Response to Resilience: Traditional Ecological Knowledge as the Missing Link in Australia’s Disaster Governance

Riya Rao, Y20 Fellow 2026

Executive Summary

Australia’s disaster governance system is increasingly unsustainable, relying on post-event recovery rather than proactive risk reduction. First Nations communities are both disproportionately exposed to disasters and responsible for environmental stewardship across Australian lands. Yet there is no formal mention of their Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in Commonwealth disaster governance, with First Nations peoples largely excluded from decision-making processes (TSRA, 2026). This disconnect reflects a broader policy failure, where the burden of disaster response is relegated to the local level without enforceable mechanisms to embed TEK-based approaches to mitigation or preparedness. By underutilising preventative knowledge systems, Australia’s disaster governance system remains reactive and vulnerable in the long-term.

This proposal recommends establishing an Indigenous Disaster Resilience Unit within the National Emergency Management Agency. This formally embeds TEK into national disaster risk reduction infrastructure as an existing preventative knowledge system. The Unit would develop national standards requiring First Nations co-design, integration of TEK-based practices and consistent reporting across jurisdictions. Delivered through existing emergency management arrangements, the policy would cost approximately $3–3.5 million annually. While implementation requires cross-jurisdictional coordination and careful evaluation, it provides a practical mechanism to shift Australia toward a preventative, resilience-based disaster system and reduce long-term costs.

Problem Identification

Australia’s disaster governance systems overlook First Nations expertise, entrenching a volatile, response-heavy model that prioritises intermittent recovery over building sustained, proactive resilience. As disaster frequency increases, this structural exclusion weakens national preparedness, prolongs essential service disruptions and compounds vulnerability, particularly in remote First Nations communities. 

First Nations communities are jointly overexposed to, and overburdened with, disasters. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of disaster-affected Local Government Areas (LGAs) contain Indigenous-majority populations (APH, 2023). While they only comprise 3% of the total population, First Nations people manage 57% of Australia’s land (Lansbury et al., 2025). This ‘caring for Country’ entails practices such as burning, species management and threat mitigation, reducing disaster risk by maintaining more resilient landscapes (Hill et al., 2013). Nonetheless, First Nations communities continue to be framed primarily through their disaster vulnerability, excluded from disaster decision-making despite existing expertise that would strengthen national preparedness and broader resilience. 

This governance gap persists despite both international and domestic recognition of the value of First Nations knowledge. The National Indigenous Disaster Resilience research program (NIDR) identifies a persistent gap in the Australian Government’s engagement with First Nations representatives throughout all phases of emergency management, from preparedness to post-event recovery (Williamson, 2023). At the same time, Australia currently spends 97% of disaster funding after events and only 3% on mitigation, with total expenditure projected to rise to $73 billion annually by 2060 (O’Donnell, 2022; SSCADR, 2024). As such, the Australian Government may fail to realise its commitments to disaster risk reduction and miss a strategic opportunity to lead globally in integrating TEK into climate governance. Without formal mechanisms for First Nations-led participation, Australia remains locked in a cycle of disproportionate recovery expenditure.

Context

Background

Since 2019, Australia has seen a rapid increase in disaster frequency, with over 200 disaster events resulting in 1,684 disaster declarations (Moon, 2024). By 2022, 70% of Australians lived in a disaster-affected LGA. The economic and social costs of these events are substantial, with major natural hazards estimated to cost more than $38 billion annually, alongside ongoing financial, health and social consequences, particularly for “systematically disadvantaged multicultural, multi-faith and multi-ethnic groups” (Hou et al., 2025).

Indigenous Burden

First Nations communities are disproportionately impacted. 63% of disaster-affected LGAs had Indigenous-majority populations with the number of First Nations people exposed to repeat disasters (two or more events) almost four times the national average (15.57%) (Williamson, 2024; APH, 2023). This compounds existing health inequities along with distinct distress for Indigenous peoples from displacement and loss of Country (Wisbey, 2025). As Torres Strait Islander researcher Francis Nona explains, Indigenous peoples’ health is inseparable from cultural and environmental disruption, because Country is “a living system that holds our ancestors, our stories, our identity” (Wisbey, 2025). 

The burden placed upon Indigenous peoples extends beyond disaster exposure to ongoing environmental custodianship responsibilities, where Australia’s First Nations people care for 57% of the landmass while making up only 3% of the population (Lansbury et al., 2025).

