Dixie fire, California

According to official sources the Dixie Fire in California (USA) has been burning since 14 July, across Plumas National Forest, Lassen National Forest, Lassen Volcanic National Park and five counties. It merged with the Fly Fire and as of 5 September had reached a burnt area of 360,000 hectares with 3,820 personnel deployed1. Fuel moistures are ‘historically low’ with light winds and relative humidity falling to 10% in the afternoons1.

The fire is currently reported as burning within containment lines1, but fire practitioner and commentator Zeke Lunder posted a report2 on 31 August about a backburn that escaped (they call it ‘firing’). He writes “we put four miles of extra fire on the ground, doubled the potential head of the fire and gave it a one-day head start going into a two-day wind event“2. He puts it down to the urge to “Do something! Do anything!” but “when the conditions set us up for failure“2.

Lunder includes a balanced discussion of backburning and the issues around ‘firing’ in risky conditions, even when they are successful. He also asks:

“Why are we still focused on containment, when it’s clear that parts of this fire are beyond our control? We are resorting to desperate measures that increase the negative outcomes of the fire, wearing out the firefighters we’ll need later when our escaped burns are knocking on back doors…”2

IBG Comment

  • IBG analysis shows the sort of situation reported by The Lookout occurred a number of times in our own Black Summer fires (see IBG report “Reducing the costs and Impacts of bushfires“ for examples).
  • Large backburns during drought conditions require thorough planning and preparation and well-resourced implementation plans. Not doing a backburn that has a high risk of escape can be an appropriate strategy. This option may reduce the overall impact of fire.
  • On the recommendation of a NSW Bushfire Inquiry after the 2019-2020 fires, the NSW Rural Fire Service adopted a new Operational Protocol for Backburning in February 2021. The previous version dated from 2006. However the new protocol was not based on rigorous analysis of successful and unsuccessful backburns. IBG regards the new OP as an important step forward but with several shortcomings, and look forward to its application in the field and its ongoing improvement.
  • The US InciWeb site is a fine example of how detailed information about fire events can be provided to assist the community . The site is “an interagency all-risk incident information management system” and was set up to 1) Provide the public a single source of incident related information and 2) Provide a standardized reporting tool for the Public Affairs community3.

NSW bushfire coronials start

The State Coroner is conducting a series of coronial inquests and inquiries relating to the 2019-20 NSW bushfire season (Black Summer). Public proceedings began on 25 August with an opening address from Counsel Assisting Adam Casselden, SC. He explained the process and listed 91 fires that would be examined. Public hearings will commence on 6 September at Lidcombe Coroners Court and will run into mid 2022 at several locations from south to north, to be followed by a second stage looking at selected case studies to highlight systemic issues emerging from the first stage.

Details of dates and locations of hearings and which fires will be covered can be found in the Public Hearings Information Paper. Hearings will be live-streamed.

The main focus is on the origin and cause of fires, and on fires that caused the 25 deaths and property loss. Mr Casselden also mentioned the impacts on wildlife and environment. Official information emphasises that “coronial hearings are not a trial”, and says that: “The purpose is to inquire into relevant events and gather information about what happened. The purpose of the proceedings is not to lay blame or to make decisions about the liability of any person or organisation because of the fires”.

The Sydney Morning Herald report of the opening address described the coroner’s approach regarding previous inquiries, fuel levels and backburning.

IBG comment

  • Neither the NSW Independent Bushfire Inquiry nor the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements were able to examine specific bushfire events in any detail. These Coronial inquiries are capable of filling this critical gap, and IBG has high hopes that in doing so they will be able to extract critical lessons learned.
  • IBG strongly supports that the coronial inquiries will not lay blame or assign liability. All bushfire review processes should be blame-free and focus on what happened not who did it.
  • IBG continues to stress the need for detailed technical analysis of fires, something that does not feature in any recent or current NSW process. Such analysis would produce a common understanding of the facts (what happened) to then enable critical review of what worked and what could be done better.
  • The coronial process is rather opaque, but it is understood that investigating police have submitted briefs of evidence with witness statements. It is unknown what events or issues have been identified for further investigation, or what role the government will play.
  • It is hoped that the process involves expert independent advice on the science and practice of bushfire suppression.

Reference links

Bushfire Survivors win historic legal case on climate

On 26 August the NSW Land and Environment Court handed down an historic ruling. Chief Justice of the Court Brian Preston found that the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has a duty to take serious action on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The case was mounted by Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action (BSCA), represented by the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO).

The EDO said: “This is the first time an Australian court has ruled on a government agency failing to perform a statutory duty to address climate change.” The court found “the EPA is compelled by its own legislation to seriously address the state’s greenhouse gas emissions and climate change”.1

BSCA President Jo Dodds said:…the EPA must now also work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Global warming is creating the conditions that can lead to hotter and fiercer fires, and all of us need to work to make sure we’re doing everything we can to prevent a disaster like we saw during 2019 and 2020.2

Justice Preston’s ruling says: “The Environment Protection Authority, in accordance with s 9(1)(a) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW), is to develop environmental quality objectives, guidelines and policies to ensure environment protection from climate change.”

