ASSETS AND ASPIRATIONS: CARBON MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN REMOTE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
Joanne Stewart BBus PgDipPolSt(ESD) CPA
This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Murdoch University
2016
School of Engineering and IT, Murdoch University, Australia
Declaration
I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content work that has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution.
J Stewart
Joanne Stewart
iii
Words of Wisdom…
If the gap between the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians and their fellow citizens is ever to be properly addressed, the starting point has to be a genuine engagement between our Indigenous peoples and all Australian governments. The negotiation must be fully informed and the first step is for governments to reach a real understanding of the diverse nature of Indigenous societies, their hopes and aspirations. Professor Patrick Dodson, Aboriginal elder, March 2015 1
The knowledge of the past is captured in the land and cultural practices that bound it together and made sense of it. Our knowledge for the future requires more than this… We can’t get our rich history back; in fact many of the older people I talk with don’t actually want it back...Where people have new knowledge and full understanding of that, they make responsible and good decisions that help them to further establish their
identity as Aboriginal people. Rosalie Kunoth-Monks, Aboriginal elder, November 2006 2
1 Dodson (2015) 2 Kunoth-Monks (2007)
v
Abstract
Two current pressing global challenges, climate change due to anthropogenic carbon emissions and poverty, are inextricably intertwined. In Australia these two issues are particularly pertinent. The nation is one of the highest per capita carbon emitters in the world, and despite being one of the most developed, the socio-economic disadvantage of its Indigenous peoples continues. This thesis provides a contribution to the dual fields of resilient and sustainable community development and climate change mitigation, with a sub-focus on asset-based assessment models for enabling community-directed low-carbon development in remote Indigenous communities.
The remaining socio-economic disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has revealed a need for an alternative approach to the past policy incrementalism that focuses on issues and needs, and improved engagement with remote communities. Therefore, an asset-based model, the Resilient Community and Livelihood Asset Integration Model (ReCLAIM), with a focus on aspirations and a continuous participatory appraisal cycle was developed for application with a community Advisory Committee. The six-step decision support model was applied, via a series of workshops, with two remote Indigenous communities to assist their selection of goal-oriented carbon management strategies.
The application of the model identified the existing and aspirational assets of the communities, their current carbon emission profiles, the carbon management strategies they preferred for their settlement areas, the modelled outcomes and implementation plans. The carbon profiles and strategies selected differed between the two communities highlighting the need for a community-directed approach to understanding the drivers of carbon emissions, removals and mitigation responses. Economic benefits were highlighted with expected cost savings to communities and service providers. The model could be adapted to a variety of contexts including urban municipalities or remote villages in developing countries.
vii
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been completed without the constant support, and care during periods of severe illness, given by my family, particularly my parents John and Tish Stewart.
The research would also not have been possible without the contributions from the Indigenous communities, and I thank them for their participation, hospitality and for sharing their knowledge, views and aspirations.
I would like to thank my supervisors Dr Martin Anda and Professor Richard Harper for their guidance, encouragement and advice. I am also grateful for the discussions with Professor Goen Ho, regarding water and wastewater technologies, Dr Trevor Pryor, regarding renewable energy systems and Professor Glenn Albrecht regarding community resilience. Professor Chem Nayar also kindly provided renewable energy details and photographs, and the eTool team provided generous support with their software. A thank you also goes to Justin Temmen for accompanying me on one field trip and assisting with a renewable energy presentation, and to Ross Lantzke for digitising Figure 3.3 for me. A further note of gratitude goes to John Stewart for identifying items for inclusion in the abbreviations and acronyms summary and the glossary.
I am very grateful for the funding provided by the Australian Research Council Linkage Programme (LP0990631) for the Decarbonising Cities and Regions project and from industry sponsor Horizon Power, and collaboration with research partner Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute. I would also like to acknowledge the funding and support received from the Australian Government's Inspiring Australia programme through the Unlocking Australia's Potential grant (US010118). I am also grateful for the solar-hybrid metered data provided by the Centre for Appropriate Technology Ltd.
Finally, I would like to thank fellow PhD candidates and office colleagues Maedeh, John, Veena, Ben, Stan and Sergio for their friendship and humour.
ix
Publication List
The following publications were written and published during the research process:
Stewart J., Anda M., Harper R.J., 2011, Carbon management and opportunities for Indigenous communities. In '!st International Conference on Revisiting the Socio-Political and Technological Dimensions of Climate Change'. (Eds C. Germond-Duret, J. Goulding, F.P. Rahimian, A. Akintoye), pp 109-124. University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Stewart J., Harper R.J., Anda M., 2011, Developing a model of carbon sources and sinks for Indigenous communities in Australia. In '19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation'. Perth, Australia. (Eds F. Chan, D. Marinova, R.S. Anderssen) pp. 3085 - 3091. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand.
Beattie C., Bunning J., Stewart J., Newman P., Anda M., 2012, Measuring carbon for urban development planning. International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses 3, 35-52
Stewart J., Anda M., Harper R.J., 2016, Carbon profiles of remote Australian Indigenous communities: A base for opportunities. Energy Policy 94, 77-88.
Publication comments and attributions:
The first of these publications was an initial summary of literature related to Indigenous and climate change policies, carbon management opportunities for Indigenous communities and the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and formed the groundwork for further literature review. JS wrote 100% of the paper with some literature suggestions from MA & RH.
The second paper explored the literature relating to carbon measurement and proposed a carbon profile calculation model for Indigenous communities, including land sector emissions and removals. JS wrote 100% of the paper with some literature suggestions from MA & RH.
The third paper explored the need for embodied energy measurement and evaluation of the CCAPPrecinct and eTool software as potential tools for the Decarbonising Cities and Regions Project. JS reviewed the eTool software, assessed its suitability for application to Indigenous community contexts and provided modelling using hypothetical community data. JS contributed 25% of the paper but it is not replicated in this thesis.
The fourth paper is largely replicated in this thesis as Chapter 5, and includes a description of the carbon calculation model used, research data collected from the two participating communities, results and discussion. JS developed the methodology, designed the energy surveys, collected the data with the communities, calculated the carbon profiles and wrote the paper. RH and MA provided review comments and suggestions for additional discussion items. JS contributed 90%+
xi
Table of Contents
Declaration ...... iii Words of Wisdom… ...... v Abstract ...... vii Acknowledgements ...... ix Publication List ...... xi Table of Contents ...... xiii List of Tables ...... xv List of Figures ...... xvii List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... xix Glossary ...... xxiii Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Overview ...... 1 1.2 Purpose of this research ...... 3 1.3 Scope of the research ...... 4 1.4 Research questions and objectives ...... 5 1.5 Methodology ...... 7 1.6 Structure of the thesis ...... 8 Chapter 2. Literature Review ...... 11 2.1 Introduction ...... 11 2.2 Indigenous communities in Australia ...... 13 2.3 Indigenous communities and climate change ...... 30 2.4 Key issues and recommendations ...... 39 2.5 Research gaps and questions ...... 44 2.6 Summary and conclusions ...... 45 Chapter 3. Methodology and model development ...... 47 3.1 Introduction ...... 47 3.2 Guidelines for research with Indigenous participants ...... 47 3.3 Literature review outcomes and frameworks ...... 49 3.4 Development of ReCLAIM model ...... 57 3.5 ReCLAIM model methods ...... 61 3.6 Research participants ...... 63 3.7 Planning Meeting ...... 64 3.8 Conclusion ...... 65 Chapter 4. Defining assets and aspirations ...... 67 4.1 Introduction ...... 67 4.2 Conceptual framework ...... 67 4.3 Method ...... 70 4.4 Results – Asset categories ...... 73 4.5 Results - Key concepts ...... 82 4.6 Results - Selection criteria ...... 86 4.7 Discussion ...... 87 4.8 Conclusions ...... 90
xiii Chapter 5. Carbon profiles ...... 91 5.1 Introduction ...... 91 5.2 Carbon profiles in Australia ...... 91 5.3 Energy supply and use in remote communities ...... 92 5.4 Methods ...... 93 5.5 Results ...... 101 5.6 Discussion ...... 107 5.7 Conclusions and policy implications ...... 110 Chapter 6. Strategy screening and scoring ...... 113 6.1 Introduction ...... 113 6.2 Method ...... 114 6.3 Literature Review ...... 117 6.4 Screening Process ...... 124 6.5 Scoring Process ...... 126 6.6 Discussion ...... 129 6.7 Conclusions ...... 133 Chapter 7. Strategy modelling, evaluation and implementation ...... 135 7.1 Introduction ...... 135 7.2 Methods ...... 135 7.3 Results ...... 141 7.4 Discussion ...... 156 7.5 Conclusions ...... 158 Chapter 8. Summary and conclusions ...... 161 8.1 Introduction ...... 161 8.2 Model outcomes ...... 161 8.3 Remote communities and sustainable development ...... 165 8.4 Considerations of scale ...... 168 8.5 Resource requirements ...... 170 8.6 Policy implications ...... 172 8.7 Future model applications ...... 174 8.8 Further research ...... 175 8.9 Conclusion ...... 177 References ...... 179 Appendices ...... 207 Appendix A: Murdoch University HREC ethics approval ...... 209 Appendix B: Research workshop and survey/interview schedule ...... 211 Appendix C: Community energy interview ...... 213 Appendix D: Transport survey / interview ...... 215 Appendix E: Calculation of the Australian national average carbon profile ...... 217 Appendix F: Data for carbon profiles of participating communities ...... 219 Appendix G: Options selected during Screening and Scoring Workshops ...... 223 Appendix H: Energy budget modelling for Community B ...... 231 Appendix I: Renewable energy modelling for Community B ...... 233
xiv List of Tables
Table 1-1 Map of research phase, thesis structure and research model steps ...... 9 Table 2-1 Key recommendations for remote Indigenous community development ...... 43 Table 3-1 Spectrum of participation levels by local participants ...... 49 Table 3-2 Infrastructure of research participants’ settlements ...... 64 Table 4-1 Asset definitions and examples ...... 69 Table 4-2 Infrastructure of research participants’ settlements ...... 72 Table 4-3 Key assets, aspirations and related suggestions by participants ...... 80 Table 4-4 Assets, concepts and criteria identified ...... 86 Table 5-1 Comparison of carbon emissions, by category, for the two Indigenous communities (tCO2-e/capita/yr) ...... 101 Table 5-2 Annual electricity generation (MWh/capita/yr) for communities by population band based on data from Power and Water Corporation (2013) ...... 105 Table 5-3 Stationary energy consumption profiles per capita (kWh/yr) ...... 105 Table 6-1 Likert scale used for program appraisal in Scoring Workshop ...... 116 Table 6-2 Options identified in the literature review and screened for inclusion in the Scoring Workshop ...... 125 Table 6-3 Options selected during scoring workshop ...... 127 Table 7-1 Priority program packages for two remote communities derived from the Strategy Scoring Workshops ...... 137 Table 7-2 Estimated diesel savings (kl/yr) related to energy budgets for different size populations ...... 146 Table 7-3 Diesel savings for renewable supply levels ...... 147 Table 7-4 Diesel cost and carbon savings with price $1.50/litre ...... 149 Table 7-5 Combined energy budget and solar PV replacement ...... 149 Table 7-6 Strategy cost summary ...... 152 Table 7-7 Carbon emission impact summary for two communities ...... 153 Table 8-1 Summary of ReCLAIM application results and outcomes ...... 162 Table 8-2 Stationary energy profiles of remote hunter-gatherer, fossil-fuel dependent and low-carbon Indigenous communities ...... 165 Table 8-3 Local and regional or community network considerations for emission source categories ...... 170
xv
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Diagram of research methodology ...... 8 Figure 2-1 Distribution of discrete Indigenous communities by remoteness areas (a) in 2006 (source: ABS (2007)) ...... 14 Figure 2-2 Australian climate zones based on temperature and humidity (source: (BOM 2012a) ...... 15 Figure 3-1 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework checklist (Scoones 1998) ...... 55 Figure 3-2 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (UK DFID 1999) ...... 55 Figure 3-3 The ReCLAIM model with 6 research and 3 development steps ...... 58 Figure 5-1 Sources of community-scale carbon emissions ...... 96 Figure 5-2 Comparison of carbon emissions from the two Communities with Australian average emissions (t CO2-e/capita/yr) ...... 103 Figure 7-1 Rainwater tank calculation results for Community A ...... 144 Figure 7-2 NPV/capita for different uptakes of renewable systems (% substitution) at a diesel price of $1.50 ...... 148 Figure 7-3 NPVs per capita at various diesel prices ...... 148
xvii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
ABCD Asset-based community development ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics AGEIS Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System AIATSIS Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies AR4 IPCC 4th Assessment Report on climate change AR5 IPCC 5th Assessment Report on climate change ARENA Australian Renewable Energy Agency ARIA Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia ASBEC Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council ASGC Australian Standard Geographical Classification ASGS Australian Statistical Geography Standard BCA Building Code of Australia BEV Battery electric vehicles BOM Australian Bureau of Meteorology C&D Construction and Demolition C&I Commercial and Industrial C&M Construction and Maintenance CAT Centre for Appropriate Technology CDEP Community Development Employment Projects Scheme CDM Clean Development Mechanism CDP Community Development Programme CEFC Clean Energy Finance Corporation CFI Carbon Farming Initiative (legislated under Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011) CHINS Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey CHIP Community Housing and Infrastructure Programme
CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2-e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent COAG Council of Australian Governments CPM Carbon price mechanism CST Concentrating solar thermal DAP Direct Action Plan DCCEE Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency DCF Discounted cash flow DEWHA Department of Water, Heritage, Environment and the Arts DIRD Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development DoH Department of Housing EF Ecological footprint EMM Extended metabolism model EMU Energy Monitoring Unit ERF Emission Reduction Fund ESO Essential Service Officer ET Evapotranspiration trench ETS Emissions trading scheme gha Global hectares GHG Greenhouse gas GPC Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories
xix GWP Global warming potential HEV Hybrid electric vehicles HREC Human Research Ethics Committee ICC Indigenous Coordination Centres ICE Internal Combustion Engine ICHO Indigenous Community Housing Organisations ICV Indigenous Community Volunteers IES Indigenous Essential Services Pty Ltd ILC Indigenous Land Corporation ILUAs Indigenous Land Use Agreements IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRR Internal Rate of Return kl Kilolitres KP Kyoto Protocol kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt hours l Litres LCA Life Cycle Analysis LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry MDG Millennium Development Goals MSW Municipal Solid Waste MUNS Municipal and Essential Services Program MWh Megawatt hours NAILSMA North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance NatHERS Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme NCC National Construction Code NGA National Greenhouse Accounts NGER National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme (legislated under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007) NGO Non-Government Organisation NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council NPARIH National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing NPV Net Present Value NT Northern Territory NTA Native Title Act 1993 NTER Northern Territory Emergency Response OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OID Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Report PDC Permaculture Design Certificate PES Payments for Environmental Services PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles pkm Passenger kilometre PLA Participatory Learning and Action PME Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal or alternatively Participation-Reflection-Action PV Photovoltaic Qld Queensland RAESP Remote Area Essential Services Programme ReCLAIM Resilient Community and Livelihood Asset Integration Model RIEP Remote Indigenous Energy Programme RIG Remote Indigenous Gardens
xx RJCP Remote Jobs and Communities Programme RPA Regional Partnership Agreements RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal or alternatively Relaxed Rural Appraisal RSP Regional Service Provider RTP Warwick University School of Engineering Rainwater Tank Performance Calculator SAT Sustainability assessment of technologies SCRGSP Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision SCW Sub-surface constructed wetlands SD Sustainable development SDG Sustainable Development Goals SETuP Solar Energy Transformation Project SIHIP Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Programme SLF Sustainable Livelihoods Framework SRA Shared Responsibility Agreements t Tonnes TAR IPCC Third Assessment Report TEK Traditional ecological knowledge UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change vkt Vehicle kilometres travelled W Watt WA Western Australia WALFA West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project WCED World Commission on Environment and Development Wp Peak wattage yr Year
xxi
Glossary
Aboriginal Australian A descendant of the original inhabitants of mainland Australia, who are estimated to have arrived over 60,000 years ago. Legally, a person is considered Aboriginal if they are descendent of an Aboriginal person, see themselves as Aboriginal and are recognised as Aboriginal by their community (Pascoe and IATSIS, 2008). See also Indigenous people. Adaptation The process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. Baseline/reference The baseline or reference is the state against which change is measured. Biodiversity The variability among living organisms from terrestrial, marine and other ecosystems. Carbon accounting The process of calculating and recording greenhouse gas emissions and removals expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e). Carbon cycle The flow of carbon in various forms (e.g. as carbon dioxide) through the atmosphere, ocean, terrestrial and marine biosphere and lithosphere. Carbon dioxide equivalent The amount of carbon dioxide emission that would cause the (CO2-e) same greenhouse effect as an emitted greenhouse gas (GHG). Obtained by multiplying the emission of a GHG by its Global Warming Potential (GWP) for the given time horizon. Carbon price The price for avoided or released carbon dioxide (CO2) or CO2- equivalent emissions. This may refer to the rate of a carbon tax, the price of an emission permit or a carbon credit.
