- Email: [email protected]
Reconsidering emergency management and indigenous communities in Australia
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7 www.elsevier.com/locate/hazards
Reconsidering emergency management and indigenous communities in Australia Heidi Ellemor Emergency Management Australia, Mt Macedon Road, Mt Macedon VIC 3441, Australia
Abstract Emergency and disaster management in Australia is gradually moving towards a prevention-oriented focus that involves working with rather than on local communities. Such an approach, now frequently employed through the nationally endorsed framework of emergency risk management (ERM), involves the consideration of ‘vulnerability’ of individuals and communities. This paper focuses on emergency management in remote indigenous communities to illustrate how the conceptualisation and application of the concept of vulnerability is bound with our attitudes to, and understanding of these communities. It is argued that the uncritical application of the concept of vulnerability to indigenous communities will do little to build communities that are more resilient and better able to manage disasters and emergencies. The paper suggests that a focus on local understandings of risk, local knowledge of hazards and coping strategies is critical for the development of safer, sustainable communities. This will involve re-examining the role of emergency managers and the applicability of mainstream emergency management practices in indigenous communities. The paper concludes that emergency management must learn from critiques of dominant development strategies by accepting the value of existing capacities in indigenous communities and working towards relationships and processes that apply new strategies and ways of working. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Vulnerability; Resilience; Emergency management; Indigenous communities; Australia
1. Introduction Emergency management has historically been influenced by civil defence with ‘command-and-control’, hierarchical models of relating to the community. These models provided a barrier to community involvement in emergency management and were not sensitive to the cultural contexts of indigenous communities. After the early 1970s, disaster research began to propose alternative, non-military models of civil protection. In Australia this has involved a trend of moving beyond ‘responding to events’ to embrace a broader set of issues associated with ‘risk and its management’ (Salter, 1997–1998, p. 22). This has involved gradual changes in the relationships between emergency management Tel.: +61 3 5421 5288; fax: +61 3 5421 5272.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Ellemor). 1464-2867/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hazards.2004.08.001
agencies and local communities. In general, (and perhaps with the exclusion of the recent focus on counter-terrorism) there has been a shift away from single hazard, response and command-and-control type models towards more progressive and preventionoriented focus on risk, preparedness, and communitybased approaches (Dovers, 1998). With a focus on risk and community, the concept of vulnerability (specifically social vulnerability) is now central to the discussion of disasters and emergencies (White et al., 2001). Identifying vulnerabilities within the community has become a key strategy in the process of emergency risk management (ERM). However, competing definitions of the concept of vulnerability exist within the field of emergency management. For example, Cutter (1996) identified 18 definitions in the hazards literature. One of the primary problems associated with the concept, is that the word and concept were first used
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2
H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7
by mechanical and systems engineers, and until recent times this was the context in which it was commonly used (Twigg, 1998). Furthermore, it has been noted that the concept of social vulnerability is not easily grasped and is understood differently among experts in the field (Barnett, 2001, p. 979). In the most general of terms, vulnerability refers to the potential for loss (Cutter, 1996). However, more specific definitions qualify the potential for loss by factoring in (1) the likelihood of exposure, (2) susceptibility to damage, and (3) capacity to recover or resilience (Barnett, 2001, p. 977; Blaikie et al., 1994; Hewitt, 1997; White et al., 2001). These more recent understandings of vulnerability are frequently used in both the hazard/risk literature and in development literature. Both of these contexts are relevant for remote indigenous communities in Australia, who are amongst the communities most at risk from the effects of hazards such as cyclone, flooding, and bushfire. It is the application of the concept of vulnerability, in these contexts, on which this paper will focus. Such a discussion is timely given that the needs of Australia’s indigenous communities have received increased recognition by the Emergency Management sector in recent years, through forums such as the Council of Australian Government’s (COAG) review of National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements and recent Emergency Services Ministers’ Meetings. This attention has resulted in numerous initiatives in the field of indigenous communities and emergency management such as: 1) Ongoing work on the development of Disaster/ERM Guidelines for Indigenous Communities (being undertaken by the state of Queensland); 2) Development of training materials in Western Australia for ERM in remote indigenous communities; 3) Capacity building emergency management programs in remote indigenous communities in Queensland (Hocke and O’Brien, 2003); and 4) Mitigation strategies for remote indigenous communities in the Gulf of Carpentaria (McLachlan, 2003). This paper raises broader conceptual issues that have important implications for the relationship between indigenous communities and emergency management agencies.
2. Background—indigenous communities in Australia It is necessary to situate the issue of emergency management and indigenous communities in the history of the colonisation of Australia. Only a cursory history is offered here; accounts that are more detailed are available elsewhere (for example: Reynolds, 1987, 1989, 1996).
Following Captain James Cook’s exploration and ‘possession’ of Australia in 1770, the British sent Governor Arthur Phillip to found a penal settlement at Botany Bay (near Sydney). The first boats of white settlers arrived on January 26, 1788 at Sydney Cove. From here populations of white settlers gradually spread out around Australia, with settlement occurring earlier and with greater density around the south-eastern seaboard. There has been much debate on the pre-settlement indigenous population of Australia. Earlier estimates of 300,000 have more recently been regarded as conservative, with an estimate of 750,000, possibly even a million or more now considered more likely (Butlin, 1983). Estimates of the number of languages spoken in Australia before white settlement have also varied, but most sources suggest a figure of between 200 and 300 (McConvell and Thieberger, 2001, p. 16). Colonisation dramatically reduced the indigenous population, as the violence that accompanied the ‘acquisition’ of land, and introduced diseases took their toll. In addition, government policies of forced removal from land and assimilation resulted in the decline in a number of indigenous languages spoken in Australia (McConvell and Thieberger, 2001). Indigenous Australians have, and continue to strive for recognition of their rights and responsibilities in relation to land and resources. Since the arrival of the British in 1788, the concept of terra nullius (empty land or land belonging to no-one) continued to be perpetuated by legal decisions and enshrined in the actions of governments. Unlike New Zealand and parts of Canada, a treaty was never signed between indigenous Australians and colonising authorities. Indeed, it was not until the landmark Mabo judgement of 1992 that the legal fiction of terra nullius was overturned and the very existence of indigenous Australians prior to white settlement, and their rights in relation to land and resources, were legally recognised. In the Mabo judgement, the High Court of Australia recognised (for the first time) that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had (and in some cases will continue to have) common law rights to land known as native title. Importantly, this decision led to the formation of national legislation in the form of the Native Title Act 1993. The Act provides for the recognition and protection of native title, while validating past government acts that extinguished native title. Under the Act, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can make claims to land on which native title has not been extinguished by the granting of freehold title (i.e. vacant Crown land). However, after the Wik judgement of 1996, the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 effectively watered down the rights of indigenous people to claim native title. Recent outcomes from native title hearings suggest that the native title process is severely limited,
ARTICLE IN PRESS H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7
particularly for indigenous communities in the more densely populated south-east of Australia where white settlement came earlier and where physical and cultural dislocation of indigenous communities has been deeper (Ellemor, 2003). On June 30, 2001, the indigenous population of Australia was estimated to be around 460,140, or 2.4% of Australia’s resident population, with larger percentages located in the states and territories of New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory (ABS, 2002). Relative to the nonindigenous population, more indigenous Australians live in rural and remote areas (ABS, 2003). Nevertheless, the majority of indigenous people live in cities and towns (ABS, 2003). Government policies now support the decentralisation of indigenous populations away from major centres to outstations and homeland communities, which has contributed to the establishment of small indigenous settlements, often in extremely remote locations in the north and west of Australia. The legacy of past government policies and legislation, government–community relations, and ongoing social issues rooted in the process of colonisation continue to shape the emergency management needs of Australia’s indigenous communities. This has important implications for the practice of emergency management in indigenous communities.
