Study on wild fire fighting resources sharing modelsec.europa.eu/echo/files/civil_protection/civil/prote/...Document Title Study on wild fire fighting resources sharing models : draft

Study on wild fire fighting resources sharing models Final report - supplementary appendices

October 2010

A report to DG ECHO, European Commission

Study on wildfire fighting resources sharing models –final report

Supplementary appendices

EPEC

European Policy Evaluation Consortium (EPEC) Brussels contact address: 146, rue Royale – B-1000 Brussels Tel: +32 2 275 0100 Fax: +32 2 275 0109 E-mail: [email protected] URL: www.epec.info

Contact name and address for this study: Andrew Jarvis, Principal E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +4420 7611 1100; Fax: +4420 3368 6900 GHK Consulting, Clerkenwell House, 67 Clerkenwell Road London EC1R 5BL. United Kingdom

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.epec.info/



EPEC

Study on wild fire fighting resources sharing models Final report – supplementary appendices

A report submitted by GHK Consulting on behalf of the European Policy Evaluation Consortium October 2010



EPEC

Document control

Document Title Study on wild fire fighting resources sharing models : draft final report – supplementary appendices

Job No. 30257478

Prepared by Gabriel Pierard, Andrew Jarvis

Checked by ARJ

Date 19 October 2010



EPEC

Contents

Appendix 1 Study methodology.......................................................................................1

Appendix 2 Consultees ............................................................................................... 4 Overseas case studies ............................................................................................................................ 4 Member State & JRC Consultees ........................................................................................................... 6

Appendix 3 Consultation guide .................................................................................. 7

Appendix 4 United States of America .......................................................................12 1. Wildland Fire Management in the USA – Systemic Overview and Risk Trends.................... 12 1.1 Wildfires trends in the US: a dramatic increase in surface burned and spiralling costs ........ 12 1.2 The evolution of the wildfires-response approaches and policies ......................................... 13 2. Sharing Aerial Firefighting Resources: Development Process, General Organisation

and Governance..................................................................................................................... 17 2.1 The US wildfires response process ....................................................................................... 17 2.2 Oversight and policy structure - key actors............................................................................ 17 2.3 Operational structure at federal level - key actors ................................................................. 20 2.4 Organisation and key players at state level ........................................................................... 23 2.5 Inter-state and Cross-Border Cooperation: the Emergency Management Assistance

Compact (EMAC) and the Regional ‘Compacts’.................................................................... 24 2.6 International Cooperation (US relationships with other countries – excluding specific

cross-border compacts with Canada) .................................................................................... 28 3. Aerial Assets Ownership, Contracting and Procurement....................................................... 31 3.1 Typology of US aerial resources............................................................................................ 31 3.2 The private contracting industry............................................................................................. 33 3.3 The problems of the current federal contracting system and potential alternatives .............. 34 4. Operations Standards and Decision-Making Procedures...................................................... 36 4.1 Operations management and decision-making procedures .................................................. 36 4.2 Decision-support tools (geospatial data and fire-danger rating systems).............................. 36 4.3 Monitoring operation assets: the Resource Ordering and Status System (ROSS) ............... 37 4.4 Standards of Operations ........................................................................................................ 37 4.5 Weaknesses of the current US decision-making system....................................................... 38 5. Financial arrangements/ Cost Sharing (including insurance-related issues)......................... 38 5.1 Funding of the federal agencies in charge of wildfires fighting.............................................. 38 5.2 Federal funding to states and private owners........................................................................ 38 5.3 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) financing................................................ 39 5.4 Sharing the costs of wildfires fighting..................................................................................... 40 5.5 Insurance related issues ........................................................................................................ 41 6. Training .................................................................................................................................. 42 6.1 A complex system.................................................................................................................. 42 6.2 Specific issues with the current system of wildfire fighting aircrafts training ......................... 44 7. The U.S. system of Sharing Wildfire Fighting Resources: Lessons Learnt ........................... 44 7.1 Lessons learnt: strategy and organisation - the shortcomings and failures of federal

wildfire fighting organisation................................................................................................... 44 7.2 Lessons learnt: asset planning, funding and utilisation and financial resources ................... 46 8. Appendices to the USA Case Study ...................................................................................... 47 8.1 Appendix 1: Organisations interviewed.................................................................................. 47 8.2 Appendix 2: List of private contractors................................................................................... 48 8.3 Appendix 3: The Incident Command System (ICS) ............................................................... 48

Appendix 5 Canada................................................................................................... 50 1. Land cover and land use in Canada ...................................................................................... 50 1.1 Forest and wildfire patterns in Canada........................................................................................ 50 2 Institutional Arrangements......................................................................................................... 51 2.1 Fire Management Policies at different jurisdictional levels .................................................... 51 2.2 The Wildfire response process .............................................................................................. 53



EPEC

2.3 Oversight and policy structure: key actors ............................................................................. 53 2.4 Operational structure.............................................................................................................. 54 2.5 Interstate and international cooperation................................................................................. 55 3. Aerial Assets Ownership, Contracting and Procurement....................................................... 58 3.1 Aerial resources inventory in Canada .................................................................................... 58 3.2 Assets contracting and procurement / private contracting system organisation.................... 60 4 Decision Making Procedures and Standards of Operation.................................................... 62 4.1 Firefighting tools: geospatial data and modelling systems and fire-danger rating systems .. 62 4.2 Standards of Operation.......................................................................................................... 63 5 Financial Arrangements / Cost Sharing ................................................................................. 63 5.1 National/ federal funding to states and private owners for wildfire prevention and

firefighting............................................................................................................................... 63 5.2 Cost-sharing agreements and methods................................................................................. 64 5.3 Insurance-related issues........................................................................................................ 65 6 Training .................................................................................................................................. 65 7 Lessons Learnt....................................................................................................................... 66 8 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 67 8.1 Organisations interviewed...................................................................................................... 67

Appendix 6 South Africa...........................................................................................68 1 Land Cover and Land Use in South Africa............................................................................. 68 1.1 Urbanisation and the rural-urban interface ............................................................................ 68 1.2 Wildfires in South Africa ......................................................................................................... 68 1.3 Data on wild fires and forest fires at national and regional level............................................ 69 2 Institutional arrangements...................................................................................................... 71 2.1 Working on Fire (WoF)........................................................................................................... 71 2.2 Fire Protection Associations (FPAs) ...................................................................................... 73 2.3 Defence force......................................................................................................................... 78 2.4 National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC).................................................................... 78 2.5 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries ................................................................ 78 2.6 Fire Service (Fire Brigades) ................................................................................................... 79 3 Decision-making procedures and standards of operations.................................................... 79 3.1 The wildfires response framework ......................................................................................... 79 3.2 Standards of Operations ........................................................................................................ 80 3.3 Tools: geospatial data and modelling systems, fire-danger rating systems, etc ................... 82 4 Inter-state/ inter-regional and international cooperation ........................................................ 83 5 Ownership, Contracting and Procurement of Aerial Assets................................................... 85 5.1 Inventory/ classification of aerial assets used in the country ................................................. 85 6 Financial Arrangements / Cost Sharing ................................................................................. 86 6.1 National/ federal funding to states and private owners for wildfire prevention and fire

fighting.................................................................................................................................... 86 6.2 Cost-sharing agreements and methods................................................................................. 89 6.3 Insurance-related issues........................................................................................................ 89 7 Training .................................................................................................................................. 90 8 Lessons learnt........................................................................................................................ 91 9 Appendices to the South Africa Case Study.......................................................................... 91 9.1 Organisations interviewed...................................................................................................... 91 9.2 Example of an FPA fire report................................................................................................ 92 9.3 Fire Danger Rating System, Fire Control and Standby State (from ZFPA) ........................... 93

Appendix 7 Australia ................................................................................................ 95 1 Wildland Fire Management in Australia – Systemic Overview And Risk Trends................... 95 1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 95 1.2 Wildfire trends ........................................................................................................................ 95 1.3 Wildfires Response Policies and Programmes and Information Tools.................................. 97 2 Sharing Aerial Firefighting Resources: Development Process, General Organisation

and Governance..................................................................................................................... 97 2.1 The wildfires response process in Australia........................................................................... 97 2.2 Oversight and Policy Structure - Key Actors.......................................................................... 99



EPEC

2.3 Operational Structure – Key Actors at the National and Local Level.................................. 100 2.4 Interstate / Interregional and International Operation .......................................................... 101 3 Aerial Assets’ Ownership, Contracting and Procurement.................................................... 101 3.1 Inventory / classification of aerial resources ........................................................................ 101 3.2 Assets Procurement / organisation of the private contracting system................................. 103 4 Decision-Making Procedures and Standards of Operations................................................ 104 4.1 Tools for monitoring risks and managing incidents.............................................................. 104 4.2 Standards of Operations ...................................................................................................... 104 5 Financial Arrangements/ Cost Sharing (including insurance-related issues) ...................... 105 5.1 Cost sharing agreements and methods ............................................................................... 105 5.2 Insurance related issues ...................................................................................................... 105 6 Training ................................................................................................................................ 105 7 Lessons Learnt..................................................................................................................... 106 7.1 Areas for improvement......................................................................................................... 106 7.2 Lessons learnt / recommendations for good practice .......................................................... 106 8 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 107 8.1 Organisations interviewed.................................................................................................... 107

Appendix 8 New Zealand........................................................................................ 108 1 Wildlife Trends and Policy Responses................................................................................. 108 2 Key Actors – Governance and Operations .......................................................................... 108 3 Asset Ownership, Contracting and Procurement................................................................. 109 4 Decision Making and Standard Operating Procedures........................................................ 109 5 Financial / Cost Sharing Arrangements ............................................................................... 110 6 Training ................................................................................................................................ 110 7 Lessons Learnt..................................................................................................................... 110 8 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 111 8.1 Organisations interviewed.................................................................................................... 111



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 1

Appendix 1 Study methodology

This annex describes the study methodology.

Task 1: Inception

A kick-off meeting was held with the Commission and an inception report produced. The main points of clarification and development in this inception phase were:

▪ Discussion and selection of the 5th case study country;

▪ Preliminary description of the ‘EU baseline’;

▪ Development of a draft interview guide;

▪ Definition, in conjunction with retained experts, of a draft list of stakeholders to be interviewed, and possible experts to be invited to the workshop

Task 2: Desk research and stakeholder consultation

This task involved the collection of primary and secondary data needed to address the research questions. The approach to each method of data collection is elaborated below.

Task 2.1 Desk Research

This entailed an in-depth review of documents and data related to the systems for sharing assets for wildfires and forest fires in the five case study countries and in the EU. An agreed ‘diagnosis’ of the problems and potential areas for action on the current EU system needs to be in place for when options are developed. Details of current sharing of aerial fire fighting resources within the EU system, including the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system was collected and the current issues with it defined.

The research covered:

▪ Background data on the case study counties and EU;

▪ Data on wild fires and forest fires at national and regional level;

▪ Legal/institutional base of the existing cooperation arrangements, at international/bilateral and national/regional levels;

▪ Inventory and description of key organisations at different levels;

▪ Data on costs and outputs of these arrangements;

▪ Organisational work programmes and possible reporting/ evaluations on their functioning;

▪ Procedures regarding the decision-making in case of conflicting needs, activation and standards of operations of the aerial fire fighting assets

▪ Training and exercise arrangements, lessons learnt and exercises;

▪ Ownership of the assets;

▪ Financial arrangements, including insurance-related issues;

▪ Relevant DG Environment and MIC (Monitoring and Information Centre) staff working papers and communications on the topic.

Task 2.2 Design of consultation guides

The consultation guides focused on the different groups, such as national governments, within the countries surveyed, international and regional fire fighting cooperation organisations, EU stakeholders etc. and consideration will be given to the most



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 2

appropriate means of communicating with each. The guides were designed to capture all of the key research questions and the sub-questions within them.

Task 2.3 Stakeholder Interviews

In-depth interviews were conducted with stakeholders in the case study countries, including: civil protection officials and experts; Managers of fire-fighters operations; Aircraft operators; coordinators of fire fighting operations; forestry management officials; academics and conservationists.

The purpose of these interviews was to gather additional information on the research questions. The interviews outlines were drafted during the scoping phase.

Task 3: Analysis and benchmark of systems for sharing assets for wildfires and forest fires in the five case-study countries

Task 3.1 EU situation analysis

This subtask involved the determination of the situation in the EU vis-à-vis the sharing of the aerial resources for fighting wild fires and forest fires. The current status of the EU system will be established with reference to the same criteria as in the case study countries based on desk research and discussions with the Commission and with our experts, or with key actors in Member States. The different aspects of the EU arrangements were examined, and notably the core of the arrangements, i.e. Community civil protection mechanism, and its components. The situation in the key Member States was also considered, looking at resources available, how they have been shared in the past and experiences in doing so.

Task 3.2 Description of the systems

The purpose of the case studies was to gain an in-depth understanding of the systems for sharing assets for wildfires and forest fires that have been put in place in the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa, in terms of:

▪ general organisation and arrangements for the sharing of aerial fire fighting resources and for their collective governance of such resources;

▪ detailed description of all key players at different levels (authorities, bodies, entities), involved in the preparedness and response to forest fires;

▪ procedures regarding the operational decision-making in case of conflicting needs (who leads and under what circumstances); how is the ‘line of command’ decided and deployed; any arrangements for ‘after operation’ learning and review; the activation and Standards of Operations of the assets;

▪ ownership of the assets;

▪ financial arrangements (including insurance-related issues);

▪ training, lessons learnt and exercises; and

▪ how these systems have developed over time, and what lessons have been learnt from this development process, at national, but also possibly at international level (the aim would be to understand the lessons learnt from successes as well as failures (perhaps the most important lessons), what changes have been made etc).

A thorough analysis of all information collected and presented in the stakeholders interview notes, the desk research, and other documentation generated as part of the evaluation, such as the logical models, national/local audits economical efficiency, or policy reviews, was undertaken.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 3

Task 3.3 Comparison/ benchmarking of the systems

The specific features of the operational systems for fire fighting operations will also be analysed in a transversal perspective, that will allow the characterization of good practices and lessons to be avoided, notably though the benchmarking of the different countries performances in this area.

Task 3.4 Expert workshop

In addition to the case studies/ description and comparison of the systems, undertaken by the evaluation team, a workshop was held to test the findings of the fieldwork.

The workshop involved GHK consultants and the two core experts of the evaluation team, along with additional experts, selected from the wider stakeholders group and from civil protection institutions at the EU level. These experts were chosen in conjunction with the Commission.

Task 4: Elaboration of the options to improve the EU arrangements

During this task, identified the lessons learnt from the country case studies. The conclusions of the case studies identified both success factors and areas for improvement that enabled the evaluation team to investigate and devise options designed to improve the existing European arrangements on sharing of aerial fire fighting resources.

Task 5: Assessment of advantages and disadvantages of the three proposed options

Task 5 will consist in an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the three proposed options, with reference to the baseline assessment of the current strengths and weaknesses of the EU system as established in earlier tasks. Options were discussed with the Commission following the interim report.

The draft final report presents the case studies and the benchmark of the systems, and the assessed options. The final report takes into account feedback on the draft final report.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 4

Appendix 2 Consultees

Overseas case studies

USA Institution Representative

Fire & Aviation Management

U.S. Forest Service

Dale K. Dague

U.S. Forest Service, Fire and Aviation

Daniel A. Crittenden

National Fire Training Centres, Tucson, AZ

Merrie M. Johnson, Director

Fire and Aviation Management – National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC)

Sarah Fisher

Branch Chief - Incident Business Practices

US Forest ServiceBoise, Idaho

R.G. "Ron" HanksBranch Chief, Aviation Risk Management and Training Systems

Canada

CIFFC Dennis Brown

Director

CIFFC

David Bokovay

Aircraft Manager

BC Wildfire Management Branch

John Flanagan

Superintendent International and Strategic Development

BC Aviation and Airtanker Programme

Jeff Berry

Manager

South Africa



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 5

Working on Fire

Johan Heine

KwaZulu Natal Fire Protection Association

Simon Thomas

Zululand Fire Protection Association

Trevor Wilson

AfriFireNet

Alex Held

National Disaster Management Centre / Incident Command System Working Team

Louis Buys

Australia

Queensland – Queensland Fire and Rescue Service

Mr Wayne Bates (Aviation Manager)

Tasmania – Tasmania Fire Service

Mike Brown (Chief Officer)

Fire fighting organisations State and territorial Fire & Emergency Services

South Australia – Country Fire Service

David Cant (Aviation Manager)

Emergency Management Directorate (within Attorney General’s Department)

Gerry Foster (Manager)

Emergency Management Agencies and Coordination bodies

Australasian Fire Authorities Council

Gary Featherston (Manager)

New Zealand

Fire fighting organisations National Rural Fire Authority

Mr Murray Dudfield National Rural Fire Officer

Pumicelands Rural Fire Authority

Mr Paul Wright

Emergency Management Agencies and Coordination bodies

Wellington Emergency Management Office -WEMO

Mr Jock Darragh



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 6

Member States & JRC Consultees

France

Ministère de l’Intérieur de l’Outre Mer et des Collectivités Territoriales, Direction de la sécurité civile

Col. Philippe NARDIN

Mr Philippe MICHAUT

Spain Direcció General de Prevenció Extinció d´Incendis Forestals Crtra.

Universitat Autonoma s/n Cerdanyola del Valles

Mr. Marc Castellnou

Ministry of Environment and Rural Affairs, Madrid

Ms. E. Enriquez,

Italy

Ufficio VIII Attività Aeronautica

Direttore Servizio S.A.V. Sicurezza del volo,

Col. Pil. Gianpiero Sanfilippo

Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Dipartimento della Protezione Civile

EC - Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability,Land Management & Natural Hazards Unit - FOREST (TP 261), Ispra (Va), Italy

Mr Jesús San-Miguel-Ayanz



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 7

Appendix 3 Consultation guide

This questionnaire covers several issues that are not necessarily all relevant to all categories of stakeholders selected (i.e. Civil protection authorities; Firefighting authorities/ firefighters officers; Coordination centres officials; Forestry people; Academics).

Basic Information

Name:

Organisation:

Background and general organisation

▪ What are the main features of the general organisation of aerial fire fighting in your country / state or province?

▪ Who are the key players at different levels (authorities, bodies, entities) involved in the preparedness and response to forest fires in your country / state or province?

▪ What is the nature of the chain of command (i.e. centralized; decentralised; organised in thematic regions?), what territorial or administrative structure does it follow (e.g. provinces, districts, municipalities, military regions)?

▪ Overall, would you define the existing organisation of aerial resources sharing as a “command and control system” or rather a “resources-brokering organisation”?

▪ Can you please describe your role and the nature of your involvement in this organisation?

▪ How do aerial wildfire fighting-related activities fit with your other work and what proportion of your activity in general is devoted to those activities?

▪ Could you provide us with background data on the situation in your country / federate State, with regard to physical and economic vulnerability to wildfires:

1.1 description of climate/ climatic regions;

1.2 size of forested areas and other lands;

1.3 protected/ conservation areas/ natural parks;

1.4 types of land use,

1.5 degree of urbanization; importance of urban-rural interface and suburban zones;

1.6 long-term trends in land cover;

1.7 statistics on wildfires and national and regional level (history and recent trends):

1.7.2 number of fires (frequency/ occurrence); burnt areas; average fire size (severity/ intensity); casualties; economic and environmental damages caused;

1.7.2 identified causes (natural, arson, accidental, unknown);

1.7.2 resources mobilised and actions taken;

1.8 proportion of wildfires in the overall natural disasters (floods, storms, earthquakes, oil spills, chemical accidents) and general disaster trends;

1.9 specific climate change related threats.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 8

Existing wildfire fighting resources sharing arrangements

▪ What is your understanding of the current intra-federal and bilateral/ international arrangements in your country/ state or province, and of the problems or opportunities that these arrangements have been designed to address?

▪ What is the legal/institutional base of these existing arrangements?

▪ How are the current intra-federal and international arrangements addressing these issues?

▪ How do these arrangements address the issue of the collective governance and financing of these resources?

Decision-making procedures and Standards of Operations

▪ Is there a monitoring centre at federal/national level or international/ bilateral (as per the agreements mentioned above), equipped with a fire danger rating/ risk assessment system (allowing rating of ignition potential; drought conditions; general fire danger and climate outlook)?

▪ Is there a network at federal/national level or international/ bilateral (as per the agreements mentioned above), comprising a coordinating centre and a network of national (or regional) focal points?

What are the procedures for request for / offer of assistance and the different steps for emergency response (in accordance with the international/bilateral arrangements or intra-federal/ provincial arrangements mentioned above), in terms of (a ‘typical’ wildfire emergency case-study could be developed on that occasion):

Description of the incidents;

Fire-related information (location, size in ha, topography, causes etc.);

Information on the resources mobilised at the time of the request/ offer;

Information on the gaps and additional resources requested, in terms of:

1.10 Personnel

1.10.2 Skills;

1.10.2 Number of personnel;

1.10.2 Targeted incident location;

1.10.2 Anticipated duration of the assignment

1.11 Equipment and material

1.11.2 Type and number of aerial fire fighting aircraft and transportation aircraft: ‘fixed-wing’ aircraft (scoopers and tankers) (depending on the availability of scoopable water); rotary-wing aircraft/ helicopters (more versatile, also used to transport men and equipment);

1.11.2 Possibly, type and number of other equipments/ materials: hand tools; water handling equipment; power tools; heavy earthmoving equipment; personal protective equipment; fire detection tools; communications equipment and other technology equipment (GPS units, infra-red cameras, etc);

1.11.2 Information on navigation, communications, air traffic patterns, etc.

1.11.2 Number of equipment/ materials;

1.11.2 Targeted incident location (where the assisting resources will proceed upon arrival);



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 9

1.11.2 Purpose of use;

1.11.2 Anticipated duration of the assignment.

▪ Information on the administrative arrangements: expected arrival of requested resources; contact persons or operation supervisors at incident location;

▪ What forms does the reporting of such a shared/ collective emergency response take?

Financial arrangements, including insurance-related issues

▪ What are the financial arrangements under the above-mentioned agreements: how are resources be funded, does the requesting party bear the cost (or part of) or is the assisting party expected to bear the costs (part of/ or all);

▪ What are the arrangements in terms of insurance coverage for aircraft; personnel; etc. In case of damages or casualties, will the insurer of the assisting party reclaim the insured costs (or part of) to the requesting party/ its insurer?

Other arrangements

▪ Are there other arrangements for customs and immigration, such as exemptions and facilities for the personnel, exemptions from taxation, duties and other charges on the equipment and materials, etc.?

▪ What logistic support is to be given by the receiving/requesting party to assist the intervention/ fire suppression teams, such as food, accommodation, transportation, communication arrangements, local contacts, translation support (if necessary), etc.?

▪ What other support is to be given by the receiving/requesting party to assist the intervention/ fire suppression teams, such as security of personnel, protection for equipment and materials, etc.?

Training and exercises

▪ Is there a common certification for pilots and suppression teams, within the existing agreements?

▪ Have any joint training programmes been organised for intervention teams, as well as for control teams?

▪ What are the areas where, in your opinion, training is most needed:

– flight operations: control; dispatch; landings; embarking and disembarking; night flying; etc.;

– instrument and equipments: aircrafts configuration; communication systems;

– special flight rules: dispensation of fire fighting chemicals; direction and height of turns at aerodromes; fuel reserves; maximum certified mass with regard to scooping of water; take-off distances; flight paths;

– operations: maintaining record of operations; remote base operations; operations over populous and non-populous areas.

▪ Have any informative activities, seminars, pilot projects, been organised for intervention teams?

▪ How useful were they?



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 10

Performance / Lessons learnt

▪ Are you satisfied with the general performance of the current organisation (intra-federal and bilateral/ international sharing arrangements, and procedures/ SOPs)?

▪ Are you satisfied with the degree of integration in aerial fire fighting that these arrangements and procedures/ SOPs provide?

▪ Are you satisfied with the progresses of this integration/ sharing of resources so far?

▪ Are there any data on the costs, outcomes and outputs of these arrangements? On the damages and losses to the equipment and material, as well as potential human casualties, as a result of these arrangements?

▪ Are there any issues inhibiting progress or affecting delivery/ effective and efficient functioning of these arrangements, in terms of preparedness, monitoring, fire suppression?

▪ Have there been any specific problems or constraints in mobilising/ demobilising the resources, and in handling the situation using the resources?

▪ In your view what has been the impact of these arrangements so far? Please provide examples.

▪ How do you expect these arrangements to impact the wildfires situation in your country in the longer term?

▪ What have been the unintended effects of these arrangements?

▪ What lessons have been/ should be learnt from the functioning of these existing (intra-federal and bilateral/ international sharing arrangements) so far? For example:

1.12 Improving the speed of deployment and turnaround times of aircrafts (since the economic advantage of aircrafts diminishes if they cannot reach the fire well before ground forces)

1.13 Changing the types of aircrafts to share in priority (i.e. large fixed wing air tankers vs. smaller rotary wing aircrafts/ helicopters), in consideration to:

1.13.2 the types of fire to combat (e.g. small fires where water drop accuracy is required, vs. larger fires);

1.13.2 the types of biotopes where interventions have actually occurred;

1.13.2 the necessity to improve speeds of deployment, etc.

1.14 Envisaging the creation of a tactical reserve of fire-fighting aircraft common to all countries or states/provinces participating to the agreement;

1.15 Increasing resources at national/ state or provincial level, in terms of:

1.15.2 Number and types of aircrafts;

1.15.2 Fuel capacities;

1.15.2 Parking/ramp space

1.15.2 Hangar space for possible maintenance;

1.15.2 Maps and flight information services

1.15.2 Transportation and lodging for pilots and maintenance staff.

1.16 Moving from the sole sharing of aircrafts towards a combination of initial aerial support sharing and possible sharing of ground resources;



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 11

Concluding Remarks

▪ Do you have any suggestions/ recommendations as to how of these sharing arrangements and of the related interventions be improved?

▪ Do you have any suggestions or indications for developing/ extending these arrangements to other provinces/ federate States/ third countries?

▪ Do you have any other comments in relation to any of the issues raised in this interview, or are there any other issues relating to this study that you would like to mention?

Documents and Contacts Ask for relevant documents and possible other national/ regional contacts.

Thank and close.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 12

Appendix 4 United States of America

1 Wildland Fire Management in the USA – Systemic Overview and Risk Trends.

1.1 Wildfires trends in the US: a dramatic increase in surface burned and spiralling costs

1.1.1 A dramatic increase in the number of hectares burned

In recent years, both the number of hectares burned by wildland fires and the costs to suppress fires have been increasing dramatically in the US. The largest number of hectares burned in the US has been recorded in three of the past four years to 2009. From 1995 through 1999, wildland fires burned an average of 1.7 million hectares each year. From 2000 through 2004 this number increased to an average of 2.5 million hectares each year—a rise of almost 50%. During the same periods, costs incurred by federal firefighting entities to suppress wildland fires more than doubled (Section 1.1.2). The 2007 fire season saw a total of almost 86,000 wildfires and over 3.8 million hectares burned, notably in California. The US Forest Service and university researchers estimate that about 44 million homes in the lower 48 states are located in the ‘wildland-urban interface’ (i.e. areas that mix with wildlands). When fire threatens the wildland-urban interface, substantial resources are often needed to fight the fire and protect homes, including firefighters, fire engines, and aircraft to drop retardant. Fires fought in the wildland-urban interface usually cost much more to suppress than wildfires fires far from centres of population. According to the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), the largest, most devastating wildfires represent only 1% of all wildfires but they consume 95% of all hectares lost to fire and absorb 85% of suppression costs,

1.1.2 Spiralling costs (damages and suppression costs)

Climate change, urban sprawl and the consecutive development of the wildland-urban interface have resulted in dramatic fire suppression cost increases for federal agencies in recent years (see below for a detailed description of the wildfires fighting structures in the US). Wildfire budgets nearly doubled in the fiscal year (FY) 2001, following a severe fire season in the summer of 2000, and have remained at substantially higher levels. And wildfire costs are spiralling upward without any perceptible decline in the damage caused. Federal financing to the Forest Service and Interior agencies to prepare for and respond to wildland fires, including budgets for reducing fuels, have more than doubled in recent years. Financing for fiscal years 1996 through 2000 averaged $1.2 billion (€ 900 million) 1 but rose to an average of $2.9 billion (€ 2.20 billion) from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Adjusting for inflation (in 2007 dollars), the average annual budget allocation to the agencies for these periods increased from $1.5 billion (€ 1.13 billion) to $3.1 billion (€ 2.34).

1 Exchange rate of US$ 0.755 for € 1 (April 2010 rate)



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 13

Of the appropriate fund, the US Forest Service (Department of Agriculture) received approximately 70% and Department of Interior approximately 30%. Figure 0-1 the Federal agencies’ combined fire allocations for fiscal years 1996 through 2007.