Carbon profile The net emissions and removals of greenhouse gases, calculated within defined boundaries, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e). Caring for Country An Indigenous term to describe the protection and management of cultural and natural resources. Caring for Country comes with cultural responsibilities and rights. Climate change A change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period. Note that the UNFCCC (Article 1) defines climate change as that attributed to human activity that is additional to natural variability. Co-benefits Positive impacts that a policy or measure aimed at one objective might have on other objectives. Community In this thesis the term "community" is used to encompass the people, including their accumulated assets, that live within a defined settlement area. Cost-effective A policy is more cost-effective if it achieves a given target at lower cost. Country Country includes land, water, air and that which lies above and below ground or out of sight. The term Country encompasses the physical, spiritual and cultural meaning of landscape and includes people as a natural resource. The term is capitalised and treated as a proper noun.
xxiii Cultural bloc A cultural sphere of influence related through language, laws and belief systems; a sub-regional grouping usually encompassing several language groups sharing similar cultures. Decarbonise The act of countries or entities to achieve a low-carbon economy. Discounted cash flows A financial evaluation technique that makes monetary amounts received or expended at different times (years) comparable across time. A fixed or possibly time-varying discount rate from year to year makes future value worth less today.
Discrete Indigenous A geographic location, bounded by physical or legal boundaries, Community and inhabited or intended to be inhabited predominantly (i.e. greater than 50 per cent of usual residents) by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples, with housing or infrastructure that is managed on a community basis. Ecosystem An ecosystem is a functional unit consisting of living organisms, their non-living environment and the interactions within and between them. Ecosystems are nested within others and their scale can range from very small to the entire biosphere. Currently, most ecosystems either contain people as key organisms or are influenced by the effects of human activities. Ecosystem services Ecological processes or functions having monetary or non- monetary value to individuals or society at large. These can be classified as (1) supporting (productivity or biodiversity), (2) provisioning (food and fibre), (3) regulating (climate regulation and sequestration) and (4) cultural (tourism, spiritual and aesthetic appreciation). Elder A key Indigenous person and custodian of a variety of traditional knowledge. Energy security Access to an adequate, stable and predictable energy supply. Extreme weather event A weather event that is rare at a particular place and time of year. Global warming potential An index measuring the radiative forcing following an emission of a unit mass of a given substance accumulated over a chosen time horizon, relative to that of the reference substance, carbon dioxide (CO2). The GWP thus represents the combined effect of the differing times these substances remain in the atmosphere and their effectiveness in causing radiative forcing. Indigenous people People who identify themselves, or are identified by another household member, as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin. Indigenous Protected Areas The IPA programme is administered by the Australian (IPA) Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on behalf of the Department of the Environment. IPAs are established on Indigenous owned or managed Country as part of the National Reserve System, protecting biodiversity and cultural heritage. They provide employment, education and training opportunities for Indigenous people in remote areas. Infrastructure The basic equipment, utilities, installations and services essential for the operation and growth of a community, town, city or nation. In this thesis relates to buildings, energy supply, transport, water systems, waste management and information and communications. Life cycle analysis An assessment of impacts throughout a product's life including raw material acquisition, production processes, use and disposal.
xxiv Likert rating scale A type of numerical rating scale developed by Rensis Likert in 1932. The scale generally ranks quality from high to low using five levels with a neutral centre point (Jackson, 2009). In this thesis the scale did not have measured intervals so was treated as ordinal ranking. Mitigation (of climate change) An intervention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or increase their removals from the atmosphere. Native Title Native title is the recognition in Australian law, under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), that some Indigenous people have rights and interests to Country that arise from traditional laws and customs. Net present value (NPV) Uses discounted cash flow techniques to compare the estimated analysis cash inflows to cash outflows over a given period of time at an appropriate discount rate. This enables different investment options to be evaluated and compared. A positive NPV is generally a financially attractive option, however model variables need careful consideration. Poverty The lack of basic needs which can relate to material circumstances (limited resources), economic conditions (standard of living or inequality) and/or social relationships (social class, dependency, exclusion, security or lack of entitlement) Prescribed body corporate The corporation required to be established under the Native (PBC) Title Act 1993 (Cth) by a group of native title holders. The PBC is required to represent them and manage their native title rights and interests that have been determined to exist. Public transport Government funded or commercial transport services available for use by the general public, such as regular bus or train services. Remoteness area Within the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) the remoteness classification comprises five categories, each of which identifies a non-contiguous region in Australia sharing a particular degree of remoteness. Classifications range from "major city" to "very remote". Resilience The capacity of social, economic and environmental systems to cope with a hazardous event, trend or disturbance, responding or reorganising in ways that maintain their essential function, identity and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for adaptation, learning and transformation. Sequestration The uptake of carbon containing substances, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), in terrestrial or marine reservoirs. Settlement The term “settlement” is used to define the physical building and infrastructure support systems that sustain the functions of the community. Sustainability A dynamic process that guarantees the persistence of natural and human systems in an equitable manner. Sustainable development Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987)
xxv Terra nullius A legal doctrine meaning "land of no one". International law allowed uninhabited territory to be legally claimed by colonisers. The British colonists declared the Australian continent to be terra nullius before their arrival and began European settlement in 1788, despite the long history of Indigenous society. The doctrine's application was denounced by a High Court decision in the Mabo case, 1992 (Short, 2008). Torres Strait Islander A descendant of the original inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands, whose cultural origins are in Melanesia, and are estimated to have arrived more than 10,000 years ago (Pascoe and IATSIS, 2008). See also Indigenous people. Traditional knowledge Specific local knowledge created, maintained and owned by Traditional Owners and Indigenous managers of Country through practice, ritual and rights. It is owned and managed collectively, and is often specific to a place. Traditional Owners All Indigenous people who have a cultural connection to Country and are recognised as belonging within their cultural group. Vulnerability The propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt. Working on Country An Australian Government programme that funds the training and employment of Indigenous rangers across Australia to deliver environmental outcomes.
Excepted where noted otherwise these definitions have been adapted from ABS (2007), Griffiths and Kinnane (2011) and IPCC (2014).
xxvi Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
Two of the most pressing global challenges today are climate change due to anthropogenic carbon emissions and poverty (UN 2015). These issues are inextricably intertwined and their nexus has been increasingly incorporated, both in the United Nations’ plans to address poverty, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) responses to climate change (IPCC 2007b; 2014b). Indigenous communities around the world are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts due to their reliance on local ecosystems for resources, need for adapted infrastructure and their economic disadvantage (Ford et al. 2010; Green et al. 2009; Houser 2001; IPCC 2007a; Robledo et al. 2004; Turner and Clifton 2009). Climate change adaptation initiatives for Indigenous communities, have understandably been argued to be a higher priority than mitigation, due to their vulnerability, and small community populations, energy consumption and commercial activity (Ford et al. 2010). However, understanding the mitigation potential for current and future avoided emissions, coupled with the aspirations of Indigenous communities, would appear to be a sound basis for low-carbon development that promotes equality in development objectives. Also, as some mitigation actions also provide adaptation benefits, cost-effectiveness and stakeholder appeal can be increased with synergistic approaches (IPCC 2007a). The potential for climate change mitigation and Sustainable Development Goal achievement is considerable given that globally there are an estimated 370 million people who identify as Indigenous, and most of them live remotely (IWGIA 2015).
In Australia these two issues are particularly pertinent. The nation is one of the highest per capita carbon emitters in the world (Garnaut 2008; OECD 2014) and despite being one of the most developed, many of its Indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) peoples live in poverty in terms of access to opportunities (Altman and May 2010), and disadvantage compared to non-Indigenous residents (SCRGSP, 2014b). According to 2011 census data, the Australian Indigenous population numbered 548,368, which is approximately 2.5% of the national population (ABS 2013a). The latest community survey revealed that there were approximately 80,500 people living in 1,112 discrete remote Indigenous communities in 2006 (ABS 2007). These communities are generally small with 75% having a population of less than 50 people.
1 Recent government policy in both sectors has undergone several changes and is still evolving. There has been broad criticism of Australian Federal, State and Territory Governments’ top-down policies pertaining to remote Indigenous communities and calls for improved engagement with residents regarding economic development and service delivery (Cox 2014; Fien et al. 2011; Memmott 2010; Moran et al. 2009; Seemann and Marinova 2010; Seemann et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2008) and climate change response planning (Green et al. 2009; Green et al. 2012; Langton et al. 2012; Petheram et al. 2010). Current Indigenous affairs policy positions are explained further in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.5).
Since ratifying the Kyoto Protocol (KP) in December 2007, four changes in Prime Minister and a return to a Liberal Government in 2013 have led to a volatile arena for energy and climate change policy (see Talberg et al. 2015). The Australian Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) has provided a range of land-based opportunities for Indigenous communities to generate carbon credits, such as fire management and vegetation management (Hill et al. 2013). However, the removal of the Carbon Price Mechanism and introduction of the Emission Reduction Fund has replaced the industry- based carbon market, other than voluntary acquisitions, with a government-based reverse auction process and reduced the carbon price to an average of $13.95 in April 2015 (Australian Government 2015a). The CFI legislation has recently been amended to include non-land sector activities, such as energy efficiency in buildings and transport logistics (DotE 2015a). Whether these can be converted to carbon market opportunities for Indigenous communities is examined in this research. Increased international pressure and broad agreement, such as that resulting from the UNFCCC COP-21 in Paris in December 2015, would be expected to improve carbon credit opportunities and carbon prices in the future. Current climate change policies and their relationship to Indigenous communities are further explained in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3.5).
A complex set of factors impact on remote Indigenous Australians’ ability to participate in economic markets including investment deficiencies in infrastructure and facilities, lack of property rights and preventable health problems (Altman et al. 2008; Taylor 2008). Recent Government reports monitoring Indigenous disadvantage reveal that significant disparities with the non-Indigenous population continue, including a life expectancy gap of up to 10.6 years, lower incomes and employment rates, and higher rates of chronic disease and incarceration (SCRGSP, 2014b). Those living in remote communities also have fewer employment options (ABS 2012).
2 Despite these factors, there are several examples of successful Indigenous enterprises including construction and training services (Memmott 2010), youth development programmes (MacCallum et al. 2010), tourism ventures (Griffiths and Kinnane 2011), wildlife enterprises (Austin and Garnett 2011) and carbon management via traditional fire management techniques (Heckbert et al. 2009a; Heckbert et al. 2009b). There is also growing evidence that those living active and traditional lifestyles in small remote communities have increased health and social benefits, compared to more centralised residency such as towns (Burgess et al. 2008; McDermott et al. 1998; Rowley 2008). Potential wider social and ecological benefits can also ensue from sustaining these remote communities, such as carbon emission reduction and biodiversity conservation via traditional ecological knowledge practices (Altman and May 2010).
Despite these positive examples of Indigenous economic development and initiative, the top-down regulatory policy paradigm, without genuine engagement, has continued with disastrous outcomes (Gooda 2014; Howitt 2012). Alternative approaches, such as asset- based community development (Kretzmann and McKnight 1996; Kretzmann and McKnight 1993) and the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (Scoones 1998; UK DFID 1999), that focus on existing capacities and endogenous-driven strategies, rather than needs or issues, have proven successful in a range of contexts (Carney 2002; Emery and Flora 2006; Hussein 2002; Mathie and Cunningham 2005; Scoones 2009). An asset-based approach that recognises and harnesses the assets and skills these remote communities contain and can employ is needed (Altman 2011; Moran et al. 2007; Seemann et al. 2008). This approach was used to inform the research methodology and methods and determine whether carbon emission reductions relating to remote Indigenous buildings, stationary energy, transport, water and waste systems can contribute to sustainable development in these communities. This research was designed to complement the adaptation approaches being conducted.
1.2 Purpose of this research
This thesis is proposed to provide a contribution to the dual fields of resilient and sustainable community development and climate change mitigation, with a sub-focus on asset-based assessment models for enabling community–directed low-carbon development.
This research had three main aims:
• To identify feasible carbon mitigation options available to remote Indigenous communities;
3 • To develop a model that allowed Indigenous communities to select the carbon mitigation options that built on their existing assets and aligned with their goals and priorities; and
• To ascertain whether these carbon mitigation options would contribute to resilient assets in the remote communities that had selected them.
To achieve these aims, this research focused on identifying ways to incorporate the core principles of asset-based community development (Kretzmann and McKnight 1993) and participatory approaches (Chambers 2002; Chambers and Conway 1992) into a new community-centric decision support model: the Resilient Community and Livelihood Asset Integration Model (ReCLAIM).
The research sought to develop, apply and evaluate the model in the form of modelled asset and carbon emission outcomes. The model is intended to provide practical guidance regarding the way remote communities can take advantage of carbon management strategies, the selection process that can be adopted and the methods for their implementation. The model was designed to be applied at the individual community level, but could also be applied at a household level, or across a defined region.
Two remote communities in Australia generously agreed to participate in the research. Their ownership of the data and the outcomes of the model documented here are gratefully acknowledged. While the outcomes reported here provide an indication of the carbon management strategies remote communities would choose, it is not intended to imply that all remote communities would want to implement them. The purpose of the research is to determine whether the model can be applied at an individual community level to generate a successful outcome specifically for them.
