@article {bnh-8356, title = {Empowering Indigenous natural hazards management in northern Australia}, journal = {Ambio}, year = {2022}, month = {06/2022}, abstract = {

Northern Australia is prone to recurring severe natural hazards, especially frequent cyclones, flooding, and extensive wildfires. The region is sparsely populated (<< 0.5 persons km-2), with Indigenous (Aboriginal) residents comprising 14\% of the population, and typically the majority in remote regions. Despite national policy committed to addressing emergency management (EM) in vulnerable Indigenous communities, implementation remains unfunded. We synthesise participatory intercultural research conducted over seven years exploring core challenges, opportunities and potential solutions towards developing effective EM partnerships. Similar EM engagement and empowerment issues face First Nations and local communities in many international settings. In search of solutions, we explore developing effective partnership arrangements between EM agencies and culturally diverse Indigenous communities. Observing that government already provides substantial investment in cultural and natural resource management programmes conducted by over 150 Indigenous Ranger Groups (IRGs) nationally, we demonstrate that expansion of IRG roles to incorporate EM community engagement and service delivery can provide multiple cost-effective community and business development benefits for many remote communities.

}, keywords = {Climate change, indigenous people, Natural disasters, participatory action research, risk management, vulnerable communities}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01743-x}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-022-01743-x}, author = {Jeremy Russell-Smith and Glenn James and Alan M. Dhamarrandji and Ted Gondarra and Danny Burton and Bevlyne Sithole and Otto Bulmaniya Campion and Hmalan Hunter-Xenie and Ricky Archer and Kamaljit Sangha and Andrew C. Edwards} } @article {bnh-8015, title = {Developing effective emergency management partnerships in remote north Australian communities - final project report}, number = {670}, year = {2021}, month = {05/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

}, keywords = {communities, emergency management partnerships, remote north Australia}, issn = {637}, author = {Glenn James and Sithole, B and Danny Burton and Jeremy Russell-Smith} } @article {bnh-8116, title = {Indigenous fire and land management - impact and sustainability}, number = {680}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Context

Significant work has been done over the life of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre around the issues, opportunities and challenges facing remote Indigenous communities in the face of natural hazards. In the north of Australia, the predominant natural threats are cyclones, wildfire and flood, though the level of threat and impact of any of these differs considerably from region to region. There are other hazards that deeply concern remote community leaders, again, not equally across regions: heat stress and exposure, natural water resource salination and pollution, food security, toxicity and asthma issues from crude community waste burning, infrastructure issues (including road access); and related challenges; local capability to act, governance, resilience, inclusion etc.

The emergency management sector research has focused on technologies, capability, recruitment, and other aspects of EM agency preparation, response and recovery. This project responds to an identified gap in addressing the overall environment of Emergency management in remote areas. . . working together!

It is broadly recognised within Indigenous communities that EM is carried out FOR them, not WITH them. (See detailed discussion of this in the Arnhem Land context in Maypalama et. al.: 2016 and Sithole et. al.: 2021). This has generated increased interest, not only in the future engagement of communities in EM, but in the roles, if any, of EM and other agencies in the resilience of communities who, given structural and resource limitations in EM, are keen (and encouraged) to increase {\textquoteleft}self-reliance{\textquoteright} and take on more responsibilities in this space.

There is now a growing conversation nationally around government agencies and Indigenous communities collaborating more effectively. Much of this conversation has been around the perceived positive impact of traditional knowledge (particularly use of fire) on landscape health, and vulnerability to wildfire, how this may be integrated into rural fire service practice and what the real impact of this might be.

Indigenous leaders and rangers have consistently said and shown that use of fire is not separate from other (holistic) elements of caring for traditional country and that the social and cultural dimensions to land and fire management need to be acknowledged and respected to deliver the desired benefits to country and people (Sithole et. al. 2021: Maypalama et.al. 2019: James et. al. 2019: Burgess et. al. 2009). There are many aspects to this conversation and many perceived potential benefits of working together. They underpin this project{\textquoteright}s focus on partnerships to be able to explore this work together. Thus, the research brief is to:

Method

This research was conducted as a series of community-based discussions and workshops in the Northern Territory and north Queensland. NAILSMA provided resources, logistics, backgrounding and other support to local Indigenous researchers and facilitators who ran the meetings on country. This was a Participatory Action Research (PAR) method, consistent with preceding research on community resilience and partnerships by ARPNet and NAILSMA under the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project Developing effective partnerships in remote north Australian communities: Indigenous research and leadership in Ramingining and Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku. Inherent in this approach are direct benefits to Indigenous researchers and their communities from the process and from longer term outcomes influenced by their research and advocacy with EM agency leaders.

\ Where possible, meeting notes from the NT and Qld discussions were drafted and circulated to respondents and all invitees to the final combined workshop. This was to share what had already been discussed and to help provide focus.

An Agency Reference Group (ARG) (made up predominantly of representatives from QFES, NTES and DFES, but including CDU, Red Cross, NAILSMA and BFNT people) was invited to review and respond to early workshop outcomes, and attend the final workshop. This step was to inform the ARG and Indigenous community invitees to the final workshop with a general view of both Indigenous and agency perspectives on EM priorities and partnership prospects. They were able to kick-off their face-to-face discussions with a degree of prior understanding and focus.

This final, combined workshop was hosted by Djabugay people on their land, facilitated by Barry Hunter, a Djabugay leader and consultant and supported by NAILSMA.

