The Australian Indigenous-led bush products sector: Insights from the literature and recommendations for the future

Abstract

The development of an Australian Indigenous-led bush products sector presents opportunities for Indigenous Australians to create new livelihoods, and build on existing enterprises, based on their unique knowledge systems and long established socio-cultural and environmental management practices. This review draws on Australian literature from 2005 to 2018 to establish a better understanding of the benefits that could result from the development of this sector in northern Australia; identify the key challenges that need to be addressed to facilitate sector development; and identify possible solutions. Insights reveal that while there are significant, and potentially self-sustaining opportunities offered by the development of the sector, these are unlikely to be realised without appropriate actions to resolve knowledge and skills gaps and address significant social, cultural and legal challenges. We propose a conceptual framework for the appropriate, sustainable and self-sustaining growth of the sector and end with policy and research recommendations to support growth.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13280-021-01542-w.

Introduction

Indigenous peoples play a leading role in sustainable land management practices (Garnett et al. 2018; Brondizio et al. 2019), having managed their lands effectively for many thousands of years. Within Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (hereafter referred to as Indigenous Australians) are significant landholders with responsibility for managing substantial tracts of land and sea Country (e.g. currently, 78% of northern Australian land is subject to Indigenous interests1). Unique Indigenous land and sea management knowledge systems underpin complex management practices that have developed over more than 60,000 years of close interaction with the environment. As the oldest living culture, Indigenous Australians have been cultivating, harvesting, processing and consuming native species, and intervening in the productivity of their land, for many thousands of years (Pascoe 2014). Management practices are enacted by different clan groups across Australia, supporting sustainable livelihoods on Country (the term used for the customary land and sea estates of Indigenous Australians). They include cultural responsibilities to Country, (e.g. maintenance and intergeneration transfer of knowledge) which is the foundation of all culturally informed and connected actions on ancestral lands. Indigenous Australians also have a long history of entrepreneurship (Hindle 2007), having conducted trade and commercial activities within Australia, and with neighbouring nations long before colonisation.

Internationally, Indigenous land and sea management-related businesses include enterprises across diverse sectors including biodiversity conservation (e.g.Woodward 2008; Maclean et al. 2013), agriculture (e.g. Rodríguez Valencia et al. 2019), aquaculture (e.g. Fleming et al. 2015), horticulture (e.g. Robinson et al. 2016), fisheries (e.g. Fleming 2015), pastoralism and herding (e.g. Buchanan et al. 2016) and, increasingly, bioenergy (e.g. Zurba and Bullock 2019).

In Australia, the Indigenous-led bush products sector presents opportunities for entrepreneurship, building on long established cultural and environmental management traditions that have evolved over tens of thousands of years. Research identifies that development of this sector may generate economic benefits to Indigenous people (e.g. wages, profits, royalties) based on their knowledge of plants and their uses. For example, Indigenous knowledge has contributed to the commercial development of over 15 bush food species, including macadamias, desert raisins and Gubinge/Kakadu Plum (Gorman et al. 2019; Woodward et al. 2019), and a review of tropical species with potential for Indigenous-led development revealed many other possibilities (Whitehead et al. 2006). This has stimulated Indigenous interest to explore opportunities presented by the commercialisation of bush-derived products (White 2012).

Research indicates that enterprise development on Indigenous-owned lands can provide benefits in the areas of health and well-being, culture, environmental management and politics/self-determination (see Jarvis et al. 2018b; Larson et al. 2019; Maclean et al. 2019; Woodward et al. 2019), and also that the establishment of Indigenous land-based businesses can lead to self-sustaining growth in Indigenous-owned business more generally (Jarvis et al. 2018a). However, the full range of potential benefits offered by development of the emerging bush products sector are not generally well understood, nor are the potential challenges that act to restrict development of the sector and realisation of these benefits. This paper fills this knowledge gap. It provides a review of the Australian academic, practitioner and grey literature, considering the potential benefits and challenges facing further development of the Australian Indigenous-led bush products sector. It highlights the need for future research and the development of policy to support appropriate, sustainable and self-sustaining growth of this important sector.

Methodology

This literature review formed part of the outputs of a multi-disciplinary research project, which sought to create new knowledge to support the development of the Indigenous-led bush products sector in Northern Australia (Project references omitted to preserve anonymity for review but can be inserted at later date). The methodology for this review was developed by the Indigenous-led project team with the objective that the review be reliable and comprehensive, and also relevant to the development of the sector within northern Australia.

The ‘Systematic review’ methodology was adopted; this process is discussed further within Supplementary Materials. Our methods are described below and illustrated within Supplementary Materials (Supplementary Figure).

Searching

Literature was identified via a systematic process:

1. The Web of Science database and the Google Scholar search engine were searched during November 2018. Searches were restricted to include publications from 1st January 2005 to November 2018. Google Scholar searches were restricted to the first 50 most relevant publications for each of the search terms (determined by the authors):

   1. Literature must include all of these terms:

      • (i)
        Indigenous and/or Aboriginal
      • (ii)
        Enterprise(s) and/or business(es)
      • (iii)
        Australia
   2. Literature must include at least one of the following terms: Bush products; bush foods; bush tucker; botanicals; native plant nurseries; healthcare products; medicinal products; supply chain; value chain; value added; export.

2. Supplement identified literature with additional publications identified by the project team.

The inclusion criteria were developed by the Indigenous-led project team, based upon their diverse and extensive personal knowledge and experiences. The Indigenous members of team were an Indigenous entrepreneur (previously involved in a range of business start-ups including bush products enterprises), an executive office of an Aboriginal Corporation (with diverse interests including a native plant nursery), and a senior ethnobotanist. The non-Indigenous members of the team contributed experience gained from operational involvement in the Australian native food and botanical sector and within Indigenous land and sea management programs, and from relevant economic and social science research collaborations with Indigenous groups.

