@article {bnh-7902, title = {Hazards, culture and Indigenous communities {\textendash} final project report}, number = {654}, year = {2021}, month = {03/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This is the Final Report of the Hazards, Culture and Indigenous Communities (HCIC) project. This project considered the challenges and opportunities arising out of engagements between Indigenous peoples and natural hazard and land management government agencies in southern Australia. The majority of this activity has focused on cultural burning, which has also been our focus.

Significantly, there is very limited existing research about these engagements, and limited public sector experience in engaging with Indigenous peoples. This constrains evidenced-based policy and practice and practitioner decision making. This lack of capacity was clear in the responses to the 2019-20 bushfires. The natural hazard sector is now required to do this retrospective and forward-looking learning, to foster more culturally safe natural hazard mitigation, and better connect the logics of hazards, risk and resilience. Indeed, our research found that when the sector does not account for cultural protocols and permissions as part of its core business, this produces barriers to collaboration because it:

We undertook qualitative research, primarily through forming partnerships with key practitioners working in this space and undertaking research activities that iteratively learnt from these partnerships. In this, researching both Indigenous and non-indigenous values has been important in order to navigate and analyse this intercultural context.\ 

Our research findings are structured in two sections: the first presents the results from our literature review, the second presents a synthesis of the research findings arranged under six headings, as listed below, with recommended first steps for the natural hazard sector under each heading. Given previous sector and research practices, the suggested first steps require significant sector leadership and investment in Indigenous-led research.

Research findings

Unfamiliarity with the context itself

There needs to be a rapid growth in sector capacity in understanding the context itself, especially:

Essentially, the sector needs to understand where it sits in relation to Indigenous peoples.

Trust and partnerships

The shared motivations held by some Indigenous and non-indigenous individuals to form collaborative partnerships are challenged by their operating context, including a lack of trust, bureaucratic constraints, tokenism, racism, and a lack of resources. The sector needs to move beyond statements of support, to develop specific policies and programs that demonstrably grow opportunities for Indigenous engagement and partnership. We suggest these policies should be:

Centring Country and First Peoples

It is clear from our research that if emerging collaborations are to be sustainable, Aboriginal people need to be centred on meaningful terms across a suite of natural hazard practices and policies. We suggest this should involve:

Administration and regulation

There is a clear need for more culturally appropriate and equitable regulatory, training and qualification regimes for bushfire management across Australia. From our research findings this includes:\ 

Expert evidence and erasure

Academic and government research has failed, almost without exception, to consider Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} experiences with natural hazards in southern Australia. To address this imbalance, the public sector needs to create specific funding streams to address this research gap. These funding schemes should be:

Accounting and reporting

Our research showed that there was very little attention given by the sector to accounting and reporting their policy commitments and legal obligations towards Aboriginal peoples, reducing sector transparency, accountability and coordination. In response, we suggest that a;; land and emergency management agencies should include in their annual reports details about:

We emphasise that conducting a cultural burn in of itself is not necessarily a good outcome, as the value of the cultural burn is dependent on the meaningful involvement of First Peoples.

Fundamentally, we argue that the sector and Aboriginal peoples have to build capacity, meet, and be more organised locally and across larger regions. To do so, we suggest:

In summary, we suggest that land and emergency management agencies need to:

Concluding remarks

With the recent catastrophic bushfires, there is an expressed demand for greater engagement with Indigenous peoples iconic burning practices. More generally, it may be that the public sector has reached a tipping point, whereby adversarial approaches to working with Indigenous peoples are being authentically replaced with partnership approaches. In this, the findings are not just of relevance to the natural hazard sector, but across other public sector practice.

Fundamentally, sector leadership has to consider: why and how it wishes to collaborate with Indigenous peoples; allocate the resources and time to understand the status quo that has excluded Indigenous people to date; create processes and structures to support Indigenous leadership, participation and collaboration across the sector; and, address deficiencies in how sector performance is currently measured and reported.

