Introduction
The author considers that Australia and its towns and cities is inadequately prepared for bushfires and this has been outlined in other documents:
- https://arr.news/2024/06/07/town-and-city-bushfire-disaster-review-case-studies-and-lessons-across-australia-john-odonnell/
There are bushfire economic, efficiency and accountability lessons and insights that need to be addressed to improve bushfire preparedness across Australia.
Economic reform lessons and insights in relation to current approaches to bushfire funding, mitigation, suppression, land and fire management and community protection
The first critical lesson and insight area relates to the effective capture of key bushfire economic reform issues that the author considers aren’t currently being addressed properly, including:
Number 1. 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.
Number 2. There is underinvestment in disaster resilience and adaptation in Australia. 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. There is inadequate funding of bushfire mitigation in Australia, including prescribed burning and other fuel management measures. There are large government savings to 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 can be extracted, while at the same time increasing employment in mitigation and forest resilience programs.
Number 3. 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.
Number 4. Governments and fire agencies are missing opportunities for coordinated prescribed burning programs across all land tenures to achieve economies of scale and resilient landscapes, not necessarily in single areas. Florec and Pannell (2016) outline key issues in relation to mitigation, noting there are additional fire mitigation opportunities across all land tenures. There are large government expenditure savings to be made through increasing mitigation expenditure to reducing natural disaster response costs, including bushfires. This information highlights the huge importance of increasing pre disaster fire mitigation in Australia, opportunities to progress this, taking a long term view and providing budget savings. The low funding spent on mitigation, including prescribed burning and removal of fuels/ thinning, is an issue of national importance and needs urgent attention from all governments, federal, state and local.
Number 5. Noting the increased initial budget costs, the author considers that much larger government expenditure and budget savings would be made through dramatically increasing mitigation expenditure than outlined by the Productivity Commission (current annual mitigation funding it provides to state and territory governments of $200 million) if the following factors are considered:
- the actual community, firefighter and ecosystem impact costs of intense bushfires; increases in bushfire preparedness funding reduces suppression costs; the positive return on investment in mitigation funding; quicker mitigation treatment results in reduced disasters down the track; the huge climate impacts of intense bushfires; the consequent wetter year impacts post intense bushfires as outlined by Fasullo et al (2023) (outlined below); rising insurance costs are considered as well as more accurate estimates of the actual costs of disasters; production of products from bushfire/ dense forest thinning and funding of this type of work is likely better than provision of grants and funding by governments with unknown outcomes.
Number 6. Economic impacts of the failure to or consider or implement for Australia the valuable approaches that the US is undertaking in relation to Wildfire Crisis A Strategy for Protecting Communities and 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.
There are major opportunities for economic reform within fire management across Australia. Failure to implement the identified and critical bushfire mitigation opportunities will result in continued large and intense bushfires across landscapes, devasting large areas, communities, ecosystems and flora and fauna. Common sense decisions and management at this time can reduce costs and impacts of future bushfire disasters.
Bushfire efficiency lessons and insights in relation to current approaches to bushfire funding, mitigation, suppression, land and fire management and community protection
The second critical lesson and insight area relates to the effective capture of key bushfire efficiency issues that the author considers aren’t currently being addressed properly, including:
There is further disaster funding detail 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.’ The Productivity Commission lamented that the funding mix was disproportionately recovery-based and did not promote mitigation. It observed that the political incentives for mitigation were weak, ‘since mitigation provides public benefits that accrue over a long-time horizon,’ and that over time this would create entitlement dependency and undermines individual responsibility for natural disaster risk management.’ At that time, it said, mitigation funding amounted to only three per cent of what is spent on post-disaster recovery and recommended that the Australian Government should gradually increase the amount of annual mitigation funding it provides to state and territory governments to $200 million.”
and:
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.
and:
Generally, one dollar spent on mitigation can save at least two dollars in recovery costs.
The above information is a great summary highlighting the current inefficiency of what is happening in relation to Australian bushfire disaster management but also highlights the opportunities available for good governance.
Bushfire efficiency lessons and insights, including the following:
Number 1. Bushfire and other natural disaster funding arrangements are inefficient, inequitable and unsustainable, prone to cost shifting, ad hoc responses and short term political opportunism, have a short term focus, are disproportionately recovery-based and do not effectively nor adequately promote mitigation.
Number 2. Failure to fully utilise the benefits of return on cost disaster mitigation and preparation, which saves in disaster costs to economic advantage, are being underused, to Australia’s loss. dramatically increasing 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 houses 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.
Number 3. The efficiency benefits of an expanded federal/ state and local bushfire mitigation program have not been adequately considered 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).