The selection of search terms was debated and agreed by the project team, being guided by the agreed project focus on bush foods and bush products (not related arts & crafts) and with the agreed aim of using bush product-based enterprises (including supply and value chains) for the economic and social advancement of Indigenous Peoples and their communities within Australia. The geographic focus was restricted to Australian experiences (acknowledging this excludes the extensive body of literature relating to Canadian and New Zealand Indigenous entrepreneurship) to ensure the findings were able to contribute to current and future developments within Australia, recognising the legal, historic and cultural differences between Australia and elsewhere.

The date range was selected to ensure the review be comprehensive and able to guide current and future development within the sector (requiring a focus on relatively recent publications). January 2005 was selected to encompass literature generated by significant developments within Australia including those related to Indigenous advancement2 and the advent of the Closing the Gap targets in 2008.3 This date also captured relevant literature known to the team from previous research, without being so early that the findings would have been superseded by subsequent events not relevant to future development. The end date for the search criteria corresponded with the time frame of the project.

Based on these criteria, 33 publications were revealed from searching the Web of Science and 206 from Google Scholar. An additional 39 publications were separately sourced from project team members who, following agreement of the search terms and research themes, contributed literature they had previously encountered.

Screening

Following elimination of duplicate items, the remaining 267 publications were screened. The identified journal articles were initially screened by abstract and key words, then by an assessment of the full text; grey literature was screened via assessment of the full text. The screening process sought to ensure that analysed publications satisfied the intent of the search criteria, i.e. meeting the criteria in spirit rather than purely on a technicality. Critically evaluating the selected publications identified those that were outside scope (perhaps focussing on Indigenous art and crafts, or on bush products outside of Australia) but had been selected by the automated search engine process due to brief mentions of one or more of our specific search terms. For example, a study of bush products businesses in New Zealand referring to Australia as another location where such research may be relevant, or a study of an Australian Arts Centre describing how some artists used bush products within their work. Following screening, 105 eligible publications remained for critical appraisal and synthesis within the review.

Critical appraisal and synthesis

The publications were critically appraised and classified according to pre-identified research themes. Two themes were selected by the project team prior to the literature search and were informed by the knowledge and experience of the project team (see “Searching” section above). It was considered essential that papers provided a better understanding of the proven and potential benefits to Indigenous individuals and communities. The aim was to promote future development of the sector to ensure such benefits be maximised. The team also recognised that despite acknowledgement that bush product business development may be beneficial (to a greater or lesser extent), in practice, widespread development of the sector has not been seen within Australia. Thus, gaining a better understanding of the challenges to sector development, and how they could be addressed, was considered a priority, and hence forms the second theme for this review.

This process revealed publications outside the research themes of interest, instead describing existing Indigenous-led bush products and/or businesses, or frameworks for analysing the bush products sector. Their elimination left 62 publications for synthesis within the review.

During the appraisal process, it was noted that some publications related to one theme only, whereas others related to both. Overall 31 papers were relevant only to theme 1: benefits, while 54 papers related to theme 2: challenges (see Table 1 for synthesis by theme).

Table 1.

Final 62 papers identified indicating their relevance to each of the themes identified

Paper	Theme 1: Benefits	Theme 2: Challenges
Austin and Garnett (2011)	✓
Banerjee and Tedmanson (2010)		✓
Bodle et al. (2018)		✓
Brueckner et al. (2014)		✓
Bryceson (2008)		✓
Cleary (2012)	✓
Cleary et al. (2009)	✓
Cleary et al. (2008)	✓	✓
Collier et al. (2011)	✓
Commonwealth of Australia (2015)		✓
Commonwealth of Australia (2017)		✓
Corey et al. (2018)	✓
Cunningham et al. (2009a)	✓	✓
Cunningham et al. (2009b)		✓
Davies et al. (2008)	✓	✓
Davis et al. (2009)		✓
Drahos (2011)		✓
Evans et al. (2010)	✓	✓
Evans et al. (2009)		✓
Fernando et al. (2011)		✓
Flamsteed and Golding (2005)	✓	✓
Fleming (2015)	✓	✓
Fleming et al. (2015)	✓	✓
Foley (2006)		✓
Foley and Hunter (2013)		✓
Frederick and Foley (2006)		✓
Gill (2005)	✓	✓
Gorman et al. (2006)		✓
Greiber et al. (2012)		✓
Holcombe et al. (2011)	✓	✓
Hume et al. (2013)	✓
Janke (2018)	✓	✓
Janke and Sentina (2018)		✓
Lee (2012)	✓	✓
Lee and Courtenay (2016)		✓
Lingard (2016)	✓	✓
Lingard and Martin (2016)	✓	✓
Lingard and Perry (2018)		✓
Logue et al. (2018)	✓	✓
Marinova and Raven (2006)		✓
McDonald et al. (2006)	✓	✓
McGregor and James (2011)		✓
McRae-Williams and Guenther (2014)		✓
Merne Altyerre-ipenhe (Food from the Creation time) Reference Group et al. (2011)	✓	✓
Morse and Janke (2010)		✓
Nikolakis (2008)		✓
Pearson and Helms (2013)		✓
Robinson (2010)		✓
Robinson and Raven (2017)		✓
Robinson et al. (2018)	✓	✓
Schaper (2007)		✓
Shoebridge et al. (2012)		✓
Simpson et al. (2013)	✓	✓
Spencer et al. (2016)		✓
Spencer et al. (2017)	✓
Tedmanson and Guerin (2011)	✓
Venn (2007)		✓
Walsh and Douglas (2011)	✓	✓
White (2012)	✓	✓
Wood and Davidson (2011)	✓	✓
Yates (2009)	✓	✓
Zander et al. (2014)	✓	✓

Results

The 62 publications analysed in this review included 41 journal articles (66%) and 12 reports (19%), with the remainder representing a combination of conference papers, theses, book chapters and working papers (15%). Publication trends are discussed below, by theme and by the sub-themes that emerged from this review. We then present the insights gained. First, identified potential benefits are presented, grouped within three sub-themes, or categories, that emerged from our analysis. Second, the identified challenges are outlined in relation to four identified categories, alongside suggested solutions for these challenges.

