@article {bnh-8015, title = {Developing effective emergency management partnerships in remote north Australian communities - final project report}, number = {670}, year = {2021}, month = {05/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

Natural hazards in the remote Northern Territory such as cyclones have arguably been managed as best as possible given the typically insubstantial relationships emergency management agencies have with traditional Aboriginal landowners and their wider communities. Preparation and response to the two cyclones, Lam (Feb. 19-20) and Nathan (March 22), that struck east and central Arnhem Land in 2015 are a case in point, prompting practical research into how we can strengthen existing governance arrangements in remote areas to promote and enrich such relationships. This project extends a suite of projects hosted by Charles Darwin University under the Northern Hub of the Bushfires and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, collectively addressing {\textquoteleft}building capacity in north Australian remote communities.

Under the collective theme of developing effective emergency management partnerships, the project focused on two of the several communities in Arnhem Land struck by cyclones Lam and Nathan {\textendash} Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku and Ramingining.\  Indigenous leadership in these communities were again struck by underlying issues effecting cultural authority, including poor consideration of community members as core players holding significant knowledge and other assets valuable to hazard preparation, response and community reconstruction. Whilst Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku residents, for example, greatly appreciated the effective response delivered by EM agencies, the events and their aftermath also brought to the surface issues of lost cultural authority, disempowerment, and disengagement within the community. They keenly sought support for practical local efforts to better understand and address the trend of marginalization and dependence on external agency management. Similarly, in Ramingining, the elders felt a sense of powerlessness and shame to be onlookers for response efforts that they wished to be active participants of.

NAILSMA (Indigenous research and service provider, co-partner in the Northern Hub of the CRC and project manager) was in a position to offer administrative, logistical, mentoring and other support to Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku{\textquoteright}s leadership. Yalu Maringithinyaraw is a local Yolngu organisation with research interests and capability that was the local host for the work.

ARPNet, an Indigenous research network of community based Aboriginal Research practitioners is hosted by RIEL at CDU. ARPNet researchers have worked together and developed an approach that emphasises putting the community first and have also adapted a set of PAR tools (the ARPNet Dilly bag) that they use. The Network trains, mentors and provides administrative support to a growing network of community-based Indigenous researchers, dedicated to relocating local research effort in local hands and improving the operation and outcomes of research for local communities and those that service them.\ \ \ \  \ 

It{\textquoteright}s well recognised that strong similarities exist amongst communities across the NT and indeed the North, but that each place is unique. In this context, the projects at Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku and Ramingining developed relatively independently but highlighted in their collective outcomes important messages for EM agency and others about navigating continuity and difference across Indigenous geographies in their policy making and operations.

It was broadly concluded that government and other agencies need to change the way they do business with Yolngu/Bininj by helping empower traditional owners and clan leaders and improve community engagement to produce more effective service delivery.

Concomitantly, NAILSMA, ARPNet and CDU sought to engage EM leadership across the North and in the BNHCRC community with the research developments as they unfolded in Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku and Ramingining, and to inform the local researchers of the perspectives and logic driving EM organization in relevant jurisdictions. This parallel effort strengthened the strategic need to come together {\textquoteleft}at the table{\textquoteright} to work through practical, fundamental change in the way agencies and communities do business {\textendash} a process anticipated as ongoing.

Recognising the resource-intensive nature of the work, connections were made with related projects to provide mutual support for project activities and partnerships.\  The overall objective of the project was to inform effective EM agency community partnership arrangements in remote communities based on enhanced understanding and empowerment of underlying community governance structures. Lessons learnt from the undertaking of this project were used to develop a {\textquoteleft}protocols framework{\textquoteright} to help inform the development of effective agency-community EM partnerships in remote community locations across northern Australia.