Figure 0-1 Total funding allocations

Source: Analysis of Congressional Research Service data - US Government Accountability Office - 2007 Including emergency supplemental funding, FY2008 wildfire funding reached $4.46 billion (€ 3.37 billion)—more than in any previous year (though the President requested 20% less money for FY2009 than was allocate in FY2008). Wildland fire management activities (the largest component of which is fire suppression) rose from 13% of the US Forest Service budget in FY 1991 to 48% for FY 2009. The Forest Service's fire suppression costs have exceeded $1 billion (€ 750 million) in five of the seven years to 2009. As a result the Forest Service's non-fire budget has declined more than 35% since fiscal year 2001. Fire suppression is indeed becoming the dominant activity of federal forestry agencies and all other programmes therefore become smaller (e.g. research, control of invasive species, forest restoration, recreation, and campground maintenance), to the point that some programmes are virtually ineffective. Climate predictions indicate fire season will increase in duration while changing demographics show that more people are moving into fire-prone wildlands. These challenges, combined with budget realities, necessitate a more effective approach to fire management in the US.

1.2 The evolution of the wildfires-response approaches and policies

1.2.1 Policy developments and new fire management approaches

Historically, the Forest Service and the Interior agencies considered fire to be a damaging force that ought to be quickly suppressed. For decades, the agencies were often successful in this approach. The emphasis on suppression led to a substantial decline in the average surface burned annually from the 1930s through the 1970s.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 14

A number of damaging fires in the 1990s, however, led the agencies to reassess their understanding of wildland fire’s role on the landscape. Their view of fire’s ecological role began to develop. In addition, they recognised that by allowing brush, small trees, and other vegetation to accumulate, their past success in suppressing fires was in part responsible for making recent fires more severe. Increased awareness of fire’s benefits, as well as of the unintended negative consequences of suppression, led the agencies in 1995 to develop the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, a policy they reaffirmed and updated in 2001. Under the policy, the agencies abandoned their attempt to suppress every wildland fire, instead seeking to: ▪ Make communities and resources less susceptible to wildland fire damage; and

▪ Respond to fires so as to protect communities and important at-risk resources while also considering both the cost and long term effects of that response.

As a result, the federal agencies have increasingly emphasised firefighting strategies that focus on land management objectives, which may lead them to use less aggressive firefighting strategies that not only reduce costs in some cases but that are also safer for firefighters by reducing their exposure to unnecessary risks. In 2000, in response to a decade of severe wildland fires, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior developed a National Fire Plan. This plan aims to address how to respond to wildland fires, reduce the impacts of these fires on communities and the environment, and ensure sufficient firefighting resources for the future. During the severe 2002 fire season, the Bush Administration also developed the Healthy Forests Initiative to accelerate fuel reduction projects in priority areas.

1.2.2 Federal wildfire protection programmes

There are three categories of federal wildfire protection programme : ▪ Category 1 protects the federal lands managed by the Department of Agriculture

(through the US Forest Service), and by the Department of the Interior, whose wildfire programmes are coordinated by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

▪ Category 2 assists State and local governments and communities in protecting non-federal lands; these programs are used to reduce wildland fuels, to otherwise prepare for fire control and to contain and control wildfires.

▪ Category 3 supports fire research, fire facilities, and forest health improvements

1.2.3. Fire management plans

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy requires each agency to develop a fire management plan for all areas under their management that have flammable vegetation. Without such plans, the use of the whole range of wildland fire response strategies (including less ‘aggressive’ strategies such as prescribed burning) is not allowed. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), in 2006 approximately 95% of the federal agencies’ 1,460 individual land management units had completed the required plans. Moreover, in examining 17 fire management plans, a May 2007 independent review of large wildland fires managed by the Forest Service identified several shortcomings in the plans. For example, most of those examined did not contain current information on fuel conditions and many did not provide sufficient guidance on selecting firefighting strategies.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 15

1.2.4. The FLAME Act of March 2009

In March 2009, Congress introduced new legislation, the FLAME Act, aimed at responding to the escalating costs of wildfire by creating a government fund for devastating wildland fires. This fund is separate from normal wildland fire suppression funds allocated to the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior (based on the idea that the largest, most devastating wildfires are only 1% of all wildfires but burn 95% of all surfaces and incur 85% of suppression costs). Creating a separate fund is supposed to allow these ‘extraordinary’ fires to be treated the same way as other natural disasters. The FY 2010 budget outline included increased funding for fire suppression activities as well as $282 million (€213 million) in a contingency account for emergency expenditures, whose framework for funding was provided by the FLAME Act (also ensuring that this type of separate account continues in the future). This legislation has been criticised, however, for being misleading from an aviation point of view (notably the underlying idea of using large aircraft for initial attack).



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 16

Figure 0-2: Synthetic map of the US Aerial Wildfire Fighting System:

The Wildland Fire Leadership Council

US Forest Service

Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

National Association of State Foresters.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

US Fish and Wildlife Service

The 5 Federal Land Management

Agencies

Strategic leadership and oversight to implement National Fire Plan & Policy

National Associations of

State & Counties fire coordinators

The National Fire &

Aviation Executive

Board

(guidance and

guidelines for common

procedures)

Policy coordination, standardisation (training and equipment)

The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) National Fire &

Aviation Executive Board

The National Interagency Fire Centre (NIFC)

The National Interagency Coordination Centre (NICC)

State level

National level

Local level

Regional (multi-State) level

Inter-State and International Cooperation

Regional & Cross-border Fire Compacts

50 States’ Departments of Forestry and Fire Protection 50 States’ Departments of Forestry and Fire Protection 50 States’ Departments of Forestry and Fire Protection

11 Geographic Areas Coordination Centres (GACC)

Tracking at national level of requested assets + operational

base location & dispatch of large aircraft (type 1)

The National Multi-Agency Coordination (NMAC) Group

operates

Dispatch and tracking of smaller aircrat (type 1 and 2)

Daily management of aircraft

movements

Manages wildland fire operations when probable

shortages of resources

50 States’ Departments of Forestry and Fire Protection 50 States’ Departments of Forestry and Fire Protection Local Fire Control Centres / local incident commanders/ controllers

Requests for large multi-engine aircraft

Requests for resources

(guidance and guidelines for

common procedures)

Purchase/ management of federal aircraft

Purchase/ management of federal aircraft



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 17

2 Sharing Aerial Firefighting Resources: Development Process, General Organisation and Governance.

2.1 The US wildfires response process

Wildfire suppression in the US is built on a three-tiered support system. When a fire is reported, the local agency and its firefighting partners respond. If the fire continues to grow, the agency can ask for help from within its geographic area (at inter-State level. When a geographic area has exhausted its resources, it can turn to the National Interagency Coordination Centre (NICC) at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) for help in locating what is needed, whether air tankers, radios, firefighting crews or incident management teams. When a fire is first detected, it is typically classified as type 5—the least complex—or type 4 fire, depending on the fire and the number of firefighters required. Fire fighting entities normally follow a principle of ’closest available resource’ whereby, regardless of jurisdiction, the closest available firefighting personnel and equipment respond to the fire. The firefighter managing the suppression efforts is called the incident commander. If additional firefighting assets are required, the incident commander requests them through the three-tiered system of local, regional (inter-State), and national dispatch centres. Federal, State, tribal, and local entities and private contractors supply the firefighting personnel, aircraft, equipment, and supplies, which are coordinated and dispatched through these centres. If the fire escapes initial suppression efforts, officials may request a type 3 incident commander and additional firefighting assets. The fire may grow in size or complexity into a type 2 or type 1 fire, the latter being the most complex. For such fires, officials may request an incident management team that includes an incident commander and a cadre of personnel to handle command, planning, logistics, operations, and finance functions. Nationally, there are 17 ‘type 1’ incident management teams available to manage the most complex fires. Additional 38 ‘type 2’ teams are available to manage large fires that are less complex. Notably, the 2000 National Fire Plan encourages collaboration and cooperation among a variety of stakeholders, including federal, state, and local firefighting and other government entities; nongovernmental entities; and property owners. The plan includes a 10-year comprehensive strategy and an associated implementation plan that outlines a collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to centres of population and the environment.

2.2. Oversight and policy structure - key actors

2.2.1 Wildfire suppression on federally owned land

Wild fire suppression is far less streamlined in the US than in the EU and the other study countries. Five federal land management agencies have responsibility for wildfire management and fire suppression on federally owned land. The Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, are attached to the Department of Interior (they are also referred to as ‘Interior agencies’, in the course of this



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 18

document). Only the US Forest Service (USFS), is attached to the Department of Agriculture

▪ The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the Interior – BLM manages

105 million hectares of public lands and provides fire protection for 155 million hectares.

▪ The US Forest Service (USFS), Department of Agriculture – USFS manages 77 million hectares of national forests and grasslands.

▪ The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Department of the Interior – FWS manages more than 37 million hectares of national wildlife refuge and wetland areas.

▪ The National Park Service (NPS), Department of the Interior – NPS administers 32 million hectares of national parks, monuments, historic sites, natural areas, and other federal lands.

▪ The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Department of Interior – BIA provides wildland fire protection for 24 million hectares of Indian reservations and other trust lands.

In total, these five agencies manage a total of approximately 280 million hectares of federal land in the United States, including national forests, national grasslands, Indian reservations, national parks, and national wildlife refuges. These 2.8 million km represent more than five times the size of metropolitan France. Each agency has from 7 to 12 regional or state offices that oversee field units. The Forest service is itself organised into 9 geographic regions. Figure 2.1 shows the distribution of land among the five agencies. The US Forest Service is by far the largest organisation in terms of firefighting resources. The Forest Service employs almost 10,500 firefighters each year and two-thirds of all firefighting resources in America belong to this agency. It provides specialised professionals (smoke jumpers and ‘hot shot’ crews), aerial resources (helicopters and air tankers operated under contracts), as well as equipment and supplies for fire incident management. The Forest Service is also called upon to train states and localities and consult with foreign countries on operations, leadership, and technology. The Forest Service is successful in controlling approximately 97 to 98% of all wildfires with initial attack. Only 2 to 3% of the wildland fires escape, creating 70% of the total fighting fire costs.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 19

Figure 0-3 Distribution of Total Land Managed by the Five Agencies Responsible for Wildland Fire Management on federally-owned land

Source: Forest Service and Department of Interior data - US Government Accountability Office

2.2.2. Wildfire suppression on non-federal land

Wild fire suppression on non-federal land is the responsibility of state level agencies, typically the State Departments of Forestry. Each state has fire protection responsibilities defined by its individual statutes and regulations. For example, wildland fire suppression in California is the responsibility of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). The CDF works in partnership with the US Forest Service to ensure interoperability between the state and federal services. The role of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group is to coordinate programs of the participating federal and state wildfire management agencies.

2.2.3. Wildfires response coordination

The oversight/ policy structure for wildfires fighting in the US is quite complex, and essentially comprised of three different institutions.

1 The Wildland Fire Leadership Council The Wildland Fire Leadership Council is a cooperative, interagency organisation dedicated to ‘achieving consistent implementation of the goals, actions, and policies in the National Fire Plan and the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy’. The Council provides leadership and oversight to ensure policy coordination, accountability and effective implementation of the National Fire Plan and the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. The Council consists of the following:



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 20

▪ Department of Agriculture's Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment and the Chief of the US Forest Service;

▪ Department of the Interior's Directors of the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs and the Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the Interior;

▪ Department of Homeland Security’s US Fire Administration;

▪ Intertribal Timber Council;

▪ Western Governors Association;

▪ National Association of State Foresters (NASF); and

▪ National Association of Counties’ Fire Coordination.

2 The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG)

The NWCG was formed in the United States as in the aftermath of a major wildfire season in 1970. The 1970 fire season underlined the need for national training and equipment standards across the different agencies. NWCG included representatives from the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Association of State Foresters. Among the notable results of the NWCG have been: ▪ Adoption of the Interagency Fire Qualifications Rating system (more commonly known

among firefighters as the "red card" qualification system);

▪ Establishment of a series of training classes associated with this red card system;

▪ Establishment of an interagency fire training centre at Marana, Arizona; and

▪ Development of training manuals (e.g. the Fireline Handbook) and systems (e.g. the Resource Ordering Status System (ROSS) (Section 4.1).

NWCG was formed independently of the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) at Boise.

3 The National Fire and Aviation Executive Board (NFAEB) The NFAEB is comprised of the fire directors from the five federal land management agencies and a representative from NASF (National Association of State Foresters). It provides ‘unified guidance for fire agencies in the US’ as well as guidelines for common procedures. It was created to implement the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. The NFAEB coordinates with agencies at State level, in order to implement cooperative agreements.

2.3. Operational structure at federal level - key actors

2.3.1. General organisation

Wildfire responses in the US are built on a three-tiered support system that includes: ▪ The local area;



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 21

▪ One of 11 Geographic Areas (Section 2.3.2); and

▪ The national level (NICC).

Fire suppression in the US depends on land-ownership patterns and on any protection agreements between agencies and owners. However, to facilitate an effective response to wildland fires—including those affecting both federal and non-federal jurisdictions—firefighting entities in the US use an interagency incident management system. This system provides an organisational structure that expands to respond to a fire’s complexity and provides for sharing firefighting personnel, aircraft, and equipment from federal, state, and local agencies, as well as from private contractors, regardless of which agencies have authority over the affected land.

2.3.2. Key players at federal level and responsibility during operations

1 The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) operates the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) which coordinates the national resource mobilisation. The NICC is the focal point for coordinating the mobilisation of resources for wildland fire and other incidents throughout the US; it is the national dispatch centre for aerial wildfire suppression equipment and crews. The NICC also provides information and incident-management services to the various stakeholders responsible for wildland fires suppression in the US. Located in Boise, Idaho, the NIFC was formed in the 1960s. All national fire and aviation Branches of the five Federal agencies are headquartered at NIFC. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is technically NFIC’s host agency. The federated states wildland fire organisations are also represented at NIFC through the U.S. Forest Service's Cooperative State and Private Forest authorities. There are also multi-state agreements (‘Compacts’) (Section 2.4) designed to allow cooperation between states in fire prevention and suppression especially in the wildland-urban interface.

2 The 11 Geographic Areas and Geographic Areas Coordination Centres The US is divided into 11 Geographic Areas2, each one covering several states (Figure 0-4) and each is supervised by a ‘Geographic Area Coordination Centre’. The GACC, as along with state offices and the state emergency management agencies, has the authority to prioritise the allocation, pre-positioning and movement of all aircraft assigned to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within their state.

2 The 11 Geographic Area Coordination Centres are the following: - Alaska AICC - Rocky Mountain RMCC - Northern Rockies NRCC - East Basin EGBC - Southern SACC - Southwest SWCC - Northwest NWCC - West Basin WGBC - Northern California ONCC - Southern California OSCC - - Eastern EACC (in addition to serving as a sub-regional coordination centre to the Eastern Area, the EACC, located in St. Paul, Minnesota, is also the Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Compact (NFFC) area coordination centre for regional wildland fire mobilisation needs) (Section 2.5).



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 22

Figure 0-4 11 US Wildfire Geographic Areas

Source: US National Interagency Coordination Centre (NICC) Each Geographic Area is administered by a Geographic Area Coordinating Board of Directors (comprised of, for example, a Fire Director, State Fire Manager, President of the Fire Wardens Association). The Board’s role includes the following: ▪ Establish and communicates processes and operating procedures for the zone;

▪ Allocate firefighting resources within the Geographic Area during periods of competition according to established criteria;

▪ Anticipate and identify future geographic firefighting resource requirements;

▪ Support Geographic Area level resource allocation decisions of the National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group (NMAC);

▪ Establish the need for additional training;

▪ Establish reallocation controls when two or more Area Commands are assigned and multiple zones are affected;

▪ Maintain open lines of communication with Zone MAC (multi-agency coordinators), Agency Administrators, NMAC;

▪ Assess policy implementation issues;

▪ Provide strategic assessment of resource flows into and out of the Geographic Area;

▪ Provide management oversight, in coordination with the Agency Administrator(s) to Area Command Teams once a team is assigned to the Geographic Area; and

▪ Remain accountable for exercising direct cost containment measures by ensuring that planned expenditures are sensible and actual expenditures measurably affect intended outcomes.

3 National Multi-Agency Coordination (NMAC) Group, at NIFC

The National Multi-Agency Coordination (NMAC) Group, at NIFC manages wildland fire operations on a national scale when fire management resource shortages are likely.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 23

The NMAC group consists of one representative from each of the five federal wildland fire agencies (i.e. US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs and US Fish and Wildlife Service), the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency – United States Fire Administration (FEMA-USFA).

The NMAC group prioritises and allocates resources when there are critical shortages of national resources such as smokejumpers, airtankers, or ‘type 1’ Incident Management Teams (IMTs).

The NMAC’s role includes:

▪ Providing oversight of general business practices between the NMAC group and the Geographic Areas (see above) Multi-Agency Coordination (GMAC) groups;

▪ Establishing priorities among geographic areas, notably when there are critical shortages of national resources such as smokejumpers, airtankers, or Type 1 Incident Management Teams (IMTs); and

▪ Directing, controlling and allocating resources among or between geographic areas to meet NMAC priorities.

2.4. Organisation and key players at state level

2.4.1. General organisation

Wildfire suppression on non-federal land is the responsibility of state level agencies, typically the forestry departments. For example, wildland fire suppression in California is the responsibility of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), the most famous of such Departments among the states.

The 50 federated state forestry departments work in partnership with the USFS for operational interoperability between the state and federal services.

States’ wildland fire organisations are also represented at the federal level at the NIFC through the US Forest Service's Cooperative State and Private Forest authorities.

In addition, the National Association of State Foresters (NASF), a non-profit organization, gathers the directors of Forestry Agencies in the different states and territories of the US. The NASF works in concert with regional organisations – the Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF), the Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF), and the Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF) – to support forest management practices, including wildfire fighting techniques, specific to regional characteristics.

In addition to individual state funding, state forestry departments receive federal assistance (State Fire Assistance, SFA) for wildland fire management and suppression. The SFA funding recommendation for FY 2011 totals$120 million (€ 91 million).

SFA helps to ensure local resource preparedness by acting as both a ’first responder’ to local incidents and as a ’ready reserve" for large destructive fires on federal land.

2.4.2. Key players’ responsibility during operations

Wildfire response management at state level is generally a three-tiered operation.

▪ Initial response occurs at the local government level.

▪ When the response requirements exceed the capabilities of local government, state government is requested to assist.

▪ When the event surpasses the resources of state government, the federal government is requested to assist.

State departments of forestry have statutory responsibility for all wildfires within their state.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 24

Local fire agencies have responsibility for fire protection within their jurisdictional boundaries.

Using the Incident Management System (IMS) model, the first arriving agency assumes command of the incident. Command is then transferred as necessary when additional units or agencies arrive on the scene.

In a working incident, the primary agency responsible for the fire will assume command of the operation after their arrival.

When fires involve the interface between wildland areas and urban and suburban areas local agencies and state departments of forestry assume joint responsibility for firefighting.. In these cases, all agencies must work together and support each other in a unified command operation to provide the most efficient use of resources and a common strategy and multi-agency coordinating group and control element to address the threat.

In the event of a large scale fire requiring additional resources, the Departments of Forestry generally use a state resource management system that includes federal mutual aid, as necessary.

Local fire agencies utilise local mutual aid agreements between neighbouring departments.

If the incident is beyond the scope of local mutual aid, forestry departments then turn to each state’s Fire Chiefs’ Disaster Response Plan. The state’s Fire Chiefs’ Associations, through their disaster plans, generally serves as the resource coordinators. If resources are required to support local governments from outside the state, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) is activated (Section 2.5).

Wildfires in California and Florida that occurred in the late 1990s produced an extremely complex fire management situation that challenged the capabilities and resources of both local agencies and state forestry fire protection systems. This complexity was a result of both broad geographical challenges as well as multiple jurisdictional and vast resource management factors. A number of recommendations were made following these fires to improve future disaster response systems.

2.5. Inter-state and Cross-Border Cooperation: the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) and the Regional ‘Compacts’

2.5.1. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)

EMAC is a congressionally-ratified organisation that structures inter-state mutual aid. Through EMAC, a disaster-impacted state can request and receive assistance from other member states quickly and efficiently, resolving two key issues upfront: liability and reimbursement.

The history of emergency management mutual aid in the US goes back to the perceived threat of nuclear attack in 1949. Congress subsequently passed the Disaster Relief Act in 1950, for natural and human-caused disasters. President Carter later used an Executive Order to develop the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assist in responding to disasters of all types.

FEMA membership was initially limited to southern states (i.e. those devastated by hurricanes) but in 1995, membership was opened to any state or territory in the US that wished to join. The broadened agreement was called the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) became the administrator of EMAC in 1995 (EMAC became Public Law when ratified by the US Congress in 1996). Today, EMAC includes all 50 US states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

EMAC is a scalable system to deploy resources through an established command and control structure with clearly defined liability protections, workers compensation, death benefits, and reimbursement procedures.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 25

All levels of emergency response across all political jurisdictions must be familiar with EMAC and with their own state procedures for deployment under EMAC.

EMAC benefits for the participating states include the following:

▪ Resources shared by the states under the EMAC agreement are coordinated with the federal response, providing resources to citizens in need as quickly and efficiently as possible;

▪ Assistance from a neighbouring state under EMAC may be more readily available than other assistance;

▪ EMAC protocols and procedures allow for a quick response to disasters, utilising the unique human resource expertise possessed by participating states;

▪ State-to-state assistance during Governor-declared state of emergencies;

▪ A responsive and straightforward system for states to send personnel and equipment to help disaster relief efforts in other states;

▪ EMAC establishes a firm legal foundation: once the conditions for providing assistance to a requesting state have been set, the terms constitute a legally binding contractual agreement. Problems that could arise from fault liability, reimbursement, etc. are resolved upfront; and

▪ Fast and flexible assistance: EMAC allows states to ask for whatever assistance they need for any type of emergency, from forest fires to acts of terrorism.

2.5.2. The Regional and International (Cross-Border) Compacts

The existing regional and international (cross-border) compacts include the following:

▪ Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Compact (NFFC);

▪ North West Forest Fire Protection Compact;

▪ Great Lakes Forest Fire Compact (GLFFC);

▪ Big Rivers Forest Fire Management Compact; and

▪ Middle-Atlantic Interstate Forest Fire Protection Compact.

Compacts must be approved by Congress through the passage of legislation and their formation confirmed by member states’ legislatures.

2.5.2.1. Compacts origin and membership

In 1947, after the New England states were ravaged by a series of major forest fires, the US Congress recognised the need for closer cooperation among the states to fight forest fires. In 1949, the US Congress passed an Act establishing the first regional compact to prevent and control forest fires in the Northeast.

The Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Compact (NFFC)

Seven states -- Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York -- joined in 1949 and 1950; the Canadian provinces of Québec and New Brunswick became members in 1969 and 1970, making this the first international compact. In 1996, the Canadian province of Nova Scotia joined the compact.

The White Mountain, Green Mountain, and Finger Lakes National Forests joined in 1996 as ex-officio members under the name of the New England National Forests.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 26

The Great Lakes Forest Fire Compact (GLFFC)

In September 1989, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin signed the first agreement and the Great Lakes Forest Fire Compact was officially established. The Canadian Province of Ontario was a participant from the beginning but formal international approval came later. In 1998 Manitoba requested, and was approved as a member.

The 'Northwest Wildland Fire Protection Agreement' (Northwest Compact)

Members include the states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana as well as the Canadian Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon and Northwest Territories. The federal wildland fire agencies in the ‘Northern Rockies’ Geographic Area are not signatory agencies of the compact, but are committed to assisting the compact in accomplishing its goals.

The Big Rivers Forest Fire Management Compact

This compact includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Missouri.

The Middle-Atlantic Interstate Forest Fire Protection Compact

This compact includes Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia.

2.5.2.2. Purpose/ mandate The purpose of the compacts is to provide the means for their member states and (Canadian) provinces to cope with fires that might be beyond the capabilities of a single member through the provision of fire-related information and technology and resource sharing/ mutual aid activities. Resource sharing may include fire crews, fire management staff, fire equipment and aircraft. Compacts also support the development of integrated forest fire plans and the maintenance of appropriate forest firefighting services by their members. They also maintain a central agency to coordinate the services needed by member states and provinces. The compacts and their operating plans do not supplant any existing cooperative wildland firefighting arrangements such as federal-state agreements, or the Canada-US Reciprocal Forest Fire Fighting Agreement (CANUS). Compacts resource exchanges are not part of the national mobilisation process but are coordinated at an early stage for strategic planning purposes. All compact resources used on joint US federal-state fires are considered agents of the state that originally ordered them. The information and resource sharing between agencies within the compacts generally concerns: Fire Programme Delivery Systems ▪ Fire suppression strategies;

▪ Command and control structures;

▪ Planning and preparedness;



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 27

▪ Headquarters operations;

▪ Fire detection;

▪ Fire prevention; and

▪ Wildland fire and leadership training.

Fire Organisations and Personnel ▪ Command and control functions;

▪ State/provincial fire crews (configurations and functions);

▪ Contract fire crews (configurations and functions);

▪ Dispatch (away-from-home) guidelines;

▪ Workman’s compensation guidelines;

▪ Overhead fire teams (for large, escaped fires);

▪ State/provincial fire crews (training, physical fitness standards and personal safety

equipment);

▪ Contract fire crews (training, and personal safety equipment);

▪ Time/payment guidelines; and

▪ Working conditions.

Air Operations ▪ Aircraft types used by compact members;

▪ Air tanker/ water bomber drop zones;

▪ Use of transport aircraft;

▪ Pilot flight and duty time limitations;

▪ Aircraft refuelling (rotary and fixed wing);

▪ Pilot/passenger authority and responsibility;

▪ Passengers allowed during external load;

▪ Air tanker/ water bomber payloads (volume of water carried for bombing);

▪ Use of lead/air attack aircraft;

▪ Air tankers/water bomber alert procedures;

▪ Air attack communications;

▪ Transportation of hazardous materials & dangerous goods on aircraft;

▪ Minimum helicopter equipment and requirements; and

▪ Helispots, heliports and landing zones.

Equipment ▪ Forest fire suppression equipment;

▪ Use of ground foam;



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 28

▪ Specialised equipment; and

▪ Use of aerial foam and/or chemical retardant.

2.5.2.3. Preparedness

Training sessions on fire organisation and management techniques, evaluation, and testing of aircraft and equipment, and simulated 'call-ups' are conducted periodically to ensure that members are prepared for dealing with major forest fires when they occur.

When help is needed, members contact member agencies that may provide assistance and advise the Executive Director.

Each state and province is required to fund the cost of training, equipping, and maintaining an effective forest fire force to meet typical conditions in their jurisdiction. Through the compact, however, they also have immediate access to the additional resources of other compact members, in cases of severe forest fires.

2.5.2.4. Coordination

The member states and provinces are usually represented by their Departments of Environmental Conservation, or their Departments of Forest Protection & Fire Management.

The compacts’ coordination centres are usually located at one of the Member State’s Fire Headquarters or one of the 11 Geographic Areas headquarters. The centres operate under a cooperative agreement between the relevant compact, the host state, and the five federal agencies (the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Park Service).

The coordination centres are staffed by dispatchers, usually provided by the hosting state and states/ provinces’ member agencies. The federal agencies also support the centres by providing annual operational funds.

The compacts’ coordination centres often serve as sub-regional coordination centres to some of the 11 Geographic Areas Coordination Centres, which have interagency mobilisation and coordination responsibility for the states and federal agencies within their geographic area.

2.6. International Cooperation (US relationships with other countries – excluding specific cross-border compacts with Canada)

2.6.1. The existing international firefighting agreements signed by the US

Canada-United States Reciprocal Forest Fire Fighting Arrangement (CANUS) This document signed in 1982 (as well as the diplomatic note that authorises resource sharing for fire suppression across the border), lays out the terms under which resources can be legally shared, how resources will be made available, what costs will be involved and the conditions for their return. In the US, resources are managed by the NIFC in Boise, and on the Canadian side, by the CIFFC in Winnipeg, which identifies available resources moving to and from participating agencies including aircraft, personnel and equipment. US/ New Zealand, US/ Australia and trilateral US-New Zealand-Australia agreements These agreements provide a framework within which one participant may request and receive wildfire suppression resources from another participant. They also encourage co-operation on other fire management activities.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 29

US-Mexico Wildfire Protection Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to: ▪ Enable wildfire protection resources originating in the territory of one country to cross

the US-Mexico border in order to suppress wildfires on the other side of the border within a ‘zone of mutual assistance’; and

▪ Establish cooperation on other fire management activities outside the zone of mutual assistance.