Publication trends

Of the publications selected, slightly more were published during the first half of the analysis period (53%: 2005–2011), compared to the second (47%: 2012–2018). A relatively large number of papers were published in 2011; however, the second highest year for publications was 2018 (for which only 10 months of the year were included in the search process), possibly indicating increasing interest in the emerging sector. The 2011 peak may partly reflect interest stimulated by the establishment of the Closing the Gap targets, the creation of Indigenous Business Australia a few years earlier, and by research projects such as those connected to the Desert Knowledge CRC research program (DKCRC 2010).

The temporal trends for each theme differ, as shown in the graph at Fig. 1. The peak in publications in 2011 reflects equal attention to each theme. However, every other year, publications relevant to theme 2: challenges, exceeded the number of publications relating to theme 1: benefits, perhaps indicating a failure to successfully address these challenges.

Fig. 1.

Temporal trends in publications over the analysis period for each of the themes under investigation based on the 62 papers selected for analysis and synthesis

The temporal trends in publications for each theme can be further analysed into categories that emerged from our analysis; the trend of reported benefits by category is shown in Fig. 2 and challenges by category in Fig. 3. Many publications discuss benefits and/or challenges relating to more than one category, hence the numbers shown in these graphs exceed the total number of publications reviewed. For benefits we can see that all three categories are represented in most of the years, while for challenges, we observe that the business development category has been a focus of study in every year, and clearly represents the most dominant challenge in total and for every year other than 2014. No clear trend with regard to emerging or diminishing importance of the categories can be identified.

Fig. 2.

Temporal trends in discussion of the three different benefit categories identified, based on the 31 publications that discussed benefits

Fig. 3.

Temporal trends in discussion of the four different challenges categories identified, based on the 54 publications that discussed challenges

Theme 1: Potential benefits from the Indigenous-led bush products sector

Theme 1 focusses on the extensive range of (non-commercial) social, cultural and environmental benefits that can result from Indigenous people engaging in bush product enterprise development on Country, summarised across three benefit categories (Table 2). Current Indigenous involvement in the sector is mainly restricted to harvesting bush products; while this involvement generates benefits in itself, further benefits could arise from greater Indigenous participation and leadership further along the supply/value chain (for an example see Fig. 4). Further to benefits accruing at the individual, family and Indigenous community scales, via involvement in activities associated with the harvest and development of bush products, benefits can be realised by society more widely, including via access to new bush-based products, reduced dependence of Indigenous entrepreneurs on welfare (Wood and Davidson 2011; Lee 2012), and less need for health interventions (Zander et al. 2014). Furthermore, benefits from land management activities associated with bush product harvest and caring for Country practices of remote Indigenous communities may provide a key to a more sustainable future for Australia (Logue et al. 2018). While the sector offers numerous benefits, the literature notes that in some circumstances a benefit in one area must be balanced (or traded off) against a loss of benefit in another dimension; these issues are discussed further within the section below relating to theme 2: challenges.

Table 2.

Categories of benefits identified within the 62 papers selected for analysis and synthesis

Category of benefit identified	Number of publications
Economic and financial benefits	21
Health and well-being benefits, including those relating to freedom, independence and autonomy	24
Benefits to culture, community and Country	20
Benefits of any of the types listed above	31

Fig. 4.

An example Aboriginal supply chain, as suggested in Maclean et al. (2019)

Economic and financial benefits

The review reveals that the sustainable commercial use of bush products can improve livelihoods of Indigenous people living in remote and rural areas of Australia, contributing to sustainable economic development and bringing significant financial benefits (Corey et al. 2018) in the form of profits and/or royalties (Austin and Garnett 2011). Economic benefit may extend to the broader region when increased employment opportunities reduce dependence on welfare programmes (Wood and Davidson 2011; Lee 2012).

Other direct economic benefits include the provision of jobs (Fleming 2015; Fleming et al. 2015) and wages to (frequently local Indigenous) employees (Gill 2005; Austin and Garnett 2011; Fleming et al. 2015). These opportunities are supported by human capital benefits, where sector participants develop new skills and capability. Such benefits might be realised through: on-the-job training in practical and/or job ready skills (Austin and Garnett 2011; White 2012; Spencer et al. 2017), including business and strategic planning skills (Fleming 2015); facilitating capacity development of employees (Fleming 2015; Spencer et al. 2017); increasing the range of employment, education and training opportunities available (Flamsteed and Golding 2005); and building community natural resource management capacity (Corey et al. 2018). Participants also have the opportunity to learn new sector-specific skills including the management of seeds and plants from wild harvest (Evans et al. 2010; Spencer et al. 2017).

Once established, businesses can also subsidise, or provide financial capital and infrastructure, to related business (Collier et al. 2011). While the literature makes little mention of benefits accrued from physical and built capital, road development and/or improvement resulting from enterprise development improves access to outstations and more remote locations, with benefit to the broader community, while business development can provide the equipment, tools and facilities required to facilitate further enterprise development (as described by Collier et al. (2011) in relation to a feral buffalo business in NT).

The literature identifies that benefit realisation may be limited if businesses are managed by employees from outside the community (Davies et al. 2008). It further revealed that the sector is yet to recognise the full suite of potential economic and non-economic benefits from Indigenous involvement along the entire supply/value chain, requiring increased involvement of Indigenous people and businesses beyond the cultivation and harvesting of raw products (Cleary et al. 2008, 2009; Evans et al. 2010; Lee 2012; Corey et al. 2018), (for an example of an Aboriginal supply chain see Fig. 4).

Simpson et al. (2013) reveal that adoption of both Indigenous and western knowledge, using a two-way knowledge exchange process, can bring benefits to all involved along the value chain, encouraging cross-cultural collaboration and opening new economic opportunities. Furthermore, branding and marketing strategies promoting the positive benefits of wild-harvested supply (i.e. clean, green, organic, hand-picked, regionally provenanced and ‘authentic’), could create competitive advantage for an Indigenous-led bush products sector. Such strategies would benefit from access to market knowledge and information in order to effectively position products in the market, and target a specific demographic of consumers (Cleary et al. 2008; Davies et al. 2008; Cunningham et al. 2009a). The development of certification related to authenticity, enabling consumers to confidently purchase ethical products (on the basis of providing benefit to Indigenous industry participants and regional authenticity), could further contribute to sector growth (Cleary et al. 2008, 2009; Lingard 2016).

Health and well-being benefits, including benefits relating to freedom, independence and autonomy

The literature reports a range of health and well-being benefits that might result from the growth of an Indigenous-led bush products sector. Indigenous people experience direct health benefits from being on Country, and involved in harvesting activities (Austin and Garnett 2011; White 2012). Such activities can contribute to improved diet and/or increased exercise (McDonald et al. 2006; Yates 2009; Collier et al. 2011; Holcombe et al. 2011; Walsh and Douglas 2011; Lee 2012; Hume et al. 2013). On-Country visits undertaken with family for harvesting bush products can improve the physical, mental and emotional health of participants and their families (Corey et al. 2018), and has been associated with improved spiritual well-being (Fleming 2015). Bush products enterprises can create opportunities that reduce boredom experienced by many living within remote communities (Collier et al. 2011), potentially offering young people engagement in meaningful and interesting activities (Fleming et al. 2015). Other well-being benefits include a sense of pride, and increased respect, support, and acknowledgement from others, derived from demonstrating skills, practice and Indigenous knowledge (Davies et al. 2008; Evans et al. 2010; Collier et al. 2011; MARG et al. 2011; White 2012).

The literature highlights that bush product enterprises benefit Indigenous communities by facilitating ‘freedom’ (as defined by Sen (1999)), enabling communities, and individuals, to choose the activities they wish to pursue rather than having choices imposed by others (Holcombe et al. 2011). This can support independence, autonomy and empowerment (Fleming et al. 2015), providing opportunity for self-determination (Wood and Davidson 2011). Further empowerment and autonomy results from taking responsibility for looking after one’s own interests, and the act of entrepreneurship itself drives self-determination (Wood and Davidson 2011; Janke 2018), as can leveraging Indigenous knowledge on their terms (Robinson et al. 2018), with increased feelings of empowerment resulting through the validation of traditional knowledge (Evans et al. 2010). Such actions may assuage the disempowering effects of the welfare economy (Tedmanson and Guerin 2011), enabling culturally aligned business opportunities to generate renewed optimism about opportunities for the community as a whole (Fleming 2015).

Benefits to culture, community and Country

Bush harvesting, associated with spending time on, and caring for, Country, is considered by Indigenous people as both a social and cultural activity (Cleary 2012), involving environmental stewardship activities (Yates 2009; Collier et al. 2011; Lingard and Martin 2016; Spencer et al. 2017), and sustainable use of natural assets (Fleming et al. 2015).

Cultural benefits from engaging in the sector include visiting and working on Country (Austin and Garnett 2011), enabling Indigenous people to continue to live on their traditional estates (Corey et al. 2018) and facilitating access to specific places to produce and maintain cultural practices and traditions (including harvesting) (Davies et al. 2008; MARG et al. 2011; Logue et al. 2018). Activities can reduce the risk of loss of language, culture and identity (White 2012; Simpson et al. 2013; Fleming 2015) and enable people to follow the ‘dreaming’ or the lore of their ancestors (Holcombe et al. 2011).

Importantly, bush product-related activities provide opportunities for Elders to share knowledge and skills, including customary knowledge (Cleary 2012; Lingard and Martin 2016). Such practices support the strengthening of Indigenous knowledge and skills (Holcombe et al. 2011; Corey et al. 2018) particularly within younger generations (Evans et al. 2010), including future Country-based managers (Holcombe et al. 2011; MARG et al. 2011). Additionally, such activities provide ecological benefits derived from monitoring environmental resources and protecting and maintaining bush products through land management practices, including burning. This work can generate biodiversity benefits (Collier et al. 2011; Simpson et al. 2013). At a larger scale, Indigenous resource management techniques are largely recognised as supporting more sustainable futures for Australia (Logue et al. 2018).