This research has identified a common set of core governance issues (see Findings below) and priorities needing to be acknowledged and addressed to improve implementation of emergency risk management arrangements in remote communities. This work has helped these remote communities, and hopefully others, find voice to more effectively engage in the emergency management conversation, and in partnership building at local and national levels. It has also shown that most agencies involved are open to, if not keenly interested in greater equity with communities in engagement but are uncertain and/or systemically blind to how they may initiate and progress real and effective change in remote EM. There is strong interest from the participating communities to continue their work and engage with other end-users in for example, enhanced local and regional-scale planning; the dissemination of quality, relevant and timely information; building partnership support for community level risk mitigation, disaster management and response. These projects provide a conceptual model and approach for scaling up the project of partnership building to other communities in the NT, WA and Qld, and a basis for understanding the costs and benefits involved in broadscale implementation. Project partners are seeking to progress current projects and offer their experience, skills, tools and relationships developed in these two community endeavors to other community groups seeking to improve the way they, EM and other agencies work together. Project partners believe this to be a good foundation for a regional and national framework approach for EM agency/community engagement and relationship building.

}, keywords = {communities, effective, Emergency management, north australia, partnerships, remote}, issn = {670}, author = {Sithole, B and Otto Bulmaniya Campion and Glenn James and Danny Burton and Maratja Dhamarrandji and Hmalan Hunter-Xenie} } @article {bnh-7786, title = {Developing effective emergency management partnerships in remote north Australian communities - annual report 2019-2020}, number = {637}, year = {2021}, month = {01/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Natural hazards in the remote Northern Territory such as cyclones have arguably been managed as best as possible given the typical relationships emergency management agencies have with traditional Aboriginal landowners and their wider communities. Preparation and response to the two cyclones, Nathan and Lam, that struck east and central Arnhem Land in 2015 are a case in point. This report refers to 2 projects, conducted using NAILSMA support with Yolngu in Galiwinku and ARPNet with Bininj in Ramingining.

Most Yolngu interviewed at Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku (which was hit directly) after the cyclones comented that the emergency teams did a good job restoring services and rendering the community safe and habitable in the aftermath and that the response was fairly swift and efficient. The research undertaken by Yolngu in the months after Nathan and Lam was keenly sought because of underlying issues effecting Yolngu authority in their own community, including poor consideration of community members as core players and as assets to preparation, response and reconstruction.

The Yolngu research focused on the cyclone scenario but quickly developed into a frank discussion amongst Yolngu in the community about the status of Yolngu leadership, authority and decision-making and the processes they felt are eroding Yolngu values and community wellbeing. Whilst the influences on Yolngu management of their community are highly complex (cultural, economic and historical) the research confirmed a core of issues around colonial agency virtually unanimously expressed by all respondents. Despite natural right and legal land tenure (Aboriginal land held in fee simple under the ALR(NT) Act 1976)0F\ [1] government and NGO services and activities in Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku are increasdingly undertaken with external mandate only and prosecuted by non-Yolngu agents in English (still a subornitate language locally to the Yolngu lingua franca), guided by external agendas and success criteria1F\ [2].\ \ \ \ 

Community leaders concluded that they needed to reinstate Yolngu authority based in Yolngu law to provide a forum through which emergency management and other agencies can offer and deliver services more effectively. Whilst not a new idea, the structure they settled on (named the Dalkarra and Djirrikay Authority - DDA) developed without hosting or direction from non-Yolngu organisations. The CRC northern hub projects enabled NAILSMA to provide basic financial, logistical and administrative support, as requested by community leaders, playing a crucial role in buttressing culturally appropriate Yolngu-controlled participatory research and resilience building activities since the 2015 cyclones.

The DDA has been a forum in which community tensions have been sensitively managed in order to engage effectively with service providers including emergency management agencies. The DDA has many challenges (internal and external) but has recently engaged with a CRC supported {\textquoteleft}sister{\textquoteright} initiative at Ramingining to share experiences and discuss views on ways forward. Despite operating independently, the Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku and Ramingining groups identified common concerns, and expressed an interest in obtaining mutual support and developing an agreed approach to anticipated face to face communication with the NT Comissioner for Police Jamie Chalker.\ \ 

For Ramingining, the focus was placed on why communities felt the response to Cyclones Lam and Nathan had not worked as well as they would have wanted. \ The community owned research at Ramingining was undertaken by the Aboriginal Research Practitioners Network (ARPNet). ARPNet considered how the Bininj system can link up with the Balanda decision making system in a way that would improve on-ground engagement and developed a comprehensive list of protocols (see Utilisation and impact section).

Yolngu and Bininj experiences post cyclones Nathan and Lam challenge the current models for disaster response which focus on volunteer assistance.\  Yolngu/Bininj have a great deal to offer hazard assessment, preparation and response. Equitable and authoritative involvement for Yolngu/Bininj in all aspects of EM management is the only way to maximize positive EM outcomes. Local knowledge, skills and assets could be properly investigated, supported and developed to involve Yolngu/Bininj in producing more effective EM outcomes.\  This is demonstrated, for example, in environmental services by paid ranger groups undertaking complex land and sea management activities.

NAILSMA, ARPNet and CDU have also been working in parallel across other jurisdictions of northern Australia, and in government spheres in the NT, to understand and help progress more equitable and functional relationships in the emergency management space. This {\textquoteleft}global{\textquoteright} part of the project story is of significant interest to the Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku and Ramingining groups who seek the opportunity for the NT Partnership projects to engage directly with emergency management leadership. It has also given them a sense of common interest and comradery with countrymen interstate and raised an awareness for future possibilities in their own endeavours.

This BNHCRC research project is near complete, but for Indigenous leaders of Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku and Ramingining this important effort over the last few years has created a foundation for real change. They are at the beginning and with some clarity now about what needs to be done. \ Their research has identified key issues impeding efficiency in emergency management and response and the delivery of more desirable outcomes for remote Indigenous communities. In order to progress the dialogue created by this research toward more practical and tangible end use outcomes, the {\textquoteleft}next steps{\textquoteright} of a broader project need to be realised.


[1]\  The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, 1976 is Federal Government legislation granting communal freehold title to traditional Aboriginal land-owners in the form of Land Trusts (managed by the relevant NT Land Councils created under that legislation) in the Northern Territory only. Aboriginal Land Trusts are inalienable freehold.

[2] Whilst Yolngu acknowledge the need for many of the services provided it{\textquoteright}s the manner in which they are designed and provided that they feel disempowers them and at times contradicts the services and embeds bad protocol {\textendash} for example, complex community emergency response plans in English, kept at the police station; de-funding homelands; priveliging English over the natural language in schools; arbitrary and disconnected creation of Yolngu steering committees or reference groups to support government agency work; or the formation of a community committees such as to discuss COVID 19 issues and responses, a{\textquoteright}priori made up of non-Yolngu community agents. . . Whether constituted in the ways thus described, the strong perception by and effect on Yolngu is of deliberate dis-enfranchisement in their own community.

}, keywords = {communities, emergency management partnerships, remote north Australia}, issn = {637}, author = {Glenn James and Sithole, B and Danny Burton and Jeremy Russell-Smith} } @article {bnh-7792, title = {Building emergency management capacity in remote north Australian communities {\textendash} status report, November 2019}, number = {639}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

This status report addresses the following activities:

Current research activities

1. Developing effective EM partnerships

1.1 Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku

i. Reinstating traditional governance authority

ii. Recent progress at Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku

1.2 Ramingining

i. Recent progress at Ramingining

ii. Lessons learnt

2. Scenario planning for remote community risk management\ 

Proposed workshop activity

1. Developing a BNHCRC utilisation project focused on building effective EM partnerships with remote communities

1.1 Background

1.2 Utilisation proposal

i. Phase 1

ii. Phase 2

1.3 Participants

1.4 Expected benefits\ 

}, keywords = {Capability, communities, emegency management, northern Australia, remote}, issn = {639}, author = {Jeremy Russell-Smith and Glenn James and Sithole, B and Kamaljit Sangha and Andrew C. Edwards} } @article {bnh-7301, title = {Developing effective management partnerships in remote communities in northern Australia {\textendash} post cyclone response in Ramingining and Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku: annual report 2018-2019}, number = {608}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Getting smart and planning what to do during hazards is something the community want to start doing for themselves. Stories about the response to cyclone Lam testify to some of the challenges and issues that the community members feel could be addressed if the community is directly involved in planning for safety. There is much interest among the communities to be involved which is not yet harnessed to the formal process. Within this there is a need to redefine the way the government sees community and underline the importance of recognizing the multiple layering of groups and interests in communities such as Ramingining and Galinwin{\textquoteright}ku.