1.3 Scope of the research
This research focuses on the opportunities for climate change mitigation, within remote Indigenous communities, related to settlement services including building materials and construction processes, stationary energy supply and demand, transport, water services and waste management. Only proven mitigation methods were considered, as the research was not attempting to develop new emission reduction or removal methods.
At the time of conducting the research, opportunities approved under the Australian Government’s Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 (2011a) only related to land management activities. These were of interest to the communities and were
4 discussed with them, however, at the time of running the final workshops, the CFI- approved methodologies did not appear to provide any immediate financially viable opportunities for either community. For example, the savanna fire management methodology was not approved for either location, rangeland regeneration was likely to have minimal impact and afforestation growth rates or available hectares were too low to provide substantial additional carbon sequestration. Management of feral animals (camels) appeared initially favourable but the Federal Government’s Domestic Offset Integrity Committee did not approve the proposed methodology. Therefore, land sector opportunities are not included in this thesis and will be discussed in a separate paper. However, as more CFI methodologies become approved, improved rangeland data becomes available and carbon prices increase, projects are likely to become more financially attractive to communities. Land-sector activities should, therefore, be assessed within this model in future applications.
While the model could be extended to other strategies, beyond carbon mitigation, such as product and service delivery to local or on-line markets, they were not included in the scope of the research.
1.4 Research questions and objectives
The research documented here sought to answer the following overarching question:
Can carbon management strategies contribute to resilient assets in remote Indigenous communities?
The overall objective of this question was to determine whether carbon management strategies were worth pursuing for the residents of remote Indigenous communities. If the strategies could be implemented with their existing assets and contribute to their aspirations, it would provide important policy implications regarding essential service provision, employment schemes and business development. It would also inform organisations that were actively pursuing employment and investment schemes with remote communities, such as Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs)3 or as part of Native Title negotiations, of opportunities that would benefit residents of remote communities.
In order to answer this main question it was necessary to investigate a further six sub- questions in the research process. These six sub-questions formed the basis for the design of the ReCLAIM model, and the six steps undertaken in the research. Each
3 The RAP program, initiated by NGO Reconciliation Australia, is a framework for organisations to provide employment, market and service delivery opportunities for Indigenous Australians. Further information is available at www.reconciliation.org.au/raphub/
5 question was investigated separately with the two participating communities, in order to tailor outputs to individual community responses. It also allowed identification of common themes and analysis of differences between responses. This in turn provided a greater understanding of reasons for responses and outputs and how relevant the model might be in further applications.
The six questions and their objectives are:
1.4.1 Question 1 – Which assets do remote communities have and want?
Identifying existing assets provided a base from which to build upon. Although often highly marginalized economically, Indigenous people and their lands, customs and cultures should be recognized as assets and their development policy designed accordingly (Altman 2011). An asset-based approach will enable the existing assets to be harnessed and propelled toward new asset generation. It is therefore important to identify the assets coveted by remote communities in order to ensure the existing assets are employed in the direction that will successfully align with their aspirations.
1.4.2 Question 2 - What is their current carbon profile?
Determining the baseline energy and carbon profile of the communities would help direct assets towards strategies for implementation. It would also allow significant sources of emissions to be identified, relevant reduction mechanisms to be ascertained (if appropriate), and the impact of mitigation strategies to be subsequently measured. This would also provide a basis for decision-makers both within the communities and also in other sectors, such as national priority setting.
It was intended that identified mitigation strategies could potentially produce carbon credits for trading purposes, however the feasibility of this depends on Australian Government policy and legislation.
1.4.3 Question 3 - Which carbon strategies might contribute to their asset goals?
A plethora of carbon mitigation strategies exist, therefore these will need to be evaluated technically and screened against the communities’ aspirations and selection criteria before being presented to the communities for their evaluation. This will ensure that only relevant strategies are discussed with the communities and time and resources are not wasted presenting extraneous and inapt programmes. For the purpose of the research “carbon strategies” are defined as those providing a carbon mitigation benefit to the community or reducing the carbon emissions of others in return for another
6 benefit to the community. For example, replacing a carbon-intensive product or service within the local community with a low-carbon alternative in return for income.
1.4.4 Question 4 - Which of these carbon management strategies are the communities interested in?
Once the strategies have been short-listed it will be necessary to ascertain which of the programmes and technologies will interest the communities. Even though the strategies have already been assessed against the selection criteria of the community, it is important that they are presented and evaluated by the community so they can make their own assessment, ask questions about the programmes and gather any further information they feel is necessary. They can also adapt the strategies and offer their own ideas for carbon management programmes. This way the communities will have control over the strategies implemented in their communities.
1.4.5 Question 5 - What effect would their chosen strategies have on their carbon profile and their assets?
Once selected it is necessary to model the effect the strategies will have on their assets and also their carbon profile. This will enable a further evaluation of the strategies and assessment of the outcomes before the final selection by the community. Modelling the expected outcomes will inform the decision-making process and assess the suitability for the communities’ goals. The community would then be informed of the expected outcomes and targets that could be reached with each strategy.
1.4.6 Question 6 - How should these strategies be implemented?
With a long history of policy and programme failures in Indigenous communities (Altman 2011; Altman and May 2010; Fien et al. 2011; Seemann et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2008) it is important that the community approve the method of implementation to facilitate its success. Their preferences for partners, networks, organizational structures, delivery times and methods will inform the implementation plan. In reality, the actual development of these strategies will need to be negotiated within the existing regulatory and funding frameworks. However, identifying the preferred modes of implementation will inform future policy and network designs.
1.5 Methodology
The overall research methodology encompassed four phases including:
1. Literature review;
7 2. Developing the ReCLAIM model and planning the research with the two participating communities,
3. Applying the six research questions that formed the six steps of the ReCLAIM model; and
4. Synthesising the outcomes, with conclusions and policy implications and recommendations for further research.
Two remote Indigenous communities agreed to participate in the research activities, which included surveys and a series of four workshops. The communities wish to remain anonymous so are referred to as Community A and Community B and further details regarding their participation is discussed in Chapters 3 to 7.
This methodology is summarised in Figure 1-1.
Literature review Model design Model applica9on Synthesis & conclusions
Context Indigenous communi-es Climate change impacts Key issues and Adapta-on & mi-ga-on recommenda-ons responses Carbon profiles Climate change policy
Engagement approach Par-cipatory approaches Asset-based community Develop ReCLAIM model development (ABCD) ( 6 step model) Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF)
Methods Workshops Surveys and interviews Carbon accoun-ng Ethics review and approval P techniques Strategy evalua-on Model outcomes Apply ReCLAIM with Net present value analysis Community A Policy implica-ons
Plan process with P Recommended future communi-es Apply ReCLAIM with research Community B Conclusions
Figure 1-1 Diagram of research methodology 1.6 Structure of the thesis
The thesis has been structured in the order that the research was conducted, which followed the sequence in which the six questions were examined. Chapters 1 to 3 outline the overall preparation of the research study and the model, Chapters 4 to 7 document the application and testing of the model with field research, and Chapter 8 synthesizes all the preceding information, draws conclusions, notes implications for
8 policy makers and community service providers and makes recommendations for further research.
A table mapping the research phases with the six steps of the model, which are based on the six research questions, and eight thesis chapters is provided in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1 Map of research phase, thesis structure and research model steps
Research Phase Thesis chapter Model step Intro Chapter 1 Introduction Lit review Chapter 2 Literature Review Plan Chapter 3 Development of ReCLAIM model and methods Develop model process Context Chapter 4 Defining assets in remote communities Step 1 Analysis Chapter 5 Carbon profiles of remote communities Step 2 Strategy design Chapter 6 Screening and scoring carbon mitigation strategies Step 3 & 4 Evaluation & implementation Chapter 7 Strategy evaluation and implementation plan Step 5 & 6 plan Final analysis Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations
9
Chapter 2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a brief overview and analysis of the literature pertaining to remote Indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) communities in Australia and climate change impacts and mitigation opportunities. Understanding the history of remote Indigenous community establishment, and related policies, facilitates comprehension of current circumstances, so has been provided here for readers not familiar with that subject. As there are already many highly publicised reports on the global causes, impacts, and immediate action required on climate change (See Garnaut 2008; IPCC 2001a; 2007c; 2014c; Stern 2007), that topic has been limited to a focus on Australian impacts and policy responses that are relevant to remote Indigenous communities. The literature review was undertaken to define and outline:
1. The history and current status of remote Indigenous communities in Australia;
2. Climate change impacts on remote Australian communities;
3. Climate change policy in Australia relevant to remote Indigenous communities;
4. Research that has examined remote Indigenous communities and climate change adaptation or mitigation responses;
5. Climate mitigation responses currently employed or trialled that could potentially provide a benefit to communities; and
6. Key issues and research gaps that will be examined in this thesis.
There is a large body of literature documenting the history and circumstances of Australian Indigenous communities, from a broad range of disciplines. This literature review does not attempt to identify the full scope of available literature published on this highly investigated subject. Instead only a brief overview of key facts, findings and common themes is presented, which is intended to emphasize the pertinent circumstances and focus of the research topic.
Specific mitigation programs and technologies were investigated after the assets and aspirations had been defined with the communities’ Advisory Committees in the Asset Workshop (Step 1 of the model). This led to a second review of literature based on Advisory Committee direction and input, which is included in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3).
11 Therefore Section 2.3.4 provides only a broad overview of mitigation responses so that their review and analysis is not duplicated.
Literature related to thesis methodology and model development is not included in this chapter, and is discussed in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3).
The literature discussed here is mainly related to documents that were reviewed during the initial research design and development stage in 2010-11 and informed the overall approach. More recent publications reported during later stages of the research process have also been included where this information is considered relevant and significant to the research process and outcomes.
2.1.1 Terminology
A brief explanation of oft-used terminology is provided here to expand on definitions provided in the glossary (page xxiii) and provide context to the literature and thesis content.
Firstly “Indigenous” is a term used to describe both Aboriginal people, of the Australian continent and some adjacent islands, such as the Tiwi Islands, and Torres Strait Islanders, who are eponymously named after their islands to the north of the State of Queensland. There are also people who may be of mixed descent. Aboriginal people prefer to be referred to as Aboriginal (Griffiths and Kinnane 2011) so the term Indigenous is only used here to encompass both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, such as when referring to nationwide statistics. There were no Torres Strait Islander communities participating in the research, however the research focus could equally apply to them.
The terms “community” and “settlement” have been used in the literature with different meanings and connotations (see Memmott and Moran 2001; Read 2000), however in this thesis there is no inference for strength of social cohesion or establishment by Indigenous people or European settlers. The term “community” is used here to encompass the people, including their accumulated assets, which live within a defined settlement area. The term “settlement” is used to define the physical building and infrastructure support systems that sustain the functions of the community.
For Australian Government policy purposes Australian locations are classified into five remoteness area categories based on road distance to service centres: major cities, inner regional, outer regional, remote or very remote, in accordance with the Australian
12 Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) and the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA+) (ABS 2011a). In this thesis the term “remote” is used to also include classifications of “very remote”. See Figure 2-1 for a map depicting remoteness areas in Australia.
2.2 Indigenous communities in Australia
2.2.1 Community location and population
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011b) the Indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) population in June 2006 was 517,000 people (548,368 in 2011); approximately 2.5% of the total Australian population. Approximately 25% of these people lived in remote areas with the remainder living in major cities or regional areas.
According to the most recent Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey (CHINS) (ABS 2007), approximately 93,000 people were reported to be living in 1,187 discrete Indigenous communities in 2006. Discrete Indigenous communities are settlements with physical or legal boundaries that are inhabited predominantly by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people with community-controlled housing and infrastructure. Local by-laws and other operational decisions are often made by Indigenous Councils, which allows for culturally distinct lifestyles and customs in most cases (Memmott and Moran 2001). Approximately 1,112 communities are classified as remote or very remote (ABS 2007), in accordance with the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) and the Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA+) (ABS 2011a). These remote communities are widely distributed, mainly across the northern half of the continent. Although the populations of these communities can vary at different times of the year for various reasons (Biddle and Prout 2009) the majority of the communities are small, with 75% reporting a population of less than 50 people and over 90% reporting less than 200 people. Only 1% had a population of over 1000 people (ABS 2007).
Indigenous community locations and remoteness classifications across Australia are depicted in Figure 2-1.
13
Figure 2-1 Distribution of discrete Indigenous communities by remoteness areas (a) in 2006 (source: ABS (2007))
The climatic conditions in these locations can be challenging, with some experiencing summer maximum temperatures averaging 30 to 39°C (BOM 2011). Extreme temperatures in some areas can exceed 45°C and some have minimum temperatures below zero degrees Celsius (BOM 2015). Annual rainfall ranges from over 1,200 mm in northern coastal areas to less than 350 mm in central arid regions (BOM 2012c). Vegetation in these areas are mostly classified as tropical savanna, grassland or desert (BOM 2012b). A map depicting climate zones based on temperature and humidity is provided in Figure 2-2, classifying the regions experiencing hot and humid or hot and dry summers.
14
Figure 2-2 Australian climate zones based on temperature and humidity (source: (BOM 2012a)
2.2.2 A brief history of Indigenous community establishment
A brief history of Indigenous community establishment is provided here to provide context to the subsequent sections on settlement types, structure, service delivery and funding agreements.
Prior to British colonisation in 1788, Indigenous people resided in over 200 tribal nations and language groups that were distributed across the mainland of Australia and its surrounding islands (Pascoe and AIATSIS 2008). Indigenous peoples’ connection to “Country” is the genesis of their spiritual beliefs, customs, laws and societal foundations (Griffiths and Kinnane 2011; Seemann and Marinova 2010).
The British colonists introduced the doctrine of terra nullius, declaring that Indigenous people had no existing land rights, and all real property was available for their own development objectives (Short 2008). The ensuing fights for land, dispossession of food and water sites and introduction of diseases resulted in the Indigenous population being decimated (Memmott and Moran 2001). From the late 1800’s the Colonial Governments began introducing ‘Protection’ policies that included legislation controlling Indigenous movement, and forced removal to government-controlled reserves (Pascoe and AIATSIS 2008). Church missions were established to “civilize and Christianise” the nomadic Aboriginals; often in remote places to deter associations with white settlers (Read 2000,
15 p. 41-42). Children were often domiciled away from adults, who supplied labour in exchange for goods or negligible wages (Memmott and Moran 2001). This policy was continued after Australian Federation in 1901, when the colonies became states. The two mainland territories were created in 1911. In the 1930s, the Federal and State authorities agreed to the “Assimilation” policy, which in theory aimed to instil the social and cultural norms of white Australians (Pascoe and AIATSIS 2008). However, the forced removal of children from their families, particularly those of mixed descent, known as the “Stolen Generations”, into designated facilities continued until changes to legislation in the 1960s (Pascoe and AIATSIS 2008).
