the customary rights of the people in the local community and passing it to the next generation. She allocates a large portion of her time towards the younger generation, telling them the history of the Ban Thung Yao Community Forest and the customary beliefs of the people. She wishes that like her, the younger generation of the community can learn from the past to improve the forest in the futureForest products and revenue.

[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.31.52_PM.png|thumb|Forest products and revenue]]

==Interested Stakeholders==
Before the ''Royal Forest Department (RFD)'' came into existence in 1896, forest lands were property of the king, rulers of provinces, and landlords. Since the existence of the RFD, all forested areas were owned by the state. The main objective of the RFD was to turn these state-owned forests into money-makers. The RFD will sell concession rights to receive royalties. Since 1989, the RFD needed to adjust their objective into part production, part protection. In the early 1900’s the forest cover in Thailand was over 70%. Thailand had the second fastest deforestation rate in Asia, with Nepal being the fastest. In 1985, only 29% of forest land remained in Thailand. The North East, East, Central and South regions in Thailand has very little forested land remaining. Northern Thailand has the highest forest cover. However, this is also the same region where deforestation is the highest in the country. Many areas in the North have been logged and have now become grassland. Commercial logging is also a method for government to generate its revenue by way of foreign exchange with other countries. Logging concessions were given to companies to cut timber in the local forests by the government. The government believed that the companies would be able to respect the extraction quotas. However, the concessions did not put the restrictions set by the government into its interests. Deforested areas were left to be regenerated by themselves and were often damaged further by the local communities collecting firewood and agricultural expansion. The government decided to put an end to concessions in 1977 and reduced timber production by 50% two years later. During the 1980’s Thailand grew into a net importer of timber supplies. In 1988, the Royal Thai Government set further regulations after hundreds of villagers were killed in floods and mudslides in Southern Thailand. The main suspected cause of the floods and mudslides was due to the intense deforestation. In 1989, a complete ban from logging was put in place and partnerships between the RFD and logging concessions had formally ended. 15 percent of the total land in Thailand were dedicated towards forest conservation. These areas formerly were committed towards timber production and economic forests. It was during this time where the Thai government understood the dangers of losing forest cover in the country. The dangers of logging in Thailand can be seen by the increased runoff on steep slopes and in watershed areas. This can lead to nutrient depletion and soil erosion. As Thailand loses its forest cover, many animals have become endangered and some even extinct. Areas near the foot of a river, faces the threat of “flooding, sedimentation of water bodies, and decreased availability of water during the dry season” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The idea of forest management has been a tense subject in Thailand. Forest guards and environmental activists have been threatened and/or physically attacked in many areas of Thailand. In some cases, activists have been murdered acting against powerful business people who are in favour of forest exploitation. It is no secret that some government officials are currently involved in illegal logging trade. This is why it may not be in the best interest of the members of the local community to announce their displeasure of logging activities as it will result in a lot of trouble for themselves. The involvement of local communities in policy making has been extremely limited, as most of the policies are decided by the state. When asked about policy making, the local villagers believe that they deserve to be more involved in decision making.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_10.37.50_PM.png|thumb|Forest Cover in Thailand]]

==Assessment==
Organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) are incapable of developing community forest management, as it faces the weight of state legislations. It is clear that there remains an absence of a national policy to recognize the rights of the community in the local forests. As more communities become involved in managing national forests, we can observe the possibility of community forest management in Thailand. The local community defending their rights against private interests are only able to protect the natural resources if they receive support from the state, legally. The local community does not have economic interest in forest exploitation, but rather economic interest of forest protection. This is an important aspect leading towards sustainable forest management. The practice of Community Forest Management (CFM) will be dependent on the government and the Royal Forestry Department (RFD). One of the reasons why villagers have decided to deforest and use the land for agriculture is the revenue received. The villagers would need to wait for a long time for the trees to grow in comparison where farmers could quickly turn their crops into sales if used for agriculture. If incentives were given to the villagers to manage the forest by the state, the villagers will be more inclined to withdraw the idea of deforestation and using the land for agriculture. Economic incentives should be given to local communities which work to manage their local forest. This will also improve the wellbeing of the members of the local community and improve their ability to manage forests. The 7 major factors preventing people’s involvement in sustainable forest management are “the State’s authorities, centralized management decision-making, inappropriate attitudes towards local people and forest use, lack of trust and strong commitments, lack of knowledge and skills to work with people, non-existent or uncommunicated incentives, and a lack of legal support” (Makarabhirom, n.d). Analyzing data collection in the forest site is effective in changing the forest management operations to fit their needs. Therefore, when the local people interact with the forests, they are able to collect data of the forest, along with their participation in community forest management. Community forest management can generate income for the local community, as well as train the local people to manage natural resources.

==Recommendations==
Ecological stress between tribal communities, landless farmers, and businessmen has increased as time passed by. We can project that the well-being of the local communities in the future will worsen if the groups are unable to come to terms. Research into local Thailand communities show that men and women are equally knowledgeable and concerned about forest use in their community. Some people find it surprising that men are very encouraging in women’s participation of managing the forest. Most members in local communities are profiled with “insecure land ownership, low incomes, and low levels of education, in a country whose recent economic performances has created soaring expectations of material well-being” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). As population grows in communities, resources becoming more limited, and outside business stakeholders, there will be a constant need to overuse the natural resources.The local community faces the dilemma of to use or to not use forest resources. Communities in Northern Thailand can see the advantages of protecting forest resources. However, the people need the resources for food, household needs, and income to improve their daily life. The outlook of the usage of forests have changed immensely over time. In the past, primary role of forests was to produce timber. Local communities now use forests to collect food, fuel, fodder, and construction materials. In some cases, the local villagers also have a cultural and or spiritual attachment towards the forests. To develop a community forest program in Thailand, more power must be given to the local community. The state and powerful organizations such as the Royal Forest Department (RFD) must change their philosophy from a centralized to a more decentralized forest management and forest conservation in order for community forestry to happen in Thailand. Currently, forest in Thailand is managed by a “few high level officials in the national-level committees such as the National Forest Policy Committee, the Wildlife Protection Committee and the National Park Committee” (Makarabhirom, n.d). However, the goals of these committees do not align with meeting the needs of the local communities. In addition, the committees are appointed by political sectors, politicising forest management in Thailand. In recent years, the idea of Community Forestry has grown rapidly in Thailand as the country has been looking for a more sustainable way to manage forests. However, organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) and a number of other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) continue to question the capability of local communities to manage the resources of the forest sustainably. In most local communities, a strong leader is required to lead the community in managing resources in any community forest as the leader ties the members of the community together and represents them in decision-making. Most of the forests in Thailand is state owned, and there is no intention of the state to protect the rights of the local people. Some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are working with the local communities to manage forest resources as they act as an intermediary between the forest officers and the local communities.

==References==
Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R. (1993, August). Forest management in Northern Thailand: A rural Thai perspective, 263-275. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001671859390020I</nowiki>

Forest Management Bureau, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Thailand Forestry Outlook Study. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am617e/am617e00.pdf</nowiki>

Korpela, E., Bosselmann, A., Kahala, L., Ohtonen, H., Ruotsalainen, A., Sengvue, S., . . . Yli-Hinkkala, M. (2006, January). Community Forestry And Agrofrestry In Thailand- Case Study Of Ban Thung Soong Village Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240623799_COMMUNITY_FORESTRY_AND_AGROFORESTY_IN_THAILAND_-_CASE_STUDY_OF_BAN_THUNG_SOONG_VILLAGE</nowiki>

Lakanavichian, S. (2006, February). Case Studies in South and East Asia: Forest Ownership, Forest Resource Tenure and Sustainable Forest Management. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/forestry/10809-09f8870885bd8d85106e0a87cd906b784.pdf</nowiki>

Makarabhirom, P. (n.d.). People’s participation in forest management in Thailand: Constraints and the way out. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/1503/attach/3ws-15-permsak.pdf</nowiki>

Salam, M. A., Noguchi, T., & Pothitan, R. (2006). Community forest management in thailand: Current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development.''New Forests, 31''(2), 273-291. doi:10.1007/s11056-005-7483-8

Upadhyay, B., Arpornsilp, R., & Soontornwong, S. (2013, August 1). Gender and Community Forests in a Changing Landscape: Lessons From Ban Thung Yao, Thailand. Retrieved October 3, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000053</nowiki>

Upadhyay, B., Forest Heroine: Phakee Wannasak wards off threats to community-led forest governance. (2016, October 30). Retrieved October 2, 2018, from <nowiki>https://forestsnews.cifor.org/21608/forest-heroine-phakee-wannasak-wards-off-threats-to-community-led-forest-governance?fnl=en</nowiki>

Wataru, F., Ganjanapan, A., & Shin’ichi, S. (n.d.). “Community Forest” and Thai Rural Society. Retrieved October 10 from <nowiki>https://kyotoreview.org/issue-2-disaster-and-rehabilitation/community-forest-and-thai-rural-society/</nowiki><references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Forest management in Ban Thung Yao community in Thailand

2018-11-28T07:32:51Z

GabrielWan: /* Description */

Add your summary here

==Description==
Northern Thailand has a population of 10.5 million, with 17 million hectares of land. The area of our case study, the Ban Thung Yao Village is located in this region. Five mountain ranges “run north-south with elevations ranging between 550 and 2,500m and valley floors varying from 200 to 500m above sea level” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). There is 1,000 to 4,000 millimeters (mm) of rainfall per year and two distinct dry and rainy seasons. During the dry season, the temperature tops out at 40°C. The median temperature is 25°C. During the cold dry season, the lowest temperature is 0°C. Thailand has a population of 69 million people, with a 0.4% growth rate and 51 million of hectares of land. The population density is 123 persons/km2. 80% of the population currently lives in rural areas, however we have seen an increase towards urbanization in recent decades. In 1965, “only 13 percent of the population lived in urban areas, with 23 percent in 1990, declining to 21 percent in 2000” (Lakanavichian, S, 2006). There are two main types of forest in this region, evergreen and deciduous, with variations of altitude, soil, rainfall and other factors in each type. In deciduous forests, there are “dry dipterocarp, dry mixed deciduous, and moist mixed deciduous” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). In evergreen forests, there are “lower montane, coniferous, and dry evergreen” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The most valued type of forest is the mixed deciduous forest, as this type contains teak, a hardwood species which is highly demanded. Over 70% of Thai people are involved in agriculture related occupations. Other main areas of work include manufacturing and service industries. To obtain agricultural supplies, most people in local communities go to river valleys to collect them. The Chiang Mai valley has been the most successful in Northern Thailand, which is 124 kilometres from Ban Thung Yao community.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-25_at_8.34.12_PM.png|thumb|Map of Ban Thung Yao Village]]

==Tenure arrangements==
The highest level of land ownership in Thailand is the ''Chanode Thidin''. The person in possession of this certificate can sell, transfer, or mortgage the property. In urban areas, full title deeds are more common, which serves the same purpose as the ''Chanode Thidin.''The most prevalent tenure certificates in Thailand include the ''NS.3 ''and ''NS.3.A. ''Holders with these certificates have the right to farm the land and use them as collateral to borrow money. The next most prevalent tenure certificates include ''PBT.5''and ''PBT.6''certificates. PBT certificates land tax receipts but do not give the holder land title. However, the land can be farmed and residences can be built, but cannot be sold or used as loan collateral. The land can be taken away by the ''Royal Forest Department’s Forest Village Programme''at any point for reforestation or reallocation purposes. The purpose of PBT certificates is to give the farmers of the local community a feeling of ownership so that they now are motivated to spend their time to work on the land and to stay in the area. The land remains apart of the state, in this case. It is estimated that approximately 90% of property owners in Thailand do not have legal ownership to the property. Land title is primarily held by men, whether it be the NS or the PBT certificates.