2.6.2. Primary features of international firefighting agreements

Agreements signed by the US share common features, built upon the International Wildland Fire Management Agreements Template of the FAO. They include governmental and non-governmental firefighting agencies and organisations at a variety of levels, including international firefighting cooperation.

2.6.2.1. Costs 1 Personnel: including determinations of per person, per crew, per day or per

assignment wages. 2 Equipment: determining equipment costs such as per day or per assignment. 3 Reimbursements: determining the procedures, amount, and criteria for

reimbursement. Some agreements call for reimbursement only after a certain time or support level threshold has been reached.

Under certain agreements all parties may agree to assist each other on a mutual aid, non-reimbursable basis.

2.6.2.2. Information and coordination procedures 4 Communication channels: protocols and methods to coordinate and exchange

information. 5 Information exchange: the types, amount and timing of information exchange. 6 Notifications: set the notification procedures for emergencies or for other significant

events. 7 Coordination of work: define how and under what organisational structure the

coordination of work takes place.

2.6.2.3. Liabilities, claims and compensations 8 Cross-waiver of claims/exemption from liability: list and define how and when the

cross-waivers and exemptions are in force for personnel that are being exchanged. 9 Exemptions to cross-wavier of claims: define those areas or circumstances where the

exemptions do not pertain to personnel that are being exchanged. 10 Damage to a third party: outline remediation methods and limitations for third party

damage. 11 Medical assistance for injured personnel: define the protocols and procedures for

assisting and possibly evacuating injured personnel. 12 Compensation in case of injury or death: define the timing, levels and limitations of

compensation for injury or death. This can also be addressed in the cross waivers and exemptions.

13 Privileges and immunities for assisting personnel: define and describe the levels and limitations of privileges and immunities that the receiving country provides to assisting country personnel.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 30

2.6.2.4. Operating plans/ operational guidelines The plans and guidelines outline and define specific operational areas to insure that the agreements can be implemented in a timely and efficient manner. They include items such as:

14 Points of contact 15 Procedures for requesting resources; 16 Entry procedures; 17 Annual updates of costs, reimbursements, and cross waivers; and 18 Updated standards, qualifications or training requirements.

They also identify how often and by whom the plans and guidelines will be reviewed and updated and the method for revalidating plan contents and guidelines.

2.6.2.5. Border-crossing arrangements These arrangements set protocols and procedures for simplifying border crossings, taking into account sovereignty issues, including the following:

19 Opening alternative border-crossing points to facilitate assistance; and Customs provisions concerning personnel; equipment and materials.

2.6.2.6. Disaster Management Plan links for the receiving country These explain how the fire assistance plan sits within the wider disaster management plan for the receiving country, including legislative authority. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) These procedures detail the methodology to be followed when the agreement is activated, especially in relation to:

20 Command and control; 21 Fire suppression procedures to be followed; and 22 Communications systems and safety procedures to be used.

SOPs are tested and refined using ‘tabletop exercises’, dry field exercises and low scale operations before being deployed in a full scale emergency.

2.6.2.7. Other provisions These provide the opportunity for any country, agency or organisation signing this agreement to define other areas of cooperation that they want to include in the agreement such as:

23 Shared training activities, including materials; 24 Study tours, technical exchanges, and joint exercises; 25 Relationship of an agreement to other agreements; 26 Standards for personnel; 27 Safety equipment; 28 Limitations on the type and use of telecommunications equipment; and 29 Method of recall of firefighting resources.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 31

3 Aerial Assets Ownership, Contracting and Procurement.

3.1 Typology of US aerial resources

3.1.1 Federal Resources

The US wildland fire aviation includes a variety of aircraft and operations: ▪ Helicopters are used to drop water, transport crews, provide reconnaissance and

infrared assessments and deliver resources to the fireline.

▪ Fixed-wing aircraft in use include smokejumper aircraft, air tactical platforms, single engine airtankers (SEATs), large airtankers, and large transport aircraft. These aircraft play a critical role in supporting firefighters on the ground.

Federal and state authorities independently contract aircraft, based on their respective demands. Once these firefighting agencies have determined the type and quantity of firefighting assets required, they must decide where and how to acquire them. They have a variety of procurement options to choose from: ▪ National contracts are used for assets that can be deployed anywhere in the country,

including: aviation resources, such as large helicopters and air tankers; some firefighting crews and camp resources, such as catering and shower facilities.

▪ Regional contracts are similar to national contracts, but they are executed at the regional or state level.

▪ Emergency rental agreements are often developed before the fire season, but they are executed only when needed. These are used for assets such as firefighting crews, bulldozers, water tenders, and other equipment, including helicopters.

▪ Fire caches store firefighting equipment and other items that can be delivered to a fire; 11 national caches are strategically located around the country.

In order to achieve equipment compatibility and use by all fire organisations, the National Wildfire Coordinating Group standardised the following: ▪ Federal air tanker and helicopter contracts;

▪ Radio frequency agreement format for sharing specific radio frequencies at the local level; and

▪ Fire cache equipment.

The US federal agencies manage 2,844 fixed wing aircraft and 487 helicopters, which can be mobilised for aerial firefighting. The US Forest Service and the US Bureau of Land Management administer all federal fire aviation contracts on behalf of the five US federal land management agencies:

▪ The USFS administers the federal fire aviation contracts for the large multi-engine airtanker fleet.

▪ The BLM administers the federal fire aviation contracts for the single engine airtanker (SEAT) fleet.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 32

US Forest Service

With the exception of large air tankers, fire suppression aircraft are contracted at USFS regional level. (All USFS regions adhere to a national set of standards and training qualifications.)

Aviation is the most expensive component of USFS fire suppression operations. In 2006, 96% of aircraft utilised on fire operations were contracted and these contracts consume 98% of the USFS’s aviation budget. The USFS provides approximately 800 aircraft each fire season.

US federal contracts are either for 90 or 120 days/ year and the operator must be able to move across states to support fire suppression operations nation-wide. Contracts are for 1 year with possible extensions for a maximum of 3 years. The USFS would prefer to issue a 5 year contract but have encountered some resistance from aircraft operators who are concerned at being locked into contracts without ‘rise-and-fall’ provisions.

USFS contracts have variable cost structures designed to cover pilots’ wages and fuel. Contracts do not have the capacity to cover changes to items such as insurance premiums.

The USFS have recently changed their policy by which the majority of their aircraft were sourced through CWN (Call When Needed) contracts. The majority of contracted aircraft are now procured through Exclusive Use contracts (see below).

The USFS employs 70 to 80 pilots on a full time basis. Most of these are fixed-wing pilots (only 9 are helicopter pilots).

US Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Each of the 4 Land Management regions responsible for wildland fire suppression issues tenders for their aircraft service requirements for the forthcoming period. The contractual process is managed by the Acquisition Section of the Interior Department, which also acts as a broker for the regions.

BLM contracts are awarded on the basis of:

▪ Contractor experience;

▪ Contractors past performance;

▪ Aircraft capability; and

▪ Price (this last component is now deemed to overly influence the decision as to which companies receive a contract due to Congressional budget pressure)

Once contracts are awarded, the Interior Department’s services manage and ensure contract compliance.

BLM contracts 87 single engine airtanker (SEATs) each fire season. Contracts last a minimum 60 to 90 days per annum. BLM employs 8 fixed-wing pilots on a full time basis.

The increasing use of helicopters, under CWN contracts, and the recent shift to Exclusive Use contracting

The use of helicopters in support of wildland fire suppression has steadily increased over the 1990s, until 2003. The versatility and capability of helicopters is well suited to wildland fire suppression.

There are approximately 150 helicopters and crews under ‘Exclusive Use’ contract with the Forest Service.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 33

Remaining needs are fulfilled primarily with Call When Needed (CWN) helicopters staffed with CWN helicopter managers and crew. Although data indicates that there are over 1,000 qualified helicopter managers in the Forest Service and BLM alone, finding helicopter managers is difficult during peak demand periods (essentially due to funding issues).

The objective of CWN supply was to supplement ‘Exclusive Use’ programmes, but it then became the normal source for the majority of helicopters used to suppress large fires. Approximately 60% of the national total utilisation and cost of helicopters was filled with CWN aircraft in 2003 (almost 600 helicopters, out of a total of approximately 1,000 helicopters used for firefighting). In addition, the increased use of emergency funding provided many units with extensive utilisation of CWN ‘initial attack’ helicopters. This has therefore affected the supply of aircraft and helicopter personnel available for assignment to large project fires. Recently, however, in order to be able to guarantee the availability of aerial fire suppression resources (increasing numbers of large -‘Type 1’- helicopters being contracted by other industries, particularly with the oil industry), the USFS has shifted from having the majority of its aircraft sourced through CWN, and now increasingly procures through national ‘Exclusive Use’ contracts.

3.1.2 State Resources

Ownership of aerial fire suppression resources varies between the individual states. State authorities independently contract aircraft, based on their respective demands. The California example: For example the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), despite being a state-based land manager, is also a fire and emergency service agency with responsibilities over many areas of California for the provision of wildland fire protection. With 48 aircraft operated under its ‘emergency response air programme’, it is the most important of such departments among US states (23 large water bombers, 11 helicopters and 14 tactical aircraft). These aircraft are operated from 13 air attack and 9 helicopter bases located state-wide, which allow aircraft to reach most fires within 20 minutes. Most aircraft were purchased by the CDF at nominal cost with federal assistance. Other airtankers run by the CDF are purchased through federal, USFS-managed contracts. CDF pays for these aircraft through its own budget and manages them, and also works in partnership with the USFS to achieve interoperability between state and the federal services. Some water bombers and air tactical plane (as well as pilot services, and aircraft maintenance and parts management services) are provided by two private contractors. All CDF helicopters are piloted by CDF personnel. The average annual budget of the CDF Aviation Management Program approaches $20 million (€ 15 million) (2006), which includes all 48 aircraft operated by CDF.

3.2 The private contracting industry

In the early 1980s, during a time of economic crisis, shrinking forest fire agencies budgets and increasing wildland fires, the federal and state fire organisations began contracting with the private wildland firefighting industry. Before that, a period of 30 relatively cool and wet years, with a reduced incidence of forest fires, had led to a reduction of the US Forest Service firefighting capacity from 1,200 to 500 crews.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 34

Since 1980, drought, changing fuel complexity (notably the multiplication of bushes and small trees, under the forest cover), and the expansion of the urban wildland interface have dramatically affected fire frequency, size and intensity. The emergence of private contract resources (i.e. national and regional ‘20-person firefighting crews’ comprised of engines, bulldozers, tenders and other specialised equipment, and support services such as caterers and shower units) allows federal and state agencies some flexibility to increase or decrease support (although this is not always true). Training, insurance costs, benefits, gear and transportation are all borne by the contractor. Today, approximately 40% of the firefighting resources across the US (at federal, state and local level) are provided by private contractors of wildland fire services, according to the National Wildfire Suppression Association (NWSA), the most important professional association of firefighting contractors in the US. The NWSA represents more than 150 private sector contract companies in 16 states that can align a work force of approximately 12,000 individuals, including 130 contract crews and over 400 fire engines for dispatch across the US during the height of fire season. Pre-existing agreements and contracts with federal, state and local agencies allow National Wildfire Suppression Association (NWSA) member and associate member companies to dispatch these resources immediately. Contractors are paid only for time worked, and the contractor bears all costs of training, equipment, travel, and insurance costs. Budget restrictions and the increasing occurrence of wildfires from the 1990s onwards have led to agencies increasingly utilising these private resources on a CWN basis, although a recent shift from the USFS towards Exclusive Use procurement underlines the problems that affect the private contracting industry (see below).

3.3 The problems of the current federal contracting system and potential alternatives

3.3.2 The short-term pursuit of cost-efficiency at the detriment of safety

Interview responses from this study and various public reports suggest that federal contracts for air tanker and helicopter fire management services are often unrealistic, both from a business and an operational point of view, and do not adequately recognise aircraft limitations. As a result, contract provisions contain disincentives to flight safety. Federal agencies responsible for wildland aerial firefighting are said to seek short-term cost-efficiency that reduces the safety of aviation programmes. Forest Service and BLM contracts are said not to incentivise value or safety, and to be too narrowly cost-focused. Daily fire-management decisions are also said to lack understanding regarding long-term costs. Safety-sensitive positions remain vacant for extended periods. Conversely, interviews for the Canada case study suggested that Canada spends far less on quick-response capabilities designed to contain small fires, than it does to fight fires once they have grown large. The aviation problems faced by the US wildfire fighting agencies stem from a desire to do the best job possible with whatever financial resources are available. Forest Service and BLM contracting do not use a budget validation process, unlike government agencies in other areas. Therefore, in order to operate within the contracting agencies' budget



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 35

requirements, air tanker operators are encouraged to minimise maintenance, training, and other costs. As a result, large air tankers are flown in unsafe conditions, which the military would not usually accept. Aircraft limits have also been said to have been consistently exceeded. This has been made possible through a culture that values risk among tanker pilots. Auditing agencies have also revealed that the Forest Service contracting division appears to lack technical advice. Auditors have noted that aircraft operators are required to submit bids that are insufficient for adequate training and maintenance. Foreign countries are said to offer contracts of up to 10 years and 30% higher rates than those in the US to ensure proper training, maintenance, and eventual aircraft replacement. Australia, Canada, and Italy have been quoted to be among this group. Appropriately funded contracts with long time frames now appear to foster stability in the aerial firefighting industry and allow contractors to finance replacement aircraft more easily. This is a move that the Forest Service has recently embraced, in order to encourage submissions for contracts from new and innovative aircraft operators.

3.3.2 Potential alternatives to the current contracting system

The contracting process appears to be crucial in fostering aerial firefighting progress, particularly from a safety and efficiency point of view. Potential contracting alternatives that have been proposed by auditors from the federal agencies include: ▪ A ‘government-owned/contractor-operated’ fleet of air tankers. Some states use such a

system successfully, which might also be applicable to federal aerial firefighting.

▪ Responsibility for aerial firefighting could be more delegated to the US army. The Air National Guard and Air Force have fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters equipped for firefighting, and could provide additional retardant- and water-delivery services.

▪ Outsourcing federal aerial firefighting charges to a system of private contractors . Well-written contracts, providing adequate financial incentives, would likely result in budgetary savings and improved results.

▪ Transferring the aerial firefighting mission to another federal agency, independent from the five land management agencies. These agencies would therefore be able to better concentrate on their original missions.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 36

4 Operations Standards and Decision-Making Procedures.

4.1 Operations management and decision-making procedures

The management of aerial firefighting operations in the US is largely accomplished at a regional or state level and at the discretion of the local fire control centre. Although significant resources are available in the US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the local incident controller is primarily responsible for managing aerial resources and displaying effective use during a forest fire.

Requests for large multiengine aircraft are made through the 11 Geographic Areas Coordination Centres (GACC) which are responsible for managing those aircraft placed in their control by the NIFC in Boise, Idaho.

The movement and operational base location of such large aircraft is tracked centrally through the NIFC centre but dispatch is not undertaken nationally. National coordination includes large multi-engine aircraft including ‘Type 1’ helicopters but does not include the smaller ‘Type 2’ or ‘Type 3’ aircraft.

The National Interagency Coordination Centre (NICC) in Boise, determines the operational base locations of large multi-engine water bombers (USFS) and single engine airtankers (BLM) across federal agencies. These decisions are made in response to changing fire danger indices, current incidents, and seasonal risk profiles.

Regional offices of the federal agencies and state-based agencies also engage and co-ordinate smaller aircraft for their own purposes (including fixed-wing, and Type 2 and Type 3 helicopters, which are available locally).

The engagement of large aircraft (apart from the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection and the Los Angeles County Fire department) is not conducted at a regional or state level, because the effective range of large aircraft is greater than state boundaries - hence their capability to be dispatched to fires outside regional responsibilities.

The level of coordination in the management of these large aircraft is largely limited to tracking their location by NIFC and relocation coordination in response to changing risk profiles. Daily management is conducted by local agencies. Dispatch, which was previously undertaken through manually-based processes at operational bases, has recently been replaced by an electronic resource-tracking and management system--the Resource Ordering and Status System (ROSS)–that can track and display resource information nationally and outside of agencies).

4.2 Decision-support tools (geospatial data and fire-danger rating systems)

An Incident Command System (ICS) has been in place since the 1970s. This is a management hierarchy with standard procedures for disaster management (see Section 8.3. for a description of the ICS).

In 2009, the five federal agencies began to use a newly developed analytical tool, known as the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (LANDFIRE), in order to help their line officers and fire managers take decisions from the ground about how to manage a particular fire. LANDFIRE analyses a range of factors (e.g. current location of a fire, vegetation conditions, buildings and other high-value resources, as well as weather forecasts) and produces comprehensive maps and data describing vegetation and fire regimes across the US, thus helping the agencies: identify the extent, severity, and location of wildland fire threats to centres of population and resources; predict fire intensity and the rate of spread under particular weather conditions as well as evaluate the effect that reducing fuels may have on future fire behaviour.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 37

For example, LANDFIRE produces a map illustrating: the likelihood that a particular forest fire, if not suppressed, will burn a certain area within a given time and the buildings and other resources that may be threatened as a consequence.

Fire managers can therefore better assess the risk and identify the most appropriate response (e.g. whether to dedicate substantial resources, including aircraft, to provide full and immediate suppression or take a less intensive approach instead, which may reduce risks to firefighters and be less costly).

In the recent years, the federal agencies have also improved the data they use to help identify lands where fuels (bushes, small trees, etc.) need to be removed and have taken steps to improve their processes for allocating fuel reduction funds and setting priorities for fuel projects.

4.3 Monitoring operation assets: the Resource Ordering and Status System (ROSS)

In order to improve their efficiency in using firefighting aircraft, as well as other assets, the federal agencies have taken several measures.

They have replaced a manual, paper-based system for requesting and assigning firefighting assets with a new, computer-based dispatching system, called the Resource Ordering and Status System (ROSS). The new system will help to more effectively and efficiently monitor firefighting assets during a fire and is likely to reduce suppression costs by facilitating the use of local firefighting assets. The system will also be used by federal agencies to localise ’resource-persons’ in various firefighting circumstances, which will help increase the use of incident commanders at local level, and reduce the need to mobilise more costly incident management teams. Effective decision-making on deployment made by staff close to the incident is now possible, given that these staff are now supported by real time information.

An ‘incident business advisor’ will also be assigned to fires estimated to cost more than $5 million and an advisor to fires estimated to cost more than $1 million.

In 2008, the agencies also changed how they determined where to send certain firefighting assets to ensure that aircraft perform the highest-priority work and avoid sitting idle, rather than being released for use elsewhere (because officers fear being unable to recall an aircraft if they need it later).

Agencies sometimes use more, or more costly, firefighting assets than necessary, however, often in response to political or social pressures to demonstrate they are taking all possible action to protect communities and resources. For example, agencies may call on more aircraft than can be effectively used to fight fires; or utilise air tankers that drop flame retardants when on-the-ground conditions may not justify such drops. At the same time, aviation activities are expensive, accounting for about one-third of all firefighting costs on a large fire. It is often argued, however, that rapid deployment of aerial resources is necessary to reduce the likelihood of a wildfire becoming a major uncontrollable disaster.

4.4 Standards of Operations

Standards of Operations include: ▪ Organisational responsibilities (per agency/ structure);

▪ Risk assessment and management;

▪ Aerial safety rules;

▪ Flight and duty limitations;

▪ Communication between monitoring centre and aircrafts and between aircrafts;

▪ Flight operations in specific environments: low-level flight, congested areas, etc.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 38

▪ Air space coordination; and

▪ Flight requests and approval.

See Section 8.4 for the U.S. Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations 2010.

4.5 Weaknesses of the current US decision-making system

Despite recent progress in asset monitoring, the following weaknesses have been observed in the existing system of wildfire fighting decision-making: ▪ Juxtaposed or overlapping agencies, including a mix of interagency coordinating bodies.

▪ A system that requires six or more separate national interagency coordinating bodies to agree on an action to be taken.

▪ Inadequate aviation policies and standards. The fire management programme area in the BLM is centralised, while it is decentralised in the Forest Service. Many differences exist between Forest Service and Department of Interior aviation policies.

▪ The National Multi-Agency Coordination Committee must develop priorities and directions by consensus as a fire advances, which is a major constraint.

▪ As aerial fire suppression operations in the US falls under the ‘private’ or ‘federated state aircraft’ category of aircraft operations, the FAA (federal aviation administration) is not directly involved in the regulation of aerial fire suppression (for safety reasons the USFS requires, though, that the industry adhere to certain FAA standards).

5 Financial arrangements/ Cost Sharing (including insurance-related issues)

5.1 Funding of the federal agencies in charge of wildfires fighting

The US Forest Service and the US Bureau of Land Management administer all fire aviation contracts on behalf of the five US federal land management agencies (including themselves): Within the US Forest Service, each USFS ‘Region’ funds the contracting of fire suppression aircraft. There is no centralised head office budget for aircraft acquisition. USFS recent aviation expenditure is around $100 million (€ 75 million) per fire season. At the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), funding for fire suppression aircraft comes centrally from the Department of Interior.

5.2 Federal funding to states and private owners

To help meet National Fire Plan goals, the US Congress provides funding for programmes to assist not only federal firefighting entities but also non-federal entities. Funds for fighting wildfires on federal territory (funding for fire suppression and additional emergency funds) have fluctuated widely over the past decade, from less than $430 million (€325 million) (in FY1999) to $2.5 billion (€1.9 billion) in FY2008. For fiscal years 2001 through 2005, assistance to non-federal entities and communities totalled $436 million (€329 million). These funds take the form of grants or other assistance administered by the Department of Agriculture and the Interior. They are utilised for state and local firefighters training, and to purchase firefighting equipment, conduct risk assessments and assist local authorities in developing community wildland fire protection plans, etc.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 39

The federal government also has numerous programmes to support forest management on state and private forestlands, primarily administered by the US Forest Service. There are currently more than twelve forestry assistance programs, including rural/ forest firefighting programmes. The Rural Fire Protection programme was created to assist in preventing and controlling wildfires, to protect human lives, crops and livestock, property and other improvements, and natural resources in rural areas. The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Forest Service, is authorised to coordinate efforts and ‘“provide prompt and adequate assistance whenever a rural fire emergency overwhelms, or threatens to overwhelm, the firefighting capability’ of states or local agencies. The programme has two components, with separate funds: state fire assistance and rural volunteer fire assistance. The Secretary of Agriculture is also authorised to provide 50% cost share assistance ’to conduct preparedness and mobilisation activities, including training, equipping, and otherwise enabling state and local firefighting agencies to respond to requests for fire suppression assistance.’ Finally, the Secretary is directed to cooperate with the Administrator of General Services (GSA) to ’encourage the use of excess personal property by state and local fire forces receiving assistance.’ The Secretary is authorised to provide financial, technical, and related assistance to state foresters and to rural volunteer fire departments. The latter are defined as ’any organised, not for profit, fire protection organisation that provides service primarily to a community or city’ of up to 10,000 people, ’whose firefighting personnel is 80% or more volunteer, and that is recognised as a fire department by the laws of the state’. The (permanent) authorisation of funding for Rural Fire Protection includes ’such sums as may be needed‘ for most activities, and up to $70 million (€53 million) annually, with 50% available only for state foresters and 50% only for rural volunteer fire departments, for cost-share assistance. Annual funding rose steadily from $17 million (€ 13 million) in FY1996 to $27 million (€ 20 million) in FY2000, then jumped to $124 million (€ 94 million) in FY2001. In addition, Congress continues to allocate funds for grants for Volunteer Fire Assistance. This programme was authorised as the Rural Community Fire Protection Programme (in the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973).

Table 0-1 Federal Funding for Rural Fire Fighting and Protection (i.e. at local level)

Source: Congressional Research Service - 2004

5.3 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) financing

Under its Fire Management Assistance Grant Programme, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides financial assistance to non-federal entities for the mitigation, management, and control of any fire on public or private forest or grassland that



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 40

would constitute a major disaster. Non-federal entities can be indemnified for 75% of the permissible fire suppression costs under FEMA. Two bills have been introduced (in 2007 and 2008) that allow an increase of the reimbursement rate to 90%, provided the area at risk adopts measures, notably construction codes, intended to protect it from forest fire.

5.4 Sharing the costs of wildfires fighting

5.4.1 Master agreements federal and non-federal entities and costs sharing methods

Federal and non-federal entities cooperate and share the costs of fighting wildland fires within the framework of master agreements that are usually signed state by state. Those agreements incite federal and non-federal entities to develop a separate agreement, documenting how costs are to be shared for each fire that burned across multiple jurisdictions. Each master agreement also generally lists one or more methods that could be used for sharing costs. These methods generally include surface area burned, cost apportionment, or variations of these or other methods. The possible cost-sharing methods include the following: ▪ Surface area burned: the hectares-burned method spreads fire suppression costs

evenly across the affected land, a distribution that may not recognise extra fire suppression costs incurred to protect lands and resources in one entity’s jurisdiction. This method has been criticised for not being the most equitable method to share costs in cases where fires threaten the wildland-urban interface (where fires are much more costly to deal with). However, in many states, protecting structures is primarily a local responsibility, and many local entities are unable to pay the costs of fighting a large fire that threatens the wildland-urban interface.

▪ Cost allocation method: aviation costs for fires burning in the wildland-urban interface are shared equally for 72 hours, and other fire suppression costs, such as firefighting personnel and equipment, are shared on the basis of hectares burned; other variations of this system are possible.

5.4.2 The need for clarifying federal and non-federal financial responsibilities: the issue of wildfires across jurisdictions:

An important role in protecting communities and resources and responding to fires is devolved to non-federal entities (including state forestry departments and tribal, county, city, and rural fire departments). However, financial responsibilities for wildland fire suppression have not been evidently separated between federal and state/ non federal entities, specifically those responsibilities pertaining to the expensive efforts to protect the wildland-urban interface. The above-mentioned master agreements provide a framework for cost sharing. But they do not offer clear direction for federal and non-federal officials to decide which method to use for a specific fire. Also, the methods used to share suppression costs for fires with similar characteristics vary widely among states. Consequently, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the distribution of costs between federal and non-federal entities differs, sometimes substantially, depending on the cost-sharing method used.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 41

The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior agree that interagency policies for cost sharing could be clarified to indicate under what circumstances particular cost-sharing methods are most appropriate. They also add that it would be difficult to develop universal guidance requiring a specific cost-sharing method for fires with certain characteristics, since, according to the GAO, the organisation and funding of state and local firefighting entities varies from state to state, therefore necessitating a measure of flexibility. At non-federal levels there are also concerns that (in addition to increased costs of fires), federal government treats non-federal entities in different states differently, therefore introducing variations in the proportion of costs borne by federal and non-federal entities from state to state. Conversely, federal officials are concerned that the existing framework for sharing suppression costs, coupled with the availability of federal emergency assistance, insulates state and local governments from the cost of providing forest fire protection in the wildland-urban interface (and that the federal government therefore still bears more than its share of that cost). As a result, state and local governments have less incentive to adopt laws (such as building codes) that, in the long run, could help reduce the cost of suppressing forest fires, notably in the wildland-urban interface. The GAO therefore recommended that the federal agencies work with relevant state entities to develop more specific guidance as to when particular cost-sharing methods should be used and to clarify their respective financial responsibility for fires that burn, or threaten to burn, across multiple jurisdictions. The continuing expansion of the wildland-urban interface and the rising costs for protecting these areas make resolving these issues ever more urgent.

5.5 Insurance related issues

In international agreements, the sending participant should be reimbursed by the receiving participant for the costs it incurred in furnishing Wildfire Suppression Resources. The costs may include the premiums to purchase death and personal injury insurance for employees. The specific costs and procedures for reimbursement are developed in the Annual Operating Plans of the international agreements, which are binding contracts.

5.5.1 Personal injury, death, and public liability insurance coverage

The existing international aerial wildfire fighting agreements signed by the US all state that: ▪ “All employees, contractors, sub-contractors, or agents of a sending participant sent to

provide wildfire assistance to a receiving participant, for the purposes of tort liability only, considered to be employees and agents of the receiving participant.

▪ The sending participant nor any personnel sent by it to provide wildfire assistance to the receiving participant or any organization associated with such personnel shall be subject to any action in tort pertaining to or arising out of fighting fires.

▪ The receiving participant agrees to assume any and all liability for the criminal/ tortuous acts or omissions of personnel sent to provide wildfire assistance to him; the receiving participant’s assumption of such liability extends to the payment of any damages or other amounts awarded to any person who has suffered or claims to have suffered loss and damage as a result of such acts or omissions.