At the same time Aboriginals were often excluded from town sites, which led to fringe dwellings or camps being created near their outskirts (Read 2000). During this time there was a growing momentum within the Australian population to improve Indigenous rights. In 1966 the Gurindji people, led by Vincent Lingiari, walked off Wave Hill station in the Northern Territory, demanding better pay and conditions and focusing attention on Aboriginal land rights (Pascoe and AIATSIS 2008). In 1967 an Australian referendum was passed, with a 91% ‘yes’ vote, which overturned the States’ previous exclusive role in legislating for Indigenous affairs and allowed Federal legislation.
In 1972 the Whitlam Government introduced the new policy of “Self-determination”, which supported processes and legislation for Indigenous self-management, with greater land rights and access to social security payments, possibly due to recognition of the financial and social costs of the failed Assimilation policy (Altman and May 2010). Many Indigenous people took the opportunity to leave the reserves, missions and larger manufactured towns to create small communities, known as “outstations” on their traditional lands, or “homelands”, and revive customary practices. Outstations began as independent self-built and governed settlements, however most became dependent on government funding for their infrastructure (Memmott and Moran 2001). Throughout the 1980s to the early 2000s decentralisation of Indigenous affairs predominated with the establishment of community-controlled corporations in the form of local government councils, health services, housing associations and other community organisations, with more recent government requirements for administrative and regulatory control (Moran et al. 2009).
2.2.3 Types of discrete communities today
The policy-imposed relocations described above have resulted in a mix of discrete communities located across Australia. Memmott and Moran (2001) classified these into
16 three different settlement types, noting their differing social compositions and propensity for political divisions:
• Settlements geographically distinct from other towns;
• Urban fringe settlements and camps that border a town or centre; and
• Small outlying settlements dependent on a larger centre for infrastructure or services (outstations and pastoral settlements).
Due to the government policies imposed, as discussed in Section 2.2.2, large discrete Indigenous communities were usually established as government settlements or missions. As several different clans and language groups were moved to one location, social cohesion has not always been harmonious. However, residents may have stayed to utilize the available infrastructure or other services (Memmott and Moran 2001).
Fringe settlements have often begun as self-made camps on the borders of towns, such as the nineteen on the outskirts of Alice Springs, by those attracted to the towns’ service potential. These have been incrementally improved with buildings and infrastructure to support the growing numbers of residents. Although the town boundaries may have expanded to encompass a discrete community, the cultural practices remain distinct from the non-Indigenous neighbours (Memmott and Moran 2001).
Outstations are generally small, with a population of less than 50 people; usually comprised of family members on traditional lands or “homelands”. They are generally located near sites of cultural and economic significance, to which residents have customary rights and obligations (Altman and May 2010). They are usually very isolated from services, therefore residents are often highly mobile and remain interconnected with a larger settlement, and other outstations (Altman and May 2010; Memmott and Moran 2001). As discussed in Section 2.2.1 approximately 75% of discrete communities are currently these smaller type of community. Some communities that began as outstations may have grown in size over the years to become a larger discrete community ((Altman et al. 1998) cited in (Memmott and Moran 2001).
Pastoral stations developed by European settlers on Indigenous traditional lands in the past, often used the resident population as cheap labour, which assisted with successful enterprise outcomes. They have increasingly been transferred into Indigenous control, for example by the government funded Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC), and share the location and service needs of outstations (Memmott and Moran 2001).
17 A number of discrete communities within a region tend to form a cultural unit or bloc based on kinship networks (Memmott et al. 2006, p. 80; Memmott and Moran 2001). Large communities tend to develop relationships of mutual dependence with small communities, which in turn, create a network of alliances of varying strengths, in order to optimize their outcomes (Seemann and Marinova 2010; Seemann et al. 2008).
The current system of Indigenous land holdings adds another layer of complexity due to the differing types of title and extent of control afforded to them. The Indigenous estate is formed from numerous (approximately 30) land rights and title laws at Federal and State/Territory levels, via five key processes Altman et al. (2007):
• Aboriginal reserves created during the “Protection” policy years;
• Land rights legislation enacted from the late 1960s;
• Other legislation that permits ownership or leasehold by Indigenous groups;
• Land acquisition programmes since the late 1960s; and
• Processes under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) including determined claims, registered claims and Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs).
Much of the estate is held by group ownership and inalienable tenure, which limits its use as collateral, but can be leased or made available for use by agreement (Altman and Dillon 2005). Therefore land holding entitlements need to be understood at the localised level before addressing potential programme modifications.
2.2.4 Socio-economic profiles
Australia is one of the most developed countries in the world, yet many of its Indigenous peoples live in poverty, in terms of access to opportunities and also by standard poverty measures (Altman and May 2010). A range of social concerns can be causally linked with the forced removal from ancestral lands and the past prevention of customary practices (Green 2009). Psycho-social problems, which have been well-documented, include low self-esteem, welfare dependency, homelessness, domestic violence, suicide and substance abuse (Memmott and Moran 2001; Memmott et al. 2001) and these issues are still current (AIHW 2013). A distinction can often be drawn between “dry” communities, where alcohol is banned, and those closer to town centres with alcohol vendors (Memmott and Moran 2001). A complex of additional current factors impact on Indigenous Australians’ ability to participate in economic markets including investment deficiencies in infrastructure and facilities, lack of property rights and preventable
18 health problems (Altman et al. 2008; Taylor 2008). Contributory determinants of poor health include sedentary lifestyles, lack of dietary fruit and vegetable intake, obesity, overcrowded households, higher unemployment rates, lower income levels, and exposure to violence (AIHW 2013). There are some employment and business opportunities in the arts, wildlife harvesting, mining and tourism sectors (Altman 2001). However, their distance from services and lack of employment opportunities can further marginalise those in remote communities, with residents more likely to report lack of jobs (59%) as a difficulty for finding work, than those in non-remote areas (29%) (ABS 2012).
The provision of social security, through various means, has prevented Indigenous peoples becoming relatively cash poor compared to developing countries (Altman and May 2010), however some of these mechanisms have undergone changes in recent years, which is likely to have added to the policy uncertainty and impacted on service outcomes in communities4. Hence, many Indigenous communities have a "hybrid economy", as defined by Altman (2001), which is comprised of three sectors: market, state and customary. The last relates to the economic activity that does not involve market exchange, such as hunting, fishing and gathering of resources, which is particularly evident in remote areas.
A series of reports to monitor and report on key socio-economic indicators, were commissioned in 2002 by the heads of Australian Governments, with six COAG5 targets to ‘close the gap’ on disadvantage included in 2009 (SCRGSP, 2009). Smith et al. (2008) suggest that monitoring mechanisms could improve by incorporating indicators of long- term resilience such as social capital, and the maintenance of languages and cultural practices.
4 The Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme, developed in 1977, paid participants for 15 hours of work each week to work on local community projects and aimed to foster local development in remote areas while providing income support (Altman and May, 2010). Following a review by the Federal Government in 2008, the CDEP was wound down and the new Remote Jobs and Communities Program (RJCP) was announced, with the aim of ‘building the skills of participants to find jobs outside of CDEP’ (FaHCSIA, 2012). This effectively switched the payments to unemployment benefits with little incentive to contribute to community projects. However, following feedback from communities and service providers the Federal Government reformed and renamed the RJCP to the Community Development Programme (CDP), which requires unemployed adults aged between 18 and 49 to work 25 hours per week on community projects, beginning July 2015 (DPMC, 2015). 5 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is the peak intergovernmental forum in Australia. Its members include the Prime Minister, Premiers of each State, Chief Ministers of the ACT and NT, and the President of the Local Government Association.
19 Recent results show that serious disparities with the non-Indigenous population continue (SCRGSP, 2014b):
• The gap in life expectancy has improved but remains significant at 10.6 years for males and 9.5 years for females;
• The employment to population rate for Indigenous 15-64 year olds is 48% compared to 77% for non-Indigenous;
• Disability and chronic disease occurs in 23% of the Indigenous population which is 1.7 times higher than non-Indigenous Australians;
• Gross weekly household income for Indigenous Australians of $465 in 2012-13 compared to $869 in 2011-12 for non-Indigenous;
• Indigenous incarceration rates of adults were 13 times higher than non- Indigenous rates.
Policy has returned to increased government control in some remote communities, which began with the Federal Government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) in July 2007 (Moran et al. 2009) and income management to control wages (Fisher et al. 2011). The NTER was triggered by a disturbing report outlining child abuse in remote communities in the Northern Territory (NT) (see BIPACSA 2007), however it has been criticised for employing measures that were not recommended in the report, such as military intervention, and ignoring those that were, including a consultative partnership approach (Stringer 2007).
Despite these statistics there are many examples of successful Indigenous initiatives and enterprises including:
• The Myuma Group, which manages a range of effective businesses, including quarrying and civil construction, training and service delivery and cultural heritage management (Memmott 2010);
• The Yiriman Project, where Aboriginal elders teach traditional lore and culture to at-risk youth, through land management activities, native plant harvest, involvement in research field work or fire management (MacCallum et al. 2010);
20 • Wildlife enterprises such as the Gulin Gulin Buffalo Company based in the Northern Territory, which supplies buffalo for export to overseas markets (Austin and Garnett 2011);
• Several tourism ventures such as Bungoolie Tours (Biridu), Nooloodoo Bush Tours (Gillarong), Mimbi Caves Goolooroo Tours (Mimbi) and Kimberley Dreamtime Adventure Tours (Jarlmadangah) (Griffiths and Kinnane 2011); and
• The West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement (WALFA) project, which uses traditional fire management techniques over 28,000 km2 in the NT to reduce the intensity
of fires and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at an estimated 100,000 t CO2- e/yr (Heckbert et al. 2009a; Heckbert et al. 2009b).
Economic activities that provide income-earning opportunities on Country have been welcomed by Traditional Owners (Griffiths and Kinnane 2011). Indigenous communities are also becoming increasingly interested in exploring potential enterprises utilising native plants for food, medicines and other purposes to build independence and well- being (Whitehead et al. 2006). Animal-based enterprises are also of interest particularly among young men (Zander et al. 2014). Although recent policy developments have encouraged natural resource management to foster development in Indigenous communities, such as Indigenous Protected Areas and “Working on Country” (Smith et al. 2008) a wealth of traditional knowledge is still not being adequately appreciated or employed (Jackson and Altman 2009; Zander and Garnett 2011).
The reported health and social benefits of traditional and active lifestyles in small remote communities, compared to centralised residency, (Burgess et al. 2008; McDermott et al. 1998; Rowley 2008) validate the need to support their sustainable development. There are also wider social and ecological benefits, such as biodiversity conservation on Indigenous lands with its increasing relevance to climate change impacts (Altman and May 2010).
2.2.5 Settlement structures and funding
Although the outstation movement was supported by the Governments (Federal, State and Territory) at the time, due to the financial and social costs associated with larger manufactured settlements, service delivery and administration has been problematic (Altman and May 2010).
21 Settlement structures are not uniform but include some form of housing, and a varying combination of public facilities that may include administration offices, halls, stores, art/cultural centres, schools and other buildings. Large discrete settlements typically contain the facilities provided in a township such as schools, health centres and stores (Memmott and Moran 2001). Essential service infrastructure including energy supply, water supply, and wastewater management is also usually present (ABS 2007). Government authorities have generally provided housing, buildings and infrastructure, and community ownership has resulted in a lack of marketable or collateral assets (Smith et al. 2008).
Funding responsibilities for Indigenous affairs has created ongoing dissent between Federal and State Governments, particularly in relation to outstations (Altman and May 2010). In 2012-13, direct government expenditure on Indigenous services was estimated to be $30.3 billion, which is approximately $43,449 per capita and roughly double the per capita expenditure for non-Indigenous Australians. The Federal Government was estimated to provide, either directly or indirectly, $27,000 per capita (62%), with the remaining government funds contributed by States and Territories (SCRGSP, 2014a). However this funding, which has increased in recent years, is not providing improvements in all target areas, as discussed in Section 2.2.4.
Processes for governance and funding of Indigenous affairs remains highly complex due to the many agencies involved and the continual reform process (Moran et al. 2009) which is still evolving. Since the 1960s the Federal Government funded the Community Housing and Infrastructure Programme (CHIP) (O'Brien 2011) with housing services delivered via local community councils and their Indigenous Community Housing Organisations (ICHO) (Fien et al. 2008). A review by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007) found several funding and management deficiencies, including a lack of managerial and operational capacity in ICHOs and the provision of inadequate housing. Consequently the CHIP and ICHOs were abolished and responsibility for housing management was transferred to State and Territory housing agencies in 2007, which has increased efficiency possibilities but reduced consultation and culturally sensitive design opportunities (Fien and Charlesworth 2012). Top-down objectives, such as cost- effectiveness, rather than client-oriented outcomes have often permeated service delivery processes (Moran et al. 2009). The review also recommended incentives for relocation to larger urban centres, cessation of funding to outstations and private house
22 ownership in settlements, despite a lack of analysis of social impacts and opportunity costs (Seemann et al. 2008).
In 2008, COAG’s National Indigenous Reform Agreement identified seven ‘building blocks’ for improved outcomes6, and a series of National Partnership Agreements were finalised for services and infrastructure (Australian Government 2014). A new National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing (NPARIH) (COAG 2008b) was agreed between the Federal Government and the State and NT Governments to address housing issues and attempt to address the ‘Closing the Gap’ targets. Funding of an additional $1.94 billion over 10 years was provided by the Federal Government, with State and NT Governments responsible for delivering the reforms (COAG 2008a).
Seemann et al. (2008) reported that delivery of buildings, infrastructure and services can differ according to community size, location and governance jurisdiction, and these variations still apply. For instance, in Western Australia, which has 274 remote Indigenous communities, the Department of Housing (DoH) centrally manages remote housing, although six regional service providers deliver housing services in their regions (WAHA 2015). The DoH also administers power, water and wastewater repair and maintenance services to 84 eligible communities through the State-funded Remote Area Essential Services Programme (RAESP) (OAGWA 2015). Eligibility requirements include a permanent population of at least 50 people, although some smaller communities are registered with the program. A contracted program manager supervises service delivery, which is performed by three regional service providers (RSP) (Anda and Dallas 2006). Smaller communities may receive maintenance services from larger communities’ resource agencies or by residents as a component of CDEP (now CDP) activities. NGOs and private organisations also provide services, often by government contract (Moran et al. 2009).
The Federal Government also funds other services to Aboriginal communities including major capital works, generator fuel and municipal services such as road maintenance, waste management and dog control via the Municipal and Essential Services Program (MUNS) (OAGWA 2015). A network of 30 Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICC) operates in regions across Australia, which provide a contact point for a variety of government agency services (Anda and Dallas 2006). They have little discretionary funding and are bound to multiple pre-determined programs (Moran et al. 2009).
6 The seven building blocks are early childhood, schooling, health, healthy homes, safe communities, economic participation and governance and leadership.
23 Regional Partnership Agreements (RPA), to improve and co-ordinate services, and Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRA)7 with communities may be brokered but these are not always successful due to funding commitment or other problems. SRAs have also been criticised as “coercive” and “paternalistic” instruments that can withhold basic services to communities rather than operating in true collaboration (Fiske and Briskman 2007, p. 52). This complexity of programs and their accountability requirements can provide additional problems for community councils attempting to meet their control, maintenance and reporting requirements (Moran et al. 2009). A large number of service providers and lack of co-ordination has caused confusion even among providers, with reported duplication of services (Australian Government 2014). This has often led to the employment of non-Indigenous people or “outsiders” to manage administrative processes for community councils (Moran et al. 2009).