==Administrative arrangements==

The First and Second National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (1961-1971) was implemented to increase economic growth through building roads, electricity, and water supply networks. Although Thailand as a country has prospered economically, income distribution and the quality of life of local people have declined during the early 1970’s. The Third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976) was needed to emphasise on “social development, reduction of the population growth rate, and income distribution” (p.7). Amidst the Fourth Plan period (1977-1981), the future plans of the government were uncertain, as a result, there was an economic downturn. As a result, the Fifth and Sixth Plans (1982-1991) focused on economic stability and bringing the population out of poverty. The Seventh Plan (1992-1996) wanted to promote sustainable development especially in economic growth and stability, “income distribution, developing human resources, and enhancing the quality of life and the environment” (Forest Management Bureau, 2009). The eighth plan (1997-2001) primarily was focused on the Thai people. The country wanted to create a balance between the development of the economy, society, and environment. However, a drawback occurred as another economic crisis ensued. The state wanted to restore economic stability in the country. The ninth plan (2002-2006) continued the goals of the eighth plan with the population in mind. The plan promised to improve the economic crisis at the time and sustainable development with the Thai people in mind. The ninth plan was considered a success. The economy of the nation grew 5.7 percent a year on average. Poverty fell, and the quality of life improved for the people. Health insurance covered most of the population from sickness as drug problems decreased.

The Community Forestry Bill was proposed in 1990. The bill outlines the rules local community members must follow when utilizing state-owned forests. The bill was altered six times in the 1990’s to 2000 with intense debates between “community groups, development and conservation NGOs, the Royal Forest Department, and academics” (Korpela, E et al, 2006). When it was finalized, a critical aspect included that local communities were allowed to live in the forest if they were able to show that they could conserve it. The local community did not like the idea that the forest management was state-led, so it was changed. The final draft was prepared by an alliance of academics and NGOs, also known as the “people’s version”. This version outlined the ability of local communities to enter use the forests. The people’s version was endorsed by the House of Representatives twice, first in 1996 and again in 2002. Sadly, the Senate rejected the key points of the adjusted proposal and made changes to the bill to restrict the villager’s power to the forests in Thailand. Currently, there has been no agreement between the parties as the years pass.

==Affected Stakeholders==
A main reason why deforestation was high in Thailand for the last century is the growing rural population. Protection policies of deforestation in Thailand has been ineffective due to inadequate attention to the needs of the local people. Deforestation is a way for local Thai communities to meet their basic needs such as food and income. The country has been well known for exporting rice and upland crops to sell to all around the world for profit. Vital concerns on the subject of the exploitation of natural resources are frequently brought forward, particularly on Thailand’s forests. Although many legislations have been brought forward to protect the forests, the intended goals of the legislations were not met on many occasions. Thus, deforestation is a major threat to the future welfare of the Thai people, especially in rural areas. Past management programs have been advocating for state-controlled forests. Local people in forests were posed as threats to the state control of the forests, without considering the reliance of the local communities to the forests for many things, such as food and income. Aside from other natural resources local communities can utilize in forests such as lumber, the amount of water in the local communities is also a key issue. Water is able to supply the local community with electricity, generated locally by hydro plants. During high water levels, the community can utilize electricity all day. During low water levels, electricity is only accessible on Saturdays and Sundays. This is due to the fact that water must be saved up to produce crops, the local communities main source of food and income. Despite the fact that forest loss directly impacts the amount of water in the local community, many communities have continued to log. The reason is that the lumber cut down is able to be used as supplies to build houses. These houses can then be sold to timber merchants for a profit. In many cases, a sale of one small house can equal to one full year of agricultural income.

==Ban Thung Yao Village (Affected Stakeholder)==
The Ban Thung Yao Community was established when a group of men and women settled in the area in 1915. There are over 180 families in this community alone. Eight years after their settlement in 1923, the first village chief of Ban Thung Yao declared 9.6 hectares of watershed forest as a protected area to address water shortage problems” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The land in the community is split into three categories; housing areas, agricultural land, and community forest. In the community forest category, there are two subcategories; protected areas, and “areas set aside for the utilization of timber and non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The community forest has aided the socio-cultural, economic and environmental development of the Ban Thung Yao Village. The villagers in the community can utilize the forests in the community, however, are unable to mortgage, lease, or sell the land for income. Currently, “the village community forest manages 400 hectares of forestland, with 12 women making up more than a third of the executive committee” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). Women in participation of community forestry in the community were assigned to protect “traditional knowledge, wisdom, spiritual beliefs and rituals related to forestry, keeping records of customary laws on forest protection and conservation, and in fund management and often advocated for local ownership of non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). In addition, they were also involved in forest patrolling and reporting violations to the forest executive community. Men practicing community forestry were focused on hunting for poisonous insects in the forest at night, and exploring new routes and longer trails in the forest” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). They also enforced written agreements and laws, particularly on logging, tree cutting in specified areas and forest patrolling. A study into the Ban Thung Yao community showed that women in the community are more knowledgeable about market demand for forest products compared to men. Women who sell vegetables and other items collected from the forest are able to meet the demands of their own household but are also able to generate income by selling these items. Some members of the Ban Thung Yao Village utilize its forest to extract medicinal plants and herbs to set up their herbal enterprises. As doing so, the people in the Ban Thung Yao Community who purchase alcoholic drinks regularly will have an alternative to try to drink herbal drinks. The herbal enterprise has become a major successes the business has become well known nationally in Thailand. The owner of the medicinal enterprise, Ms. Srongporn, began “collaborating with other farmers and non-timber forest product collectors to buy raw materials, as at times the raw materials collected from Ban Thung Yao forest are not enough to meet the market demand” (Upadhyay, B, 2013).The Ban Thung Yao community has become one of the most gender equitable community forestry communities in ensuring equal participation from both genders. The community has inspired other local communities in Thailand to have equal gender participation in their communities. This study shows that women in this community are very open to building their knowledge to issues such as “climate change, community-based climate change adaptation, REDD+ and agroforestry” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). When developing forest policies, the differing work between men and women in the community should be considered; such as roles, responsibilities, skills, and knowledge in community forest management. Phakee Wannasak is the leader of the women’s group of the local community we are studying in this case study, the Ban Thung Yao village. The women’s group was “established in 1977 by Thailand’s Community Development Department in Ban Thung Yao village, in the province of Lamphun”(Upadhyay, B. Forest Heroine, 2016). When the Royal Forest Department (RFD) announced Ban Thung Yao community forest as a National Park in 1987, the women’s group in the community expressed their displeasure the strongest. Phakee instilled confidence into the other members of the women’s group to resist. In 1989, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation proposed an annual distribution of $2,455 to the forest in the Ban Thung Yao community. In return, the community forest would need to follow the regulations of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. Phakee discussed with the members of the women’s group, and brought out the potential issue of losing rights to the forest and its resources. This would greatly affect the daily life of the community. The women’s group of Ban Thung Yao collectively decided to decline this offer.The Ban Thung Yao Community Forest produces 28 types of wild vegetables, 13 kinds of wild fruit, 25 types of mushrooms, and 20 various kinds of herbal plants. These natural vegetables and fruit total to $30,630, displaying the economic value of the forest. In the present, Phakee is determined to secure the customary rights of the people in the local community and passing it to the next generation. She allocates a large portion of her time towards the younger generation, telling them the history of the Ban Thung Yao Community Forest and the customary beliefs of the people. She wishes that like her, the younger generation of the community can learn from the past to improve the forest in the futureForest products and revenue.

[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_3.31.52_PM.png|thumb|Forest products and revenue]]

==Interested Stakeholders==
Before the ''Royal Forest Department (RFD)'' came into existence in 1896, forest lands were property of the king, rulers of provinces, and landlords. Since the existence of the RFD, all forested areas were owned by the state. The main objective of the RFD was to turn these state-owned forests into money-makers. The RFD will sell concession rights to receive royalties. Since 1989, the RFD needed to adjust their objective into part production, part protection. In the early 1900’s the forest cover in Thailand was over 70%. Thailand had the second fastest deforestation rate in Asia, with Nepal being the fastest. In 1985, only 29% of forest land remained in Thailand. The North East, East, Central and South regions in Thailand has very little forested land remaining. Northern Thailand has the highest forest cover. However, this is also the same region where deforestation is the highest in the country. Many areas in the North have been logged and have now become grassland. Commercial logging is also a method for government to generate its revenue by way of foreign exchange with other countries. Logging concessions were given to companies to cut timber in the local forests by the government. The government believed that the companies would be able to respect the extraction quotas. However, the concessions did not put the restrictions set by the government into its interests. Deforested areas were left to be regenerated by themselves and were often damaged further by the local communities collecting firewood and agricultural expansion. The government decided to put an end to concessions in 1977 and reduced timber production by 50% two years later. During the 1980’s Thailand grew into a net importer of timber supplies. In 1988, the Royal Thai Government set further regulations after hundreds of villagers were killed in floods and mudslides in Southern Thailand. The main suspected cause of the floods and mudslides was due to the intense deforestation. In 1989, a complete ban from logging was put in place and partnerships between the RFD and logging concessions had formally ended. 15 percent of the total land in Thailand were dedicated towards forest conservation. These areas formerly were committed towards timber production and economic forests. It was during this time where the Thai government understood the dangers of losing forest cover in the country. The dangers of logging in Thailand can be seen by the increased runoff on steep slopes and in watershed areas. This can lead to nutrient depletion and soil erosion. As Thailand loses its forest cover, many animals have become endangered and some even extinct. Areas near the foot of a river, faces the threat of “flooding, sedimentation of water bodies, and decreased availability of water during the dry season” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The idea of forest management has been a tense subject in Thailand. Forest guards and environmental activists have been threatened and/or physically attacked in many areas of Thailand. In some cases, activists have been murdered acting against powerful business people who are in favour of forest exploitation. It is no secret that some government officials are currently involved in illegal logging trade. This is why it may not be in the best interest of the members of the local community to announce their displeasure of logging activities as it will result in a lot of trouble for themselves. The involvement of local communities in policy making has been extremely limited, as most of the policies are decided by the state. When asked about policy making, the local villagers believe that they deserve to be more involved in decision making.
[[File:Screen_Shot_2018-11-27_at_10.37.50_PM.png|thumb|Forest Cover in Thailand]]

==Assessment==
Organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) are incapable of developing community forest management, as it faces the weight of state legislations. It is clear that there remains an absence of a national policy to recognize the rights of the community in the local forests. As more communities become involved in managing national forests, we can observe the possibility of community forest management in Thailand. The local community defending their rights against private interests are only able to protect the natural resources if they receive support from the state, legally. The local community does not have economic interest in forest exploitation, but rather economic interest of forest protection. This is an important aspect leading towards sustainable forest management. The practice of Community Forest Management (CFM) will be dependent on the government and the Royal Forestry Department (RFD). One of the reasons why villagers have decided to deforest and use the land for agriculture is the revenue received. The villagers would need to wait for a long time for the trees to grow in comparison where farmers could quickly turn their crops into sales if used for agriculture. If incentives were given to the villagers to manage the forest by the state, the villagers will be more inclined to withdraw the idea of deforestation and using the land for agriculture. Economic incentives should be given to local communities which work to manage their local forest. This will also improve the wellbeing of the members of the local community and improve their ability to manage forests. The 7 major factors preventing people’s involvement in sustainable forest management are “the State’s authorities, centralized management decision-making, inappropriate attitudes towards local people and forest use, lack of trust and strong commitments, lack of knowledge and skills to work with people, non-existent or uncommunicated incentives, and a lack of legal support” (Makarabhirom, n.d). Analyzing data collection in the forest site is effective in changing the forest management operations to fit their needs. Therefore, when the local people interact with the forests, they are able to collect data of the forest, along with their participation in community forest management. Community forest management can generate income for the local community, as well as train the local people to manage natural resources.