Number 4. Efficiency reviews of bushfire management and agencies across Australia are not being 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. Efficiency reviews should include the concerns of current management, limited bushfire mitigation and funding, scattered mitigation treatments, long fire intervals, huge areas of contiguous high fuel loads, bushfire suppression concerns, big plane fleets, ongoing bushfire disasters, huge community and ecosystem disaster impacts and costs, current huge insurance payments in many areas and huge recovery needs and payments.
Number 5. There is inadequate use of small aircraft, helicopters and drones for prescribed burning 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. This reduces the efficiency in completing prescribed burning programs.
Number 6. There are limitations and questions re the effectiveness and efficiency of large and very large aircraft in regards to effectiveness, efficiency and costs of dropping retardant/ water in forest fire fighting, including consideration of forests with thick understories and heavy surface fuel loads and restrictions on aerial bushfire fighting operations are often restricted due to weather, wind and smoke. Costs of aerial fleets are large and standby arrangements are also very costly and need to be considered further in relation to efficiency.
Number 7. There is apparent subsidisation of state fire budgets with Commonwealth funding for major bushfires, including where SE Australian states undertake miniscule and inadequate areas of prescribed burning across all forest areas, inadequate for community protection. Budget relief assessment should be best to consider incentive approaches and minimum area and quality standards for increased prescribed burning.
Number 8. Auditing of fire agencies in many cases is limited, often does not focus on fire mitigation, where it assesses performance does not get into key fire management performance issues and fails to tease out key issues such as inadequate mitigation, any suppression focuses and inadequacies in relation to fire fighter and community safety.
Number 9. There are not key publicly available annual performance and efficiency assessments and index measures in place to assess all aspects of the bushfire performance and efficiency of state, regional and local bushfire authorities, including:
- Costs of annual operation;
- Funding from the Commonwealth;
- Extent of annual forest prescribed burning and adaptive management and where applicable meeting minimum standards;
- Extent of bushfire resilient forests;
- Extent of annual forest bushfires;
- Ongoing ratios of forest prescribed burning to bushfire area;
- Fire fighter safety;
- Community safety;
- Annual costs of bushfire disasters;
- Large aircraft costs and effectiveness;
- Learning capture and sharing;
- Insurance costs across bushfire effected areas;
- Emergency Service Levy costs to residents;
- Meeting accountability requirements; and
- Bushfire efficiency assessments undertaken.
Government and fire agency accountability lessons and insights in relation to current approaches to bushfire funding, mitigation, suppression, land and fire management and community protection
The third critical lesson and insight area relates to the effective capture of key bushfire accountability issues that the author considers aren’t currently being addressed properly.
Number 1. 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.
Number 2. The current bushfire expenditure distribution mix has a large focus on bushfire suppression, response and recovery focus, with limited fire mitigation. The approach needs to be much more focussed on bushfire prevention, mitigation and preparedness such as prescribed burning, adaptive mechanical treatment/ thinning of dense forests to reduce bushfire risks to communities and forests, combined with suppression. Fire mitigation and bushfire preparedness is inadequate and not effectively reducing suppression and recovery costs.
Number 3. Address failings of large centralised fire regime approaches that are costly to run and bureaucratic. Where possible establish regional/ local government fire bodies that manage fire mitigation effectively across landscapes, improve community and fire fighter safety, tackle the key fire issues that are not being adequately addressed and reduce insurance costs.
Number 4. Address failures of non-adoption of the science and experience in other jurisdictions that highlights the level of landscape burning needs to be 8-10% per annum if any significant bushfire risk reduction benefits are to be realised (e.g., refer to WA data including Boer et al. (2009) and other data on the WA Bushfire Front website). https://www.bushfirefront.org.au/prescribed-burning/why-prescribed-burning/
Number 5. Review why measures that make forest bushfire suppression easier, cheaper, quicker and safer (such as bushfire fighting and measures such as backburning) are not being adopted. Question why regular landscape prescribed burning and adaptive management are not being used adequately.
Number 6. There are inadequate measures, such as sound mitigation, preparedness and community protection, in place and limited accountability to address bushfire deaths and injuries including for fire fighters and communities and the huge costs of bushfire disasters. This is being borne out in Australia and overseas. Measures to reduce accountability failures include increased mitigation, fire resilience and sound community protection.
Number 7. There are inadequate measures in place and limited accountability in relation to addressing rising bushfire and other disaster insurance costs across regions of Australia. Urgently address high and rising bushfire (and flood) disaster insurance costs via increased preparedness and mitigation funding and actioning opportunities, as highlighted in this review. Establish firm government mitigation requirements where home insurances reach $5000 per year, it’s time for governments to get serious about protecting affected communities and reducing insurance costs, emergency services levies and the like.