There has been ongoing debate by some politicians and media commentators regarding the viability of remote settlements and the cost-effectiveness of service delivery in larger settlements or towns (Seemann et al. 2008). Although service consumption fees are charged to householders, the provision of essential services to remote areas tends to be heavily subsidised. Indigenous Essential Services Pty Ltd (a subsidiary of Power and Water Corporation in the NT), which provides power, water and sewerage services to remote Indigenous communities, received 75% of its total revenue from the NT Government in the 2010 financial year (80% in 2009) and only 25% from the provision of utility services (Power and Water Corporation 2010).The funding of communities, particularly outstations, has become precarious particularly since the Federal (Howard) Government handed responsibility for all NT communities to the NT Government in 2007 (Altman and May 2010). They in turn identified twenty larger communities to direct investment towards, while limiting support to outstations based on a number of conditions, in their 2009 Working Future policy. The lack of Aboriginal people’s official involvement in planning their future has again underlined the Governments’ poor communication and engagement with community residents (Seemann and Marinova 2010).
The future of remote communities remains uncertain as the Federal Government announced in September 2014 that all their service funding to remote communities
7 SRAs are agreements between Indigenous communities or organisations and Australian governments based on mutual obligations. They generally relate to single-issue initiatives such as nutrition, community safety or skill development in return for controlling substance use, increasing school attendance (Moran et al. 2009).
24 would cease in June 2016 (OAGWA 2015). This prompted the Western Australian Premier to propose closing up to 150 communities in that state (Kagi 2014).
2.2.6 Housing
Housing in remote communities is often overcrowded and inappropriately designed for temperature control and the history of chronic underfunding results in a poor standard of maintenance (Fien and Charlesworth 2012; Fien et al. 2008; Memmott and Moran 2001). Housing and infrastructure also needs to cater for customary obligations to accommodate visiting relatives for cultural or ceremonial occasions (Memmott and Moran 2001). Aboriginal housing often needs mechanical air-conditioning due to the standard house design and extreme temperatures (Duell et al. 2006; Long 2007). The relatively energy efficient evaporative air-conditioners have suffered corrosion by hard water supplies so preference has been changing to the more energy-intensive refrigerated models, which also perform better in humid areas. Indigenous customary practices should also be accommodated, such as seasonal behaviour patterns, orientation preferences, sleeping and cooking modes and storage techniques (Memmott and Moran 2001). However, the delivery process has been described as a “conveyor belt” with mass-produced units delivered into “often ill-equipped socio-technical environments” (Seemann et al. 2008, p. 8) with residents having had little autonomy in purchasing decisions.
In 2006, 31% of housing in discrete communities (5,336 houses) was classified as needing either replacement or major repairs (ABS 2007). New housing has been partly addressed under the NPARIH by programs such as the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program (SIHIP) in the Northern Territory, which has been described as a ‘provider’ model by O'Brien (2011) based on centralised and standardised processes to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness of supply. He suggests alternative ‘self-build’ models, where residents have control, or ‘supporter’ models, which provide support to residents, often by NGOs, can provide cost savings and build remote residents’ capacity. Further housing initiatives are required to meet demand and improve environmental and social outcomes (Fien and Charlesworth 2012; Green et al. 2012).
Housing material selection has often been in the providers’ control but has included prefabricated wall, floor and roof kits, steel-framed shelters, concrete blocks, insulated steel panels, and self-built timber frames with stone and earth bricks (Haar 2003; Keys 2003; O'Brien 2011). Although traditional materials such as bark, brush, and bamboo were preferred for temporary shelters, solid contemporary structures have been
25 favoured more recently as they pose fewer storm, fire and vermin risks (Haar 2003). Perceptions of equivalent standards with urban housing has also influenced material preferences (Keys 2003). Outdoor spaces are an important element to housing design, as Indigenous people like to take advantage of cooling breezes, use traditional in-ground cooking methods, supervise children’s’ activities, maintain contact with neighbours, sometimes with hand signals, and accommodate visitors (Dillon and Savage 2003; Long 2007; Memmott 2003). Therefore, verandas with shading or windbreak properties that do not impede sight lines but still provide some form of privacy, such as screens, slats and blinds, are often preferred (Memmott 2003).
Landscaping that provides shading of walls and micro-climates is an effective method for passive cooling in tropical heat (O'Brien 2007) and hot, dry climates (Pérez et al. 2011) but has not been adequately considered in housing delivery programmes such as SIHIP (O'Brien 2011).
A common theme in the literature is that housing design and delivery needs to be considered within the context of the communities’ capacities and needs, and improved engagement and partnership models are required (2011a; Fien and Charlesworth 2012; Fien et al. 2011; Fien et al. 2008; Memmott 1988; Moran et al. 2009; O'Brien 2011; Seemann et al. 2008).
2.2.7 Stationary energy
A review of societal energy consumption, including food energy, by Haberl et al. (2011) notes that hunter-gatherer societies that were 99% reliant on biomass as an energy source used considerably less energy (10 – 20 GJ/capita/ yr) than agrarian (40 – 70 GJ/capita/yr) or modern industrial societies (150 – 400 GJ/capita/yr). Although few remote communities in Australia still rely solely on firewood as an energy source (ABS 2007) an estimate of pre-colonisation energy and carbon emissions is provided for reference. Energy consumption of traditional hunter-gatherer communities was derived by Whitehead (1987) based on a 14 day study of an Aboriginal group living in Fish Creek, Arnhem Land (McCarthy and McArthur 1960). He estimated firewood use of 10 kg per day for a group of 9 adult people, for cooking, heating and social purposes, or approximately 7 GJ/capita/yr. Given that combustion of dry wood biofuel is considered
26 carbon neutral8, and accounting only for methane and nitrous oxide emissions (DCCEE
2011b), this would represent approximately 8 kg of CO2-e/capita/yr.
In 2006, the ABS (2007) reports that 50% of remote communities used diesel generators as their main source of electricity. The remainder relied on solar/solar hybrid (19%), state grid/transmitted supply (18%), other energy supply (1%) or no supply (3%). Non- respondents represented 10% of the survey population. This reliance on fossil fuel- based systems is not surprising given the majority of Australia’s national electricity market relies mainly on coal and natural gas (DCCEE 2011c). This style of energy dependence for Indigenous peoples is also evident internationally, with Canadian Inuit communities reliant on diesel generators and high-powered snow mobiles (Ford et al. 2010).
Since the ABS survey, further solar and hybrid systems have been installed in Australia. Following audit findings that existing renewable system installations had been inadequate (Lloyd et al. 2000), the non-government organisation Centre for Appropriate Technology (CAT) began their Bushlight program in 2002. Since then CAT have installed over 140 systems across central and northern Australia (CAT 2010e) and resident satisfaction has been reported to be high (CAT 2005; 2008). Some utilities also own and operate renewable systems in remote Indigenous communities, such as Power and Water Corporation’s three Concentrating Photovoltaic (CPV) solar dish systems (192 to 290 kW capacity) and three flat plate PV systems (4.6 to 55 kW capacity), which supplement diesel generation in six communities in the NT (Power and Water Corporation 2010).
8 It should be noted that the carbon neutrality of bioenergy emissions is currently contested (Haberl et al. 2012). Biomass combustion creates carbon emissions, even though its carbon stocks can be regenerated quickly and it reduces the need for fossil fuels (Bird et al. 2012). The global UNFCCC accounting guidance treated bioenergy emissions as carbon-neutral to avoid double-counting the emissions calculated from harvest in the land-use sector. The Kyoto Protocol accounting rules followed suit, but are not global and do not apply to all land-use activities in the reporting countries (Annex I countries), which means that some bioenergy emissions are not counted at all (Haberl et al. 2012). This has led to policies and trading schemes that treat biomass combustion emissions as carbon-neutral which may understate true emission quantities (Bird et al. 2012), including the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts Factors (DCEE 2011b). It has been recommended that bioenergy should only be treated as reducing carbon emissions when the biomass (i) is in excess of the amount that would have been grown without bioenergy conversion, or (ii) would have decomposed anyway (Haberl et al. 2012; Searchinger 2010). As Aboriginal communities are often using available dead wood that would decompose anyway, it is considered appropriate that it be treated as carbon-neutral, however this should be monitored for changes in timber quantities, sources and carbon accounting rules.
27 In the 2013 financial year, 30.8 million litres of diesel fuel was transported to remote power stations in the Northern Territory alone (Power and Water Corporation 2013).
This equates to approximately 89,000 t CO2-e. The Northern Territory Government have investigated the possibility of integrating solar PV into 46 remote diesel power stations, with a longer term goal to replace all diesel generation (Green Energy Taskforce 2011). The Australian continent, and particularly remote Indigenous community locations, has a high rate of technically feasible potential for solar energy infrastructure and some communities could also utilise wind power (DEWHA 2008b).
Since this research was designed and begun with the communities in 2011, CAT’s Bushlight program had its funding ceased, but further programs have been announced by the Federal Government to assist with community energy supply and use including:
• Remote Indigenous Energy Program (RIEP) for $40m over four years, from July 2012 designed to deliver solar PV systems in up to 50 small remote communities (Australian Government 2011b);
• Low Income Energy Efficiency program funded for $100 m to support local councils, community organisations and energy service companies trial energy efficiency approaches in low income households from July 2012 (Australian Government 2011b); and
• Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) with the NT Government to fund $55 million Solar Energy Transformation Project (SETuP) for solar PV at approximately 30 remote communities in the NT (announced October 2014) (ARENA 2014).
There is little published on the stationary energy consumption of remote communities or how it is applied. A study conducted at the household level in 2005 found a broad range of consumption levels, but no direct cause for variations, nor a correlation with reported occupancy rates (Beale 2006). That study, using a sample of 63 Northern Territory (NT) remote Indigenous community households, provided a mid range of household energy use of 20 kWh per day for a five-person household (4 kWh/capita/day) or 1.5 MWh/capita/yr. A study by (Rounsefell 2009) cited by Memmott (2010) had a much higher finding of 25.7 to 27.5 kWh/capita/day at the Dugalunji Camp, which consists of a dining hall, kitchen, three office buildings, two training rooms, accommodation units and various minor facilities. This was understandably higher due to the facilities provided in addition to housing. Thermal performance of buildings can
28 have a major impact on a community’s energy supply system and particularly peak loads (Duell et al. 2006).
At the community level, the Northern Territory Power and Water Corporation (2013) reports that on average only 37% of community electricity demand was consumed by residential public housing and 10% by residential/NT Government staff housing. A further 48% serviced NT Government and commercial facilities and assets, and the remaining 5% were losses.
2.2.8 Transport
Residents of remote Indigenous communities are often highly mobile for a range of reasons including accessing services, social gatherings, cultural responsibilities or acting in advisory capacities (Biddle and Prout 2009; Prout 2008). A “circular flow of movement” between urban and remote areas is noted by Memmott and Moran (2001) as remote residents seek employment, social services or a means to escape community friction, including alcohol use. Returns to remote areas can be due to cultural responsibilities, familial ties and avoiding urban related issues. A survey by Memmott et al. (2006) revealed that the regional centre of Mt Isa was the most visited place by two outlying communities in order to access services. Other localities were also visited, usually within a local region of mobility, and kinship networks often drove these mobility patterns. These isolated locations often result in dependence on non-public transport and higher consumption of fuel, which can be a drain on both individual and community assets (Lawrence 1991).
Their distance from population centres often creates challenges in accessing basic housing, infrastructure and community services (Green et al. 2009). For example, a recent survey estimated that community residents proximal to Alice Springs travelled an average of 852 kilometres per month to access services, with much of the travel on unsealed roads (Dockery and Hampton 2015). Roads in isolated regions, particularly near rivers, are also vulnerable to flooding or closure, which further reduces service accessibility (Green et al. 2009) In addition, heavy vehicles, such as semitrailers, often deliver supplies, at least a partial distance, and costs are passed on to consumers (Lawrence 1991).
2.2.9 Water supply and sewerage systems
Access to clean water supply and sanitation facilities in communities is recognised globally as being crucial to human health and development (UNDP 2010; WHO 2009).
29 The latest CHINS report (ABS 2007) states that the main source of drinking water for remote Indigenous communities was bore water (62%), town supply (14%), river, reservoir, well or spring (9%), rain water tank(s) (4%), carted water supply (2%), no organised supply (1%), and (10%) unaccounted. Over 190 surveyed communities reported water supply interruptions due to equipment breakdown, lack of water or power, or poor quality water. A study in 24 homeland communities revealed ageing infrastructure, lack of supply capacity and water quality protection measures and inadequate service co-ordination (Beard 2009). 75% of those surveyed did not have an alternative supply system, which made them vulnerable to system failures. Poor sanitation and insufficient water supplies have also been linked to a range of preventable diseases in indigenous communities (Fien et al. 2011; Seemann and Walker 1991).
The most common sewerage system in indigenous communities in 2006 was septic tanks, with either common effluent disposal or leach drains (60%). Other systems installed were pit toilets (18%), community water-borne systems (9%), town-connected systems (7%), other (1%), no organized sewerage system (2%) and 3% unaccounted (ABS 2007). Water supply contamination risks occur when wastewater storage is prone to flooding or deluge (Green et al. 2009).
2.2.10 Waste
Effective waste collection and disposal is important due to its impact on health risks, streetscape aesthetics and general quality of life of residents (Australian Indigenous Health InfoNet 2012; EnHealth 2010; Morrow 2002; Seemann and Walker 1991).
The 2006 CHINS report states that only 27% of remote communities were accounted for in relation to rubbish disposal systems. Of these, 25% reported having an organized rubbish collection with the remaining 2% being without an organized system (ABS 2007). Waste management has often been a challenge in these communities due to a lack of funds, inadequate technology and facilities, or a host of competing priorities (Morrow 2002; Seemann and Walker 1991). However, a number of approaches have been trialled with some success including recycling systems, and re-use strategies such as up-cycling into artworks (Morrow 2002).
2.3 Indigenous communities and climate change
Indigenous communities around the world are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts due to their reliance on local ecosystems for resources, need for adapted
30 infrastructure and their economic disadvantage (Ford et al. 2010; Houser 2001; IPCC 2007a; Robledo et al. 2004; Turner and Clifton 2009). The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC 2014c), which was published after the research model was developed, reinforces this view and recommends incorporating Indigenous knowledge systems in methods to address climate change.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992) endorsed two key measures to deal with climate change:
• Mitigation – by reducing or removing greenhouse gas emissions, and
• Adaptation – to lessen or eliminate the effects of climate change impacts.
Prior to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) on climate change, these two approaches were largely considered independently (IPCC 2007a). AR4 identifies a nexus between the two, and that actions for one can impact on objectives of the other. For example, adaptation actions that increase energy consumption could have negative impacts on emission levels. Positive impacts are also possible, with passive solar housing reducing energy use and therefore emissions, while enhancing thermal comfort for occupants (Fuller et al. 2009; Sartori and Hestnes 2007). Synergistic actions that meet both objectives can increase cost-effectiveness and therefore stakeholder appeal (IPCC 2007a). While the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) continues this nexus, responses for Indigenous peoples have tended to focus on adaptation (IPCC 2014a) and mitigation measures related to land management activities (Smith et al. 2014). Mitigation solutions for settlements have tended to focus on urban areas or city-scale development as opposed to rural or remote (Seto et al. 2014).