▪ In the event that the sending participant or any personnel sent by it are the subject of any claim the receiving participant will undertake at its cost the defence of such claim on behalf of the sending participant



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 42

▪ Each participant waives any claims against the other participant and of each component of that participant for compensation for loss, damage, personal injury, or death occurring as a consequence of the performance of activities undertaken pursuant to the operating plan.

▪ The US Departments of Interior and Agriculture, self-insure employees of the US Government while on official work assignments and on official travel status. Therefore, employees of the US Government will not require additional insurance coverage under the operating plans for activities conducted on behalf of foreign agencies.

▪ Prior to personnel of any foreign agency being deployed to the US, the foreign agency will ensure that appropriate personal injury and death insurance coverage is in place for each of their personnel deployed in response to US wildfire suppression resource requests.

▪ Additional personal injury and death insurance costs necessarily incurred by foreign agencies by reason of their deployment are reimbursed by the US.”

5.5.2 Billing and payment

Billing procedures for emergency fire suppression assignments are as follows: “The billing and payment requests are submitted directly to a designated official of the Receiving Participant Invoices for goods and services are paid in the Receiving Participant’s currency. All interest charges will be forgiven for overdue accounts on Government-to-Government invoices provided payment is made within 6 months of the last date of the billing document being received by the Receiving Participant. Billing have to include original itemized invoice and Sending Participant will include backup documentation summarizing listing of salary, supplies, travel, and equipment with dates, hours, and crew, equipment, or aircraft type. This will not be required for flat rate billing, except for all travel, supplies, and equipment expenses incurred by the Sending Participant. At the time of the request for assistance, the Sending Participating Agencies may be reimbursed at a daily flat rate agreed prior to the mobilization of wildfire suppression personnel. The daily rate is in lieu of itemized salary costs, overtime, and relevant allowances for wildfire suppression personnel of [foreign] Participating Agencies.”

6 Training

6.1 A complex system

The US training and certification system is very structured, but also highly complex with significant variation in training requirements between agencies and jurisdictions. There is a move in the direction of common standards between agencies, specifically at the federal level. However the approaches remain very different at the operational level, which still requires several different training systems. For example, the Forest Service (USFS) still uses lead planes piloted by experienced fire crew, in order to oversee and harmonise water bombers operations. They have however recently started to manoeuvre lead planes with Air Tactical Group Supervisors (Air Attack Supervisors) on board, to provide a more tactical approach to air operations, thus bringing its operating procedures more in line with those of other agencies.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 43

The pilots training and accreditation requirements differ between the USFS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The accreditation process provides background training in ground operations, in addition to air operations training that is based on computer training, oral tests, flight tests and attendance at an aerial firefighting academy. A sophisticated computer-based training simulator for air operations has also been developed by the USFS. It provides for the simultaneous interactive operation of up to five aircraft in a variety of fire scenarios, in a very realistic setting (however ground-based operations are not integrated into its scenarios). Air operations specialists, notably Air Attack Supervisors (AAS) must be carefully trained and selected. The ability to effectively integrate ground and aerial fire suppression operations is also considered of utmost importance. More specifically, most of the US Forest Service’s own pilots are fixed-wing pilots. They perform the check and training rides for contract pilots utilised on USFS contracts. They are responsible for the selection system employed by the USFS to identify approved contract pilots and their capabilities. These pilots also fly fire operations during the fire season. All pilots federally contracted to the USFS must meet the agency’s minimum pilot standards, pass a check ride and be monitored for their performance during the fire season. There is a 3-year rotation process to review all contract pilots that fly for the USFS. USFS contracts have minimum aircraft requirements and pilot standards. Contract pilots must also attend a CRM (Crew Resource Management) course conducted by the USFS. The USFS also expects that any prospective contractor meet FAA requirements prior to any approval of contracts. The eight BLM pilots conduct the check and training rides for BLM’s contracted pilots. Four ‘national incident management organisation teams’ have been established by federal agencies. These teams are staffed with some of the most experienced fire managers. Based in the USFS, they work with all wildland fire agencies to improve firefighting strategic decisions over time. These teams have several assignments, including: ▪ Managing the largest, most complex and costly fires;

▪ Identifying and disseminating good practices, in terms of management, throughout the agencies; and

▪ Working with staff at the national forests outside the ‘fire season’ where large fires are particularly likely to occur, to improve staff response preparation.

Strategic decisions about how to manage a fire are made by managers of the agencies’ individual land management units, that is, national forest supervisors, BLM district managers, and others line officers. A 2000 review by the National Association of State Foresters, however, concluded that many line officers have little wildland fire experience and may select unnecessarily costly fire management strategies, with a low likelihood of success, and unnecessarily expose firefighters to risk of injury. Therefore, a training programme has been initiated by the Forest Service in 2007. It is geared towards certifying line officers to manage a fire at different competency levels (low,



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 44

medium, or high complexity). If a fire exceeds the line officer’s certification level, a more experienced officer is assigned to coach the less experienced officer; final decisions on strategies, however, remain the responsibility of the line officer of the unit where the fire is burning.

6.2 Specific issues with the current system of wildfire fighting aircrafts training

Research suggests that wildfire fighting aircraft training in the US is underfunded and inadequately specified for helicopters, large air tankers, and other fixed-wing operations. ▪ Aircrew of contracted aircraft lack adequate training. The Forest Service has, for

instance, not identified training requirements, the contract award process does not consider aircrew training accomplishments, nor are training records required as proof-of-accomplishment.

▪ Operators are not encouraged to recruit and keep up full time safety officers to supervise and manage aircrew training.

▪ No opportunity is offered to pilots, particularly for fixed-wing aircraft to train jointly, in a ‘real world’ environment.

▪ Despite lessons learnt during ‘real-world’ operations, each individual in the wildfire fighting manoeuvre knows little about the others, mostly because air-tanker pilots are not encouraged to share information about successful techniques, results obtained, and problems encountered during operations (which other professional aviation communities usually do).

▪ Civil firefighting capabilities are not fostered by the current training system (e.g. operational effectiveness measures, like consistent drop accuracies, etc.).

▪ Previous-season data are not used for sustainable, long-term improvements.

▪ Helicopter pilots learn little about the other elements of aerial firefighting (even when they work on a fire in conjunction with other aircraft), because helicopter manoeuvres are often isolated from other flight activities.

7 The U.S. system of Sharing Wildfire Fighting Resources: Lessons Learnt

7.1 Lessons learnt: strategy and organisation - the shortcomings and failures of federal wildfire fighting organisation

The variety of agencies that have juxtaposed or overlapping mandates, as well as the existence of several separate national ‘interagency coordinating bodies’, the diversity of their missions and the unclear standards of federal land management agencies create confusion that compromises the safety and effectiveness of aviation in wildland fire management.

Various audit reports 3 have found that:

▪ The current US system suffers from a lack of unified command and control arrangement that negatively impacts aerial firefighting effectiveness.

▪ Fire fighting efficiency and safety remain compromised because a common operations plan, with clear line management, has not overcome the mission differences among federal agencies in charge of land management and wildfire fighting.

3 Government Accountability Office reports (2006, 2007 and 2009 reports) – Report to the Chiefs of USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management on The Effectiveness and Safety of Federal Aerial Firefighting (2004).



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 45

▪ There is a need to determine the roles and responsibilities of federal and state agencies, an essential condition for a more effective national wildland aerial firefighting programme.

7.1.1 Juxtaposed or overlapping agencies; a mix of interagency coordinating bodies

The arrangements currently in place in terms of coordination and cooperation are said to be helpful for developing compatible policies and standards between agencies that have juxtaposed or overlapping mandates. Nevertheless, questions have arisen as to the effectiveness and efficiency of an organisation that demands six or more separate interagency coordinating bodies to agree on an action to be taken.

Comments on a few points in the Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations illustrate the situation. The National Multi-Agency Coordination (NMAC) Group is mandated to establish ‘priorities and direction for wildland fire activities.’ Each member of this seven-agency committee, which operates by consensus and is convened only during active fire situations, has a veto.

Similar National Multi-Agency Coordination Groups are formed as needed in various Geographic Areas to deal with regional firefighting issues. Members of the national group do not seem to find this process burdensome. However, front-line aerial firefighters find that ’the Feds don’t fight fire in the morning because all the leaders are in meetings’4 This indeed does not seem to be an efficient way to handle the resource allocation challenges of a wildland fire’s rapidly changing circumstances or the competing demands of numerous fires.

7.1.2 Inadequate aviation policies and standards

While operating with insufficient aviation policies and standards, land and forestry managers involved in aerial firefighting have attempted to reconcile differing missions. Both the BLM and Forest Service practice decentralised management of actual wildland fires. However, the fire management programme area in the BLM is centralised, while it is decentralised in the Forest Service. This situation fosters ineffectiveness and inefficiency according to auditors.

Despite commitments from the various agencies to ‘consistent interagency development and application’, it is possible for agencies to depart from the common standards or to supplement them with others, underlining the agencies' inconsistency when it comes to cooperation and collaboration.

An on-site incident commander directs individual fire suppression efforts, while the National Multi-Agency Coordination Group allocates resources and establishes relationships on a geographic, ‘big-picture’ basis. Although there is a clear and authoritative command structure in place for individual fires, national aerial fire suppression resources are not always safely and effectively deployed. Auditors have underlined that there is no clear, general understanding of the degree to which fire detection and initial attack are priorities. For some firefighting professionals ’states want to eradicate fires and the Forest Service wants to manage them.’

This explains why examples abound of helicopters not being dispatched to a fire because no Forest Service helicopter manager was available, as required by the agency’s policy. Similarly, helicopters are withdrawn from state land when flames spread to federal land because again there were no helicopter managers on-site, gravely affecting the agencies ‘political’ credibility with the general public.

4 Report to the Chiefs of USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, op cit.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 46

7.1.3 Cultural and organisational problems

7.1.3.1 Lack of clarity in the organisation

The current federal interagency firefighting aviation system in the US does not appear to provide clear mandates and accountabilities. The lines of authority are neither logical nor well-understood, and there is, according to auditors, little clarity in determining what missions and objectives take priority.

A need has been identified to replace the current crisis-mode approach with a more deliberate strategy, viewing fire not as an emergency but as a part of daily business.

7.1.3.2 Cultural issues: ‘Forestry officials governing aviation programs’

Commitment to land management has led to a patchwork of interagency committees that respect the mandates of partner agencies, but do not resolve basic aerial firefighting organisational and accountability issues.

The result has been described as ‘forestry officials governing aviation programmes’. It is impossible for these managers to determine the technical requirements for a complex aviation programme, regardless of their commitment. Differing missions and incompatible organisational structures between agencies make any leader's task very difficult. Forest Service and BLM leaders are not well versed on aircraft certification, airworthiness, and performance issues, or their implications for flight safety, according to audit reports.

A consortium of agencies administers the federal aviation and ground firefighting programmes, but the structure of these agencies presents fundamental divergences.

Some of these operate through centralised policy, standards, and funding control, like the BLM. Others, like the Forest Service’s chose a decentralised structure that was well-adapted to their initial responsibilities, and deliver services through a decentralised operations programme that allows initiative and field-level discretion. The existing US situation, however, where a decentralised organisation (i.e. the Forest Service) shares many operational responsibilities with a highly centralised organisation (i.e. the BLM) is not likely to be efficient.

7.1.3.3 Lack of effective business and management tools

The measure of effectiveness or efficiency in either the Forest Service or the BLM, suffers from a lack of reliable database information.

30 Effective performance measures, such as the cost-per-hectare of fire suppression, pose the problem that costs are likely to be high on a per-hectare basis for small fires, while it is virtually impossible to estimate the money saved by rapidly dousing fires.

31 The 30-year-old National Fire Management Analysis System, which is used to estimate cost-benefit considerations does not consider ‘public goods’, such as public concerns, aesthetics, wildlife, or endangered species. In addition, the model makes land value distinctions based on averages too broad to be helpful in specific situations.

7.2 Lessons learnt: asset planning, funding and utilisation and financial resources

7.2.1 Efficiency issues in planning the needs for firefighting assets

Aircraft resources can represent about one-third of all firefighting costs on a large fire. However federal land management agencies have no standardised budgeting and resource allocation process for wildland fires, and thus are unable to determine the corresponding budget needs and allocate resources in an integrated way across fire management activities.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 47

A common system for budgeting and apportioning federal expenses is necessary, however, considering the cooperative firefighting system used in the US. It would notably help ensure that each agency’s resources and firefighting assets are considered when determining the aircraft and other resources needed for a fire season.

7.2.2 Efficiency issues in asset acquisition

Firefighting agencies lack effective systems for acquiring assets cost-effectively:

32 Requirements vary from contract to contract and do not guarantee that the agencies obtained the most cost-effective assets; and

33 Inadequate administration and oversight of agreements by federal agencies results in poor contractor performance and high rental rates.

Federal agencies have begun implementing a new system for determining which contractors to use.

7.2.3 Lack of a cost-containment strategy for wildland fires, oversight and accountability

Despite establishing a broad objective of suppressing wildland fires at a minimum cost, the federal agencies have no defined criteria by which to appraise the relative importance of often-competing priorities, e.g. firefighters and public safety or resources and structures to be protected.

The consequence is that often, local incident commanders and officials opt for firefighting strategies without suitable consideration of the suppression costs.

Federal agencies are working towards establishing measurements indicators for cost-containment performance, but their definition and effective implementation is estimated to be a lengthy process.

8 Appendices to the USA Case Study

8.1 Appendix 1: Organisations interviewed

Dale K. Dague

U.S. Forest Service

Fire & Aviation Management

Daniel A. Crittenden

U.S. Forest Service

Fire and Aviation

Merrie M. Johnson,

Director of National Fire Training Centres

3265 E Universal Way, Tucson, AZ 85706

Sarah Fisher

Branch Chief - Incident Business Practices

Fire and Aviation Management – National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC)



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 48

R.G. "Ron" Hanks

Branch Chief, Aviation Risk Management and Training Systems

US Forest Service

Boise, Idaho

8.2 Appendix 2: List of private contractors

The list of private contractors, including members of the National Wildfire Suppression Association, is available at the following address:

http://www.nwsa.us/current-members

8.3 Appendix 3: The Incident Command System (ICS)

The US has adopted the Incident Command System (ICS) as the national incident management system to manage all domestic emergency threats and responses. ICS was originally developed in the 1970s during massive wildfire suppression efforts in California and following a series of catastrophic wildfires in California's urban interface. Studies determined that response problems often related to communication and management deficiencies rather than a lack of resources or tactical failures. ICS fell under California's Standardised Emergency Management System (SEMS). In 2003, the SEMS became national with the passage of Homeland Security Directive number 5 ‘mandating‘ all federal, state, and local agencies use the National Incident Management System (NIMS) to manage emergencies in order to receive federal funding. Weaknesses in incident management were often due to: ▪ Lack of accountability, including unclear chains of command and supervision.

▪ Poor communication due to both inefficient uses of available communications systems and conflicting codes and terminology.

▪ Lack of an orderly, systematic planning process.

▪ No predefined methods to integrate inter-agency requirements into the management structure and planning process effectively.

▪ Freelancing by individuals with specialised skills during an incident without coordination with other first responders

▪ Lack of knowledge with common terminology during an incident.

Emergency managers determined that the existing management structures — frequently unique to each agency — did not scale to dealing with massive mutual aid responses involving dozens of distinct agencies and when these various agencies worked together their specific training and procedures clashed. As a result, a new command and control concept was collaboratively developed to provide a consistent, integrated framework for the management of all incidents from small incidents to large, multi-agency emergencies. Essentially, ICS consists of a standard management hierarchy and procedures for managing emergency response operations of any kind or size, by laying down procedures

http://www.nwsa.us/current-members



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 49

for selecting and forming temporary management hierarchies to control funds, personnel, facilities, equipment, and communication. ICS therefore provides a flexible, scalable, and common response framework within which multiple agencies can work together effectively. In so doing, ICS is meant to reduce organisation and communication barriers by establishing a uniform emergency management protocol in order to allow coordinated interagency action that effectively allocates suppression resources in dynamic, multiple fire situations. The ICS structure is based on the following principles: ▪ Common terminology;

▪ Modular organisation;

▪ Integrated communications;

▪ Consolidated Incident Action Plans;

▪ Manageable span of control;

▪ Designated incident facilities; and

▪ Comprehensive resource management.

Furthermore, the ICS organisation is built around four major components: ▪ Control – incident management;

▪ Planning –collection and analysis of incident information and response activities planning;

▪ Operations – the direction of an agency’s resources in combating the incident; and

▪ Logistics –provision of facilities, services and materials required to combat the incident.

ICS has been fully implemented in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the US. Mexico and Costa Rica have translated the ICS training course into Spanish, and have begun to teach ICS to wildland firefighters. In addition, Taiwan, Bulgaria, and Mongolia have received ICS training, and new training programmes are starting in India and South East Asia.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 50

Appendix 5 Canada

1 Land cover and land use in Canada

1.1 Forest and wildfire patterns in Canada

Forests and wildfires

Approximately 41% (402.1 million hectares) of Canada’s land cover is comprised of forests (310.1 million hectares) and other woodland (92 million hectares).Given the country’s sheer size and large percentage of forest cover, Canada represents approximately 10% of the world’s forest cover and 30% of the world’s boreal forests.

National parks cover approximately 27.6 million hectares or 2.8% of Canada’s area. Additionally, 16% of forests and other woodlands are federal assets, 77% are under provincial ownership and 7% are under private ownership. Legislation protects 8% of the total forest area and 40% of the total land base is subject to varying degrees of protection such as integrated land-use planning or defined management areas such as ‘certified forests’. Canada has the largest area of certified forest in the world (approximately 146 million hectares or 40% of total certified forest land in the world).

In 2008 a total of 6,036 fires occurred and 1.7 million hectares of forests were burnt (representing approximately 0.4% of the country’s forest area). A much smaller area burned in 2009. Figure 0-1 provides the time series data (1998-2009) on the size of the total forest area burnt across the provinces and territories.

Figure 0-1 Total forest area (hectares) burnt in Canada, 1999-2009

1,706,606

647,914629,845

2,758,067

1,635,090

3,275,445

1,706,448

2,054,652

1,310,148

1,701,377

755,405

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

The available literature5 suggests a declining trend in the annual area burnt over most of the 20th century. The 21st century, however, has seen an upward trend in annual area burnt, beginning in the last quarter of 20th century. This trend is thought to be due to climate change as well as population increases at the Wildland-Urban Interface.

Wildfire damages and suppression costs

Annual fire management costs in Canada average approximately CAD500-CAD600 million (€350-450 million), excluding economic losses. Four provinces with large fire management

5 See. Peter, B. Et al. Fire Risk and Population Trends in Canada’s Wildland-Urban Interface in Canadian Wildland Strategy: Background Syntheses, Analyses, and Perspectives; Canadian Council of Forest ministers, 2006.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 51

organisations--British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec--account for approximately 80% of total firefighting management expenditure in Canada.

The cost for suppression activities varies considerably from one province to another and from year to year. Figure 0-3 below shows the budget dedicated to fire suppression activities between 1993 and 2004 in British Columbia by area burnt.

Figure 0-2 Total forest area (hectares) burnt in British Columbia, 1993-2004

5,18330,310

48,080

20,6692,960

76,574

11,58117,673

9,6778,581

264,747

220,468

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 0-3 Total budget allocated for fire suppression activities in British Columbia (CAD million), 1993-2004

25

91

39 3719

154

2153 54

38

372

165

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

In British Columbia, the average cost for fire suppression is approximately CAD53 million (€40 million) per annum. Due to severe fires in 2003 that burnt an area 10 times larger than the average for the period from 1993-2004 (265,000 hectares), British Columbia spent CAD371 million (€278 million) on wildfire suppression. Following this disastrous wildfire period the Canadian government began providing funding through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) to support the provincial government in recovering its economic losses.

2 Institutional Arrangements

2.1 Fire Management Policies at different jurisdictional levels

Provincial and territorial governments have the primary responsibility for wildland fire response. Fire management objectives within provinces and territories may vary depending



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 52

on land management objectives and forest resources as well as other values at risk in each geographical jurisdiction (e.g. forestry and logging industries, and the paper and wood product manufacturing sectors).

The federal government is primarily responsible for prevention and preparedness and for recovery activities. The federal government is not involved with particular wildfire response cases.

The Canadian Committee of Resource and Environment Ministers created the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC) in 1982 in order to facilitate the exchange of forest firefighting resources. The CIFFC is a non-profit, federally incorporated organisation.

CIFFC has two levels of management:

▪ The Board of Corporate Trustees formed by deputy ministers responsible for forestry representing each of the provinces and territories and the Federal Government. The main tasks of the Board include setting policies, giving directions and approving annual budgets.

▪ The Board of Directors formed by the provincial and territorial forest fire management directors and a representative from the federal government. The Board of Directors prepares the budget and policies, and controls the operation and expenditures of the Centre.

Fire centre staff operates the centre and implement programmes approved by the two Boards.

In addition, six working groups formed of provincial and territorial agency representatives, have been created to address common problems and issues, share resources and set national standards for aviation, resource management, fire equipment, fire science and technology, national training, and forest fire meteorology.

National Legislation for Fire Protection

Four primary legislative instruments operate at the federal level:

▪ National Defence Act (1923) provides civil authorities with aid during emergencies and identifies responsibilities for fire management defence reserves.

▪ Canadian Forestry Act (1949) which grants the federal government the right to enter into forest resource agreements with provincial and territorial ministerial agencies.

▪ Emergency Preparedness Act (1988) defines the powers, responsibilities, duties and functions of Public Safety Canada. In terms of emergency management, Public Safety Canada develops national policies, response systems and standards. Public Safety Canada houses the Governments Operations Centre, which is the hub of the national emergency management system. It is an advanced centre for monitoring and coordinating federal emergency responses.

▪ Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy Declaration (2005) is an agreement to enhance Canadian fire management and signed by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers.

Provincial programmes

Every province and territory has developed legislation and regulations to limit the use of forests for leisure purposes during high risk periods and to supply necessary firefighting equipment.

Provincial-level community planning measures have also been established. For example in the mid-1980s an inter-agency committee was formed in British Columbia to address wildland-urban interface (WUI) fires and other emergency issues. The Committee’s working group is formed by representatives from the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Forest and



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 53

Range, Ministry of Transportation, the Integrated Land Management Bureau, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Energy and Mines and the ’First Nations Coordinated Consultation Team‘. The Committee’s responsibilities include: setting minimum measures to reduce fire risks particularly in WUI; introducing forms and procedures for assessing fire risk in the WUI; providing public education to develop local awareness and convey prevention options and guidance on developing a local community fire plan.

In addition, some provinces such as British Columbia and Northwestern Territories have fuel management programmes. Fuel management is the process of changing forest fuels to reduce aggressive fire behaviour. Practices include thinning, spacing and pruning trees, and removing needles and woody debris on the forest floor. This reduces the forest fuel load and decreases the potential for devastating wildfires. For example, in British Columbia, a Fuel Treatment Pilot Project Programme was developed to assist communities in exploring fuel management treatment alternatives and informing the relevant agencies and public about these alternatives. This pilot project is financed by the Ministry of Forests and Range and administered by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

2.2 The Wildfire response process

All provinces and territories are responsible of fire management activities within their geographical jurisdictions. In cases where the province or territory does not have its own resources or leased resources from the private sector, it contacts the CIFFC to request available resources from another province or territory.

The federal government does not control firefighting resources, and therefore if a wildfire occurs, the affected province or territory requests assistance directly from other provincial or territorial agencies through the CIFFC. The federal government can also request assistance from the private sector (e.g. helicopters).

Private landowners, including large corporations, usually possess wildfire suppression assets on their land but they can also request assistance from provincial and territorial agencies if necessary. The agencies may intervene directly, without a request from a private landowner if they consider a fire on private land to be potentially dangerous for provincial territory.

2.3 Oversight and policy structure: key actors

The majority of Canadian forests (77%) are under the jurisdiction of the provinces. As a result, most forest fire management policy is set at the provincial level and provinces have jurisdictional autonomy in forest fire management. Limited federal government involvement makes it difficult to establish national programmes and standards.

There are a few policy areas, however, where the relevant provincial ministerial agencies interact with the federal governmental. The Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System and the Canadian Interagency Mutual Aid and Resource Sharing (MARS) are the primary examples of province-federal government collaboration. While the former is designed to provide an effective information exchange mechanism during the prevention and preparedness stages, the latter enables resource sharing for wildfire response actions. Federal Disaster Financial Assistance is another area of cooperation between agencies and the federal government, which provides the federal government with financial assistance when necessary.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 54

2.4 Operational structure

The Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC) was created in 1982 as an inter-provincial and territorial coordinator, and fire suppression resources-broker under the Canadian Interagency Mutual Aid and Resource Sharing (MARS) Agreement6. The CIFFC's mandate derives from an Operating Agreement (1983). The CIFFC operates at the centre of the Canadian resource-brokering system and plays a crucial role in providing intelligence and balancing supply and demand in the Canadian forest fire management framework. Its responsibilities include:

▪ Informing provincial agencies about the fire situation through ‘situation reports’;

▪ Identifying available resources in the provinces and exposing the number, size, capability and availability of these resources (i.e. through a detailed firefighting resources inventory); and

▪ Assisting member agencies in positioning their aerial and terrestrial resources accordingly.

At the provincial and territorial level, the relevant forest fire agency under the provincial/territorial ministry is at the top of the operational structure and cooperates with the Office of the Fire Commissioner. The Fire Commissioner’s duties include administration and enforcement of fire safety legislation, firefighter certification, public safety education and training activities, fire-related data collection, fire inspection, response to major fire emergencies and advice to local units on delivery of fire protection services.

The actors involved in the firefighting management mechanism at provincial level include Provincial Agencies under the relevant Ministry, the Office of the Fire Commissioner and other staff at smaller geographical units (fire centres and zones).

For example, British Columbia is divided into six fire centres with resources allocated by the provincial agency BC Wildfire Management Branch and these six fire centres are formed by 36 zones. There is one or more fire base in each zone. Similarly, Yukon has a centralised system at provincial level: the Yukon Forest Fire Centre is responsible for the overall management of the Fire Management Programme. Most fire suppression activities are undertaken at district level. Yukon has five fire management districts and 10 sub-districts. In Ontario the province is divided into six fire management activity zones but each zone is managed by the central agency.

Once a wildfire has been detected, the provincial authority takes initial actions through its own resources. In cases where provincial resources are not sufficient, the provincial agency submits a request to the CIFFC that allocates available resources from another province or territory. In this case, the CIFFC acts as an intermediary and coordination centre between different actors.

In addition to its national duties among the member agencies, the CIFFC is also in contact with the US National Interagency Fire Centre (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho, as well as with relevant authorities in New Zealand and Australia for firefighting management.

The Centre is essentially funded by the provincial agencies. CIFFC financing is based on provincial and territorial agencies’ funding and contributions from the federal government. According to the CIFFC Agreement, one-third of total revenues are paid by the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)7 and Park Canada8 under the

6 The MARS Agreement is analysed with more details in section 2.5 below. 7 NRCan is a Federal Ministry responsible for natural resources in Canada including forestry, energy, mines and metals as well as earth science related matters. It develops policies and programmes in order to ensure sustainable economic development and improve quality of life for citizens.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 55

Ministry of Environment, at Central Government level (up to CAD200,000 or €150,000). Two-thirds are financed by provincial and territorial agencies according to the relative size of their territorial jurisdictions (up to CAD600,000 or €450,000) . The CIFFC receives additional income through other sources such as the 3% fee that CIFFC charges on the costs paid annually by each member agency for imported resources from other member agencies.

Between 2001 and 2006 CIFFC’s total revenue was approximately CAD3.3 million (€2.5 million) or CAD618,000 (€450,000) per annum. Its expenditures totalled up to CAD3.1 million (€2.3 million), resulting in a CAD 260,000 (€200,000) overall operating surplus.

Notably, the 3% resource charge totalled CAD87,000 (€63,500) in 2006. These resources allowed Canada to finance its Automated Flight Following (AFF) system, the National Fitness Certification Programme and some other online training courses for firefighting staff.

In addition to the resource sharing mechanism operated by the CIFFC, the Canadian provinces and territories also cooperate through bilateral agreements. These bilateral agreements cover a predetermined fire zone that extends across neighbouring parties to the agreement. These bilateral agreements may be a more effective and efficient solution to wildfire suppression than activating the CIFFC mechanism at the national level. The next section analyses these national and international bilateral agreements in detail.

2.5 Interstate and international cooperation

Inter-state/provinces Assistance Agreements

The Canadian Interagency Mutual Aid Resources Sharing (MARS) Agreement (1983) forms the official basis of the resources sharing system among the Canadian provinces and territories. Parties to the Agreement include the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; relevant provincial ministries and the CIFFC.