3. Vulnerability: hidden meanings The use of the concept of vulnerability in indigenous communities carries added meaning given the historical context of colonisation and the processes that have taken place in settler societies, such as the forced removal of indigenous individuals and communities from their land and state condoned efforts to assimilate indigenous communities. In the South Pacific, where there is a different historical and cultural context, but remarkably similar stories of the impact of colonisation, Campbell (2003) rightly questioned the utility of the concept of vulnerability in framing community safety and disaster management issues. He argued that vulnerability labels Pacific Island communities as weak, passive, unstable and marginal, and explained that ‘‘accordingly their resiliences become invisible and the vulnerable entity often becomes identified as the problem’’ (2003, p. 9). Such a discourse of powerlessness, and hence the need for externally imposed change, has resonances with earlier liberal justifications for colonial practices, including in Australia the removal of Aboriginal children from their parents for what was assumed to be the welfare of indigenous children. This often results in the assumption that the invulnerable expert is the only person capable of offering solutions. This is not a useful outcome when seeking to enhance
3
community responsibility and it is contrary to contemporary approaches in development practice that emphasise participation and empowerment as an alternative to previous top-down, externally imposed change. Furthermore, the invulnerable expert frequently locates responsibility for problems within the vulnerable entity, rather than by examining the broader, often underlying processes that place these communities at risk (Campbell, 2003). This leads to the question—does the concept of vulnerability render those deemed vulnerable as passive actors dependent on the help of the emergency services in times of emergency? Indeed, it tells us who is most susceptible, who is going to be most affected, and who is going to find it most difficult to recover. However, more than that, vulnerability affects a power relationship that confers control over outcomes to management and in so doing, denies the possibility that local communities may be capable of affecting outcomes themselves. This suggests that the broad application of the concept of vulnerability may indeed limit rather than empower both individuals and communities. Campbell (2003) explained that the term vulnerability has only really been defined in instrumental terms (to provide templates for evaluating vulnerability), but the epistemological underpinnings of the concept have not been examined. As Wisner noted, there is a need to move beyond the generalised application of categories of vulnerability, unless of course we provide them as tools for indigenous communities to define their own vulnerabilities (Wisner, 2004). Continued and uncritical use of the term means that we run the risk of reinforcing a number of stereotypes about other people and places (Campbell, 2003). This highlights the need to be mindful about the way we work, at all levels in emergency/ disaster management. It is important to consider that the geographies we impose on communities reflect our imagination of them rather than the lived experiences of people in them. Importantly, Smith (1999), writing on research and indigenous peoples, highlights the way even researchers with the best of intentions frame their research in ways that assume that the particular problem lies with the indigenous individual or community rather than with other social and structural issues (Smith, 1999, pp. 92). This idea is reinforced by the discourse of equality that draws on the myth of ‘Aboriginal privilege’—the idea that indigenous people are unfairly advantaged in terms of welfare—which has gained popular currency in Australia since the early 1980s (Mickler, 1999; Ellemor, 2003). To follow these lines of argument, to be so ‘privileged’ yet have serious community and health issues such as a greater incidence of heart disease, diabetes and reduced life expectancy, domestic violence, alcohol, and drug abuse, means that the problem must surely lie with the indigenous individuals
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4
H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7
and communities themselves. Smith, among others, identified the way such community issues are ‘‘exacerbated by media and politician rhetoric about the general hopelessness or corruption of indigenous communities and indigenous groups’’ (1999, p. 92). Such issues are portrayed at the expense of the resilience these communities have exhibited in the face of external and imposed changes. Such a view limits the possibility of indigenous individuals and communities being involved in a meaningful way in research, policy, and program development. This raises a question about how we can understand vulnerability, and what role individuals and communities play in informing this understanding. Bhatt, writing about disaster management in south Asia, notes that most of the data that was used in work with disaster ‘victims’ came not from the ‘victims’ or survivors themselves, but from those who worked with them, for them, sometimes on them: so for Bhatt, ‘‘Although the intentions of these workers were mostly noble and sensible, they differed from the views, ideas and approaches of the victims. The workers did ask the victims, but it was not enoughy’’ (1998, p. 68). This led the Disaster Mitigation Institute to develop a method to change this relationship—instead of asking the victims what was the nature and extent of their loss, they developed approaches ‘‘to let the victims say it on their own, in their own way, and in their own voice’’ (p. 68). In addition, instead of focussing on the disaster event as a specific point in time, they developed approaches to explore the life story of the victim. Most importantly, Bhatt notes that this made the picture more complex, emphasising not just the immediate event (say a drought or flood), but also uncovering the long-term and continued condition of vulnerability (1998, p. 68). These findings have strong implications for disaster research with indigenous Australians, where a myriad of past policies, legislation and the ongoing impact of colonisation play an important part in the impact (or not) of hazards on individuals and communities. This highlights one of the ongoing challenges and disappointments of disaster management work in recent years, particularly in the context of developing regions. Vulnerability is about much more than the effects of one event, at one particular point in time, and in one geographic location. For many people, and arguably not just individuals and communities in developing regions, vulnerability is about broad historical and social processes that mean that these communities are often more susceptible and potentially less resilient to the impacts of disasters. The risk reduction and hazard mitigation work that occurs around a disaster must address the core causes, the underlying practices that contribute to vulnerability (Comfort et al., 1999, p. 43) if communities are to fare any better the next time a similar event occurs. Failure to address the root causes
of vulnerability means such inequalities will continue to exist. These inequalities have been heightened, in the past if not in the present, by an uneven focus on response in comparison to prevention and preparedness.