International Precedent

The practice of delegating environmental responsibility to Indigenous peoples is grounded in a broader global recognition of the “the role of indigenous, traditional and local knowledge in tackling disaster risk”, tracing back to the Sendai Framework in 2015. Adopted at the United Nations' Third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, the Framework explicitly calls on governments to “engage directly with indigenous peoples in the design and implementation of policies, plans and standards, and to use traditional, indigenous and local knowledge and practices to complement scientific knowledge in disaster risk assessments” (UNDRR, 2015). This positions TEK as a recognised mechanism for disaster resilience rather than supplementary cultural input.

There have since been some international moves to translate Sendai’s principles into national practice. Following repeated demonstrations of Māori management’s effectiveness across major natural disasters, New Zealand’s Aoetearoa Government has committed to strengthening iwi Māori participation “to benefit all people” within its disaster governance system (Kaiser & Kenney, 2025), including “Māori-led disaster planning partnerships” in civil defence arrangements (NIDR, 2023). Similarly, within the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency system, tribal emergency management partnerships are formally recognised, with tribal nations treated as sovereign emergency management partners (NIDR, 2023).

However, this recognition is not consistently reflected in resourcing or implementation. Despite their central role in climate protection and disaster mitigation, Indigenous peoples globally receive “less than one per cent” of international environmental management funds (Quinones, 2025), highlighting a persistent disparity between rhetorical recognition and structural inclusion. 

Australian Context

The exclusion of First Nations peoples from disaster governance must be understood as part of broader historical and structural patterns in Australian policymaking, where First Nations peoples remain positioned primarily as subjects of policy rather than decision-makers within it, who “fall short of national norms”, termed by policy researchers as “deficit discourse” (Lowitja Institute, 2018, p. 1). 

This framing has material consequences by shaping how resources and authority are distributed (Lowitja Institute, 2018). Within disaster governance, this manifests as First Nations communities’ representation as vulnerable to disaster events and climate change, rather than holders of essential preventative knowledge. The National Indigenous Disaster Resilience Summit similarly concludes “national policies and frameworks to enhance disaster resilience make Indigenous peoples invisible” (2023, p. 44).

Current Policy Landscape

Australia’s disaster governance system is characterised by shared responsibility across Commonwealth, state and local governments (Figure 1), yet “risk reduction is… often not equally shared” (APH, 2023, p. 12). While ultimate policy control rests with the Commonwealth, responsibility is disproportionately borne at the local level, where “the impacts of disasters are first and foremost experienced” (NEMA, 2022, p.7), creating a system where communities operationalise resilience without commensurate authority or resourcing.

This fragmented approach reflects a structural orientation within Australian disaster governance of managing disasters “on an event-by-event basis” (NEMA, 2022, p.6), focusing on “individual hazards instead of systemic vulnerability,” (Crosweller, 2019). Despite findings that investment in mitigation delivers substantial returns, with global estimates suggesting $1 spent on disaster risk reduction yields $15 in avoided future costs (UNDRR, 2025), Australia continues to prioritise “response, recovery and relief” (Turner, 2023).

Radel et al., 2023, p.37

The Commonwealth’s disaster resilience agenda is primarily coordinated through the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), established in 2022 under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 to lead national emergency management coordination, resilience and recovery. NEMA administers Australia’s primary disaster resilience mechanisms, including the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework (2018) and the $1 billion Disaster Ready Fund (DRF), both intended to shift national policy toward preventative resilience-based disaster governance.

However, significant implementation gaps remain. Local governments and communities are effectively positioned as frontline staff, with evidence highlighting that “the community will be the first responders, risk assessors, technical specialists and volunteer coordinators” despite limited capacity (APH, 2023, p.22). This reliance is increasingly unsustainable, compounded by declining volunteer participation, with over 20,000 fewer emergency service volunteers since 2015–16 (p.38).

Within this fragmented system, there are no enforceable mechanisms to ensure the inclusion of TEK, despite national frameworks articulating intent. The National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework (2018) creates no statutory obligation for Indigenous governance inclusion. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap (2020) commits governments to engaging with First Nations communities “before, during, and after emergencies” (p.5). However, a Review conducted by the Jumbunna Institute found that governments are “leaving under-resourced Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to shoulder the burden” (SNAICC, 2025). This absence cascades across jurisdictions, with a comparative analysis of 88 local disaster management plans finding “little evidence of knowledges or traditional practices being identified and implemented” (Radel et al., 2023). 

Funding mechanisms reflect similar limitations. While the DRF has provided funding of between $200,000 and $5 million to support some First Nations-led initiatives, these projects constitute a small proportion of overall funding. Structural barriers including co-contribution requirements, grant-writing capacity and language barriers additionally restrict participation for many Indigenous communities. 