==Recommendations==
Ecological stress between tribal communities, landless farmers, and businessmen has increased as time passed by. We can project that the well-being of the local communities in the future will worsen if the groups are unable to come to terms. Research into local Thailand communities show that men and women are equally knowledgeable and concerned about forest use in their community. Some people find it surprising that men are very encouraging in women’s participation of managing the forest. Most members in local communities are profiled with “insecure land ownership, low incomes, and low levels of education, in a country whose recent economic performances has created soaring expectations of material well-being” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). As population grows in communities, resources becoming more limited, and outside business stakeholders, there will be a constant need to overuse the natural resources.The local community faces the dilemma of to use or to not use forest resources. Communities in Northern Thailand can see the advantages of protecting forest resources. However, the people need the resources for food, household needs, and income to improve their daily life. The outlook of the usage of forests have changed immensely over time. In the past, primary role of forests was to produce timber. Local communities now use forests to collect food, fuel, fodder, and construction materials. In some cases, the local villagers also have a cultural and or spiritual attachment towards the forests. To develop a community forest program in Thailand, more power must be given to the local community. The state and powerful organizations such as the Royal Forest Department (RFD) must change their philosophy from a centralized to a more decentralized forest management and forest conservation in order for community forestry to happen in Thailand. Currently, forest in Thailand is managed by a “few high level officials in the national-level committees such as the National Forest Policy Committee, the Wildlife Protection Committee and the National Park Committee” (Makarabhirom, n.d). However, the goals of these committees do not align with meeting the needs of the local communities. In addition, the committees are appointed by political sectors, politicising forest management in Thailand. In recent years, the idea of Community Forestry has grown rapidly in Thailand as the country has been looking for a more sustainable way to manage forests. However, organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) and a number of other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) continue to question the capability of local communities to manage the resources of the forest sustainably. In most local communities, a strong leader is required to lead the community in managing resources in any community forest as the leader ties the members of the community together and represents them in decision-making. Most of the forests in Thailand is state owned, and there is no intention of the state to protect the rights of the local people. Some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are working with the local communities to manage forest resources as they act as an intermediary between the forest officers and the local communities.

==References==
Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R. (1993, August). Forest management in Northern Thailand: A rural Thai perspective, 263-275. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001671859390020I</nowiki>

Forest Management Bureau, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Thailand Forestry Outlook Study. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am617e/am617e00.pdf</nowiki>

Korpela, E., Bosselmann, A., Kahala, L., Ohtonen, H., Ruotsalainen, A., Sengvue, S., . . . Yli-Hinkkala, M. (2006, January). Community Forestry And Agrofrestry In Thailand- Case Study Of Ban Thung Soong Village Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240623799_COMMUNITY_FORESTRY_AND_AGROFORESTY_IN_THAILAND_-_CASE_STUDY_OF_BAN_THUNG_SOONG_VILLAGE</nowiki>

Lakanavichian, S. (2006, February). Case Studies in South and East Asia: Forest Ownership, Forest Resource Tenure and Sustainable Forest Management. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/forestry/10809-09f8870885bd8d85106e0a87cd906b784.pdf</nowiki>

Makarabhirom, P. (n.d.). People’s participation in forest management in Thailand: Constraints and the way out. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/1503/attach/3ws-15-permsak.pdf</nowiki>

Salam, M. A., Noguchi, T., & Pothitan, R. (2006). Community forest management in thailand: Current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development.''New Forests, 31''(2), 273-291. doi:10.1007/s11056-005-7483-8

Upadhyay, B., Arpornsilp, R., & Soontornwong, S. (2013, August 1). Gender and Community Forests in a Changing Landscape: Lessons From Ban Thung Yao, Thailand. Retrieved October 3, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000053</nowiki>

Upadhyay, B., Forest Heroine: Phakee Wannasak wards off threats to community-led forest governance. (2016, October 30). Retrieved October 2, 2018, from <nowiki>https://forestsnews.cifor.org/21608/forest-heroine-phakee-wannasak-wards-off-threats-to-community-led-forest-governance?fnl=en</nowiki>

Wataru, F., Ganjanapan, A., & Shin’ichi, S. (n.d.). “Community Forest” and Thai Rural Society. Retrieved October 10 from <nowiki>https://kyotoreview.org/issue-2-disaster-and-rehabilitation/community-forest-and-thai-rural-society/</nowiki><references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

File:Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 10.37.50 PM.png

2018-11-28T07:30:17Z

GabrielWan: User created page with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Forest Cover in Thailand}}
|date=2018-11-21
|source=http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am617e/am617e00.pdf
|author=Forest Management Bureau, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Forest management in Ban Thung Yao community in Thailand

2018-11-28T07:19:22Z

GabrielWan: /* Tenure arrangements */

Add your summary here

==Description==
Northern Thailand has a population of 10.5 million, with 17 million hectares of land. The area of our case study, the Ban Thung Yao Village is located in this region. Five mountain ranges “run north-south with elevations ranging between 550 and 2,500m and valley floors varying from 200 to 500m above sea level” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). There is 1,000 to 4,000 millimeters (mm) of rainfall per year and two distinct dry and rainy seasons. During the dry season, the temperature tops out at 40°C. The median temperature is 25°C. During the cold dry season, the lowest temperature is 0°C. Thailand has a population of 69 million people, with a 0.4% growth rate and 51 million of hectares of land. The population density is 123 persons/km2. 80% of the population currently lives in rural areas, however we have seen an increase towards urbanization in recent decades. In 1965, “only 13 percent of the population lived in urban areas, with 23 percent in 1990, declining to 21 percent in 2000” (Lakanavichian, S, 2006). There are two main types of forest in this region, evergreen and deciduous, with variations of altitude, soil, rainfall and other factors in each type. In deciduous forests, there are “dry dipterocarp, dry mixed deciduous, and moist mixed deciduous” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). In evergreen forests, there are “lower montane, coniferous, and dry evergreen” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The most valued type of forest is the mixed deciduous forest, as this type contains teak, a hardwood species which is highly demanded. Over 70% of Thai people are involved in agriculture related occupations. Other main areas of work include manufacturing and service industries. To obtain agricultural supplies, most people in local communities go to river valleys to collect them. The Chiang Mai valley has been the most successful in Northern Thailand, which is 124 kilometres from Ban Thung Yao community.

==Tenure arrangements==
The highest level of land ownership in Thailand is the ''Chanode Thidin''. The person in possession of this certificate can sell, transfer, or mortgage the property. In urban areas, full title deeds are more common, which serves the same purpose as the ''Chanode Thidin.''The most prevalent tenure certificates in Thailand include the ''NS.3 ''and ''NS.3.A. ''Holders with these certificates have the right to farm the land and use them as collateral to borrow money. The next most prevalent tenure certificates include ''PBT.5''and ''PBT.6''certificates. PBT certificates land tax receipts but do not give the holder land title. However, the land can be farmed and residences can be built, but cannot be sold or used as loan collateral. The land can be taken away by the ''Royal Forest Department’s Forest Village Programme''at any point for reforestation or reallocation purposes. The purpose of PBT certificates is to give the farmers of the local community a feeling of ownership so that they now are motivated to spend their time to work on the land and to stay in the area. The land remains apart of the state, in this case. It is estimated that approximately 90% of property owners in Thailand do not have legal ownership to the property. Land title is primarily held by men, whether it be the NS or the PBT certificates.

==Administrative arrangements==

The First and Second National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (1961-1971) was implemented to increase economic growth through building roads, electricity, and water supply networks. Although Thailand as a country has prospered economically, income distribution and the quality of life of local people have declined during the early 1970’s. The Third National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976) was needed to emphasise on “social development, reduction of the population growth rate, and income distribution” (p.7). Amidst the Fourth Plan period (1977-1981), the future plans of the government were uncertain, as a result, there was an economic downturn. As a result, the Fifth and Sixth Plans (1982-1991) focused on economic stability and bringing the population out of poverty. The Seventh Plan (1992-1996) wanted to promote sustainable development especially in economic growth and stability, “income distribution, developing human resources, and enhancing the quality of life and the environment” (Forest Management Bureau, 2009). The eighth plan (1997-2001) primarily was focused on the Thai people. The country wanted to create a balance between the development of the economy, society, and environment. However, a drawback occurred as another economic crisis ensued. The state wanted to restore economic stability in the country. The ninth plan (2002-2006) continued the goals of the eighth plan with the population in mind. The plan promised to improve the economic crisis at the time and sustainable development with the Thai people in mind. The ninth plan was considered a success. The economy of the nation grew 5.7 percent a year on average. Poverty fell, and the quality of life improved for the people. Health insurance covered most of the population from sickness as drug problems decreased.

The Community Forestry Bill was proposed in 1990. The bill outlines the rules local community members must follow when utilizing state-owned forests. The bill was altered six times in the 1990’s to 2000 with intense debates between “community groups, development and conservation NGOs, the Royal Forest Department, and academics” (Korpela, E et al, 2006). When it was finalized, a critical aspect included that local communities were allowed to live in the forest if they were able to show that they could conserve it. The local community did not like the idea that the forest management was state-led, so it was changed. The final draft was prepared by an alliance of academics and NGOs, also known as the “people’s version”. This version outlined the ability of local communities to enter use the forests. The people’s version was endorsed by the House of Representatives twice, first in 1996 and again in 2002. Sadly, the Senate rejected the key points of the adjusted proposal and made changes to the bill to restrict the villager’s power to the forests in Thailand. Currently, there has been no agreement between the parties as the years pass.

==Affected Stakeholders==
A main reason why deforestation was high in Thailand for the last century is the growing rural population. Protection policies of deforestation in Thailand has been ineffective due to inadequate attention to the needs of the local people. Deforestation is a way for local Thai communities to meet their basic needs such as food and income. The country has been well known for exporting rice and upland crops to sell to all around the world for profit. Vital concerns on the subject of the exploitation of natural resources are frequently brought forward, particularly on Thailand’s forests. Although many legislations have been brought forward to protect the forests, the intended goals of the legislations were not met on many occasions. Thus, deforestation is a major threat to the future welfare of the Thai people, especially in rural areas. Past management programs have been advocating for state-controlled forests. Local people in forests were posed as threats to the state control of the forests, without considering the reliance of the local communities to the forests for many things, such as food and income. Aside from other natural resources local communities can utilize in forests such as lumber, the amount of water in the local communities is also a key issue. Water is able to supply the local community with electricity, generated locally by hydro plants. During high water levels, the community can utilize electricity all day. During low water levels, electricity is only accessible on Saturdays and Sundays. This is due to the fact that water must be saved up to produce crops, the local communities main source of food and income. Despite the fact that forest loss directly impacts the amount of water in the local community, many communities have continued to log. The reason is that the lumber cut down is able to be used as supplies to build houses. These houses can then be sold to timber merchants for a profit. In many cases, a sale of one small house can equal to one full year of agricultural income.