The UNFCCC (1992) also incorporates sustainable development (SD)9 as a core principle for policies and measures to address climate change, with economic development recognised as essential. SD recognises the interdependence between, and need for integration of, economic growth with social and environmental goals such as poverty eradication, justice and natural resource conservation and enhancement (WCED 1987). These aspects are also incorporated in the UN’s eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that targeted poverty, education and health initiatives, environmental sustainability and global partnerships for development (UN 2003). These goals have recently been superseded by 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that include
9 SD was defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’
31 action on climate change, and came into effect in January 2016, with specific mention of Indigenous peoples throughout the UN’s resolution (UN 2015).
The IPCC reports have had an increasing focus on the nexus between SD and climate change response measures (IPCC 2007b; 2014b). They acknowledge that increasing the sustainability of development could make a significant impact on greenhouse gas trajectories; however transitioning to new plans and methods is not always smooth. A large variety of constraints can impact on the design and implementation of policies and solutions including: limited resource budgets, uncertainty of future impacts, alternative risk perceptions and thresholds, competing values, and lack of research and monitoring tools (IPCC 2014c). There are potential co-benefits and trade-offs between the two, and these are explored further in relation to Indigenous communities in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.4.
2.3.1 Climate change impacts in Australia
Changes in Australia’s climate have already been recorded including increased maximum and minimum temperatures; a larger number of hot days (≥35°C) and hot nights (≥20°C), increased monsoonal rainfall in the northwestern tropics and reductions in rainfall in the south-west (IPCC 2007a; 2014a). A number of extreme weather events have also occurred across the nation including droughts in many years, floods in some regions, hailstorms, heatwaves, bushfires, and tropical cyclones with most causing damage of several million dollars.
Recent climate change projections (IPCC 2014a; SoE 2011 Committee 2011), relative to 1990, include further mean temperature increases up to 1.6°C by 2030, with the greatest change over inland areas, more frequent hot days and nights, and continuing declines in rainfall in the south-west and southern and north-east coastal areas. The direction of future changes in precipitation in other areas remains uncertain but extreme variables are likely to increase in frequency (drought, extreme sea level, fire weather), intensity (tropical cyclones) or decline (snow and ice).
Extreme weather events and changes in climate are already impacting on Indigenous communities in Australia. Low-lying Torres Strait Islands have been besieged by storm surges causing damage to infrastructure, and water supplies, and changing animal and plant behaviours were interfering with traditional hunting patterns (Green 2009). The Yolngu people in East Arnhem land have noticed cyclones strengthening, changes to seasons and landscapes, and flora and fauna becoming less abundant (Petheram et al. 2010). The Anangu in the semi-arid Alinytjara Wilurara region in South Australia have
32 experienced changes in fire and invasive species management, and extreme flooding events that blocked roads and food supplies (Bardsley and Wiseman 2012).
A study focused on Indigenous people across the tropical north of Australia (Green et al. 2009) concluded that climate change poses several risks and the livelihood opportunities related to ecosystem management need to be further investigated. Detrimental Impacts are likely to occur to infrastructure, natural resources, health and current livelihood structures of communities.
2.3.2 Adaptation responses
Vulnerability and climate change adaptation perspectives have been the focus of several studies with Australian (Bardsley and Wiseman 2012; Green 2009; Green et al. 2009; Green et al. 2012; Memmott et al. 2013; Petheram et al. 2010; Wiseman and Bardsley 2013; Zander et al. 2013) and international Indigenous communities (Ford et al. 2010; Ford et al. 2014; Ford 2012; Houser 2001; Robledo et al. 2004; Tschakert 2007; Turner and Clifton 2009). The findings of these assessments have been very similar for both Australian and overseas communities, in relation to adaptive capacity and suggested interventions and these are discussed in tandem below.
Two factors that are likely to impede Indigenous Australians’ ability to cope with advancing climate change, despite their past resilience over thousands of years, are the relative speed of current anthropogenic changes and their impaired socio-cultural and economic circumstances, as previously discussed in Section 2.2.4 (Green 2009).
Some Indigenous communities are already adapting to climate change with modified practices, such as fire regimes and resource harvesting, and development of innovative technological solutions, such as water drums to deter camels from settlement areas (Bardsley and Wiseman 2012; Turner and Clifton 2009). Sources of adaptive capacity identified have included traditional knowledge and land management skills, social and kinship networks, familiarity with uncertainty, flexible institutions and access to technology (Ford et al. 2010). However, their capacity for independent adaptation is limited by financial resources and lack of institutional support, and needs to be supplemented with appropriate interventions and policy responses (Ford et al. 2012; Ford et al. 2010; Petheram et al. 2010; Zander et al. 2013). Climate change education, information sessions and workshops, covering anticipated projections, impacts and potential solutions, would help ameliorate the uncertainty felt by Indigenous residents (Memmott et al. 2013). Diversifying and augmenting community assets by strategic
33 integration with regional non-Indigenous economies could also strengthen their resilience (Houser 2001).
While previous studies have focused on adaptation strategies, a number of participant suggestions also provide potential mitigation benefits: sustainable housing, public transport, local food production and renewable energy systems among others (Green et al. 2009; Petheram et al. 2010). There was a strong preference in the suggestions for self-sufficiency, empowerment, ecological sustainability and a greater focus on customary practices.
These adaptation assessments have identified coping mechanisms to protect future well-being of community residents, and have highlighted the need for meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples, and incorporation of their vast body of knowledge, to shape appropriate policy responses (Green et al. 2009; Green et al. 2012; Zander et al. 2013). Three key areas in which Indigenous knowledge can be incorporated into climate change responses include (Turner and Clifton 2009);
• Information on weather, ecological systems and habitats;
• Creation of adaptation models; and
• Proposing alternative methods and systems for future sustainable practices and lifestyles.
Adaptation has understandably been argued to be a higher priority than mitigation, for Indigenous communities due to their vulnerability, and small community populations, energy consumption and commercial activity (Ford et al. 2010). However, understanding the mitigation potential for current and future avoided emissions, coupled with the sustainable development goals that Indigenous communities seek would appear to be a sound basis for low-carbon development that promotes equality in development objectives. The potential for climate mitigation and sustainable development goal achievement is considerable given that globally there are an estimated 370 million people who identify as Indigenous, and most of them live remotely (IWGIA 2015).
Australian Indigenous communities consider a range of concerns, such as poor health, infrastructure issues, land rights, maintenance of traditional knowledge, and psycho- social issues to be “interconnected and overwhelming in comparison to climate change” (Petheram et al. 2010, p. 687). This finding has been reinforced in a further study by Memmott et al. (2013). Therefore, these more important aspects should also be prioritised when considering mitigation responses and policy implications.
34 2.3.3 Carbon profiles of remote Indigenous communities
Carbon profiles of remote Indigenous communities have not yet been quantified. This is possibly due to residents comprising less than 1% of the Australian population (ABS 2007) and therefore not being expected to contribute significantly to emission inventories. However, Wood and Garnett (2009) published an assessment of ecological footprints (EF) comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations in the Northern Territory with reference to remoteness. The results, reported in global hectares (gha), showed a significantly lower average footprint per capita for Indigenous people (~ 6.2 gha) compared to non-Indigenous (~ 9 gha), with those in remote areas having the lowest (~ 5.8 gha).
Given stationary energy consumption can range on average from 4kWh/capita/day in a sample of remote Indigenous households (Beale 2006) to 27.5 kWh/capita/day in a busy Aboriginal training camp (Memmott 2010) it follows that carbon profiles are likely to increase with economic development if the current energy sources are maintained. Highly mobile residents dependent on fossil-fuelled vehicles and methane emissions from landfill waste management systems also add to the carbon profile. Future economic development will need to be decoupled from carbon-intensive fuel sources if low-carbon development is to be incorporated as a sustainable development goal for remote communities.
Carbon profiles in remote Indigenous communities, comparisons to Australian households and profiling methods are discussed further in Chapter 5.
2.3.4 Mitigation responses
Mitigation responses can assist with sustainable development objectives, particularly in relation to forestry, agriculture, energy use and supply, wastewater and waste management systems (IPCC 2007b). SD co-benefits can include resource productivity, improved energy security, reduction of local pollutants, job creation, enhanced biodiversity, soil and water conservation benefits and restoration of degraded land (Sathaye et al. 2007). Trade-offs may also occur such as competition for arable land, water and biodiversity impacts, therefore potential conflicts need to be considered to allow rational and optimal choices to be made such as multi-functional land use (Sathaye et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2014). SD approaches aim to minimise trade-offs by facilitating dialogue between stakeholders to develop innovative solutions (Newman 2006).
35 To date mitigation opportunities for Australian remote communities have mainly focussed on broad land use activities, which potentially provide co-benefits of Indigenous employment and training, maintenance of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), control of pests and weeds (Barnsley and NAILSMA 2009) and improved soil and watershed management (Harper et al. 2007). These include strategic fire management of savanna (Heckbert et al. 2009a; Heckbert et al. 2008; Russell-Smith et al. 2009), and modified grazing practices with or without controlled savanna burning (Alchin et al. 2010). While land management options are limited by biophysical constraints, even arid regions could potentially provide opportunities such as forestry for carbon sequestration and plantings for bioenergy fuels (Eady et al. 2009; Harper et al. 2007; Harper et al. 2010; Suganuma et al. 2010). As explained in Chapter 1 (Section 1.3), land management activities are not being further investigated in this research, however they provide a sound rationale for maintaining communities in remote areas.
The potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects have also been proposed by Barnsley and NAILSMA (2009). Undeveloped areas of Indigenous lands could provide an economic development opportunity to supply increased demand for renewable solar and wind energy solutions (Houser 2001).
Site selection criteria for large installations, such as concentrating solar thermal (CST), identified by Wright and Hearps (2010), includes renewable energy availability, seasonal variations and relative proximity to electricity grids, due to high transmission costs over long distances. They note that areas in Central Australia have high levels of solar irradiance, but the last criterion would eliminate them as suitable sites for CST due to the costs of transmission to populated centres of demand. Therefore, technological supply options and locations will need to be matched for their electricity generation ability and proximity to suitably sized areas of demand, which will limit the supply potential to internal use only for many remote communities. There may be opportunities to generate income from renewable energy land use agreements and construction and maintenance services to nearby towns and mining camps, but these would need to be assessed individually.
Energy efficiency measures can save on communities’ electricity costs (Barnsley and NAILSMA 2009) and responses that target fossil-fuelled transport and generators in communities could reduce pollution and provide substantial health benefits (Ford et al. 2010).
36 The perspectives of local participants in carbon mitigation programs should be centralised to ensure methods and outcomes are sustainable and socially just, which has not always occurred in the past (Leach and Scoones 2013). A review of over one hundred Australian low-carbon programs, aimed at households, communities, small- medium enterprises or local government authorities, found that those adopting a socio- technical approach, that incorporated local contexts and practices, were more likely to be successful than a techno-economic model that focuses purely on technology and economic incentives such as price (Moloney et al. 2010).
A range of mitigation programs and technologies could potentially be incorporated within a socio-technical approach such as energy-efficient housing (Duell et al. 2006; Sartori and Hestnes 2007), energy education programs (CAT 2010b; c), renewable energy systems (CAT 2010e; Green Energy Taskforce 2011), water management (Nelson 2006; Tilley et al. 2008) and waste management systems (Andersen et al. 2010; Morrow 2002; Seemann and Walker 1991). In accordance with a socio-technical approach, potential mitigation responses for communities are investigated in more detail after the local context, practices and needs are established using an asset-based approach. These mitigation responses are discussed in further detail in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3).
2.3.5 Climate change policy in Australia
Australia is party to the UNFCCC (1992) and ratified the Kyoto Protocol (KP) in December 2007 following the election of the Rudd-led Labor Government. Since then, four changes in Prime Minister and a return to a Liberal Government in 2013 have led to a volatile arena for energy and climate change policy (See Talberg et al. 2015). Rather than give an overview of all policy changes, this sub-section provides a summary of current policy and its relevance to Indigenous communities.
The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Act, 2007 was introduced to inform energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) policy formulation and meet international reporting obligations, such as under the UNFCCC and KP. It requires companies meeting the specified threshold to report their energy production, consumption and GHG emissions (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) 2008). Thresholds in 2015 for corporate groups were energy consumption or production of 200
TJ/yr and GHG emissions or 50 kt CO2-e/yr and for facilities, consumption or production of 100 TJ/yr or GHG emissions of 25 kt CO2-e/yr (CER 2015a). Therefore, only larger organisations are captured and small organisations such as Aboriginal community corporations do not monitor or report their emissions, although fuel supplied for
37 stationary energy under the MUNS program is likely to be included in internal government reporting.
Minimum energy efficiency standards for residential dwellings were incorporated in the Building Code of Australia (BCA), now within the National Construction Code (NCC), from 2003 (NatHERS 2011b). A thermal performance assessment of a building design under the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) is one way of meeting these standards. Alternatively buildings can comply with the “Deemed-to satisfy’ provisions of the NCC.
NatHERS uses a rating scale based on star levels with varying performance levels for each climate zone. A ten star rating would designate a house to be thermally comfortable without need for mechanical air-conditioning (NatHERS 2011a). Generally a rating of six stars is required, apart from some minor concessions (ABCB 2015). This is equivalent to 113 MJ/m2, or 5.6 MWh/year, for a 180 m2 house in Alice Springs (NatHERS 2011a). Therefore, a large amount of energy is likely to be consumed until the minimum standard is increased to 9 or 10 stars.
The Renewable Energy Target (RET) Scheme mandates national renewable energy targets, which after various amendments, is now 33,000 GWh of large-scale generation by 2020 (DotE 2015c). This creates demand for renewables, such as solar, wind and hydro-electric power, which can be converted to credits and sold to electricity utilities to meet their RET obligations. Small-scale certificates are also available for solar panels (≤100 kW), wind systems (≤10 kW), hydro systems (≤ 6.4 kw) and small solar or air source heat pumps (CER 2015b). The RET supports other renewable energy programs in Indigenous communities such as the RIEP (Australian Government 2011b) discussed in
Section 2.2.7.
In 2011, the Gillard Government announced the Clean Energy Future package (Australian Government 2011b) with a suite of legislation that was designed to:
• Apply a carbon price mechanism (CPM) to 500 of the biggest polluters, which would evolve to an emission trading scheme (ETS);
• Promote investment in renewable energy via the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to drive commercial acquisition, and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) to support research and development;
• Encourage energy efficiency through various programs; and
38 • Create opportunities in the land sector via the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) program, which would create credits, known as Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), to be traded.
Carbon credits earned via CFI activities could be sold to organisations with CPM liabilities, if they were activities included in KP accounts, or alternatively to the voluntary market, whether or not they were KP activities (DCCEE 2012).
