A necessary stargaze of fire mitigation options for the protection of towns and cities and forested ecosystems across SE Australia 

John O’Donnell 27 February 2025 

An opinion piece 

There are clear signs, signals, outcomes and indicators that current bushfire systems, in relation to town and city protection and across forested landscapes and ecosystems, are not working effectively or achieving across a range of considerations.  Signs, signals, outcomes and indicators include: 

Signs, signals and outcomes include: 

1. Minimal extent of prescribed burning, adaptive management and bushfire resilient forests; 

2. The extent and intensity of bushfires, megafires and intense bushfires across landscapes and forested areas across SE Australia; 

3. At times, inadequate speed and scale of initial and ongoing bushfire attack; 

4. Inadequate fire fighter safety, especially in high fuel load forests; 

5. Inadequate community fire safety; 

6. Inadequate fire trails and water supplies installed and maintained; 

7. Photographic evidence of dense vegetation from large intense megafires and consequent bushfire risks; and 

8. Increasing eucalypt decline and dense understories and associated bushfire risks. 

Indicators include: 

1. Ongoing ratios of forest prescribed burning areas to bushfire areas, noting the minimal extent of annual forest prescribed burning and adaptive management; 

2. Ongoing costs of bushfire disasters; 

3. Increasing costs of annual bushfire operations; 

4. Large and Very Large aircraft costs and uncertain effectiveness;  

5. Large insurance costs in bushfire effected areas; and 

6. High and increasing Emergency Service Levy costs to residents, just check out your insurance bills. 

Thus, it is important to undertake an assessment of fire mitigation scenarios to guide directions of fire mitigation and suppression, especially if it considered that current failed and failing approaches continue as is.  The two stargaze scenarios used are: 

1. No change in fire mitigation, active management, very long fire intervals and inadequate community and fire fighter safety and focus on suppression. This represents the current approach over the last 20 years over large areas of SE Australia. 

2. Maximised fire mitigation, active and adaptive management, 8 to 10 % of forest area per year prescribed burning fire intervals and total focus on community and fire fighter safety, combined with suppression.  

An estimated time period of 20 years is used for this stargaze scenario. 

Before the stargaze, some key link documents are outlined below: 

1. https://www.bushfirefront.org.au/prescribed-burning/why-prescribed-burning/ 

2. https://www.bushfirefront.org.au/the-truth-about-fuel-reduction-burning/#:~:text=Critics%20of%20prescribed%20burning%20argue,easily%20overwhelmed%20by%20large%20conflagrations. 

3. https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/assessment-of-fire-management-across-south-east-australia-including-concerns-consequences-costs-and-opportunities 

4. https://arr.news/2025/01/09/major-concerns-in-relation-to-bushfire-preparedness-across-se-australia-john-odonnell/ 

5. https://arr.news/2024/06/07/town-and-city-bushfire-disaster-review-case-studies-and-lessons-across-australia-john-odonnell/ 

6. https://arr.news/2023/06/13/getting-to-the-root-of-the-issue-john-odonnell 

7. https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/identifying-and-actioning-key-bushfire-disaster-economic-efficiency-and-accountability-lessons-and-insights-from-across-australia-john-odonnell-7-february-2025 

The star gaze scenario over 20 years is outlined in the table below, across all land tenures in SE Australia. 