Policy Options

A critical measure of success to address the structural dismissal of First Nations knowledge in Australia’s disaster governance system is the formal recognition of TEK as nationally indispensable disaster risk reduction infrastructure that reduces vulnerability for all Australians. 

Rather than a discrete cultural inclusion issue or vulnerability endemic to First Nations communities, this critical measure reframes First Nations knowledge as a national resilience capability required for all Australians, recognising mutual vulnerability across all levels. 

Option 1: Amend the DRF Guidelines (2025-26) to broaden acceptable forms of co-contribution

While the DRF has funded a plethora of First Nations-led resilience projects, current eligibility guidelines continue to prioritise “financial (cash) contribution” or “in-kind contributions, such as wages” (DRF, 2025-26, p. 11). Although First Nations organisations already face a lower co-contribution requirement than non-Indigenous organisations, this nonetheless creates bureaucratic barriers for communities with limited financial literacy support (DRF, 2025-26, p. 11). 

This option proposes amending the criteria to include long-term Indigenous governance, cultural practice and land stewardship as valid (non-traditional) in-kind contributions with weighted valuations beyond conventional economic rates. This reform is consistent with comparable eligibility settings in the National Indigenous Australians Agency Indigenous Rangers Program that permits “evidence of cultural authority” as a selection criteria (NIAA, 2025). The one-off implementation cost is estimated at $750,000-$1.5 million and would be the responsibility of NEMA given they currently operate the DRF.

By recognising knowledge as prevention capital within Australia’s DRF, this policy option embeds First Nations expertise within national resilience funding architecture without expanding the funding envelope. However, because it advances the critical measure of success at the programmatic level, its impact is limited to DRF-funded initiatives and does not elicit broader legislative or jurisdictional impacts. 

Option 2: Formally designate Traditional Ecological Knowledge programs as national resilience infrastructure

Despite demonstrated effectiveness, current TEK-based programs, including Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) and Indigenous Ranger programs are primarily administered through environmental or Indigenous affairs portfolios rather than embedded within national disaster mitigation architecture. Consequently, their adoption remains dependent on jurisdiction-specific uptake and is thus uneven, despite disasters increasingly crossing jurisdictional boundaries (SSCADR, 2024)

This option proposes amending the Commonwealth’s National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework and associated reporting mechanisms to formally recognise Indigenous land and fire management activities as national mitigation infrastructure. This reform would require existing TEK-based mitigation strategies to be incorporated into national resilience benchmarks, intergovernmental planning and preparedness reporting. In practice, this would standardise adoption of Indigenous land stewardship beyond local and state/territory discretion. Implementation would require an estimated one-off cost of $1–$2 million over a 6–12 month period (APH, 2023). 

By embedding Indigenous land stewardship within national resilience frameworks, this option advances the critical measure of success by positioning TEK as nationally indispensable mitigation capability rather than a peripheral cultural inclusion policy. However, its impact depends on state and territory compliance and reporting quality.

Option 3: Establish an Indigenous Disaster Resilience Unit within the National Emergency Management Agency

This option proposes establishing an Indigenous Disaster Resilience Unit (IDRU) within NEMA via an internal restructure, building upon a recommendation by NIDR (Williamson, 2024). The Unit would provide national policy oversight, mandating compliance with minimum Indigenous inclusion standards within the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework (2018). Additionally, the IDRU would develop and monitor Indigenous inclusion KPIs in national reporting, support First Nations’ co-design of resilience standards and coordinate consistent implementation across state and territory governments.

Implementation would be led by the Department of Home Affairs and National Emergency Management Agency, with an estimated ongoing cost of $3.1 million annually, reflecting APS remuneration rates  (Australian Public Service Commission, 2025; The Senate, 2025). 

This option advances the critical measure of success by strengthening institutional capability, addressing long-standing limitations in cross-agency coordination and shifting disaster governance from incremental adjustment toward systemic prevention (Crosweller, 2019). However, the addition of Indigenous co-design mandates may also be perceived as a complete structural overhaul.

Policy Recommendation

Option 3, to establish an IDRU within NEMA, is recommended as the most effective mechanism to designate TEK as nationally indispensable to disaster risk reduction. While Options 1 and 2 improve funding access and policy recognition for First Nations peoples, respectively, only Option 3 creates national accountability for the integration of TEK across the operational architecture of Australia’s disaster governance. 

Implementation

The Australian Government would establish the IDRU to operationalise existing commitments to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives before, during, and after emergencies, through measurable TEK-integrated disaster governance standards. 

These standards would require all Commonwealth-funded disaster resilience programs, including the DRF, to demonstrate:

1. First Nations decision-making authority through evidence of formal partnership or co-design with Traditional Owners, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations or Indigenous land management bodies during project design, implementation and evaluation.