==Ban Thung Yao Village (Affected Stakeholder)==
The Ban Thung Yao Community was established when a group of men and women settled in the area in 1915. There are over 180 families in this community alone. Eight years after their settlement in 1923, the first village chief of Ban Thung Yao declared 9.6 hectares of watershed forest as a protected area to address water shortage problems” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The land in the community is split into three categories; housing areas, agricultural land, and community forest. In the community forest category, there are two subcategories; protected areas, and “areas set aside for the utilization of timber and non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). The community forest has aided the socio-cultural, economic and environmental development of the Ban Thung Yao Village. The villagers in the community can utilize the forests in the community, however, are unable to mortgage, lease, or sell the land for income. Currently, “the village community forest manages 400 hectares of forestland, with 12 women making up more than a third of the executive committee” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). Women in participation of community forestry in the community were assigned to protect “traditional knowledge, wisdom, spiritual beliefs and rituals related to forestry, keeping records of customary laws on forest protection and conservation, and in fund management and often advocated for local ownership of non-timber products” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). In addition, they were also involved in forest patrolling and reporting violations to the forest executive community. Men practicing community forestry were focused on hunting for poisonous insects in the forest at night, and exploring new routes and longer trails in the forest” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). They also enforced written agreements and laws, particularly on logging, tree cutting in specified areas and forest patrolling. A study into the Ban Thung Yao community showed that women in the community are more knowledgeable about market demand for forest products compared to men. Women who sell vegetables and other items collected from the forest are able to meet the demands of their own household but are also able to generate income by selling these items. Some members of the Ban Thung Yao Village utilize its forest to extract medicinal plants and herbs to set up their herbal enterprises. As doing so, the people in the Ban Thung Yao Community who purchase alcoholic drinks regularly will have an alternative to try to drink herbal drinks. The herbal enterprise has become a major successes the business has become well known nationally in Thailand. The owner of the medicinal enterprise, Ms. Srongporn, began “collaborating with other farmers and non-timber forest product collectors to buy raw materials, as at times the raw materials collected from Ban Thung Yao forest are not enough to meet the market demand” (Upadhyay, B, 2013).The Ban Thung Yao community has become one of the most gender equitable community forestry communities in ensuring equal participation from both genders. The community has inspired other local communities in Thailand to have equal gender participation in their communities. This study shows that women in this community are very open to building their knowledge to issues such as “climate change, community-based climate change adaptation, REDD+ and agroforestry” (Upadhyay, B, 2013). When developing forest policies, the differing work between men and women in the community should be considered; such as roles, responsibilities, skills, and knowledge in community forest management. Phakee Wannasak is the leader of the women’s group of the local community we are studying in this case study, the Ban Thung Yao village. The women’s group was “established in 1977 by Thailand’s Community Development Department in Ban Thung Yao village, in the province of Lamphun”(Upadhyay, B. Forest Heroine, 2016). When the Royal Forest Department (RFD) announced Ban Thung Yao community forest as a National Park in 1987, the women’s group in the community expressed their displeasure the strongest. Phakee instilled confidence into the other members of the women’s group to resist. In 1989, the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation proposed an annual distribution of $2,455 to the forest in the Ban Thung Yao community. In return, the community forest would need to follow the regulations of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. Phakee discussed with the members of the women’s group, and brought out the potential issue of losing rights to the forest and its resources. This would greatly affect the daily life of the community. The women’s group of Ban Thung Yao collectively decided to decline this offer.The Ban Thung Yao Community Forest produces 28 types of wild vegetables, 13 kinds of wild fruit, 25 types of mushrooms, and 20 various kinds of herbal plants. These natural vegetables and fruit total to $30,630, displaying the economic value of the forest. In the present, Phakee is determined to secure the customary rights of the people in the local community and passing it to the next generation. She allocates a large portion of her time towards the younger generation, telling them the history of the Ban Thung Yao Community Forest and the customary beliefs of the people. She wishes that like her, the younger generation of the community can learn from the past to improve the forest in the future.

==Interested Stakeholders==
Before the ''Royal Forest Department (RFD)'' came into existence in 1896, forest lands were property of the king, rulers of provinces, and landlords. Since the existence of the RFD, all forested areas were owned by the state. The main objective of the RFD was to turn these state-owned forests into money-makers. The RFD will sell concession rights to receive royalties. Since 1989, the RFD needed to adjust their objective into part production, part protection. In the early 1900’s the forest cover in Thailand was over 70%. Thailand had the second fastest deforestation rate in Asia, with Nepal being the fastest. In 1985, only 29% of forest land remained in Thailand. The North East, East, Central and South regions in Thailand has very little forested land remaining. Northern Thailand has the highest forest cover. However, this is also the same region where deforestation is the highest in the country. Many areas in the North have been logged and have now become grassland. Commercial logging is also a method for government to generate its revenue by way of foreign exchange with other countries. Logging concessions were given to companies to cut timber in the local forests by the government. The government believed that the companies would be able to respect the extraction quotas. However, the concessions did not put the restrictions set by the government into its interests. Deforested areas were left to be regenerated by themselves and were often damaged further by the local communities collecting firewood and agricultural expansion. The government decided to put an end to concessions in 1977 and reduced timber production by 50% two years later. During the 1980’s Thailand grew into a net importer of timber supplies. In 1988, the Royal Thai Government set further regulations after hundreds of villagers were killed in floods and mudslides in Southern Thailand. The main suspected cause of the floods and mudslides was due to the intense deforestation. In 1989, a complete ban from logging was put in place and partnerships between the RFD and logging concessions had formally ended. 15 percent of the total land in Thailand were dedicated towards forest conservation. These areas formerly were committed towards timber production and economic forests. It was during this time where the Thai government understood the dangers of losing forest cover in the country. The dangers of logging in Thailand can be seen by the increased runoff on steep slopes and in watershed areas. This can lead to nutrient depletion and soil erosion. As Thailand loses its forest cover, many animals have become endangered and some even extinct. Areas near the foot of a river, faces the threat of “flooding, sedimentation of water bodies, and decreased availability of water during the dry season” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). The idea of forest management has been a tense subject in Thailand. Forest guards and environmental activists have been threatened and/or physically attacked in many areas of Thailand. In some cases, activists have been murdered acting against powerful business people who are in favour of forest exploitation. It is no secret that some government officials are currently involved in illegal logging trade. This is why it may not be in the best interest of the members of the local community to announce their displeasure of logging activities as it will result in a lot of trouble for themselves. The involvement of local communities in policy making has been extremely limited, as most of the policies are decided by the state. When asked about policy making, the local villagers believe that they deserve to be more involved in decision making.

==Assessment==
Organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) are incapable of developing community forest management, as it faces the weight of state legislations. It is clear that there remains an absence of a national policy to recognize the rights of the community in the local forests. As more communities become involved in managing national forests, we can observe the possibility of community forest management in Thailand. The local community defending their rights against private interests are only able to protect the natural resources if they receive support from the state, legally. The local community does not have economic interest in forest exploitation, but rather economic interest of forest protection. This is an important aspect leading towards sustainable forest management. The practice of Community Forest Management (CFM) will be dependent on the government and the Royal Forestry Department (RFD). One of the reasons why villagers have decided to deforest and use the land for agriculture is the revenue received. The villagers would need to wait for a long time for the trees to grow in comparison where farmers could quickly turn their crops into sales if used for agriculture. If incentives were given to the villagers to manage the forest by the state, the villagers will be more inclined to withdraw the idea of deforestation and using the land for agriculture. Economic incentives should be given to local communities which work to manage their local forest. This will also improve the wellbeing of the members of the local community and improve their ability to manage forests. The 7 major factors preventing people’s involvement in sustainable forest management are “the State’s authorities, centralized management decision-making, inappropriate attitudes towards local people and forest use, lack of trust and strong commitments, lack of knowledge and skills to work with people, non-existent or uncommunicated incentives, and a lack of legal support” (Makarabhirom, n.d). Analyzing data collection in the forest site is effective in changing the forest management operations to fit their needs. Therefore, when the local people interact with the forests, they are able to collect data of the forest, along with their participation in community forest management. Community forest management can generate income for the local community, as well as train the local people to manage natural resources.

==Recommendations==
Ecological stress between tribal communities, landless farmers, and businessmen has increased as time passed by. We can project that the well-being of the local communities in the future will worsen if the groups are unable to come to terms. Research into local Thailand communities show that men and women are equally knowledgeable and concerned about forest use in their community. Some people find it surprising that men are very encouraging in women’s participation of managing the forest. Most members in local communities are profiled with “insecure land ownership, low incomes, and low levels of education, in a country whose recent economic performances has created soaring expectations of material well-being” (Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R., 1993). As population grows in communities, resources becoming more limited, and outside business stakeholders, there will be a constant need to overuse the natural resources.The local community faces the dilemma of to use or to not use forest resources. Communities in Northern Thailand can see the advantages of protecting forest resources. However, the people need the resources for food, household needs, and income to improve their daily life. The outlook of the usage of forests have changed immensely over time. In the past, primary role of forests was to produce timber. Local communities now use forests to collect food, fuel, fodder, and construction materials. In some cases, the local villagers also have a cultural and or spiritual attachment towards the forests. To develop a community forest program in Thailand, more power must be given to the local community. The state and powerful organizations such as the Royal Forest Department (RFD) must change their philosophy from a centralized to a more decentralized forest management and forest conservation in order for community forestry to happen in Thailand. Currently, forest in Thailand is managed by a “few high level officials in the national-level committees such as the National Forest Policy Committee, the Wildlife Protection Committee and the National Park Committee” (Makarabhirom, n.d). However, the goals of these committees do not align with meeting the needs of the local communities. In addition, the committees are appointed by political sectors, politicising forest management in Thailand. In recent years, the idea of Community Forestry has grown rapidly in Thailand as the country has been looking for a more sustainable way to manage forests. However, organizations such as the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) and a number of other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) continue to question the capability of local communities to manage the resources of the forest sustainably. In most local communities, a strong leader is required to lead the community in managing resources in any community forest as the leader ties the members of the community together and represents them in decision-making. Most of the forests in Thailand is state owned, and there is no intention of the state to protect the rights of the local people. Some Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) are working with the local communities to manage forest resources as they act as an intermediary between the forest officers and the local communities.