4. Reconsidering vulnerability: including local knowledge It is now widely recognised in the field of natural resource management that acknowledging and recognising the value of indigenous knowledge may help to identify alternative solutions and is likely to lead to more successful program development and implementation (Mitchell, 1997; Gadgil et al., 1993). In addition, contemporary social theory has stressed ‘‘the plurality of forms of knowing’’ (Morrow, 1994, p. 49). The recognition and inclusion of indigenous peoples’ knowledge can help to destabilise the hegemonic status that certain understandings or preferred readings of a situation have gained (Jackson, 1989). It can help to validate the identity of indigenous individuals and communities, and provide a point through which to bring together indigenous communities and emergency managers. Local knowledge often underpins particular strategies or practices employed by indigenous communities to cope with the effects of natural disasters. For example, research in Australia and the Pacific revealed indigenous people deployed complex and diverse strategies to cope with hazardous events. These strategies were often an integrated part of everyday life (Campbell, 1990). With European colonisation, indigenous peoples’ settlement and migration patterns, stories, culture, and related coping mechanisms have changed. For some communities, these changes have resulted in a loss or erosion of local knowledge. Despite these changes, indigenous people have demonstrated extraordinary resilience in adapting and persisting. The inclusion of local knowledge offers one important way of developing effective emergency management strategies in indigenous communities: ‘‘what is actually needed is an understanding of why and how local knowledge is rendered inappropriate or inaccessible, and of the ways in which people can be empowered to reclaim local knowledge and appreciate its usefulness’’ (Wisner, 2004, p. 189). Importantly, Wisner made a connection between local knowledge and vulnerability. He explained vulnerability is ‘‘to some extenty the blockage, erosion, or devaluation of local knowledge and coping practices, or—taken together—as local capacity’’ (Wisner, 2004, p. 189). He argued that vulnerability studies and practice have not given enough attention to local capacity, which highlights the importance of a proactive and contextual assessment of capability and vulnerability in disaster management. Such an approach moves beyond the use of lists and categories in assessing vulnerability, to
ARTICLE IN PRESS H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7
understand the broader processes driving the concept. This is essential if local capacity to cope with disasters is to be enhanced in indigenous communities.
5. Knowledge, emergency, and ‘normal’ It is generally accepted that disasters or emergencies involve an event or situation that is non-routine; an event that is beyond the day-to-day capacity of the local community and prescribed authorities (Koob, 1998). This definition seems straightforward, but when we come to consider disaster/emergency management in remote indigenous communities, it is fair to ask how much we really understand about what is ‘normal.’ How much do we know about everyday life and what it involves for remote indigenous communities? In particular, this question is relevant when considering emergency management interventions in indigenous communities. For example, how are we to know if these interventions have been successful; how are we to evaluate emergency management activities if we do not understand what is ‘normal’ in the community? In addition, how can we aspire to enhancing livelihoods and increasing community capacity if we do not understand the way these communities work in the first place? Central to this discussion is Bankoff’s assertion that ‘‘vulnerable populations are those most at risk, not simply because they are exposed to hazard, but as a result of a marginality that makes of their life a ‘permanent emergency’’’ (2001, p. 25). Indigenous communities in Australia are undoubtedly confronted by a particular complex of social, health, and economic issues beyond what would be considered ‘normal’ in mainstream communities. Further research constructed with sensitivity and carried out in partnership with the local community could be beneficial. There is clearly a need for local understandings of disasters and emergencies to inform emergency management policy and practice. However, working with remote indigenous communities poses a unique set of issues that make it different from working in non-indigenous communities. For example, emergency managers will often not be from these communities (although models of indigenous emergency management teams are developing around Australia). This ‘outsider’ status frequently means that the cultural protocols and historical sensitivities that have shaped current relationships between indigenous communities and government agencies (as well as researchers) and an understanding of the community and their issues are not well understood. These relationships cannot be built quickly—meetings and discussions take time, and trust needs to be developed between the community and emergency manager and researcher.
5
This has important implications for emergency management. It emphasises the need for government programs to be flexible and conducted in partnership with local communities. In order to gain a broader understanding of disaster in the context of the everyday lives of local communities and to uncover broader processes that contribute to vulnerability (as advocated by Bhatt (1998)), it is necessary for emergency management agencies to work in close partnership with local indigenous communities. This suggests a need for emergency management agencies to find ways to employ indigenous people in emergency management roles—an important issue especially given the lack of employment opportunities in remote communities and high levels of unemployment amongst Australia’s indigenous population. This may mean employing indigenous liaison officers with an understanding of and a relationship with local indigenous communities. These people can be a vital part of prevention and preparedness work, act as a source of advice regarding cultural protocols, provide an introduction to key community representatives, and serve as a focal point for emergency operations. Ultimately, emergency managers need to work more closely with indigenous communities. This requires identifying appropriate emergency management personnel to work with these communities. Such individuals will require particular sets of skills and experience working in cross-cultural contexts. It will also necessitate a focus on building capacity and capability within indigenous communities. One way of facilitating this process is to provide emergency management and related training and development opportunities in indigenous communities in order that they may contribute their own stories and thus shape the planning and management of disasters in their own communities. Without this, emergency management will continue to miss opportunities to address the root causes of vulnerability, and enhance community resilience. Although this is an emerging area of work in Australia, recent documentation of emergency management practice in rural and remote indigenous communities highlights the important role of building partnerships with and capacity in indigenous communities. For example, Hocke and O’Brien (2003) have documented the role the Queensland Department of Emergency Services is adopting in relation to building capacity in rural and remote indigenous communities. They note that the Department has begun to look beyond simply providing training, support, and infrastructure to their emergency service volunteers, to focusing on their role in relation to ‘‘building the capacity of communities to respond to some of the other issues impacting on their lives and our role in terms of building social capital’’ (2003, pp. 65–66). The Queensland Department of Emergency Services is pursuing this strategy by focusing on both service delivery (based on
ARTICLE IN PRESS 6
H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7
local community needs) and on employment opportunities for indigenous Australians. Importantly, Hocke and O’Brien (2003) note that enhancing the emergency management capacity of local communities could have flow-on benefits in terms of the social and economic development of communities. In addition, Newman and Smith (2004) from the Western Australian Fire and Emergency Services Authority have documented the development of training materials and appropriate processes to develop capacity within indigenous communities to identify and treat emergency risks. As with the Queensland example, they emphasised the importance of developing skills within the local community, and of developing strong partnerships between emergency management agencies and indigenous communities. Approaches such as these are fundamental to achieving more disaster resilient indigenous communities.
