A report on ACT bushfire management since 2003’s inferno, published this week by the ACT Multi Hazard Advisory Council, the successor to the ACT Bushfire Council, states that bushfire management arrangements have significantly improved over the last two decades, but finds that challenges remain in bushfire management.
“If we look back at where we were 20 years ago, we’re leaps and bounds ahead,” Rohan Scott, chief officer of the ACT Rural Fire Service, said.
Twenty years ago this month, Canberra was hit by devastating bushfires that killed four people, destroyed nearly 500 homes and 23 commercial premises, burnt 70 per cent of the ACT, and caused at least $610 million in damage. While a prolonged dry period and catastrophic fire weather caused the bushfires, the report states, the crisis was fuelled by administrative shortcomings, including people without bushfire experience in key positions, inadequate resources, ineffective tactics, and poor communication.
The ACT Government has since invested in resourcing, better technology, better training for staff and volunteers, and better messaging for the community, Mr Scott explained – all issues that, according to the report, contributed to the 2003 bushfires.
The Emergencies Act 2004 established the ACT Emergency Services Agency (ESA) and a statutory planning framework, including the Strategic Bushfire Management Plan (SBMP), which co-ordinates the efforts and guides investment by those managing bushfire risk in the ACT. Before 2003, no such strategic framework for bushfire management existed, and bushfire management was comparatively uncoordinated, the report states. The SBMP, now in its fourth iteration (2019–24), shifted the emphasis from response to be more balanced across prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and research; it is now, the report reads, “a truly comprehensive plan for the management of bushfire risk by the ACT Government and community”.
The Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate (EPSDD) has substantially increased bushfire risk reduction activities (fuel management, improving access for bushfire suppression) since 2003, the report finds.
“But we can’t become complacent,” Mr Scott said. “We’ve got to constantly look for new technologies, new innovations, and better ways to suppress, predict, and prepare.”
Climate change is causing longer, more frequent, more severe periods of bushfire danger, the report warns; the bushfire season is starting earlier, and lasting longer, creating long campaigns of bushfire management rather than single significant bushfires.
“Given climate change and forecast increased length, severity, and frequency of bad fire seasons, we need to take the opportunity now to think about what we need in the future,” Dr Sally Troy, the council’s chair said.
Justin Foley, ACT Parks and Conservation Service, said that as the ACT’s parks recovered from the 2019/20 bushfires, the fuel load had started to increase. That meant they would have to think about fuel management in the near term, rather than the long term.
In Dr Troy’s view, an evolution is needed: the ACT must move from a sole focus on the ESA and Parks and Conservation Service to the government and the community taking responsibility for fire preparedness and recovery.
“There’s more that can be done in making sure all members of the community are aware of their risk, and aware of what they will need to do in the event of fire,” she said.
Mr Scott agrees. “A prepared and resilient community makes planning to act when an incident does occur a lot easier and safer for them – and it also makes our job as firefighters more effective because we can actually suppress the incident rather than trying to protect the community,” he said.
The report makes 23 recommendations to address eight key issues, including more resourcing for the ESA and Parks and Conservation Service, which may reach the limits of their capacity; increasing the number of Community Fire Units, residents trained by ACT Fire and Rescue to protect their homes, in bushfire prone suburbs; and ensuring that homes on the urban edge are bushfire resistant.
Mick Gentleman, ACT Minister for Emergency Services, said that the government would formally respond to the report in the not-too-distant future, but that it could work through some of the recommendations now, and include them in the fifth SBMP (2024).
Agencies need sufficient operational capability and supportive government policy, but, the council warns, without more money, the ESA and the Parks and Conversation Service may reach the limits of their capacity to improve and innovate fire mitigation and suppression. In previous years, the explicit accompanying statement of resources and capabilities needed to implement the SBMP was either not forthcoming or opaque. “The resources provided are spread thinner and thinner, resulting in an ever-decreasing standard of protection,” the report states.
The council recommends that the government develop 10-year capability plans for relevant government agencies; review policies to increase the capability for bushfire risk management; and assess the annual resource levels required to implement the SBMP.
The government had increased funding for ESA in the last budget from $178 million to $193 million for the next financial year, Mr Gentleman observed.
Since 2003, the ACT has established 58 Community Fire Units (CFUs) in many suburbs where there is a high risk of bushfire. ACT Fire and Rescue trains and equips these teams of residents to protect their homes during bushfires until the fire services arrive. There are 850 active members, but the report finds that four CFUs have difficulty recruiting members, while some new suburbs in the Molonglo Valley and North Gungahlin, zoned as bushfire prone areas, do not have CFUs at all.
The council recommends that the government increase the number of CFUs to ensure all bushfire prone suburbs have appropriate CFU capability, and develop a five-year plan to attract, grow, and maintain a larger volunteer workforce.
The government would continue to recruit CFU and bushfire volunteers in western suburbs, Mr Gentleman said. They had recently held open days and barbeques in the Denman Prospect, and this engagement activity had brought a lot of interest from people wanting to join as volunteers.
The council also warns that the growing urban-edge population must be protected from bushfires. Dr Tony Bartlett, a forest fire expert and member of the council, predicts that as Canberra’s population doubles over the next two decades, more Canberrans will live on the western side, exposed to bushfires; he insists that new houses must be able to withstand bushfire risks.
The National Construction Code (which the ACT follows) requires buildings in bushfire prone areas to be bushfire resistant, Mr Gentleman remarked. While the government intends that 70 per cent of growth (infill) will be in the current urban footprint, Mr Gentleman wants to minimize as much risk as possible in future planning towards the western edge.
“We all need to be aware that we’re in a city in a landscape – and it’s bushfire-prone,” Mr Gentleman said.