 In his judgement, Justice Preston wrote that while the EPA had argued it had “developed instruments in ostensible performance of its duty, I have found that those instruments did not meet the statutory description of the instruments required” by the Act.3

The ABC reported that the Court “did not find that the EPA should act on specific targets”, and that the EPA was reviewing the judgement and implications.4

In The Conversation, environmental law academic Laura Schuijers wrote that “…simply having policies and strategies isn’t enough. The court made it clear aspirational and descriptive plans won’t cut the mustard if there’s nothing to ‘set any objectives or standards, impose any requirements, or prescribe any action to be taken to ensure the protection of the environment’.”5

  • 1 “Bushfire Survivors Hail Landmark Legal Win On Climate“, EDO website, 26 August 2021
  • 2 “Bushfire Survivors Hail Landmark Legal Win On Climate“, EDO website, 26 August 2021
  • 3 Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorporated v Environment Protection Authority [2021] NSWLEC 92, decision date 26 August, 2021, NSW Case Law website, http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17b7569b9b3625518b58fd99
  • 4 “Bushfire survivors win landmark climate change case against NSW EPA“, ABC NSW Country Hour, 26 August 2021
  • 5 “Bushfire survivors just won a crucial case against the NSW environmental watchdog, putting other states on notice“, The Conversation, 27 August, 2021

IBG comment

  • Rapidly reducing Australia’s own emissions and acting strenuously on the world stage are critical to reducing future damage from bushfires. We must also adapt our fire management methods for already locked-in climate change.
  • This case, and several others recently, shows that governments cannot just put high-sounding words into legislation and then fail to deliver on them. People notice, they take action, and courts take a dim view.
  • Schuijers’ comment that “simply having policies and strategies isn’t enough” reflects IBG concerns with many bushfire documents, notably the way NSW inquiry recommendations are being tracked, with no measures for success.
  • The ruling could be a profound step in the right direction…or it could be ignored or side-stepped. Australian governments have in the past amended legislation that has become troublesome.

Reference links

Fraser Island bushfire review

The bushfire that burnt more than half of Queensland’s world heritage listed K’gari (Fraser Island) in 2020 has been the subject of much media comment and public debate, as well as a review by the state’s Inspector General of Emergency Management (IGEM).

Most recently, an ABC story highlighted that the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service declined an offer to waterbomb the fire in its early stages1.

The IGEM review was announced even before the fire was out and the report was delivered less than 5 months later in May 2021. It was “a report into the effectiveness and preparedness activities and the response to the bushfire” and made 38 recommendations2. In its response, the Queensland Government supported all recommendations (14 of them “in principle”)3.

Notably, the final IGEM recommendation was that “this report be returned to the
IGEM to monitor, evaluate and report on progress and implementation of the
recommendations that are accepted in whole or in part by government“.

  • 1 “Queensland Parks and Wildlife initially rejected QFES waterbombing offer for Fraser Island bushfire, documents reveal”, ABC News online, 22 August 2021
  • 2 “K’gari (Fraser Island) Bushfire Review”, State of Queensland (Inspector-General Emergency Management), 27 May 2021
  • 3 “‘K’gari (Fraser Island) Bushfire Review Report – Queensland Government Response” (no date)

IBG comment

  • IBG believes this sort of independent review is very much needed in NSW, they should be routine, and they need to be followed up to ensure recommendations lead to the desired change.
  • The NSW Independent Bushfire Inquiry did a good job within its limitations, but could not look deeply into specific fires.
  • Nearly two years after Black Summer the public hearings for the coronial inquiries are only just getting underway, and will extend into the middle of 2022. Besides, coronials are not the best way to deal with operational matters.
  • IBG has called for the establishment of an independent inspector general of emergency management for NSW.
  • The sort of review Queensland’s IGEM did into the K’Gari fire also has its shortcomings. Most importantly, it did not start with an independent analysis of the fire. Without all the facts ‘on the table’ it will always be difficult to identify and reach agreement on what happened and hence what could be done better. A fire analysis would objectively study what the fire did and what the responses were in relation to all the variables like weather and resources.
  • The cost of proper bushfire reviews would be a tiny fraction of the expenditure during the Black Summer fires, and of what future seasons could cost.
  • We will not comment on the specifics of the K’Gari bushfire operation because we don’t know enough details. However it is noted that many of the issues aired have also been of concern in NSW.

Reference links

Australia gets stark warning from IPCC

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its latest report on 9th August, with very bad news for bushfires in Australia.

In a nutshell, the analysis finds that the conditions conducive to disastrous fires will get worse, even in the best case scenario.

Australia has already heated more than the rest of the world due to local factors, and winter rainfall has diminished in the south. Droughts and days of extreme heat will multiply.

ANU’s Professor Mark Howden, a lead author on the report, says that The conditions that generate fire weather are likely to increase in both frequency and intensity.1

Professor Howden also said it was increasingly clear climate change has played a significant role in extreme heat events in many regions, including the 2019-2020 Black Summer fires here and current events in Europe and North America.2

On Australia, the IPCC says:

Frequency of extreme fire weather days has increased, and the fire season has become longer since 1950 at many locations (medium confidence). The intensity, frequency and duration of fire weather events are projected to increase throughout Australia (high confidence)…3

IBG comment

  • The Climate Council, Emergency Leaders for Climate Action, numerous scientists and IBG have been warning of the bushfire threat from human-induced climate change for years.
  • Bigger, hotter and more frequent fires could devastate human and natural communities.
  • As well as moving strenuously to reduce carbon emissions, Australia must adapt to this threat by escalating its capacity to manage the impacts of bushfires.
  • IBG put this argument in our submissions to the NSW Independent Bushfire Inquiry and the Royal Commission Into National Natural Disaster Arrangements (see Our reports).
  • IBG has been pushing for smaller fires and prepared communities.
  • We need faster initial attack, better strategies, more analysis and learning, targeted research and investment in community resilience.
  • Some improvements are happening, but much more needs to be done.
  • 1 “UN’s ‘code red’ climate warning a burning issue for Australia’s fire risk”, Mike Foley, Sydney Morning Herald, 15 Aug 2021
  • 2 Ditto
  • 3 IPCC Regional Factsheet – Australia

Reference links