Social benefits provided by the sector include strengthened family and social groupings through cooperation and shared activities (Holcombe et al. 2011; Lee 2012), providing social interaction opportunities (McDonald et al. 2006; Lingard and Martin 2016) that strengthen family and kin networks (Walsh and Douglas 2011). Individuals benefit from the emergence of new role models, as a result of sector development (Spencer et al. 2017), and from opportunities to be on Country: reducing the risk of exposure to violence, alcohol issues, and resultant physical and mental health issues (Gill 2005; Walsh and Douglas 2011). Furthermore, the sector can build social capital, providing opportunities for networking with members of other Indigenous communities (Evans et al. 2010), between local community leaders and the relevant Land Councils, local, state and federal government departments, and with individuals who have business experience and related skills (Austin and Garnett 2011).

Theme 2: Challenges

This theme addresses the main challenges faced by Indigenous people seeking to develop enterprises in the bush product sector. The challenges are grouped into four categories, summarised in Table 3. Each of these challenges, and potential solutions, are discussed separately below; however, in reality, each are inter-related and connected.

Table 3.

Categories of challenges and related solutions identified within the 62 papers selected for analysis and synthesis

Category of challenge	Number of publications
Political and structural challenges	11
Socio-economic challenges	9
Business development challenges	47
Trade-offs	10
Challenges of any of the types listed above	54

Political and structural challenges

Limited land rights and/or restricted access to traditional Country inhibits Indigenous entrepreneurship (Commonwealth of Australia 2015), limiting: self-determination; maintenance of cultural strength, law and pride; confidence and esteem; and access to an asset to leverage capital necessary to start a business (Schaper 2007; Shoebridge et al. 2012). This is exacerbated in some jurisdictions by a lack of rights to commercially utilise valuable natural resources on traditional lands (Venn 2007).

Further key challenges relate to economic mainstreaming being considered a means to overcome Indigenous disadvantage (Spencer et al. 2016). This focus can perpetuate the dichotomy of ‘economic development vs. culture’ as it presumes that Indigenous Australians will move from their home communities (on or close to Country) to regional centres to obtain employment. This fails to recognise the strength of Indigenous worldviews, cultures and heritage. Dockery (2010 cited in Bodle et al. (2018, p. 36) posits this tension as a function of “self-determination” versus “assimilation”.

Alternately, it is argued that Indigenous knowledge, culture and heritage should be viewed as part of the solution to Indigenous disadvantage in Australia (Bodle et al. 2018). Keeping Indigenous world views outside of mainstream social and economic structures continues to perpetuate inequalities and restrict Indigenous self-determination. However, shifting the discourse from one of ‘disadvantage’ to one of remote advantage is supportive of Indigenous Australians living within remote communities (McRae-Williams and Guenther 2014). Thus, focussing on the Indigenous political economy may assist understanding of the challenges faced by Indigenous people seeking to develop business enterprises (Altman 2001; Banerjee and Tedmanson 2010), while focussing on mainstreaming leaves no room for alternative approaches (Brueckner et al. 2014) or models of development, and renders invisible the economic, social, cultural and environmental value of the Indigenous customary economy (Banerjee and Tedmanson 2010). Consequently, Indigenous enterprise development may be hindered by the very policies that seek to support and enable it (Frederick and Foley 2006; Banerjee and Tedmanson 2010).

One step towards alleviating poverty requires recognition that this involves more than simple increases in income: it also requires consideration of how production is undertaken (and by whom), and whether these modes of production deliver benefits (and what kind of benefits) to the Indigenous people involved (Yates 2009). Bush product enterprise development assists here as Indigenous groups can operate within their local culture and Country, creating products that promote their culture, as well as benefitting the local, regional and national economy (Yates 2009).

Socio-economic challenges

Indigenous people face inter-linked socio-economic challenges relating to access to appropriate education, technical knowledge and skills, employment and the related wealth creation necessary to establish a business. This has ramifications for enterprise development as Indigenous people are less likely to have the necessary business development knowledge, technical skills, work experience and/or capability required to be successful in their business development endeavours (Schaper 2007; Venn 2007; Bodle et al. 2018). Indigenous people/communities often suffer from higher unemployment levels, have been historically excluded from the cash economy, and are impacted by past limited land title, lower rates of home ownership and limited ability to amass other kinds of wealth (savings etc.) (Commonwealth of Australia 2017; Schaper 2007). These factors challenge their ability to create, build, generate and share wealth, and access the financial capital that supports enterprise development. Consequently, many Indigenous enterprises are under-capitalised from the start, hampering business growth and contributing to other flow-on effects (Pearson and Helms 2013; Commonwealth of Australia 2017). Further, knowledge of how to access and use government and other funding opportunities may be limited (Lombardi and Cooper 2015; cited in Bodle et al. (2018), and would-be entrepreneurs may be unaware of the importance of developing and maintaining networks with other business owners (Shoebridge et al. 2012). Lack of access to financial capital may contribute to over-reliance on government start-up funding, resulting in enterprises that remain unsustainable over the longer term (Shoebridge et al. 2012; Pearson and Helms 2013).

Enterprise development is further challenged by disincentives to engage in low-paid employment, as a result of the welfare system (Frederick and Foley 2006). Indigenous employment participation in remote and rural locations remains low for many reasons (including a lack of local employment opportunities), and welfare dependence continues to be high (Brueckner et al. 2014).

Business development challenges

Supply/value chains involving Indigenous and non-Indigenous enterprises frequently encounter cross-cultural challenges, reflecting the entirely different world views, associated values and languages of the different participants (Venn 2007; Davies et al. 2008; Yates 2009). While authors not cognisant of the depth of difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultures regard attachment to culture and tradition as a hindrance to achieving mainstream economic goals, others point to the important role that culture, associated worldviews and related values can have for successful entrepreneurship and engagement in economic activity (see Nikolakis 2008; Fleming 2015; Fleming et al. 2015). Fleming (2015) highlights how success occurs where culture and markets align and effort is focussed on small business creation. Examples are provided of state supported Indigenous land management initiatives, and ‘stand-alone’ Indigenous-run enterprises including those in the visual arts and cultural tourism sectors, and some wildlife harvest enterprises (see Zander et al. 2014).

