@article {bnh-8363, title = {Indigenous-informed disaster recovery: Addressing collective trauma using a healing framework}, journal = {Progress in Disaster Science}, volume = {16}, year = {2022}, month = {12/2022}, abstract = {

Indigenous knowledges are increasingly recognised for their value in disaster resilience, with particular attention to\ traditional ecological knowledges. Yet the expansive and holistic\ worldviews\ of Indigenous peoples offer an even broader set of knowledges and perspectives, such as the field of Indigenous healing, that are highly relevant to systemic challenges in disaster resilience and recovery. This theoretical paper explores the potential for an Indigenous-informed healing framework to address collective trauma from disasters. It begins by addressing key matters of concern in knowledge sharing between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. It then considers Indigenous healing as an international field of knowledge and practice, distilling consistent features across a range of texts. These shared features in Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} healing traditions include: holistic approaches to wellbeing; social rather than solo processes; identifying and treating the roots of trauma; strengths-based and community-led processes; the need for socially and culturally safe spaces; and Indigenous notions of responsibility, justice and forgiveness. We then analyse points of difference and resonance with disaster recovery literature, in a novel effort to bring the fields of Indigenous healing and disaster recovery together through respectful and thoughtful dialogue. In doing so, this paper seeks to inform much-needed efforts to enhance culturally responsive practices in working with Indigenous peoples affected by disasters. The exploration also identifies that a healing-informed approach to disaster recovery offers opportunities to better support all communities affected by disasters, by unsettling assumptions and enabling holistic understandings of complex interactions between multiple disasters, community contexts and systemic inequities. To meet the many challenges facing the sector now and into the future, innovations fostered by such cross-disciplinary explorations are crucial.

}, keywords = {disaster, Healing, indigenous, recovery, resilience, Trauma}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2022.100257}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061722000448}, author = {Phoebe Quinn and Bhiamie Williamson and Lisa Gibbs} } @article {bnh-8217, title = {Cultural burning in southern Australia}, year = {2021}, month = {09/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

There is so much interest in cultural burning {\textendash} the landscape burns practised by Aboriginal people {\textendash} and its relevance to southern Australia{\textquoteright}s bushfire risk, but what is cultural burning? The people to learn from are the First Nations, Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country. Indeed, to really understand requires being part of a cultural burn on Country.

This edited report, as well as the posters available separately online, bring together and uniquely present six diverse personal cultural burning experiences from across southern Australia. These experiences both diverge and align as Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} paths, perspectives and priorities have always diverged and aligned.

Four of the contributions centre on burning one{\textquoteright}s own Country in southern Australia, as shared by Minung/Gnudju kayang (wise woman) Carol Pettersen of the Noongar Nation, Gilgar Gunditj Elder Eileen Alberts of the Gunditjmara Nation, Palawa man Jason Andrew Smith and Ngunnawal murringe (man) Adrian Brown. These experiences range from growing up burning with family and continuing to be involved today, to reigniting cultural burns on lands where it has too long been absent. We also have two stories about roles in university and government as shared by Bundjalung and Wonnarua woman Vanessa Cavanagh\ and Kaytej Elder Wayne ampetyane Davis. They describe how their roles involve learning from and supporting the First Nations, Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country, and the difference when they themselves are involved in burns on their own Country.

This difference is no minor matter: it marks the unique authority and connections held between specific people and places. More than an inter-generational form of land management, cultural burning involves matters of respect, obligation and responsibility with ancestral lands, waters, skies and everything in between. These burns are a cultural practice undertaken by Aboriginal people in relation to Country and kin, connecting and investing in their wellbeing and self-determination, and Australia{\textquoteright}s fire regime.

This authority and connection with Country is the first of four matters that inform the creation of this report. The second matter is the assumption by some people in society that cultural burning is to be imported from northern Australia into southern Australia. This fails to understand that cultural burning only occurs in relation to Country and the people of Country. Further, the cultural burning leaders show how this specific cultural practice has been passed down by families and nation groups to present times in places that are often described as settled and urban. At the same time, knowledge has always been shared by Aboriginal people across the continent, and this is not de-valued.

Third, Aboriginal women have long been marginalised from land management conversations with government and university. In recognition, women come first in this report. As Aunty Carol, Vanessa and Aunty Eileen share, cultural burning practices have intricate and interwoven roles for men and women. We look forward to hearing more such voices as cultural burning becomes better known.

Fourth, cultural burning is about\ healing relationships between Aboriginal\ people and their Country. There has been,\ and continues to be, much physical and other violence directed towards Country and people\ of Country. With climate change, there are even more challenges in this work and even more care needs to be taken. Supporting the healing of these relationships is an important responsibility for non-Indigenous people.

These six individual and shared cultural burning experiences bring to life these four matters and more. You will also see that ten Cultural Burning Principles have been developed. Again, this is to help articulate some of the core matters at hand, which Aboriginal leaders have been raising for generations. These voices can be hard to hear when they are the minority in the room, and so different from the dominant culture of governments and universities.

We are particularly concerned that the groundswell of support for Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} fire management expertise, during and after the catastrophic Black Summer (2019-2020), does not address fundamental misunderstandings about Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} fire management practices. By not addressing these misunderstandings, existing problems become repeated in the new work that is being established around cultural burning.

We hope this report\ and the posters\ will help address this by\ providing the opportunity to see\ a different viewpoint, to stand in\ someone else{\textquoteright}s shoes. This is critical
in developing more respectful\ relationships between Indigenous\ people and non-Indigenous people.\ We are all living together on Country.

Whilst the report and posters cannot compare to the experience of being at a cultural burn, they share realities that are little known in places where important decisions are being made {\textendash} such as the offices of bushfire inquiries, the boardrooms of government agencies, the risk-reduction burns of fire practitioners and the professional practices of university researchers.

We note that cultural burning is a new term to describe burns that in earlier times never needed such a label.

And now, over to our six cultural burning leaders.

}, keywords = {cultural burning, culture, indigenous, southern Australia}, isbn = {978-0-6452058-1-7}, issn = {687}, author = {Jessica Weir and Dean Freeman and Bhiamie Williamson} } @article {bnh-8202, title = {Cultural land management in southeastern Australia - Black Summer final report}, number = {704}, year = {2021}, month = {09/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Cultural land management research in southeast Australia project aimed to develop foundations for Indigenous-led and co-designed research programs to support cultural land management into the future. The project explored how to empower and enable Indigenous-led cultural fire and land management practices to improve landscape management and community resilience in southeast Australia.

To these ends, the project team convened a Project Steering Group (PSG) of cultural land management experts and advisors currently engaged in cultural fire management operations or research in New South Wales and Victoria. It also convened a Government Advisory Group and a Research Advisory Group to assist with advice where appropriate. As well as meetings of these Groups, the other key project activity was the conducting of several workshops in select sites to progress regional conversations regarding the potential for Indigenous-led cultural fire and land management research.

Overall, on the basis of these activities, this project concludes that research projects and institutes relating to land and fire management need to proceed from core understandings that:

Further, this project report makes 10 recommendations for action by Natural Hazards Research Australia and research partners to support cultural land management and Indigenous-led and co-designed research programs into the future:

  1. Formal acknowledgement by research organisations of the equivalent value of Indigenous knowledge, practice, and science to Western understandings/knowledge systems. Respect and Recognition of knowledge-holders and cultural land management practice
  2. Recognise the holistic and highly diverse context of Indigenous ways of being and Caring for Country
  3. Make clear commitments to supporting Indigenous people to get on Country and engage in cultural stewardship practices to build the resilience of Country and people\ 
  4. Establish an Indigenous Research Strategy with dedicated research streams/project areas for cultural stewardship research within Natural Hazards Research Australia{\textquoteright}s research agenda that supports Indigenous-led research pathways.
  5. Create avenues to recognise Traditional Owners as research partners/end-users of research funded by Natural Hazards Research Australia
  6. Include Indigenous voice and representation in governance structures of institutions and land management agencies
  7. Establish meaningful and ongoing pathways for Traditional Owner inclusion and consultation, to ensure research agendas and processes reflect Traditional Owner aspirations and priorities
  8. Development of a framework of broad research principles/protocols and processes to guide more ethical and collaborative cultural land management research
  9. Embed multiple aspects of capacity building into research frameworks and processes
  10. Support opportunities for developing Indigenous governance, collaboration, and knowledge sharing

These recommendations are further explained in the Key Findings and Recommendations section below.

