We recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the sovereign Traditional Owners of Australia and thank them for their stewardship of this Country, its lands, waters and skies. We respectfully acknowledge their culture and customary practices, and pay respect to their Ancestors, Elders and future leaders.

For the first time, the State of the Environment report includes a strong Indigenous narrative across all 12 thematic chapters, a narrative crafted through recognising the leadership, collaboration and authorship of Indigenous Australians who continue their connection as Traditional Owners to their lands, waters and skies.

Click to view the State of the Environment report

On 28 March 2025 the government assumed a Caretaker role. Information on websites maintained by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water will be published in accordance with the Guidance on Caretaker Conventions until after the conclusion of the caretaker period.

Due to technical issues, graphs, maps and tables are currently not displaying within the main content, however, are available via the chapter resources navigation bar. We are working on a solution to resolve the issue.

Graphs, maps and tables

Showing results 31 - 38 of 38

Table 6 State and territory laws that recognise Indigenous land interests

Jurisdiction	Legislation
Australian Capital Territory	The Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986 (Cth) vested land in the Jervis Bay area to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council.
New South Wales	Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW), Aboriginal Land Councils can claim certain Crown land on behalf of Indigenous people.
Northern Territory	The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) set up a comprehensive scheme for claiming Aboriginal land. It created a process for the return of reserve land to inalienable Aboriginal freehold land, which is completely unique to the Northern Territory.
Queensland	Under the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld) and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 (Qld), land that has been reserved for Indigenous people could be transferred to them as trustees to hold the land for the benefit of all Indigenous people
South Australia	The Aboriginal Land Trusts Act 1996 (SA) created the Aboriginal Lands Trust and was the first major recognition of Aboriginal people’s land rights and interests. In 2013, the Aboriginal Land Rights trust was reformed and replaced by the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 2013. The Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act (1981) (SA) and Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Act 1984 (SA), and subsequent amendments, are also significant pieces of land rights legislation recognising Aboriginal land right interests in the far north-west and central-west regions of South Australia. Act amendments are the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Suspension of Executive Board) Amendment Act 2017 and the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2016.
Tasmania	The Aboriginal Lands Act 1995 (Tas) established the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, which is responsible for holding Aboriginal land in perpetuity for all Aboriginal people in Tasmania and governing its management and use.
Victoria	After the declaration of the Traditional Owner Settlement Agreement Act 2010 (Vic), the Crown Land Reserves Act 1978 (Vic) was amended to provide for Aboriginal title over some Crown lands because of settlement agreements.
Western Australia	Part 4 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA) allows for Crown land to be set aside as a reserve for a particular purpose in the public interest, which includes for Aboriginal uses or conservation purposes. The Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act 1972 (WA) resulted in the establishment of the Aboriginal Lands Trust, which is responsible for managing all the Aboriginal Land Trust reserves in Western Australia.

For more information, go toNational and international frameworks that support caring for Country

Table 7 Extent of protected areas in Australia by governance type

Governance	Number of protected areas	Total size of protected areas (ha)	Proportion of total protected area (%)	Proportion of Australia (%)	Average size of each protected area (ha)
Community	75	66,678,669	43.90	8.67	889,049
Government	7,254	65,505,877	43.13	8.52	9,030
Joint	1,810	10,775,813	7.09	1.40	5,953
Private	4,253	8,921,111	5.87	1.16	2,098
Total	13,392	151,881,470	100.00	19.75	11,341

ha = hectare

Source: DAWE (2020)

For more information, go toNational and international frameworks that support caring for Country