6. Conclusions: institutional responsibilities To conclude, there is a need to contextualise vulnerability—to seek to understand and apply it in the context of a particular event and the impacts on individuals and communities. Failure to do so will mean that emergency management may very well have political implications beyond its control and beyond the scope of its understanding. To fail to do so reinforces the practice of ‘invulnerable experts’ and the problems this creates. This is particularly the case when the communities that are managed are not the manager’s own. Furthermore, there is a need for emergency managers to recognise the ongoing implications of historical relationships between indigenous people and government agencies. It is not that long ago and still in the minds of many indigenous Australians, that government agencies were the perpetrators of devastating policies of forced removal from land and erosion of culture. If emergency management’s involvement with indigenous communities in Australia is to achieve one of its stated goals of ‘safer sustainable communities’, then it must learn from critiques of dominant development strategies. This will mean accepting the value of existing capacities in indigenous communities rather than rejecting or denying them, and working towards relationships and processes that apply new analytical tools, rather than just reproducing existing mainstream institutions (Howitt, 2001). As Howitt noted, ‘‘this presents multidimensional challenges as much to indigenous groups as to mainstream or progressive development agencies’’ (2001, p. 159). In addition, the relevance of concepts such as vulnerability for emergency management brings into play a whole raft of social issues such as health and education, and emphasises the need for an inter-agency
approach to mitigation. The coordination of risk and emergency management in indigenous communities across the various relevant government agencies provides an ongoing challenge that reaches beyond formal legislative and policy agendas, to issues of inter-personal communication and agency objectives. In August 2003, Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson invited the Australian Prime Minister to Cape York to see and hear first hand what is happening in Aboriginal communities and the critical social issues they are facing. Pearson’s gesture strongly implies that policy and decision makers, and practitioners need to see and listen before acting. Emergency managers must learn to recognise and integrate local knowledge and local coping strategies in order to move the balance from the now cliche´d phrase (after Tarrant, 1997–1998): emergency management done for (and sometimes to) indigenous communities, to emergency management done in partnership with indigenous communities. Much work is taking place already around Australia, yet much more remains to be done. This paper does not claim to offer answers, except that being clear and critical about the way that indigenous communities are cast as vulnerable, in the context of emergency management, is one way of interrogating assumptions made about these communities. Such a shift in thinking will serve to reposition indigenous communities as actors with their own sets of local knowledge and coping strategies that they have developed in the face of significant social and environmental change, both preand post-colonisation.
References ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), 2002. Population Distribution. Indigenous Australians. Catalogue No. 4705.0, Australian Government Publisher, Canberra. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), 2003. Australian Year Book— 2003. Australian Government Publisher, Canberra. Bankoff, G., 2001. Rendering the world unsafe: ‘vulnerability’ as western discourse. Disasters 25 (1), 19–35. Barnett, J., 2001. Adapting to climate change in Pacific Island countries: the problem of uncertainty. World Development 29 (6), 977–993. Bhatt, M., 1998. Can vulnerability be understood? In: Twigg, J., Bhatt, M. (Eds.), Understanding Vulnerability: South Asian Perspectives. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 68–77. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., Wisner, B., 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. Routledge, London, New York. Butlin, N., 1983. Our Original Aggression: Aboriginal Populations of Southeastern Australia 1788–1850. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Campbell, J., 1990. Disasters and development in historical context: tropical cyclone response in the Banks Islands, Northern Vanuatu. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 8 (3), 401–424. Campbell, J., 2003. Geography, vulnerability and nature. Paper presented at the New Zealand Geographical Society Annual Conference, Auckland, July 6–11, 2003.
ARTICLE IN PRESS H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7 Comfort, L., Wisner, B., Cutter, S., Pulwarty, R., Hewitt, K., OliverSmith, A., Wiener, J., Fordham, M., Peacock, W., Krimgold, F., 1999. Reframing disaster policy: the global evolution of vulnerable communities. Environmental Hazards 1, 39–44. Cutter, S., 1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography 20 (4), 529–539. Dovers, S., 1998. Community involvement in environmental management: thoughts for emergency management. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 13 (2), 6–10. Ellemor, H., 2003. White skin, black heart? The politics of belonging and Native Title in Australia. Social and Cultural Geography 4 (2), 233–252. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22 (2–3), 151–156. Hewitt, K., 1997. Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Longman, Harlow. Hocke, I., O’Brien, A., 2003. Strengthening the capacity of remote indigenous communities through emergency management. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 18 (2), 62–70. Howitt, R., 2001. Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Indigenous Peoples. Routledge, London. Jackson, P., 1989. Maps of Meaning: An Introduction to Cultural Geography. Routledge, London. Koob, P., 1998. Australian emergency management glossary. Australian Emergency Manuals Series, Manual 3. Emergency Management Australia, Canberra. McConvell, P., Thieberger, N., 2001. State of indigenous languages in Australia—2001. Australia: State of the Environment Second Technical Paper Series (Natural and Cultural Heritage), Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. McLachlan, E., 2003. Seagulls on the airstrip: indigenous perspectives on cyclone vulnerability awareness and mitigation strategies for remote communities in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 18 (1), 4–12.
7
Mickler, S., 1999. The Myth of Privilege: Aboriginal Status, Media Visions, Public Ideas. Fremantle Arts Centre Press, South Fremantle. Mitchell, B., 1997. Resource and Environmental Management. Longman, Essex. Morrow, R., 1994. Critical Theory and Methodology. Sage, California. Reynolds, H., 1987. Frontier: Aborigines, Settlers and the Land. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Reynolds, H., 1989. Dispossession: Black Australians and White Invaders. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Reynolds, H., 1996. Aboriginal Sovereignty: Reflections on Race, State and Nation. Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards. Salter, J., 1997–1998. Risk management in the emergency management context. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 12 (4), 22–28. Smith, L.T., 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books, London. Tarrant, M., 1997–1998. Risk communication in the context of emergency management: planning ‘with’ rather than ‘for’ communities. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 12 (4), 20–21. Twigg, J., 1998. Understanding vulnerability: an introduction. In: Twigg, J., Bhatt, M. (Eds.), Understanding Vulnerability: South Asian Perspectives. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 1–11. White, G., Kates, R., Burton, I., 2001. Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazards management. Environmental Hazards 3, 81–92. Wisner, B., 2004. Assessment of capability and vulnerability. In: Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Hilhorst, D. (Eds.), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan, London, pp. 183–193.
Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7 www.elsevier.com/locate/hazards
Reconsidering emergency management and indigenous communities in Australia Heidi Ellemor Emergency Management Australia, Mt Macedon Road, Mt Macedon VIC 3441, Australia
Abstract Emergency and disaster management in Australia is gradually moving towards a prevention-oriented focus that involves working with rather than on local communities. Such an approach, now frequently employed through the nationally endorsed framework of emergency risk management (ERM), involves the consideration of ‘vulnerability’ of individuals and communities. This paper focuses on emergency management in remote indigenous communities to illustrate how the conceptualisation and application of the concept of vulnerability is bound with our attitudes to, and understanding of these communities. It is argued that the uncritical application of the concept of vulnerability to indigenous communities will do little to build communities that are more resilient and better able to manage disasters and emergencies. The paper suggests that a focus on local understandings of risk, local knowledge of hazards and coping strategies is critical for the development of safer, sustainable communities. This will involve re-examining the role of emergency managers and the applicability of mainstream emergency management practices in indigenous communities. The paper concludes that emergency management must learn from critiques of dominant development strategies by accepting the value of existing capacities in indigenous communities and working towards relationships and processes that apply new strategies and ways of working. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Vulnerability; Resilience; Emergency management; Indigenous communities; Australia
1. Introduction Emergency management has historically been influenced by civil defence with ‘command-and-control’, hierarchical models of relating to the community. These models provided a barrier to community involvement in emergency management and were not sensitive to the cultural contexts of indigenous communities. After the early 1970s, disaster research began to propose alternative, non-military models of civil protection. In Australia this has involved a trend of moving beyond ‘responding to events’ to embrace a broader set of issues associated with ‘risk and its management’ (Salter, 1997–1998, p. 22). This has involved gradual changes in the relationships between emergency management Tel.: +61 3 5421 5288; fax: +61 3 5421 5272.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Ellemor). 1464-2867/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hazards.2004.08.001
agencies and local communities. In general, (and perhaps with the exclusion of the recent focus on counter-terrorism) there has been a shift away from single hazard, response and command-and-control type models towards more progressive and preventionoriented focus on risk, preparedness, and communitybased approaches (Dovers, 1998). With a focus on risk and community, the concept of vulnerability (specifically social vulnerability) is now central to the discussion of disasters and emergencies (White et al., 2001). Identifying vulnerabilities within the community has become a key strategy in the process of emergency risk management (ERM). However, competing definitions of the concept of vulnerability exist within the field of emergency management. For example, Cutter (1996) identified 18 definitions in the hazards literature. One of the primary problems associated with the concept, is that the word and concept were first used
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2
H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7
by mechanical and systems engineers, and until recent times this was the context in which it was commonly used (Twigg, 1998). Furthermore, it has been noted that the concept of social vulnerability is not easily grasped and is understood differently among experts in the field (Barnett, 2001, p. 979). In the most general of terms, vulnerability refers to the potential for loss (Cutter, 1996). However, more specific definitions qualify the potential for loss by factoring in (1) the likelihood of exposure, (2) susceptibility to damage, and (3) capacity to recover or resilience (Barnett, 2001, p. 977; Blaikie et al., 1994; Hewitt, 1997; White et al., 2001). These more recent understandings of vulnerability are frequently used in both the hazard/risk literature and in development literature. Both of these contexts are relevant for remote indigenous communities in Australia, who are amongst the communities most at risk from the effects of hazards such as cyclone, flooding, and bushfire. It is the application of the concept of vulnerability, in these contexts, on which this paper will focus. Such a discussion is timely given that the needs of Australia’s indigenous communities have received increased recognition by the Emergency Management sector in recent years, through forums such as the Council of Australian Government’s (COAG) review of National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements and recent Emergency Services Ministers’ Meetings. This attention has resulted in numerous initiatives in the field of indigenous communities and emergency management such as: 1) Ongoing work on the development of Disaster/ERM Guidelines for Indigenous Communities (being undertaken by the state of Queensland); 2) Development of training materials in Western Australia for ERM in remote indigenous communities; 3) Capacity building emergency management programs in remote indigenous communities in Queensland (Hocke and O’Brien, 2003); and 4) Mitigation strategies for remote indigenous communities in the Gulf of Carpentaria (McLachlan, 2003). This paper raises broader conceptual issues that have important implications for the relationship between indigenous communities and emergency management agencies.
2. Background—indigenous communities in Australia It is necessary to situate the issue of emergency management and indigenous communities in the history of the colonisation of Australia. Only a cursory history is offered here; accounts that are more detailed are available elsewhere (for example: Reynolds, 1987, 1989, 1996).
Following Captain James Cook’s exploration and ‘possession’ of Australia in 1770, the British sent Governor Arthur Phillip to found a penal settlement at Botany Bay (near Sydney). The first boats of white settlers arrived on January 26, 1788 at Sydney Cove. From here populations of white settlers gradually spread out around Australia, with settlement occurring earlier and with greater density around the south-eastern seaboard. There has been much debate on the pre-settlement indigenous population of Australia. Earlier estimates of 300,000 have more recently been regarded as conservative, with an estimate of 750,000, possibly even a million or more now considered more likely (Butlin, 1983). Estimates of the number of languages spoken in Australia before white settlement have also varied, but most sources suggest a figure of between 200 and 300 (McConvell and Thieberger, 2001, p. 16). Colonisation dramatically reduced the indigenous population, as the violence that accompanied the ‘acquisition’ of land, and introduced diseases took their toll. In addition, government policies of forced removal from land and assimilation resulted in the decline in a number of indigenous languages spoken in Australia (McConvell and Thieberger, 2001). Indigenous Australians have, and continue to strive for recognition of their rights and responsibilities in relation to land and resources. Since the arrival of the British in 1788, the concept of terra nullius (empty land or land belonging to no-one) continued to be perpetuated by legal decisions and enshrined in the actions of governments. Unlike New Zealand and parts of Canada, a treaty was never signed between indigenous Australians and colonising authorities. Indeed, it was not until the landmark Mabo judgement of 1992 that the legal fiction of terra nullius was overturned and the very existence of indigenous Australians prior to white settlement, and their rights in relation to land and resources, were legally recognised. In the Mabo judgement, the High Court of Australia recognised (for the first time) that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had (and in some cases will continue to have) common law rights to land known as native title. Importantly, this decision led to the formation of national legislation in the form of the Native Title Act 1993. The Act provides for the recognition and protection of native title, while validating past government acts that extinguished native title. Under the Act, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can make claims to land on which native title has not been extinguished by the granting of freehold title (i.e. vacant Crown land). However, after the Wik judgement of 1996, the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 effectively watered down the rights of indigenous people to claim native title. Recent outcomes from native title hearings suggest that the native title process is severely limited,
ARTICLE IN PRESS H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7
particularly for indigenous communities in the more densely populated south-east of Australia where white settlement came earlier and where physical and cultural dislocation of indigenous communities has been deeper (Ellemor, 2003). On June 30, 2001, the indigenous population of Australia was estimated to be around 460,140, or 2.4% of Australia’s resident population, with larger percentages located in the states and territories of New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory (ABS, 2002). Relative to the nonindigenous population, more indigenous Australians live in rural and remote areas (ABS, 2003). Nevertheless, the majority of indigenous people live in cities and towns (ABS, 2003). Government policies now support the decentralisation of indigenous populations away from major centres to outstations and homeland communities, which has contributed to the establishment of small indigenous settlements, often in extremely remote locations in the north and west of Australia. The legacy of past government policies and legislation, government–community relations, and ongoing social issues rooted in the process of colonisation continue to shape the emergency management needs of Australia’s indigenous communities. This has important implications for the practice of emergency management in indigenous communities.
3. Vulnerability: hidden meanings The use of the concept of vulnerability in indigenous communities carries added meaning given the historical context of colonisation and the processes that have taken place in settler societies, such as the forced removal of indigenous individuals and communities from their land and state condoned efforts to assimilate indigenous communities. In the South Pacific, where there is a different historical and cultural context, but remarkably similar stories of the impact of colonisation, Campbell (2003) rightly questioned the utility of the concept of vulnerability in framing community safety and disaster management issues. He argued that vulnerability labels Pacific Island communities as weak, passive, unstable and marginal, and explained that ‘‘accordingly their resiliences become invisible and the vulnerable entity often becomes identified as the problem’’ (2003, p. 9). Such a discourse of powerlessness, and hence the need for externally imposed change, has resonances with earlier liberal justifications for colonial practices, including in Australia the removal of Aboriginal children from their parents for what was assumed to be the welfare of indigenous children. This often results in the assumption that the invulnerable expert is the only person capable of offering solutions. This is not a useful outcome when seeking to enhance
3
community responsibility and it is contrary to contemporary approaches in development practice that emphasise participation and empowerment as an alternative to previous top-down, externally imposed change. Furthermore, the invulnerable expert frequently locates responsibility for problems within the vulnerable entity, rather than by examining the broader, often underlying processes that place these communities at risk (Campbell, 2003). This leads to the question—does the concept of vulnerability render those deemed vulnerable as passive actors dependent on the help of the emergency services in times of emergency? Indeed, it tells us who is most susceptible, who is going to be most affected, and who is going to find it most difficult to recover. However, more than that, vulnerability affects a power relationship that confers control over outcomes to management and in so doing, denies the possibility that local communities may be capable of affecting outcomes themselves. This suggests that the broad application of the concept of vulnerability may indeed limit rather than empower both individuals and communities. Campbell (2003) explained that the term vulnerability has only really been defined in instrumental terms (to provide templates for evaluating vulnerability), but the epistemological underpinnings of the concept have not been examined. As Wisner noted, there is a need to move beyond the generalised application of categories of vulnerability, unless of course we provide them as tools for indigenous communities to define their own vulnerabilities (Wisner, 2004). Continued and uncritical use of the term means that we run the risk of reinforcing a number of stereotypes about other people and places (Campbell, 2003). This highlights the need to be mindful about the way we work, at all levels in emergency/ disaster management. It is important to consider that the geographies we impose on communities reflect our imagination of them rather than the lived experiences of people in them. Importantly, Smith (1999), writing on research and indigenous peoples, highlights the way even researchers with the best of intentions frame their research in ways that assume that the particular problem lies with the indigenous individual or community rather than with other social and structural issues (Smith, 1999, pp. 92). This idea is reinforced by the discourse of equality that draws on the myth of ‘Aboriginal privilege’—the idea that indigenous people are unfairly advantaged in terms of welfare—which has gained popular currency in Australia since the early 1980s (Mickler, 1999; Ellemor, 2003). To follow these lines of argument, to be so ‘privileged’ yet have serious community and health issues such as a greater incidence of heart disease, diabetes and reduced life expectancy, domestic violence, alcohol, and drug abuse, means that the problem must surely lie with the indigenous individuals
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4
H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7
and communities themselves. Smith, among others, identified the way such community issues are ‘‘exacerbated by media and politician rhetoric about the general hopelessness or corruption of indigenous communities and indigenous groups’’ (1999, p. 92). Such issues are portrayed at the expense of the resilience these communities have exhibited in the face of external and imposed changes. Such a view limits the possibility of indigenous individuals and communities being involved in a meaningful way in research, policy, and program development. This raises a question about how we can understand vulnerability, and what role individuals and communities play in informing this understanding. Bhatt, writing about disaster management in south Asia, notes that most of the data that was used in work with disaster ‘victims’ came not from the ‘victims’ or survivors themselves, but from those who worked with them, for them, sometimes on them: so for Bhatt, ‘‘Although the intentions of these workers were mostly noble and sensible, they differed from the views, ideas and approaches of the victims. The workers did ask the victims, but it was not enoughy’’ (1998, p. 68). This led the Disaster Mitigation Institute to develop a method to change this relationship—instead of asking the victims what was the nature and extent of their loss, they developed approaches ‘‘to let the victims say it on their own, in their own way, and in their own voice’’ (p. 68). In addition, instead of focussing on the disaster event as a specific point in time, they developed approaches to explore the life story of the victim. Most importantly, Bhatt notes that this made the picture more complex, emphasising not just the immediate event (say a drought or flood), but also uncovering the long-term and continued condition of vulnerability (1998, p. 68). These findings have strong implications for disaster research with indigenous Australians, where a myriad of past policies, legislation and the ongoing impact of colonisation play an important part in the impact (or not) of hazards on individuals and communities. This highlights one of the ongoing challenges and disappointments of disaster management work in recent years, particularly in the context of developing regions. Vulnerability is about much more than the effects of one event, at one particular point in time, and in one geographic location. For many people, and arguably not just individuals and communities in developing regions, vulnerability is about broad historical and social processes that mean that these communities are often more susceptible and potentially less resilient to the impacts of disasters. The risk reduction and hazard mitigation work that occurs around a disaster must address the core causes, the underlying practices that contribute to vulnerability (Comfort et al., 1999, p. 43) if communities are to fare any better the next time a similar event occurs. Failure to address the root causes
of vulnerability means such inequalities will continue to exist. These inequalities have been heightened, in the past if not in the present, by an uneven focus on response in comparison to prevention and preparedness.