We propose a staged approach to utilising this project and these recommendations, to be guided by the project team and an interim Indigenous Research Committee (IRC) consisting of Project Steering Group members:

  1. present the key findings and recommendations to the Natural Hazards Research Australia executive as the basis for developing an Indigenous research strategy
  2. establish Terms of Reference for the Indigenous Research Committee (IRC)
  3. work with the Natural Hazards Research Australia to identify priority recommendations and research projects for implementation in the short, moderate, and longer terms
  4. work with the Natural Hazards Research Australia to identify the resource requirements to implement the recommendations and research projects
  5. co-develop with Indigenous partners and Natural Hazards Research Australia representatives, a cultural land and fire management research agenda and priorities.

1.\ \ \ \  Formal acknowledgement by research organisations of the equivalent value of Indigenous knowledge, practice, and science to Western understandings/knowledge systems. Respect and Recognition of knowledge-holders and cultural land management practice

2.\ \ \ \  Recognise the holistic and highly diverse context of Indigenous ways of being and Caring for Country

3.\ \ \ \  Make clear commitments to supporting Indigenous people to get on Country and engage in cultural stewardship practices to build the resilience of Country and people

4.\ \ \ \  Establish an Indigenous Research Strategy with dedicated research streams/project areas for cultural stewardship research within Natural Hazards Research Australia{\textquoteright}s research agenda that supports Indigenous-led research pathways.

5.\ \ \ \  Create avenues to recognise Traditional Owners as research partners/end-users of research funded by Natural Hazards Research Australia

6.\ \ \ \  Include Indigenous voice and representation in governance structures of institutions and land management agencies

7.\ \ \ \  Establish meaningful and ongoing pathways for Traditional Owner inclusion and consultation, to ensure research agendas and processes reflect Traditional Owner aspirations and priorities

8.\ \ \ \  Development of a framework of broad research principles/protocols and processes to guide more ethical and collaborative cultural land management research

9.\ \ \ \  Embed multiple aspects of capacity building into research frameworks and processes

10.Support opportunities for developing Indigenous governance, collaboration, and knowledge sharing

These recommendations are further explained in the Key Findings and Recommendations section below.

We propose a staged approach to utilising this project and these recommendations, to be guided by the project team and an interim Indigenous Research Committee (IRC) consisting of Project Steering Group members:

1.\ \ \ \  present the key findings and recommendations to the Natural Hazards Research Australia executive as the basis for developing an Indigenous research strategy

2.\ \ \ \  establish Terms of Reference for the Indigenous Research Committee (IRC)

3.\ \ \ \  work with the Natural Hazards Research Australia to identify priority recommendations and research projects for implementation in the short, moderate, and longer terms

4.\ \ \ \  work with the Natural Hazards Research Australia to identify the resource requirements to implement the recommendations and research projects

5.\ \ \ \  co-develop with Indigenous partners and Natural Hazards Research Australia representatives, a cultural land and fire management research agenda and priorities.

}, keywords = {Australia, cultural, indigenous, land, management, southeast}, issn = {704}, author = {Oliver Costello and Tasmin Dilworth and Katharine Haynes and Tony Jansen and Timothy Neale} } @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-8116, title = {Indigenous fire and land management - impact and sustainability}, number = {680}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Context

Significant work has been done over the life of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre around the issues, opportunities and challenges facing remote Indigenous communities in the face of natural hazards. In the north of Australia, the predominant natural threats are cyclones, wildfire and flood, though the level of threat and impact of any of these differs considerably from region to region. There are other hazards that deeply concern remote community leaders, again, not equally across regions: heat stress and exposure, natural water resource salination and pollution, food security, toxicity and asthma issues from crude community waste burning, infrastructure issues (including road access); and related challenges; local capability to act, governance, resilience, inclusion etc.

The emergency management sector research has focused on technologies, capability, recruitment, and other aspects of EM agency preparation, response and recovery. This project responds to an identified gap in addressing the overall environment of Emergency management in remote areas. . . working together!

It is broadly recognised within Indigenous communities that EM is carried out FOR them, not WITH them. (See detailed discussion of this in the Arnhem Land context in Maypalama et. al.: 2016 and Sithole et. al.: 2021). This has generated increased interest, not only in the future engagement of communities in EM, but in the roles, if any, of EM and other agencies in the resilience of communities who, given structural and resource limitations in EM, are keen (and encouraged) to increase {\textquoteleft}self-reliance{\textquoteright} and take on more responsibilities in this space.