Western notions of market values and business development tend not to accommodate cultural and social interests, needs and aspirations of Indigenous communities (e.g. Banerjee and Tedmanson 2010) This contributes to individuals and groups struggling to reconcile cultural and family needs/demands with private enterprise development (e.g. Schaper 2007; Fernando et al. 2011): entrepreneurs often face challenges navigating their role as a member of a wider kinship group, while simultaneously seeking/gaining business success and recognition in the mainstream non-Indigenous sector where the focus is on the individual and not the community or society as a whole (e.g. Foley 2006; Schaper 2007; Fernando et al. 2011). Managing customary responsibilities to Country while satisfying the work requirements of the mainstream economy presents challenges (e.g. Venn 2007; Fernando et al. 2011; Shoebridge et al. 2012; Bodle et al. 2018) as does maintaining community cohesion at the same time as building networks and operating with the non-Indigenous sector (e.g. Foley 2006). Furthermore, Indigenous people may face institutional racism which can significantly impact business opportunities (e.g. Banerjee and Tedmanson 2010).

Additional challenges are revealed for businesses located in remote and regional Australia including: constraints to connecting with the Australian business community to build knowledge and connections (Venn 2007; Commonwealth of Australia 2017); a limited local customer base (Schaper 2007); a lack of access to a skilled work force, supplies and provisions; and high service delivery costs, sometimes related to poor or inadequate infrastructure including telecommunications (Flamsteed and Golding 2005; Cunningham et al. 2009a; McGregor and James 2011; Shoebridge et al. 2012). All businesses in remote areas (at all stages of development) need access to adequate support, advice, finance and business networks, and benefit from access to role models and mentors (Flamsteed and Golding 2005; Foley 2006; Foley and Hunter 2013; Commonwealth of Australia 2017). For Indigenous people, these challenges are compounded by a lack of Indigenous entrepreneurs/businesses, role models and mentors in remote regions (Schaper 2007; Fernando et al. 2011; Wood and Davidson 2011). This affects the development of business acumen, including financial and commercial literacy, as well as knowledge of how to build and consolidate business networks, and recognising the value of such networks in enterprise creation (Venn 2007; Shoebridge et al. 2012; Pearson and Helms 2013). These issues may be exacerbated by inappropriate management, poor governance and limited financial accounting skills (Bodle et al. 2018).

Other challenges include weather and seasonal variations impacting demand and profit margins (Bryceson 2008; Cleary et al. 2008; Holcombe et al. 2011); labour availability (Holcombe et al. 2011); and issues of geography (Flamsteed and Golding 2005). Production and commercialisation challenges related to perishable products are acute in remote and regional locations, generally located at greater distances from markets. Issues include: ability to deliver sufficient quantity and quality to meet market demand; continuity of supply; geography and remoteness (as above); ability to establish a longer shelf life to assist bulk transport; high enough ‘farm-gate’ price to make production worthwhile; and the ability to value-add to generate employment and other local benefits (Cunningham et al. 2009a, b; Yates 2009). Wild harvest requires good knowledge and skills and can be time-consuming, while intensive local harvest can impact subsistence harvest (Gorman et al. 2006). Furthermore, large quantities of raw products being sold for relatively low prices may make wild harvest of some plants economically, environmentally and culturally unviable (Lee and Courtenay 2016).

Challenges also arise from a limited domestic market, resulting from Australia’s population size, and from costs of developing and competing in international markets (more time intensive and competitive given lower labour costs of other countries) (Cunningham et al. 2009a, b).

Despite aspiring to lead the bush product sector (see Maclean et al. 2019), many Indigenous Australians are not involved in bush product supply/value chains beyond the collection of wild produce (Davies et al. 2008). Greater leadership by Indigenous people within bush product supply/value chains is inhibited by additional challenges beyond those already identified. These specific challenges include: reluctance to partner with Indigenous organisations due to concerns relating to weak governance, and the need to develop trust between partners (Bryceson 2008; Cleary et al. 2008); issues relating to scaling up the production to meet the demands of partners (Bryceson 2008); and complexities regarding permits and licencing at different stages of the chain (Lingard and Perry 2018). Additionally, low business information flows along the chain (possibly due to misunderstandings and miscommunication between often culturally and geographically distant participants) reduces opportunities to improve and develop products (Bryceson 2008; Cleary et al. 2008) and discourages local leadership and involvement (White 2012). Finally, complex requirements for food safety and traceability for domestic and overseas markets (Bryceson 2008), and requirements to comply with food production and handling laws (McDonald et al. 2006), can act as barriers preventing increased involvement of Indigenous people along the supply/value chain. Greater involvement, and greater utilisation by Indigenous people of their unique knowledge and experience along the chain, could generate benefits for themselves, and also improve the quality and consistency of the final product (McDonald et al. 2006). An example of an Aboriginal supply chain is set out in Fig. 4.

The Indigenous-led bush product sector faces significant challenges relating to the protection and use of Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP). ICIP refers to “… the beliefs and understandings that Indigenous Australians have acquired and nurtured through long-term association with a place … based on the social, cultural, physical and spiritual understandings which have informed Indigenous people’s survival … [and] have been transmitted from generation to generation” (Janke 2018, 3 p3). The use of ICIP is vital to the development of the Indigenous-led bush products sector. However, it is also vital that Indigenous people protect and retain their ownership of the ICIP passed to them from previous generations (Davies et al. 2008) and preserve their cultural practices and knowledge (White 2012). A significant challenge is balancing protecting, accessing and using ICIP with, and sharing the benefits derived from, the use of ICIP. Opportunities to achieve this balance may exist within intellectual property (IP) legislation, international agreements relating to access and benefit sharing (ABS), and/or other mechanisms.

Significant research highlights mechanisms that may ensure Indigenous peoples benefit from the use of their ICIP in the Indigenous-led bush products sector. The review highlighted that Australian IP legislation inadequately protects the interests of Indigenous Australians (Lingard and Martin 2016; Logue et al. 2018). Trademarks have limited applicability as they only protect ICIP in the form of a business product (Robinson and Raven 2017). Patents seek to provide the inventor with exclusive rights to benefit from their novel invention (Janke 2018), which excludes inter-generationally shared and communally owned ICIP (Davis et al. 2009). Furthermore patents recognise economic/commercial value and not non-market spiritual, cultural, economic or political values (Marinova and Raven 2006). While they may be relevant to protect technologies used to process bush products (Cunningham et al. 2009a; Drahos 2011; Janke 2018), generally patents have not been widely used to protect ICIP (Robinson et al. 2018). Copyright cannot be used to protect an idea; ideas have to be written down or recorded with the copyright being owned by the person who does this recording (who may not be the traditional owner of this knowledge) (Davies et al. 2008), Further, copyright protection is limited to a certain period of time (Janke 2018). The ‘Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994’ is designed to provide rights to people (or organisations) using special breeding technique(s) to develop a new plant variety for commercial applications, and is thus unlikely to be relevant to protecting ICIP (Davis et al. 2009; Morse and Janke 2010). The inadequacy of financial accounting to adequately place a monetary value on ICIP is also noted (Bodle et al. 2018).

Sector development could be helped by international agreements that seek to protect ICIP (Cunningham et al. 2009a), including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). These agreements are supported by the Nagoya Protocol (2010), which seeks to ensure that those wishing to use ICIP put in place equitable benefit sharing agreements with the ICIP owners (underpinned by free, prior and informed consent and mutually agreed terms) (Davis et al. 2009; Greiber et al. 2012; Robinson and Raven 2017; Janke 2018; Janke and Sentina 2018). Although the Australian government has endorsed these international agreements, their requirements are not yet incorporated into the national framework of laws and regulations (e.g. Lingard 2016); consequently federal, state and territory laws offer different protections (e.g. Robinson and Raven 2017). Furthermore, legal requirements may be circumvented where knowledge and/or specimens are accessed through third parties (who gained access to the ICIP prior to the legislation) rather than directly from Traditional Owners (Lingard and Martin 2016; Lingard and Perry 2018).

Possible solutions to ICIP-related challenges include geographic indicators, voluntary certification schemes, and the use of protocols and benefit sharing agreements. Geographical indicators promote the region/locality of the ICIP (Morse and Janke 2010), providing general protection for ICIP (Lee 2012; Simpson et al. 2013) and for traditionally made Indigenous products (Robinson 2010). Voluntary certification systems may be relevant to Indigenous business enterprises utilising ‘traditional’ methods, and may offer a pathway to markets for premium products that demonstrably represent particular values and practices (Drahos 2011). However, connections between ICIP and various forms of certification and labelling needs to be well understood to avoid commodification and/or divisive effects within and between communities resulting from attempts to protect ICIP by these methods (White 2012). At present, there is limited acknowledgement of the contribution of Indigenous people, and geographic sources of bush foods, on product labelling (MARG et al. 2011). Protocols (rules or guidelines to inform behaviour) are gaining recognition as one way to protect ICIP within a project, enterprise, or research project (Davis et al. 2009; Morse and Janke 2010; Janke and Sentina 2018)—ensuring benefit sharing (Davies et al. 2008; Evans et al. 2009, 2010; Simpson et al. 2013), and/or payment for use of knowledge (Marinova and Raven 2006) (see MARG et al. (2011) for guidelines).

Formal benefit sharing agreements, relying on contracts between ICIP owners and ICIP users, may offer a solution provided Indigenous parties receive appropriate monetary (e.g. royalties, share of income/profits) or non-monetary (e.g. transfer of technological skills) benefits (Davis et al. 2009; Morse and Janke 2010).

Trade-offs

Among the potential benefits from Indigenous-led bush products enterprises, there are circumstances where a benefit in one area is balanced (or traded off) against a loss of benefit in another dimension. Trade-offs may arise where achieving social impact conflicts with maintaining a financially viable business (Logue et al. 2018). Social tensions can also arise between those working within the enterprise and the wider community, due to differing and perhaps unrealistic expectations regarding the benefits that can accrue to each (Flamsteed and Golding 2005), or if some community members perceive resources are being expended on business development that should instead be used to meet other community needs (Gill 2005). Increasing supply of wild-harvested bush foods to commercial markets may reduce availability for consumption by local Indigenous communities, creating adverse health impacts (White 2012), while environmental trade-offs may result where wild harvesting jeopardises wild populations of the harvested plant (Walsh and Douglas 2011; White 2012).