The MARS Agreement outlines three resource categories (equipment, personnel, and aircraft) and addresses two important problems in fire management:

1) Problems that cross jurisdictional boundaries; and

2) Peak-load problems created by occasional extreme demands on service capacity.

A party is authorised to request and receive resources from any other party by executing the procedures outlined in the Agreement. The receiving party is allowed to use the resources at any time. The receiving party must return the resources to the assisting party within 24 hours upon request. The receiving party is also responsible for the full cost recovery including replacement or repair costs if necessary.

The CIFFC activation process is triggered when a request explaining the required firefighting resources is submitted by a provincial agency to the CIFFC. The CIFFC then refers to its inventory database and contacts other agencies in order to provide the requesting authority with available resources.

Since the creation of the CIFFC in 1982, exchanges of fire management staff between provincial and territorial agencies have increased steadily9 (see Figure 0-4 and Figure 0-5). The volume of exchange for firefighting personnel between provinces began to increase considerably six years after the creation of CIFFC. From 1982 to 1985, Canadian provinces

8 This agency is responsible for the protection of Canadian natural and cultural heritage. The agency undertakes programmes in order to increase public awareness on ecological issues. The agency manages 42 Natural Parks, 3 National Marine Conservation Areas, 1 National Landmark, and 166 Natural Historical Sites. 9 CIFFC, Canada Report (2009) and Integrating Canadian Wildland Fire Management Policy and Institutions: Sustaining Natural Resources, Communities and Ecosystems(2006).



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 56

and territories exchanged approximately 100 personnel, which rose to approximately 1,000 in 1986, 3,500 in 1995 and more than 4,500 in 2003.

The exchange of aircraft followed a similar trend: from fewer than 1,000 before 1985, exchange levels increased to 2,000 in 1990, 3,000 in 1995 and 4,000 in 2002. Experts from British Columbia have emphasised the efficiency of this system.

Figure 0-4 Resource Request Orders (assistance requests) submitted to CIFFC, 1982-2009

Source: CIFFC, Canada Report, 2009

Figure 0-5 Resource exchange between Canadian provinces and territories through CIFFC, 1982-2006

Source: CIFFC, Canada Report, 2009

There are also bilateral agreements between provinces and territories at the national level which are designed outside the scope of the MARS agreement. For example, BC-YT (British



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 57

Columbia and Yukon Territory) Border Agreements identify the intervention conditions and reimbursement procedures for fire suppression cooperation activities along the border between the two provinces (within a 20 km zone on each side of the border).

Similarly, the Memorandum of Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta draws the lines of the cooperative arrangements between two provincial governments within a determined zone. It specifies the conditions under which any party can take legitimate suppression action within the determined zone, and the reimbursement procedures after the suppression action. The Northwest Compact between British Columbia and Northwest Territories is another example of an agreement designed to complement the MARS agreement. Like the previous bilateral agreements, the purpose of the Northwest Compact is to provide for cooperation in the control and suppression of fires within 20 km of the border (fire cooperation zone). Cost sharing procedures for these agreements are further presented in section 5.2.

International Agreements

In 1982, a Diplomatic Note was signed between Canada and the United States that officially allows the sharing of resources for fire suppression between these countries.

The CANUS agreement allows both parties to respond quickly to wildfires by providing exemptions and facilitating procedures in customs and immigration services. In Canada, resources are managed by the CIFFC and in the US by the National Interagency Fire Centre (NIFC).

There are also bilateral or multilateral agreements between Canadian and US states independent of their federal governments. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and seven New England states have formed the Northeastern Forest Fire Compact. The Governing Body of the Compact is the Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Commission where each member agency is represented. The Compact has set up a members 'Operations Committee' to recommend practices and procedures associated with resource, technology and information sharing. In order to assist with development or operational practices and procedures and facilitate resource sharing, five working teams have been formed: an aviation working team, an equipment working team, a fire weather working team, a prevention working team and a training working team.

Members of the Great Lakes Forest Fire Compact include: Ontario, Manitoba, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The Compact promotes an efficient and effective information and resource sharing mechanism among the member agencies. The Compact framework elaborates an annual plan, which provides for information and resource sharing between the agencies, which covers fire program delivery systems, fire organisations, personnel air operations and aerial and terrestrial equipment.

Similarly the Northwest Wildland Fire Compact was formed in 2000 to facilitate assistance in prevention, preparedness and control of wildland fires between the member agencies. Its members include Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Alaska and four Pacific Northwest states, (See the US case study for a detailed description of these compacts and their mechanisms).

There are also firefighting cooperation agreements between Canada and New Zealand and between Canada and Australia. The agreements are based on the British North American Act.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 58

3 Aerial Assets Ownership, Contracting and Procurement

3.1 Aerial resources inventory in Canada

National/ Federal Resources

Currently, the Government of Canada does not own any aerial resources. Firefighting management is the responsibility of provincial and territorial agencies. The CIFFC acts as a resource broker at the national level. The government requests assistance from the provincial agencies through the CIFFC when a wildfire occurs in a territory under the federal government’s jurisdiction.

State/ Regional Resources

National Air Tanker Fleet:

In 1983, under the Cooperative Supply Agreement developed by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, the federal government and six provincial governments acquired a total of 29 Canadair CL-215 water bomber aircraft. The federal government purchased 14 of these planes and the provinces purchased 15 planes. The federal government then leased the planes to Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Northwest Territories for a period of 15 years, after which time title was transferred to the lessees. The lessee provinces are charged with the maintenance and operation of these planes. Since 1983 the number of Canadair has increased to 50 (33 CL-215 and 17 CL-415).

Under CIFFC’s management rules, the planes should be ready and available to be allocated to other provincial and territorial agencies when the fire situation in their own jurisdiction allows the exportation of resources. While some provincial and territorial agencies own fire management resources, others rely exclusively on the resource-brokering system.

A CIFFC Evaluation Report from 2007 estimates that approximately 4,000 people are directly involved in forest firefighting activities in Canada. Other resources10 include:

▪ 100 air tankers;

▪ 60 fixed-wing aircraft; and

▪ 75 rotary-wing aircraft.

Figure 0-1 details aerial resources in Canada (2009).

10 2006 figures.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 59

Table 0-1 Air Tankers: Owned or Long Term Contract (60+days), 2009

AIR TANKERS BC YT AB NT SK MB ON QC NL NB NS PE PCLand BasedDC 4 2DC 6 1L-188 3 2Tracker CS2F 3Firecat (Tracker conversion) 6 3Convair 580 4 3 4AT 802 2 3 3** 6AT 802 amphibian 11 1TBM Avenger 3SkimmerCL215 3 4 5 7 4 6CL215T 1* 1* 2CL415 9 8Twin Otter, amphib. 5

Notes and source:CIFFC*CL-215 in Conversion process to turbine **CasualBC: British Columbia; YT: Yukon Territories; AB: Alberta; NT: Northwest Territories; SK: Saskatchewan; MB: Manitoba; ON: Ontario; QC: Quebec; NL: Newfoundland and Labrador; NB: New Brunswick;NS: Nova Scotia; PE: Prince Edward Island; PC: Nunavut

Focus on British Columbia:

British Columbia (BC) relies heavily on leasing and resource-sharing through the CIFFC. Specific BC resources include:

Infrastructure: ▪ 6 fire centres and one provincial fire control centre;

▪ 2 provincial airtanker centres;

▪ 20 airtanker bases;

▪ 63 fire crew initial attack bases;

▪ 2 fire equipment depots;

▪ 100 lookout towers; and

▪ 1 centralised fire reporting centre.

The Protection Programme also maintains or contracts an equipment pool that includes: ▪ A fleet of 120 fire trucks and response vehicles;

▪ Several hundred fire pumps, fire hose and a stock of more than 2000 separate items for firefighting;

▪ One ‘Dash 7’ transport aircraft;

▪ 40 patrol planes;

▪ 12 firebombing aircraft; and

▪ More than 20 helicopters



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 60

Staff/personnel: ▪ 800 professional firefighters including: 107 ‘three-person’ initial attack crews including 12

rappel crews (Rapattack) and 21 unit crews of 20 firefighters each; and

▪ More than 700 fire wardens.

During the fire season over the past five years, the average number of flight hours for each aircraft type in British Columbia was the following:

Table 0-2 Average number of flight hours per aircraft type (British Columbia)

Air Tankers

Heavy Intermediate Light

Birddog

Average flight time hours

2003 to 2008 128 155 147 178

National level:

In addition, regarding risk assessment and management at the national level, provincial agencies publish daily ‘fire situations’ and implement other programmes inside their jurisdictions.

At the national level, the primary risk assessment and management systems include the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS), Canadian Forest Fire Behaviour Prediction (FBP) System, Fire Monitoring, Mapping, and Modelling (Fire M3), Forecast Fire Weather Severity and Atmospheric Dispersion Index (ADI). A more detailed analysis of these systems can be found in section 4.1.

The Automated Flight Following (AFF) system automatically tracks aircraft location, altitude, course and speed and provides this information to dispatchers, aviation managers and other system users in real time11. The AFF system is the most important standardised element for communication between pilots and monitoring centres during interventions.

3.2 Assets contracting and procurement / private contracting system organisation

The contracting and procurement system for British Columbia is illustrative of the Canadian system more generally. BC relies on resource sharing through the MARS agreement and on leasing firefighting resources from the private sector. For example, the province relies on fixed wing air tanker delivery of fire retardant to approximately 18% of all wildfires and meets this need by contracting with private suppliers through public tendering. Tenders are published to purchase services for the long term supply of, for example:

▪ Turbine-powered air tankers;

11 Mike Russo, Technical Analyst at the Ministry of Forests and Range, Protection Branch in British Columbia.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 61

▪ Supporting ‘birddog’ aircraft12; and

▪ Personnel and all supporting services to maintain and /or enhance its wildfire control capability.

Each tender specifies the aerial resource requirements (including ancillary equipment) and minimum personnel qualifications.

Contract terms and resource availability are determined according to the summer season, when risks are highest. The contractual period is traditionally based on a consecutive period of 123 days over the summer season. This time period can also be adjusted depending on seasonal risk forecasting. The contracts generally start on the first day of April and last for 7 years, with a potential 3-year extension option.

The quantity, size and capability of these resources are decided by the province according to its best estimates regarding the upcoming seasonal wildfire circumstances and service demands. For example, in a recent tender from the summer of 2010, British Columbia specifically identified its requests as consisting of a combination of large, intermediate and light capacity land-based turbine-powered air tankers, matched to an appropriative birddog aircraft. This request was made because the particular combination of aerial resources was determined to be the most suitable for the estimated seasonal needs.

The tender further specified the following characteristics in reference to the classification of air tankers:

Table 0-3 Characteristics of air tankers


Minimum retardant carrying capacity 11,300 litres 7,300 litres 3,000 litres

Minimum loaded cruise speed 250 kts. TAS13 250 kts. TAS 160 kts. TAS

Minimum drop speed 125 kts. TAS 125 kts. TAS 105 kts. TAS

In the same year, British Columbia assessed the complement of air tanker groups and the numbers of aircraft within these groups appropriate for average annual wildfire control requirements and decided not to change the size and the capacity of these resources. The combination of air tankers leased for summer 2010 was:

Table 0-4 Air tankers leased Summer 2010

Air Tankers


Number of air tanker groups 2 2 2

Number of air tankers per air tanker group 1 2 4

12 The term “’bird-dog” ‘ originated with the US Army. In the late 1940s, the Army began using the single-engine Cessna 305 for liaison duties. The name “bird-dog” refers to the small, rugged airplane. The C305 was also used by the US Forest Service for wildland fire patrols and other operations. ‘Bird-dog’ has been applied to fixed-wing aircraft involved in the coordination of aerial firefighting ever since. 13 True airspeed



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 62

Total number of air tankers 2 4 8

Total number of supporting birddog aircraft (one per air tanker group).

2 2 2

Regarding operational procedures, British Columbia requires continuous resource availability and for the contractor to be appropriately equipped in terms of aircrafts, infrastructure and trained staff. The contractor must also be flexible to meet extended aerial wildfire control service demands. Contractors are expected to fully manage personnel requirements to meet Transport Canada requirements and the province’s service requirements, such as a valid airline transport pilot licence, valid company qualification, a minimum number of years of experience depending on the responsibility and demonstrated experience in mountain flying.

Regarding cost and insurance matters, the contractors should have liability insurance coverage during the operational period with a single event limit of a minimum of CAD10 million (€7.5 million). The contractor must also provide aircraft fuel, retardant, airport landing fees and accommodation, meals and ground transportation fees for air crew and maintenance staff when they are away from their designated base. These costs are ultimately financed by the province.

4 Decision Making Procedures and Standards of Operation

4.1 Firefighting tools: geospatial data and modelling systems and fire-danger rating systems

Provincial agencies provide daily information and data on the fire situation in their jurisdictions. Each day during the summer period, the CIFFC also produces a national fire situation report that documents the five levels of CIFFC's response. Levels IV14 and V15 are reached regularly during most fire seasons.

The Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS) is an important tool for efficient resource allocation. The CFFDRS was developed by the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and is managed and used collectively by the federal government and provincial and territorial agencies. The CFFDRS assesses danger in different parts of Canada sets preparedness levels and provides information for resource allocation.

The CFFDRS includes two subsystems: the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System and the Canadian Forest Fire Behavior Prediction (FBP) System. Two additional systems, the Canadian Forest Fire Occurrence Prediction (FOP) System and the Accessory Fuel Moisture System are under development.

CFFRDS is implemented through various means, from simple tables to a Spatial Fire Management System. The system is provided to provincial agencies free of charge. Also, the Canadian Wildland Fire Information System and the Fire Monitoring, Modelling and Mapping System are subsystems of the CFFDRS..

14 Level IV responses involve two or more regions requiring initial attack mobilisation and sustained management 15 Level V responses involve several regions facing major incidents which could exhaust all national resources



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 63

Fire weather forecasting is another important element of the prevention and preparedness stages of firefighting management. Fire weather forecasting is managed by the Canadian Meteorological Service.

4.2 Standards of Operation

When a fire is discovered or detected, the responsible agency in the province allocates its resources to suppress the fire. During periods of heightened risk or when provincial resources are not sufficient, the responsible authority contacts the CIFFC to request additional support.

Provinces with a low risk level normally commit their aircraft to the operation through the intermediation of the CIFFC. In cases where the fire zone falls in the jurisdiction determined by bilateral agreements, the requesting provincial agency may also cooperate directly with the partner agency in relevant jurisdictions.

Resource sharing may initially be undertaken through informal interaction between the provincial agencies. Interviewed experts stressed the importance of personal relationships and networks within the sector. A formal request to CIFFC is often submitted after an initial discussion. Once the CIFFC receives the formal request, it assigns available member agencies16 to its database and contacts these agencies for assistance.

The requesting agency details the quantity and the capability of the resources (equipment and personnel) required given the magnitude of the emergency. The CIFFC then assess the request and allocates the resources. Resource exchanges between the provinces are subject to the MARS Agreement. During the intervention process, the assisting agency organises and manages its own human resources in the receiving province.

Finally, through WebAir Canada, the federal government is capable of identifying internally available resources through inventory and tracking systems that display resources graphically and also to identify non-agency (e.g. municipality) resource availability. WebAir Canada is an online database through which private operators display aircraft availability. Canadian agencies may access this database to detect required aircraft by type and position with respect to specified locations. The website also shares company safety audits and pilot information sheets provided by the operators.

5 Financial Arrangements / Cost Sharing

5.1 National/ federal funding to states and private owners for wildfire prevention and firefighting

The federal government provides assistance to the provinces through Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAAs) administered by Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

When response and recovery costs exceed what individual provinces or territories could reasonably be expected to bear on their own, the DFAA are used by the Canadian government to ensure fair and equitable federal financial assistance. DFAA assistance is paid to a province or territory but not directly to affected individuals, small businesses or communities.

Since 1970, when the Programme was first initiated, the Canadian government has paid out more than CAD1.8 billion (€1.35 billion) in post-disaster assistance to help provinces and territories with response costs and with returning infrastructure and personal property to pre-disaster condition.

16 Available agencies are those considered by the CIFFC to be at low fire risk, with resources not in use.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 64

Most provincial and territorial fire management agencies fund fire suppression through general revenue. In Quebec, however, La Société de protection des forêts contre le feu (SOPFEU) - a partnership between the forest industry and the provincial government- shares fire management costs in southern Quebec.

In 2004, British Columbia introduced its Wildfire Act and initiated a cost-sharing program for which ‘clients’ contributed CAD28.1 million (€21 million) or approximately 24% of the budget through negotiated agreements. Current and future clients include the forest industry, private landowners, utilities, railways, and the federal government.

Additionally, CIFFC funding is structured so that approximately one-third of the total budget is financed by the federal government and the remaining two-thirds by the provinces and territories (with payments weighted by geographical size of the territory). The CIFFC has also other revenues (such as the 3% of the costs paid annually by each member agency for resources imported).

5.2 Cost-sharing agreements and methods

Cost-sharing between federal and non-federal entities The firefighting management system is funded through provincial and territorial budgets and falls within their jurisdictions. This is also the case when provincial or territorial agencies assist the federal government. The federal government must repay the costs in full when provinces provide assistance for an area under federal jurisdiction.

Cost-sharing between Canadian provinces and other international entities In these cases, the agency that receives assistance bears the full cost of that assistance. The MARS Agreement specifies that any party providing resources shall be reimbursed according to the rates set out with respect to these resources in the MARS Implementation Guidelines. Additionally, any party providing resources under this agreement will receive full cost compensation for resource sharing and benefits distributed to injured employees or dependents of deceased employees.

Full-cost recovery procedures related to bilateral national and international agreements are detailed in the individual agreements though they all have very similar (if not the same) characteristics.

The BC-YT (British Columbia-Yukon Territory) Border Agreement enables the provinces to act collectively within a fire cooperation zone. For example, article 4a of the Agreement sets out reimbursement terms for fire suppression. In such cases, the beneficiary province or territory is responsible for reimbursements to the province or territory who supplied the assistance up to an amount not exceeding CAD50,000 (€37,500) in total.

When fire suppression occurs on both sides of a mutual boundary, responsible officers from both jurisdictions determine the proportion of actual expenses for which each is responsible. The percentage of area burnt determines the share of expenses.

According to the Northwest Border Agreement between British Columbia and the US, during the initial burn period (less than 12 hours), each agency is responsible for their own personnel, equipment, and supply costs when operating in the border zone. Cost-recovery occurs when: the jurisdiction agency requests specific resources and assistance from the supporting agency during initial attack, or requests the supporting agency to stay beyond the first burning period, or when the jurisdiction agency requests the supporting agency to respond to a fire beyond the border zone. If fires last beyond the initial burn period and crosses boundaries, each party bears its own costs in their own jurisdiction.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 65

5.3 Insurance-related issues

When personnel are exported to and injured in another Canadian province, then that individual may choose whether to return to their own province for treatment or receive treatment in the host province. Experts confirmed that in 99% of cases personnel from British Columbia return to that province for treatment.

Insurance-related administrative and financial issues are managed by assisting provinces rather than by the host country or province. In cases where British Columbia exchanges personnel, damages are paid by BC’s insurer. In certain cases, insurance coverage can be increased with an additional insurance premium.

6 Training

Training certification standards exist at both the national and provincial levels. At the national level all ‘exported’ staff must have Type 1 certification17. Canadian pilots also receive their certification from a federal government agency, Transport Canada. Some simulated missions for air tankers have been undertaken with the participation of CIFFC member agencies, but this is not the rule.

There are also meetings and workshops organised at the national level covering important topics such as matters related to airtankers, safety issues, training standards and public policy, including the impact of climate change and other political issues. The national fitness standard is financed by the 3% CIFFC levy and complemented by inter-agency exchange requirements for suppression crews.

The Incident Command System (ICS) provides a common structure for wildfire management across Canada. It enables efficient and effective interoperability by facilitating resource exchange for personnel and equipment. Since 2002, under CIFFC’s guidance, all Canadian fire management agencies at national, provincial and local levels have adopted a Canadian ICS.

The CIFFC allocates time and resources for ICS training activities. Experts interviewed during the fieldwork stage of this study argued that through the exploitation of this common framework, the entire resource-brokering mechanism became more efficient and that facilitates personnel movement across provinces and territories. For example, a wildland-urban interface fire that occurred in Kelowna (British Columbia) in 2003 brought together a host of federal, provincial, regional and municipal agencies. The incident highlights the importance of having a standard command-and-control structure for wildfire management.

Overall, a CIFFC evaluation report from 2007 suggests that the CIFFC has had considerable success in developing, applying and upgrading national standards and specifications for firefighting personnel, equipment and other resources. Some of these activities include retardant specifications (1999), workwear for forest firefighters (ongoing), national forest firefighter physical fitness requirements (2004) and annual exchange standards/specifications and charge rates.

Regular training is also provided at the provincial level but not at the cross-border level. Border meetings provide an opportunity for CIFFC member agencies to exchange views on their training programmes (referred to as ‘hands across the border’).

Finally, there are national and provincial safety/risk management standards that contractors must comply with during the procurement process. For example, the British Columbia Air Tanker Services Procurement case requires contractors to:

▪ Describe the company’s Transport Canada-approved Safety Management System;

▪ Describe the company’s Aviation Safety Training Program;

17 This is the certification confirming that the staff has the minimum required qualification in the subject



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 66

▪ Describe the company’s risk management/safety plan or tool kit;

▪ Identify the company’s Aviation Safety Officer;

▪ Disclose information and data on the company’s past performance in terms of firefighting action and accident history;

▪ Provide a letter from the contractor’s insurer stating the company’s ability to meet insurance requirements; and

▪ Provide further supporting documentation related to air tanker services safety/risk management.

7 Lessons Learnt

The CIFFC is an efficient and effective fire management system.

Provincial authorities agree that the CIFFC is the most important Canadian fire management mechanism. Both the experts interviewed during this study and academic and official documents positively judge the CIFFC. Indeed, the most recent evaluation of the CIFFC in 2007 concluded that there is a strong rationale for provincial governments to support the CIFFC. No other or more cost-effective alternatives for resource exchange were identified. Time series data also show an increase in the volume of resources exchanged since the creation of the CIFFC in 1982 and an increasing tendency of provincial agencies to activate the CIFFC.

CIFFC enables efficient resource allocation through a centralised national inventory and by spotting geographical areas in need. The CIFFC is also efficient at coordinating resources through working groups that are briefed at the end of each season in order to prepare for needs in the following season. These discussions enable provincial authorities to modify their strategies according to the information they receive from other provinces and from the CIFFC. Interview responses suggest that coordination/agreements work well between the Canadian Provinces and with other countries18.

The CIFFC has been largely successful in fulfilling its resource sharing and information management duties and in standardising firefighting systems19. The organisation is said to have been less successful, however, in operating as a national forum where stakeholders can exchange their opinions and experiences in order to improve policies and practices.

Standardisation is essential to effective firefighting coordination

Standardisation is considered to be the key aspect of an effective firefighting mechanism. For example, a coordination system with a standard software package enables different provinces to see the resources/inventory and their availability at the national level rather than contacting each authority separately.

The provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario have an inventory tracking system with an improved common inventory platform. The Inventory Management Information System was received special recognition at a Best Practices Workshop In December 2004.

During the same workshop (December 2004), participants emphasised the importance of and the need to identify internally available resources through inventory systems or by tracking systems that display resources graphically. They also mentioned the identification of non-agency (e.g. municipality) resource availability.

The Automated Flight Following (AFF) system has also been a very important element in the standardisation of firefighting procedures. The common radio type is a crucial tool for

18 This is confirmed by all the experts interviewed during the study and emphasised in the report published by the federal government on the evaluation of CIFFC (2007). 19 Evaluation of the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC) (2007 Report)



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 67

facilitating communication between aircraft and the terrestrial crew during an intervention. The AFF system increases resource awareness, reduces radio traffic and reduces check-in times. In 2006, provinces that adopted the system included British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.

Finally, air tanker experts from British Columbia stressed that aircraft speed is not the most important factor for efficiency but rather it is having an electronic request and communication mechanism. In some of the EU Member States, even though the aircrafts are very fast and well-equipped, they lack the necessary software to efficiently exploit these resources.

Overall, the fire management system in Canada is flexible and can be adapted and modified according to the new challenges. It enables evaluation and standardisation.

8 Appendices

8.1 Organisations interviewed

Dennis Brown Title: CIFFC Director David Bokovay Title: Aircraft Manager at the CIFFC John Flanagan Title: Superintendent International and Strategic Development at the BC Wildfire Management Branch Jeff Berry Title: Manager of BC Aviation and Airtanker Programme



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 68

Appendix 6 South Africa

1 Land Cover and Land Use in South Africa

South Africa is ranked third in the world in terms of biological diversity. The country encompasses a range of vegetation types, from arid shrubland and semi desert, through savanna and woodland to coastal forest and alpine forest. These 68 vegetation types are classified into seven biomes. The majority of land is used for agriculture (86%), of which most is natural veld20. Urban and industrial land uses comprise 1.4%, forestry comprises 1.5% and conserved areas comprise 6%.

Industrial forests cover approximately 1.5% of South African land and are regularly exposed to wildfire damage. Slash burning after clear felling and prescribed burning for fuel reduction purposes have become established management tools. Prescribed fires are being applied to a limited, but increasing, extent.

Fynbos is another important biome for wildfires, where trees are rare and the vegetation is dominated by evergreen heathlands and shrublands. Fires occur at random within 6 to 40 year rotations, whilst prescribed burning is applied in most fynbos communities. Prescribed burning programmes have been reduced to allow more natural fire occurrence and because of a lack of experienced fire managers who could apply block-burning correctly. Fynbos covers approximately 5% of the land area. The remaining vegetated land of South Africa includes the following categories: grassland (24%), arid savannah (24%) and moist savannah (9%). As yearly biomass production differs significantly within these biomes, fire rotations likewise vary from 1 to 15 years.

Long term trends in land cover in South Africa include: areas being placed under cultivation for commercial crops or subsistence agriculture; overstocking, overgrazing and poor land-use management; afforestation for commercial timber production; the invasive spread of alien plants; urbanization and settlements; the impoundment of rivers; mining; transportation; industrialization and subsistence and commercial harvesting of indigenous plant products.

1.1 Urbanisation and the rural-urban interface

South African communities in the rural-urban interface tend to live in close proximity to highly flammable bushland and grassland areas. High fuel loads are often exacerbated by rugged topography with poor access and exit points. A high proportion of the inhabitants in these areas are commuters with little experience of living in the bush or fending for themselves during a major fire.

In order to address these issues, Firewise communities have been established in the wildland/urban interface or in very poor rural communities where inhabitants are vulnerable to losing everything in the event of a wildfire. A Firewise community takes collective ownership of its ignition potential and individuals take steps to reduce risks and hazards through planned fire fuel reductions. Positive relationships and open communication are fostered between community members and local firefighting agencies or fire protection agencies.

1.2 Wildfires in South Africa

South Africa is situated in naturally fire-prone ecosystems – approximately 70% of the ecosystems covering South Africa are fire-adapted. Consequently, fires are and always

20 Open grassland, comparable to the Australian ‘outback’ or ‘bush’ or to the ‘prairies’ of North America, but these comparisons are not exact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outback

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 69

have been a part of the South African landscape. They occur as a natural phenomenon in grasslands, woodlands, fynbos and sometimes in indigenous forests.

Roughly 90% of unwanted fires are caused by negligent human action. Unwanted veld and forest fires regularly affect the landscape and its inhabitants. Nonetheless, fire is required to maintain eco-system function and under controlled conditions, fire can be used as an efficient and crucial land management tool. Today fire is used for preventative actions that include fire breaks and prescribe burning and the management of veld, forests, grazing and habitats. Fire is further used as a tool in the prevention of uncontrolled fires, even though fires frequently cause emergencies and often develop to disastrous proportions.

Despite its usefulness as a management tool in South Africa’s ecosystems, many factors compound the risks posed by uncontrolled fires. For instance, the expansion of human settlements into rural-urban interfaces increases the damages caused by runaway fires. Urbanisation has decreased people’s knowledge and understanding of wildland fire, including its uses and its hazards. Meanwhile, the intensity and heat of wildfires has grown through the presence of invasive alien plants which increases fuel loads and adds to existing fire fuel hazards. Global warming is also exacerbating the situation, increasing both the risk and incidence of fire.

As a result of the significant and increasing propensity for fires in South Africa, there is a need to manage fire in a manner that is appropriate for the land-use while maintaining natural processes and patterns as far as possible. Adequate and sufficiently mobile resources are required to protect people and their assets as well as protect, manage and conserve the environment.

