Our article in the Journal of Ecotourism - countering misinformation about indigenous perspectives about climbing Mt Warning.

I have had a comment published in the Journal of Ecotourism!

The article counters misinformation promulgated by NPWS and the original authors that there is only one Indigenous perspective about the Mt Warning Summit Walk. In fact the TRUE custodians support the public accessing the summit and sadly NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and researchers from Southern Cross University failed to consult properly with them.  Imagine the difference to visitor attitudes if Ngaraakwal Elder Marlene Boyd’s inspirational message "How can the public experience the spiritual significance of this land if they do not climb the summit and witness creation." were posted at the foot of the walk or perhaps at the summit? 

Text appears below. The online version is available via this LINK. 

Journal of Ecotourism

Comment on ‘To climb or not to climb? Balancing stakeholder priorities at an iconic national park’ by Erica Wilson, Noah Nielsen, Pascal Scherrer, Rodney W. Caldicott, Brent Moyle & Betty Weiler

by Marc Hendrickx

ABSTRACT

Stakeholder theory provides a means of addressing and formulating responses to challenging issues in managing tourism in sensitive areas. In the case of a stakeholder study at Mt Warning National Park, the views of a key Aboriginal ownership group towards climbing the mountain were not included and their omission misrepresents Aboriginal attitudes to tourism in the park biasing the study outcome. A limitation of stakeholder theory is that significant gaps and policy outcomes emerge if key stakeholders are not consulted. The lack of formal connections of some Indigenous groups with official bodies in Australia makes it difficult to ensure ALL relevant voices are heard.

Introduction

Wilson et al (2017) draw on stakeholder theory to examine attitudes to climbing Mt Warning (Wollumbin or Wulambiny Momoli), a major tourist location in Northern NSW, Australia. Key to their study and the reason for controversy about visitor access in the Wollumbin (Mt Warning) National Park are certain Aboriginal attitudes to tourists climbing to the summit of the mountain via a walking track that was constructed in 1909. Wilson et al (2017) quote statements posted on signs at the base of the walk: “Climbing to the summit is against the wishes of Bundjalung elders” as being representative of Indigenous views about climbing to the summit. This view has been promulgated since 2006 by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS) who partly funded Wilson et al (2017). There are other Aboriginal Groups in the area however whose opinions differ from this, including representatives of the group who are acknowledged as being owners of the central caldera including the summit .  When the views of this group are taken into account the question about climbing is not “To climb or not to climb?” but more along the lines of “how and why you climb?”, and impacts significantly on the study’s recommendations for park management. 

Minority Stakeholders ignored

There is indisputable evidence for different Indigenous stories and attitudes about Mt Warning revealed by other Aboriginal groups that have been ignored by NSW park authorities and sadly also by Wilson et al., 2017. 

The Ngarakwal/Nganduwal people of northern NSW are widely regarded as the custodians of the central and northern parts of the Tweed Caldera including the summit .

According to the Ngarakwal/Nganduwal Mt Warning was called Wulambiny Momoli, and was actually an increase site where hunting was forbidden so that Brush-turkeys may replenish their numbers. The Ngarakwal/Nganduwal applied the name Wollumbin to a summit to the Northeast of Mount Warning and there has been calls by the land owner for that name to be returned. 

Marlene Boyd was an elder of the Ngarakwal people, and inherited the Bootheram (dreaming) of her people from her mother Millie Boyd, who was the Gulgan or keeper of Mt Warning and featured in anthropological studies in the area. In a 2007 interview with local newspaper  The Daily News  given just before she died, Marlene Boyd stated "Mt Warning is not the Fighting Chief as the Bundjalung claim. The real mountain gazetted as Mt Wollumbin is in Eungella and belongs to the McKenzie family.  We are the Wollumbin tribe who are traditionally the Ngarakwal/Nganduwal Aboriginal Moiety - we are the original custodians of Mt Warning. We are not Bundjalung."  In the interview she also accused "self-proclaimed Bundjalung elder" John Roberts, organiser of the Wollumbin Festival, of telling lies about Mt Warning: "He has no right to come into my ancestral Ngarakwal lands and tell such lies about the cultural lore of the mountain.” There was no problem with people climbing the mountain:  "I do not oppose the public climbing of Mt Warning - how can the public experience the spiritual significance of this land if they do not climb the summit and witness creation!" 

These views are supported by earlier statements from Indigenous elders. For instance in a 2000 Press Release Wijabul elder Fletcher Roberts stated claims people could not climb Mt Warning were “a modern day invention”, made by “someone who is overstepping his cultural responsibilities. ” Quoted in Germaine Greer’s book White Beech , Marlene Boyd’s brother Harry “made a submission to the Tweed Shire Council protesting against the perpetuation of the Bundjalung myth, the misuse of information from Indigenous elders and the lie of the dual identity of Mount Warning.” 

Clearly the Ngarakwal/Nganduwal  have a significant stake in the Park, but sadly it seems their views about climbing Mt Warning have been over looked and ignored. Imagine the difference to the study and visitor attitudes if Marlene Boyd’s inspirational message were posted at the foot of the walk or perhaps at the summit? 

Conclusion

Wilson et al (2017) acknowledge the importance of engaging with minority stakeholders: “not all stakeholders may have an equal say in the tourism planning process, and in particular, the needs of minority and Indigenous groups are at risk of being over looked or ignored altogether.”; but failed to include a significant stakeholder in their study limiting Indigenous representative to just three respondents, all from the same cultural group. 

Wilson et al (2017) conclude their study “Ultimately, Indigenous sensitivities and cultural needs must remain central to any stakeholder engagement processes in protected area management.“  I agree, but it is critical that the views of all Indigenous stakeholders are consulted and not just those with the loudest voices. 

A limitation of stakeholder theory is that significant gaps and policy outcomes emerge if key stakeholders are not consulted. Consulting with relevant Indigenous groups in Australia is complicated by the lack of formal connections some of those groups have with official bodies.