12.1 Introduction
One Health approaches seek to recognise the complex inter-relatedness and interdependence between Country, animals and peoples, an approach that Indigenous peoples have been refining for millennia.Footnote 1 It is through this lens that First Nations people share insights such as, ‘when Country’s sick, we are sick’ and a feeling of Country as Mother, noting the rich relationship between land and people. As One Health frameworks seek to transform from responding to incidents to being proactive in the prevention of future events, Indigenous Knowledges and wisdom will be integral to this transformation. Critically, Indigenous Knowledges should be placed at the centre of this movement, ensuring Indigenous leadership and self-determination permeates each aspect of future One Health models.
Indigenous Knowledges and their evolution across pre- and post-colonial Australia provide a demonstrated understanding and application of practices beyond One Health. Despite being most impacted by the failures of adopting interdisciplinary One Health approaches, particularly during colonisation, Indigenous Knowledges provide critical methodologies and governance structures to implement and understand the relationship between people, animals, and Country. Most recently, this was demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic whereby Indigenous peoples developed their own public health strategies to complement broader health directions. This included, but was not limited to, locking down communities and self-mobilising to obtain resources, even despite direct opposition from police.Footnote 2
There are a range of national and international agreements that inform how Indigenous rights and Knowledges should be applied in a One Health context. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),Footnote 3 for example, notes the right to the improvement of Indigenous health. Particular inclusion within UNDRIP are the rights that note Indigenous self-determination in relation to the active involvement in the development and determination of health programs, for access to healthcare services more broadly and the continuance of traditional health practices. Despite Australia endorsing UNDRIP in 2009, the Australian Human Rights Commission have remained critical over the implementation of these rights in Australian legislation,Footnote 4 and this impacts government approaches to collaboration and partnership with Indigenous communities and organisations. Australia has also ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which recognises the ecological knowledge of Indigenous peoples and the importance but not the requirement of free, prior, and informed consent in the application of such Knowledges. It also requires signatories to respect, preserve, and maintain Indigenous peoples’ ecological knowledge and practices in relation to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.Footnote 5 Australia is also a signatory to the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (Nagoya),Footnote 6 a global agreement that implements the access and benefit-sharing obligations of the CBD and extends the requirements (from the CBD) of Prior Informed Consent and Mutually Agreed Terms to Traditional Knowledge. The protocol creates a framework that ensures the fair and equitable sharing of benefits that arise from the use of genetic resources.Footnote 7 Yet again, the national implementation of the CBD and Nagoya Protocols are yet to influence practice for all Indigenous peoples across Australia.
Indigenous peoples have always seen this Country through connections, with an alignment between land, animals, and people demonstrated through embodiment and reflections in ceremonial dancing, for example, and trust between nations that we will all enact our role of protecting and caring for our individual countries. As such, One Health strategies should be developed and implemented in parallel with the UNDRIP, CBD, and Nagoya principles, particularly given the strong Caring for Country alignment and the vast connection that Indigenous peoples have with the various countries across Australia.
This chapter explores methods to reconceptualise and reorientate One Health understanding within Australia by aspiring to precolonial Indigenous ways of being and doing. Importantly, it also draws upon the post-colonial involvement and learnings of Indigenous peoples in Australia, integrating through self-determination or forced into modern economies and society. It is underpinned by the Indigenist research paradigm as articulated by Lester-Irabinna Rigney that places lived experience, ‘ideas, traditions, dreams, interest, aspirations, and struggles’ of First Nations individuals and communities at the centre of research to ‘serve and inform the Indigenous struggle for self-determination’.Footnote 8 The experiences, Knowledges and perspectives of First Nations peoples cannot be understood without centring and prioritising Indigenous voices. Consequently, this contribution is designed to place Indigenous understandings and priorities at its centre.
12.2 Pre-colonisation and Impact of Colonisation
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Australia’s Indigenous peoples, lived sustainably across Australia from time immemorial. Complex relationships and structures were developed, with each of the over 260 nations having developed a variety of languages and lifestyle systems synonymous with the landscapes in which they were living.Footnote 9 These landscapes formed part of Indigenous identity, with Indigenous peoples referring to themselves as belonging to certain Countries or nations, which provided context for marriage and other customary lore.
Indigenous peoples used a strict skin and totemic based system for the care and connection of animals in Australia. These totemic structures, in their simplest understanding, ensured that Indigenous peoples respected aspects of the land in different ways to one another, thereby ensuring the protection of species and thereby the land.Footnote 10 This strategy ensured Country, and therefore animals and people, was cared for deeply and carefully by First Nations communities.
During the initial stages and activities of colonisation, and the nuanced practices that made up colonisation through successive activities across country, Indigenous peoples were the first impacted by the failure of One Health models and the breakdown of their lifestyles across Australia.Footnote 11 During many instances of colonisation, livestock, disease and fractured Indigenous communities were forced through neighbouring landscapes prior to non-Indigenous peoples, thinking and recording.
The commentary on the health and physique of Indigenous peoples was, however, reflected upon in early journals and subsequently noted in the place names given in the landscape. Locations, such as Manly, reflect on this viewpoint noting the physical attributes of the Indigenous people witnessed.Footnote 12 These reflections in early journals provide further context for growing scholarly discussion regarding Indigenous agricultural systems prior to colonisation and the parklike aesthetics of Country, synonymous to European lands, viewed by early colonisers.Footnote 13
Importantly, the process of agriculture is one colonising action, impacting landscapes seen as ‘wastelands’ to cultivate soils and drive Indigenous peoples off Country.Footnote 14 As the biggest land-use category of lands across Australia,Footnote 15 the process of agriculture created tension between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. Importantly, this tension is still felt today as farmers compete with Indigenous Native Title rights in fear of losing land for agricultural purposes.Footnote 16
Indigenous labour was particularly sought after during the early stages of colonisation, as farmers took over landscapes.Footnote 17 However, the result of not prioritising Indigenous Knowledges, and the subsequent colonisation through agricultural systems has resulted in, since 1940, 25 per cent of all infectious diseases and 50 per cent of zoonotic infectious diseases emerging in humans globally being associated with agricultural drivers.Footnote 18
12.3 Current State
While the reflection on historic experiences provides context for the current state, it is important to note the evolution of Indigenous Knowledges over this period for relevance in today’s society; that Indigenous systems did not just stop with colonisation, nor was culture lost or stuck in time, but instead it transformed with society too. This is despite anthropological rhetoric that affixes Indigenous culture to time and place,Footnote 19 incapable of transformation. Actions across this landscape demonstrate adaptability of this culture to new industries and economies; for example, selling early fishing harvests to the colony for survival.Footnote 20 By exploring Indigenous Knowledges through this lens, the opportunities for unlocking Indigenous thinking and systems are demonstrated through historic and more recent Indigenous evolutions.
Importantly, this chapter is written with the key awareness that One Health systems, much alike broader healthcare frameworks, continue to fail in understanding Indigenous perspectives.Footnote 21 Current Closing the Gap targets, the Federal and State Government commitments to address social determinant discrepancies between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, demonstrate some improvement in terms of Indigenous life expectancy and healthy children, though overarchingly showing a worsening rating for social and emotional wellbeing.Footnote 22 Importantly, no health outcomes, such as Indigenous children being born healthy and strong compared to non-Indigenous children, are on track for Closing the Gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous health areas.Footnote 23
Having experienced the challenges of health systems, in Australia, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) were established to engage better with Indigenous communities and provide a range of health support for Indigenous peoples. ACCHOs have long adopted a broader and more holistic definition of health, which provides context for Indigenous health as part of One-Health frameworks, defined in the Constitution of the National peak body as:
“Aboriginal health” means not just the physical well-being of an individual but refers to the social, emotional and cultural well-being of the whole Community in which each individual is able to achieve their full potential as a human being thereby bringing about the total well-being of their Community. It is a whole of life view and includes the cyclical concept of life-death-life.Footnote 24
12.4 The Indigenous Estate
Indigenous land holdings represent 56 per cent of Australia’s landmassFootnote 25 with government aspirations to grow the ‘Indigenous Estate’, in respect to both land and sea country, by 15 per cent.Footnote 26 This large representation of Indigenous interests in land cements opportunities for Indigenous inclusion in the space, practically demonstrating the connection to landscapes right across the Country for the incorporation of One Health principles, nuanced to traditional homelands.
Land use, and therefore land ownership, is integral for One Health approaches, as approximately 22 per cent of infectious diseases in Australia have been associated with land use and native vegetation change, including Hendra virus.Footnote 27 This means that future land use changes, self-determined and driven by Indigenous peoples, will have a direct impact on One Health reactionary practices but also the prevention of such events.
The World Bank recently noted that about 36 per cent of remaining intact forests are on Indigenous Peoples’ lands, with First Nations communities safeguarding 80 per cent of the world’s remaining biodiversity.Footnote 28 While specific data is not available regarding the comparisons between Indigenous managed landscapes and non-Indigenous lands, this international approach suggests that future land title changes will provide future protection for Australia’s forests and biodiversity.Footnote 29
However, despite this access to land, much of the country remains used by non-Indigenous peoples.Footnote 30 This is further reflected in terms of Indigenous representation across the agricultural sector, with low levels of employment, representing just 1.8 per cent of the current agricultural workforce,Footnote 31 and a pipeline of less than five Indigenous agricultural graduates across every university in Australia.Footnote 32
12.5 Australia, Indigenous Knowledges, and the One Health Domains
The adoption, development, and implementation of One Health in Australia is still in its infancy, largely propelled into the spotlight by the arrival of COVID-19.Footnote 33 However, attempts to bring together Western understandings of health and Indigenous Knowledges across the three One Health domains – human, animal, and environmental health – have been underway for decades. While the narrative underpinning these efforts has typically been framed in Western narratives through a deficit-based discourse relating to the health inequalities for Indigenous peoples,Footnote 34 in recent years it has slowly been transitioning towards a more strengths-based foundation.Footnote 35
The transitions and initiatives currently underway across the One Health domains are perhaps best conceptualised as processes of indigenisation and/or decolonisation. In a One Health context, Indigenisation centres on systems that perpetuate colonial values and privileges Western Knowledges and ways of working. It is a collaborative process that involves the transformation of colonial spaces to integrate Indigenous peoples’ diverse perspectives and approaches. Indigenisation is not merely confined to projects, programs, and services; it is embedded by positioning Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing to the core of institutional structures and – by extension – into the principles, policies, and practices of colonial institutions. Decolonisation, on the other hand, centres on the dismantling of colonial systems and structures, deconstructing Western ideologies that privilege colonial knowledge and methods as superior, and revitalise Indigenous Knowledges and practices through a prism of sovereignty and self-determination. Both indigenisation and decolonisation play a critical role in advancing a holistic view of health, which aligns with both the concept of One Health and Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing.Footnote 36
12.6 Intersections across One Health Domains
12.6.1 Human Health
In relation to ‘human’ health – which typically dominates discussions of health in colonial spaces – it has long been established that Western biomedical approaches normalise deficit discourses upon Indigenous peoples and racism, resulting in health inequalities for Indigenous peoples.Footnote 37 Calls for changes to the health system to both indigenise and decolonise primary care have led to a wide range of initiatives, including the ongoing leadership and advocacy of organisations such as the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) and the Gayaa Dhuwi (Proud Spirit) Australia;Footnote 38 research and programs stemming from the Poche Centres for Indigenous Health across the country and other research efforts such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funded Decolonising Practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care Project (2018–2023);Footnote 39 the development of culturally valid clinical testing and best practice;Footnote 40 and the establishment of Indigenous-led ‘best practice’ organisations such as the Lowitja Institute and the Balit Durn Durn Centre which prioritises culturally valid research,Footnote 41 knowledge exchange, and coordination and expansion of Social and Emotional Wellbeing Services to both non-Indigenous and ACCOs. While these examples represent a fraction of the initiatives that have been led by Indigenous peoples for decades, they are emblematic of the foundation pillars that drive the efforts of Indigenous peoples, communities, and organisations: a holistic conceptualisation of health and the criticality of self-determination.
12.6.2 Animal Health
Understanding of Indigenous Knowledges and the intersections between ‘animal’ health and ‘human’ health in a One Health context across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities has been evolving in recent years, led by Wiradjuri scholar Tamara Riley. Riley highlights that, while One Health aligns with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ holistic view of health, Australia’s current health systems do not ‘adequately account for the impact of animal and environmental factors that contribute to human health outcomes’.Footnote 42 Riley emphasises the importance of collaborative approaches at the ‘animal-human-environment interface’,Footnote 43 stating that Indigenous governance and leadership is limited and argues in favour of an integrated national health system where Indigenous leadership and engagement is embedded through the development of strong networks and governance structures.Footnote 44 Such an approach, which would create space for Indigenous communities to decide what to prioritise and what steps to take, aligns with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Footnote 45
12.6.3 Environmental Health
Environmental systems across Australia create fertile ground for both indigenisation and decolonisation of systems, structures, and ways of doing. The need for such approaches has never been greater; since colonisation, Australia has lost 40 per cent of its forests and nineteen ecosystems are showing signs of collapse (or near collapse).Footnote 46
The ‘2021 State of the Environment Report’ highlights that partnerships between Indigenous and Western approaches to biodiversity management show promise. The introduction and expansion of the Indigenous ranger programs and Protected Area programs – which combine traditional techniques with modern science approaches to protect ecosystems – create space for Indigenous communities to be directly involved and create ‘locally driven, country-specific approaches into biodiversity actions’.Footnote 47 The Report noted, however, that despite their success, these ‘programs and opportunities to work on Country are limited’.Footnote 48 There are many such examples where Indigenous Knowledges play a critical role in manifesting the outcomes that One Health is seeking to achieve, spanning across a wide range of fields including wildlife management,Footnote 49 fire management,Footnote 50 and so on, all of which suffer from similar resourcing constraints and practice and policy limitations.
12.7 Indigenous Governance
Governance is about who holds power, authority, and responsibility, who decides and how decisions are made.Footnote 51 Australian Indigenous governance scholarship emphasises that pre-colonisation and beyond, Indigenous peoples continue to assert sovereignty in the face of an ongoing occupation.Footnote 52 Despite sustained efforts since colonisation to deny, disrupt, and eradicate Indigenous peoples’ connection to Country and relegate Indigenous peoples to the role of stakeholder – rather than as sovereign nations that operate independent of colonial systems and structures – Indigenous governance endures and continues to be revitalised.Footnote 53 Indeed, governance models provide an important framework for the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledges into existing and new frameworks.
Kuku Yalanji scholar, Leah Talbot, highlights the need to distinguish between Indigenous cultural governance – where decision-making and ways of working are founded in ‘social and cultural fabric and community law or lore systems that govern Indigenous People as a society or nation’Footnote 54 – and Indigenous organisational governance, which is born from the attempts of settler-colonial states, such as Australia, to establish structures that ‘facilitate Indigenous People to make decisions for and on behalf of themselves’.Footnote 55 This is typically supported through policies and legislation. Both forms of governance play a critical role and co-exist with one another to facilitate positive outcomes for Indigenous peoples. Within these systems are the tools to engage in indigenisation and decolonisation efforts, as both Indigenous cultural governance and Indigenous organisational governance are underpinned by the following Indigenous governance principles: (1) sovereignty; (2) self-determination; (3) sui generis rights founded in ‘the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples to the land they have occupied since time immemorial’; and (4) that Indigenous peoples’ rightful decision-making role stems from these rights.Footnote 56 In collaborative and partnership settings, settler-colonial responses to the implementation of these principles is typically interpreted as a political act, where the assertion of sovereignty through self-determination is viewed as a threat to colonial power. This often leads to governance arrangements where settler colonial mechanisms do not adequately support these principles in practice.