Number 8. There are inadequate measures in place and limited apparent accountability in relation to addressing rising Emergency Service Levy costs across many areas of Australia
Number 9. There are extensive barriers, restrictions, red tape, poor policy, inadequate legislation and over regulation in place in relation to bushfire management. The answer involves around removal of barriers, restrictions and over regulation is and fire mitigation, active management, 3-6 year fire intervals and total focus on community and fire fighter safety.
Number 10. Question why the full costs of bushfire disasters on communities and opportunities to reduce disaster costs are not being captured and information used effectively. There are many economic reform and productivity opportunities across the spectrum of mitigation, prevention, suppression and recovery, including in regard to bushfires. Some of these opportunities include implementing cost effective opportunities as identified by Deloitte Access Economics (2013) and Menzies Centre (2020) report: including Government funding should prioritise risk reduction which will reduce the need to spend on disaster recovery.
Number 11. Conservation policy and management is failing in Australia and across the world. Undertake a review of fire and fuel management and policies across all Australian conservation reserves, including fuel history and locations of mitigation undertaken over the last 40 years; intense bushfire history over the last 40 years; consequent dense regrowth resulting from intense bushfires; and history of bushfire impacts on surrounding communities and properties and close shaves. This review would need to consider the Gospers Mountain Bushfire (reported as the largest individual bushfire in Australia’s history); bushfires across the Blue Mountains; Kosciusko bushfires of 2003 and 2019/ 20 and before; Warrumbungle’s (including 2013); Victorian alpine and other bushfires; Grampians bushfires, Little Desert and other bushfires as assessed.
Number 12. Consider the impact of Australian 30 by 30 approach (30 % nature conservation areas by 2030) on fire hazards, risks and threats to Australian communities, fire fighters, landholders/ neighbours and ecosystems, especially considering miniscule adaptive management that is often undertaken in nature conservation areas.
Conclusions
There are extensive lessons and insights provided above, summarised below:
- Economic reform lessons and insights in relation to current approaches to bushfire funding, mitigation, suppression, land and fire management and community protection (6 lessons and insights);
- Bushfire efficiency lessons and insights in relation to current approaches to bushfire funding, mitigation, suppression, land and fire management and community protection (9 lessons and insights); and
- Government and fire agency accountability lessons and insights in relation to current approaches to bushfire funding, mitigation, suppression, land and fire management and community protection (12 lessons and insights).
There are 27 economic, efficiency and accountability lessons and insights captured by the author in this review.
Benefits of an expanded federal/ state and local bushfire mitigation program to address bushfire mitigation and the issues above over say the next 6 years across Australian landscapes would include:
- Reduced individual bushfire disasters and associated costs, budget impacts and community/ firefighter and ecosystem impacts.
- Reduced ongoing repeat disasters and associated costs, budget impacts and community/ firefighter and ecosystem impacts.
- Reduced community bushfire deaths and safer firefighting.
- Better returns on investment than other projects.
- Regional infrastructure projects to assist economies.
- Reduced insurance premiums.
- Reduced cases of people without unaffordable insurance.
- Improved preparedness for war and terrorism.
- Reduced huge greenhouse gas impacts of intense bushfires;
- Reduction in the consequent wetter year impacts post intense bushfires as outlined by Fasullo et al (2023).
The opportunities are huge, it just takes government will, innovation, vision and protecting communities and firefighters and looking out for their interests.
Surely good effective governments, oppositions and fire agencies would capture these lessons and insights and get all the long term benefits of this.
Seriously, it’s well past time for this with the disasters we are seeing across Australia and overseas.
References
Boer MM, Sadler RJ, Wittkuhn RS, McCaw L, Pauline F. Grierson PF (2009) Long-term impacts of prescribed burning on regional extent and incidence of wildfires—Evidence from 50 years of active fire management in SW Australian forests, Forest Ecology and Management Volume 259, Issue 1, 5 December 2009, Pages 132-142.
Deloitte Access Economics (2013) “Building Our Nation’s Resilience to Natural Disasters” for the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities.
Florec and Pannell (2016) Economic assessment of bushfire risk management options in Western Australia: case studies in the Perth Hills and in the south-west of Western Australia. Report Prepared for the State Emergency Management Committee Secretariat, June.
Menzies Research Centre (2020) Strengthening Resilience: Managing natural disasters after the 2019-20 bushfire season.
Porter, K.A., Scawthorn, C.R. and Sandink, D. (2021). An Impact Analysis for Mitigating Wildland-Urban Interface Fires – Overview. For the National Research Council of Canada. Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, Toronto, ON, 5 p.