Fire prevention and preparedness

PART 4 FIRE HAZARD MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

4.1 The recent wildfires of 2002-03 brought the significance of hazard management, particularly fuel reduction burning, into public focus. The news media drew attention to the levels of highly combustible fuel in forests, on grasslands and near residential areas, and questions were asked of governments whether these fire “hazards” were managed properly.

4.2 Fuel reduction burning is not a panacea, and is only one of a suite of measures fire authorities can employ to mitigate the effects of wildfire. Fire management authorities must make decisions on the appropriate mix of measures for particular locations, taking into account issues like the severity of the season, proximity to residences, topography and vegetation.

4.3 In thinking about hazard management and wildfire, it is important to bear in mind 2 things. First, fuels are not the only fire hazards. A fire hazard can be a poorly sited residential area with an inadequate fire management plan. Second, fuel does not cause fire. Climatic conditions of high temperature, dry air, high winds and dry land, coupled with lightning or human activity (deliberate or accidental), are the basis for wildfire. However, an accumulation of dry ground fuel will increase the intensity of a fire and contribute to its spread and attendant damage.

4.4 The build-up of fuel is an inevitable part of Australia's ecology. Unlike climate, it can, in some forest types, be controlled through appropriate land management practices. The only effective means of broad-scale fuel reduction is by “prescribed burning” (sometimes referred to as “controlled burning”)¹.

4.5 The purpose of fuel reduction burning (and hazard management more broadly) is to ensure that fires are:

• of less intensity;

• are less likely to “spot”, where flaming leaves and bark fly ahead of the fire-front and ignite smaller fires;

• extend over a smaller geographic area; and

• are more economically and safely controlled.

4.6 There has been debate about the ecological impact of fuel reduction burning but, as research and understanding increases, there is more general agreement that periodic fires are inevitable in most native Victorian vegetation and are essential for a number of plant species.

4.7 The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) conducts fuel reduction burns on public land as part of its responsibility to reduce hazards and suppress fires in national parks and State forests. Prescribed burning is conducted at safe times, generally in autumn when the weather is mild.

4.8 However, there are risks associated with fuel reduction burns, not least because the climatic conditions under which a burn is effective are also the conditions under which fire can spread. Consequently, public land managers are cautious when undertaking burns, many of which take place in the vicinity of the very assets they aim to protect.

4.9 There are also limitations to the effectiveness of hazard management through fuel reduction:

• the burning is necessarily low intensity and does not always achieve a complete reduction in fuel levels; and

• under extreme conditions, a wildfire may still burn across land which has recently been fuel reduced.

4.10 Responsibility for fire hazard management on private land lies with property owners, and this is regulated largely by municipal planning through fire prevention plans. Because an obvious conflict exists between retaining bushland in a residential environment and removing all potential hazards, an agreed approach to managing these hazards has to be achieved between property owners, the community and local government.

Audit approach

4.11 In this Part of the report we address how Victoria’s rural fire agencies, the DSE, the Country Fire Authority (CFA) and municipal councils, have identified fire hazards on both public and private land, and managed those risks.

4.12 We examined reports, documents and processes, and carried out field inspections and interviews, to establish whether:

• there is clear responsibility assigned to relevant agencies for fire prevention activities, including hazard reduction;

• hazards are identified in a systematic way, and regularly reviewed;

• hazard management uses the most appropriate approach;

• the outcomes of hazard management programs are monitored; and

• prescribed burning conducted by the DSE on public land:

• complies with legal and policy requirements and is integrated with other management processes;

• meets ecological and environmental protection as well as hazard management requirements; and

• meets targets set down in the annual prescribed burning program.

Safe conduct of fuel reduction burning requires trained staff and expert supervision.

HAZARD REDUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND

4.13 The DSE is responsible for hazard management and fire suppression on public land in Victoria; specifically in national parks and State forests. Together, the DSE and the CFA enforce regulations aimed to minimise wildfires from both deliberate and accidental human cause.

4.14 The DSE also has discretionary power to direct removal of hazards on private property within 1.5 km of any national park or State forest, unless that power has been specifically transferred to the CFA for particular areas. This transfer has been progressively introduced in settled areas of rural Victoria but the physical boundaries delineating responsibilities are sometimes unclear.