2. TEK-based mitigation integration through the incorporation of practices such as cultural burning, seasonal ecological monitoring, on-Country stewardship or place-based environmental risk assessment where relevant. 

3. Indigenous capability investment through minimum allocations toward Indigenous employment, ranger-led implementation, community training or knowledge transfer. 

4. Coordinated reporting where all states and territories must annually report TEK integration against nationally standardised metrics, reducing the current reliance on discretionary jurisdictional uptake. 

   
   

Projects unable to demonstrate compliance would remain eligible for technical assistance, including guidance on establishing co-design processes with Traditional Owners, identifying relevant Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations and integrating TEK into planning. Future Commonwealth resilience funding would still be conditional on meeting minimum compliance thresholds within agreed implementation timeframes.

Institutional Responsibilites

Lead Agency: NEMA

Establish and administer the IDRU, monitor compliance from existing programs and provide technical assistance where necessary, integrate TEK indicators into NEMA’s existing annual reporting cycle.

Supporting Agencies:

• NIAA: Co-design standards with First Nations organisations including ACCOs and Indigenous Ranger programs, provide cultural governance advice to NEMA and ensure alignment with CTG implementation.

• Department of Home Affairs: Coordinate executive amendments to Commonwealth disaster resilience guidelines and coordinate consistent intergovernmental implementation by chairing discussions in existing emergency management forums. 

• State and Territory governments: As primary delivery agencies for disaster management, they would be responsible for embedding TEK standards within disaster plans, collecting project-level compliance data and reporting annually against Commonwealth benchmarks. 

Cost Estimation

The IDRU would require a dedicated interdisciplinary workforce:

1 x SES Band 1 (Unit Head)

2 x EL2 (Policy and Monitoring Leads)

4 x EL1 (Program and Data Specialists)

3 x APS6 (Policy Officers and Analysts)

Estimated annual cost: $3.1 million. While more dear than the other policy options, compared to projected disaster costs, this represents a modest preventative investment. The Unit would be funded over an initial five-year period, aligned with national disaster planning cycles. 

Stakeholder Involvement

Implementation would require structured engagement with:

• First Nations organisations and land councils (co-design of standards)

• Indigenous Ranger and IPA program leaders (integration into resilience practice)

• State emergency services and local governments (implementation)

Measuring Success

Success would be measured through NEMA’s existing annual reporting cycle against four national indicators:

• Compliance: Percentage of Commonwealth-funded resilience projects meeting IDRU standards 

  • (target: >80% within three years)

• Integration: Inclusion of TEK-based mitigation practices in state and local disaster plans

  • (baseline + annual increase)

• Capability: Annual increase in Indigenous-led mitigation employment 

• Outcomes: Reduction in disaster recovery expenditure in regions with sustained TEK integration 

Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy

• Annual reporting by NEMA to Parliament

• Independent review at the end of the five-year implementation period

• Integration of IDRU metrics into national resilience reporting frameworks (including the Australian Disaster Resilience Index

Barriers and Risks

Barriers

A key implementation barrier is workforce capacity, particularly the availability of appropriately skilled personnel with both technical disaster management expertise and cultural competency in TEK systems. Without this, there is a risk that standards become procedural rather than meaningful. To address this, recruitment should prioritise Indigenous leadership and be phased over two years to ensure capability development.

A second barrier is jurisdictional coordination. Disaster governance in Australia is split across Commonwealth, state and local governments, which may result in uneven adoption of IDRU standards. This can be mitigated by linking Commonwealth funding eligibility (e.g. DRF access) to compliance, creating a strong incentive for alignment.

There are also limitations in monitoring and evaluating TEK integration outcomes. As TEK is relational, place-based and adapted to specific ecological and cultural contexts, it cannot always be captured through conventional quantitative performance indicators or standardised national reporting metrics. This may reduce the precision of early-stage compliance monitoring and outcome evaluation, requiring the IDRU to iteratively refine measurement methodologies in partnership with First Nations communities. Risks

Cultural Risk

Cultural risk remains significant. If not properly co-designed, formalising TEK within bureaucratic systems risks misrepresentation, extraction or tokenistic inclusion, undermining Indigenous self-determination. This could corrode trust with First Nations communities and reduce policy effectiveness. NIAA oversight in the facilitation process with Traditional Owners acts as a mitigation strategy.

Economic Risk

Economic risk is relatively low but present. While the policy itself is low-cost, compliance requirements may impose administrative burdens on smaller local governments or organisations, potentially delaying project delivery timelines and anticipated reductions in disaster impact. The IDRU’s technical assistance provision can mitigate this, enabling phased implementation and capacity-building before full compliance is required.

