Culturally Significant Entity’s – What are they

Aboriginal People have a deep connection to Country, the land, water and surrounding seas of Australia, considering Country as family, culture and identity (Kwaymullina, 2005). Country provides language, kinship and sacred names along with plants and animals, many of which have a spiritual, cultural or symbolic value placed on them (Sangha, Brocque, Costanza, & Cadet-James, 2015; Indigenous Reference Group, 2020). These species could be a totem, source of bush food, medicine, materials, part of ceremonial activities or are an indicator of Country’s health (Cresswell, Janke, & Johnston, 2021). In northern Western Australia, Freshwater Sawfish (Figure 1), for example, is part of the Nyikina People’s river totem as the species is found in the Fitzroy River (Murdoch University, Kimberly Language Resource Centre, Kimberly Land Council, 2004). The Nyikina People also eat Freshwater Sawfish when Barramundi and other fish aren’t readily available in the river.

When a species’ presence is essential to stabilising Aboriginal People’s culture over time, they are known globally as a ‘Cultural Keystone Species’ or in Australia, as a ‘Culturally Significant Entity’ (CSE) (Goolmeer, et al., 2022). Culturally Significant Entity is the preferred term in Australia as it recognises the spiritual, cultural or symbolic value of ecological communities, not just plants and animals. However, Culturally Significant Entity’s are not considered or protected in the same way as Threatened species or ecological communities by policy makers (Indigenous Reference Group, 2020; NESP, 2024).

Identifying Culturally Significant Entity’s

The scientific community has attempted to provide a standardised approach to identify Culturally Significant Entity’s, however, Indigenous knowledge, values and obligations are diverse and complex (Goolmeer, Costello, Skroblin, Rumpff, & Wintle, 2024). The cultural significance of a species or ecological community may not be consistent between Aboriginal People in the same community group, and can change with the culture (Indigenous Reference Group, 2020). Feral cats, for example, are culturally significant for some Aboriginal community groups (Figure 2) including the Kiwirrkurra People from the Gibson Desert in Western Australia, who consider cat meat desirable and use it for medicine (WA Feral Cat Working Group, 2021). Skilled Kiwirrkurra cat hunters are admired as they have a high degree of knowledge to effectively track cats.

Broadly, species or ecological communities considered Culturally Significant Entity’s align with three interconnected domains; Country, culture and kin (Goolmeer, et al., 2022). Country refers to the species or ecological community’s connection to the landscape and whether there are traditional management practices. Culture is the presence of traditional ecological knowledge, while kin refers to whether Aboriginal People are responsible for the species or ecological community’s existence (Goolmeer, et al., 2022). While this broad understanding can assist policy makers and companies identify Culturally Significant Entity’s in a particular geographical region, it is however recommended to engage directly with local Aboriginal People to understand cultural significance of the species or ecological community within your area (Campbell, et al., 2024; Indigenous Reference Group, 2020).

Management Opportunities

Identifying Culturally Significant Entity’s provides an opportunity to increase knowledge on a species and the health of a region (Russell, Sultana, Ngukurr Yangbala Rangers, & Ens, 2023; Goolmeer, et al., 2022). This knowledge can assist with conservation effort, not only in Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) where land is managed by Aboriginal People (Goolmeer, et al., 2022), but around Australia. Indigenous Protected Areas cover 57% of the Australian land mass, including areas with high conservation value, and protect a high level of biodiversity.

For the Laynhapuy IPA, located in the Northern Territory (Figure 3), for example, Bridget Campbell and the environmental team consulted with the Yolngu People, with assistance from the Yirralka Rangers who manage the IPA, to determine a list of priority species for management (Campbell, et al., 2024). Consultation involved interviewing senior knowledge holders about species they were concerned about and/or considered important, either as part of stories, songs and ceremony or as bush meat (Campbell, et al., 2024). During the interviews, the environmental team noted each species which was mentioned in an interview session and the reasons for the Yolngu People’s concern. What the environmental team found interesting was that Yolngu animal names not always align with a single scientific name. For example, Nyiknyik refers to all native rodents. In these instances, all species which fall within the animal group were noted and given the same reason for concern as provided by the Yolngu People.

Based on the interviews, 26 species were considered a priority for the Yolngu People, including two fish, four birds, nine mammals and 11 reptiles, and four animal groups including Nyiknyik (native rodents), Miyapunu (sea turtles), Ngukawu (short-necked turtles) and Djirikitj (quails) (Campbell, et al., 2024). The Yolngu People said the species either held an ancestral or ceremonial connection with them, or were bush meat. They also held concern for a bird, six reptiles, eight mammals, native rodents and short-necked turtles as they weren’t seen anymore; two fish species and seas turtles as traditional hunting methods had changed; and the effects of fire on quails.