4.15 Victoria’s 7.7 million hectares of parks and forest include approximately 60 000 kilometres of boundary area between public land and private property. It is not technically feasible to fuel-reduce the entire length of this boundary, and effective hazard management on both public and private land requires a strategic approach to fuel reduction burning for its success.

Planning for hazard reduction

4.16 The DSE has a systematic process to identify hazards and to manage risks, principally in safeguarding risk to life and properties.

4.17 Planning for fuel reduction burning takes place on 3 levels:

• The desirable level of fuel reduction burning is determined and documented in regional Fire Protection Plans. These plans are based on detailed mapping and modelling of each region, and are prepared on a 10-year timeline, which may be reviewed after 5 years.

• Operational planning for fuel reduction is documented in Fire Operations Plans. These plans are prepared on a rolling 3 year schedule, and spell out in greater detail areas identified for fuel reduction burning; and

• Individual burning plans are prepared in detail before any fuel reduction burn commences.

4.18 The DSE Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land defines a detailed process for preparation, maintenance and display of fuel reduction plans, and incorporates opportunity for public consultation as plans are developed.

4.19 The planning process addresses areas of risk across all of DSE public land, whether national park or State forest. Fuel management zones are identified from 1 to 5, as outlined in Table 4A. These classifications take into account risk to life and to property, as well as identifying areas for ecological protection from fire. Only zones 1 to 3 have specific fuel hazard reduction objectives.

TABLE 4A
DSE FUEL MANAGEMENT ZONES (FMZ)

Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Determining Fire Protection Plan targets

4.20 The methodology for establishing Fire Protection Plan targets is based on a detailed assessment of fire hazards within each region:

• plans are prepared using a comprehensive land information database which takes into account key values in each region – townships, built infrastructure, private assets and areas of particular ecological importance;

• hazards are systematically identified and documented, and priorities are established for risk reduction;

• the risks generated by combinations of vegetation type, elevation, ground slope and aspect are evaluated and maps of hazard class are prepared;

• the location of hazardsin relation to assets requiring protection is identified;

• records of the origin and causes of previous fires are examined;

• zones where fuel reduction burning may be an appropriate risk treatment are identified;

• limits are set for maximum desirable fuel loads in these zones;

• the necessary fire frequency and intensity to achieve fuel loads is estimated;

• the ecological consequences of the optimum fuel reduction regimes are evaluated and preferred prescriptions developed; and

• the resulting burn prescription is endorsed and included in Fire Protection Plans.

4.21 Fire Protection Plan targets for fuel reduction represent the ideal, i.e. they are very ambitious, aiming to maintain ideal fuel loadings by implementing an environmentally acceptable burning regime for every identified hazard in each risk category. Target levels established in Fire Protection Plans do not take into account “achievability factors” such as seasonal variation (which can dramatically reduce the number of days available for safe burning), resources available or the cost-effectiveness of fuel reduction burning as a risk treatment for the areas identified. These “achievability” factors are addressed in Fire Operations Plans.

RESPONSE provided by Secretary, Department of Sustainability and Environment

Fuel reduction, at its most “idealistic” level, would occur in any one year on around 3.3 per cent of the public land estate. A number of forest types (particularly the extensive “wetter” forests) cannot, for technical and ecological reasons, be fuel reduced using prescribed fire. As paragraph 4.34 makes clear, the use of prescribed fire for fuel reduction is but one of a suite of actions the Department can take to reduce the impact of subsequent wildfires.

Operational planning for fuel reduction burning

4.22 Fire Operations Plans establish projections for fuel reduction burning for each year, taking into account the suitability of conditions for safe conduct of burns and the seasonal resources available. These plans are prepared on a rolling 3-year cycle.

4.23 Fire Operations Plans are also an important part of the community consultation process of fuel reduction burning, and are the basis for consultation with the community on areas identified for possible fuel reduction in the coming 3 years. Because of this role, the projections set in Fire Operations Plans generally identify more areas for fuel reduction burning than takes place, and areas not burned in one year are rolled forward into the next year’s planning.

Planning for individual fuel reduction burns

4.24 The process for deciding how many, and where, prescribed burns will actually take place is complex. There is an exacting process for approval to conduct a prescribed burn. As well as the burn objectives and environmental values of the area, issues such as smoke management; advice of the planned burn to neighbours and other land users (such as beekeepers); roads and tracks which may need to be closed during the operation; water catchment issues; and assets requiring special protection, are all considered.

4.25 The prescriptions around weather conditions and the need to liaise with other agencies and the community means that regional managers have reduced flexibility for opportunistic burning. At least four days lead time is generally required, and labour costs and increased visitor numbers on weekends mean that generally burns are only scheduled on weekdays. The prescriptions around weather suitability mean that it is not unusual for a weather change, making it too wet or too dangerous to burn, to mean that a burn is cancelled even when all resources are in place.

4.26 Achieving fuel reduction burn targets can also be difficult because the DSE does not have a full-time, standby firefighting force. Fuel reduction burning is conducted by trained fire management staff who are normally employed full-time in forestry, national parks management, catchment management or other activities. Many of these staff are located in other business units and must be released from their ordinary duties in order to conduct fuel reduction burns.

The cost of fuel reduction burning

4.27 Because of the tight prescriptions, fuel reduction burning can be very costly. The estimated costs of prescribed burning vary significantly depending on the zone and the region. Fuel reduction burning in heavily populated Fuel Management Zone 1 (FMZ 1) areas such as the Dandenong Ranges is very labour intensive, whereas FMZ 1 burns in some country regions are less so. Burns in FMZ 3 can frequently be ignited from aircraft, and large areas can be fuel-reduced at low cost.

TABLE 4B
DSE COST RANGE OF PRESCRIBED BURNING,
BY FUEL MANAGEMENT ZONE²

Source: Department of Sustainability and Environment.

4.28 Each year a budget output target is established. In 2001-02 this target was 100 000 hectares. Around $2 million (approximately 4 per cent of the DSE’s fire management budget) is allocated to this activity. However, the budget allocation does not reflect the full cost of resources committed to fuel reduction burning, because when DSE staff from other business units are engaged in firefighting or fuel reduction burning, their salaries are charged against their normal duties within that other business unit.

Achieving fuel reduction targets

4.29 We found that prescribed burning on public land is conducted and managed safely. Specifically, we found:

• There are detailed prescriptions and preparations and an exacting approval process for every operation;

• Worker safety and prescribed practices are routinely subject to independent audit and reported as satisfactory; and

• Zoning to exclude ecologically sensitive areas reduces potentially negative environmental impacts. The approval process for each operation includes an inspection by flora and fauna specialists to identify specific values and to develop specific prescriptions for their protection.

4.30 Assessing achievement against fuel reduction targets is more problematic, not least because of the use of 3 fuel reduction “targets” and because of difficulties experienced by the DSE in producing data from central databases on targets and achievement. While the Department has a comprehensive and rigorous process for centrally monitoring approval of fuel reduction burns, less attention has been paid to centrally monitoring and reporting on performance.

CHART 4C
  FUEL REDUCTION BURNING, TARGETS AND ACHIEVEMENT

(a) From 1999-2000, informal regional targets for fuel reduction burning were replaced by Fire Operations Plan targets, which represent the aggregate area available for burning in any year.

Source: Victorian Auditor-General's Office, from information provided by the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

4.31 Chart 4C summarises the DSE’s performance against its prescribed burning targets over the past eight years. In this period, the DSE has achieved:

• 36 per cent of the optimal prescribed burning targets set by the DSE in Fire Protection Plans;

• 54 per cent of the annual area identified and advised to stakeholders in the Fire Operations Plans; and

• 71 per cent of the output target.

4.32 The impact of achievement or underachievement of fuel reduction targets needs to be considered with care. The actual risk reduction achieved through fuel reduction burning is not directly proportional to the area that has been fuel reduced. Successfully reducing fuel loads in 100 hectares in FMZ 1 (the highest risk zone) may achieve a significantly greater reduction in risk than fuel reducing 100 hectares in FMZ 2 or 3.