Another crucial aspect of fire-fighting resource development and use in South Africa is the fact that there are two fire seasons that vary geographically according to rainfall patterns: the dry summer months in the Western Cape, and the dry winter months in the Highveld and Lowveld regions and in KwaZulu Natal.

1.3 Data on wild fires and forest fires at national and regional level

Records of the trends in wildfires are poor except for areas covered by well-established Fire Protection Associations (FPAs). Therefore, the exact situation in South Africa is unclear. Records from the Zululand FPA show that although the total number of fires has increased in the area, the number requiring aircraft assistance has decreased. Average aircraft cost per fire has increased, however, especially in the Zululand Inland area and the Midlands of Kwazulu Natal, (see Figure 0-6).

Figure 0-6 Trends in fire occurrence and the use of aircraft (A/C) in Zululand Coastal

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Num

ber o

f fir

es

Total Fires A/C Fires



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 70

Figure 0-7 Trends in fire occurrence and use of aircraft (A/C) in Zululand Inland

020406080

100120140160180200

Num

ber

of fi

res


Figure 0-8 Trends in fire occurrence and the use of aircraft (A/C) in the Midlands

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

Num

ber o

f fire

s




EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 71

Figure 0-9 Average cost of using aerial resources per fire over time

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000A

vera

ge c

ost p

er f

ire (R

)

Zululand Inland Midlands

2 Institutional arrangements

There are several key organisations and actors involved in fire management in South Africa. Of these, some play an active role, while others are more passive or involved only theoretically.

Active organisations:

▪ The Working on Fire Programme (WoF) (implemented by the FFA Group, which is a private company); and

▪ Fire Protection Associations (FPAs).

Passive organisations:

▪ Defence Force;

▪ National Disaster Management Centre;

▪ Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF – formerly DWAF, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry); and

▪ Fire Service (Fire Brigades).

WoF and FPAs are by far the most significant actors in South Africa’s wildfire management. In order to understand the situation in South Africa with regard to wildfires, it is therefore crucially important to understand the development and present implementation of the WoF programme.

2.1 Working on Fire (WoF)

Inception

Working on Fire is a government-funded, multi-partner organisation focused on Integrated Fire Management, and veld and wild firefighting. It was established mainly as a poverty relief programme to recruit and train previously unemployed men and women in hand-crew fire-fighting. WoF firefighters are recruited from marginalized communities and trained in fire awareness and education, prevention and fire suppression skills.

WoF is an organisation with dual objectives. While its original purpose was social upliftment and skills development, it has grown and expanded since its inception in 2003, becoming



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 72

the backbone of South Africa’s capacity in fighting wildfires and integrated fire management.

WoF was initiated by the South African Forest Fire Association (FFA), a private firefighting initiative. After several years of research into the system adopted in the US, FFA was awarded a tender by the South African government's DWAF (now DAFF) to implement an aerial and ground resource plan for fighting veld fires. Adopting a strategy which could be practically applied in South Africa's landscape, WoF was officially launched in September 2003. WoF’s concept is based on the idea of an agency that can train a hand-crew firefighting resource where teams are based locally but can be deployed nationally.

WoF is only an agent of government, and not a government agency. This has implications for its implementation (especially in terms of budgets), enforcement and especially for international agreements.

Implementation

WoF was initially funded by the national government and the commercial forestry sector. The programme was embedded in the Expanded Public Works Program, and underpinned by South Africa's National Veld and Forest Act of 1998 and the Disaster Management Act of 2002. The Working for Water Program of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry funds the program to the tune of R47.3 million (€4.73 million) per year.

At the end of February 2010, WoF had 1,598 recruits. The project has 74 fire-fighting bases with a range of local partners across the country. This will increase to 107 bases in 2010. Each base in the eight fire-prone regions is manned by a team of between ten and 25 people, known as a Hot Shot crew. The handcrews use mainly hand tools to fight fires. A standard operating procedure governs their response when called out to a fire. The benefit of this modular and replicable system is that at the fire line, WoF crews work as a homogenous fire-fighting unit under their respective crew leaders and supervisors.

Because the country has two main fire seasons and there are huge tracts of land requiring prescribed, controlled burning, the hand crews potentially remain active in fire awareness, prevention and suppression work throughout the year. Unlike in the United States, where fire-fighting squads often are made up of seasonal workers, WoF employs on a long-term basis. Recruits are employed full time on a one-year contract, which is renewed annually based on performance. The program lasts three years. Firefighters earn a basic wage of R42.50 (approximately €4) per day. Crew leaders earn between R98-120 (€10-12) per day. For many of the recruits, this is the very first time they earn a regular salary.

WoF also has a team of aerial firefighting professionals, who operate helicopters, fixed wing bombers and spotter aircraft. These aerial resources are coordinated locally, provincially and nationally, forming a pool available to support ground forces with initial attack actions.

WoF runs provincial operational centres, which coordinate the movements of all WoF ground and aerial resources. The operational centres supply daily long and short-term fire weather forecasts, and coordinate the planning, reaction and suppression of fires in their areas. During serious or extended fires, when local resources are exhausted and outstripped, WoF crews and aircraft are mobilised from all over South Africa to assist.

Structure

The WoF Group is comprised of and is delivered through four companies: FFA Section 21, FFA Aviation, FFA Operations and FFA Fire Management (see Figure 2.1). Each company contains 10 departments that are managed independently, and linked to the optimal national performance of the Group. Together, these four companies comprise the FFA Group.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 73

Figure 0-10 WoF’s Structure

Source: http://www.workingonfire.org/group_structure.php

FFA Section 21 specializes in advocacy, fire research and grants; FFA Aviation focuses on aerial firefighting and FFA Operations concentrates on ground firefighting that includes the WoF programme, transport, firefighting training and contracts. FFA Fire Management provides corporate services (finance, administration, occupational health and safety, human resources, purchasing/logistics, reporting and legal capacity), as well as coordination and dispatch functions.

The enterprise is headed by a chief executive officer and five senior executive managers responsible for the individual portfolios of corporate services, finance, ground operations, air operations and advocacy. All managers in administration and operations have fire-related experience and are trained according to the Incident Command System (ICS).

Partnerships

Partnerships are the foundation of the WoF programme, as WoF will only respond to a call if the requesting party has entered into a partnership agreement with WoF. Through these partnerships, WoF promotes a shared-cost, shared–resource model as the most efficient and effective way to implement integrated fire management practice at landscape level. WoF has partnerships with the Fire Protection Associations, the Department of Provincial and Local Government, the South African Air Force, South African National Parks, Provincial Disaster Management Authorities, and private forestry companies, amongst others.

2.2 Fire Protection Associations (FPAs)

FPAs in theory

When the Forest Act of 1984 was revised in 1998, it was decided to extract the sections pertaining to fires and produce a separate act - the National Veld and Forest Fire Act of 1998 (the Act). This elevated the importance of fires countrywide and has taken the issue to a much wider target audience than only the forest industry. The burden of controlling fires is now firmly on the shoulders of the landowner, which means that government regulation is minimised.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 74

A key provision of the Act is the establishment of FPAs. They were originally envisaged as being the key mechanism through which wildfires would be managed in South Africa. The overarching intention of these associations is to decentralise governance of fire issues relating to prediction, prevention, management and firefighting to the lowest practical level for the landowner. FPAs fit in well within the Act’s framework, in that the Act’s main principle is that the landowner is the main player in controlling wildfires.

The idea of FPAs is that landowners organise themselves into local geographical units and with backing of legislation, take charge of their own affairs. These associations must apply for registration in order to obtain legal status. They deal with all aspects of veldfire prevention and firefighting. The Act regulates the establishment, registration, duties and functioning of Fire Protection Associations.

FPAs replaced the Fire Control Committees established in terms of the Forest Act of 1984. Fire Protection Associations have the authority to make rules and enforce them. The Chief Executive Officer of a Fire Protection Association is officially registered as a Fire Protection Officer and has certain duties and powers under the Act (i.e. to enter and search, seize and arrest). The registration of a Fire Protection Association can be withdrawn if it becomes inoperative or ineffective.

There are several advantages and disadvantages to landowners in joining and forming an FPA. Advantages include the benefits of cooperation, sharing resources, the cost saving that comes from avoiding duplication of efforts, advice and assistance, and so forth. Overall, registered FPAs ensure that all members communicate and act according to norms and standards and share the risk according to the FPA business plan. A register is kept of members, who are informed of the current fire danger index, and must report on fires.

Most importantly perhaps, and a key reason for the formation of many FPAs, is that, in cases of civil proceedings, negligence on the part of the defendant is presumed until the contrary is proved, unless the defendant is a member of a Fire Protection Association ( though, the plaintiff must still prove that an act or an omission by the defendant was wrongful).

Nonetheless there are also costs involved in forming an FPA. The Act requires FPAs to report to the Minister on fire statistics and to provide the information required to prepare or maintain the fires danger rating system, though even this reporting is intended to be no more than what the FPA would need to do for its own good governance. The Act does not intend that FPAs should be formed in cases where its costs are greater than the benefits it provides its members. FPAs should be cost-beneficial and therefore established in areas where the hazard of veldfires justifies the benefits in relation to the costs of organising and maintaining the Association. The justifiable level of hazard must be judged locally.

It is compulsory for all public landowners to be members of a local FPA. and private landowners are encouraged to join. Fire fighting is a local authority function, with provinces and central government playing facilitating roles. Also, local authorities are expected to serve their districts, including the cities, towns and villages, as well as all farms, communal areas and state land.

Under South Africa’s Constitution, firefighting services are an area of local government competence. Fire fighting services cannot accomplish their task without the assistance of landowners, who must have their own capacity to deal with fires. For these reasons, the municipal fire service, where these exist, must join FPAs where they are set up. The Chief Fire Officer of a municipality, where it is a member and has a service, can be the Fire Protection Officer (FPO) of the FPA.

Because resources in terms of capacity, skills and funding are limited in most of the affected areas, Umbrella Fire Protection Associations (UFPAs) are envisaged to provide the



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 75

overarching, co-ordinated support, including aerial fire-fighting support, in provinces. The UFPAs provide for over-arching services. For instance, the Kwazulu Natal UFPA (KZN) provides the following service to its members:

▪ Management and maintenance of aerial support, including airstrips and logistical support

▪ Operations Centre;

▪ Maintenance of a radio communication system that covers the area of operation by means of two repeater stations;

▪ Forecasting and communicating fire danger ratings via e-mail and SMS;

▪ Weather data collection for improvements to the predictions from the weather service;

▪ Coordination functions, including co-ordination of equipment and other resources between individual FPAs, through such measures as mutual assistance agreements and the standard operating procedures they contain;

▪ Overall strategic direction and planning, including the contributions to local and national disaster management plans;

▪ Maintaining a Geographical Information System which includes all members maps and contact information;

▪ Maintaining a comprehensive Fire Database of all fires reported to the Association;

▪ Supplying fire incident command specialists or support;

▪ Facilitating mutual aid agreements (between parties within the Association);

▪ Assistance with the formation of FPA's within the area covered by KZNFPA;

▪ Assistance to FPA's with the preparation of veldfire management strategies;

▪ Co-ordination of training, in cases where training is not provided by the training industry;

▪ Awareness-raising campaigns regarding veldfire management strategies and public awareness;

▪ Assistance to members where court cases arise, such as providing expert witness, statistical and weather information; and

▪ Communication with other Umbrella Associations and Fire-related Organisations to increase the efficiency and cost effectiveness of veld and forest firefighting in South Africa.

FPA financing comes from:

▪ local government budgets through integrated development plans (IDPs);

▪ FPA members’ fees; and

▪ Additional contributions for FPAs including donations, bank loans and funding granted by the Minister.

FPAs in practice

In practice, our interviews revealed that FPAs and especially UFPAs are still quite underdeveloped. There are currently 163 registered FPAs in the country. Many of these are thought to exist purely in name in order to avoid being considered negligible in case of civil proceedings. A concern was also raised that there is a lack good FPOs, who are critical in the successful organisation and implementation of an FPA. In many cases, it was said, FPOs are only available part-time, and oftentimes are only local farmers interested in fire.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 76

Consultations suggest that many FPOs therefore lack the time, resources, or training to ensure the FPA is adequately implemented.

Furthermore, although it is compulsory for public landowners to be members of their local FPA, it was noted that this provision was not always complied with in practice. Moreover, despite the critical role foreseen for municipalities and their fire services, most municipalities do not have their own fire service brigade. Where fire brigades do exist, they tend to only have limited capacity in terms of equipment and personnel. Therefore although municipalities and their fire service brigades are in theory responsible for firefighting in their districts, in practice this does not seem to be the case. Instead, this role appears to fall almost entirely to WoF and FPAs whose membership is dominated by private landowners.

Interviewees noted that the Western Cape is the only province where a municipality has taken a strong role, and indeed is driving the formation and implementation of FPAs. Elsewhere, private landowners and forestry companies are the main driving force behind the formation of FPAs.

There is also a lack of sufficient Umbrella FPAs (UFPAs). The most established UFPA is the KwaZulu Natal UFPA (KZN). KZN has been operating since 2005, and is the model for best practice for other emerging UFPAs. Mpumalanga for instance has started its own UFPA a year and a half ago, modelling itself on KZN. The Western Cape UFPA is much more recent, having just been established at the beginning of 2010. A UPFA for the Free State is to be established later in 2010.

KZN’s success is due to its long standing history of cooperation among key players in the area. Fire control committees were established under the previous Forest Act of 1984; more than 80% of fire control areas were located within KZN. This meant that the infrastructure and affinity for cooperation on managing wildfires had already been established.

Among consultees, an emerging problem with the formation of UPFAs and FPAs is believed to be the locus at which the responsibility is being placed. Ideally, FPA boundaries should match with those of larger municipalities. UFPAs should be formed at the provincial level, to best coordinate responses with provincial disaster management centres and WoF. Instead, there are cases where several FPAs are being formed within one municipality, which negates the cost efficiencies and coordination benefits of forming FPAs in the first place. In one small local municipality, 4 FPAs have already been formed.

A key reason for this trend, which is also a significant obstacle in the formation of UFPAs more generally, is the lack of an appetite for cooperation amongst private and public landowners. Very small FPAs involving only a few landowners are being formed. The lack of buy-in from municipalities is an especially critical issue.

One interviewee estimated that only 30% of areas vulnerable to wildfires are covered by the protection offered by FPAs. That leaves 70% of land, including the people who live on it, vulnerable to fire. For instance, in the Coastal area of the Zululand FPA (ZFPA), only 160,000 hectares of the total 800,000 hectare area has entered into membership.

The most important obstacle to the development of a successful network of FPAs seems to be financing. In many areas FPAs are not financially viable. FPAs depend on funding from their members in the form of annual subscriptions, typically a fee per hectare charged to private landowners. However in many areas land is occupied by subsistence farmers or poor rural communities on public land who cannot afford the subscription fees. Consultees also reported that in many of these areas, the local municipalities that own the land are not contributing towards the membership fees. This occurs despite the Act placing a duty on government to effectively promote and support FPAs, including financially where this is justified.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 77

At the moment efforts are being made to change the terms of the Act to resolve this issue. It is hoped that the Act would then require the municipality which owns the land, not only to be a member of an FPA, but would also require contribution towards the FPA when such membership is entered into. Currently, the municipality of any publically owned land must be part of an FPA, without the municipality needing to contribute to the funding of the FPA.

The size of an FPA is critical to its financial viability (as its charges are set on a per hectare basis). Viable economies of scale are necessary to reduce individual membership fees to the extent where it makes it possible for certain landowners to become part of the FPA and gain access to aerial resources.

Some support is provided by WoF. Under its contract with government, WoF is mandated to assist the DAFF in the development of FPAs and has developed guidelines to manage their establishment. As financial sustainability is a potential problem impacting upon sustainable establishment of FPAs, WoF has provided financial support of R95 million over the past 3 years and anticipates this increasing to R278 million for the next three years. Over the six-year period ending 31 March 2010, roughly 1% of WoF’s expenditure has gone to FPAs. The financial assistance has subsidized FPA operations relating to:

▪ FPA Managers;

▪ Aircraft;

▪ Dispatch centres;

▪ Ground teams; and

▪ Advocacy and awareness.

Most of WoF’s financial assistance to FPAs however goes towards training. At a meeting in 2009 of FPOs and officials held to review past assistance to FPAs and look at the way forward, participants agreed that it is essential that WoF continue to provide assistance to FPAs in future through the UFPAs. It is envisioned that WoF will align its structure with the UFPAs and FPAs in order to provide more effective integrated fire management as stipulated in the National Veld and Forest Fire Act.

It must be noted that where FPAs are well-developed and sufficiently funded by their members, they are virtually self-sufficient and work extremely well. At ZFPA for instance, additional resources are only needed every 5-7 years when the weather and other factors combine to create conditions that outstrip available capacity.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 78

Figure 0-11 WoF / UFPA proposed matrix management structure

2.3 Defence force

The defence force only gets involved in wildfire fighting in the event of runaway fires which have resulted in all other resources being exhausted.

2.4 National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC)

The NDMC is responsible for implementing the Disaster Management Act (2002), which includes fire. The NDMC has no operational capacity. Working on Fire's National Dispatch and Co-ordination Department manages its national and provincial fire-fighting resource movements and provides co-ordination assistance to the NDMC in Pretoria during a disaster or potential disaster incident.

In the case of a national disaster, or in the case of a wildfire on land whose owner is not a member of an FPA, the NDMC must give WoF the authorisation to dispatch resources. This is so that WoF can recover any costs. WoF works on a user-pays principle; in these cases, it is the NDMC who is the ‘user’ and therefore costs can only be recovered once official authorisation is given and the necessary budgetary code has been allocated to the dispatch. Consultees suggested that the authorisation is often given too slowly to ensure a timely response. As a result, WoF often needs to dispatch resources to the area of need without the necessary permission or authorisation code, which then results in administrative difficulties in recovering the cost of the operation once the situation has been dealt with.

2.5 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF – formerly the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry or DWAF) is the responsible government agency for implementing the Act of 1998. According to the Act, the DAFF is only meant to play a facilitating role and is responsible for establishing a fire danger rating system. The DAFF is also meant to support the WoF and does fund some of WoF’s activities.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 79

2.6 Fire Service (Fire Brigades)

The fire service is meant to be responsible through the municipalities for all fires in their district and be a member of the local FPA. In practice few municipalities have a fire service, and those that do lack adequate capacity (either through equipment or personnel). Functioning fire services are concentrated in metropolitan areas.

3 Decision-making procedures and standards of operations

3.1 The wildfires response framework

The wildfire response in South Africa works on the principle of a scaled response. Local capacity is used until it is thought to be exhausted and regional resources are requested. If these are exhausted, provincial resources are requested. If this strategy is unsuccessful, a national emergency is declared and national resources are called in.

Local resources include the landowners’ own capacity (ground crew / basic equipment) and that of his/her neighbours. If further resources are required, these are usually sourced from FPAs or UFPAs (which lease aerial resources), where these exist. Additionally, WoF ground crew which are based around the country, are also called in. If further resources are required, WoF is called in to assist.

Where an area has a well-established FPA, additional resources are required less often. For instance ZFPA estimates that its resources are only outstripped every 5-7 years when they have runaway fires. ZFPA also has sophisticated monitoring systems which mean that the FPA’s aerial resources are dispatched as soon as a fire is detected, that is, before a call comes in from a landowner. This model means that aerial resources are used for initial attack. This reduces the number of runaway fires – 90% of the fires are controlled within the initial attack period (i.e. in less than 5 hours). Overall this approach is thought to reduce flight time and costs by 30%. In other areas aerial resources are used less often. For instance, in the Midlands of the KZNFPA, aerial resources are, on average, used in only 10% of the total fires.

If a wildfire is deemed a national disaster, or if the wildfire takes place on non-FPA / non-private land, the National Disaster Management Centre must give WoF authority to release resources (for cost recovery purposes). WoF will only respond to a call if the requesting party has entered into a partnership agreement with WoF. WoF has partnership agreements with inter alia the NDMC, FPAs, conservation organisations and other landowners. As was shown during a runaway fire in the Stellenbosch area, it is possible for landowners to form a FPA and contract with and receive support from WoF in less than half an hour. In this instance a few phone and fax calls meant that aerial support was deployed within seven minutes of WoF receiving the landowners' commitment to a partnership. Ground crews were also dispatched immediately.

Each partnership is accompanied by a Memorandum of Agreement, which details each party’s responsibilities. A standard partnership agreement states that the veld firefighters' salaries are paid by Working on Fire, which also supplies their basic and personal protective equipment. During a fire the partner provides management, transport, base facilities and food rations for the crews. Partners may use the crews throughout the year for prevention and suppression work, although Working on Fire retains the right of 'first call'. In the event of a potential disaster fire, Working on Fire has the right to deploy crews from anywhere in the country. Because each province has specific needs, the standard partnership agreement is amended to meet individual circumstances. An example could be the need for a contract to include an allowance for aerial support.

In the cases where WoF resources are used, the response is coordinated through Dispatch and Coordination Centres. Each WoF hand crew is linked to a dispatch centre, as are the aerial resources. A crucial part of WoF’s success is its modular response. Each WoF unit is self-contained and self-sustaining. When a call comes in, a modular unit is dispatched, for



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 80

instance including 22 firefighters, all equipment, and 1000 litre in a truck. The benefit of this modular and replicable system is that at the fire line, WoF crews work as a homogenous fire-fighting unit under their respective crew leaders and supervisors.

There are 18 strategically placed dispatch centres with partners and eight provincial coordinating centres. Dispatch centres are coordinated by the relevant provincial Coordination Centre which in turn reports to a National Coordinator, based at the National Disaster Management Centre.

Provincial coordinators co-ordinate Working on Fire provincial firefighting resources and additional resources available through Fire Protection Agencies (FPAs) in their province. They manage dispatchers and dispatch centres that operate seasonally, compile daily resource status reports of air and ground firefighting resources and weekly provincial fire summaries during the active fire season. Provincial coordinators are responsible for all Working on Fire movement outside the active fire season as well as the movement of Working on Fire air resources during seasonal relocation migrations. Dispatchers are employed seasonally and report to a provincial coordinator.

A dispatcher receives the initial request for assistance at a fire, which usually involves fire suppression operations. After completing the ’call take’ procedure the dispatcher can send out an initial attack force using Working on Fire air resources. This may include a Helitack crew (WoF ground firefighters with chopper movement training) and Heli-support vehicles for in-field chopper refuelling. Depending on the requirements the dispatcher may also send out additional Working on Fire ground firefighting teams. The dispatcher on duty stays in contact with personnel deployed until the incident is complete and resources have returned to base.

The dispatcher collects weather readings and calculates a daily Fire Danger Index (FDI) forecast, distributing it to relevant parties. An ‘occurrence book’ is kept, that includes a timeline of all operations while continuously monitoring radios during search and rescue procedure activation.

Daily morning reports capturing WoF air and ground resource status and readiness are escalated from a local level to a provincial level and then into a national resource availability report. These are regularly updated and collated. Provincial fire situational reports provide a national overview and are sent via an SMS system to operational personnel, disaster management officials and senior management and are also used to update information made available to the general public.

During a fire, should a dispatch centre require more resources than are available locally, additional resources are requested through the Provincial Coordinator. Additional teams and equipment are assigned and mobilised from other dispatch centres within the province or from organisations outside the WoF programme. If the need outstrips what is available provincially, then a national mobilisation of WoF resources takes place, which can include additional trucks, busses, aircraft and ground crews.

As mentioned above, WoF’s aircraft have to be moved from one province to the other in preparation for the next fire season. The pilots fly the helicopters and support aircraft to the winter or summer base where they will be stationed, often taking two or three days to complete the trip. In winter, there are bases in Limpopo, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu Natal, the Eastern and Western Cape. In summer, the main base is in the Western Cape. Each base is manned by a dispatch crew and a Working on Fire team. WoF Aviation pilots are deployed as required to best combat fires in each region. WoF air resources fly between 500 and 1500 operational hours to work on between 300 and 500 fires per annum depending on the severity of the season.


WoF



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 81

Each WoF base in the eight fire-prone regions is manned by a team of between 10 and 25 people, known as a Hot Shot crew. A standard operating procedure governs their response when called out to a fire. WoF’s aerial operations are also conducted in accordance with Civil Aviation Authority Rules and Regulations as well as its own Standard Operating and Training Procedures, developed to enhance safe operations.

The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of WoF teams specify that WoF teams cannot be called upon unless they have permission of the first and second call partners. Wof enters into partnership agreements with base partners. WoF covers the cost of the team, which is called the ’allocated team‘. For these teams first call is always National Disaster fires (if requested by NDMC).The base partner has second call after National Disaster fires.

In the absence of a call by the NDMC, the base partner has first call. Any other landowner’s request for the use of the team has second call after the base partner with their permission and one must then also determine reasonable radius from the base partner to assist the ’second caller’. If a base partner releases the team and a fire starts in a location where the team would be a ’first caller‘, the team should then return to assist in that operation.

If a team is paid for by a partner, the team becomes a ’dedicated team‘ and is available solely for the use of the base partner (only SASOL, Eskom, GDACE and KZN projects have dedicated teams). The teams might be called upon for assistance but only with approval from the base partner. These teams are on first call for base partner, second call for the NDMC and third call (with permission from the base partner) for other users. All costs are to be recovered from the user. Users must also take responsibility for the team while on operations (safety, feeding, rest etc.)

FPAs

FPAs also operate within Standard Operating, Best Operating and Call Out Procedures. Members are encouraged to call aerial resources at a very early stage of the fire. First call members have priority on the pool of aircraft and may withdraw aircraft being used by second call members at any time. Second call members will only have use of the aircraft if not required by the first call members. This system cascades down a membership scale as the need arises – for instance ZFPA has eight different membership levels.

Whichever agency / organisation / landowner pays the standby fees also has first call. Additionally, in the case of FPAs, variable rates are charged depending on whether members have first or second call on financial arrangements). Some FPAs also have a WoF Fire Fighting Proto team available for use. This crew can be dispatched at a daily charge out cost available from WoF, with the helicopter or transported by road if needed. After every bombing operation, the FPA gathers information on hours flown and loads dropped and invoices the relevant parties for their use of the aircraft.

The standby status of aerial resources is based on the FDI forecast of the previous day (see Table 0-5 for an example from ZFPA, full table in Appendix 9.3). Pilots are informed when actual conditions exceed forecast and standby times are be adjusted accordingly. All flight crew are in cellular contact at all times.

Table 0-5 Fire Danger Rating System: fire control and standby state21

Fire Alert Stage BLUE GREEN YELLOW ORANGE RED

FDI 0 - 20 21 - 45 46 - 60 61 - 75 75 – 100

Fire Behaviour SAFE MODERATE DANGEROUS VERY DANGEROUS

EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

21 Source: http://www.firestop.co.za/weather/fire-danger-index.html



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 82

Spotter Airborne 25 min Airborne 15 min Airborne 5 min. On standby at airfield

Immediate take off. Patrolling FDI

above 60

Continuous patrolling. Only

stop for fuel.

Bomber Airborne 25 min Airborne 15 min Airborne 5 min. On standby at airfield

Immediate take off. Immediate take off

Fire Fighting Crew

Activation – fire on

members land

Landowner Additional neighbouring member resources if requested


All available aircraft Landowner Additional neighbouring resources if requested

All available aircraft Closest initial attack resource on standby. Landowner All neighbouring resources.


General practice

When aerial resources are dispatched, they liaise and coordinate with the ‘fire boss’. The spotter planes are often the first to reach fires and make recommendations to the fire boss (or Incident Commander, if ICS is being used), on how to attack the fire. The primary task of the spotter aircraft is to coordinate the aerial attack at a fire. Apart from its primary task, it can also act as an ‘eye in the sky‘, informing the fire boss of the conditions as seen from the air and recommending a practical way of attacking the fire. A third function that the spotter plane can fulfil is that it can be called upon to patrol an area for the early detection of fires. In the case of FPAs, these patrols can be called for by any of the participating members, who then will be invoiced for such a flight.

After the call-out, the Operation Centre will dispatch the aircraft and arrange for necessary logistical support. No further action will be expected from the particular landowner. A spotter aircraft is dispatched together with the bombers / helicopters and all bombing instructions are given by the fire boss, and routed via the spotter. In the case of FPAs, the responsibility for the decisions taken and the implementation thereof at the fire remain the responsibility of the fire boss.

When the bomber/helicopter is ready to drop its load, the spotter pilot advises the fire boss who, in turn, is to warn the ground forces of the pending load. The ground forces are then expected to stand well clear of the target area until such time as the load has been dropped. After the load had been dropped, the ground forces are expected to move in and extinguish any remaining trace of fire in the ’drop area’. They continue with this task up to the time when the next load of water is about to be dropped.