There is now a growing conversation nationally around government agencies and Indigenous communities collaborating more effectively. Much of this conversation has been around the perceived positive impact of traditional knowledge (particularly use of fire) on landscape health, and vulnerability to wildfire, how this may be integrated into rural fire service practice and what the real impact of this might be.

Indigenous leaders and rangers have consistently said and shown that use of fire is not separate from other (holistic) elements of caring for traditional country and that the social and cultural dimensions to land and fire management need to be acknowledged and respected to deliver the desired benefits to country and people (Sithole et. al. 2021: Maypalama et.al. 2019: James et. al. 2019: Burgess et. al. 2009). There are many aspects to this conversation and many perceived potential benefits of working together. They underpin this project{\textquoteright}s focus on partnerships to be able to explore this work together. Thus, the research brief is to:

Method

This research was conducted as a series of community-based discussions and workshops in the Northern Territory and north Queensland. NAILSMA provided resources, logistics, backgrounding and other support to local Indigenous researchers and facilitators who ran the meetings on country. This was a Participatory Action Research (PAR) method, consistent with preceding research on community resilience and partnerships by ARPNet and NAILSMA under the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project Developing effective partnerships in remote north Australian communities: Indigenous research and leadership in Ramingining and Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku. Inherent in this approach are direct benefits to Indigenous researchers and their communities from the process and from longer term outcomes influenced by their research and advocacy with EM agency leaders.

\ Where possible, meeting notes from the NT and Qld discussions were drafted and circulated to respondents and all invitees to the final combined workshop. This was to share what had already been discussed and to help provide focus.

An Agency Reference Group (ARG) (made up predominantly of representatives from QFES, NTES and DFES, but including CDU, Red Cross, NAILSMA and BFNT people) was invited to review and respond to early workshop outcomes, and attend the final workshop. This step was to inform the ARG and Indigenous community invitees to the final workshop with a general view of both Indigenous and agency perspectives on EM priorities and partnership prospects. They were able to kick-off their face-to-face discussions with a degree of prior understanding and focus.

This final, combined workshop was hosted by Djabugay people on their land, facilitated by Barry Hunter, a Djabugay leader and consultant and supported by NAILSMA.

Findings

To inform a Future Research Strategy the research team has organised ideas from the workshop and broader project into:

The work found that gaps are evident within communities, within EM agencies and between them. Summary of the findings includes:

Research Priorities mirror the above gaps and challenges, leading to achieving practical steps in long-term relationship pathways:

Integrating Indigenous fire and land management knowledge with EM operations and systems is not about taking the knowledge, it{\textquoteright}s about building respectful and trusting relationships with Indigenous people to deliver more effective EM together.

Utilisation

This research method (Participatory Action Research) assumes that the Indigenous researchers and their communities are a focal end-user. Participating EM agencies are another key end-user, not only by benefiting from the research in the long run but through face-to-face interactions with community researchers through which opportunities and challenges in developing direct relationships with participating communities can be discussed and solutions progressed firsthand.

In this sense the research is being used as it develops, to benefit communities, relationship building and short-term achievable change. It is also aimed at the national agenda for partnerships with Indigenous land managers, seeking to inform the new Natural Hazards Research Australia[1] about future research priorities and to encourage more discussion, more experience sharing and broader engagement of Indigenous leaders and influential EM agency staff in collaborative workshops hosted by Communities in different jurisdictions on country. This latter aim reflects the success of this project{\textquoteright}s collaborations and use of this model as an ongoing forum to benefit the sector. See for example the Aims and Expectations of the final project workshop below.

\ The summary of next steps:

  1. Relevant EM agencies and community leaders to start or continue working on their relationship and achievable change now.
  2. This report, supported by participating agencies, is presented to the new Natural Hazards Research Australia as a foundation to attract a future fully funded program of collaborative PAR with community researchers and of partnered EM activity.
  3. For the next and future collaborative workshops to be planned and funding secured so they may become annual, focused, Indigenous led pillars of EM sector partnerships.
  4. Conversations continue at 3 levels: community level, transregional and across the multi-agency national conversation. This should include Qld, NT and WA EM agencies connecting more effectively with each other and supporting each other to progress partnership building at North Australia scale.
  5. Indigenous communities and land management groups, their representative organisations and supporters take whatever steps they are able to, to build resilience and capability in EM.
}, keywords = {challenges, Emergency management, fire management, Impact, indigenous, land management, opportunities, partnerships, research strategy, sustainability}, issn = {680}, author = {Glenn James and Danny Burton and Otto Bulmaniya Campion and Barry Hunter and Jimmy Morrison and Ted Gondarra and James Bayung} } @article {bnh-8193, title = {Principles for enhanced collaboration between land and emergency management agencies and Indigenous peoples - green paper}, number = {701}, year = {2021}, month = {09/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Several trends have recently converged to create considerable interest in enhancing collaboration in land and emergency management between Government agencies and First Nations peoples in southern Australia. These trends include: a growing number of grassroots First Nations peoples cultural fire and land management projects; increased media interest in these projects and their role in cultural revitalisation; increased policy focus within land and emergency management agencies on reconciliation, collaboration and partnership with First Nations peoples; as well as a range of findings from 2019-2020 bushfire season inquiries that recommend greater collaboration [e.g., 2]. Considering these trends, it should be noted both that there are multiple examples of successful collaboration or partnership relationships between government land and emergency management agencies and First Nations peoples across Australia and that, nonetheless, such forms of collaboration or partnership are not necessarily desired by all First Nations peoples.

To date there is a relative lack of academic research on this topic, however several successful case studies of the reintroduction of cultural fire management in southern Australia have been documented [3-7]. In 2021, state and territory governments across southern Australia were in various stages of engaging with First Nations peoples, with collaborative fire management policy ranging from whole-of-government reform for First Nations peoples{\textquoteright} self-determination to piecemeal ad hoc policy with limited resource allocation (Appendix 1). A review of academic and grey literature revealed that there is a range of benefits associated with contemporary First Nations peoples{\textquoteright} cultural fire and land management in southern Australia, including cultural, environmental, economic, wildfire management, political/self-determination, social, health and wellbeing benefits (Appendix 2).\  However, there are many barriers to a more widespread application of cultural fire and land management here and in other contexts (Appendix 3). Despite widespread goodwill and optimism, the revival of cultural fire and land management is highly contingent and generally relies upon routine persuasive labor and fragile intercultural diplomacy rather than robust policies and resourcing commitments.

}, keywords = {agencies, collaboration, Emergency management, indigenous, land management, principles}, issn = {701}, author = {Michelle McKemey and Timothy Neale and Oliver Costello} } @mastersthesis {bnh-8089, title = {Taking fire: the historical and contemporary politics of Indigenous burning in Australia and the western United Statest}, year = {2021}, month = {02/2021}, school = {Australian National University}, address = {Canberra}, abstract = {

Large bushfires in recent years around the world have sparked debate and interest in fire management; a world warming through industrial combustion is a world turning to Indigenous fire practices for solutions. Yet even as Indigenous Australians increasingly assert pyro-identities, non-Indigenous Australians have struggled to understand Indigenous burning practices and the nature of antipodean fire. This thesis examines the historical and contemporary politics of fire and how they relate to\ changing understandings of Indigenous burning in Australia and the United States in the 20th and 21st centuries. It examines public and institutional debates after large bushfires, discussions about management of public lands and shifting representations of Indigenous burning through analysis of royal commission transcripts, newspaper articles and other public discourse, policy submissions, institutional archives and academic published material. The thesis explores the relationship of environmentalism to fire and Indigenous burning, the contradictions of {\textquoteright}wilderness{\textquoteright} and the politics of race and identity. It charts the development of competing understandings of fire and Indigenous burning in academic disciplines as well as the entanglement of Indigenous burning with the politics of land management and institutional rivalries. Through a comparison of the mutual entanglements and divergences of Australian and American fire management and conceptualisations of Indigenous burning, the thesis demonstrates the historical and transnational context of Australian fire. It argues for localised understandings of fire and fire management, perspectives that are attentive to cultural and ecological specificities. Perceptions of Indigenous burning have inspired policy-making and they have also been appropriated for legitimation, with profound consequences for cultural politics and ecological communities. Finally, the thesis charts how Indigenous burning has been transformed in the imagination and discourses of non-Indigenous Australia: from academic curiosity to political incendiary - and, increasingly, to a lived reality.

