JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Fighting fire with fire: sometimes it goes wrong

Date

Craig Lapsley

The recent Lancefield bushfires highlight the need to have a plan and then use it.

Adam Watkins working with friends to save his home near Lancefield, north of Melbourne, earlier this month.

Adam Watkins working with friends to save his home near Lancefield, north of Melbourne, earlier this month. Photo: Justin McManus

Victoria faces another long and potentially difficult bushfire season. It is right to reflect upon last week's fires, but a more pressing need for all Victorians is to make sure they are prepared for the summer ahead. Bushfire conditions have arrived earlier than expected in several parts of the state. Victoria's fire and emergency agencies are more than adequately resourced to deal with this.

The predictions for a drier than usual spring are sobering. By the end of this coming week, significant fire weather conditions will again affect the state. This is the new normal. As a community we need to adapt and learn to live with the changes ahead.

People often seek absolute guarantees about bushfire. There are none, except that if you are not there when a bushfire comes you won't be harmed by it. If you are caught in the middle of one, there is a risk you will be killed. Every other course of action, no matter how well planned, carries a greater or lesser degree of risk. That was the harsh lesson of Black Saturday.

A bushfire that started as a controlled burn destroyed four houses in Lancefield in early October.

A bushfire that started as a controlled burn destroyed four houses in Lancefield in early October. Photo: Justin McManus

This simple reality underpins the fundamental message in Victorian over recent summers, that leaving high-risk areas early on days of severe fire danger and above will always be your safest option. That does not mean that your responsibility ends there. If your plan is to leave on days of high fire danger, there is much you can do to prepare your property to help ensure it is still there when you come home. If you plan to stay, there is much more to do. The fire agencies have a wealth of detailed information, available both online and in printed form. Your local brigade can help with advice too.  

Victorians are still learning to live with bushfire more than 180 years after European settlement. Most people will never experience a fire first hand. Yet increasingly, those who have not grown up with fire are moving into areas on the edges of our cities and towns and even deeper into the bush where bushfire is a threat every year. 

Our community is still learning that deliberately putting fire into the landscape, even with the best of motives, can have unintended consequences.

There has probably been more early uncontrolled fire in the Victorian landscape this year than in any previous year, certainly within memory. In the rush to apportion blame, let's not forget the intent of these burns – to reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire in the landscape. 

A number of burn-offs escaped – from both private and public land – leading to property losses and significant community impacts. Whether it be a property owner trying to minimise the risk on their own property or the fire and land management agencies trying to achieve this in the public estate, the intentions are good.

The precise circumstances of the largest escape, at Lancefield, are now subject to an independent review. Speculating further upon the event now is unfair and deflects attention from the pressing task at hand.

Even in the best possible circumstances, with the benefit of experience, the best information and adequate resources, things don't go to plan when fire is deliberately put into the landscape. No matter how conservative the approach, things can go wrong. Even when lit by the hand of man, fire remains a natural force.

Fire is also an essential part of the Australian environment. The challenge in the context of Victoria's modern fire landscape, in which more and more people are choosing to live, is to find a balance between using fire to fight fire and protecting both people and the environment. 

After the 2009 bushfires, enormous pressure was placed upon the state to reduce risk through increased planned burning of public land. A target of 5 per cent was recommended by the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. In 2014-15 fuel reduction works were carried out on 234,000 hectares. Since July 1, 2015, a further 16,456 hectares has been burned. Less than 2 per cent of planned burns escape.

Clearly how we use fire in the Victorian landscape as a preventative measure must more closely involve the community at a local level. Only then will communities be both informed and share responsibility for targeted planned burns – and own both their consequences and benefits. 

Even more importantly, Victorians must take time to review how they live with fire. Since the 2009 bushfires, there has been significant research into how people plan to respond to the threat of bushfire and what they actually do. The findings have been remarkably consistent and alarming. Only a small proportion of people actually plan what they will do in the event of a bushfire. An even smaller proportion stick to their plans.

The stark reality of seven major recent fire events across Australia is that on average only a tiny proportion of people left early – in other words, before a fire started. The first response of many people who remain is to "wait and see" even when a fire has broken out. After the experience of Black Saturday and successive summers of significant bushfire activity since, such community inertia – especially in areas where fires are known to occur – presents significant social challenges.

It's time now for another conversation – with family, friends, the local fire brigade – about what you are going to do when a bushfire threatens. That conversation needs to occur regularly and long before the flames are licking at the end of the street. 

Fundamentally, there are still only two options in a bushfire. You either leave or stay. Leaving early is not always easy but it remains the safest option. For those who do not have adequate bushfire survival plans, it is the only option that guarantees your life. 

Craig Lapsley is Victoria's Emergency Management Commissioner.

22 comments

  • The reality is, that this will only get worse. Global warming, loss of balanced habitats, the extension of grasslands, Australia needs to change the way bush communities are planned.

    There needs to be places to escape to, within each community, possibly even on every block, bunkers, towers, dams, even underground tunnels, places that people will be safe in during a fire. They need to be planned, constructed, and there needs to be education in how to use them.

    And the community needs to be reminded, constantly, that the house can be replaced.

    There needs to be investment in wind energy and solar in the bush to reduce infrastructure that can spark.

    Australia is nowhere near fire ready. The country side is drying out, and only getting drier.