CHART 4D
FUEL REDUCTION BURNING AVERAGE REGIONAL ACHIEVEMENT, 1994-95 TO 2001-02

,

Source: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, from information provided by the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

4.33 The above chart shows the average annual achievement of fuel reduction burning in regions compared with that region’s Fire Protection Plan target for the period 1994-95 to 2001-02. The percentage achievement varies from 9 per cent to 60 per cent. The substantial variability in achievement against target partly relates to different approaches to establishing operational targets in each region. Operational factors also have a significant impact on whether prescribed burning targets can be met. These factors include:

• Limited opportunities. Factors such as the combination of forest type, fuel load, elevation and weather conditions means there are between 4 and 20 days in each year in any one area that are suitable for safe fuel reduction burning. In regions with a high proportion of interface areas, where fuel reduction burning must be conducted in close proximity to residences, there may be a very small number of opportunities to safely conduct fuel reduction burns;

• Competition for physical resources. DSE regional managers implement planned fuel reduction burning under service agreements with the Fire Management Branch. There are similar agreements to provide works and services to several other DSE branches. The mild weather conditions required for fuel reduction burning are also suitable for most of the activities undertaken by the DSE including regeneration burning and ecological burning. Fuel reduction burning is not always the highest priority among these competing priorities. This means some opportunities will inevitably be missed due to competition for physical resources;

• Availability of experienced supervisors. Approval to conduct an operation requires the presence of experienced and accredited supervisors (Level 2 and Level 3 firefighters). These officers are mainly forest officers who are required to manage fire suppression and fuel reduction works in addition to their other substantive duties. There is a limited number of trained staff available;

• Risk aversion by DSE managers. DSE staff are acutely aware that they will be heavily criticised, and that damages are likely to be sought from the DSE, if a fuel reduction burn escapes and causes damage. Even when burns are conducted without incident, many DSE staff are sensitive to community criticisms of the impact of prescribed burns on local amenity, particularly the associated smoke pollution, and this increases their caution in undertaking fuel reduction burns; and

• No immediate impacts of failure to achieve targets. When fuel reduction burning targets are not met, planned burns are transferred to the next year’s schedule. There are usually no immediate impacts of failure to achieve planned burn targets, and managers in an operational environment often choose to resource alternative activities that have more immediate consequences.

RESPONSE provided by Secretary, Department of Sustainability and Environment

Chart 4D measures fuel reduction area achievement against Fire Protection Plan areas. Audit has explained in paragraph 4.21 that Fire Protection Plan areas do not take into account “achievability factors” such as seasonal conditions and financial resources. The output target, reported annually at State level, and mentioned in paragraph 4.31, does to an extent, take into account “achievability factors”.

Improving strategic management of hazard reduction

4.34 At a strategic level, the audit identified the following issues associated with the DSE’s current planning and management of fuel reduction burning:

• Difficulty of determining the relative effectiveness of fuel reduction burning against other mitigation measures. Fuel reduction burning is one of a number of countermeasures available to reduce the impact and severity of wildfires, and fire managers must make decisions on the most appropriate and cost-effective risk treatments. Achievement of the “ideal” level of burning set out in Fire Protection Plans would require a significant increase in the level of resources committed to this activity, and a consequent reduction in resources available for other activities. However, the DSE is not currently in a position to perform robust cost-benefit analysis of the value of transferring resources from other risk treatments, such as better detection, better access and more and better-prepared equipment and personnel, to increase the resources dedicated to fuel reduction burning. The DSE does not have a sound process for determining priority between the range of options and for evaluating options in terms of their impact on risk;

• Failure to quantify residual risks. While the DSE planning methodology identifies priority areas for treatment, and the Fire Operations Plans each year include shortfalls in achievement in the previous year, there are no risk-based measures to establish the level of residual risk if burning has been deferred. Because of the extreme seasonal variability and the high frequency with which fuel reduction burning is deferred, it is important that measures are established to quantify residual risks, and clear planning protocols are established to guide regional managers in decision-making as residual risk levels accrue;

• Lack of clarity on purpose and definition of “targets” for fuel reduction burning. Fuel reduction targets published by the DSE advise of what are in effect 3 fuel reduction “targets”:

• the “optimal” target advised in Fire Protection Plans;

• the operational projection advised in Fire Operations Plans; and

• the output target reported in the Budget Papers annually.

The “target” of greatest importance to both the DSE and to the community, the level of risk reduction achieved each year through the conduct of prescribed burning, is not routinely reported; and

• Failure to capitalise on opportunities in low fire risk years. The Department advises that, unlike other areas of fire preparedness, fuel reduction burning costs should peak in years of lower than average fire risk, since these are generally the periods when greatest fuel reductions can be achieved. Currently, seasonal firefighter numbers tend to be reduced in these years as suppression needs are lower. Seasonal firefighting staff also generally cease in late February or early March, just as the most suitable period for fuel reduction burning commences. This reduces the DSE’s capacity to conduct fuel reduction burns in the years that it has the greatest opportunity to reach target levels.

4.35 Options for improving fuel reduction performance include:

• Establishing sound processes for determining priorities. Extensive modelling needs to be undertaken to determine the most appropriate risk treatments, and determine the relative priorities for fire prevention and other works. The DSE commenced a project of this nature in 1999 but they do not currently have the expert staff for such a task. Further work of this nature is critical in allocating appropriate levels of resourcing to all fire prevention and preparedness activities. The establishment of the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre may assist with developing the necessary expertise.

• Measuring and reporting on risk reduction. The current process for planning fuel reduction activity and setting targets in Fire Protection Plans is based on a sound methodology, and needs to be retained. Regional Managers should not be discouraged from making a clear and rigorous assessment of the commitment required to achieve an optimal result in fuel reduction burning. However, performance against these targets should be measured in terms of the degree of risk reduction achieved, not just in hectares fuel reduced. Because of the cost differential and the increased difficulty and risk of undertaking fuel reduction burning in FMZ 1, a pre-occupation with achieving fuel reduction targets measured purely in hectares could lead to an emphasis on low cost rather than high risk areas. The relative risk in each burning zone needs to be established so that available resources and opportunities are allocated to achieve the maximum reduction in risk;

• Clarifying internal funding arrangements. Currently resources for fuel reduction burning are provided by agreement with other operational areas, and the level of resources provided in the DSE’s budget reflects only part of the real cost. This has 3 consequences:

• the DSE’s level of corporate commitment to the achievement of fuel reduction targets lacks transparency;

• operational managers setting targets each year lack certainty that resources will be available to achieve projected targets; and

• the full cost of fuel reduction burning is not determined and, as a result, rigorous cost-benefit analysis of fuel reduction burning against other alternative risk treatments is difficult.

Provision of additional dedicated funding for fuel reduction burning with the understanding that staff used from other areas may be charged to the activity would increase the level of certainty that operational managers will be able to obtain staff when they are needed and increase transparency around the level of commitment the DSE makes to the activity;

• Introducing greater flexibility into annual funding arrangements. Currently, the DSE is funded for fire management on a base budget that is sufficient for the needs of a “below average” fire season (approximately one year out of 5) and is able to access additional funds from the Treasurer’s Advance for years when the fire risk is higher. However, this arrangement has the effect of reducing the numbers of seasonal staff in the years of low fire risk that are suitable for undertaking higher levels of fuel reduction burning;

• Implementing enhanced central reporting of fuel reduction performance. As well as extending the basis of reporting to encompass reporting on risk, closer central monitoring of regional performance against Fire Protection Plan and Fire Operations Plan targets needs to be undertaken. This could include measuring regional performance in terms of available opportunities. The difficulties of achieving fuel reduction targets in seasons where there are few windows of opportunity are recognised, however, there appears to be substantial regional variation in achievement against targets, and it would be useful if the DSE was to monitor the extent to which regional managers were able to capitalise on available opportunities;

• Increasing the availability of accredited field supervisors;

• Extending the availability of Project Fire-fighters. Extending the period of employment of seasonal Project Fire-fighters with priority directed to hazard reduction works;

• Increasing opportunities to involve CFA volunteers. Introducing arrangements that encourage additional weekend work to increase the available suitable days, would increase the opportunity for CFA volunteer involvement. To involve CFA volunteers in the fuel reduction burning program has the added advantage of providing them with invaluable experience that can be applied in a fire suppression situation as the techniques used are the same as in a back burning operation; and

• Increasing public information on fuel reduction burning. Fuel reduction burning is one of the more difficult public relations issues for the DSE and for regional staff. In the climate immediately following the fires of 2002-03, there is some criticism for burns not completed, whereas in seasons where the community has a lower level of risk perception, there is often significant criticism when burns conducted impact on local amenity. Public opinion will always vary in any issue as complex as fuel reduction burning, but increasing information on the necessity for tight prescriptions and on the measures taken to protect the environment may assist.

