@article {bnh-8339, title = {Leading through crisis: the leadership experience of Major General Alan Stretton}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {37}, year = {2022}, month = {04/2022}, pages = {78-80}, abstract = {

Catastrophes present leaders with complex and significant challenges that they have not previously experienced nor have had time to deeply analyse. Leaders must collaborate and demonstrate agility. To develop such leadership skills, it is useful to reflect on the experiences of people who have faced catastrophe before. This paper examines the leadership of Major General Alan Stretton AO, CBE in the aftermath of Cyclone Tracy in 1974. Alan Stretton{\textquoteright}s personal accounts and archival interviews with other leaders were reviewed as source material. These showed that he demonstrated decisiveness and courage and {\textquoteleft}over-responded{\textquoteright} if necessary. He worked collaboratively with community leaders and acted in a confident, empathetic and reassuring manner. He led with agility and with a focus on an overarching plan. He prioritised communication with the community and negotiated political challenges. Lessons from this experience can help to guide leaders who may be called on to lead during times of future disaster events.

}, keywords = {catastrophe, collaboration, community, disaster, leaders}, doi = {http://www.doi.org/10.47389/37.2.74}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/9299/ajem-19-2022-02.pdf}, author = {Andrew Gissing} } @article {bnh-8316, title = {Elephant Hill: Secw{\'e}pemc leadership and lessons learned from the collective story of wildfire recovery}, year = {2021}, month = {11/2021}, pages = {241}, institution = { Secwepemcúl ̓ ecw Restoration and Stewardship Society}, abstract = {

Worldwide, catastrophic wildfires and the ongoing climate crisis are catalyzing Indigenous peoples to re-assert jurisdiction to lands and waters by leading the recovery and restoration of their/our territories.

{\textquoteleft}Mega-fires{\textquoteright} are increasingly burning landscapes that have been degraded by over a century of colonial state-driven forest (mis)management and a paradigm {\textendash} and paradox {\textendash} of fire suppression. Simultaneously, many settler-colonial governments are stating their commitments to {\textquoteleft}reconciliation{\textquoteright} and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Together, these two trends point to the critical need to uphold Indigenous rights and stewardship systems through Indigenous-led transformation of forest and (wild)fire management.

These ecological and socio-political shifts provided the context for the 2017 {\textquoteleft}Elephant Hill{\textquoteright} wildfire in British Columbia (BC), Canada, which burned close to 200,000 hectares throughout Secwepemcúl ̓ ecw {\textendash} the traditional and unceded territory of the Secw{\'e}pemc Nation. In the immediate wake of this fire, and the significant and interconnected social, cultural, economic and ecological impacts that are still ongoing, affected Secw{\'e}pemc First Nations advocated for Secw{\'e}pemc leadership in the recovery and regeneration of their territories in the months, years and decades to come.

Supported by a newly-elected provincial government with a mandate to advance reconciliation, and a provincial review that recommended {\textquotedblleft}establish[ing] Indigenous Peoples as true partners and leaders in emergency management{\textquotedblright}, Secw{\'e}pemc communities partnered with the provincial government to forge a new collaborative approach to land-based wildfire recovery. The Elephant Hill wildfire, and the joint recovery process that followed, is the focus of this report. We draw on in-depth interviews with Secw{\'e}pemc elected leadership and staff from communities and the provincial government, as well as ongoing work and action research with the Secwepemcúlecw\ Restoration and Stewardship Society, to provide a detailed account of this example of contemporary Indigenous leadership in wildfire management and land-based recovery.

This study was framed by a number of broad questions:

To highlight these lessons and demonstrate the need for transformative change, the story of the Elephant Hill wildfire and the joint leadership approach to wildfire recovery is told in four Parts:

PART 1: THE ELEPHANT HILL WILDFIRE (CHAPTERS 1{\textendash}4)

An overview of the record-breaking 2017 wildfire season in British Columbia; the experiences and responses of Secw{\'e}pemc First Nations and government agencies; and the impacts of these wildfires on Secw{\'e}pemc territories and communities.

PART 2: THE PROCESS FOR JOINT WILDFIRE RECOVERY (CHAPTERS 5{\textendash}7)

Understanding the drivers for collaboration; the process of negotiating the scope and governance of joint wildfire recovery; and a summary of land-based recovery activities and outcomes on Elephant Hill.

PART 3: REFLECTIONS ON {\textquoteleft}SUCCESS{\textquoteright} AND LESSONS LEARNED (CHAPTERS 8{\textendash}10)

Diverse views of {\textquoteleft}success{\textquoteright} and identification of key strengths, challenges and unresolved tensions to inform future collaborations.

PART 4: BEYOND ELEPHANT HILL (CHAPTERS 11{\textendash}13)

Persistent barriers; Secw{\'e}pemc priorities for advancing equal partnerships and First Nations leadership in (wild)fire management; and Secw{\'e}pemc visions for recovery, restoration and stewardship throughout Secwepemcúlecw.

}, keywords = {collaboration, Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous rights, leadership, reconciliation, stewardship, Wildfire, wildfire recovery}, isbn = {ISBN 978-1-7780135-1-5}, url = {https://www.srssociety.com/lessonslearned.htm}, author = {Sarah Dickson-Hoyle and Char John} } @article {bnh-7840, title = {Persuasion without policies: The work of reviving Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} fire management in southern Australia}, journal = {Geoforum}, volume = {120}, year = {2021}, month = {02/2021}, pages = {82-92}, abstract = {

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

}, keywords = {collaboration, Environmental management, Indigenous peoples, Natural hazards, Wildfire Settler-colonial}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.01.015}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016718521000233}, author = {Will Smith and Timothy Neale and Jessica Weir} } @article {bnh-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} } @article {bnh-6667, title = {Applying the principles of adaptive governance to bushfire management: a case study from the South West of Australia}, journal = {Journal of Environmental Planning and Management}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, pages = {1-26}, abstract = {

Bushfires are a global climate change challenge and a critical disaster issue for Australia. Adaptive governance has emerged as a model to address socio-ecological issues such as disasters. This paper discusses four principles of adaptive governance: polycentric institutions, collaboration, social learning, and reflexivity and examines how these are reflected in the policy and practice of bushfire management in the South West of Australia. Findings demonstrate that current disaster policy discourse, which influences bushfire management, increasingly advocates for principles associated with adaptive governance. However, a case study on the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River found that the extent to which these principles translate into bushfire management practice is largely influenced by interpretive worldview policy frames. The paper suggests that governance for bushfire management could become more adaptive in its approach by incorporating more collaborative management activities, deliberative policy processes and reflexive practice.

}, keywords = {adaptive governance, Bushfire, collaboration, disaster, reflexivity}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1648243}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640568.2019.1648243}, author = {Simone Ruane} } @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} }