@article {bnh-7898, title = {Building inclusive partnerships with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities}, number = {652}, year = {2021}, month = {03/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

The purpose of this document is to provide basic guidance for emergency services practitioners to support the building of respectful and inclusive partnerships with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. This document focuses on general guidance that applies when working with all CALD communities. However, as each community has its own context and character, it is important to be mindful of the need to adapt practice to work with each community{\textquoteright}s specific needs.

This document draws from the general literature, and the following reports from the BNHCRC project {\textquoteleft}Diversity and inclusion building strength and capability{\textquoteright}:

}, keywords = {CALD, communities, culture, diversity, inclusive, linguistics, partnerships}, issn = {652}, author = {Daniel Ooi and Celeste Young} } @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-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-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-5488, title = {Fire in the south: a cross-continental exchange}, number = {475}, year = {2019}, month = {04/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report documents a trip undertaken across southern Western Australia (WA) to exchange knowledge from south eastern Australia about cultural burning with traditional owners and fire authorities in Norseman, Esperance, Nowanup, Albany, Bunbury and Perth. The journey took place in the anticipatory shadow of catastrophic wildfires that can destroy, and have destroyed, much of value in this part of the world.

The key learnings are summarised under the headings: Fire and life, At-risk values, Healing, Cultural burning as a contemporary practice, Volunteer training and fire skills, Relations and repair, and, East-West engagement across southern Australia. We also summarise the presentations by Dean Freeman about the ACT government cultural burning program. Together, these summaries form the substantive content of the report. They are supplemented by anecdotal accounts of each meeting, as well as background information on native title and other key terminology and concepts.

Fundamentally, the Aboriginal people we met with talked about the importance of understanding fire differently, to reposition it as not just something to fear, but as central to the regeneration of life. At the same time, all were concerned about the growth in catastrophic wildfires, and this intensified the focus on anticipatory land management practices.

Within this broader framing, the knowledge exchanged on this trip reflected that:

As a consequence of significant societal change to recognise and celebrate First Nations peoples in Australia, British derived systems of governance are required to work with Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} political entities, including partnering on fire management issues. Concomitantly, the public sector and political leadership needs to think closely about what is meant by {\textquoteleft}the public good{\textquoteright} in their policies and programs {\textendash} that is, who is the public and what do they consider is good? Whilst northern Australia is an emblematic focus of activity by and for Indigenous Australia, the majority of Australia{\textquoteright}s Indigenous people live in southern Australia, and with the recognition of native title they are now the largest land holders in southern Australia. The ACT government{\textquoteright}s support of cultural burning is one example of how fire management is being refashioned with neither land rights nor native title, but motivated individuals doing the work to make it possible, because it is the right thing to do.

Significantly, fundamental shifts in the nature of land holding in Australia are bringing the public sector into greater exposure with the connected thinking and governing systems that arise out of Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} relationships with Country. However, throughout Australia there is much more healing that needs to be done for such intercultural engagement to progress and be more meaningful for Indigenous people, including in material terms. The key players are in a good position to invest in the good will and work that is already present and take this forward.

}, keywords = {culture, Fire, hazards, indigenous communities}, issn = {475}, author = {Jessica Weir and Dean Freeman} } @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} }