References

Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience 2023, ‘National Indigenous Disaster Resilience Summit’ presentation by Monash University's Fire to Flourish, Brisbane, 21 August.

Australian National Audit Office 2019, Evaluating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Programs, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra. 

Australian Public Service Commission 2025, Annual Report 2024-25, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 

Crosweller, M 2019, ‘National Resilience Taskforce’, Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience: Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 6-7. 

Department of Home Affairs 2023, Department of Home Affairs Annual Report 2022-23: Appendix D: Salary and Classification Rates, Australian Government Transparency Portal, Canberra

Department of the Senate 2025, 2024–25 Annual Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 

Gibbs, L, Molyneaux, R, Harms, L, Gallagher, HC, Block, K, Richardson, J, Brandenburg, V, O’Donnell, M, Kellett, C, Quinn, P, Kosta, L, Brady, K, Ireton, G, MacDougall, C & Bryant, R 2020, 10 Years Beyond Bushfires Report, University of Melbourne, Melbourne. 

Hill, R, Pert, PL, Davies, J, Robinson, CJ, Walsh, F & Falco-Mammone, F 2013, ‘Indigenous Land Management in Australia: Extent, scope, diversity, barriers and success factors’, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, pp. 1-94, DOI:10.1079/PNS2006494. 

Hou, JZ, Hearn, G, Johnston, KA, Villeneuve, M, Hebbani, A & Carroll, M 2025, ‘Embedding humanity in building sustainable community disaster resilience in Australia: a humanistic communication perspective’, Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience: Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 48-56.

Kaiser, L & Kenney C 2025, ‘Emergency managers’ perspectives on Māori response and recovery approaches: managing catastrophic hazard events in Aotearoa New Zealand’, Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience: Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 30-38, DOI:10.47389/40.2.30. 

Lansbury, N, Mosby, V, Creamer, SJ, Moggridge, B, Evans, GR, Pecl, G & Ireland, L 2025, ‘Indigenous peoples’ voices and engagement on climate change: towards improved health and wellbeing’, Frontiers in Climate, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-11, DOI: 10.3389/fclim.2025.1693544. 

Moon, B 2024, National Emergency Management Agency 2023–24 Higher Risk Weather Season National Preparedness Summit Report, Australian Government, Canberra. 

Mulholland, B 2024, ‘Defining the gap, emphasising the deficit’, The Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 221, no. 11, pp. 631-632, DOI:10.5694/mja2.52518. 

National Emergency Management Agency 2022, Australia’s national midterm review of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 

National Emergency Management Agency 2025, ‘Harnessing First Nations knowledge with the Disaster Ready Fund’, Commonwealth of Australia, 30 May. 

National Indigenous Australians Agency 2025, Archived Grant Opportunity View - GO7656: Indigenous Rangers Program Expansion Round 2, GrantConnect - Australian Government Department of Finance. 

O’Donnell, J 2022, Submission to the Alternative Commonwealth Capabilities for Crisis

Response Discussion Paper, Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, Canberra. 

Parliament of Australia 2024, The Senate: Select Committee on Australia’s Disaster Resilience - Boots on the ground: Raising resilience Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 

Quinones, L 2025, ‘Indigenous Peoples sidelined in global climate fight, UN warns’, United Nations News: Climate and Environment, 24 April. 

Radel, K, Sukumaran, A & Daniels, C 2023, ‘Incorporating First Nations knowledges into disaster management plans: an analysis’, Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience: Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 36-41. 

Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care 2025, ‘Aboriginal-led Review of the National Agreement calls for urgent action on closing the gap’, SNAICC, 23 June.

Torres Strait Regional Authority 2026, Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Land and Sea Management Unit, Australian Government, Thursday Island. 

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2025, State of the World's Indigenous Peoples, Volume VI, Climate Crisis Report, United Nations, New York.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015, ‘Indigenous knowledge key for DRR’, 12 August, UNHQ Liaison Office, New York. 

Williamson, B 2023, National Indigenous Disaster Resilience Submission 168 to the Select Committee on Australia’s Disaster Resilience, Australian Parliament House, Canberra. 

Wisbey, M 2025, ‘The impact of climate change on the health of Indigenous peoples’, The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, 11 August. 

Wright, A, Yap, M, Jones, R, Richardson, A, Davis, V & Lovett, R 2021, ‘Examining the Associations between Indigenous Rangers, Culture and Wellbeing in Australia, 2018–2020’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 3053, pp. 1-20, DOI:10.3390/ijerph18063053. 

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.