Findings

To inform a Future Research Strategy the research team has organised ideas from the workshop and broader project into:

The work found that gaps are evident within communities, within EM agencies and between them. Summary of the findings includes:

Research Priorities mirror the above gaps and challenges, leading to achieving practical steps in long-term relationship pathways:

Integrating Indigenous fire and land management knowledge with EM operations and systems is not about taking the knowledge, it{\textquoteright}s about building respectful and trusting relationships with Indigenous people to deliver more effective EM together.

Utilisation

This research method (Participatory Action Research) assumes that the Indigenous researchers and their communities are a focal end-user. Participating EM agencies are another key end-user, not only by benefiting from the research in the long run but through face-to-face interactions with community researchers through which opportunities and challenges in developing direct relationships with participating communities can be discussed and solutions progressed firsthand.

In this sense the research is being used as it develops, to benefit communities, relationship building and short-term achievable change. It is also aimed at the national agenda for partnerships with Indigenous land managers, seeking to inform the new Natural Hazards Research Australia[1] about future research priorities and to encourage more discussion, more experience sharing and broader engagement of Indigenous leaders and influential EM agency staff in collaborative workshops hosted by Communities in different jurisdictions on country. This latter aim reflects the success of this project{\textquoteright}s collaborations and use of this model as an ongoing forum to benefit the sector. See for example the Aims and Expectations of the final project workshop below.

\ The summary of next steps:

  1. Relevant EM agencies and community leaders to start or continue working on their relationship and achievable change now.
  2. This report, supported by participating agencies, is presented to the new Natural Hazards Research Australia as a foundation to attract a future fully funded program of collaborative PAR with community researchers and of partnered EM activity.
  3. For the next and future collaborative workshops to be planned and funding secured so they may become annual, focused, Indigenous led pillars of EM sector partnerships.
  4. Conversations continue at 3 levels: community level, transregional and across the multi-agency national conversation. This should include Qld, NT and WA EM agencies connecting more effectively with each other and supporting each other to progress partnership building at North Australia scale.
  5. Indigenous communities and land management groups, their representative organisations and supporters take whatever steps they are able to, to build resilience and capability in EM.
}, keywords = {challenges, Emergency management, fire management, Impact, indigenous, land management, opportunities, partnerships, research strategy, sustainability}, issn = {680}, author = {Glenn James and Danny Burton and Otto Bulmaniya Campion and Barry Hunter and Jimmy Morrison and Ted Gondarra and James Bayung} } @article {bnh-7792, title = {Building emergency management capacity in remote north Australian communities {\textendash} status report, November 2019}, number = {639}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

This status report addresses the following activities:

Current research activities

1. Developing effective EM partnerships

1.1 Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku

i. Reinstating traditional governance authority

ii. Recent progress at Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku

1.2 Ramingining

i. Recent progress at Ramingining

ii. Lessons learnt

2. Scenario planning for remote community risk management\ 

Proposed workshop activity

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

1.1 Background

1.2 Utilisation proposal

i. Phase 1

ii. Phase 2

1.3 Participants

1.4 Expected benefits\ 

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

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

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

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

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

}, keywords = {management, northern Australia, partnerships, post cyclone, remote communities, response}, issn = {608}, author = {Sithole, B and Glenn James} } @article {bnh-3168, title = {Literature review on community resilience in remote north Australia}, number = {161}, year = {2016}, month = {10/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The purpose of this literature review is to provide an overview of current research on community\ resilience in relation to natural hazards. It examines the concepts of vulnerability and resilience in the\ north Australian context and, in particular, in remote Indigenous communities. In remote northern\ Australia there are particular issues that must be considered for preparing for, responding to, and\ recovering from natural hazards. Desert Knowledge Australia, for instance, highlights {\textquoteleft}the difficulties\ faced by governments in providing basic community services and infrastructure, the lack of any real\ local authority over decision making or allocation of resources, the severe stress on Indigenous culture\ and societal structures, and the risk of collapsing fragile ecosystems in the context of outmoded land\ management regimes{\textquoteright} (Desert Knowledge Australia 2009, p.3). In contrast, many highlight the\ strength and resilience of remote Indigenous communities, despite the hardships produced by\ colonisation, failed policies and poor governance. This is exemplified by many successful practical\ projects in land and sea management, such as the West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project (Bessen\ Consulting Services \& NAILSMA 2009, Garnett \& Sithole 2007). This literature review considers what\ community resilience means in the context of remote Indigenous communities in northern Australia\ and how this concept might relate to natural disaster preparedness, mitigation, response and\ recovery.

}, issn = {161}, author = {Christine Michael and Matalena Tofa and Glenn James} } @conference {bnh-1568, title = {Building Community Resilience to Natural Hazards in Northern Australia Conference Paper 2014}, booktitle = { Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC and AFAC Wellington Conference 2014}, year = {2015}, month = {01/2015}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

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

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

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

}, author = {J.S. Gould and Sithole, B and Campbell, A and Glenn James and Sutton, S} } @conference {bnh-2090, title = {Developing enterprise opportunities and resilience in remote north Australian communities - non peer reviewed extended abstract}, booktitle = {Adelaide Conference 2015}, year = {2015}, address = {Adelaide, Australia}, abstract = {

Research proceedings from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC \& AFAC Conference in Adelaide, 1-3 September 2015.\ 

}, author = {Kamaljit Sangha and Jeremy Russell-Smith and Andrew C. Edwards and Yates, Cameron P. and Christine Michael and Glenn James} }