Cleaning, Protecting, or Abating? Making Indigenous Fire Management “Work” in Northern Australia

Petty, Aaron M.; deKoninck, Vanessa; Orlove, Benjamín S.

doi:10.2993/0278-0771-35.1.140

Cited by 49 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Petty et al [62] show how these new emissionsreducing programmes run the risk of further marginalizing Indigenous people. Inherent in the nature of institutionalized management programmes is to replace the complexity and contingency of Indigenous fire management with standardized goals, while treating Indigenous people as workers executing plans developed by others rather than as genuine partners.…”

Section: Emerging Market-based Instruments Integrating Indigenous Firmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indigenous communities are excluded from this technocratic approach in that the overly simplistic remotely sensed 'reality' does not correspond to the multidimensional (spiritual, social, ecological) experiences as perceived by Indigenous people. Most importantly, the institutionalization of Indigenous fire management, and its scientific and technocratic discourse strongly privileges one particular aspect of Indigenous fire management: early dryseason burning to protect against late dry-season burning [62]. This fails to recognize that Indigenous fire management is characterized by regular and sometimes opportunistic burning throughout the dry season linked to various social, ecological and spiritual purposes (as shown in table 1), which can buffer the impacts of climate variability [37] and produce habitat mosaics that support landscape biodiversity [66,67] We can see from this that Indigenous fire management is being incorporated into policies through already established and clearly defined government schemes; disincentivizing, command-and-control methods of firefighting through the creation of Indigenous fire brigades, and incentivising approaches focused on prescribed early dry-season burning.…”

Section: Emerging Market-based Instruments Integrating Indigenous Firmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Community owned solutions for fire management in tropical ecosystems: case studies from Indigenous communities of South America

Mistry

Bilbao

Berardi

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fire plays an increasingly significant role in tropical forest and savanna ecosystems, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and impacting on biodiversity. Emerging research shows the potential role of Indigenous land-use practices for controlling deforestation and reducing CO 2 emissions. Analysis of satellite imagery suggests that Indigenous lands have the lowest incidence of wildfires, significantly contributing to maintaining carbon stocks and enhancing biodiversity. Yet acknowledgement of Indigenous peoples' role in fire management and control is limited, and in many cases dismissed, especially in policy-making circles. In this paper, we review existing data on Indigenous fire management and impact, focusing on examples from tropical forest and savanna ecosystems in Venezuela, Brazil and Guyana. We highlight how the complexities of community owned solutions for fire management are being lost as well as undermined by continued efforts on fire suppression and firefighting, and emerging approaches to incorporate Indigenous fire management into market-and incentive-based mechanisms for climate change mitigation. Our aim is to build a case for supporting Indigenous fire practices within all scales of decision-making by strengthening Indigenous knowledge systems to ensure more effective and sustainable fire management.This article is part of the themed issue 'The interaction of fire and mankind'.

show abstract

Section: Emerging Market-based Instruments Integrating Indigenous Firmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Emerging Market-based Instruments Integrating Indigenous Firmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community owned solutions for fire management in tropical ecosystems: case studies from Indigenous communities of South America

Mistry

Bilbao

Berardi

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Traditional burning was not motivated by money, western conservation ethic, or a binary two‐season approach (Petty, deKoninck, & Orlove, ). Rather it occurred throughout the entire year to fulfil cultural obligations, to facilitate passage through the landscape, and to attract game animals, and implementation varied from region to region (Preece, ).…”

Section: Potential For Bioperversity From Savanna Fire Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better biodiversity accounting is needed to prevent bioperversity and maximize co‐benefits from savanna burning

Corey¹,

Andersen

Legge

et al. 2019

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategies for mitigating climate change through altered land management practices can provide win–win outcomes for the environment and the economy. Emissions trading for greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement in Australia's remote, fire‐prone, and sparsely populated tropical savannas provides a financial incentive for intensive fire management that aims to reduce fire frequency, severity, and extent, and it supports important social, economic, and land management opportunities for remote communities, conservation agencies, and pastoralists. These programs now cover >20% of Australia's 1.9 million km2 tropical savanna biome, encompassing areas of globally significant biodiversity value. A common assertion is that by reducing the frequency, severity, and extent of fires for GHG abatement, these programs provide biodiversity co‐benefits. However, such biodiversity benefits have been assumed rather than demonstrated. Much better accounting of how biodiversity is responding to changed fire management is required to ensure that there are no unintended outcomes for biodiversity (bioperversity), and that biodiversity co‐benefits are maximized. Such accounting could underpin the earning of formal biodiversity credits from improved fire management, and will go a long way to understanding and improving the biodiversity outcomes of savanna fire management.

show abstract

“…In fact, “scientific rehabilitation” of fire guarantees neither the participation of local communities in decision‐making, nor a better dialogue with their knowledge (Ribet, ). The institutionalisation of joint Indigenous–government land management in Australia reveals many contradictions, which result from the subordination of Indigenous perceptions to those of external experts (Petty et al, ). Moreover, some dominant ecological ideas upon which fire management has been based in the past are being questioned at the present, for instance, the idea that late‐dry season fires must be banned (Laris et al, ), or that savannas are degraded forest caused by fire (Dezzeo et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From fire suppression to fire management: Advances and resistances to changes in fire policy in the savannas of Brazil and Venezuela

Eloy

Bilbao

Mistry

et al. 2018

Geographical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic fire has long shaped landscapes and livelihoods in South American savanna environments. With the growing recognition of the failures of fire suppression policies and the relevance of local peoples’ practices, the Brazilian and Venezuelan governments have begun to shift to fire management policies in savanna ecosystems. Using case studies from protected areas in Cerrado and Gran Sabana, and results from two multi‐stakeholder meetings held in Parupa (Venezuela) and Brasilia (Brazil), we identify advances, resistances and challenges to inter‐cultural fire management in both countries. We show that the two regions host pioneer experiences in collaborative research based on improved dialogue and knowledge exchanges between scientists, institutions, Indigenous and local communities as well as fire management implementation including “controlled” and “prescribed” burnings. However, in some places, narrow understanding of the complexity and historical dynamics of local fire practices and the strong resistance to recognise the value of traditional fire knowledge might restrain effective participation of local communities. We argue that more collaborative research is necessary to support community owned solutions for intercultural and participative fire management in changing environmental and socio‐cultural contexts.

show abstract

Cleaning, Protecting, or Abating? Making Indigenous Fire Management “Work” in Northern Australia

Abstract: BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Cited by 49 publications

References 53 publications

Community owned solutions for fire management in tropical ecosystems: case studies from Indigenous communities of South America

Community owned solutions for fire management in tropical ecosystems: case studies from Indigenous communities of South America

Better biodiversity accounting is needed to prevent bioperversity and maximize co‐benefits from savanna burning

From fire suppression to fire management: Advances and resistances to changes in fire policy in the savannas of Brazil and Venezuela

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About