Consideration issue	Over 20 years, no change in fire mitigation, active management, very long fire intervals and inadequate community and fire fighter safety and focus on suppression	Over 20 years, maximised fire mitigation, active and adaptive management, 8 to 10 % of forest area per year prescribed burning fire intervals and maximised focus on community and fire fighter safety, combined with suppression
Rate of prescribed burning	Continues, likely gets worse with densification of understories, eucalypt decline and huge fuel loads.  NSW prescribed burning of forests is at 0.6 % over the last 7 years, Victoria only a little higher percentage.  There is inadequate use of small aircraft, helicopters and drones for prescribed burning in SE Australia to increase rates and areas of prescribed burning to forests per year, especially where firefighters and volunteers are limited in availability.  There is underutilisation of aerial prescribed burning techniques that can be undertaken quickly over large areas, at set spacings (to join in evening cool or not join up to establish mosaics) and time of day to minimise fire intensity.	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes reaching 8 to 10 % of forest area per year, bushfire extent and the fuel problem would be much less and bushfire suppression much easier.  This is the evidence from SW WA over the last 60 years.    https://www.bushfirefront.org.au/prescribed-burning/why-prescribed-burning/  There would be reduced eucalypt decline and forested landscapes would be more fire resilient.  Use of small aircraft, helicopters and drones for prescribed burning to increase rates and areas of prescribed burning to forests per year would be a critical component of achieving this increase.  Aerial prescribed burning techniques can be undertaken quickly over large areas, at set spacings (to join in evening cool or not join up to establish mosaics) and time of day to minimise fire intensity.
Fuel loads, strata and fire brands	Continues, likely gets worse with ongoing intense bushfires, densification of forest understories, increasing eucalypt decline and huge fuel loads. As in 2019/ 20, there will be contiguous high fuel load forests and long fire runs with limited low intensity burning.  In addition, intense bushfires kill large numbers of trees, increasing fuel loads	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes reaching 8 to 10 % of forested landscapes prescribed burnt per year, the fuel load and strata problem would be much less and bushfire suppression much easier.  In addition, there would be smaller numbers of trees killed from intense bushfires.
Difficulty of bushfire suppression	Continues to be very difficult in high fuel load forests, likely gets worse with densification of understories from intense bushfires and increasing eucalypt decline.	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes reaching 8 to 10 % per year, the fuel problem would be much less and bushfire suppression easier.  Backburning overall would be easier, depending on fuel levels and weather at the location and time.
Fire resilient forests	Low bushfire resilience of forests, likely fire resilience continues to decrease with densification of understories and declining forest health	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes and government will, . bushfire resilient forests would increase in area and bushfire resilience level.  Consideration/ implementation for Australia would be of benefit using similar approaches that the US is undertaking for forest health, resilience and wildfire mitigation include: Wildfire Crisis A Strategy for Protecting Communities; Improving Resilience in America’s Forests; National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy; and  the likely Fix Our Forests legislation for resilient fire landscapes and safer communities, including low intensity burning, thinning, grazing and other active management.
Forest eucalypt decline	Continues, the situation is getting worse every year from lack of low intensity fire, including densification of forest understories	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes and government will, forest eucalypt decline would reduce in extent and severity.
The areas of intense bushfires and associated ecological impacts	This will continue to increase with current fire management approaches being used and huge fuel loads across landscapes, from intense bushfires and eucalypt decline.	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes reaching 8 to 10 % per year, and government will, areas of intense bushfires and associated community, firefighter, environmental and ecological impacts would reduce with less intense bushfire area and often intensity.  60 plus years of prescribed burning of SW WA forests WA highlights the effectiveness of prescribed burning, including some of the  link documents provided above.
Carbon emissions from intense bushfires	Huge carbon emissions from intense bushfires over many months will continue using current minimal low intensity burning approaches.	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes reaching 8 to 10 % per year, and government will, these carbon emissions from large megafires would likely reduce.
Post intense bushfire megafire rainfall impacts (study by Fasullo et al. 2023)	This will be an ongoing impact area.  Refer study by Fasullo JT, Rosenbloom N and Buchholz R (2023) A multiyear tropical Pacific cooling response to recent Australian wildfires in CESM2Sci. Adv. 9, eadg1213 (2023) 10 May 2023	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes reaching 8 to 10 % per year, and government will, this recently studied impact area would likely reduce.
Costs of bushfires and prescribed burning rates	Australian bushfires are very costly, large intense megafires and repeat bushfires even more so.  As an example, bushfires burnt over 17 million hectares during the 2019/ 20 Australian bushfires. The 2019/ 20 bushfires were estimated by AccWeather to be $110 billion in terms of total damage and economic loss.  Costs of bushfires will continue, and likely get worse with minimal prescribed burning, dense understory fuels from intense bushfires and increasing eucalypt decline.	The costs of bushfires would greatly reduce with increased mitigation and preparation funding.  In Australia, one dollar spent on mitigation can save at least two dollars in recovery costs. .US Chamber of Commerce (2024) noted: Research by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Allstate found each $1 invested in disaster preparation saves $13 on average in economic costs, and reduced damage and cleanup after a disaster.  Porter et al. (2021) mitigation benefits in Canada are also higher than Australian estimates. Some of the key lessons of this impact analysis are New house As built to satisfy Guide recommendations can save 30:1; Retrofitting saves up to 14:1; Communities save up to 14:1 and National use saves up to 4:1.  These savings are huge and need to be captured.
Efficiency of government funding and allowance for budget savings	Currently, efficiency of funding in relation to inadequate fire mitigation and community protection is resulting in major inefficiencies. outlined in Menzies Research Centre (2020):  “Despite this relentless commitment to inquiries, in 2014, a report released by the Productivity Commission into Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements found that government natural disaster funding arrangements had been inefficient, inequitable and unsustainable. ‘They are prone to cost shifting, ad hoc responses and short term political opportunism.’  In addition: A paper commissioned by the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience & Safer Communities estimated that expenditure of $5.3 billion over the period to 2050 (in present value) would generate budget savings of $12.2 billion for all levels of government including $9.8 billion for the Commonwealth government for the Commonwealth Government. With targeted mitigation spending Commonwealth and State and Territory government expenditure on natural disaster could be reduced more than 50 per cent by 2050.  Some of these efficiency concerns are outlined in, these are major issues and represent considerable budget costs and  lost opportunities:  https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/identifying-and-actioning-key-bushfire-disaster-economic-efficiency-and-accountability-lessons-and-insights-from-across-australia-john-odonnell-7-february-2025	The adoption of expanded fire mitigation and community protection would greatly improve efficiencies of government funding and allow for budget savings.    Addressing the efficiency concerns are outlined in:  https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/identifying-and-actioning-key-bushfire-disaster-economic-efficiency-and-accountability-lessons-and-insights-from-across-australia-john-odonnell-7-february-2025  would reduce the current extent of efficiency concerns.