==References==
Flaherty, M. S., & Filipchuk, V. R. (1993, August). Forest management in Northern Thailand: A rural Thai perspective, 263-275. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001671859390020I</nowiki>

Forest Management Bureau, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Thailand Forestry Outlook Study. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/am617e/am617e00.pdf</nowiki>

Korpela, E., Bosselmann, A., Kahala, L., Ohtonen, H., Ruotsalainen, A., Sengvue, S., . . . Yli-Hinkkala, M. (2006, January). Community Forestry And Agrofrestry In Thailand- Case Study Of Ban Thung Soong Village Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240623799_COMMUNITY_FORESTRY_AND_AGROFORESTY_IN_THAILAND_-_CASE_STUDY_OF_BAN_THUNG_SOONG_VILLAGE</nowiki>

Lakanavichian, S. (2006, February). Case Studies in South and East Asia: Forest Ownership, Forest Resource Tenure and Sustainable Forest Management. Retrieved October 8, 2018, from <nowiki>http://www.fao.org/forestry/10809-09f8870885bd8d85106e0a87cd906b784.pdf</nowiki>

Makarabhirom, P. (n.d.). People’s participation in forest management in Thailand: Constraints and the way out. Retrieved from <nowiki>http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/1503/attach/3ws-15-permsak.pdf</nowiki>

Salam, M. A., Noguchi, T., & Pothitan, R. (2006). Community forest management in thailand: Current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development.''New Forests, 31''(2), 273-291. doi:10.1007/s11056-005-7483-8

Upadhyay, B., Arpornsilp, R., & Soontornwong, S. (2013, August 1). Gender and Community Forests in a Changing Landscape: Lessons From Ban Thung Yao, Thailand. Retrieved October 3, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000053</nowiki>

Upadhyay, B., Forest Heroine: Phakee Wannasak wards off threats to community-led forest governance. (2016, October 30). Retrieved October 2, 2018, from <nowiki>https://forestsnews.cifor.org/21608/forest-heroine-phakee-wannasak-wards-off-threats-to-community-led-forest-governance?fnl=en</nowiki>

Wataru, F., Ganjanapan, A., & Shin’ichi, S. (n.d.). “Community Forest” and Thai Rural Society. Retrieved October 10 from <nowiki>https://kyotoreview.org/issue-2-disaster-and-rehabilitation/community-forest-and-thai-rural-society/</nowiki><references/>

{{Projectbox FRST370
|names=
|share=
}}

Course:FRST370/Projects/Forest management in Ban Thung Yao community in Thailand

2018-11-28T07:16:15Z

GabrielWan: /* Description */

Course:CONS200/Canada's Species At Risk Act (SARA) and the woodland caribou

2018-04-13T06:19:56Z

GabrielWan: /* References */

The woodland caribou is a species that can be found in most provinces throughout Canada. Although they cover a wide range, the population numbers of this species have been on the decline in recent years. so much so that the woodland caribou are now on the endangered species list. The boreal population faces the fear of endangerment the most and its low populations can have negative impacts on the entire ecosystem. If numbers continue to dwindle, predators of the woodland caribou such as wolves will lose a large part of their diet, and they too could potentially see their population size decrease or other food for wolves such as rabbits will have their species become endangered since foxes will begin to hunt them more often with the caribou being gone. If no remedial actions are taken, then industries that wish to use the land the caribou reside on will be the beneficiaries, while the health of the ecosystem and the creatures living within it will certainly suffer.
[[File:Mountain-type Woodland Caribou.jpg|400px|thumb|Mountain-type Woodland Caribou]]

==Categories of Actors==

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) is a federal legislation passed in 2002 and was enacted in 2004. Its main objectives are to “prevent endangered or threatened species from becoming extinct or extirpated, help the recovery of endangered, threatened and extirpated species, and manage species of special concern to help prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. “ The decision to declare a species as endangered under SARA depends on the government, based on scientific assessments and public consultation. Once a species is declared, the Act demands recovery plans to be made, the steps required to increase the population of that particular species.
In addition to assessing different types of endangered species, SARA also promotes stewardship, taking care of nature by committee. Keeping natural resources such as water and air clean can be a highly influential factor towards regenerating the population of any type of species.
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/nature/science/especes-species/itm1

The status of the Woodland Caribou under the Species At Risk Act (SARA), is “Endangered (Atlantic-Gaspésie population), Threatened (Boreal population), and no status (Northern Mountain and Southern Mountain Populations).”
The status of the Woodland Caribou under the 2014 COSEWIC assessment is “Endangered (Atlantic-Gaspésie population and Southern Mountain population (BC, AB)), Threatened (Boreal population), and Special Concern (Northern Mountain population (YK, NT, BC)).”

The Woodland Caribou population is spread out throughout Canada. This type of species primarily exists in the Boreal forests of all provinces and territories except Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. Its total estimated population is 1.5 million in Canada. Sizes range from 1 to 1.2 meters high at the shoulder, and 110 to 210 kg in weight. Its average life span is 10 to 15 years.
The Woodland Caribou is one of three main types of Caribou in Canada. The other two being Peary and Barren-ground Caribou.

==The evidence for the problem==

===Description of threats===
Over the past 20 years, the population of this species has decreased by approximately 30%. The woodland caribou pose a variety of threats, with some having a greater impact of their population than others. These mammals do not migrate far and are impacted greatly if their direct environment is affected; alteration of their environment can be both natural and human caused. When being assessed by Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA), fragmentation was found to be the largest threat to the caribou population. It is noted as well, that varying regions have different threats that effect the caribou and their habitat. [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)]

===Habitat alteration===
[[File:Boreal pine forest after fire 2.jpg|400px|thumb|Boreal pine forest after fire 2]]

The habitat could be altered due natural and anthropogenic disturbances and human caused events have a greater impact on the wellbeing of the mammals and the population. Fragmentation due to natural occurrences such as forest fires are a natural process and are required to regenerate a forest. [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)] The result of a forest fire are large open areas. Having a younger forest creates a desirable habitat for moose and deer which poses a high threat to caribou. [https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/conservation-protection/13201 (Government of Canada 2017)] When high number of deer and moose come into an open forest area, their predators follow. Predation due to the alteration of the habitat that is caused by humans makes a huge misbalance in the ratio of prey to predator, which in result will cause an unnaturally high decrease in the population.
Fragmentation caused by clear cutting for the use of forestry, gas and oil impedes on the mobility due to lack of access to paths. Lack of access leads to isolation: the land within the barriers becomes genetically homologous. This places a threat to long term survival and in some cases can lead to local extinction. [http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/66/89807-English.pdf (Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013)]

===Diseases and the introduction of new species===
The current threat or parasites on the woodland caribou and are not severe, but it is anticipated to be a high level concern for the future. “Deer in some parts of Saskatchewan are infected by meningeal worm and chronic wasting disease, both of which are lethal to caribou. Neither has yet been found in caribou in Saskatchewan though both pose a threat.” [http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/66/89807-English.pdf (Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013)] These worms do not have an effect on their host, the white tailed deer therefor are transported easily around a given area. Evidence suggests that the populations of caribou are low and are avoided in areas where there is an abundant population of white-tailed deer. [http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/66/89807-English.pdf (Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013)] Because the caribou are found sparsely around due to them traveling in smaller groups, this helps prevent a large portion to be infected.

The threat of an invasive species that damages the forest poses a larger threat, compared to direct invasive species/parasites. Parasites such as as the mountain pine beetle could indirectly have a large effect on the wellbeing of the caribou as this invasive species can defoliate and kill of large portions of a tree species. [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)] Having their habitat damaged will cause the caribou to relocate and the threat of them coming into contact with a rich white-tailed deer population or an infected population of caribou is much higher.

===Impacts of climate change===

The effects of climate change has a direct effect on the habitat of the woodland caribou. Rising temperatures is a cause for the disappearance of the lichen-rich environments, the main food source that the caribou depend on.
During colder, winter months the air can hold more moisture which causes the there to be more snow as well as freezing rain; dropping temperatures causes a larger buildup ice on the ground which proves problematic for the caribou when they are trying to reach their lichen-rich old resources. With dramatic decrease in temperature during the winter follows a more severe summer: due to drought, the water supplies are being limited to the caribou as well as for the plants that grow. The rise in temperature will directly effect the frequency in forest fires, which diminish food sources and the habitat of the caribou. [https://www.nps.gov/articles/aps-v10-i1-c7.htm (Joly and Klein, unknown)

===Other threats===
[[File:Highway 60 passing through the boreal forest in Algonquin Park (September 2008).png|200px|thumb|Highway 60 passing through the boreal forest in Algonquin Park (September 2008)]]
Other threats that cause a decline to the population of woodland caribou is industrialization; this can be roads, pipe lines and power lines. The creation of roads and paths creates easy access for predators such as wolves. In addition, roads allow access for vehicle traffic which often scare the caribou and force them to move their location.
When assessed by SARA, the threat of vehicle collisions is seen as a low threat; with pollution and noise disturbance caused by the vehicles to be more of a concern. [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)]

==Options for remedial action(s) ==

===Habitat Management/Landscape Level Planning===
The processes of Habitat Management and Landscape Level Planning involves making so the woodland caribou's ecosystem is able to support their population both now and in the future. [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)] As many threats both natural and human-caused has led to the dwindling of the woodland caribou's population, the planning has to take in to account how to slow down both causes. Actions taken under this technique involve setting up range plans and protected areas, observing and making studies of these ranges, and taking action based on those observations <ref>https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_boreal_caribou_revised_0811_eng.pdf</ref>

Political- this option requires potential cooperation between multiple bodies of government, as a provincial government an federal government may need to coordinate with one another to decide on who holds and enforces jurisdiction in certain ranges across the country. This is imperative as confusion on who is responsible for what areas, can lead to the endangerment of more woodland caribou [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)].

Legal-The formation of range plans deals with many legal aspects, as the Minister of Environment has to identify what legislation if any protects the woodland caribou from anthropological threats, for example, what specific law under the SARA secures the woodland caribous' safety [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)]. If it is found that a range is in need of legislation to protect it from outside threats, then in some instances the government would need to pass legislation protecting that area from human development and influence as seen in the image to the right.

[[File:Lacanja burn.JPG|thumb|Lacanja burn]]
Financial- Habitat Managment and Landscape-level planning can both result in spending a fair amount of capital. Individuals will need to be paid for their studies and observations of the ranges, as well as those who will be needed to enforce the law in the protected areas from outside threats such as hunters or loggers. These processes require cooperation from a large group of people, and that can be costly.

Economic-Creating protected areas can have a negative economic effect in the short run since it prohibits industry such as logging and road development from expanding. In addition, range plans take in to account future human developments, so they too will suppress the development of those industries for an extended period of time

===Mortality and Population Management===
This process involves investigating woodland caribou activity and interactions as well as collaborating with different public groups to find what leads to an increase in deaths of this species as well as testing ways to decrease those numbers.

Technological-One way to find the behavior of the woodland caribou and the factors leading to its death, studies involving putting trackers on both wolves and caribou have been done to study factors such as "forest composition, age, and origin, as well as road density, food availability and predator/prey densities"[https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/conservation-protection/13201 (Natural Resources Canada 2017)] and see how they impact the longevity of this species. Cameras have been placed on caribou as well to get a more detailed and in-depth look at the life of the caribou, giving us useful information to create methods to decrease the mortality rates.
[[File:Native hunters, Formosa by John Thomson Wellcome L0056185.jpg|thumb|Native hunters, Formosa by John Thomson Wellcome L0056185]]
Cultural- Certain groups of aboriginals "have longstanding spiritual connections with caribou, so the continued persistence of caribou is critical to the ongoing health and wellbeing
of indigenous communities in the North."[http://www.dgwlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Paper_on_caribou_and_First_Nations_Devlin.pdf (Gailus 2011)] Government legislation prohibiting the hunting of Caribou has the potential to take away a large part of aboriginals culture and tradition shown by how hunting animals surrounds their lives in the image to the right.