4. Reconsidering vulnerability: including local knowledge It is now widely recognised in the field of natural resource management that acknowledging and recognising the value of indigenous knowledge may help to identify alternative solutions and is likely to lead to more successful program development and implementation (Mitchell, 1997; Gadgil et al., 1993). In addition, contemporary social theory has stressed ‘‘the plurality of forms of knowing’’ (Morrow, 1994, p. 49). The recognition and inclusion of indigenous peoples’ knowledge can help to destabilise the hegemonic status that certain understandings or preferred readings of a situation have gained (Jackson, 1989). It can help to validate the identity of indigenous individuals and communities, and provide a point through which to bring together indigenous communities and emergency managers. Local knowledge often underpins particular strategies or practices employed by indigenous communities to cope with the effects of natural disasters. For example, research in Australia and the Pacific revealed indigenous people deployed complex and diverse strategies to cope with hazardous events. These strategies were often an integrated part of everyday life (Campbell, 1990). With European colonisation, indigenous peoples’ settlement and migration patterns, stories, culture, and related coping mechanisms have changed. For some communities, these changes have resulted in a loss or erosion of local knowledge. Despite these changes, indigenous people have demonstrated extraordinary resilience in adapting and persisting. The inclusion of local knowledge offers one important way of developing effective emergency management strategies in indigenous communities: ‘‘what is actually needed is an understanding of why and how local knowledge is rendered inappropriate or inaccessible, and of the ways in which people can be empowered to reclaim local knowledge and appreciate its usefulness’’ (Wisner, 2004, p. 189). Importantly, Wisner made a connection between local knowledge and vulnerability. He explained vulnerability is ‘‘to some extenty the blockage, erosion, or devaluation of local knowledge and coping practices, or—taken together—as local capacity’’ (Wisner, 2004, p. 189). He argued that vulnerability studies and practice have not given enough attention to local capacity, which highlights the importance of a proactive and contextual assessment of capability and vulnerability in disaster management. Such an approach moves beyond the use of lists and categories in assessing vulnerability, to
ARTICLE IN PRESS H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7
understand the broader processes driving the concept. This is essential if local capacity to cope with disasters is to be enhanced in indigenous communities.
5. Knowledge, emergency, and ‘normal’ It is generally accepted that disasters or emergencies involve an event or situation that is non-routine; an event that is beyond the day-to-day capacity of the local community and prescribed authorities (Koob, 1998). This definition seems straightforward, but when we come to consider disaster/emergency management in remote indigenous communities, it is fair to ask how much we really understand about what is ‘normal.’ How much do we know about everyday life and what it involves for remote indigenous communities? In particular, this question is relevant when considering emergency management interventions in indigenous communities. For example, how are we to know if these interventions have been successful; how are we to evaluate emergency management activities if we do not understand what is ‘normal’ in the community? In addition, how can we aspire to enhancing livelihoods and increasing community capacity if we do not understand the way these communities work in the first place? Central to this discussion is Bankoff’s assertion that ‘‘vulnerable populations are those most at risk, not simply because they are exposed to hazard, but as a result of a marginality that makes of their life a ‘permanent emergency’’’ (2001, p. 25). Indigenous communities in Australia are undoubtedly confronted by a particular complex of social, health, and economic issues beyond what would be considered ‘normal’ in mainstream communities. Further research constructed with sensitivity and carried out in partnership with the local community could be beneficial. There is clearly a need for local understandings of disasters and emergencies to inform emergency management policy and practice. However, working with remote indigenous communities poses a unique set of issues that make it different from working in non-indigenous communities. For example, emergency managers will often not be from these communities (although models of indigenous emergency management teams are developing around Australia). This ‘outsider’ status frequently means that the cultural protocols and historical sensitivities that have shaped current relationships between indigenous communities and government agencies (as well as researchers) and an understanding of the community and their issues are not well understood. These relationships cannot be built quickly—meetings and discussions take time, and trust needs to be developed between the community and emergency manager and researcher.
5
This has important implications for emergency management. It emphasises the need for government programs to be flexible and conducted in partnership with local communities. In order to gain a broader understanding of disaster in the context of the everyday lives of local communities and to uncover broader processes that contribute to vulnerability (as advocated by Bhatt (1998)), it is necessary for emergency management agencies to work in close partnership with local indigenous communities. This suggests a need for emergency management agencies to find ways to employ indigenous people in emergency management roles—an important issue especially given the lack of employment opportunities in remote communities and high levels of unemployment amongst Australia’s indigenous population. This may mean employing indigenous liaison officers with an understanding of and a relationship with local indigenous communities. These people can be a vital part of prevention and preparedness work, act as a source of advice regarding cultural protocols, provide an introduction to key community representatives, and serve as a focal point for emergency operations. Ultimately, emergency managers need to work more closely with indigenous communities. This requires identifying appropriate emergency management personnel to work with these communities. Such individuals will require particular sets of skills and experience working in cross-cultural contexts. It will also necessitate a focus on building capacity and capability within indigenous communities. One way of facilitating this process is to provide emergency management and related training and development opportunities in indigenous communities in order that they may contribute their own stories and thus shape the planning and management of disasters in their own communities. Without this, emergency management will continue to miss opportunities to address the root causes of vulnerability, and enhance community resilience. Although this is an emerging area of work in Australia, recent documentation of emergency management practice in rural and remote indigenous communities highlights the important role of building partnerships with and capacity in indigenous communities. For example, Hocke and O’Brien (2003) have documented the role the Queensland Department of Emergency Services is adopting in relation to building capacity in rural and remote indigenous communities. They note that the Department has begun to look beyond simply providing training, support, and infrastructure to their emergency service volunteers, to focusing on their role in relation to ‘‘building the capacity of communities to respond to some of the other issues impacting on their lives and our role in terms of building social capital’’ (2003, pp. 65–66). The Queensland Department of Emergency Services is pursuing this strategy by focusing on both service delivery (based on
ARTICLE IN PRESS 6
H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7
local community needs) and on employment opportunities for indigenous Australians. Importantly, Hocke and O’Brien (2003) note that enhancing the emergency management capacity of local communities could have flow-on benefits in terms of the social and economic development of communities. In addition, Newman and Smith (2004) from the Western Australian Fire and Emergency Services Authority have documented the development of training materials and appropriate processes to develop capacity within indigenous communities to identify and treat emergency risks. As with the Queensland example, they emphasised the importance of developing skills within the local community, and of developing strong partnerships between emergency management agencies and indigenous communities. Approaches such as these are fundamental to achieving more disaster resilient indigenous communities.