3.3 Tools: geospatial data and modelling systems, fire-danger rating systems, etc

WoF has adapted and implemented the Australian McArthur fire danger rating system which has been used successfully by all affected partners (e.g. FPAs). The colour coded system is based on an FDI calculation of temperature, humidity, wind speed, days since rain and rainfall. The relative humidity and dry bulb temperatures are used with an alignment chart to calculate the burning index. Wind strength provides a spread danger and is added to the index while the fuel moisture is taken into account by multiplying the index by a rainfall correction factor. The results are assembled into the Fire Danger Index.

The FDI rating determines what controlled burning operations are allowed, the activation of fire-fighting crew, who should be on fire duty, the alertness and working hours of foresters, proto teams and operational day staff, and the standby and take off status of the aerial resources (see excerpt of the FDI table above, full table in Appendix 9.3).



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 83

The latest available fire danger index and forecast is available to any interested party. Many FPAs also offer an SMS service where the fire danger rating and forecast are sent via an SMS message to all members twice a day. Early fire detection is also available to WoF coordinators and some FPAs, for instance ZFPA, on the AFIS satellite Field Terminal detection monitors with complimentary real time weather satellite imagery that includes supporting Fire Danger Index forecasts on an electronic display.

ZFPA uses a computerised fire detection system (Firehawk) whereby rotating digital cameras covering large forestry areas transmit information to a base station where the Firehawk software differentiates between fire, smoke and glow and automatically raises an alarm. Cameras are mounted on masts, which can be as high as 72 metres; they are powered by 12-volt batteries and recharged by either solar panels or wind chargers. Each Camera covers a radius of 6 to 8 kilometres but will, visibility permitting, detect a fire up to 20 kilometres away.

The live video image is transmitted via microwave back to the Operations Centre, which can be up to 65 km away. These video images are fed to a central command base where they are processed and filter out unwanted image alarms and reporting only those required. The images are analyzed and the alarm is sounded if a fire is detected. Each camera scans the horizon every three minutes and fires can be cross-referenced from different cameras to determine the exact location.

A Geographic Information System is attached to the detection system to enable the operator to provide firefighters with all necessary information that would assist with the fighting the fire. Incoming video images are stored on a 24-hr video recorder and can be used during post mortems.

The system has been very successful. In Northern KwaZulu-Natal during the 2000 fire season a total of 153 fires were detected. Of these 87 fires were detected at night. Results at the end of the season showed a burnt area rate of less than one hectare per fire (0.7 ha per fire), whereas during the 1998 fire season, before the Firehawk system was installed, the burnt area rate was 5.68 ha per fire. Having the capability to detect fires more rapidly, ground crews and aerial support are able to get to the source of fires much faster, thereby reducing the risk of damages.

Besides the systems already in place within WoF and FPAs, the government is also responsible for developing and implementing a national fire danger rating system. The US system has been used as a model. The development of the rating system has been ongoing but has not yet been completed.

Although the monitoring of conditions is well-developed, reporting and the collation of data on fire occurrence / trends etc., is not particularly strong in South Africa. The most comprehensive reports are seemingly kept by the KZN Umbrella FPA, but even these do not cover all fires in the regions as oftentimes reports are filed afterwards by the landowners / FPAs despite encouragement and the existence of a national standard reporting form. Many fires in general go unreported, for instance where these occur in isolated communities.

4 Inter-state/ inter-regional and international cooperation

Arrangements for the provision of assistance between provinces are rather informal. The movement of resources between provinces is influenced by the existence of two fire seasons: the dry summer months in the Western Cape, and the dry winter months in the Highveld and Lowveld regions and in KwaZulu Natal. Accordingly, WoF moves resources to different bases well in advance of the change in the fire season in order to have the necessary resources on hand well before the fires actually start. The existence of these two distinct fire seasons means that cross-country assistance is well-developed and, according to those consulted, is working very well.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 84

Unfortunately, until recently there had been little progress in terms of international agreements. There is particular interest in establishing cooperative agreements between South Africa, and the main fire countries, namely the USA, New Zealand, Australia and Canada to establish formal arrangements for knowledge and resource sharing. Draft agreements have already been drawn up for the USA and New Zealand, and are now awaiting final signature.

The draft arrangements essentially conform to a standard template, and set out the necessary conditions to be included in an Annual Operating Plan (AOP), which to be drawn up once the agreement is concluded. The AOP will detail the provisions for reimbursement, the assumption of liability criteria, procedures for the approval of requests for resources, and the actual entry and exit of these resources including the waiver of any fees, duties or taxes. The AOP will be concluded and executed as a legally binding contract, and is likely to follow the same content and format as the AOP between the USA and New Zealand.

The main obstacle to finalising the agreements is the fact that whilst WoF, by default, has become the key (and only federal) actor in wildfire fighting in South Africa, it cannot be recognised as a government agency in its own right. This has meant that all the agreements so far have been drafted on the basis of the NDMC being the main point of contact, with support from WoF. Formalising the agreements on this basis has proved especially difficult. In March 2010, however, a letter was signed by the government endorsing the WoF to act on behalf of government, as a government agent (without involvement of the NDMC). This has given WoF the authority to enter into international agreements, which can now be finalised.

South Africa also has draft agreements with other southern African countries, namely Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania, Kenya, Swaziland and Lesotho. These draft texts have been in place for some time but have yet to be finalised.

The agreements between South Africa and southern African states generally follow the same content and format. In the case of Namibia’s agreement, Operational Guidelines were also provided. These seem to have been established on the ‘user pays’ principle. Whilst each party assumes ‘all of its costs and expenses of furnishing wildland fire protection resources, including costs for lost or damaged wildfire protection resources’, the receiving party must reimburse the sending party with regard to salaries, overtime and hazard pay, transportation costs, personnel care and, importantly, all direct flight costs. All aircraft mobilized to Namibia will be paid by South Africa, under normal contract provisions, and reimbursed by Namibia (and vice versa). Maintenance and/or damage to the aircraft is the responsibility of the contractor and/or owner, and is not reimbursable.

Additionally, the sending agency is to provide all the safety equipment required to meet their regulations. If additional equipment is required by the receiving agency, it will be provided by the receiving agency at their expense. Furthermore, in the event that any equipment or supplies are damaged beyond repair or not returned, they will either be replaced by the receiving agency with new equipment or supplies of the same quantity and to the sending agency’s standards, or full replacement cost will be reimbursed by the receiving agency.

In the case of aerial resources under contract to WoF, the following guidelines apply:

▪ All aircraft operations will be conducted under appropriate Office of Aircraft Service. (OAS) or agency contract regulations.

▪ Airtankers will operate under the supervision of a qualified Spotter Plane and/or Air Tactical Group Supervisor.

▪ Suppression aircraft may include restricted category aircraft. At the time of dispatch, permission must be received from the receiving agency prior to airspace entry.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 85

▪ Aircraft investigation procedures will be coordinated with the Namibian agency involved at the time of the incident.

▪ All aircraft will meet the receiving agency's specifications for standards and pilot qualifications and will be inspected prior to being put into service.

To reduce entry and exit delays at border crossings, the sending agency is to supply the following prior to mobilization (or soon thereafter) to the relevant officials at Customs and Immigration: names, dates of birth, and citizenship for all personnel, and equipment and supply descriptions and quantity and serial numbers for all resources being mobilized. Furthermore, firefighters travelling through areas that are not ports of entry will have pre-season clearance through the local Customs and Immigration Service.

These agreements have not yet been finalised and in the interim, cooperative responses are informally organised. Consultations suggest that the most significant problem with these ad hoc responses is the lack of necessary financial arrangements to ensure reimbursement.

5 Ownership, Contracting and Procurement of Aerial Assets

5.1 Inventory/ classification of aerial assets used in the country

Working on Fire is the only source of federal aerial resources in South Africa. These are provided for by FFA Aviation (one of the subsidiaries of the private company FFA Group). WoF currently has the following air resources in place with its partners and FPAs country-wide:

Northern Provinces – Winter Fire Season

17 Spotters

6 Bombers

12 Medium helicopters (Bell UH-1)

1 Large helicopter (MI 8 MTV)

South-(Western Cape)- Summer Fire Season

5 Spotters

6 Medium helicopters (Bell UH-1)

1 Large helicopter (MI 8 MTV)

WoF historically leased several aircraft, but is now moving towards a model where it owns and services many of its own aerial resources. Aerial resources are seasonally on standby at 14 air bases throughout the country and are dispatched to fires through formal dispatch centres. The following air support services are supplied:

▪ Spotter reconnaissance and control;

▪ Fixed wing fire-bombing;

▪ Helicopter trooping; and

▪ Helicopter fire bombing.

Regional aerial resources are dependent on the FPAs’ own resources. FPAs lease all their aerial resources. The Umbrella FPA Kwazulu Natal has the following resources for the 2009 Fire Season, located in different bases:

7 x Fixed Wing Bombers (4 x 2000L and 3 x 1500L Turbo Thrushes)



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 86

2 x Helicopter 3500 lt Mi8 MTV (WoF - Second call to KZNFPA)

5 x Spotters

2 x 1000L Huey Helicopter

ZFPA contracts in firefighting aircraft during the peak fire danger months. Contracts run from the 1st August to the 31st October but the ZFPA has the option to call the aircraft in at any other time they feel the existing resources cannot cope with the fire incidences or extreme fire behaviour. The following aircraft are used:

1 x Cessna 182 fire spotter / air attack aircraft

2 x Ayres 1500 litre Turbine thrush – fire bomber

6 Financial Arrangements / Cost Sharing

6.1 National/ federal funding to states and private owners for wildfire prevention and fire fighting

WoF is funded by government (primarily the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs (DWA)) and through donations from other organisations, totalling R222 million. Partners also contribute significantly towards the funding of the programme by contributing approximately 50% of the costs of maintaining base facilities and by being charged variable unbudgeted expenses ranging from transport to rations for firefighters fighting fires. Fixed costs, including firefighters’ wages and equipment costs are paid by National Treasury under the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP).

This system contributes to Working on Fire’s flexibility, mobility and cost effectiveness. In the case of fire management services undertaken for partners in the private sector, the fixed cost component is also recovered and replenishes the funds available to employ new firefighters. In this way additional income from the private sector creates further employment opportunities for recruits, thus gearing up the entire Integrated Fire Management and employment effort.

In the first seven years the majority of WoF’s co-funding came from government departments and the private sector. In the projected years 2010 – 2014 it is expected that co-funding will be equal in value to that of the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs. Due to the success of WoF since 2004 it was chosen as one of the pilot programmes for implementation of Phase 2 of EPWP, creating a new funding source directly from the Department of Public Works.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 87

Figure 0-12 WoF funding from DWA and other sources. Cumulative 2004-2010 Actual and Annual Forecasts to 2013.

Figure 0-13 Cumulative expenditure per category (%),2004 – 2010

Table 0-6 WoF’s aerial support budget* for 2010/2011, allocated by province

Province

WoF Funding Allocated by Government

Additional Funding by

Forestry Partners & FPA's TOTAL

Limpopo R 3,052,783 11% 866,058 3% R 3,918,841 7%

Mpumulanga R 4,053,019 15% 11,295,876 42% R 15,348,895 26%

Gauteng/North-West R 857,143 3% - R 857,143 1%

Free State R 857,143 3% - R 857,143 1%

Kwazulu-Natal R 6,546,236 24% 9,468,675 35% R 16,014,911 27%

Eastern Cape R 2,186,725 8% - 0% R 2,186,725 4%

Western Cape R 9,401,642 35% 9,804,114 36% R 19,205,756 33%

R 26,954,691 R 31,434,723 R 58,389,414 * Note: R1,000,000 is approximately €100,000



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 88

FPAs are funded almost entirely through private membership fees, though some government funding is made available. Members pay variable fees depending on if they wish to be on first or second call, and whether they are timber or non-timber growing members. First call members have priority on aerial resources. Members with second call status only have access to aerial resources if they are not needed by members with first call status.

– KZNFPA, for instance, charges members at the following rates: – Participating first call members pay the full levy of R22.95 (€3) per hectare

(excluding VAT) , which is calculated to cover infrastructure costs of aerial fire-fighting operations.

– Participating –second call members pay a reduced levy of R5.56 (€0.50) per planted timber hectare (excluding VAT). Non timber growing members will pay a levy of R2.78 (€0.30) per hectare (excluding VAT)for their total deed area. A minimum charge of R350.00 (€35.00 excluding VAT) is applicable to all second call members.

▪ ZFPA, charges members at the following rates:

– Class A member - R57.70. Total services currently offered and aircraft on 1st call. Electronic fire detection.

– Class B member - R 41.80. ZFPA basic and fire detection. Aircraft 2nd call. Electronic fire detection.

– Class C member - R22.50. ZFPA basic and aircraft on 1st call. No fire detection.

– Class D member (mixed landowner with timber) - R5.70. ZFPA basic and aircraft on 2nd call. No fire detection.

– Class E member (Grass/cane only) - R1.10. ZFPA basic and aircraft on 3rd call. No fire detection.

– Class F (Parastatal only) - R0.55. Compliance to the Act. Aircraft on 3rd call. No fire detection.

– Class G (Municipalities only) - R0.20. Municipalities only. Compliance to the Act. Aircraft on 4th call. No fire detection.

– Class H (Municipalities only) - R1.30. Municipalities only. Compliance to the Act. Aircraft on 4th call. Electronic fire detection.

In addition, members are charged on a ‘user pays’ basis for the hours and loads of the aerial resources used.

▪ KZNFPA for instance, charges all members at the same basic running cost per hour, which will amount to:22 -

– R1,650 per hour for the spotter plane; – R11,700 per hour for the use of Thrush fixed wing bombers ; – R41,500 per hour for the use of the Mi8 MTV helicopter (Shafton); – R17,000 per hour for the use of the Huey helicopter (Weza Base); – R17,450 per hour for the use of the Huey helicopter (NEC & Transkei); – R43,200 per hour for the use of the Mi8 MTV (NEC & Transkei); – R1,700 per hour for the spotter plane (NEC & Transkei); – R350 will be charged for the load carried by fixed wing aircraft ; – R150 will be charged for every helicopter load. This will be to pay for the fire

retardant chemical, which is added to the water; and – When an in-field airstrip and its loading crew are being used by another timber

grower a call-out fee of R600 will be charged for the activation thereof. In addition, a fee of R350 will be charged for every load of water and retardant taken from that facility by the fixed wing bombers.

Charges, which are set on a per hectare basis, tend to be lower for larger FPAs due to economies of scale. FPAs lease aerial resources from private companies.23

22 All prices exclude VAT and are subject to change without notice due to fuel prices fluctuations



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 89

Under its contract with government WoF is mandated to assist the DAFF in the development of FPAs and has developed guidelines to manage the establishment of FPAs. As financial sustainability is a potential problem impacting upon sustainable establishment of FPAs, WoF has provided financial support of R95 million over the past three years and anticipates this increasing to R278 million over the next three years.

6.2 Cost-sharing agreements and methods

WoF provides up to 50% of the fixed costs where FPAs and partners can afford to contribute and all of the fixed cost where communities cannot afford to contribute. Fixed costs include pilot costs, insurance and the provision of aircraft. Partners contribute significantly towards the funding of the programme by contributing approximately 50% of the costs of maintaining base facilities and by being charged variable unbudgeted expenses ranging from transport to rations for firefighters fighting fires. Aerial firefighting comprises 10% of WoF’s total budget.

FPAs, landowners and partners calling on WoF’s aerial firefighting services are responsible for all flying costs on a user pays basis. For instance, a daily charge out cost is charged by WoF for the use of its resources. FPA members who use the FPA’s own resources are charged per hour for the aerial resources used. Additional charges can also include call-out fees and charges per load.

In international circumstances, the user pays principle is also applied, except in cases where the user cannot pay. Other arrangements are then typically made on an ad hoc basis.

6.3 Insurance-related issues

Landowners are the liable parties in the case of any damages. Many private landowners have their own insurance (which can typically cover 75% of the fire-fighting costs, for instance where aerial resources need to be used). WoF has its own insurance which covers damages and casualties. FPA aerial resources are covered by the insurance of the private companies that provide pilots and other resources.

23 In the case of the ZFPA, the total cost of aerial resources in 2009 (1 Cessna 182 fire spotter, and 2 Ayres 1,500 litre Turbine thrush bombers) totalled R1.8million. Membership levies resulted in an income of about R620000. The majority of the income however came from those members who pay the aerial standby costs, which amounted to R2.3million.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 90

7 Training

WoF is responsible for training fire-fighters. The WoF training programme includes a wide range of courses which are aimed at empowering the beneficiaries of WoF and other EPWP programmes. Firefighting crews come to the Academy for 21 days and are trained through the American HotShot system. The Basic Firefighting course includes Unit Standards One, Two and Three of the Forestry Industry Education and Training Authority and is recognised by the National Qualifications Framework as credits towards a Forestry Qualification. Unit One includes standard firefighting procedures and safety rules, Unit Two teaches the three main influences on fire behaviour (weather, topography and fuel), attack methods and tools while Unit Three focuses on firefighting equipment like pumps and hoses.

WoF does not train pilots, but instead employs professional pilots under the FFA Aviation company. WoF only employs pilots with a minimum of three years of firefighting experience. WoF occasionally supplements pilots’ existing skills and knowledge. For instance, in May 2008, WoF facilitated 40 firefighting pilots review of safety protocols and aerial fire-fighting techniques. The course included a detailed understanding of fire weather through to advanced aerial fire-fighting techniques.24

ICS is also a key component of WoF training. WoF and the South African ICS Working team offer an annual Intermediate and Advanced ICS training course in cooperation with instructors from the US. The South African ICS Working Team agreed to develop ICS standards for South Africa veld and forest fire organizations. The resulting Veld, Forest and Prescribed Fire Qualification System Guide was developed under the sponsorship of the South African ICS Working Team.

WOF, through its mutual assistance agreement with the USA, has trained over 150 Incident Command System team members and has 10 ICS teams available to respond to any national crisis.

ICS in South Africa

The Incident Command System that WoF has adopted is a USA-pioneered system of centrally controlled, single authority crisis management defined as, ‘a set of personnel, policies, procedures, facilities, and equipment, integrated into a common organizational structure designed to improve emergency response operations of all types and complexities.’ ICS is based on a flexible, scalable response organization providing a common framework within which people can work together effectively. These people may be drawn from multiple agencies that do not routinely work together, and ICS is designed to give standard response and operation procedures to reduce the problems and potential for miscommunication. ICS has been summarized as a ’first-on-scene’ structure, where the first responder of a scene has charge of the scene until the incident has been declared resolved, a superior-ranking responder arrives on scene and seizes command, or the Incident Commander appoints another individual

24 http://www.workingonfire.org/pressroom.php?id=5; http://www.skillsportal.co.za/skills_guide/511769.htm

http://workingonfire.org/ICS/materials/09ICSGuidelines.pdf

http://workingonfire.org/ICS/materials/09ICSGuidelines.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscommunication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_responder

http://www.workingonfire.org/pressroom.php?id=5

http://www.workingonfire.org/pressroom.php?id=5

http://www.skillsportal.co.za/skills_guide/511769.htm

http://www.skillsportal.co.za/skills_guide/511769.htm



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 91

8 Lessons learnt

Strategy and organisation

▪ In the absence of a strong government / national response, a private initiative (or joint private / public initiative) and an emphasis on local participation can be successful.

▪ Government support / buy-in is important and useful to ensure an integrated and mutually supportive approach, especially with regard to international agreements / arrangements.

▪ Using and implementing ICS successfully can have significant benefits when several organisations at several levels are involved in fire-fighting.

▪ Partnerships, with clearly delineated responsibilities are a significant advantage (e.g. through Memorandums of Understanding).

▪ If fire suppression is implemented as part of an integrated fire management approach, the costs and resources needed are greatly reduced (only 10% of WoFs budget is spent on aerial resources).

▪ Using aerial resources as a line of initial attack can save time and money, as well as decreasing damages and losses. For this to be achieved, sophisticated monitoring systems are essential.

▪ Financial resources: asset planning, funding and use

▪ While the funding model utilised by WoF allows for maximum air support available, fixed shared costs are 50:50, ,which in some cases can make the movement of resources difficult given that the ownership of the resources is unclear.

▪ Where the availability and reliability of assets from the leasing market is an issue, it is better to own rather than lease resources.

▪ Early movement of resources in anticipation of shifting fire seasons and changing needs is critical.

▪ A modular response is crucial – each WoF unit is self-contained and self-sustaining. The benefit of this modular and replicable system is that at the fire line, WoF crews work as a homogenous fire-fighting unit under their respective crew leaders and supervisors. A similar model is used when WoF sends out heli-attack crews. It is possible that there are benefits to employing a similar modular response more widely to aerial resources.

9 Appendices to the South Africa Case Study


Working on Fire

Johan Heine KwaZulu Natal Fire Protection Association Simon Thomas Zululand Fire Protection Association Trevor Wilson AfriFireNet Alex Held National Disaster Management Centre / Incident Command System Working Team Louis Buys



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 92

9.2 Example of an FPA fire report

4882088.69 TOTAL ALL R

1144 Total FiresAircraft Fires 76 Cost per Load

COSTS: Manpower TOTAL RANDS

Foresters 14984.42Labourers 336268.04Strike Crews 562343.58

Total 913596.04 Aircraft

Spotters 138586.99Bombers 2217814.50 Helicopters 735750.00Load Costs 199750.00Activation Costs 12000.00

Total 3303901.49 Vehicles

Large F/Tenders 198523.38Small F/Tenders 315671.37Strike Units 150396.41

Total 664591.16

R 4656.44R 5172.95

Bombers

Helicopters

195.36

18.90

90.16

Bombers

Helicopters

Spotters

515.00146.00

Aircraft Utilization 12.03 %

Total Hours & Loads

Average CTD 00.52

0.00R

R

4,882,088.692,583.00

4,879,505.69

Total Timber LossesTotal Cost

Less SalvagedTotal Loss

R 4,265.30R 43,472.39

R 4,267.56

Average Loss per FireAv. Aerial F/F CostAv. Fire Fighting CostAv. Ha Timber Burnt

Hours Loads

FIRE REPORTKwaZulu Natal Fire Protection Association

COMPANY: <All> CATASTROPHIC: Included DATE: 16-03-2010 AREA: <All> FIRE NUMBER: 743 Records REGION: Midlands FIRE SELECTION: All Fires PLANTATION: <All> DATE PERIOD: 01-01-2009 to 31-12-2009

VEGETATION TYPE(s) BURNT: VEGETATION STANDING (Ha) FELLED (Tons) STACKED (Tons)Indig. Bush 7.806 0.000 0.000 Wattle 22.078 0.000 0.000

Grass 2,147.743 0.000 0.000

Slash 16.201 0.000 0.000 Pine 373.565 0.000 0.000

TUP 0.080 0.000 0.000

Cane 0.000 0.000 0.000

Poplar 0.000 0.000 9,300.000

Eucalyptus 607.388 0.000 0.000

TOTAL BURNT: 3,174.861 0.000 9,300.000



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 93

9.3 Fire Danger Rating System, Fire Control and Standby State (from ZFPA)

Fire Alert Stage

BLUE GREEN YELLOW ORANGE RED

FDI 0 - 20 21 - 45 46 - 60 61 - 75 75 – 100

Fire Behaviour

SAFE MODERATE DANGEROUS VERY DANGEROUS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

Flame Length 0 - 1 1 – 1.2 1.2 – 1.8 1.8 – 2.4 2.4 PLUS

Fire Controllability

Guide

If started they spread very slowly and may go out without suppression forces. There is little flaming combustion and intensity is low. Control is readily achieved and little or no mop up is required.

Ignition may take place near prolonged heat sources. Speed is slow in forests, moderate in open areas. Light surface fires with low flames. Control is readily achieved with direct manual attack with minimum forces. Steep, exposed slopes may require light mop up.

Open flame will start fires. Mature grasslands and forest litter will burn readily. Spread is moderate in forests and fast in exposed areas. Fires burn on surface with moderate flame heights. Fight fires with direct attack and all available resources including aircraft. Light to moderate mop up.

Ignition can occur readily with fast spread in forests. Grass fire behaviour will be extreme. Fires will be very hot with crowning and short to medium spotting. Direct attack on the head may not be possible requiring indirect methods on flanks. All available resources must be used with extended mop up. Beware of wind change!!!

Ignition can occur from sparks. Fires will be extremely hot with fast rate of spread. Control may not be possible during day due to long range spotting and crowning. Suppression forces should limit efforts to limiting lateral spread. Damage potential total. All available resources must be used with extended mop up and careful attention to areas that can flare up. Beware of wind change!!!

Controlled burning

operations

Control burns can be executed if burning prohibitions and BOPs allow

Control burns can be executed if burning prohibitions and BOPs allow

No controlled burns if FDI forecast for the day exceeds 50.

No control burns of any nature

No control burns of any nature

Fire Fighting Crew

Activation – fire on

members land



All available aircraft Landowner Additional neighbouring resources if requested



Fire Duty

Foresters

Normal – good time to take time off if raining and standby forester available.

Normal – remain on duty in radio and cell contact. Report all movements to ops.

Alert - remain on duty in radio and cell contact. Know where all teams are, have strike crews on vehicle. Report all movements to ops.

Danger - remain on duty in radio and cell contact. Report all movements to ops. Know where all teams are, have strike crews on vehicle and move

Extreme Danger - remain on duty in radio and cell contact. Report all movements to ops. Know where all teams are, have strike crews on



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 94

to initial attack staging areas

vehicle and move to danger areas. Keep up to date on weather.

Proto Teams Working hours

Fire fighting units available with driver. Report all movements to ops.

After hours

Standby in village

Working hours


After hours

Standby in village

Working hours


After hours

Standby in village. Full crews

Working hours

Fire fighting units available with driver. Full crews and at danger standby points. Report all movements to ops.

After hours


Working hours

Fire fighting units available with driver. Full crews and at danger standby points Report all movements to ops.

After hours


Ops day staff Normal. 07:00 to 16:30 – good time to take time off if raining and standby operator available.

Normal. 07:00 to 16:30 unless fire is currently burning. FDIs every 2 hours.

Alert. 06:30 to 17:30 unless fire is currently burning. FDIs every hour. Remain in contact at night.

Danger. Sunrise to sunset, unless fire is currently burning or aircraft are still flying. FDIs every hour. Remain in contact at night. Be super aware of weather.

Extreme Danger. Sunrise to sunset. If fire is currently burning or aircraft are still flying hand over to suitably qualified person – management only. FDIs every hour. Be super aware of weather.

Spotter Airborne 25 min Airborne 15 min Airborne 5 min. On standby at airfield

Immediate take off. Patrolling FDI above 60

Continuous patrolling. Only stop for fuel.

Bomber Airborne 25 min Airborne 15 min Airborne 5 min. On standby at airfield

Immediate take off. Immediate take off

Silviculture contractors

Normal Normal Normal – in radio contact

In radio contact. Aware of conditions. Crews and water tankers available for mop up.

Stop all work and withdraw. Available for mop up. Crews and water tankers available for mop up.

Harvesting Contractors

Normal Normal Normal – in radio contact

In radio contact. Aware of conditions.

Stop all work and withdraw

Mechanic Normal Normal Notify agents Notify agents Notify agents



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 95

Appendix 7 Australia

1 Wildland Fire Management in Australia – Systemic Overview And Risk Trends

1.1 Overview

Australia is the sixth largest country in the world and covers an area of 7.69 million square km, about twice the size of the European Union. The population of the country was 21.37 million in 2008 with GDP of US$ 38,700 per capita. Australia is a federation comprised of the following states and territories, which are equivalent to states and provinces in the US and Canada:

▪ Western Australia (WA);

▪ South Australia (SA);

▪ Victoria (VIC);

▪ New South Wales (NSW);

▪ Queensland (QLD);

▪ Tasmania (TAS);

▪ Northern Territory (NT); and

▪ Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

Constitutional responsibility for fighting wildfires rests with each individual state and territory. All states and territories, apart from the Northern Territory, are partners in a national level resource sharing agreement established to manage and coordinate the cross-jurisdictional suppression of wildfires across Australia.

1.2 Wildfire trends

In Australia, natural hazards are estimated to cost an average of AUD 1.14 billion (€800 million) annually (BTE 2001) but the cost of individual hazards can be much greater. Bushfires pose a threat in nearly all parts of the country at different times of the year with an estimated annual average cost of approximately AUD 77million (€53.9million) (BTE 2001).25

Australia has 149 million hectares of forests comprising 147.4 million hectares of native forests and 1.97 million hectares of plantations. These forests cover approximately 19% of the continent. This translates to about seven hectares of forest for each Australian, one of the highest areas of forest per person in the world. Altogether, Australia has approximately 4% of the world’s forest on 5% of the world’s land area.