Legal- The passing of legislation will be necessary for this process, as it would require the prohibition of hunting of woodland caribou in particular ranges where the numbers are depleted. This passing could prove to be difficult since it is hard to take a right away from a group when they have held it for some time.

Financial- The studies and the equipment required to run them will certainly cost money, as well as enforcing rules and regulations passed to protect the caribou and their ecosystem. The implementation of plans for regulating woodland caribou predators like wolves or bears will require funds as well.

===Population Monitoring===
Population Monitoring is a process in which scientists gather information on the size of the population of the species, as well as the individual health of specific individuals within that species [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)]. To complete this process successfully, numerous pieces of technology are required, as well as collaboration between different groups.

Culturally: The whole goal of this process is to get to know more information on the species they are studying, and for the case of the woodland caribou, some groups Indigenous people living throughout Canada know a great deal about it. The Woodland Caribou serves as "food, a spiritual ancestor, a gift from the creator, a totem spirit, and a neighbor" ([https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/report-caribou.pdf suzuki 2013]). As this creature plays such a large role in the lives and culture of this group of people, they serve as a great source of information on the Woodland Caribou. In addition, the technologies used in this process must be careful not to infringe on the cultural importance of this animal, as it could lead to the aboriginal people losing a part of their lives.

Technical: This process revolves around tracking the caribou and using that data to create new boundaries for them, as well as ways to limit the negative impacts of human interaction (Gov of Canada 2012). To do this, trackers are placed in the caribou to monitor their movement behavior and trends, as well as test and check-ups on the caribou to see the effects of pollution disease [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)].

Political: Collaboration between different levels of government is a necessary aspect of this process. With the information gathered from the tracking of the caribou, transboundary ranges are set up which requires a group effort from both provincial and territorial governments. Each level of government needs to share each other's information as well as plan the area of the transboundary area [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)].

Economic: All of the tests and studies being done on the woodland caribou requires funding, as technological equipment is being used to gather this information. In addition, the ones running the studies and processing the data need to be paid as well, especially as these studies can last quite some time such as a year.

==Recommendations==

===Federal, provincial, territorial governments===
The governmental agencies are of the utmost importance to woodland caribou conservation. They not just make legislative frameworks and broad policies (e.g. The Wildlife Act and Species At Risk Act) for caribou population management and recovery, they also are concerned as intermediary strengthening links between the authorities and the local, the stakeholders and the land owners. Similarly, corresponding restrictive and punishment measures are enacted to sanction those groups who do illegal hunting or are non-compliant to laws. Due to the fact that the governments possess a significant leadership role in making plans regarding lands management, financial proposal, resources and caribous conservation as well as have jurisdiction and other powers to arbitrate other actors, they are supposed to promote transparency and accountability of laws avoiding corruption and bureaucratism[http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7037FCE4-1#_4_2 (Government of Canada,2017 )]. As a result the authorities will be regularly required to report their financial and conservation results and other material information about their political affairs to the public and to stakeholders. On the other hand, when planning and implementing measurements, the governments are supposed to make explicit researches by asking first nation or local industry in advance because of different habitat and environmental situation. And engaging with aborigines and local community is critical to identify caribou range, to restore destructed caribou habitat and to know the true situation of caribou situation about population dynamics, predators and food as well, which promotes the effiency of policies[https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmental-protection-and-sustainability/wildlife-and-conservation/wildlife-species-at-risk/woodland-caribou (Government of Saskatchewan)]

===Indigenous people ===
As for the aboriginals, inheriting the knowledge about caribou life history, habitat utilization, population dynamics and conservation approaches from ancestors or past experience, they have advantages over others in the promotion of the recovery strategy[http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7037FCE4-1#_4_2 (Government of Canada,2017)].What is more, construction suggestions in regard to restore damaged habitat can also be obtained from local community, which reduces the expenditure, increases the efficiency and establishes better protection zone. For instance, proper roads, trails and seismic line activity are able to be constructed in reasonable area, avoiding wildlife-human conflict[https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmental-protection-and-sustainability/wildlife-and-conservation/wildlife-species-at-risk/woodland-caribou (Governemrnt of Saskatchewan)].When it comes to indigenous people, what they gained from coordinated approach are not just the job opportunity and extra earnings, their spiritual culture, stewardship of land and customary rights are respected and consistent with caribou recovery goals[http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7037FCE4-1#_4_2 (Government of Canada, 2017)]. Meanwhile, indigenous people can also be concerned as regulators of power as well as guard of nature which means they are encouraged to report corruption and present emergency circumstances of caribou population toward superior department.

Although their previous knowledge is useful for conservation, they are supposed to acquire new conservation theory in order to accord with globalization trend. Focusing on homeland environmental conservation is essential, while concerning global environmental issues is also required.

===Stakeholders===
Just as indigenous people play an important role in caribou protection, stakeholders including local industry, private landowners and environmental associations contribute a lot to measurement consultation and implementation. Collecting annual review about caribous from other associations and comparing to local conditions, stakeholders sum up the points which are useful for local conservation [http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7037FCE4-1#_4_2_3 ( Government of Canada, 2017 )]. And they also invest in and conduct caribou research in order to maintain the population[https://www.naturallywood.com/sites/default/files/documents/resources/8599_fii_woodlandcaribou_april2017_web.pdf ( British Columbia Forest Facts, 2017 )].Likewise, rights and obligations of stakeholders ought to be supervised.

==Conclusion==

The woodland caribou’s declining population, due to overwhelming natural and anthropogenic disturbances has caused them to be placed under the Canadian Species At Risk Act (SARA) Due to the possible and detrimental impacts that the extinction could have on other species found in their ecosystem. As formally states, taking out a key prey for the wolves could cause a shift in the food web and the trophic levels which in result could cause other species to be placed in danger of extinction such as rabbits as they would become the wolves main food resource.

It is recommended that cooperation between bodies of government and well as private parties, participate to enforce jurisdiction of the conserved habitats of the caribou. More financial help toward preserving the habitat as well as funding research towards the impacts of industrialization, such as logging is important to help save the caribou, as well as the entire ecosystem. It is also key for government officials and private parties to acknowledge the cultural and spiritual connections that the Indigenous communities have with these mammals; working with individuals that have have passed down and first hand knowledge of the species and their habitat could be beneficial in passing legislation.

==References==

<references/>

{{Projectbox CONS200
|names=
|share=yes
}}

[[Category:Conservation]]

Devlin, C. (2011, January 14). Aboriginal Rights and Cumulative Effects: Are Woodland Caribou the new Canaries in the Not-So-Proverbial Coal Mine? Retrieved April 10, 2018, from http://www.dgwlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Paper_on_caribou_and_First_Nations_Devlin.pdf

Environment Canada. (2013, January 25). Species at Risk Public Registry - Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population, in Canada – 2012. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641

Environment Canada. (2017, October 31). Species at Risk Public Registry - Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population in Canada for the Period 2012 to 2017. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7037FCE4-1#_4_2

Joly, K., & Klein, D. R. (n.d.). Complexity of Caribou Population Dynamics in a Changing Climate (U.S. National Park Service). Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.nps.gov/articles/aps-v10-i1-c7.htm

Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013. Conservation Strategy For Boreal Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 2014.

Suzuki Foundation, D. (2013, July). The Cultural and Ecological Value of Boreal Woodland Caribou Habitat. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/report-caribou.pdf

Wood, N. (2017). British Columbia's Woodland Caribou. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.naturallywood.com/sites/default/files/documents/resources/8599_fii_woodlandcaribou_april2017_web.pdf

Woodland caribou. (2017, August 03). Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/conservation-protection/13201

Woodland Caribou. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmental-protection-and-sustainability/wildlife-and-conservation/wildlife-species-at-risk/woodland-caribou

Course:CONS200/Canada's Species At Risk Act (SARA) and the woodland caribou

2018-04-13T06:17:42Z

GabrielWan: /* References */

The woodland caribou is a species that can be found in most provinces throughout Canada. Although they cover a wide range, the population numbers of this species have been on the decline in recent years. so much so that the woodland caribou are now on the endangered species list. The boreal population faces the fear of endangerment the most and its low populations can have negative impacts on the entire ecosystem. If numbers continue to dwindle, predators of the woodland caribou such as wolves will lose a large part of their diet, and they too could potentially see their population size decrease or other food for wolves such as rabbits will have their species become endangered since foxes will begin to hunt them more often with the caribou being gone. If no remedial actions are taken, then industries that wish to use the land the caribou reside on will be the beneficiaries, while the health of the ecosystem and the creatures living within it will certainly suffer.
[[File:Mountain-type Woodland Caribou.jpg|400px|thumb|Mountain-type Woodland Caribou]]

==Categories of Actors==

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) is a federal legislation passed in 2002 and was enacted in 2004. Its main objectives are to “prevent endangered or threatened species from becoming extinct or extirpated, help the recovery of endangered, threatened and extirpated species, and manage species of special concern to help prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. “ The decision to declare a species as endangered under SARA depends on the government, based on scientific assessments and public consultation. Once a species is declared, the Act demands recovery plans to be made, the steps required to increase the population of that particular species.
In addition to assessing different types of endangered species, SARA also promotes stewardship, taking care of nature by committee. Keeping natural resources such as water and air clean can be a highly influential factor towards regenerating the population of any type of species.
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/nature/science/especes-species/itm1

The status of the Woodland Caribou under the Species At Risk Act (SARA), is “Endangered (Atlantic-Gaspésie population), Threatened (Boreal population), and no status (Northern Mountain and Southern Mountain Populations).”
The status of the Woodland Caribou under the 2014 COSEWIC assessment is “Endangered (Atlantic-Gaspésie population and Southern Mountain population (BC, AB)), Threatened (Boreal population), and Special Concern (Northern Mountain population (YK, NT, BC)).”

The Woodland Caribou population is spread out throughout Canada. This type of species primarily exists in the Boreal forests of all provinces and territories except Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. Its total estimated population is 1.5 million in Canada. Sizes range from 1 to 1.2 meters high at the shoulder, and 110 to 210 kg in weight. Its average life span is 10 to 15 years.
The Woodland Caribou is one of three main types of Caribou in Canada. The other two being Peary and Barren-ground Caribou.

==The evidence for the problem==

===Description of threats===
Over the past 20 years, the population of this species has decreased by approximately 30%. The woodland caribou pose a variety of threats, with some having a greater impact of their population than others. These mammals do not migrate far and are impacted greatly if their direct environment is affected; alteration of their environment can be both natural and human caused. When being assessed by Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA), fragmentation was found to be the largest threat to the caribou population. It is noted as well, that varying regions have different threats that effect the caribou and their habitat. [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)]

===Habitat alteration===
[[File:Boreal pine forest after fire 2.jpg|400px|thumb|Boreal pine forest after fire 2]]

The habitat could be altered due natural and anthropogenic disturbances and human caused events have a greater impact on the wellbeing of the mammals and the population. Fragmentation due to natural occurrences such as forest fires are a natural process and are required to regenerate a forest. [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)] The result of a forest fire are large open areas. Having a younger forest creates a desirable habitat for moose and deer which poses a high threat to caribou. [https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/conservation-protection/13201 (Government of Canada 2017)] When high number of deer and moose come into an open forest area, their predators follow. Predation due to the alteration of the habitat that is caused by humans makes a huge misbalance in the ratio of prey to predator, which in result will cause an unnaturally high decrease in the population.
Fragmentation caused by clear cutting for the use of forestry, gas and oil impedes on the mobility due to lack of access to paths. Lack of access leads to isolation: the land within the barriers becomes genetically homologous. This places a threat to long term survival and in some cases can lead to local extinction. [http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/66/89807-English.pdf (Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013)]

===Diseases and the introduction of new species===
The current threat or parasites on the woodland caribou and are not severe, but it is anticipated to be a high level concern for the future. “Deer in some parts of Saskatchewan are infected by meningeal worm and chronic wasting disease, both of which are lethal to caribou. Neither has yet been found in caribou in Saskatchewan though both pose a threat.” [http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/66/89807-English.pdf (Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013)] These worms do not have an effect on their host, the white tailed deer therefor are transported easily around a given area. Evidence suggests that the populations of caribou are low and are avoided in areas where there is an abundant population of white-tailed deer. [http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/66/89807-English.pdf (Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013)] Because the caribou are found sparsely around due to them traveling in smaller groups, this helps prevent a large portion to be infected.

The threat of an invasive species that damages the forest poses a larger threat, compared to direct invasive species/parasites. Parasites such as as the mountain pine beetle could indirectly have a large effect on the wellbeing of the caribou as this invasive species can defoliate and kill of large portions of a tree species. [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)] Having their habitat damaged will cause the caribou to relocate and the threat of them coming into contact with a rich white-tailed deer population or an infected population of caribou is much higher.

===Impacts of climate change===

The effects of climate change has a direct effect on the habitat of the woodland caribou. Rising temperatures is a cause for the disappearance of the lichen-rich environments, the main food source that the caribou depend on.
During colder, winter months the air can hold more moisture which causes the there to be more snow as well as freezing rain; dropping temperatures causes a larger buildup ice on the ground which proves problematic for the caribou when they are trying to reach their lichen-rich old resources. With dramatic decrease in temperature during the winter follows a more severe summer: due to drought, the water supplies are being limited to the caribou as well as for the plants that grow. The rise in temperature will directly effect the frequency in forest fires, which diminish food sources and the habitat of the caribou. [https://www.nps.gov/articles/aps-v10-i1-c7.htm (Joly and Klein, unknown)

===Other threats===
[[File:Highway 60 passing through the boreal forest in Algonquin Park (September 2008).png|200px|thumb|Highway 60 passing through the boreal forest in Algonquin Park (September 2008)]]
Other threats that cause a decline to the population of woodland caribou is industrialization; this can be roads, pipe lines and power lines. The creation of roads and paths creates easy access for predators such as wolves. In addition, roads allow access for vehicle traffic which often scare the caribou and force them to move their location.
When assessed by SARA, the threat of vehicle collisions is seen as a low threat; with pollution and noise disturbance caused by the vehicles to be more of a concern. [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)]

==Options for remedial action(s) ==

===Habitat Management/Landscape Level Planning===
The processes of Habitat Management and Landscape Level Planning involves making so the woodland caribou's ecosystem is able to support their population both now and in the future. [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)] As many threats both natural and human-caused has led to the dwindling of the woodland caribou's population, the planning has to take in to account how to slow down both causes. Actions taken under this technique involve setting up range plans and protected areas, observing and making studies of these ranges, and taking action based on those observations <ref>https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_boreal_caribou_revised_0811_eng.pdf</ref>

Political- this option requires potential cooperation between multiple bodies of government, as a provincial government an federal government may need to coordinate with one another to decide on who holds and enforces jurisdiction in certain ranges across the country. This is imperative as confusion on who is responsible for what areas, can lead to the endangerment of more woodland caribou [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)].

Legal-The formation of range plans deals with many legal aspects, as the Minister of Environment has to identify what legislation if any protects the woodland caribou from anthropological threats, for example, what specific law under the SARA secures the woodland caribous' safety [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)]. If it is found that a range is in need of legislation to protect it from outside threats, then in some instances the government would need to pass legislation protecting that area from human development and influence as seen in the image to the right.

[[File:Lacanja burn.JPG|thumb|Lacanja burn]]
Financial- Habitat Managment and Landscape-level planning can both result in spending a fair amount of capital. Individuals will need to be paid for their studies and observations of the ranges, as well as those who will be needed to enforce the law in the protected areas from outside threats such as hunters or loggers. These processes require cooperation from a large group of people, and that can be costly.

Economic-Creating protected areas can have a negative economic effect in the short run since it prohibits industry such as logging and road development from expanding. In addition, range plans take in to account future human developments, so they too will suppress the development of those industries for an extended period of time

===Mortality and Population Management===
This process involves investigating woodland caribou activity and interactions as well as collaborating with different public groups to find what leads to an increase in deaths of this species as well as testing ways to decrease those numbers.

Technological-One way to find the behavior of the woodland caribou and the factors leading to its death, studies involving putting trackers on both wolves and caribou have been done to study factors such as "forest composition, age, and origin, as well as road density, food availability and predator/prey densities"[https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/conservation-protection/13201 (Natural Resources Canada 2017)] and see how they impact the longevity of this species. Cameras have been placed on caribou as well to get a more detailed and in-depth look at the life of the caribou, giving us useful information to create methods to decrease the mortality rates.
[[File:Native hunters, Formosa by John Thomson Wellcome L0056185.jpg|thumb|Native hunters, Formosa by John Thomson Wellcome L0056185]]
Cultural- Certain groups of aboriginals "have longstanding spiritual connections with caribou, so the continued persistence of caribou is critical to the ongoing health and wellbeing
of indigenous communities in the North."[http://www.dgwlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Paper_on_caribou_and_First_Nations_Devlin.pdf (Gailus 2011)] Government legislation prohibiting the hunting of Caribou has the potential to take away a large part of aboriginals culture and tradition shown by how hunting animals surrounds their lives in the image to the right.

Legal- The passing of legislation will be necessary for this process, as it would require the prohibition of hunting of woodland caribou in particular ranges where the numbers are depleted. This passing could prove to be difficult since it is hard to take a right away from a group when they have held it for some time.

Financial- The studies and the equipment required to run them will certainly cost money, as well as enforcing rules and regulations passed to protect the caribou and their ecosystem. The implementation of plans for regulating woodland caribou predators like wolves or bears will require funds as well.

===Population Monitoring===
Population Monitoring is a process in which scientists gather information on the size of the population of the species, as well as the individual health of specific individuals within that species [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)]. To complete this process successfully, numerous pieces of technology are required, as well as collaboration between different groups.

Culturally: The whole goal of this process is to get to know more information on the species they are studying, and for the case of the woodland caribou, some groups Indigenous people living throughout Canada know a great deal about it. The Woodland Caribou serves as "food, a spiritual ancestor, a gift from the creator, a totem spirit, and a neighbor" ([https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/report-caribou.pdf suzuki 2013]). As this creature plays such a large role in the lives and culture of this group of people, they serve as a great source of information on the Woodland Caribou. In addition, the technologies used in this process must be careful not to infringe on the cultural importance of this animal, as it could lead to the aboriginal people losing a part of their lives.

Technical: This process revolves around tracking the caribou and using that data to create new boundaries for them, as well as ways to limit the negative impacts of human interaction (Gov of Canada 2012). To do this, trackers are placed in the caribou to monitor their movement behavior and trends, as well as test and check-ups on the caribou to see the effects of pollution disease [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)].

Political: Collaboration between different levels of government is a necessary aspect of this process. With the information gathered from the tracking of the caribou, transboundary ranges are set up which requires a group effort from both provincial and territorial governments. Each level of government needs to share each other's information as well as plan the area of the transboundary area [http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641 (Government of Canada 2012)].

Economic: All of the tests and studies being done on the woodland caribou requires funding, as technological equipment is being used to gather this information. In addition, the ones running the studies and processing the data need to be paid as well, especially as these studies can last quite some time such as a year.

==Recommendations==

===Federal, provincial, territorial governments===
The governmental agencies are of the utmost importance to woodland caribou conservation. They not just make legislative frameworks and broad policies (e.g. The Wildlife Act and Species At Risk Act) for caribou population management and recovery, they also are concerned as intermediary strengthening links between the authorities and the local, the stakeholders and the land owners. Similarly, corresponding restrictive and punishment measures are enacted to sanction those groups who do illegal hunting or are non-compliant to laws. Due to the fact that the governments possess a significant leadership role in making plans regarding lands management, financial proposal, resources and caribous conservation as well as have jurisdiction and other powers to arbitrate other actors, they are supposed to promote transparency and accountability of laws avoiding corruption and bureaucratism[http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7037FCE4-1#_4_2 (Government of Canada,2017 )]. As a result the authorities will be regularly required to report their financial and conservation results and other material information about their political affairs to the public and to stakeholders. On the other hand, when planning and implementing measurements, the governments are supposed to make explicit researches by asking first nation or local industry in advance because of different habitat and environmental situation. And engaging with aborigines and local community is critical to identify caribou range, to restore destructed caribou habitat and to know the true situation of caribou situation about population dynamics, predators and food as well, which promotes the effiency of policies[https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmental-protection-and-sustainability/wildlife-and-conservation/wildlife-species-at-risk/woodland-caribou (Government of Saskatchewan)]

===Indigenous people ===
As for the aboriginals, inheriting the knowledge about caribou life history, habitat utilization, population dynamics and conservation approaches from ancestors or past experience, they have advantages over others in the promotion of the recovery strategy[http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7037FCE4-1#_4_2 (Government of Canada,2017)].What is more, construction suggestions in regard to restore damaged habitat can also be obtained from local community, which reduces the expenditure, increases the efficiency and establishes better protection zone. For instance, proper roads, trails and seismic line activity are able to be constructed in reasonable area, avoiding wildlife-human conflict[https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmental-protection-and-sustainability/wildlife-and-conservation/wildlife-species-at-risk/woodland-caribou (Governemrnt of Saskatchewan)].When it comes to indigenous people, what they gained from coordinated approach are not just the job opportunity and extra earnings, their spiritual culture, stewardship of land and customary rights are respected and consistent with caribou recovery goals[http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7037FCE4-1#_4_2 (Government of Canada, 2017)]. Meanwhile, indigenous people can also be concerned as regulators of power as well as guard of nature which means they are encouraged to report corruption and present emergency circumstances of caribou population toward superior department.

Although their previous knowledge is useful for conservation, they are supposed to acquire new conservation theory in order to accord with globalization trend. Focusing on homeland environmental conservation is essential, while concerning global environmental issues is also required.

===Stakeholders===
Just as indigenous people play an important role in caribou protection, stakeholders including local industry, private landowners and environmental associations contribute a lot to measurement consultation and implementation. Collecting annual review about caribous from other associations and comparing to local conditions, stakeholders sum up the points which are useful for local conservation [http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7037FCE4-1#_4_2_3 ( Government of Canada, 2017 )]. And they also invest in and conduct caribou research in order to maintain the population[https://www.naturallywood.com/sites/default/files/documents/resources/8599_fii_woodlandcaribou_april2017_web.pdf ( British Columbia Forest Facts, 2017 )].Likewise, rights and obligations of stakeholders ought to be supervised.

==Conclusion==

The woodland caribou’s declining population, due to overwhelming natural and anthropogenic disturbances has caused them to be placed under the Canadian Species At Risk Act (SARA) Due to the possible and detrimental impacts that the extinction could have on other species found in their ecosystem. As formally states, taking out a key prey for the wolves could cause a shift in the food web and the trophic levels which in result could cause other species to be placed in danger of extinction such as rabbits as they would become the wolves main food resource.

It is recommended that cooperation between bodies of government and well as private parties, participate to enforce jurisdiction of the conserved habitats of the caribou. More financial help toward preserving the habitat as well as funding research towards the impacts of industrialization, such as logging is important to help save the caribou, as well as the entire ecosystem. It is also key for government officials and private parties to acknowledge the cultural and spiritual connections that the Indigenous communities have with these mammals; working with individuals that have have passed down and first hand knowledge of the species and their habitat could be beneficial in passing legislation.

==References==

<references/>

{{Projectbox CONS200
|names=
|share=yes
}}

[[Category:Conservation]]

Environment Canada. (2013, January 25). Species at Risk Public Registry - Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population, in Canada – 2012. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1#_Toc337193641

Woodland caribou. (2017, August 03). Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/conservation-protection/13201

Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. 2013. Conservation Strategy For Boreal Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 2014.

Joly, K., & Klein, D. R. (n.d.). Complexity of Caribou Population Dynamics in a Changing Climate (U.S. National Park Service). Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.nps.gov/articles/aps-v10-i1-c7.htm

Devlin, C. (2011, January 14). Aboriginal Rights and Cumulative Effects: Are Woodland Caribou the new Canaries in the Not-So-Proverbial Coal Mine? Retrieved April 10, 2018, from http://www.dgwlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Paper_on_caribou_and_First_Nations_Devlin.pdf

Suzuki Foundation, D. (2013, July). The Cultural and Ecological Value of Boreal Woodland Caribou Habitat. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/report-caribou.pdf

Environment Canada. (2017, October 31). Species at Risk Public Registry - Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population in Canada for the Period 2012 to 2017. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=7037FCE4-1#_4_2

Woodland Caribou. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/environmental-protection-and-sustainability/wildlife-and-conservation/wildlife-species-at-risk/woodland-caribou

Wood, N. (2017). British Columbia's Woodland Caribou. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.naturallywood.com/sites/default/files/documents/resources/8599_fii_woodlandcaribou_april2017_web.pdf

Course:CONS200/Canada's Species At Risk Act (SARA) and the woodland caribou

2018-04-11T22:00:21Z

GabrielWan: /* Categories of Actors */

Add your introduction here<ref>Sample Reference</ref>. It should cover the nature of the issue or problem – location, duration, scope/scale, intensity/frequency/severity of negative impacts, current and predicted winners and losers if no remedial action(s) is (are) taken;

==Categories of Actors==
Gabriel Wan

[[File:Crepuscular Rays in GGP.jpg|thumbnail|right|Images from [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimedia Commons] can be embedded easily.]] Those positively affected and those negatively affected.

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) is a federal legislation passed in 2002 and was enacted in 2004. Its main objectives are to “prevent endangered or threatened species from becoming extinct or extirpated, help the recovery of endangered, threatened and extirpated species, and manage species of special concern to help prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. “ The decision to declare a species as endangered under SARA depends on the government, based on scientific assessments and public consultation. Once a species is declared, the Act demands recovery plans to be made, the steps required to increase the population of that particular species.
In addition to assessing different types of endangered species, SARA also promotes stewardship, taking care of nature by committee. Keeping natural resources such as water and air clean can be a highly influential factor towards regenerating the population of any type of species.
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/nature/science/especes-species/itm1

The status of the Woodland Caribou under the Species At Risk Act (SARA), is “Endangered (Atlantic-Gaspésie population), Threatened (Boreal population), and no status (Northern Mountain and Southern Mountain Populations).”
The status of the Woodland Caribou under the 2014 COSEWIC assessment is “Endangered (Atlantic-Gaspésie population and Southern Mountain population (BC, AB)), Threatened (Boreal population), and Special Concern (Northern Mountain population (YK, NT, BC)).”

The Woodland Caribou population is spread out throughout Canada. This type of species primarily exists in the Boreal forests of all provinces and territories except Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. Its total estimated population is 1.5 million in Canada. Sizes range from 1 to 1.2 meters high at the shoulder, and 110 to 210 kg in weight. Its average life span is 10 to 15 years.
The Woodland Caribou is one of three main types of Caribou in Canada. The other two being Peary and Barren-ground Caribou.

==The evidence for the problem==
olha yamelnytska

Sources, their relevance and reliability, balance of argument (for and against), bias declared or inferred;

===Description of threats===

====Habitat alteration====

====Hunting====

====Diseases and the introduction of new species====

====Impacts of pollution and climate change====

==Options for remedial action(s) ==
Malcolm Bissell

A rationalized and comparative evaluation of options from technical, social, cultural, economic, financial, political, legal points of view (not all of these categories will be relevant to all situations);

===Habitat Management/Landscape Level Planning===
The processes of Habitat Management and Landscape Level Planning involves making so the woodland caribou's ecosystem is able to support their population both now and in the future. <ref>http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=33FF100B-1</ref> As many threats both natural and human-caused has led to the dwindling of the woodland caribou's population, the planning has to take in to account how to slow down both causes. Actions taken under this technique involve setting up range plans and protected areas, observing and making studies of these ranges, and taking action based on those observations <ref>https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_boreal_caribou_revised_0811_eng.pdf</ref>

Politically, this option requires potential cooperation between multiple bodies of government, as a provincial government an federal government may need to coordinate with one another to decide on who holds and enforces jurisdiction in certain ranges across the country. This is imperative as confusion on who is responsible for what areas, can lead to the endangerment of more woodland caribou.

The formation of range plans deals with many legal aspects, as the Minister of Environment has to identify what legislation if any protects the woodland caribou from anthropological threats, for example, what specific law under the SARA secures the woodland caribous' safety. If it is found that a range is in need of legislation to protect it from outside threats, then in some instances the government would need to pass legislation protecting that area from human development and influence as seen in the image below.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Deforestation_2074483b.jpg

Habitat Managment and Landscape-level planning can both result in spending a fair amount of capital. Individuals will need to be paid for their studies and observations of the ranges, as well as those who will be needed to enforce the law in the protected areas from outside threats such as hunters or loggers. These processes require cooperation from a large group of people, and that can be costly.

Creating protected areas can have a negative economic effect in the short run since it prohibits industry such as logging and road development from expanding. In addition, range plans take in to account future human developments, so they too will suppress the development of those industries for an extended period of time

[[File:Https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Aboriginal with formosan dog.jpg|100px|framed]]
===Mortality and Population Management===
This process involves investigating woodland caribou activity and interactions as well as collaborating with different public groups to find what leads to an increase in deaths of this species as well as testing ways to decrease those numbers.

Technological-One way to find the behavior of the woodland caribou and the factors leading to its death, studies involving putting trackers on both wolves and caribou have been done to study factors such as "forest composition, age, and origin, as well as road density, food availability and predator/prey densities"ref>https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/conservation-protection/13201</ref> and see how they impact the longevity of this species. Cameras have been placed on caribou as well to get a more detailed and in-depth look at the life of the caribou, giving us useful information to create methods to decrease the mortality rates.

cultural- Certain groups of aboriginals "have longstanding spiritual connections with caribou, so the continued persistence of caribou is critical to the ongoing health and wellbeing
of indigenous communities in the North."<ref>http://www.dgwlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Paper_on_caribou_and_First_Nations_Devlin.pdf</ref> Government legislation prohibiting the hunting of Caribou has the potential to take away a large part of aboriginals culture and tradition shown by how hunting animals surrounds their lives in the image below.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Aboriginal_with_formosan_dog.jpg

Legal- The passing of legislation will be necessary for this process, as it would require the prohibition of hunting of woodland caribou in particular ranges where the numbers are depleted. This passing could prove to be difficult since it is hard to take a right away from a group when they have held it for some time.

financial- The studies and the equipment required to run them will certainly cost money, as well as enforcing rules and regulations passed to protect the caribou and their ecosystem. The implementation of plans for regulating woodland caribou predators like wolves or bears will require funds as well.

===Population Monitoring===

==Recommendations==
Ye Shen

Addressed to each of the main categories of actors;

==Conclusion==
You should conclude your Wiki paper with a ‘One Minute Message’ or ‘Elevator Message’ addressed to a relevant senior government or non-government policy advisor. This means a half page with three sections – (1) to summarize the topic, or some aspect of the topic, as a policy problem, (2) rationalization of the preferred option, and (3) a clear and specific proposal in simple language without jargon for policy-level actions.

==References==
Please use the Wikipedia reference style. Provide a citation for every sentence, statement, thought, or bit of data not your own, giving the author, year, AND page.
For dictionary references for English-language terms, I strongly recommend you use the Oxford English Dictionary. You can reference foreign-language sources but please also provide translations into English.

'''Note:''' Before writing your wiki article on the UBC Wiki, it may be helpful to review the tips in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles Wikipedia: Writing better articles].<ref>En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Writing better articles. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles [Accessed 18 Jan. 2018].</ref> (Note that - if you look on the edit screen for this page when you are logged in - you will also see this as an example of how to create a reference!)

<references/>

{{Projectbox CONS200
|names=
|share=yes
}}

[[Category:Conservation]]

Course:CONS200/Canada's Species At Risk Act (SARA) and the woodland caribou

2018-02-01T21:36:49Z

GabrielWan: /* Categories of Actors */

User:GabrielWan

2018-01-26T18:40:11Z

GabrielWan:

== About Me: ==

Hi! My name is '''Gabriel'''. I am a first year student at UBC in Urban Forestry. I am currently working on a CONS 200 Wiki Page.

== Section 1 ==

== Section 2 ==

== Section 3 ==

=== Section 3a ===

User:GabrielWan

2018-01-26T18:39:24Z

GabrielWan:

== About Me: ==

Hi! My name is '''Gabriel'''. I am a first year student at UBC in Urban Forestry. I am currently working on a CONS 200 Wiki Page.

=== Section 1 ===

=== Section 2 ===

=== Section 3 ===

==== Section 3a ====

User:GabrielWan

2018-01-26T18:33:30Z

GabrielWan:

User:GabrielWan

2018-01-26T18:32:39Z

GabrielWan:

== About Me: ==

Hi! My name is '''Gabriel'''. I am a first year student at UBC in Urban Forestry. I am currently working on a CONS 200 Wiki Page.

User:GabrielWan

2018-01-26T18:30:59Z

GabrielWan:

About Me:

Hi! My name is '''Gabriel'''. I am a first year student at UBC in Urban Forestry. I am currently working on a CONS 200 Wiki Page.

User:GabrielWan

2018-01-26T18:30:20Z

GabrielWan:

About Me:

Hi! My name is Gabriel. I am a first year student at UBC in Urban Forestry. I am currently working on a CONS 200 Wiki Page.

User:GabrielWan

2018-01-26T18:27:44Z

GabrielWan: Created page with "About Me: I am a first year student at UBC in Urban Forestry. I am currently working on a CONS 200 Wiki Page."

About Me:

I am a first year student at UBC in Urban Forestry. I am currently working on a CONS 200 Wiki Page.