Recommendations

4.36 We recommend that the DSE:

• supplements the current area targets for fuel reduction burning with measures that more accurately reflect the level of risk reduction being sought and achieved, and reports results;

• fully costs fuel reduction burning activities within its internal budgeting process, allocates appropriate funding levels and allocates the cost of staff employed from other business units;

• in consultation with the Department of Treasury and Finance, considers revised funding arrangements to introduce greater flexibility to allow for differing levels of funding to reflect factors such as seasonal variations;

• introduce strategies to increase the availability of accredited field supervisors and the associated work force (e.g. through greater use of weekend work and the opportunity for CFA volunteers to participate); and

• provides increased public information regarding the fuel reduction burning program and the measures taken to protect the environment.

RESPONSE provided by Secretary, Department of Sustainability and Environment

Fire management on public land strives to achieve a balance between prevention and preparedness to respond while recognising that even high levels of hazard reduction will not guarantee the absence of wildfire. The Department welcomes audit’s suggestions while noting that there is range of environmental variables involved that significantly complicate the measurement of risk mitigation achieved by fuel reduction burning. Such variables include: vegetation type, slope, aspect, soil type, longer-term and more immediate weather factors. A range of management factors are also relevant, including time to initial detection of a wildfire, the condition of the road and track network, the nearest fire crew, aircraft availability and firefighter fitness levels.

FIRE PREVENTION ON PRIVATE LAND

4.37 Responsibility for fire hazard management on private land in Victoria rests with the land owner. The CFA and municipalities act together to ensure that hazards are managed by the owners or occupiers of private land. There are instances, however, where the responsibility for hazard management is less clear, or where shortcomings exist:

• In 2002, a CFA-commissioned best practice review of municipal fire prevention identified unclear ownership of plan preparation and implementation. While the CFA has the power to appoint municipal fire prevention committees under the Country Fire Authority Act 1958, the committees are chaired by fire prevention officers of the municipal council. We discuss this further later in this Part of the report; and

• Municipalities are required under section 55A of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 to prepare and maintain a municipal fire prevention plan, but there is no sanction for failing to do so. Nor is there any sanction for failing to implement the plan. Although the CFA conducts 3-yearly audits of the quality of the plans, it has no power under the legislation to audit the plan’s implementation.

Effective planning controls can ensure that new homes in interface areas are designed and landscaped to minimise the wildfire risk.

Statutory planning controls

4.38 We noted in Part 2 of this report that the State Planning Policy Framework administered by the DSE allows municipal planning schemes to identify wildfire prone areas as Wildfire Management Overlays (WMOs). Where WMOs are in place, the CFA is a referral authority under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This requires the municipal council to take heed of any planning permit requirements set by the CFA. Requirements include the location, design and vegetation management and may refer to building construction requirements. If municipal councils have not identified WMOs, the CFA does not become involved as a referral authority.

4.39 According to CFA records, only 22 of 63 CFA-covered municipalities have WMOs in place. While all these councils may not require a WMO, the failure to implement an overlay where there is a risk of wildfire points to potentially poor mitigation decisions in rural residential areas, and at the interface of private and public land.

4.40 Under the Subdivision Act 1988 the CFA are a referral authority for subdivisions which create a road. The CFA must be asked for input prior to a subdivision proceeding. These provisions only apply for subdivisions after 1987.

Municipal fire prevention

4.41 The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 states that both regional and municipal fire planning committees may be appointed by the CFA. As listed in the Act, the functions of both committees are similar: identifying fire hazards, submitting recommendations to reduce fire risks and acting as a consultative forum.

4.42 Prior to the amalgamation of councils over the period 1993 to 1995, co-ordination of fire prevention planning by regional fire prevention committees was generally necessary. However, since that time, some regions (for instance, all regions in CFA Gippsland and South-West areas) have suspended their operation. The new larger municipalities each now facilitate a municipal fire prevention committee that covers a similar area to the original regional fire prevention committee. We support the phasing out of the regional committees.

4.43 The CFA conducts 3-yearly audits of municipal fire prevention plans prepared by the municipal fire prevention committees to ensure conformity with the requirements of the Country Fire Authority Act. The 2001 audit found that 47 of the 63 municipalities within CFA areas had a fully conforming plan. Eight of the 16 that did not meet all criteria were reported as undertaking remedial work on their plans. The remainder have been directed to provide a time frame for further review.