Across the One Health domains, this tension is best exemplified by the evolution of Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (‘EPBC Act’). When originally enacted, the EPBC Act – Australia’s primary national environmental legislation relating to matters of national significance – was seen as a modest contribution that was (arguably unduly) narrow in scope.Footnote 57 A recent independent review of the EPBC Act was undertaken in October 2020.Footnote 58 This highlighted numerous failures of the EPBC Act in fulfilling its objectives in relation to ‘the role of Indigenous Australians in protecting and conserving biodiversity, working in partnership with and promoting the respectful use of their knowledge’.Footnote 59 The Independent Review found a range of structural and systemic failures impacting on effective Indigenous governance, including that the EPBC Act: (1) does not fully support the rights of Indigenous peoples in decision-making; (2) does not meet the aspiration of Traditional Owners for managing their land; and (3) is currently a barrier to holistic environmental management. The Independent Review went further, highlighting that current approaches were ‘tokenistic’, stating that the Act prioritises Western science and, consequently, Indigenous Knowledges and views are not ‘fully valued’ in decision-making. These findings are a good example of the ways in which Indigenous organisational governance systems can be undermined by the colonial structures and ways of working that necessitated their creation. In contrast, the Independent Review’s recommendations go some way to demonstrating the opportunities to embed good governance through the application of the four Indigenous governance principles. There were a range of recommendations focusing on: strengthening Indigenous leadership value of Indigenous Knowledges in existing governance structures and partnerships; developing National Environment Standards on best-practice Indigenous engagement, participation, and decision-making; and the adoption of co-design and Indigenous-led processes as a core component of efforts made under the Act.
In December 2022 the Australian Government released a response to the Independent Review – the Nature Positive Plan – committing to a range of initiatives stemming from the Independent Review’s recommendations.Footnote 60 This step towards national reform reflects progress already underway in Australia, such as Queensland’s Biodiscovery Act 2004, which introduced protections for the use of traditional knowledge in biodiversity.Footnote 61 Consultations for the Nature Positive Plan commenced in October 2023, with a view to introducing new environment and cultural heritage laws in 2024, but this has been delayed indefinitely.Footnote 62 At the time of writing, the extent to which the Independent Review’s recommendations are embedded in these reforms is unknown.
Other models for advancing Indigenous interests across the One Health spectrum also require Indigenous governance models and leadership. Initiatives include the National Indigenous Environmental Research Network (NIERN).Footnote 63 This is an Indigenous-led strategic initiative to support Indigenous leadership and participation in biodiversity conservation and environmental management,Footnote 64 which is currently underway, and a proposed Indigenous Agricultural Research and Development Corporation (IARDC).Footnote 65
12.8 Potential Future State
The introduction of One Health as part of the ‘mainstream’ discourse presents opportunities for a recalibration of One Health in an Australian context that embraces and centres Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing. In a position statement on One Health, the Australian Medical Association stated that ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders should have a central role in developing One Health policies’, also acknowledging the vital expertise of Indigenous Peoples in caring for Country,Footnote 66 and the similarities between the concept of One Health and Connection to Country.Footnote 67 The lack of adequate coordination across jurisdictions and sectors across Australia to achieve a One Health approach to date also presents an opportunity to build a system that centres Indigenous Knowledges and governance structures to benefit Australia as a whole. While these examples pave the way for cautious optimism, it is important to note that, to date, the steps taken towards One Health at the federal level – such as the development of the One Health Master Action Plan for Australia’s National Antimicrobial Resistance Strategy – 2020 & Beyond, and the inclusion of One Health as a core principle in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Indo-Pacific Centre for Health Security – made no mention of Indigenous Knowledges or communities at all.
