@article{e10875726e0f4cb7a2a6422c0c219578,
title = "Slow withdrawal as managed retreat: Dismantling and rebuilding an Indigenous community controlled housing sector",
abstract = "Managed retreat is part of the planners{\textquoteright} analytical toolkit. It considers that human displacements driven by climate change will be more just if they are strategically managed by well-resourced authorities. In contrast to the contradistinction this discourse establishes between the status quo of ad hoc displacement and planned relocation, managed retreat disregards other policies that similarly encourage migration from places the state deems unviable. This article argues that slow withdrawal as managed retreat offers a framework for understanding policies that facilitate the reduction or discontinuation of services that settler colonial states formerly delivered to particular contexts. It does so through historical analysis of state support for housing and essential services infrastructure at Indigenous homelands and remote communities in the Northern Territory of Australia. Slow withdrawal as managed retreat emphasises the geographically differentiated character of state investment, highlights the reconfiguration of obligations for service provision between different levels of government, and considers whether and how {\textquoteleft}abandonment{\textquoteright} is appropriate {\textquoteleft}land back{\textquoteright} policy advancing Indigenous sovereignty. The article examines how the settler state withdraws specific supports while remaining present, and it considers the process of slow withdrawal as managed retreat in relation to contemporary demands for greater community control of Indigenous housing.",
keywords = "Homelands, Housing, Infrastructure, Managed retreat, Organised abandonment, Policy, Remote communities, Withdrawal",
author = "Liam Grealy",
note = "Funding Information: In this section, I want to suggest that the phenomenon of slow withdrawal as managed retreat is also occurring for remote communities, showing a continuing tendency in the state{\textquoteright}s approach. Consider the funding situation on the Aṉangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands in the remote northwest of the state of South Australia. As in the Northern Territory, remote housing construction was previously funded in South Australia (2008–2018) by the Australian Government under the National Partnership Agreement for Remote Indigenous Housing (NPARIH). While at the conclusion of NPARIH the NT Government was awarded $550 million for remote housing across five years, equivalent funding in South Australia has decreased and become more conditional. Following NPARIH, the Australian Government provided South Australia with a one-time payment of $35 million for remote community housing. This funding cannot be used to expand housing stock in remote communities, but can only replace derelict houses. The Commonwealth has indicated this is the final funding tranche it will provide for remote housing in South Australia, deeming this a responsibility of state governments. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 Elsevier Ltd",
year = "2022",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.09.002",
language = "English",
volume = "136",
pages = "173--185",
journal = "Geoforum",
issn = "0016-7185",
publisher = "Elsevier",
}