The Royal Commission into Victoria’s ongoing bushfires will intensify scrutiny of the controversial “prepare, stay and defend” policy. While much lauded by many, the policy has also drawn its share of sharp criticism from international spectators.
Most recently, the program has come under attack from the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Harold Schaitberger. He said in an article for the Los Angeles Times, published in January, that “stay-and-defend … should make people run and hide.”
Schaitberger was addressing a recent push from within some Californian fire services to mirror the Australian policy of letting residents choose to stay and defend properties threatened by bushfire. In his opinion: “Hearing anyone suggest that homeowners should not get out of harm’s way is appalling … Stay-and-defend is clearly a half-baked idea from people who believe that saving money is more important than saving lives.”
While acknowledging that the policy has had some success in Australia, he added that “it has also led to disaster,” arguing that it wouldn’t translate to a state as populous as California.
Australia is quite isolated in the international community when it comes to adopting the stay and defend policy. The approach in Canada and the United States, with some exceptions, is to evacuate residents who are at risk of injury due to fire. Police can even force people to evacuate.
Fire services here argue that “a well-prepared home is often the best place to shelter from a fire-front.” The emphasis is on preparation. The CFS has previously stressed the importance of knowing whether you will stay and defend or leave early before a fire threatens your property. On their website, the CFA says [pdf]: “If you are well prepared for a bushfire and are physically able to protect your house once the fire has passed, you have a very good chance of surviving by remaining with your home.”
The question is, are people well-prepared? A recent study of the fires in Hobart on 11 October, 2006, found that of the people who stayed to defend their property, less than half had followed advice to develop a fire plan before the event. Despite the limited nature of the case study, this figure is worrying because it suggests a general complacency in terms of preparing for fire. A similar proportion of people in fire-prone areas not developing a fire-plan would indicate a severe shortcoming in the prepare, stay and defend policy.
Tragically, when it comes to the events of the last week, Premier Brumby told ABC television that “it didn’t matter how good people’s fire plans were.
“When the wind changed — particularly around Kinglake — when it came back up the hill there was nothing that anybody could have done.”
That in itself raises questions about whether the stay and defend policy is appropriate when confronted with the most extreme conditions. According to Schaitberger, it isn’t.
Wading into the debate, David Gillet, Brigade Captain for the Country Fire Authority in Anakie, told the LA Times that any examination of stay and defend “will find the policy is right because we’ve proved time and time again that it works”.
But in the face fires like those Victoria has experienced in the last week, he conceded that the policy may be limited. “The conditions were just too extreme, so ripe, I’m not sure some of those homes were defendable,” he reportedly said.
“Maybe we need to tell people, ‘Yes, you can stay and defend your house, up to certain level. But once you reach that level, maybe you’ve got to get out’.”
Just a guess, I imagine it come down to the difference between a “fire” and a “firestorm”
I helped defend a house in the 2006 Tawonga Gap fires. That fire raged through the bush for 6 weeks, but the threat past our house within 5 days.
If mandatory evacuation is enforced, when do you tell residents to go? For this fire residents should have been evacuated on Thursday – fire researchers knew by Wednesday that weather conditions were ideal however the Beechworth fire has been going since Australia Day and is still now threatening Yackandandah and Koetong.
Who should be evacuated, clearly all inhabitants in bush east of the hume freeway are at risk. Are the inhabitants going to camp in school halls for 6 weeks until the fire threat abates? What about classes?
There are two key issues in determining whether it is appropriate to evacuate or defend one’s home. The first is the level of preparedness. Little can be done to prepare for a bushfire on a day of extreme fire danger. Long term planning is required and in particular having a good water supply system in place that doesn’t depend on mains power. Also the amount of vegetation around the home will have a big influence.
The second is on days of extreme fire danger then firefighting resources are likely to be stretched and fire behaviour unpredictable. When a single fire breaks out and the weather conditions are not extreme services like the CFA can be relied on to help defend property. However, when temperatures are 40+ and high winds there is little that can be done. For many in these circumstances evacuating to a safe place may be the best strategy.
I live in Toongabbie. Over the past few years we have been under general threat from nearby fires and two years ago we were under direct threat and a number of houses were lost. I stayed to defend my house, because I am prepared with fire pumps, spray packs, dams, tanks and pool in an open area 400 metres from the main bush. I also have also have diesel generator. We survived without any fires on our property due to good preparation and a rather fortuitous wind change when the fire was about 150 metres away.
I would be prepared to go if:
(A) There were sufficient fire services to defend my property and my neighbours. At present the power stations, mines and transmission lines supplying Melbourne’s power get priority. As the CFA keeps saying don’t expect to see a red truck come over the hill.
(B) I could be assured that the insurance would cover all of my property without any issues
(C) I could get my house rebuilt within a reasonable time i.e. less than 6 months including the time to sort out the insurance.
(D) I could be reasonable sure the roads are safe and there was somewhere safe to go.
The problem is a doubt whether any of these conditions can be met and therefore I stay put and defend.
I know quite a number of people from the Toongabbie fire and also the Churchill fire who stayed and defended successfully. They would have lost everything they had if they had departed.
A proper fire strategy for country Victoria in the face of climate change, requires big bucks. Our government is too enamoured with Tennis Centre upgrades, $350M, Comm, Games $1 billion, Grand Prixs $450 million over ten years etc etc. to worry about country Victoria until it is too late.
The current policy is the only reasonable one given the financial priority the people who live in Melbourne give the country people who do not live in Melbourne.
It would be safe to stay and defend if in or next to each house in fire prone areas there is somewhere to shelter from the fire as it passes. This could be in a pool or under ground. Perhaps a small shipping container buried underground with steps down to its door. This would allow people to fight to protest their properties to the very last minute then reemerge to continue when the danger has passed.