Areas for improvement

4.44 As noted earlier, the CFA’s Municipal Fire Prevention - Best Practice Review revealed significant variation in council performance on fire prevention. We confirmed weaknesses in existing arrangements and support the following initiatives recommended as a result of the review:

• revising the CFA Municipal Fire Prevention Planning Guidelines (1997) to:

• incorporate practical examples of better practice;

• clarify outcomes that reflect legislative responsibilities; and

• develop integration with other community safety processes;

• improving the status given to fire prevention activities within municipalities;

• improving the integration of planning and implementation to bring public, private, voluntary and stakeholder groups together;

• reviewing the current regional and municipal fire prevention committee structure to reduce duplication and better focus available resources; and

• introducing auditing powers under the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 so that the CFA can assess the implementation of municipal plans.

4.45 In addition to these issues, we identified the following areas for further improvement:

• Effective fire prevention within the municipal environment requires technical skills in strategic planning, risk assessment and management skills, including negotiation, communication and relationship building. In some municipalities, the fire prevention function is primarily seen as a matter of enforcing by-laws without any profile at a management level;

• Given the increased number of CFA brigades within each municipality, the average number of delegates to a fire prevention committee is 19. Some committees have more than 40 members and are, at best, community consultative forums rather than effective advisory bodies. Forming smaller executive committees within the existing committee arrangements would assist them to become effective and to shift in status; and

• Existing arrangements would also work more efficiently and effectively if CFA group and brigade boundaries were re-aligned to municipal boundaries. With the amalgamation of municipalities, some geographically adjoining CFA groups and brigades are represented on different municipal fire prevention committees. This change needs to be sponsored by the CFA and will require careful negotiation with affected brigades. However, the benefits are improved fire prevention co-ordination and management.

4.46 As well as changes to municipal fire prevention planning, we also support continued reporting by the CFA to meet the requirements of section 44 of the CFA Act. This section of the Act requires area managers to report twice yearly to the CFA on the degree of compliance with the Act within their area of responsibility. The format and process is being upgraded and is to be included in the CFA's internal audit procedures.

Recommendations

4.47 We recommend that:

• The DSE and the CFA ensure thatmunicipalities give high priority to meeting the fire protection requirements of the State Planning Policy Framework and continue to work to improve the standard of municipal fire prevention planning;

• The CFA promptly implement the recommendations of its Municipal Fire Prevention - Best Practice Review. Particular priority should be given to reintroducing amendments to the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 to provide the CFA with the power to audit the implementation of municipal fire prevention plans;

• Municipal and regional fire prevention committees be reorganised to provide a clearer focus on the planning and management of fire prevention; and

• The CFA commence the process of re-aligning brigade and group boundaries with municipal boundaries.

CONCLUSION

4.48 Hazard reduction burning on public land has been conducted safely and generally without incident by the DSE in recent years. However there has been a consistent failure to achieve all of the DSE’s hazard reduction “targets” over the past 8 years. The significance of this failure is difficult to determine. Hazard reduction burning is one of a number of strategies that can be employed to reduce the risk and severity of wildfire, and the understanding of the relative benefit and effectiveness of each of these strategies in reducing the risk is still imperfect. Increasing this understanding is one of the key challenges facing our wildfire managers.

4.49 The DSE is to be commended for setting out clear statements of desirable objectives for fuel reduction burning in Fire Protection Plans and for establishing solid processes for community consultation as these plans are developed. However, the overall budget allocation for hazard reduction and internal arrangements for funding mean that the DSE is unable to achieve the “ideal” fuel reduction targets and its commitment to achieving these targets is not transparent.

4.50 Hazard reduction on private land is managed through the municipal fire prevention planning process and significant changes are urgently required in order to increase its effectiveness. The potential of Wildfire Management Overlays to guide development in fire-prone areas, so that home owners locate, design and landscape their properties to give them the best chance of withstanding a fire, is not being fully utilised. The CFA’s ability to oversee municipal fire protection planning is hampered by their inability to audit plans, and the absence of sanctions for municipalities that fail to prepare a plan.

4.51 One of the important issues in managing wildfire hazards is integrating prevention activities on public and private land, and ensuring that complementary strategies are employed. Municipal fire prevention committees offer the ideal framework for this integration, and the commitment of the DSE, the CFA, local government and other stakeholders to these committees needs to be maintained.

1 “Prescribed burning” isa generic term that encompasses fuel reduction burning, back-burning, regeneration burning and ecological burning.