Nine of the priority species identified by the Yolngu People, including five which are part of an animal group, are listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) (Table 1). Five of these species are also listed under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1976 (NT) (TPWC Act) along with three other species. Generally, for these listed species, policy makers and conservation groups would focus conservation and management actions on them, however, with the priority list, the Yolngu People can focus management efforts on all species considered culturally significant. Furthermore, the priority list is not static, it can change as priorities change due to cultural practices or concern for particular species, which allows for different management actions over time.

Common Name	Yolngu Name	Scientific Name	EPBC Act Status	TPWC Act Status
Northern Blue-tongued Skink	Dhamiingu	Tiliqua scincoides intermedia	CR	–
Northern Quoll	Barkuma	Dasyurus hallucatus	EN	CR
Olive Ridley Turtle	Miyapunu	Lepidochelys olivacea	EN	VU
Mertens’ Water Goanna	Wan’kawu	Varanus mertensi	EN	VU
Green Turtle	Miyapunu	Chelonia mydas	VU	–
Brush-tailed Rabbit-rat	Nyiknyik	Conilurus penicillatus	VU	EN
Hawksbill Turtle	Miyapunu	Eretmochelys imbricata	VU	VU
Flatback Turtle	Miyapunu	Natator depressus	VU	–
Northern Brushtail Possum	Marrngu	Trichosurus vulpecula arnhemensis	VU	–
Black-footed Tree-rat	Manbul	Mesembriomys gouldii gouldii	–	EN
Pale Field-rat	Nyiknyik	Rattus tunneyi	–	VU
Yellow-spotted Monitor	Djanda	Varanus panoptes	–	VU

Discussions on Culturally Significant Entity’s with the local Aboriginal People does not necessarily have to include all Culturally Significant Entity’s in a region, it can be focused on a specific group of species. For example, the South East Arnhem Land (SEAL) IPA in the Northern Territory, includes seven Aboriginal groups and is managed by a committee from the Ngukurr and Numbulwar communities (Figure 4). In 2016 and 2018, Russell, Sultana, Ngukurr Yangbala Rangers & Ens (2023) completed workshops and group interviews with the local Aboriginal knowledge holders to understand the occurrence and distribution of freshwater turtles in the SEAL IPA. The knowledge holders identified three freshwater turtles occur according to their Roper River Kriol name – Longnek tedul, Jinggijinggi tedul and Shotnek tedul, which corresponds to four freshwater turtles according to their scientific name Table 2).

Common Name	Roper River Kriol Name	Scientific Name
Cann’s Snake-necked Turtle	Jinggijinggi tedul	Chelodina canni
Northern Snake-necked Turtle	Longnek tedul	Chelodina rugosa
Northern Snapping Turtle	Shotnek tedul	Elseya dentata
Worrell’s Short-necked Turtle	Shotnek tedul	Emydura subglobosa worrelli

None of these freshwater turtles are listed under the EPBC Act or the TPWC Act; however, they are considered culturally significant as the species are part of songlines and ceremonies, with members of the Aboriginal community responsible for their persistence (Russell, Sultana, Ngukurr Yangbala Rangers, & Ens, 2023). For example, when a ceremony is occurring (based on cultural protocols), any Shotnek tedul caught are to be released back into the environment.

According to the Atlas of Living Australia (AoLA), on 11 November 2021 in the SEAL IPA, there were only ten records for the Northern Snake-necked Turtle (Chelodina rugosa) and two of the Northern Snapping Turtle (Elyesa dentata) with none for Cann’s Snake-necked Turtle (Chelodina canni) or Worrell’s Short-necked Turtle (Emydura subglobosa worrelli).  As a result of the workshops and group interviews, the Indigenous knowledge holders provided new records for Cann’s Snake-necked Turtle (59 records) and the Northern Snake-necked Turtle (436 records); 258 records for the Shotnek tedul were also provided.

Russell, Sultana, Ngujurr Yangbala Rangers & Ens (2023) added these records to the AoLA, with the Shotnek tedul records listed at the family level (Chelodinae) along with a note clarifying that they could either be the Northern Snapping Turtle or Worrell’s Short-necked Turtle.

The Indigenous knowledge holders also provided information on the habitat preferences for the freshwater turtles. For example, they explained that freshwater turtles occur in billabongs, lakes and rivers, with the Longnek tedul and Shotnek tedul commonly found in the same area, except for on the floodplain where only Longnek tedul is found (Figure 5).

Jinggijinggi tedul on the other hand, is only found in freshwater areas. Russell, Sultana, Ngujurr Yangbala Rangers & Ens (2023) noted priority areas for site visits and on-ground surveys for the species could be determined through utilising this information, which can provide further knowledge on population dynamics and aid conservation efforts. Similarly, Skroblin, Carboon & Martu (2017) worked with the Martu People in the Western Desert of Western Australia to understand the Greater Bilby (Macrotis lagotis) (Figure 6), which is considered culturally significant, and listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act and Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA).