The Abbott government repealed the CPM legislation in July 2014, just two years after it began operations, which removed the obligatory domestic carbon market, and replaced it with its Direct Action Plan (DAP). Under the DAP, CFI activities could continue and were expanded to include non-land sector activities such as energy efficiency in buildings (Australian Government 2015a). ACCUs can only be created from projects complying with approved method determinations, which are being progressively created and approved by the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee (ERAC). ACCU vendors can then sell to the Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) via a reverse auction process, if projects meet or exceed 2,000 t CO2-e/yr, or to the voluntary market (DotE 2015a).
The ERF has been criticised for potentially financing efficiency projects that would be economically attractive without funding and its current design and budget of $2.55 billion being too small to deliver KP committed reductions (Lim 2014). The low average price of abatement of $13.95 in April 2015 (Australian Government 2015a) and potentially low future demand mean there is uncertainty regarding future projects for Indigenous communities. However, application of the Safeguard Mechanism, which is proposed to limit carbon emissions by major polluters from July 2016 may create more demand and credit opportunities if it is designed well (Lim 2014).
2.4 Key issues and recommendations
With over one thousand remote Indigenous communities in Australia it is difficult to research the impacts on, or views of, all or even the majority of residents. Therefore, large-scale data have generally been confined to analysis of nation-wide surveys by the ABS, or has involved large representative alliances, such as NAILSMA. Research that aims to engage with Indigenous community residents has tended to focus on a single, a few, or a cultural group of communities, which have been undertaken separately with wide geographical dispersal. Despite this disparate and at times uncoordinated approach to
39 research aims and questions, a number of common themes and issues have emerged in the literature, which are discussed below.
A number of authors note the potential for improved environmental sustainability of Indigenous settlements by addressing fuel use in vehicles and power generators, energy intensity and thermal comfort of buildings, and water, waste and food cycles (Duell et al. 2006; Green et al. 2009; Memmott 2010). Memmott (2010) notes that the use of fuel for vehicles and power generation is becoming increasingly expensive and energy efficiency measures, coupled with water, waste and food cycle management are elements that could be addressed to achieve improved sustainability outcomes.
Various disciplinary approaches in a variety of locations around Australia have been used to research the issues with Indigenous services with a common conclusion that local contexts must be understood and innovative solutions will need to consider more than just technical and economic factors (O'Brien 2011). Innovative ways to link service provision with livelihoods and opportunities to improve resilience need further exploration (Smith et al. 2008)
The service delivery system in remote communities is subject to continual reform which is rarely appraised by recipients or independent assessments (Moran et al. 2009). End- user perspectives are critical to identifying delivery system deficiencies and gaps.
A common theme in service delivery literature has been the contention between supply- side versus demand-side approaches (Moran et al. 2009). That is, whether the supply objectives of budget acquittal, cost-effectiveness and efficiency targets are met or whether recipients needs and concerns are prioritized and satisfied. While demand- responsive solutions are advocated, Seemann et al. (2008) and (Moran et al. 2009) illuminate, that this is rarely a simple dichotomy in remote communities with a government-controlled services system. Demand-driven approaches often assume competition in supply, economic capacity to make purchase decisions and fully informed consumers that understand their needs and solutions to satisfy them. Instead they recommend a focus on settlement functions and goals, followed by an understanding of community capacity in decision-making and the consequences of service delivery choices.
A similar issue with past and current service delivery approaches identified by Fisher (2011, p. 9), has been the focus on meeting operational needs instead of strategic objectives, such as economic development within communities and regions. He argues this “strategy ceiling” is the most significant barrier to integrating and achieving
40 development goals and strategic foci should be prominent in service planning, design and delivery.
Given the “mutuality of influence” concept that communities co-evolve with their natural and built environments, it follows that technologies and services need to be chosen wisely so that forced changes to socio-cultural practices, or increasingly higher demands on resources, such as expensive maintenance schedules or pollution, do not ensue (Seemann and Marinova 2010). Similarly, community residents need to be informed of repercussions of technology choices so that their decisions are adequately equipped with required knowledge for demands during lifespan phases. This concept can be coupled with the “extended metabolism model (EMM)” for human settlements (Newman 2006; Newman 1999), which is based on the biological systems method of identifying resource inputs and outputs, and augmented by acknowledging that settlements are dynamic systems with a range of active processes and liveability agenda. Therefore, in order to reduce waste outputs, including excess carbon emissions, consideration should be given to reducing resource inputs while maintaining required levels of settlement activity to meet desired liveability outcomes. Given that natural ecosystems recycle their matter via biogeochemical cycles (Wright 2005, p. 71-72), consideration should be given to continuous closed-loop cycling of elements in all settlement designs where this provides resource efficiencies and meets residents’ objectives. As communities are dynamic, self-managed systems that need to respond to internal and external forces, they should be empowered to adapt and transform locally to achieve sustainability (Newman et al. 2008; Seemann and Marinova 2010; Seemann et al. 2008).
Extending the focus from discrete settlements to regional networks, with considerations of communication, cultural and transport links may provide synergistic outcomes, and if defined in accordance with Indigenous culture and relationships to Country, they may provide a foundation for sustainable development (Seemann et al. 2008). Robustness of networks can be directly linked to the number of connections (or support systems) that can substitute for a failed connection or node (Seemann and Marinova 2010). This process should include remote towns, in addition to discrete communities, using processes of participatory democracy and improved communication between community groups to diminish preconceptions (Marinova et al. 2010).
Notably, government reports on Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage (OID) (See SCRGSP, 2009; 2014b) make similar comments, stating the success factors include
41 cooperative approaches with Indigenous people, ‘bottom-up’ approaches to program design and decision processes, effective governance and ongoing government support. This suggests that policy makers and government agencies and service providers are aware of the need for these processes but are perhaps unsure of, or lack capacity for, integrating these into productive implementation procedures. This past, current and continuing “incremental” approach to policy formulation, as described by Lindblom (1959), is typical of government attempts to provide policies that do not stray far from previous incarnations, and their known outcomes, and focus on immediate issues. This can be contrasted with a rational-comprehensive planning method (Bryson 1995; Lindblom 1959), which is discussed further in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3).
A synthesis of the key areas of enquiry from the literature published prior to 2012, that can be applied to the research for carbon management opportunities has been summarised into key recommendations and is provided in Table 2-1. These recommendations have informed the approach, methodology and content of the research discussed in Chapters 4 to 7.
42 Table 2-1 Key recommendations for remote Indigenous community development
Area of Recommendations Reference enquiry Consultation Participatory approach to facilitate informed demand 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, approach including evaluation frameworks 12,14, 16 Identify local aspirations 1, 7, 8, 12, 14, 19 Collect community indicators of resilience 1, 14 Integrate local perspective and capacity in decision- 3,5,6, 7, 8, 14, 16, making and design 20 Systems Holistic approach that integrates SD objectives 2, 3,7, 8, 10, approach 11,14, 16, 17, 19 Socio-technical approach that incorporates local contexts 3, 7 Sustainable Livelihood approaches warranted 8, 12, 18 Extended Metabolism Model of inputs and outputs 11 Hybrid economy approach 12, 19 Strategic approaches with long time horizons 11, 14, 15 Scale Local personalization of technology 3, 10 Settlements mutually reinforce each other within regions 4, 20 Extend LCA from settlements to regions 3 Rationalise functions by scale – subsidiarity and 6, 19 accountability Community Increase technological education and capacity 3, 4, 7, 8, 16 capacity development Diversity and connectivity is key to maintaining 4, 5,7, 14,16, 18 sustainability, including between inter-community groups (e.g. Indigenous, mining, tourism) Leadership and marketing/lobbying processes are key 7, 18 Community-controlled organisations are key to success 14, 18 Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is key and can 1, 8, 11, 12, 16, benefit broader society 18, 19 Service delivery Link service provision with livelihoods – increase training 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, and employment opportunities in all phases 12 Multi-stage consultation of delivery mechanisms and 2, 14, 19 designs including self-build Build long-term relationships between provider and 6, 7, 14, 16 community – partnership approaches Stabilise policy and implementation mechanisms 3, 6, 12, 14, 15 Building design Climate-sensitive housing 2,3, 13, 16 / construction Better design and allowance of external spaces 2, 9, 10, 13, 20 Design standards to be informed by end-users 1,2, 3, 4, 13, 16, 20 Improve environmental impact of housing, transport 2,7, 8, 9, 17, 20 water and waste Synchronise construction with R&M phase resources 3, 10 1 (Smith et al. 2008) 2 (Fien et al. 2011) 3 (Seemann et al. 2008) 4 (Seemann and Marinova 2010) 5 (Marinova et al. 2010) 6 (Moran et al. 2009) 7 (Memmott 2010) 8 (Green et al. 2009) 9 (Duell et al. 2006) 10 (O'Brien 2011) 11 (Newman 2006) 12 (Altman and May 2010) 13 (Memmott 2003) 14 (Fisher et al. 2011) 15 (Fisher 2011) 16 (Petheram et al. 2010) 17 (Wood and Garnett 2009) 18 (Austin and Garnett 2011) 19 (Altman and Cochrane 2005) 20 (Memmott and Moran 2001)
43 2.5 Research gaps and questions
Much of the climate change related research with Australian Indigenous communities has focused on vulnerability and adaptation perspectives (Green 2009; Green et al. 2009; Petheram et al. 2010). There is no detailed analysis of carbon profiles in communities, or the types of mitigation programs they would prefer. While energy efficient designs and renewable energy have been suggested in previous studies, there has been only limited analysis of the potential energy-saving benefit they will bring (Duell et al. 2006; Green Energy Taskforce 2011). Previous mobility studies (Biddle and Prout 2009; Memmott et al. 2006; Prout 2008) have examined trip purpose, destination and frequencies but have not isolated driver or vehicle trips to ascertain transport fuel use. A more detailed analysis of carbon emission reductions, particularly when incorporated as a suite of integrated programmes, is needed.
Socio-technical approaches have been successful for both carbon management programmes in urban and rural Australia (Moloney et al. 2010) and service delivery in remote Indigenous communities (Fien et al. 2008; Memmott 2010; Seemann et al. 2008). Similarly, participatory approaches that integrate local perspectives, capacities and aspirations are key to future adaptation and service delivery success, but mechanisms for incorporating these into carbon management strategies in Indigenous communities have not yet been investigated. Future implementation mechanisms also need to be identified to ascertain communities’ preferred delivery method for new low- carbon services. The capacity and support mechanisms needed to transition to low- carbon sustainable development need to be identified.
Therefore the above review raises the following six questions to be investigated:
1. Which assets (capacities and aspirations) do remote communities have and want?
2. What is their current carbon profile?
3. Which carbon programs might contribute to their asset goals?
4. Which of these carbon management programs are they interested in?
5. What effect would their chosen programs have on their carbon profile and their assets?
6. How should these programs be implemented?
44 2.6 Summary and conclusions
The recent history of Australian Indigenous policy and service delivery methods have not provided a satisfactory response to the COAG’s goal of “Closing the Gap” on Indigenous disadvantage. Residents in remote Indigenous communities can be additionally challenged, with a lack of employment opportunities and access to services. However, those with active and culturally traditional lifestyles have greater health and social benefits than some in centralised residency. Indigenous people have stressed the need for improved consultation and engagement methods to provide better outcomes in their communities. This need to include local perspectives applies to a range of policy mechanisms including infrastructure, service delivery and climate change response programmes. Addressing climate change in remote communities will need to consider the multiple challenges that residents face, which can also reinforce complex cycles of disadvantage.
Climate change mitigation responses can assist with achieving sustainable development goals. Although carbon profiles in remote communities are expected to be low in comparison to the average Australian, based on eco footprint analysis, quantification of current emissions and potential growth with economic development and adaptation to climate change are not clear. Addressing opportunities through the lens of mitigation responses may provide the sustainable outcomes sought by the residents and the COAG. A suitable socio-technical approach that examines local contexts and centres on Indigenous perspectives is required to understand the mitigation responses that are most appropriate to them and their aspirations. The methodology and model developed to discuss and investigate carbon mitigation opportunities with remote Indigenous communities is described in Chapter 3.
45
Chapter 3. Methodology and model development
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the methodology, methods and subsequent development of the Resilient Community and Livelihood Asset Integration Model (ReCLAIM). Considerations that informed the research approach included key recommendations that emerged from the literature review (Chapter 2, Section 2.4), published guidelines for research with Indigenous participants, appropriate asset-based and participatory approaches that suited the aims of the research, and strategic planning frameworks that geared the analysis towards long-term outcomes that aligned with community aspirations. The critique of the participatory and asset-based approaches below provides the rationale for the selection of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework as the basis for the research, which was adapted and combined with strategic planning and continuous improvement principles to develop the ReCLAIM Model.
Data collection and analysis methods are also briefly discussed in this chapter, with further description provided in the relevant chapters in which their application is explained (Chapters 4 to 7).
3.2 Guidelines for research with Indigenous participants
Standards for research with human participants include the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC 2007) and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC et al. 2007). Both standards recognise special considerations for research with Indigenous people and recommend the Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies published in 2002, which has since been updated (AIATSIS 2012) and Values and Ethics – Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (NHMRC 2003).
Six core values are identified as being important to Australian Indigenous peoples and these should be incorporated in research projects (NHMRC 2003; 2007): reciprocity, respect, equality, responsibility, survival and protection, and spirit and integrity. Research with human participants is only considered ethically acceptable if its potential benefits justify any assessed risks, including inconvenience to those involved.
In light of these standards and core values, the research was designed to be as minimally invasive as possible on participants’ time and was structured to deliver information that
47 would be useful to them in further development negotiations and decisions. This included outlines of potential mitigation opportunities, updates on the status of carbon policy in Australia throughout the research process and implementation plans for each community at project closure. To ensure that expectations were not unduly raised, it was stated very clearly to the participants before they agreed to participate, that the research outcomes may not benefit them in any way and that the project was not funded to deliver the actions decided upon.
A planning meeting was held with each participating community to enable them to approve and provide input to the methodology prior to the research beginning. The planning meeting structure and outcomes are discussed further in Section 3.7.
3.2.1 Ethics review
In accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC 2007), the Murdoch University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) assesses all planned research with human participants to ensure it is of high quality and integrity. This includes the purpose, methodology, data storage and timeframe of the research process.
The procedure followed to ensure ethical conduct in this research included:
• Formal invitations to participate in the research were given;
• Participants were provided with the research details and process, including their role, prior to consenting;
• Participants were advised that they were not obliged to join the project nor remain if they should change their mind;
• Confidentiality of community and individual’s names was assured; and
• Participants were provided with access to the research findings.
An application to the HREC for approval of this research was made prior to the research being undertaken. Information supplied included an overview of the research project, participant information sheets, participant consent forms and survey/interview templates. Outright approval to proceed was granted and the research was assigned Project no. 2011/141. The HREC approval statement is provided in Appendix A.
48 3.3 Literature review outcomes and frameworks
A strong theme from the literature review (Chapter 2) was the need for better engagement and decision-making processes for Indigenous people to chart their own futures, with a focus on sustainable development. A participatory approach is also considered central to SD principles by Newman (2006, p. 14) who further explains that “sustainability can only be a legitimate approach to [a] settlement if it encompasses the values of its citizens about their long term visions for the settlement”. Therefore it was considered appropriate that a bottom-up participatory approach with community members be used to research their current capacities, aspirations, preferred mitigation responses and implementation methods.
Participatory approaches were devised to liberate impoverished and marginalised people by drawing on traditions of participation, activist research and education that emphasise local knowledge, observations, creativity and analytical abilities (Chambers 1994a; Pretty et al. 1995). They were an alternative to the standard extractive research approach that elicited information from local people that was analysed and incorporated into proposed solutions by external agencies.
A summary of the spectrum of six local participation levels, from lowest to highest, identified by Walsh and Mitchell (2002, p. 22), adapted from (Cornwall 1995; Pretty et al. 1995), which contrasts the roles of local people with outside agencies is provided in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Spectrum of participation levels by local participants
Interaction type External people’s role Classification of local people’s role Passive/compliant Set ‘top-down’ direction and own Subjects process and content Incentivised Provide incentive for locals to provide Employees/subordinates resources, but retain ownership of project Consultation Define problem, seek locals’ opinion, Clients decide on action. Functional participation Objectives set externally or internally Collaborators with others asked to help, generally reliant on external structures Interactive participation Shared responsibility for knowledge, Partners analysis and action plans. Outsiders are facilitators and locals maintain projects Self-mobilisation External agencies invited to assist with Directors locally initiated and managed projects
49 The research was designed to progress with a participation approach that collaborated and partnered with local participants, but aimed to allow them to continue with initiatives in a directorial role, albeit within existing funding constraints. Therefore methods for local participants to set objectives, share knowledge, analyse and evaluate outcomes and decide on courses of action were built into the process. Participatory approaches are discussed further in Section 3.3.1.
Another key theme from the literature review was the importance of existing capacities in communities, such as traditional ecological knowledge, land management, construction and maintenance skills and leadership, and continuing capacity development. The importance of networks between communities and other settlement structures and entities was also highlighted. Therefore the participatory frameworks that focussed on existing and future capacities, that also incorporated networks and social asset aspects were examined. These include the Asset-based Community Development (ABCD) approach and Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) development model, which are discussed in Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, respectively.
Overall, these approaches were framed within a rational-comprehensive planning model (RCPM), which can be contrasted with the incremental policy approach currently taken, as discussed in Section 2.4. Incremental approaches to policy formulation were defined by (Lindblom 1959) as a means of coping with decision-making challenges when resources are limited, policy alternatives are numerous and hold unknown consequences, and pressing issues need immediate attention. This led to policy formulation that relied on past experience, with minor changes from a narrow range of alternatives with reasonably predictable outcomes. These approaches tend to be issue based as they aim to ameliorate individual points of concern, and can be linked in a hierarchy of policies for broad portfolios (Bryson 1995). Lindblom (1959) contrasted this approach with the RCPM that focuses on goals, then identifies the means or strategies that best meet the desired ends, while aiming to maximise the values of society. While this is a more resource-intensive approach, with possibly radically divergent strategies that carry a greater risk of unexpected outcomes, it is more likely to meet strategic aims. As (Bryson 1995) notes, these approaches can be combined where issues and goals are addressed in tandem or linked. In this thesis, the model takes the goal-oriented approach of building community assets, while consideration of underlying issues is acknowledged and forms part of the strategy identification.
50 3.3.1 Participatory Approaches
Participatory approaches have been widely used in research focused on development and the diversity of approaches is increasing (Pain and Francis 2003). Approaches and methods have been evolving rapidly with differing terms and emphases, with 32 identified by Pretty et al. (1995). One description offered by Chambers (2002, p. 2) is:
…a growing family of approaches, methods, attitudes and behaviours to enable and empower people to share, analyse and enhance their knowledge of life and conditions, and to plan, act, monitor, evaluate and reflect.
A key approach has been Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) which grew from Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) but with more emphasis on local people’s analytical abilities and their empowerment (Chambers 1994a). However, many monikers have ensued with different emphases. These include replacement of “rapid” with “relaxed”, PRA with Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) with more focus on actions, or Participation- Reflection-Action to incorporate reflexive behaviours (Chambers 2002). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) is also used to encompass the need for local decisions on process and outcome monitoring and evaluations (Seemann et al. 2008).
The term “appraisal” has been deemed inadequate as the technique should not be a stand-alone event but part of a process that encompasses many more elements (Chambers 2002). However, for simplicity the approach used here is called a Participatory Appraisal Cycle (PAC) approach as it potentially covers all phases of development research including planning, option evaluation, action plans, implementation, monitoring and evaluation; and is applied in continuous cycles of review.
Participatory approaches have often been used in projects with Aboriginal Australians, usually for planning, design and communication processes, and more rarely with monitoring and evaluation processes (Seemann et al. 2008). Aboriginal people have been generally supportive of participatory approaches in the past, however precautions and criticisms have also been noted. Constraints specific to participatory approaches in Aboriginal contexts are identified by (Walsh and Mitchell 2002):
• Success may be measured by external values;
• Aboriginal decisions may not be relayed or understood by government, NGOs or funding agencies;
51 • Recognition that communities are not homogenous and private and public benefits need to be adequately considered;
• Potential misuse of Aboriginal intellectual property;
• Methods, such as diagrams, may be seen as patronising if their broader use is not explained;
• Plain English, rather than jargon, should be used and local languages must be accommodated;
• Recording is vital and reports should be tailored to Aboriginal audiences;
• Many techniques have been developed overseas, and there should be scope to adapt or develop methods locally; and
• Information sharing among networks needs to be improved.
Further limitations of general participatory approaches noted by (Pain and Francis 2003):
• Transience of groups may make it difficult to verify data or expand on findings and triangulation processes may be needed;
• Participatory ideal is seldom achieved and external agencies may have more involvement than intended;
• Lack of explicit frameworks for analysis within participatory research; and
• As researchers have power to re-interpret and report data, participants should conduct interpretation and summaries.
The key criteria for successful participatory approaches are the attitude of the external facilitators (including critical self-reflection and willingness to learn from locals), good rapport with local participants, developing a culture of sharing and an overall aim of empowering those who are marginalised (Chambers 2002).
A variety of participatory methods have been used in these approaches and these include semi-structured interviewing, diagramming, ranking and matrix scoring, group discussions and action plan charts (Pretty et al. 1995; Walsh and Mitchell 2002). These are discussed in more detail below in relation to methods used to populate the model in Section 3.5.
52 3.3.2 Asset-based community development
Asset-based community development (ABCD) is a strengths-based approach, which draws on the philosophy that all people have assets or capacities that can be utilised to improve their lives, which may or may not yet be realised (Ennis and West 2010; Saleebey 2000). The ABCD model was developed by Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) after reviewing and analysing endogenous-driven development in low socio-economic districts in the United States (Mathie and Cunningham 2005). Their model contends that communities are best built from the inside out using existing capacities, rather than an outside in approach that focuses on problems and needs. However, they also recognise that valuable external assistance can complement the internal development activities already established (Kretzmann and McKnight 1996; Kretzmann and McKnight 1993). The community assets they identify include (i) gifts and skills of individuals, (ii) informal citizen associations and (iii) more formal institutions, such as private-sector businesses, public facilities and service organisations, and NGOs. To be successful, an ABCD approach will be “relationship driven” between and among these three asset tiers (Kretzmann and McKnight 1996, p. 27). The core theme of ABCD is the transfer of power from external agencies to communities, so that outside agents provide a supportive capacity building role to the local vision articulation and asset mobilisation of the community (Mathie and Cunningham 2003). This aligns with the movement along the participatory spectrum from “subject” to “director” as outlined in Table 3-1.
Mobilising community assets, or “capitals”, has been shown to have a “spiralling-up” effect that successfully produces more assets (Emery and Flora 2006). There are many examples of this approach working successfully, with Mathie and Cunningham (2005) reporting their collection of over 150 instances of communities mobilising their assets to positive effect. However, a review by Ennis and West (2010) found that research and development reports of the model tend to be descriptive and lack quantitative or analytical support of the model. They suggest social network theory and analysis should be incorporated within ABCD models to strengthen the understanding of relationships between community members, social structures and the external environment.
3.3.3 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
The Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) Framework is another development approach that draws on the value of local assets to address the global issues of poverty and sustainable development. Scoones (2009), one of the founders of the approach, explains that it was developed by a multidisciplinary research team at the Institute of Development Studies,
53 who had been analysing livelihood transformation in poverty stricken third world countries. Their analysis drew on the broad body of work on assets or “capitals” beyond traditional economic frameworks of financial and built capital (Scoones 1998). This asset review was partially conducted by (Johnson 1997) and included social capital of relationships (see Coleman 1990; Putnam et al. 1993), human capital of skills and knowledge (see Becker 1964) and health (Sen 1997), and natural capital of ecosystems and their services (see Costanza et al. 1997), and their links to community sustainability and resilience (Flora and Flora 1994) cited by Gaventa (1995).
Drawing on a seminal paper by Chambers and Conway (1992), among others, the IDS defined “sustainable livelihoods” (Scoones 1998, p. 5):
A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base.
Their paper discussed development practices and challenges, along with proposed approaches, and they created a diagrammatic checklist to link various elements in the research field with a focus on rural applications (Scoones 1998). Central to the diagram was the influence of institutional processes and organisational structures on livelihood resources (assets) to transform strategies into SL outcomes, which is provided in Figure 3-1.
54 Figure 3-1 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework checklist (Scoones 1998)
This checklist was shared with the Advisory Committee of the new UK Department for International Development (DFID), led by Diana Carney, who turned it into the framework that is more commonly known today, with a five asset pentagon that included physical capital (see Carney 1998). In 1999 the DFID produced guidance sheets (UK DFID 1999) that advise on the framework’s structure and implementation. Their SL framework diagram is provided in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (UK DFID 1999)
The framework and its approach have since been widely used to inform policy and tools of multi-lateral agencies such as the European Commission (EC), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Bank; and of international NGOs such as CARE, Oxfam and Save the Children (SC) (Hussein 2002). A range of adapted frameworks have also been developed to suit particular contexts and applications (Carney 2002).
SL or capital assets based approaches have been used in several Indigenous research contexts including: to analyse tourism development in Canadian communities (Bennett et al. 2012) and in Australia to analyse remote community development issues (Davies et al. 2008; Fisher 2002), housing services (Seemann et al. 2008), rangeland resources (LaFlamme 2011), wildlife enterprises (Austin and Garnett 2011) and resource flows on long term viability (Moran et al. 2007). The framework has also provided a basis for addressing climate change vulnerability and adaptation (see TFCCVCA 2003).
55 An Aboriginal reference group endorsed the framework as a useful tool to clarify livelihood characteristics, healthy community features and the resources and external supports necessary to maintain them (LaFlamme 2011). However, as Garnett and Gorman (2009) note, it is the level of engagement that occurs within the framework that will influence the project’s outcomes and degree of benefit to the community.
The SL framework often needs to be adapted to account for local contexts, and matching to sectoral singularity of government agencies (Hussein 2002). Moran et al. (2007) suggested several modifications for application in the Australian Aboriginal community of Engawala, due to the differing vulnerabilities and institutional environments of villages in developing countries and the Australian context. These included acknowledging:
• The vulnerability context as being “inseparably intertwined” with government- backed funding;
• A clear distinction between local governance of the community and the external institutional environment within which it operates and must negotiate;
• The current supply driven service systems from the external institutional environment and recognition of demand for services following livelihood strategy development;
• The private and integral nature of culture to the asset pentagon and all other processes, which means it should be treated as a separate “private Aboriginal domain” that provides contextual structure;
The framework can also be used to complement economic analyses such as cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness approaches (Carney 2002). The previous popularity of livelihood approaches has waned due to its local foci and lack of engagement with globalisation, power and politics, potential climate change impacts and long-term adjustments in rural economies (Scoones 2009). With globalisation and its challenges increasingly coming to the fore, small-scale approaches were being considered less relevant. Sayer et al. (2007, p. 2681) also note that local and global or national objectives may differ or conflict, confounding the “simple win-win logic” that can underpin combined conservation and development projects. They recommend that these differences in values be understood and non-local values be converted to a financial reward to locals responsible for their maintenance, where feasible. A lack of association with political and governance
56 regimes has also been evident in past approaches (Scoones 2009), which would be under-emphasising a key controlling influence of circumstances, particularly in cases such as Australian Indigenous affairs, as discussed in Section 2.2. Finally, major impacts on long-term futures, including climate change, mean that small marginal adjustments would be ineffectual in times of radical far-reaching change, and key adaptive measures must be considered, as discussed in Section 2.3.2. However, Scoones (2009, p. 191) further argues that a livelihoods perspective still offers an “important lens” for investigating development complexities and should incorporate macro considerations including larger scales, strategic time frames, political framings and their interactions.
3.4 Development of ReCLAIM model
The three approaches discussed above were combined to develop the Resilient Community and Livelihood Asset Integration Model (ReCLAIM) model. The model applies the content of the SL Framework with modifications, recommended by Moran et al. (2007) that separate institutions and processes into the separate domains of local governance and those in the external environment. The “private Aboriginal domain” is also included as an all-encompassing context to the other elements in the framework.
The aim of the model is to empower remote Indigenous communities to select carbon management strategies that facilitate their development goals. Overall, a participatory community-centric approach was proposed, so each step in the model was designed to interact with the deliberations of a community Advisory Committee during designated workshops. As participatory methods can be time-consuming (Walsh and Mitchell 2002) the Advisory Committee was included at key discussion and decision points so that they were not unduly burdened with extraneous processes. Workshop durations were designed to be one day each. The Advisory Committee was to be nominated by each participating community.
Participants were not remunerated directly, however lunch was provided for Community A participants and Community B preferred the provision of morning and afternoon tea during workshops. Food was purchased from their local store, where available, to enhance their community income. This coupled with the information provided regarding mitigation options, carbon policy updates and implementation plans was designed to compensate participants for their time.
The model was designed to be iterative with a review of previous steps at subsequent workshops, in line with the plan-act-review method recommended by Walsh and
57 Mitchell (2002) in participatory methods. This also aligns with continual improvement methods of quality management systems recommended by ISO 9000 (AS/NZS 2006). The reporting of outcomes of each prior workshop allowed the participants to be fully informed of the research process and outputs as the research activities progressed.
The model was designed as a research methodology but could be extended to include detailed engineering design and costing, implementation of strategies, and performance monitoring and evaluation steps for actual development processes. The model showing planning and research steps 1 to 6 (shaded segments), followed by three development steps (unshaded segments) that were out of scope of the research project, in a cycle of continuous improvement are provided in Figure 3-3.
Monitor & Process Step 1 Evaluate Plan Performance Define Implement Assets & Aspira ons Strategies (Workshop 1)
Step 2 Community Detailed Design Advisory Carbon Profile & Cost Committee
Implementa on Screen Plan Concepts (Workshop 4) Step 3 Step 6 Model & Score Evaluate Concepts (Workshop 3) (Workshop 2)
Step 5 Step 4
Figure 3-3 The ReCLAIM model with 6 research and 3 d