Remote Indigenous communities welcome two-way training

By Steve Sutton. This article first appeared in Issue Three 2018 of Fire Australia.

Although Australia's National Strategy for Disaster Resilience seeks equity in the delivery of fire and emergency management across the nation, remote communities in northern Australia are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to managing natural hazards.

Inadequate infrastructure unsuited to wet season conditions, combined with remoteness, isolates communities for up to six months per year, while socioeconomic measures show that remote community inhabitants are in the lowest tiers of Australian health, education and income. Yet all remote communities are expected to contribute to the ‘shared responsibility’ for disaster risk reduction. In Australia's far north, however, many communities have never had an effective dialogue with government agencies. This has led to profound misunderstandings on both sides about capacities and responsibilities.

This project through the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC was bought about through concerns expressed by Indigenous people in some remote Northern Territory communities about the inadequacy of fire and emergency management training in northern Australia. It has national significance, and has highlighted the need for greater awareness of the profound cultural differences between bureaucracies and Indigenous people, and the desire by communities to have non-Indigenous emergency management training that builds on Indigenous knowledge and delivery of hazard management practices.

Following informal conversations initiated by Indigenous people, researchers have consulted community members in three Arnhem Land communities: Ramingining in Central Arnhem Land; and Maningrida and Manmoyi, both in West Arnhem Land (see map). The objective was to document the issues and develop training that meets their requirements and aspirations. For many Indigenous participants, it was the first time they had been consulted by a non-Indigenous person about Indigenous understanding of natural hazards, resilience, leadership and decision making. Community members' understanding of their risk profile and resilience was also assessed, and remarkably it was discovered that many of the participants had never heard of 'natural hazards management'. Nor did they understand the term ‘resilience’ in this context, that is, the ability of individuals and communities to adapt to environmental changes and to continue a fulfilling existence on country.

So, how did it happen?

The three remote Arnhem Land communities were selected because:

1. They were located near emerging fire and land management projects
2. They were impacted by two cyclones (Nathan and Lam) in early 2015
3. Community members had strongly advocated for training.

Initially, the strategy was to adopt a qualitative approach to determine what local people felt was needed in training. This proved to be a quite specific and limited scope. The strategy subsequently evolved and broadened as the researchers worked with the project's participants. It started with interviews that were unstructured conversations about fire and emergency management and the training that people required to access emerging opportunities in greenhouse emissions abatement and commercial land management in the region. A series of workshops were then held to investigate land management practice and knowledge, which culminated in two workshops targeting leadership and decision making. These workshops were facilitated by practitioners from the ARPNet program (Aboriginal Research Practitioners Network), a coordinated team of Indigenous people who have been trained in participatory action research (see Need to Know box). They used the languages of the community members, as well as English, to generate a deeper understanding of the issues.

The use of ARPNet dramatically improved the project's progress by generating excitement among participants, including people who would usually rarely attend meetings with balanda (white people). Conducting research in participants’ first language, with recognition of and deference to Aboriginal cultural settings, indicated to participants that the researchers were committed to addressing each community's training needs. In particular, it emerged that the limited scope of the research was, in fact, itself constrained by the preconceptions of the research team and that there was a much deeper set of lessons in the research findings.

What did we find?

This project has identified lessons for all interactions between emergency management agencies and Aboriginal people. The research team found that effective training should respect the local Indigenous culture by working within the non-hierarchical, decision-making matrix of each community. Figure 1 shows the matrix for the Central and West Arnhem Land communities that participated in the research (note, their term for 'people' is Bininj). In this system, no individual has the authority to make a decision regarding land or hazard management; input from key members across the matrix, which might include different language groups, is usually sought. A key insight is that Indigenous people believe that only a person born of the country should be able to make decisions about country.

With regard to the training itself, the Indigenous participants wanted to continue the existing training, with its focus on safety and non-Aboriginal conceptions of fire and response. However, they also expressly required that training include their own understandings of fire and practices and use their own ‘professors’ – senior community members with ceremonial and practical qualifications in fire and land management. The training should integrate with their existing wisdom to build a wider, intersecting understanding of their role in fire and emergency management.

Indigenous participants preferred to have training conducted on their community lands (‘on country’), rather than in towns or cities, and use a mix of interactive techniques to operationalise knowledge. The training structure would ideally combine action, discussion and review in their language, led by elders as well as with balanda. It should be part of a cyclic training program spread over days (a week would be best). Where technology is used (for example, GPS, GIS), it should be introduced and reviewed in ways that allow individuals to become comfortable with their use. For example, familiarising themselves with the technology during breaks or in the evening over a family discussion.

The training should target those people, such as local rangers, who will conduct the on-ground work, and training must also be provided to their extended family or clan (parents, grandparents, children and cousins). The inclusion of this latter group is vital. It builds a pyramid of comprehension of the training and fosters a discussion that bridges ‘new’ knowledge and existing traditional frameworks. It also establishes a broader, deeper understanding in the general community that will support the rangers in times of stress or conflict.

The inclusion of this extended learning group in the training also supports the maintenance of traditional leadership and decision making frameworks (see Figure 1). Proper decision making about land and natural hazards in remote Indigenous communities relies on a complex governance structure that balances matrilineal and patrilineal hereditary ownership and authority with multiple threads of totemic and practical knowledge (of fire, for example). Introducing ‘new’ knowledge to selected trainees would destabilise community understanding and lead to conflict and sub-standard decisions. Inviting the wider clan group to train ensures that a community can develop its own version of ‘shared responsibility’ without damaging social aspects of their resilience. 

Where to now?

The project's findings are being applied to refine both the content and style of the delivery of training for Indigenous people in communities in Central and Western Arnhem Land. This training is tailored to the respective communities and would need to be adjusted to suit other regions, after preliminary discussions with local people.

Feedback on the training

Elders who attended a training pilot in 2017 have provided end-user feedback. (For cultural reasons, they have not been identified.)

“Family they saw what I was doing with all them projects, I bin go here and get that training and that training, this bin different from any other training workshop.”

– Elder 1, Malnyangarnak

“I bin invite im yous mob [the trainers] to come and I just need to keep talking to families because this is important. They gotta come and see and hear for themselves, im need that knowledge, im fire is everything for us mob. I bin cry for this. Old man tell me go bla to school, but I bin stupid one, I bin caught by im police. Then one day im good spirit tell me to go read and write. Come on family you gotta come, ngayam, we sing im look after our people and our land.”

– Elder 2, Malnyangarnak

(Translation follows) I have invited the trainers to come, I just need to keep talking to the families because this is important. They have to come and see and hear for themselves, they need that knowledge, that fire is everything for us. I have been crying for this. The old men told me to go to school but I was the stupid one, I was caught by the police. Then one day a good spirit told me to go and learn to read and write. Come on family you must come, ngayam, we sing for country and look after our people and our land.

Need to know

ARPNet (Aboriginal Research Practitioners Network): a coordinated Indigenous team which has been trained in Participatory Action Research. Members are contracted to conduct research, evaluation and planning activities using qualitative and quantitative research methods. For each project, ARPNet members work with the lead researcher to clarify the research objective and frame the approach. ARPNet research is then conducted in the participants' first language, with due attention to local cultural sensitivities.

Balanda: white people; term derived from “Hollander”.