    Commenter
    sarajane
    Location
    melbourne
    Date and time
    October 13, 2015, 7:32AM
    • If this is the "new normal", then the 10/50 bush fire clearing rules needs to be tossed out the window and homeowners need to be able to use common sense to set up a defense perimeter around structures. I'd like someone to explain the science that says 30 meter tall gum trees 11 meters from a house is safe? Native vegetation overlays also hamstring property owners and prohibit thinning the density of underbrush and saplings.

      If this is the new normal, councils can't have it both ways. Senior CFA or those with a fire science degree should be assessing individual properties and making suggestions about fire defense, not a twenty something council planner that lives in a suburban house.

      Commenter
      burnt
      Date and time
      October 13, 2015, 7:51AM
      • When a fire is severe, the fuel within 30 metres of your house is irrelevant. Hot embers flame and smoke are of the scale that 30 metres is nothing.

        A few large mature gum trees widely spaced may offer some protection from the horizontal wind forces that drive the flames towards the house. If the canopy of the gums are not interlocking then the chance of crowning is very low. All green leaves (even gum leaves) do also resist fire to some extent.

        Commenter
        Gordon
        Location
        Gippsland
        Date and time
        October 13, 2015, 8:39AM
      • In response to Gordon:

        No one in the bush wants city folk to tell them how to manage their property and gardens. The annual threat Of fire is terrifying.

        However, I also worry about the carve up of bush properties on the forest and rural fringes.
        Clearly if properties are smaller than the clearance radius from the building structure, then in theory, there would be no major vegetation left.

        So to maintain "safe" clearances in bush areas, large blocks are required just to maintain a healthy perimeter of trees. If councils ignore safe clearance dimensions when subdividing then clearly a major impasse exists.

        Hopefully these problems can be sorted in time. While no one wants people's lives at risk, most of us also don't want large scale large clearing on our forest/town fringes.

        Commenter
        Max
        Location
        Melbourne
        Date and time
        October 13, 2015, 10:32AM
    • If the frequency of burn off is reduced so is the danger that because of extra buildup of undergrowth will create a situation where a burn off may get out of control. When councils hamstring owners with red tape and make it difficult to get a permit or where crown land is infrequently burnt these type situations will occur.

      Commenter
      Bev
      Date and time
      October 13, 2015, 8:07AM
      • The real problem is that we are really only just starting to get and implement the idea of preventative burning but have the legacy of decade after decade of neglect. That neglect is quantified in the amount of understorey in so much of our bushland and in a large number of buildings in completely inappropriate locations generally or locally too close to native vegetation. The Aborigines seem to have had the bush in much better shape than it is now with the English using the expression 'like an English gentleman's park' to characterise its appearance. that was the impression right around the continent.

        It will take some fairly hard nosed application of 'constructrive burning' to get us anywhere near some new stable regime. The greens and nimby's will be out in force whining about it you can be sure.

        Otherwise just get used to catastrophic fires. The Aborigines had El Nino's to contend with too you know.

        Commenter
        Komrade Kuma
        Date and time
        October 13, 2015, 8:22AM
        • @Komrade. Yes, some people may be neglectful in where they build their houses, but as Craig points out, the authorities have not been neglectful in implementing fire mitigation since the Black Saturday Royal Commission. Bushfires in areas where there is a high fuel load has always been a problem even for indigenous people in the past who more than likely would have avoided being in such areas at the time of high fire risk. Whether there is a El Nino or not, the simple fact is that our climate has changed to such an extent that we have experienced and will again experience the likes of a megafire such as Black Saturday. Added to the increased danger is the fact that fuel load reduction is being reduced to a much shorter time frame. Remind yourself that we were only about one month after winter that saw the Lancefield burn get out of control. Damned if they do and damned if they don't, the public are looking for a scapegoat in the DEPI who, under pressure from the same public are doing their best to clear as much fuel load as they possibly can, but, because of climate change, are facing an ever increasing problem of a reduced time frame to achieve their goals.

          Commenter
          Skuze Me
          Date and time
          October 13, 2015, 9:42AM
      • It is worth reading "The Largest Estate on Earth" to get an idea of how aboriginals managed this issue. The evidence is quite surprising: aboriginals were able to keep the forests very tamed by annual burning, something way beyond our means at present.

        Commenter
        Gordon
        Location
        Gippsland
        Date and time
        October 13, 2015, 8:48AM
        • So Gordon, does the particular book suggest that the aborigines were able to 'tame' vast areas of mountain ash wilderness? Let's face it, they would have had an even much larger area to tame in the South-Eastern states before European settlement. I think you will find that their efficient fire management would have been conducted predominantly in the slower burning areas of open sclerophyll forest that dominate areas of inland Australia, well away from the taller and faster burning mountain ash woodlands where growth is stimulated by higher rainfall.

          Commenter
          Graeme
          Location
          Kensington
          Date and time
          October 13, 2015, 10:09AM
        • I'm surprised nobody mentioned that the Aborigines were a nomadic people. They very rarely stayed at one site too long. Their housing was very simple. If the fire got out of hand, they probably let it burn and moved off somewhere safer to rebuild their shelters. Today's housing is a tad more complex and permanent unless you live in a trailer or caravan.

          Commenter
          DFTT
          Date and time
          October 13, 2015, 3:04PM

      More comments

      Comments are now closed

      HuffPost Australia

      Featured advertisers

      Special offers

      Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo