@article {bnh-7770, title = {Unrealised economic opportunities in remote Indigenous communities: Case studies from northern Australia}, journal = {Social Sciences \& Humanities Open}, volume = {2}, year = {2020}, month = {12/2020}, abstract = {

Building on unique Indigenous advantages for people living in remote areas, this study offers insights for innovative land-based economic opportunities across northern Australia. These advantages{\textemdash}outside the mainstream economics{\textemdash}include peoples{\textquoteright} abilities to manage land and knowledge of ecosystems, culture, traditions/ceremonies which directly contribute towards peoples{\textquoteright} health, social relations, provisioning of a safe and secure environment, and learning constituents of well-being. To demonstrate, two representative remote communities, Maningrida and Borroloola in the Northern Territory, are used for revealing uncaptured, but valid, opportunities which, if realized, could help enhance Indigenous well-being{\textemdash}a much-needed agenda for the Australian Government. Moreover, innovative land-based opportunities will potentially save ~$49million/yr of government{\textquoteright}s welfare costs. This study offers a detailed analysis of the existing socio-economic situation of the selected communities, outlines potential land-based economic opportunities, and advocates for a shift in policy planning from viewing remote communities as a problem to realising advantages of their unique prospects to develop the north. Applying an integrated approach to Indigenous development for supporting new economies can lead to diversification of north{\textquoteright}s land sector which to date has been predominantly used for beef production causing threats to fragile ecosystems and hence their services to people living in the area.

}, keywords = {Economic opportunities, Ecosystem services opportunities, Indigenous peoples, Policy planning, remote communities}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100093}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291120300826}, author = {Kamaljit Sangha and Adele Duvert and Ricky Archer and Jeremy Russell-Smith} } @article {bnh-5418, title = {Challenges for prescribed fire management in Australia{\textquoteright}s fire-prone rangelands {\textendash} the example of the Northern Territory}, journal = {International Journal of Wildland Fire}, year = {2019}, month = {02/2019}, abstract = {

Northern Australia comprises by far the most fire-prone-half of a fiery continent, where fire frequencies range from annual in the tropical savannas to periodic very-extensive fire events following above-rainfall conditions in the central Australian rangelands. As illustration of the challenges facing effective fire management in Australia{\textquoteright}s 5.7 {\texttimes} 106 km2\ rangelands, we examine the status of contemporary prescribed burning activities in the Northern Territory, a 1.4 {\texttimes} 106 km2, very sparsely settled (0.18 persons km-2) jurisdiction characterised by vast flammable landscapes, few barriers to fire-spread, predominantly anthropogenic ignitions, and limited institutional resources and capacity. Unsurprisingly, prescribed-fire management is shown to be restricted to specific locales. For more effective, landscape-scale fire management, potential solutions include engagement with dispersed remote communities and incorporation of Indigenous Ranger Groups into the fire-management network, and building on the success of savanna-burning greenhouse gas emission projects as an example for incentivising landscape fire and emergency management services generally. Recently, significant steps have been taken towards implementing formal regional fire-management planning processes involving inclusive community-stakeholder engagement, and the setting of clearly defined time-constrained objectives and targets.

}, keywords = {central Australia, Emergency management, fire regime, Indigenous rangers, remote communities, risk management, savannas}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1071/WF18127}, url = {http://www.publish.csiro.au/WF/WF18127?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2_27_2019_23_3)\&mc_cid=676faec148\&mc_eid=73e0665bda}, author = {Jeremy Russell-Smith and Andrew C. Edwards and Kamaljit Sangha and Yates, Cameron P. and Mark Gardener} } @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} }