Incorporating First Nations Knowledges in Local Disaster Management Plans: A Comparative Analysis of 82 LGAs

The socio-economic and human costs from disaster risks in Australia are forecast to rise steeply through 2050. It is increasingly urgent that individuals and communities develop skills, resiliency, and capacity to take action for better risk reduction and management over the long-term. This is critical for Indigenous communities in regional and remote locations who reside at the interfaces closest to sever disaster risks and who are often least able to respond rapidly. However, while research and international frameworks such as the Sendai Framework for Risk Reduction (2015-2030) have identified the necessity of inclusiveness for effective disaster management, policies and agencies have thus far failed to clearly integrate local and Indigenous contexts and practices into planning and response strategies. Better “listening” to, and learning from, Indigenous lived experiences is of paramount importance to move this agenda forward and facilitate the mental shifts required to mobilize policy and practice. 

As part of a larger project on disaster management in Australian Indigenous communities, several case studies were undertaken to identify trends in inclusive, community-led, disaster management methods. This paper presents preliminary findings using two of the cases as comparative examples of “better listening” – including a remote community in north island of New Zealand and a regional community in Victoria, Australia. The research was conducted using qualitative, semi-structured interviews during 2022-23; in-person and digitally. Transcriptions were thematically analysed using NVivo. 

The study found that the crucial elements for developing and implementing successful community-led disaster management were: to identify key community partners; to build long-term relationships of trust, genuine consultation and partnerships well before disasters strike through extensive “listening work”; listening to, and acting on, what the community needs while preparing for a disaster; and incorporating community-specific response and recovery plans through continuous engagement and revision of strategies in conjunction with genuine “listening”.