Planning capacity exists in remote communities and there is abundant evidence on display on how complex the planning arrangements are. These plans draw on complex and often detailed ecological knowledge that exists among the relevant groups and individuals who have so far been left out of the planning process. Our big question in the project is how do we make this existing skills and knowledge visible and useful in the current government facilitated hazard response frameworks.

Equally, local authority and decision-making structures exist in contemporary/customary life. These are evident in ceremony of course but {\textquoteleft}required{\textquoteright} and expected by Yolngu/bininj to guide and support all facets of life. Significant erosion of cultural power and authority are at the heart of many community issues and the extant capacity to re-engage this authority is both complex (in its interactions with other entrenched layers of governance) and almost invisible to the outside observer (including most government agents).

To achieve the kind of collaboration required for the community to be meaningfully involved, government must accommodate calls to open up spaces for engagement. A community driven plan developed with the community provides a framework that highlights those areas of action where there is room for possible for collaboration and areas where there are opportunities for complementarity. A plan that brings together the government and the community is not yet feasible in the way communities are developing it, how do we turn current models on their heads and get government to see and try the {\textquoteleft}community way{\textquoteright}? These complementary projects at Ramingining and Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku are taking a {\textquoteleft}bottom up{\textquoteright} approach to establishing new grounds for more effective engagement.

}, keywords = {management, northern Australia, partnerships, post cyclone, remote communities, response}, issn = {608}, author = {Sithole, B and Glenn James} } @article {bnh-5190, title = {Empowering remote Indigenous communities in natural disaster prone northern Australia}, journal = {International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters}, volume = {35}, year = {2017}, month = {11/2017}, pages = {137-153}, chapter = {137}, abstract = {

Risks and challenges associated with recurring natural hazards (especially wet season cyclonic and flooding events; dry season extensive savanna fires) facing remote north Australian Indigenous communities are well recognised. Less well appreciated are longer-term challenges required for building community resilience in the face of responding to natural hazards. We report on detailed surveys of community perceptions of resilience undertaken in two communities, Ngukurr and Gunbalanya, in northern Australia. This assessment highlights the critical challenge for government authorities to effectively engage with remote communities. We then address the equally challenging Sangha et al.: Empowering Indigenous Communities in Northern Australia 138 issue of enhancing resilience through building enterprise opportunities. Currently, only few employment opportunities exist in either community. Based on experience with market-based savanna burning greenhouse gas emissions abatement projects in north Australia, we illustrate the potential for ecosystem service-based enterprises to deliver culturally appropriate employment, which offers evident benefits for local communities in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from major natural disaster events.

}, url = {http://ijmed.org/articles/730/}, author = {Kamaljit Sangha and Sithole, B and Hmalan Hunter-Xenie and Cherry Daniels} } @conference {bnh-1568, title = {Building Community Resilience to Natural Hazards in Northern Australia Conference Paper 2014}, booktitle = { Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC and AFAC Wellington Conference 2014}, year = {2015}, month = {01/2015}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

Sparsely settled regions of northern Australia are extremely vulnerable to a range of annual natural hazard impacts, including those from cyclones, flooding and extensive fires. Outside of large towns, the majority of the population is Indigenous with limited access to infrastructure, or readily available institutional support for dealing with bushfires and natural hazards (BNH). Low population densities and poor communications mean that even relatively large communities have almost no formal emergency management capacity.

Natural hazards are being amplified by climate change, with likely more and bigger fires, on-going sea level rise, potentially fewer but more destructive cyclones, and more days of severe heat stress, with consequent risks to economic productivity, infrastructure and human health and wellbeing. Improving community resilience to bushfire and natural hazards in the north is an evident priority and challenge; approaches that might apply in other regions of Australia are unlikely to work in the unique institutional, infrastructural, demographic, ecological and climatic contexts of the northern third of the continent.

This paper explores potential pathways to improve community preparedness, response and recovery capabilities in remote Indigenous communities, and broader implications for public policy and government agencies in northern Australia, with reference to the research portfolio being developed in the northern hub of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC.\ 

}, author = {J.S. Gould and Sithole, B and Campbell, A and Glenn James and Sutton, S} }