}, keywords = {communities, culture, hazards, indigenous}, issn = {654}, author = {Jessica Weir and Timothy Neale and Will Smith} } @article {bnh-7840, title = {Persuasion without policies: The work of reviving Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} fire management in southern Australia}, journal = {Geoforum}, volume = {120}, year = {2021}, month = {02/2021}, pages = {82-92}, abstract = {

Catastrophic and unprecedented wildfires have unfolded across fire-prone landscapes globally over the last three years, with highly publicized loss of human life, property destruction and ecological transformation. Indigenous peoples within many nations have persuasively argued that traditional fire management can enhance existing wildfire mitigation strategies. However, there are considerable barriers to the further incorporation of Indigenous practices into existing wildfire policy. This paper explores the potential of Indigenous fire management to achieve broader institutionalization, emphasizing the social labour involved producing and sustaining intercultural collaboration in bureaucratic contexts. Our focus is southern Australia where Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} fire management, often termed {\textquoteright}cultural burning{\textquoteright}, has been facilitated by an Indigenous-led social movement and growing state support. We draw on interviews conducted with Aboriginal and white land and hazard management practitioners actively engaged in intercultural fire management collaborations largely occurring on public lands. In the absence of institutional clarity, established networks and accreted experience these practitioners work to generate enthusiasm, stabilise Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} environmental authority and nullify pervasive societal fears surrounding the risk of fire. The case study demonstrates the significance of interpersonal factors in the emergence and maintenance of fraught intercultural collaborations. Despite global optimism, such insights highlight how the revival of Indigenous fire management in nations such as Australia is highly contingent and depends upon routine persuasive labour and fragile intercultural diplomacy.

}, keywords = {collaboration, Environmental management, Indigenous peoples, Natural hazards, Wildfire Settler-colonial}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.01.015}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016718521000233}, author = {Will Smith and Timothy Neale and Jessica Weir} } @article {bnh-7028, title = {Hazards, culture and Indigenous communities {\textendash} annual report 2018-2019}, number = {585}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Over the past decade, there has been an increasing amount of public attention focused on the contributions that Aboriginal people, and their knowledge and practices, make to resilience and sustainability agendas in Australia. Given the emerging commitment of natural hazards agencies in southern Australia to engagement and collaboration with Aboriginal people, the increasing level of legal recognition accorded to Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} land rights, and Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} own investment and interest in engaging in forms of natural hazard management, it is important that researchers support this work to understand and document how beneficial and respectful collaborations can be fostered.

The second year of the Hazards, culture and Indigenous communities (HCIC) project has focused on completing fieldwork for the case studies and practitioner survey, continuing to produce scholarly and industry-focused publications and maintaining strong end-user engagement. Our preliminary findings show that:

These findings are arising out of our key activities from the project. In this year, we report on:

Significantly, as part of our end-user engagement, we convened a workshop at AFAC18 that recommended:

These recommendations were passed onto our end-user team to take forward. They are also informing the preparations for the AFAC20 conference in Adelaide.

}, keywords = {culture, hazards, indigenous communities}, issn = {585}, author = {Will Smith and Jessica Weir and Timothy Neale} } @article {bnh-7185, title = {Hazards, culture and indigenous communities: socio-institutional modules for utilisation}, number = {595}, year = {2020}, month = {08/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

These Modules provide background information to support existing and potential collaborations between the natural hazards management sector and Indigenous peoples and their communities.

The modules are specifically written for bushfire risk and its mitigation through land management activities, with the focus being Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} burning practices. This reflects where most of the collaborations are occurring in southern Australia, and also our research activities. The modules nonetheless offer support for other natural hazard contexts and other risk mitigation activities.

We have used the term {\textquoteleft}module{\textquoteright} rather than {\textquoteleft}guide{\textquoteright} to ensure readers understand these are simply presented as tools and are not intended to provide advice about the priorities and values of Indigenous peoples. It is particularly important for non-Indigenous people to learn directly from the Indigenous people they are collaborating with. Further, each collaboration will have specific cultural, social, legal, institutional and other norms, structures and processes.