It is unsurprising that initial conceptions of One Health in an Australian context privilege Western approaches; when examining the concept of One Health for Indigenous communities, Hiller et al. identified three major themes that focused on One Health: climate change, zoonosis, and social relationships between humans and animals. No significant connection between One Health and Indigenous Knowledges was established and the implications of utilising One Health towards Indigenous Peoples and culture was not explicitly addressed.Footnote 68
To date there has been little emphasis placed on understanding and incorporating traditional Indigenous Knowledges within the One Health framework;Footnote 69 arguably, the assumption that Indigenous Knowledges are required to fit in and ‘inform’ yet another Western framework highlights the ongoing limitations of Western approaches. The interim Australian Centre for Disease Control (ACDC),Footnote 70 for example, which has identified One Health as key priority for the ACDC when it is established in 2025, refers to First Nations organisations as a key stakeholder.Footnote 71 While the inclusion of Indigenous peoples is an important step in the right direction in the context of One Health – one that presents opportunities to embed Indigenous Knowledges and ways of knowing, being, and doing nationally – it also raises important questions about the role of Indigenous peoples in the context of One Health. Is it appropriate to confine Indigenous peoples to the role of ‘stakeholder’ on one’s own unceded lands, where Indigenous Knowledges are critical to the success of a holistic approach to health in Australia? As Libby Porter highlights:
Conceptualising Indigenous peoples as ‘stakeholders’ in planning processes fails to appreciate their unique status as original owners of country that was wrested from them by the modern, colonial state. As Langton points out, within Indigenous law rests the notion that ‘Aboriginal people are born with an inchoate, inherited and transmissible right in a “country”’ (Langton, 1997, p. 1). Indigenous peoples in Australia must occupy a position more significant than that of another stakeholder in land management questions.Footnote 72
The answer lies in finding opportunities across the indigenisation–decolonisation spectrum to centre place-based solutions and Indigenous Knowledges to achieve One Health outcomes. Examples throughout this chapter demonstrate strides already being taken in this space; additionally, the work of civil society organisations such as Wildlife Health Australia and the Foundation for Indigenous Sustainable Health are also examples of what can be achieved. There are also opportunities to embed Indigenous Knowledges and governance at an organisational level through Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs).Footnote 73 While RAPs are by no means a ‘cure-all’ for organisational change, they can play a meaningful role facilitating holistic, place-based solutions that create space for Indigenous leadership.
Additionally, there are opportunities for systemic and structural change through the ongoing treaty processes that are in train across several jurisdictions. In Victoria, for example, where treaty negotiations commenced in November 2024, the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria – an independent and democratically elected body to represent Traditional Owners and Indigenous peoples in Victoria – has stated that ‘nothing is off the table’, paving the way for sovereignty and self-determination across a range of One Health domains. In South Australia, the First Nations Voice to Parliament presents an opportunity for Indigenous peoples to raise community priorities and concerns directly to decision-makers (including parliament). While not a decision-making body, it creates further opportunities for Indigenous peoples to improve outcomes for communities across South Australia. There are many other opportunities to better reorient current approaches – implementing the UNDRIP into domestic law, for example – that would create the conditions for a One Health approach that reflects Australia’s existing strengths and expertise. In this way, Australia would be well placed to apply a critical lens to the existing discussions surrounding One Health, which continue to perpetuate the existing Western structural biases and power dynamics.Footnote 74 This is best exemplified by the ‘human-first’ approach to One Health, where animals and the environment merely become the means by which human health outcomes are achieved.Footnote 75
12.9 Conclusion
This chapter has explored the need for the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledges into One Health Governance frameworks, ensuring the alignment of these models to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If One Health is to succeed as an integrated system, First Nations input is essential, not only as the proprietors of critical information and Knowledges but also given the drastic land interests and connection to Country to prevent future events.
The recent COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of prioritising Indigenous Knowledges and centring our methods and approaches when dealing with pandemics, creating tools and resources to effectively engage with Indigenous people and prevent catastrophic risk to Indigenous communities at large. As Australia commits more broadly to One Health, UNDRIP, CBD, and Nagoya principles must be incorporated to effectively engage and centre Indigenous voices for success.