6. Conclusions: institutional responsibilities To conclude, there is a need to contextualise vulnerability—to seek to understand and apply it in the context of a particular event and the impacts on individuals and communities. Failure to do so will mean that emergency management may very well have political implications beyond its control and beyond the scope of its understanding. To fail to do so reinforces the practice of ‘invulnerable experts’ and the problems this creates. This is particularly the case when the communities that are managed are not the manager’s own. Furthermore, there is a need for emergency managers to recognise the ongoing implications of historical relationships between indigenous people and government agencies. It is not that long ago and still in the minds of many indigenous Australians, that government agencies were the perpetrators of devastating policies of forced removal from land and erosion of culture. If emergency management’s involvement with indigenous communities in Australia is to achieve one of its stated goals of ‘safer sustainable communities’, then it must learn from critiques of dominant development strategies. This will mean accepting the value of existing capacities in indigenous communities rather than rejecting or denying them, and working towards relationships and processes that apply new analytical tools, rather than just reproducing existing mainstream institutions (Howitt, 2001). As Howitt noted, ‘‘this presents multidimensional challenges as much to indigenous groups as to mainstream or progressive development agencies’’ (2001, p. 159). In addition, the relevance of concepts such as vulnerability for emergency management brings into play a whole raft of social issues such as health and education, and emphasises the need for an inter-agency
approach to mitigation. The coordination of risk and emergency management in indigenous communities across the various relevant government agencies provides an ongoing challenge that reaches beyond formal legislative and policy agendas, to issues of inter-personal communication and agency objectives. In August 2003, Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson invited the Australian Prime Minister to Cape York to see and hear first hand what is happening in Aboriginal communities and the critical social issues they are facing. Pearson’s gesture strongly implies that policy and decision makers, and practitioners need to see and listen before acting. Emergency managers must learn to recognise and integrate local knowledge and local coping strategies in order to move the balance from the now cliche´d phrase (after Tarrant, 1997–1998): emergency management done for (and sometimes to) indigenous communities, to emergency management done in partnership with indigenous communities. Much work is taking place already around Australia, yet much more remains to be done. This paper does not claim to offer answers, except that being clear and critical about the way that indigenous communities are cast as vulnerable, in the context of emergency management, is one way of interrogating assumptions made about these communities. Such a shift in thinking will serve to reposition indigenous communities as actors with their own sets of local knowledge and coping strategies that they have developed in the face of significant social and environmental change, both preand post-colonisation.
References ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), 2002. Population Distribution. Indigenous Australians. Catalogue No. 4705.0, Australian Government Publisher, Canberra. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), 2003. Australian Year Book— 2003. Australian Government Publisher, Canberra. Bankoff, G., 2001. Rendering the world unsafe: ‘vulnerability’ as western discourse. Disasters 25 (1), 19–35. Barnett, J., 2001. Adapting to climate change in Pacific Island countries: the problem of uncertainty. World Development 29 (6), 977–993. Bhatt, M., 1998. Can vulnerability be understood? In: Twigg, J., Bhatt, M. (Eds.), Understanding Vulnerability: South Asian Perspectives. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 68–77. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., Wisner, B., 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. Routledge, London, New York. Butlin, N., 1983. Our Original Aggression: Aboriginal Populations of Southeastern Australia 1788–1850. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Campbell, J., 1990. Disasters and development in historical context: tropical cyclone response in the Banks Islands, Northern Vanuatu. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 8 (3), 401–424. Campbell, J., 2003. Geography, vulnerability and nature. Paper presented at the New Zealand Geographical Society Annual Conference, Auckland, July 6–11, 2003.
ARTICLE IN PRESS H. Ellemor / Environmental Hazards 6 (2005) 1–7 Comfort, L., Wisner, B., Cutter, S., Pulwarty, R., Hewitt, K., OliverSmith, A., Wiener, J., Fordham, M., Peacock, W., Krimgold, F., 1999. Reframing disaster policy: the global evolution of vulnerable communities. Environmental Hazards 1, 39–44. Cutter, S., 1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography 20 (4), 529–539. Dovers, S., 1998. Community involvement in environmental management: thoughts for emergency management. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 13 (2), 6–10. Ellemor, H., 2003. White skin, black heart? The politics of belonging and Native Title in Australia. Social and Cultural Geography 4 (2), 233–252. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22 (2–3), 151–156. Hewitt, K., 1997. Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Longman, Harlow. Hocke, I., O’Brien, A., 2003. Strengthening the capacity of remote indigenous communities through emergency management. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 18 (2), 62–70. Howitt, R., 2001. Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and Indigenous Peoples. Routledge, London. Jackson, P., 1989. Maps of Meaning: An Introduction to Cultural Geography. Routledge, London. Koob, P., 1998. Australian emergency management glossary. Australian Emergency Manuals Series, Manual 3. Emergency Management Australia, Canberra. McConvell, P., Thieberger, N., 2001. State of indigenous languages in Australia—2001. Australia: State of the Environment Second Technical Paper Series (Natural and Cultural Heritage), Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. McLachlan, E., 2003. Seagulls on the airstrip: indigenous perspectives on cyclone vulnerability awareness and mitigation strategies for remote communities in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 18 (1), 4–12.
7
Mickler, S., 1999. The Myth of Privilege: Aboriginal Status, Media Visions, Public Ideas. Fremantle Arts Centre Press, South Fremantle. Mitchell, B., 1997. Resource and Environmental Management. Longman, Essex. Morrow, R., 1994. Critical Theory and Methodology. Sage, California. Reynolds, H., 1987. Frontier: Aborigines, Settlers and the Land. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Reynolds, H., 1989. Dispossession: Black Australians and White Invaders. Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Reynolds, H., 1996. Aboriginal Sovereignty: Reflections on Race, State and Nation. Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards. Salter, J., 1997–1998. Risk management in the emergency management context. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 12 (4), 22–28. Smith, L.T., 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books, London. Tarrant, M., 1997–1998. Risk communication in the context of emergency management: planning ‘with’ rather than ‘for’ communities. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 12 (4), 20–21. Twigg, J., 1998. Understanding vulnerability: an introduction. In: Twigg, J., Bhatt, M. (Eds.), Understanding Vulnerability: South Asian Perspectives. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp. 1–11. White, G., Kates, R., Burton, I., 2001. Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazards management. Environmental Hazards 3, 81–92. Wisner, B., 2004. Assessment of capability and vulnerability. In: Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Hilhorst, D. (Eds.), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan, London, pp. 183–193.