Where non-Indigenous people assist the development of Indigenous businesses, there may be a trade-off between the social and cultural motivations of the Indigenous community, and the financial motivations of those (mainly non-Indigenous) people involved in manufacturing and/or marketing the products (Yates 2009; Lee 2012; Fleming et al. 2015). Beyond Indigenous people being squeezed out from the supply chain due to scale (Yates 2009; Logue et al. 2018) or technological requirements (Yates 2009; Holcombe et al. 2011), non-Indigenous-led commercial business developments could reduce (rather than promote) opportunities for the intergenerational transfer of traditional knowledge and skills if the focus is on maximising return for investors. A consequential decline in traditional knowledge could reduce the long-term sustainability of the industry (Walsh and Douglas 2011). Compliance with cultural and customary laws may also prevent certain species from being harvested and/or sold; resulting in tensions between those wishing to maintain customs and those wishing to exploit species for economic gain (Yates 2009; MARG et al. 2011; Walsh and Douglas 2011; White 2012).

Discussion and conclusion

This review sought to improve understanding of the potential benefits and challenges facing Indigenous Australians involved in the development of the Indigenous-led bush products sector in northern Australia.

Many insights can be drawn, most notably that although Indigenous Australians seeking to develop the sector face multiple challenges (e.g. political, structural, socio-economic, land rights and access to resources, geography and remoteness), their involvement will likely result in a wide range of benefits across multiple domains. These include environmental, economic/financial (including supply/value chain), health and well-being, social (including relating to freedom, autonomy), and cultural benefits for Indigenous entrepreneurs, their communities and to society more widely. The identified challenges impact to a greater or lesser degree across all categories of benefits, thus implementing solutions to these challenges could provide benefits across all domains. Furthermore, there are strong links between the different categories of benefits, with increased benefits in one domain serving to address challenges and increase benefits across domains.

Solutions identified within the literature include improving economic opportunities that support the development of business acumen and the development of culturally appropriate business development models, facilitating Indigenous leadership of the sector supported by appropriate government policies.

These insights have been combined within a conceptual framework, set out in Fig. 5, highlighting the identified links between benefit categories, challenges faced and potential solutions.

Fig. 5.

Inter-connected benefits and challenges to the Indigenous-led bush products sector. Figures in brackets indicate the number of publications within this review that identified any particular benefit or challenge

The suggested solutions from the literature have been summarised into two categories that require joint consideration, as appropriate government policies should both support Indigenous leadership and be informed by Indigenous leadership, recognising the validity of, and opportunities presented by recognition of, Indigenous world views. Australian governments have implemented policy initiatives over the years (e.g. those related to Closing the Gap) yet a recognised gaps persists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on wide range of different measures (e.g. see Commonwealth of Australia (2020) for insights into the related complexity). As noted within “Political and structural challenges” section, policy can exacerbate challenges to Indigenous advancement, even as it seeks to address these challenges.

However, we propose that implementing these solutions, and hence, beginning to address the full range of challenges could establish a self-sustaining cycle of growth, further increasing the range of benefits delivered (including beyond the enterprise) and simultaneously reducing the challenges restricting further development. Simplistically, our hypothesis is as follows: (i) reducing challenges (by solutions such as increasing Indigenous leadership and/or government policies) will increase benefits; then (ii) the increase in benefits itself further increases other benefits, further reduces challenges and further increases Indigenous leadership; then (iii) the additional reduction in challenges and increased Indigenous leadership contributes to a further increase in benefits, and so on, in a self-perpetuating cycle of increasing benefits provided by the growing sector and reducing challenges to the growth of the sector.

The broad range of potential benefits highlighted in this review of the literature make a strong case for further research and investment into the sector, highlighting the important role of further research and informed policy development to ensure culturally, ecologically and socially appropriate growth of the Indigenous-led bush products sector in northern Australia. Research and policy can support the sector to find solutions to challenges and promote greater realisation of potential benefits. Directions for future research include the investigation of culturally appropriate and Indigenous-led business and supply/value chain models that consider the following: the unique and place-based nature of ICIP and bush products; the geography and remoteness of many Indigenous communities; avenues for the development of business acumen; consideration of options to protect ICIP and related benefit sharing arrangements and further investigation to test our hypothesised self-sustaining cycle of increasing benefits. Policy recommendations relate to the need to strengthen and extend existing IP legislation to recognise and protect ICIP; to better understand the connection between ICIP, certification and labelling to avoid divisive effects within and between Indigenous communities and knowledge holders; to consider options that support Indigenous people to access and utilise bush product resources located on their traditional Country for economic gain; to develop mechanisms that support and promote Indigenous leadership of the sector and promote collaborations underpinned by benefit sharing mechanisms along the national and international supply/value chain.

Investment in research and policy that supports development of the Indigenous-led bush product sector will concurrently support opportunities for sustainable enterprises development that can generate multiple economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits and may initiate a self-perpetuating cycle of improving well-being for those within Indigenous communities and across the wider Australian community as a whole.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Biographies

Diane Jarvis

is a Senior lecturer with James Cook University, having begun this work in her previous position as a Research Fellow with the Tropical Landscapes Joint Venture between James Cook University and CSIRO Land and Water. Her research interests lie in the field of environmental economics, with a particular focus on how the sustainable use of the environment and the natural resources of northern Australia contribute to the well-being of individuals and communities within the region.

Kirsten Maclean

is a Senior Research Scientist (Human Geographer), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) based in Brisbane, Australia. She draws on cultural geography, political ecology, environment and development literatures, as well as co-research practice and participatory methodologies to investigate the role of diverse people, their knowledge and values in relation to their natural and cultural resource management and planning interests and aspirations in regional and rural Australia.

Emma Woodward

is a Research Scientist, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) based in Perth, Australia. Her research frequently involves partnering with Australian Indigenous communities to co-develop methods, tools, protocols and guidelines that can facilitate understanding, and inclusion, of diverse knowledge, values and interests in building more equitable and sustainable futures.