Table 8 Joint management in Australian, and state and territory parks

Jurisdiction	Legislation for shared governance as formal joint management		Extent of Indigenous decision-making authority		Indigenous tenure and leases		Provisions for marine parks		Native title, ILUAs		Indigenous ranger groups with Indigenous organisations		Indigenous-led and joint planning		IPAs as a form of joint management of parks
Commonwealth-governed lands	Formal joint management in 3 parks		Boards with Indigenous majority; ultimate authority of the Director of Parks Australia is under review		Indigenous tenure, with 99-year leases to the government for management		One of the joint-managed parks includes marine estate; no marine tenure		No ILUAs exist over the 3 joint-managed parks		Australian Government supports many ranger groups, including one in a joint-managed park		Boards are developing joint management plans		Australian Government supports numerous IPAs, several that overlap with marine parks, and 9 TUMRAs in the GBR
ACT	None		An interim advisory board established in 2001 has been disbanded		None		n/a		None		None		The Namadgi National Park Plan of Management 2007 was prepared with Traditional Owner advice		None
NSW	Formal joint management in 5 parks		Board with Indigenous majority		Indigenous tenure, with 30-year leases to the government for management		None		ILUAs over parks establish an advisory committee		NSW supports some groups (e.g. Darrunda Wajaarr and Githabul rangers)		Committees advise on Aboriginal area plans (8 current)		Several IPAs, but none overlapping with national parks or conservation reserves
NT	Formal joint management in 33 parks		Board with a majority of Traditional Owners		Indigenous tenure with leases except for 1 park, which does not lease to government		1 joint-managed park without marine tenure		ILUAs bind parties to joint management since 2005		NT grants provided to existing ranger groups		Jointly developed plans, except 3 parks where plan is developed by government		Numerous IPAs but none overlap the NT parks
Qld		Formal joint management in 29 parks (28 in Cape York Peninsula)		IMAs between government and Indigenous organisations for joint decision-making		Indigenous title, no leases to government required		9 TUMRAs in the GBR accredited under legislation. No marine tenure		ILUAs form part of the package for joint management		Qld supports 24 ranger groups, with more in the pipeline		Management plans are jointly prepared under the IMA		Several IPAs declared over existing terrestrial and marine parks
SA		Formal joint management in 9 parks		Boards replace the director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service South Australia as decision-maker		2 of the joint-managed parks have Indigenoustitle, most have Crown title		None		ILUAs with native title consent determinations over most of the joint-managed parks		SA does not fund ranger groups (some Indigenous rangers are employed in the parks service)		Plans are jointly developed by the boards and committees and reflect Traditional Owners’ culture and themes		Several IPAs, but none overlap the SA parks and protected areas
Tas		None		n/a		Indigenous tenure on some lands that have become IPAs		None		None		Tasmania does not fund ranger groups (some Indigenous rangers are employed in the parks service)		Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan commits to movement to joint management		Several IPAs, but none overlap Tasmanian parks. Joint management between Indigenous people and a private company at Tebrakunna
Vic		Formal joint management in 26 parks		Boards with a majority of Traditional Owners on them		Indigenous title, no leases to government		None		Groups must withdraw from native title		Victoria funds some projects of existing ranger groups		Boards produce joint plan, most have an Indigenous-led Country plan first		Several IPAs, one of which overlaps an existing conservation reserve (Budj Bim)
WA		Formal joint management in 28 existing and proposed parks (mainly in the Kimberley region)		Joint decision-making through park council boards		Diverse tenures, including several as Indigenous titles with leases to government		Several joint-managed marine parks close to finalisation		ILUAs form part of the package for joint management		WA supports about 30 ranger groups		Indigenous-led cultural planning as first step		Numerous IPAs in WA but no overlap with the other parks and protected areas

ACT = Australian Capital Territory; GBR = Great Barrier Reef; ILUA = Indigenous Land Use Agreement; IMA = Indigenous Management Agreement; IPA = Indigenous Protected Area; n/a =not applicable; NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas = Tasmania; TUMRA = Traditional Use Marine Resource Agreement; Vic = Victoria; WA = Western Australia

For more information, go toNational and international frameworks that support caring for Country

Table 9 Examples of commercial use of Indigenous knowledge

Example	Ecosystem services model	Outcomes
Indigenous carbon abatement projects	Carbon credits through voluntary agreements via the Emissions Reduction Fund	Estimated value of $30 million Health and social benefits Restoring traditional burning practices Improved landscape heterogeneity Improved condition of mammals, birds and vegetation Rebuilding cultural identity Improved Indigenous wellbeing in northern Australia (Sangha et al. 2018)
Warddeken – carbon abatement and biodiversity conservation	Carbon credits to ConocoPhillips	Kabulwarnamyo outstation, 14 balabbala (traditional shade shelters) Built school for children to return to living on Country. The Nawarddeken Academy registered as a school in 2018 SVA documented social, environmental, economic and cultural benefits. Value of outcomes is $55.4 million for financial years 2009–15, an ROI of $3.40 for every invested dollar (Robertson 2019)
Northern Great Barrier Reef – Kalan Enterprises, Cape York Partnership, James Cook University and CSIRO	Managing Country, wildlife and water systems via partnerships Fire management Water quality improvement in Cape York, which benefits the Great Barrier Reef Healthy people, healthy Country and healthy culture	Income from ecosystem services Enhancing social benefits, such as employment, satisfaction, connection to Country for rangers, meaningful work (Barber et al. 2017, CSIRO 2021d) ‘Our dream is to bring our Country back to life like it was before, by being on Country to protect our sites and share our proud culture with the rest of the world’, Allan Creek (Snr), Kaantju Traditional Owner, Elder (Creek n.d.)

SVA = Social Ventures Australia; ROI = return on investment

For more information, go toCaring for Country

Table 10 Ranger demographics in IPAs and Indigenous ranger programs, 2015–16 to 2019–20

Demographic	2015–16	2016–17	2017–18	2018–19	2019–20
Indigenous employees	93%	95%	94%	94%	93%
Gender split of employees	n/a	36% women/64% men	n/a	37% women/63% men	34% women/66% men

IPA = Indigenous Protected Area; n/a = not available

Source: NIAA (2021a)

For more information, go toEnablers of caring for Country

Table 11 Indigenous organisations and alliances in environmental management

Organisation		Focus
Cape York Land Council		Native title representative body Native title services Capability building in post-determination phases Governance
Central Land Council		Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) Permits Mining agreements Traditional Owner native title rights Carry out obligations from agreements for mining and exploration
Federation of Victorian Traditional Owners Corporation		Peak body for Traditional Owners Legal rights under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic) Partners in government and industry decision-making about Country Building economic opportunities, such as the bushfoods project Policy and planning framework
Indigenous Desert Alliance (IDA)		10 Deserts Project Advocacy for desert rangers; IDA Southern Desert Ranger Forum Species of the Desert Festival Ranger development Regional collaboration
Kimberley Land Council		Native title services for Kimberley Aboriginal peoples Heritage protection Agreement-making Post-determination services Ranger groups
	New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council	Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) Support for local Aboriginal Land Councils for claiming and managing Country Joint management arrangements assistance Advocacy Planning laws Community land and business plans
	Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority	Indigenous water rights Nation building
Northern Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance		Land and sea management Education and training Collaborative research projects; I-Tracker Project Culture-based economy
Northern Land Council		Permits under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) Native title representative body Assist with land claims and negotiate on behalf of Traditional Owners Supervise and assist with land trusts Perform functions under laws such as the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989 (NT) and Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1976 (NT)
South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council		Native title representative body Claims and negotiations for Noongar people Settlement agreement
Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre		Community organisation – Aboriginal corporation Heritage and land management, language Negotiation of land returns Fishing rights and rangers