In each model we have provided links for further information, and/or suggested reading lists.

Module 1: Governance norms

This module provides a general overview of governance arrangements. In it, we highlight differences and interactions between Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} governance and the statutory governance of fire by state agencies across Australia.

Module 2: Natural hazards management sector terminology

Natural hazard terminology is not widely known outside the sector. This is true for both formal terms used in planning and policy documentation, and also colloquial and informal language.

In this module, we define some of the basic concepts used in state fire fighting and mitigation activities.

Module 3: Language and meaning

Misunderstandings surround some of the basic language and meaning of terms and concepts used by different people engaged in the management of natural hazards and Country and this can hinder fair and effective cooperation. Meeting agendas, everyday conversations and well-meaning attempts to build working relationships can be derailed by missed meanings.

This module contains definitions of concepts that are increasingly deployed to foster equitable and just relationships of knowledge and practice within collaborations between Indigenous peoples, state government and other groups interested in land management:

Module 4: Agreement making

Agreement making, including Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), are used by diverse organisations to set out mutual terms for engagement and action. An MoU may be less formal than an agreement, but not necessarily.

The process of entering into an agreement recognises the existence of substantive joint interests, and the will to establish objectives in relation to those interests. Critically, agreements need to include consideration of:

These capacities are not just about the sharing of financial resources to prepare for and attend meetings, and to implement objectives, but also to ensure that parties are able to engage in meaningful communication with each other.

Module 5: Resources

In this module, we provide resources on publications by Indigenous authors about Indigenous governance and culture, as well as weblinks to a range of Indigenous and non-Indigenous sites of relevance.

}, keywords = {culture, hazards, indigenous communities, utilisation models}, issn = {595}, author = {Jessica Weir and Will Smith and Timothy Neale} } @article {bnh-5422, title = {Hazards, Culture and Indigenous Communities Annual Report 2017-2018}, number = {457}, year = {2019}, month = {02/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Over the past decade, there has been an increasing amount of public attention focused on the contributions that Aboriginal people, and their knowledge and practices, make to resilience and sustainability agendas in Australia. Given the emerging commitment of natural hazards agencies in southern Australia to engagement and collaboration with Aboriginal people, the increasing level of legal recognition accorded to Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} land rights, and Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} own investment and interest in engaging in forms of natural hazard management, it is important that researchers support to this work, to understand and document how beneficial and respectful collaborations can be fostered.

The first year of the Hazards, Culture and Indigenous Communities (HCIC) project has focused around completing publications, initial fieldwork and the development of research priorities, and maintaining strong end user engagement. Key activities from this first year include:

}, keywords = {indigenous communities, Multi-hazard, Natural hazards}, author = {Will Smith and Jessica Weir and Timothy Neale} } @article {bnh-4738, title = {Southeast Australia Aboriginal fire forum}, year = {2018}, month = {09/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report was written as part of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre{\textquoteright}s {\textquoteleft}Hazards, Culture and Indigenous Communities{\textquoteright} research project (BNHCRC{\textquoteright}s HCIC). The HCIC research project focuses on collaborations between Aboriginal groups and natural hazards management agencies across southern Australia (see further Appendix 3). The BNHCRC is funded through a combination of Commonwealth research monies, as well as financial and in-kind contributions from government organisations, research institutions and nongovernment organisations. We were invited to attend the Forum and write this report by the Murumbung Rangers, with whom we have one of our case study relationships; nevertheless, this is an independent research report written with respect to the HCIC project{\textquoteright}s research priorities. The Forum facilitators, Coolamon Advisors, prepared an official Forum Report which summarises key findings and provides recommendations emerging from the speakers and participants over the first two days of the forum (Coolamon Advisors 2018). This research report includes excerpts from the Forum Report in textboxes. These reports are valuable for the work of key actors involved in cultural burning, whether they attended the forum or not.

}, keywords = {culture, Fire, indigenous, mitigation, Natural hazards}, issn = {413}, author = {Will Smith and Jessica Weir and Timothy Neale} }