}, keywords = {Australia, burning, contemporary, historical, indigenous, politics, US}, doi = {10.25911/MA4M-SN80}, url = {https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/222852}, author = {Daniel May} } @article {bnh-6906, title = {The economic benefits of the Indigenous Fire and Rescue Employment Strategy (IFARES) Program: Fire and Rescue New South Wales}, number = {567}, year = {2020}, month = {05/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The main purpose of the Indigenous Fire and Rescue Employment Strategy (IFARES) was to reduce the barriers to Indigenous employment. It has also been seen as a way of promoting greater engagement with Indigenous communities, improving fire safety within these communities and learning from traditional knowledge about fire management.

This study details the costs and benefits (both tangible and intangible) of the program. It estimates these by modelling different benefit and cost components. It finds the total benefits of the program to be around $8 million and estimates a benefit-cost ratio of 20, meaning that for every dollar invested in the program, the benefits to the community are approximately 20 times the amount invested. The intangible benefits are gleaned from a number of other sources, such as interviews with people involved with the program and media reports. The estimates of costs are largely based on data provided by Fire and Rescue New South Wales (FRNSW).

Indigenous Australians suffer from severe disadvantage on several levels, including employment opportunities, poor health, and limited education, all of which further constrain their employment prospects. Data from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (NATSISS) conducted by the ABS (2016), demonstrates this disadvantage by comparing each of these variables for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. For example, the unemployment rate among Indigenous Australians is 20.6 per cent compared to 6 per cent among non-Indigenous Australians, and only 25.7 per cent of Indigenous Australians have completed Year 12 or equivalent compared to 55.2 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians. An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study (AIHW 2011) suggested that the total burden of disease for Indigenous Australians was 429.4 DALYs per 1000 compared to 185 per 1000 for non-Indigenous Australians.

The IFARES was initiated in 2013 by FRNSW to help breakdown longstanding barriers to Indigenous recruitment to the fire services. Data from IFARES demonstrates the success of the program, where registrations have increased from 18 in 2014 to 235 in 2016. Overall, 49 fire fighters have been employed from the program and 1 into administration.

This study modelled the benefits of the program by taking into consideration: the reduced unemployment benefits arising from the program; working life returns after leaving the program; health benefits to the recruited firefighters; and the community health benefits arising from graduates of the course brought to their communities by increasing their awareness of health issues and making healthier choices. The study then estimated the benefit-cost ratio by taking account of the costs of the program.

Interviews with people involved in the program and media reports have helped identify some of the intangible benefits of the program. These included improving the self-confidence of people (particularly females) in Indigenous communities, whose members became fire fighters. Increasing the diversity of the fire services has led to greater social cohesion and improved engagement of the fire services with Indigenous communities, which in turn has led to greater fire safety. The Indigenous contingent of the fire services has also contributed to the service by bringing in unique skills through their understanding of the country.

}, keywords = {benefits, economy, fire and rescue, indigenous}, issn = {567}, author = {Bruce Rasmussen and Neelam Maharaj} } @article {bnh-5478, title = {Walking together: a decolonising experiment in bushfire management on Dja Dja Wurrung country}, journal = {Cultural Geographies}, volume = {1}, year = {2019}, month = {01/2019}, abstract = {

Within certain settler colonial nations, Indigenous peoples are increasingly becoming present and influential in the agencies legally responsible for the management of their ancestral territories, their environments and their hazards. On the Australian continent, for example, Aboriginal peoples are becoming more formally involved in the management of bushfire (or {\textquoteleft}wildfire{\textquoteright} elsewhere). This environmental phenomenon is at once of profound cultural significance to many Aboriginal peoples and a major natural hazard to human life and property, managed by an extensive professional bureaucracy of settler government agencies. Drawing upon a case study of collaborative bushfire management between Dja Dja Wurrung peoples and settler bushfire management agencies on Dja Dja Wurrung country (or, ancestral territory) in the southeast Australian state of Victoria, this article argues for an understanding of such collaborations as {\textquoteleft}decolonising experiments{\textquoteright}. For geographers and others, this means paying attention to the open-ended character of collaborative initiatives, whether and how they materially improve the position of Indigenous peoples, as well as whether and how they give rise to new resources and strategies for the creation of other decolonising futures.

}, keywords = {Australia, collaboration, environment, indigenous, Wildfire}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474018821419}, url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/qtacPrmvVqKUhMciuDJa/full}, author = {Timothy Neale and Rodney Carter and Trent Nelson and Mick Bourke} } @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} }