Governments and associated fire agency accountabilities for community and firefighter bushfire protection	There are concerns in relation to Federal, State and local Governments and associated fire agency accountabilities for community and firefighter bushfire protection, including incorporating full and active accountability for setting sound bushfire policy, undertaking effective fire mitigation across landscapes, meeting minimum prescribed burning targets, establishing resilient landscapes, addressing high fuel loads, minimising large and intense bushfires, protecting communities and firefighters, rectifying large insurance rises and implementing effective disaster learning capture and sharing.  Some of these accountability concerns are outlined in, these are major issues:  https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/identifying-and-actioning-key-bushfire-disaster-economic-efficiency-and-accountability-lessons-and-insights-from-across-australia-john-odonnell-7-february-2025	The adoption of expanded fire mitigation and community protection should assist in improve Governments and associated fire agency accountabilities for community and firefighter bushfire protection.  This would depend on the extent of accountability actioning by governments.  Tests of accountability would include extent of prescribed burning, quick approvals for prescribed burning, fuel loads, bushfire impacts, extent of bushfires, intense bushfire occurrence, community and fire fighter impacts, Emergency Service Levy costs and insurance costs.  Addressing the accountability concerns are outlined in:  https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/identifying-and-actioning-key-bushfire-disaster-economic-efficiency-and-accountability-lessons-and-insights-from-across-australia-john-odonnell-7-february-2025  would reduce the current extent of accountability concerns.
Effective utilisation of cost advantages of mitigation in reducing bushfire and recovery costs	Any benefit from this is not being adequately utilised with a focus on suppression and recovery.  It’s been estimated by the Productivity Commission that 97 per cent of all-natural disaster funding in Australia is spent after an event, with just 3 per cent invested prior to an event to reduce the impact of future disasters (this may have changed slightly since).  There is inadequate funding of bushfire mitigation in Australia, including prescribed burning and other fuel management measures.   The current Australian Government funding of $200 Million annual mitigation funding to state and territory governments is in reality is extremely low, resulting in small scattered mitigation across different disaster types and it is going to take multi decades and decades to resolve current bushfire mitigation inadequacies.	There would be large government savings be made through increasing expenditure on mitigation, and so reducing the costs of responding to bushfires.  Savings in bushfire suppression expenditure, recovery expenditure, bureaucracy expenditure and efficiencies would be extracted, while at the same time increasing employment in mitigation and forest resilience programs.    The costs of bushfires would greatly reduce with increased mitigation and preparation funding, using the benefit ratios outlined below.  In Australia, one dollar spent on mitigation can save at least two dollars in recovery costs. .US Chamber of Commerce (2024) noted: Research by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Allstate found each $1 invested in disaster preparation saves $13 on average in economic costs, and reduced damage and cleanup after a disaster.  Porter et al. (2021) mitigation benefits in Canada are also higher than Australian estimates. Some of the key lessons of this impact analysis are New house As built to satisfy Guide recommendations can save 30:1; Retrofitting saves up to 14:1; Communities save up to 14:1 and National use saves up to 4:1.  The efficiency benefits of an expanded federal/ state and local bushfire mitigation program are important in relation to reduced individual disasters and associated costs, budget impacts and impacts; reduced ongoing repeat disasters and associated costs, budget impacts and impacts; better returns on investment than other projects; regional infrastructure projects to assist economies; reduced community bushfire deaths and safer firefighting; reduced insurance premiums; reduced cases of people without insurance; improved preparedness for war and terrorism; reduced huge climate impacts of intense bushfires and reduction of the consequent wetter year impacts post intense bushfires as outlined by Fasullo et al (2023).
Costs of fighting bushfires and megafires	Continued high costs of fighting megafires, indeed greatly increases, mainly due to the ongoing focus on suppression and increasingly large plane fleets and minimal mitigation approaches being used.	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes and government will, this would reduce.  60 years of WA data of the extent of prescribed burning reducing bushfire extent highlights this.
Costs of the Emergency Service Levies and opportunity for efficiencies	Continues, indeed this levy cost will continue to increases with large salaried staff, large plane fleets etc	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes and government will, this levy cost would reduce.
Costs of household and business insurance	Continues, indeed household insurance increases have been very large in recent years, with current minimal mitigation insurance costs will increase greatly.  If in doubt, refer to overseas town and city bushfire disasters.	Depending on the scale of fire mitigation across landscapes and government will, these costs would reduce.  Other disaster risks such as flooding, cyclones, surges etc need expanded mitigation treatment at the same time.
Community impacts	Continues, likely gets worse with densification of understories from intense bushfires and increasing eucalypt decline.  Community impacts also depends of scale and effectiveness of working with all communities on bushfire safety, risk management and mitigation, the author believes at inadequate levels.	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes and government will, community impacts should reduce.  Increasing the scale and effectiveness of working with all communities on bushfire safety, risk management and mitigation, so community impacts should reduce considerably.
Firefighter deaths and injuries	Continues, likely gets worse with from intense bushfires densification of understories and worsening eucalypt decline under an inadequate low intensity fire regime.	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes and government will, this impact area would likely reduce, including deaths on the ground and in large firefighting aircraft.
Volunteer firefighter numbers	Continues to decline for a number of reasons, resulting in ongoing massive risks to communities and lost firefighter skill sets.	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes and will, these numbers may decline or be stable, however there are a number of reasons for decline in numbers.
Manslaughter and safety risks	Continues, likely gets worse with densification of understories, eucalypt decline and huge fuel loads from inadequate adaptive management.  The issue of huge numbers of dead trees from intense bushfires is a huge issue by itself in relation to fire fighter safety and road travel safety.	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes and government will, these risks should reduce.  Increasing the scale and effectiveness of working with all communities on bushfire safety, risk management and mitigation, so community safety risks should reduce considerably.
Infrastructure impacts	Continues, likely gets worse with densification of understories, eucalypt decline and huge fuel loads.	Depending on the scale of mitigation across landscapes and government will, these impacts should reduce.  Also depends of scale and effectiveness of working with all infrastructure on bushfire safety.
Cumulative impact	Many ongoing failure areas and ongoing huge intense large area bushfires; community/ fire fighter/ infrastructure and environmental impacts; increasing areas of eucalypt decline; non-resilient bushfire forests; large budget costs and increasing emergency service levies.	Reduced bushfire extent and intensity; reduced community/ fire fighter/ infrastructure and environmental impacts; reducing areas of eucalypt decline; increased area of resilient bushfire forests; improved efficiencies and accountabilities; budget savings and reduced emergency service levies.

Conclusions 

The author notes that the table above is subjective, but the table highlights the failures of current fire approaches.  The assessment is very broad, covering 21 areas. 

Considering a 20 year period, undertaking no change in current limited fire mitigation, limited active management, long fire intervals and inadequate community and fire fighter safety isn’t the answer.  Continuing with barriers, restrictions and over regulation isn’t the answer either.   

The cumulative impacts of this scenario include many ongoing failure areas and ongoing huge intense large area bushfires; community/ fire fighter/ infrastructure and environmental impacts; increasing areas of eucalypt decline; non-resilient bushfire forests; large budget costs and increasing emergency service levies. 

The author considers that to continue down this route is a disastrous option.   

Considering a 20 year period, maximised fire mitigation, active and adaptive management, 8 to 10 % of forest area per year prescribed burning fire intervals and maximised focus on community and fire fighter safety, combined with suppression is a better option. 

The answer also involves a total focus on refining bushfire systems and policies, optimising community and fire fighter safety, combined with effective bushfire suppression. 

The cumulative impacts of this scenario include reduced bushfire extent and intensity; reduced community/ fire fighter/ infrastructure and environmental impacts; reducing areas of eucalypt decline; increased area of resilient bushfire forests; improved efficiencies and accountabilities; budget savings and reduced emergency service levies. 

Efficiency reviews of bushfire management and agencies across Australia need to be undertaken, using experienced fire fighter and land management expertise, and who are totally independent of current bushfire management, and who fully understand inadequacies of current fuel, mitigation and suppression management.   

The same applies to the need for accountability reviews of bushfire management and agencies across Australia.