During the collaboration, the Martu People provided insight on habitat types for the Greater Bilby such as they prefer salt lakes, mulga, laterite, sandplains, claypans and dune fields, where the soil isn’t too soft for their burrows to collapse but not too hard for them to struggle to dig (Skroblin, Carboon, & Martu, 2017). The Martu People also clarified that Greater Bilbies use multiple burrows during the night and will leave burrows over some nights before returning. These abandoned burrows can be utilised by snakes, sand goannas, hopping mice and other native species along with feral animals such as cats and rabbits. Through this knowledge, surveys and monitoring programs for the Greater Bilby can focus on these identified areas, with targeted management measures implemented for feral animals which utilise the abandoned burrows.

Through considering Culturally Significant Entity’s, the above examples have shown it benefits conservation and management measures by providing information on the habitat preferences and behaviour of species, and species which have become rare in a region. The information can then be utilised to target surveys in habitat types or for particular species to determine areas for conservation and management actions. Additionally, through including and consulting with the relevant Aboriginal groups to identify Culturally Significant Entity’s with the aim of conservation, it strengthens relations, engagement and communication. Consequently, identifying and documenting Culturally Significant Entity’s with cultural and ecological knowledge can provide more inclusive environmental and social outcomes, and offer new and effective social and environmental management practices. To expand our protection of Australia’s unique biodiversity it is recommended that Culturally Significant Entity’s are considered during desktop and field surveys as part of project planning through to project operations and closure as Culturally Significant Entity’s and desired management actions from the Aboriginal group can change overtime.

Integrate Sustainability Pty Ltd works with Aboriginal groups to understand their cultural ties to Country, with regard to heritage sites and Culturally Significant Entity’s, and is able to provide assistance if your business needs to understand the impacts of your activities on Aboriginal culture or heritage values. Please contact us by email at enquiries@integratesustainability.com.au or call us at 08 9468 0338.

ISPL Culturally Significant Entity’s – What are they PDF

References

Campbell, B., Russell, S., Brennan, G., Yirralka Rangers, Condon, B., Gumana, Y., . . . Ens, E. (2024). Prioritising animals for Yirralka Ranger management and research collaborations in the Laynhapuy Indigenous Protected Area, northern Australia. Wildlife Research, 51(10). doi:10.1071/WR24071

Cresswell, I., Janke, T., & Johnston, E. (2021). Australia: State of the environment 2021. Australian Government.

Goolmeer, T., Costello, O., Skroblin, A., Rumpff, L., & Wintle, B. (2024). Indigenous-led designation and management of Culturally Significant Species. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8, 1623-1631. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3868801/v1

Goolmeer, T., Skroblin, A., Grant, C., van Leeuwin, S., Archer, R., Gore-Birch, C., & Wintle, B. (2022). Recognising culturally significant species and Indigenous-led management is key to meeting international biodviersity obligations. Conservation Letters, 15, 1-9. doi:10.1111/conl.12899

Indigenous Reference Group. (2020). Submission to the 2020 independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: A case for Culturally Significant Entities. National Environmental Science Program.

Kwaymullina, A. (2005). Seeing the light: Aboriginal Law, learning and sustainable living in Country. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 6(11), 12-15.

Murdoch University, Kimberly Language Resource Centre, Kimberly Land Council. (2004). Biology and cultural significance of the freshwater sawfish (Pristic microdon) in the Fitzroy River Kimberly, Western Australia. Threatened Species Network.

NESP. (2024). Recognising culturally significant entities. Retrieved from National Environmental Science Program: https://nesplandscapes.edu.au/projects/nesp-rlh/culturally-significant-entities/

Russell, S., Sultana, R., Ngukurr Yangbala Rangers, & Ens, E. (2023). Mepimbat tedul proujek: Indigenous knowledge of culturally significant freshwater turtles addresses species knowledge gaps in Northern Australia. Austral Ecology, 48, 1306-1327. doi:10.1111/aec.13353

Sangha, K., Brocque, A., Costanza, R., & Cadet-James, Y. (2015). Ecosystems and Indigenous well-being: An integrated framework. Global Ecology and Conservation, 4, 197-206. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.06.008

Simon Fraser University. (2007). Sawfish. Flickr. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/sfupamr/14347378224/in/photostream/

Skroblin, A., Carboon, T., & Martu. (2017). Martu knowledge of Mankarr (Greater Bilby): Distribution, habitat, management. The Nature Conservancy Australia.

WA Feral Cat Working Group. (2021). Indigenous hunting. Retrieved from WA Feral Cat Working Group: https://wafcwg.org.au/information/indigenous-hunting/