For more information, go toEnablers of caring for Country

Table 12 Scores by Indigenous experts

Outcome	State	Trend
(1a) Indigenous people’s identities as cohesive communities of First Peoples and their associated connections to Australia’s land and seas are recognised and supported	Very poor Very good: 0% Good: 0% Poor: 44% Very poor: 56%	Improving/Unclear Improving: 33% Stable: 22% Deteriorating: 11% Unclear: 33%
(1b) Indigenous people’s long and healthy lives support their caring for Country activities and obligations	Very poor Very good: 10% Good: 10% Poor: 30% Very poor: 50%	Improving Improving: 40% Stable: 20% Deteriorating: 20% Unclear: 20%
(1c) Indigenous people’s cultures and languages are strong, supported and flourishing	Poor Very good: 0% Good: 30% Poor: 60% Very poor: 10%	Improving Improving: 50% Stable: 0% Deteriorating: 40% Unclear: 10%
(2a) Areas of Australia’s land and seas covered by or subject to, Indigenous people’s legal rights or interests are increased	Poor Very good: 0% Good: 40% Poor: 50% Very poor: 10%	Improving Improving: 70% Stable: 0% Deteriorating: 20% Unclear: 10%
(2b) Indigenous people maintain a distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic relationship through sufficient access to their land and waters	Very poor Very good: 0% Good: 0% Poor: 40% Very poor: 60%	Improving Deteriorating Improving: 30% Stable: 20% Deteriorating: 30% Unclear: 20%
(2c) The health of Australia’s lands and seas underpins the distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic connections with First Peoples	Very poor Very good: 0% Good: 20% Poor: 30% Very poor: 50%	Deteriorating Improving: 10% Stable: 20% Deteriorating: 70% Unclear: 0%
(3a) Legacies of colonisation that degrade Indigenous people’s capacity, equity and cultural safety for governance and management of Australia’s land and seas are reduced	Very high impact: 80% High: 20% Low: 0% Very low: 0%	Improving Improving: 40% Stable: 10% Deteriorating: 40% Unclear: 10%
(3b) Pressures that degrade environmental assets of significance to Indigenous people are reduced	Very high impact: 70% High: 30% Low: 0% Very low: 0%	Deteriorating Improving: 10% Stable: 10% Deteriorating: 70% Unclear: 10%
(3c) Environmental Pressures that degrade cultural and environmental knowledge and practices for caring for Country, and cross-generational transmission of these, are reduced	Very high impact: 80% High: 20% Low: 0% Very low: 0%	Deteriorating Improving: 10% Stable: 10% Deteriorating: 80% Unclear: 0%
(3d) Socio-economic Pressures that degrade cultural and environmental knowledge and practices for caring for Country, and cross-generational transmission of these, are reduced	Very high impact: 60% High: 40% Low: 0% Very low: 0%	Deteriorating Improving: 20% Stable: 20% Deteriorating: 30% Unclear: 30%
(4a) Appropriate use and cross-generational transfer of Indigenous knowledge and practices in caring for Country is increased	Ineffective Very effective: 0% Effective: 0% Partially effective: 60% Ineffective: 40%	Improving Improving: 70% Stable: 20% Deteriorating: 10% Unclear: 0%
(4b) Indigenous protected areas are comprehensive, adequate, representative and appropriately managed	Ineffective Very effective: 0% Effective: 10% Partially effective: 60% Ineffective: 30%	Improving Improving: 30% Stable: 20% Deteriorating: 20% Unclear: 30%
(4c) Indigenous people’s self-determined governance of Australia’s land and seas is recognised and supported	Partially effective Very effective: 0% Effective: 0% Partially effective: 60% Ineffective: 40%	Improving Improving: 40% Stable: 10% Deteriorating: 20% Unclear: 30%
(4d) Indigenous people’s capacity to manage and use the resources of Australia’s land and seas is increased	Partially effective Very effective: 0% Effective: 0% Partially effective: 70% Ineffective: 30%	Improving Improving: 50% Stable: 20% Deteriorating: 20% Unclear: 10%
(4e) Indigenous people’s distinctive relationships with and obligations for caring for Country are recognised and implemented in state, national and international legislation, regulations and policies	Partially effective Very effective: 0% Effective: 0% Partially effective: 40% Ineffective: 60%	Improving Improving: 40% Stable: 30% Deteriorating: 20% Unclear: 10%

Outcome

State

Trend

(1a) Indigenous people’s identities as cohesive communities of First Peoples and their associated connections to Australia’s land and seas are recognised and supported

Very poor

Very good: 0%
Good: 0%
Poor: 44%
Very poor: 56%

Improving/Unclear

Improving: 33%
Stable: 22%
Deteriorating: 11%
Unclear: 33%

(1b) Indigenous people’s long and healthy lives support their caring for Country activities and obligations

Very poor

Very good: 10%
Good: 10%
Poor: 30%
Very poor: 50%

Improving

Improving: 40%
Stable: 20%
Deteriorating: 20%
Unclear: 20%

(1c) Indigenous people’s cultures and languages are strong, supported and flourishing

Poor

Very good: 0%
Good: 30%
Poor: 60%
Very poor: 10%

Improving

Improving: 50%
Stable: 0%
Deteriorating: 40%
Unclear: 10%

(2a) Areas of Australia’s land and seas covered by or subject to, Indigenous people’s legal rights or interests are increased

Poor

Very good: 0%
Good: 40%
Poor: 50%
Very poor: 10%

Improving

Improving: 70%
Stable: 0%
Deteriorating: 20%
Unclear: 10%

(2b) Indigenous people maintain a distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic relationship through sufficient access to their land and waters

Very poor

Very good: 0%
Good: 0%
Poor: 40%
Very poor: 60%

Improving

Deteriorating
Improving: 30%
Stable: 20%
Deteriorating: 30%
Unclear: 20%

(2c) The health of Australia’s lands and seas underpins the distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic connections with First Peoples

Very poor

Very good: 0%
Good: 20%
Poor: 30%
Very poor: 50%

Deteriorating

Improving: 10%
Stable: 20%
Deteriorating: 70%
Unclear: 0%

(3a) Legacies of colonisation that degrade Indigenous people’s capacity, equity and cultural safety for governance and management of Australia’s land and seas are reduced

Very high impact: 80%
High: 20%
Low: 0%
Very low: 0%

Improving

Improving: 40%
Stable: 10%
Deteriorating: 40%
Unclear: 10%

(3b) Pressures that degrade environmental assets of significance to Indigenous people are reduced

Very high impact: 70%
High: 30%
Low: 0%
Very low: 0%

Deteriorating

Improving: 10%
Stable: 10%
Deteriorating: 70%
Unclear: 10%

(3c) Environmental Pressures that degrade cultural and environmental knowledge and practices for caring for Country, and cross-generational transmission of these, are reduced

Very high impact: 80%
High: 20%
Low: 0%
Very low: 0%

Deteriorating

Improving: 10%
Stable: 10%
Deteriorating: 80%
Unclear: 0%

(3d) Socio-economic Pressures that degrade cultural and environmental knowledge and practices for caring for Country, and cross-generational transmission of these, are reduced

Very high impact: 60%
High: 40%
Low: 0%
Very low: 0%

Deteriorating

Improving: 20%
Stable: 20%
Deteriorating: 30%
Unclear: 30%

(4a) Appropriate use and cross-generational transfer of Indigenous knowledge and practices in caring for Country is increased

Ineffective

Very effective: 0%
Effective: 0%
Partially effective: 60%
Ineffective: 40%

Improving

Improving: 70%
Stable: 20%
Deteriorating: 10%
Unclear: 0%

(4b) Indigenous protected areas are comprehensive, adequate, representative and appropriately managed

Ineffective

Very effective: 0%
Effective: 10%
Partially effective: 60%
Ineffective: 30%

Improving

Improving: 30%
Stable: 20%
Deteriorating: 20%
Unclear: 30%

(4c) Indigenous people’s self-determined governance of Australia’s land and seas is recognised and supported

Partially effective

Very effective: 0%
Effective: 0%
Partially effective: 60%
Ineffective: 40%

Improving

Improving: 40%
Stable: 10%
Deteriorating: 20%
Unclear: 30%

(4d) Indigenous people’s capacity to manage and use the resources of Australia’s land and seas is increased

Partially effective

Very effective: 0%
Effective: 0%
Partially effective: 70%
Ineffective: 30%

Improving

Improving: 50%
Stable: 20%
Deteriorating: 20%
Unclear: 10%

(4e) Indigenous people’s distinctive relationships with and obligations for caring for Country are recognised and implemented in state, national and international legislation, regulations and policies

Partially effective

Very effective: 0%
Effective: 0%
Partially effective: 40%
Ineffective: 60%

Improving

Improving: 40%
Stable: 30%
Deteriorating: 20%
Unclear: 10%

For more information, go toApproach

Table 13 Assigning confidence levels in the assessment

State, impact or effectiveness	Confidence	Trend	Confidence
General agreement with experts indicating only 2 similar categories: very good/very high/very effective and/or good/high/effective very poor/very low/ineffective and/or poor/low/partially effective	High (well established)	General agreement with >70% of experts indicating one of the 3 categories: improving stable deteriorating	High (well established)
Moderate level of agreement with >70% of experts indicating only 2 similar categories: very good/very high/very effective and/or good/high/effective very poor/very low/ineffective and/or poor/low/partially effective	Medium (established)	Moderate level of agreement with >70% of experts indicating: improving or stable deteriorating or stable	Medium (established)
Substantial level of disagreement with <70% of experts indicating 2 similar categories	Low (unresolved)	Substantial level of disagreement with <70% of experts indicating categories improving or stable deteriorating or stable or majority indicating unclear	Low (unresolved)

State, impact or effectiveness

Confidence

Trend

Confidence

General agreement with experts indicating only 2 similar categories:

very good/very high/very effective and/or good/high/effective
very poor/very low/ineffective and/or poor/low/partially effective

High (well established)

General agreement with >70% of experts indicating one of the 3 categories:

improving
stable
deteriorating

High (well established)

Moderate level of agreement with >70% of experts indicating only 2 similar categories:

very good/very high/very effective and/or good/high/effective
very poor/very low/ineffective and/or poor/low/partially effective

Medium (established)

Moderate level of agreement with >70% of experts indicating:

improving or stable
deteriorating or stable

Medium (established)

Substantial level of disagreement with <70% of experts indicating 2 similar categories

Low (unresolved)

Substantial level of disagreement with <70% of experts indicating categories

improving or stable
deteriorating or stable

majority indicating unclear

Low (unresolved)

For more information, go toApproach