Protected areas cover 895,288 km² (11.5% of Australia's total land area). Over 80% of the protected area is publicly owned and managed by the Australian government or state and territory governments. Table 1.1 below describes the type of public land by state.

25http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/00408ced366bb56aca2570de00029f46!OpenDocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/00408ced366bb56aca2570de00029f46!OpenDocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/00408ced366bb56aca2570de00029f46!OpenDocument



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 96

Table 0-1 Type of land by state26

(thousand sq km) PUBLIC LAND CATEGORY (2002 data) QLD NSW VIC SA WA NT TAS TOTAL % of land

area

Nature conservation reserve

67.2 54.4 34.3 213.0 170.2 49.2 17.8 606.1 7.89

Vacant crown land 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.5 122.8 0.0 6.3 132.7 1.72

Other crown land 0.0 0.8 4.8 4.6 697.0 0.0 0.8 708.0 9.21

Forestry reserve 42.2 32.1 35.9 1.3 18.6 0.0 14.6 144.7 1.89

Water reserve 0.0 2.2 0.8 0.5 9.0 0.0 1.0 13.5 0.17

Defence land 7.1 0.4 0.4 3.8 6.3 12.4 0.2 153 1.99

Mining reserve 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 4 0.05

Mixed category lands 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.02

The number and severity of landscape fires is influenced by many factors, including environmental factors such as weather and climate, with the majority of landscape fires triggered by human activity (approximately 85%) or lightning (approximately15%). Table 0-2 describes the approximate fire affected areas across Australia from 1997 to 2003.

Table 0-2 Fire-affected areas across Australia 1997 to 2003

Area

(million hectares)

Percentage of total land area fire

affected Calendar year 1997 48.3 6.3 861998 26.3 3.4 921999 60.0 7.8 862000 71.5 9.3 652001 80.1 10.4 842002 63.8 8.3 632003 31.6 4.1 85

Source: Western Australian Department of Land Information.

Estimates show that that climate change is likely to increase the fire-weather risk, which is generally largest inland.27 A 2006 study28 found that the combined frequencies of days with

26 Source: http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/land-tenure.jsp

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/hennessykj_2005b.pdf

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/hennessykj_2005b.pdf



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 97

very high and extreme Forest Fire Danger Index ratings are likely to increase in south-east Australia for example by:

▪ 4–25% by 2020; and

▪ 15–70% by 2050.

An overall key finding of the study was an increase in fire-weather risk by 2020 in most areas, including an increase in the average number of days when the Forest Fire Danger Risk rating is very high or extreme.

1.3 Wildfires Response Policies and Programmes and Information Tools

Following a number of serious bushfires affecting Australia in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the federal Government and state and territorial governments decided to develop a joined-up approach to managing aerial firefighting to improve national operational performance and cost effectiveness.

As a result, the National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC) was formed by the Australian states and territories in July 2003 to provide a cooperative national arrangement for combating bushfires. NAFC facilitates the coordination and procurement of a fleet of highly specialised firefighting aircraft that are readily available for use by state and territory emergency agencies across Australia. NAFC also plays a key role in ensuring that aerial firefighting resources are shared between fire agencies throughout Australia, and in the development of national protocols and systems for aerial firefighting. Resource sharing is organised through a Resource Management Agreement to which the states and territories are signatories. At present, only the Northern Territory is not participating in the resource sharing arrangement. Historically the territory has not been a fire risk area.

The national fleet managed by NAFC receives funding support from the Australian Government as well as state and territorial governments and complements aerial firefighting resources that are managed by the states and territories29. The funding received from the Australian government toward financing the national fleet has supported the shift in focus to larger capacity aircraft and an impetus towards deepening national arrangements.

2 Sharing Aerial Firefighting Resources: Development Process, General Organisation and Governance

2.1 The wildfires response process in Australia

The overall fire management procedure consists of four components:30 1 Prevention;

2 Preparedness;

3 Response (e.g. ‘firefighting’ / fire ‘suppression’); and

4 Recovery.

The response component of the fire management procedure can be further broken down into: ▪ Ground crews with hand tools;

▪ Ground crews with tankers;

27 Hennessy K, Lucas C, Nicholls N, Bathols J, Suppiah R, Ricketts J. 2006. Climate change impacts on fire-weather in south-east Australia. CSIRO, Australia. 28 Ibid. 29 Please note that only some States/territories have their own aircraft. 30 Hollis, J et. al (2007) The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Aerial Firefighting in Australia Part 1, Bushfire CRC



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 98

▪ Ground crews with heavy machinery; and

▪ Ground crews with aerial firefighting support.

This report focuses on aerial firefighting support with a specific focus on resource sharing arrangements between the states and territories. In the event of a wildfire each state and territory uses its own available resources. NAFC membership provides access to the national fleet during a high impact fire season. The resource management agreement also includes an assistance agreement with other states and territories in time of need. Many of the states and territories also have additional resources managed outside of the NAFC arrangement (and excluded from the resource sharing agreement).

Although all redeployments (resource sharing) are arranged between the individual NAFC members (i.e. the states and territories), NAFC will, where practicable and appropriate, act as a broker and facilitator to:

▪ Assist members in their awareness of resources that may be available from, or may be supplied to, other members;

▪ Facilitate communication between members regarding re-deployment;

▪ Activate pre-planned process to support resource sharing; and

▪ Assist members enter into supplier/provider agreements.

The steps in resource sharing / redeployment procedure between the NAFC members are described in Table 0-3 below.

Table 0-3 Steps in the procedure for resource sharing

Steps in the resource sharing / redeployment procedure

Step 1 Receiving state/territory (recipient) identifies aircraft requirement for preparedness or response.

Step 2 (Preferred) Contact NAFC and advise of requirements. NAFC will advise on the current status of suitable national fleet aircraft and will provide advice regarding state(s)/territory/ies) that may be in a position to provide resources (providers).

Step 3

Recipient contacts state(s)/territory/(ies) who have control of suitable aircraft and reaches agreement for supply of aircraft and related resources.

Step 4 If agreement cannot be reached between recipient and potential providers(s), or if there are two or more potential recipients, a deployment dispute may exist. Recipients may advise NAFC and request that NAFC activate deployment resolution process.

Step 5 Execute redeployment agreement(s) between recipient and provider(s). Agreements must include whether:

(a) Recipient becomes the liable member for the aircraft for the control period (i.e. recipient issues purchase order to aircraft contractor ); or

(b) Provider remains the liable member and invoices recipients, via a tax invoice, for reimbursement of costs.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 99

Steps in the resource sharing / redeployment procedure

Step 6 Provide copy of executed redeployment agreement to recipient, provider and NAFC. (Recipient has the responsibility to ensure copies are distributed).

Step 7 Provider provides written advice of agreed redeployment to aircraft contractor. Advice must include a statement as to who will be the liable state/territory for the control period (i.e. who the aircraft contractor will invoice for supply during the control period).

Step 8 If recipient is to become liable state/territory, recipient issues purchase order as defined in resource management agreement to aircraft contractor, with copy to NAFC.

Step 9 Provider arranges dispatch of aircraft and related resources in accordance with terms of the agreement reached.

Step 10 Recipient inspects aircraft in accordance with standard contract compliance checks. Recipient provides advice of non-compliance to aircraft contractor if recipient is liable, or provides advice to provider if provider remains liable.

Step 11 Recipient utilises aircraft in accordance with redeployment agreement, supply agreement and relevant operational procedures and standards.

Step 12 Recipient arranges dispatch of aircraft to provider at conclusion of agreed Control period.

Step 13 Depending on provisions of the redeployment agreement reached between recipient and supplier, either provider or aircraft contractor invoices recipient for supply during the control period.

Step 14 Redeployment agreements may be varied at any time by written agreement between recipient and provider (with copy to NAFC).

States and territories can also pro-actively offer aircraft or related resources for redeployment even though no particular requirement has been communicated by another state or territory. This includes circumstances where the risk of a damaging wildfire is expected to remain relatively low for a period of time in the potential suppliers’ jurisdiction.

2.2 Oversight and Policy Structure - Key Actors

The NAFC co-ordinates the procurement, deployment and logistical support of firefighting aircraft on behalf of the states and territories of Australia, except for the Northern Territory.

NAFC was formed as a limited company whose shareholders are the federal government and the participating states/territories. This was considered to be the most pragmatic arrangement which did not require implementation of new national or state level legislation. The current arrangement therefore is not statutory and participation is voluntary.

NAFC is subject to company laws and regulations that also ensure transparency. It is governed by a Board of Directors, which has nominees from each participating state/territory. They are normally Chief Officers of the main state level firefighting organisation.

Under the current framework NAFC administers a resource administration/management agreement, which is a legal agreement between the states and territories to share resources. The agreement covers both resources and liabilities. Common practices and standards in the states and territories ensure the system works.

It is also important to note that the overall policy structure relies on states’ abilities to collaborate where informal networking between the states also plays a role.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 100

Other key players involved in the NAFC include: ▪ The Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC) which is the

industry body for fire, land management and emergency service organisations in Australia and New Zealand. AFAC members are drawn from every state and territory in Australia and New Zealand and from around the Pacific. AFAC is also represented in the NAFC Board. Council activities include developing training packages and work on the development of common standards for fire operations.

▪ The Attorney General’s Department assists states and territories in developing their capacity for dealing with emergencies and disasters, and provides physical assistance to requesting states or territories when they cannot reasonably cope during an emergency. The department also promotes the operation of NAFC and provides funding in the context of the resource management agreement.

▪ The Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre brings together researchers from universities, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other government organisations, and private industry or public sector agencies in long-term collaborative arrangements that support research and development. The organisation does significant research related to effective and efficient use of aerial firefighting resources.

2.3 Operational Structure – Key Actors at the National and Local Level

The states and territories are encouraged to take part in NAFC through the Attorney General’s Department, which provides approximately 25% of the funding for the resource management arrangement. Collective governance is organised by state entities. The resource management agreement provides the contractual basis for sharing resources in cross-border situations. Collaboration is based on risk assessment. Incident managers at state level (chief officers) discuss risks and types of resources that could be shared. NAFC procedures require a formal request made to NAFC who then brokers the resource sharing between the states. Hence, although at a state level the organisation of aerial resource sharing is a command and control system, at a national level it is based on resource brokering facilitated by NAFC.

The key state authorities are:

▪ New South Wales Rural Fire Service: Other state agencies involved in managing fire related risks include the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Forests New South Wales, Fire Brigade and Ambulance services;

▪ Victoria Country Fire Authority: Other state agencies include Department of Sustainability and Environment, Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, Victoria State Emergency Service and the Department of Human Services;

▪ Tasmania Fire Service: Other state agencies involved with mutual assistance include Forestry Australia and the Parks and Wildlife Service;

▪ South Australian Country Fire Service;

▪ The Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia which coordinates the response to a wide range of emergencies;

▪ The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, including the Rural Fire Service which administers Queensland’s volunteer Fire Wardens and Rural Fire Brigades; and

▪ The ACT Fire Brigade of the Australian Capital Territory: ACT, along with the Ambulance Service, State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service, is part of the Australian Capital Territory Emergency Services Agency.

http://www.fire.qld.gov.au/about/rfs.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Capital_Territory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_Ambulance_Service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_Ambulance_Service

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACT_State_Emergency_Service&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ACT_Rural_Fire_Service&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Capital_Territory_Emergency_Services_Agency



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 101

In the Northern Territory, the Fire and Rescue Service is the primary provider of fire and rescue services. Volunteers play a key role in fire suppression operations in every state/territory.

2.4 Interstate / Interregional and International Operation

The interstate deployment of aviation resources is managed through NAFC, as explained above. In an event where bushfire fighting resources must be brokered between the states, the Chief Officer will make contact with the Chief Officer/s of the interstate fire management agencies. The initial contact will subsequently be confirmed by a formal request. The formal request letter sets out the details of the type of support being requested, the general area in which the support will be used and the duration that the support is expected to be required.

In general, all participating agencies within a state or territory are required to maintain inter-agency liaison arrangements to ensure a level of preparedness to effectively deploy resources to major incidents within the state or territory. The respective State Coordination Centre (SCC) will coordinate all offers of support and requests received from interstate fire management agencies. Resources will be provided and managed in accordance with the guidelines established by the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council, according to the Guidelines for Mutual Aid and Resource Sharing (10/2003).

International agreements exist between Australia and the United States, Canada and New Zealand to provide fire suppression support during times of need. These agreements operate at interagency level between states and territories rather than at a national level. For example, Victoria’s Department for Sustainability and Environment has an agreement with the US firefighting service and with British Columbia in Canada. As with national operations, the receiving state pays the costs of the operation, which is based on a set cost per day. In an event where volunteers from Australia would for example take part in an operation in the US, they would agree to give up their current terms of employment in Australia and follow the arrangements of the receiving state.

3 Aerial Assets’ Ownership, Contracting and Procurement

3.1 Inventory / classification of aerial resources

The national fleet consists of 43 aircraft managed via resource sharing agreements with the NAFC. Some states also have resources that are directly under their control (outside of the NAFC resource management agreement).

The ownership of national assets rests within the states, under an agreement of assistance to other states in time of need. Each aircraft has a home territory, controlled by the state agency during a fire season.

Classifications for the national fleet have been agreed upon by all the states and territories involved in the National Aerial Firefighting Centre (NAFC). These include31:

▪ Type 1 (heavy) helicopters (rotary wing aircraft), with water carrying capacity over 2650L;

▪ Type 2 (medium) helicopters (rotary wing aircraft), with water carrying capacity 1135-2649L;

▪ Type (3 light) helicopters (rotary wing aircraft), with water carrying capacity 380-1134L; and

▪ Single engine air tanker systems (SEATs) (fixed wing aircraft) firebombers.

Table 0-4 shows an inventory of the aircraft at a state and territorial level

31 Hollis, J et. al (2007) The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Aerial Firefighting in Australia Part 1, Bushfire CRC



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 102

Table 0-4 Inventory of aircraft operated by NAFC32

Type of aircraft

Nominated operational base (state/territory)

Aircraft model

VIC DC10

VIC BE E90 Kingair

WA Air Tractor AT602

WA Air Tractor AT602

SA Air Tractor AT602





SA

Air Tractor AT802


SA Cessna 337

NSW Air Tractor AT802

NSW Air Tractor AT802

Fixed Wing Aircraft

NSW Cessna T337

WA Aerospatiale AS350B3




WA Sikorsky S61N S

ACT Aerospatiale AS350BA

ACT Bell 212

NSW Bell206L

NSW Bell206L

NSW Bell 212

NSW Bell 214B

NSW Bell 214B

NSW Erickson Aircrane S64F

NSW Kawasaki BK117B2

NSW Kawasaki BK117B2

SA Bell 205

Rotary Wing Aircraft

SA Bell 206L

32 Adapted from: http://www.nafc.org.au/portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=3

http://www.nafc.org.au/portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=3



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 103

Type of aircraft

Nominated operational base (state/territory)

Aircraft model

SA Bell 214B

SA Erickson Aircrane S64E

TAS Bell 212

TAS TBA

VIC Bell 206 L

VIC Erickson Aircrane S64E

VIC Erickson Aircrane S64F

VIC Sikorsky S61N

VIC Sikorsky S61N

3.2 Assets Procurement / organisation of the private contracting system

The national fleet aircraft is procured through a public tendering process. The contract is made between the aircraft operator and NAFC. This ensures that the aircraft can be easily moved from one state or territory to another.

NAFC enters into the supply agreement with aircraft suppliers, which enables the states and territories to procure aircraft via purchase order. The states and territories submit a bid to NAFC specifying their request for aircraft. NAFC will issue to the requesting state/territory an operating statement that includes a summary of costs that will be incurred under the relevant supply agreement in order to provide the aircraft specified in the bid. The operating statement will detail:

▪ Anticipated standing costs for the period specified;

▪ Anticipated operating costs;

▪ A breakdown of the estimated standing costs and operating costs which will be borne by the NAFC and the state/territory; and

▪ An assessment of the likelihood that the standing and operating costs will be shared between the states/territories.

After receiving an operating statement from NAFC the state/territory may obtain a purchase order in relation to aircraft with the relevant aircraft supplier. The purchase order includes information such as aircraft model, purchase period, standing costs for the specified period and operating costs.

In an event where a state/territory offers aircraft in its control for use by another state/territory, these states/territories must:

▪ Agree as to the period for which the recipient will be deemed to be in control of the aircraft; and

▪ Advise the aircraft supplier and NAFC that the aircraft has been provided to the recipient and the agreed period for which the recipient will be deemed to control the aircraft.

In the event of deployment disputes, the NAFC Board by reference to the standing orders makes a decision as to which state/territory the aircraft will be deployed and the period for which that state/territory will be in control of the aircraft. For further detail regarding the assets procurement, please refer to the resource management agreement appendix to this report.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 104

4 Decision-Making Procedures and Standards of Operations

4.1 Tools for monitoring risks and managing incidents

Each state identifies and controls risk in its territory using different methods and thus joint coordination can be difficult. Each state is a member of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Authorities Council (AFAC), however, which operates an information sharing system. The main resource management related report is Bushfire Information and Significant Incidents (BISI) report produced by AFAC. The report provides information on incident situations and an outlook across the states and territories. Report information is based on projections for the next 36 hours and up to four days. For each state and territory33 (and for New Zealand) the report shows:

▪ Incident situation and outlook;

▪ Resources deployed; and

▪ Resources available.

The report is used to coordinate resource sharing. The Meteorology Institute also contributes to risk assessment at a national level but overall risk management is the responsibility of each state.

A standardised nomenclature is used to describe incidents from level 1 (simple incident) to level 3 (multi-agency incident demanding a variety of resources).

All incidents are managed under the Australian Inter-service Incident Management System (AIIMS). AIIMS provides a structure of delegation to ensure that all management and information functions are adequately performed, including incident control, operations, planning and logistics. AIIMS also provides for the command and coordination of multi-agency incidents.

NAFC and its members (Australian states and territories) have also made the decision to adopt a national (standard) approach to the provision of tracking and event logging services for aircraft involved in firefighting and related operations. This will extend to messaging systems in the future. TracPlus Global Ltd (www.tracplus.com) is the currently appointed Integrator. This integrator model will allow aircraft operators to continue to select their own tracking services provider and to select and install tracking and event logging equipment appropriate to their aircraft and operation. The aircraft operator's tracking provider must however arrange to forward the tracking data to a central Integrator, adhering to the required standard. In turn, the Integrator stores and forwards the data to the various user agencies and organisations. NAFC has entered into a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the provider which ensures a guaranteed standard of service and also sets pricing34.


During times of heightened risk (normally when the fire has already started), the responsible authority contacts NAFC to request additional support. States with a low level of risk normally commit their NAFC procured aircraft to the operation.

A formal request to NAFC is often done after initial discussions between the states (i.e. informal feasibility assessment). This informal resource brokering based on personal relationships (normally between the chief officers who know each other from NAFC) also speeds up the process35.

33 It is not clear if the Northern Territory is included. 34 http://www.nafc.org.au/portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=16&tabid=21 35 For further details, see Section 2 of this report, in particular Table 2.1 in sub-section 2.1.

http://www.tracplus.com/



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 105

The affected state then makes a formal request for resources to the NAFC. The state requests the number/type of human and physical resources (depending on the situation). NAFC then assesses the information. In the event of conflicting requests, NAFC turns to a committee comprised of representatives from each state that seeks a collective solution (). A meeting of this committee can be organised at short notice. To date, this has not been required and hence its functionality has not been tested in practice.

Resource movements are detailed in an agreement, and a formal request must be made to NAFC. Details must be provided to NAFC so they can maintain oversight of these movements, even if two states had previously negotiated an informal agreement to share resources.

In most cases, the state/territory providing support organises and manages its own human resources in the receiving state. This is normally done by ‘inter-state liaison officers’ who mobilise and manage resource logistics from their state/territory that are despatched to the receiving state. In most cases, with respect to NAFC aircraft, the receiving state/territory manages the operation of aircraft and its crew.

5 Financial Arrangements/ Cost Sharing (including insurance-related issues)

5.1 Cost sharing agreements and methods

The fixed national fleet cost is approximately AUD 30 million (€ 21 million). The federal government also contributes by paying different for a portion of the fixed cost, normally between 40 and 50%. In 2008-2009 the Federal government’s contribution was AUD 14.2 million (€9.94 million), an increase of AUD 4 million from the previous period.

A state or territory typically contracts aircraft from NAFC for a period during the fire season. NAFC normally covers approximately 50% of the standing cost36 of having aircraft available. States/territories also contribute to the leasing cost for those aircraft managed within their territory. The operating cost37 is entirely covered by the state.

In the case of assistance between the states/territories, as per the resource management agreement, the receiving state will reimburse all the operating costs to the assisting state.

5.2 Insurance related issues

Aircraft contractors are required to insure aircraft users and each aircraft provider also has public indemnity insurance.

Each state/territory also severally indemnifies NAFC against all damage costs or expenses that may be incurred or suffered by NAFC and all actions, proceedings, claims or demands that may be brought against NAFC relating to the supply agreement or aircraft procured via NAFC.

When assistance is provided between the states/territories, the resource management agreement also includes a clause that the receiving state will bear the insurance costs of the providing state.

6 Training

There is no overarching nationally accredited standard procedure for organising and managing fire suppression at a ground level across the states and territories. Basic

36 ‘Standing cost’ refers to the fixed costs payable in order to obtain an aircraft for a specified period. 37 ‘Operating cost’ refers to costs associated with operating an aircraft such as payment to contractors to operate the aircraft, fuel costs, maintenance costs and repair costs unless any of these costs have been included by the aircraft supplier as a standing cost.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 106

competency requirements are contained in provisions of the legislation. For example, aviation regulations are adhered to nationally. Joint training for intervention and control teams are organised on an ad hoc basis.

Formal provisions include:

▪ A common certification of pilots that is organised by Civil Aviation Safety Authority; and

▪ National standards set by AFAC for aviation that cover common competencies (e.g. for incident management).

AFAC has developed a competency framework and runs a national training curriculum but decisions are made at state/territory level on how these are used. This framework covers fire sector qualifications within the public safety training package. These contain certificates in the areas of firefighting and emergency operations, firefighting supervision and management. AFAC has also developed a suite of quality training resource kits.

Joint training programmes have also been organised at state/territory level depending on needs at the national level and based on common competencies. Generally, competency development rests with a state. In some states pre-season briefings and post-season reviews occur.

Consultations suggest training is most needed in areas related to effective wildfire suppression deployment and staff management of these activities. Standardised training for pilots was also mentioned as an area where training was needed. Common standards for operating procedures are currently being developed.

Stakeholders also commented that beyond staff training related to fire suppression, community training also plays an important role. Outcomes depend not only on how well fire fighters do their work but also how intelligently the general public respond and react to wildfire situations.

7 Lessons Learnt

7.1 Areas for improvement

Consultations suggest general satisfaction with the current organisation of resource sharing arrangements, including the degree of integration in aerial fire fighting. As the organisation is still relatively new, however, there is room for improvement. In particular, the key areas identified include:

▪ Harmonisation of operating practices, procedures and technical requirements between the states; and

▪ Better information sharing, in particular relating to safety.

In addition, as states constitutionally have individual accountability within their state, to some extent successful system functioning depends on the enthusiasm of senior stakeholders. Greater formalisation could improve the operational functioning of the system.

7.2 Lessons learnt / recommendations for good practice

Consultations suggested that the current resource sharing system works well: asset ownership and overall asset control and influence remains at the state /territory level. The resource brokering system is considered to be straightforward, with little bureaucracy and easy to operate. Federal government contributions, although not large, provide incentives and bring parties together.

Interagency protocols between states and territories have been developed. Interoperability has focussed on working relationships rather than just equipment interoperability.



EPEC

EPEC: 3025 7478 Page: 107

Stakeholders have suggested that the system could be improved through further harmonisation of strategic operating principles that can be shared beyond one’s own jurisdiction Risks could also be better managed by systematically and strategically looking beyond one’s own jurisdiction but this would best be managed via a central control centre that currently does not exist. It was emphasised that the key is to continue to share information and maintain relationships which are seen as fundamental to making the system work.

8 Appendices


Institution Name of organisation Name of contact person

Contact

Queensland – Queensland Fire and Rescue Service

Mr Wayne Bates (Aviation Manager)

Tasmania – Tasmania Fire Service

Mike Brown (Chief Officer)

Fire fighting organisations State and territorial Fire & Emergency Services

South Australia – Country Fire Service

David Cant (Aviation Manager)

Emergency Management Directorate (within Attorney General’s Department)

Gerry Foster (Manager)

Emergency Management Agencies

and Coordination bodies

Australasian Fire Authorities Council Gary Featherston

(Manager)



EPEC

108

Appendix 8 New Zealand

1. Wildlife Trends and Policy Responses

New Zealand remains a predominantly rural economy. The country has a population of 4.2 million and land area covering 27 million hectares. Natural forests, including rainforests, comprise 25% of the land area and plantation forests cover 7% (1.8 million hectares).

Plantation forestry has always been a significant component of the country’s economy and its rural fire management. Forest owners contribute to the fire management effort well beyond the level expected for the areas being protected.

Annually, 4,000 to 4,500 wildfires burn 5,000 to 7,000 ha of land. The average fire is very small, and burns between 1.25 and 1.55 ha. Compared with the 1990-2000 period, there has been a 50% decline in the area lost to wildfires. In recent years, however, there have been significant reductions in the land area covered by forests due to land conversion to dairy farms, urban areas etc.

In 2009, wildfires cost the New Zealand economy NZD 98 million (€ 52 million).

On the other hand, forest fire reporting systems and statistics in the country are said to be of poor quality.

2. Key Actors – Governance and Operations

There are two types of fire management services in New Zealand: a national ‘urban’ service provided by the New Zealand Fire Service (NZFS) and a ‘rural’ system. Both systems rely heavily on large numbers of volunteer fire fighters.

The rural system has a highly decentralised structure. It is controlled by 87 Rural Fire Authorities (RFAs), the central element of rural fire management operations. The RFAs have a significant degree of autonomy, although they are supervised by a National Rural Fire Authority (NRFA).

The NRFA is not a national fire management agency, but ‘gives a national perspective to rural fire management’. It defines the rural fire control measures to be taken by RFAs, and has statutory powers to declare emergencies.

Approximately 97% of New Zealand’s land area lies outside fire districts classified as ‘urban’, and the RFAs are responsible for fire management on this land. The RFAs comprise:

▪ The Department of Conservation (DoC) for national areas (which manages the 30% of New Zealand land area comprising national parks and other reserves);

▪ The Rural Fire District Committees (i.e. forestry companies and large landowners) for specially defined areas;

▪ The NZ Defence Force (for most of its own lands); and

▪ Territorial Authorities for all areas that fall outside the above.

Each RFA is divided into sectors, which have people and equipment resources with the remit to respond to a fire.

The coordination of the 87 autonomous RFAs is achieved through 11 Regional Rural Fire Committees, each of which includes the Principal Rural Fire Officer from each covered RFA and a New Zealand Fire Service representative. Within each RFA the Principal and Rural Fire Officer manages firefighting operations and undertakes fire control measures.

Furthermore, large forestry companies and landowners play a major role in rural fire fighting, contributing to equipment, trained fire fighters, and firefighting aircraft. New Zealand is a member of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC), an industry body for fire and emergency service organisations in Australia and New Zealand that operates an information sharing system on risks.



EPEC

109

The influence of plantation forestry in the country’s economy has greatly influenced the rural fire fighting governance model.

One of the strengths of the system in rural areas is the large number of volunteers (approximately 3,000), who assist a few local authority staff and contractors with fire control responsibilities. Therefore, rural fire fighting operations rely as much on volunteers or contractors with helicopters and ‘monsoon buckets’ as on firefighters based in fire stations. Moreover, rural fire management is largely ‘invisible’ because it does not necessarily require fire stations with conventional fire appliances. Conversely, an inconvenience of this decentralised and autonomous system is that rural fire fighting forces end up helping with much more than fire – in 2003, they spent more than 1,700 hours at emergency incidents other than wildfires fires (i.e. incidents for which they have no jurisdictional authority). This equates to about 56% of their total emergency response activity.

3. Asset Ownership, Contracting and Procurement

New Zealand lacks a national asset coordination centre. Coupled with the high degree of decentralisation of its rural fire organisation, it boasts a very large number of small aircraft, leading to one of the highest densities in the world in this regard, given the size of its population.

There are 850 registered helicopters in New Zealand, including 150 to 200 used for fire fighting activity (in comparison, Australia has 50 to 80 aircraft coordinated across the whole country). This predominant use of aircraft for agricultural work (land fertilising, agricultural spraying, etc.) is largely explained by the topography of the country – several tracts of land are too steep for tractors to operate.

These aircraft are privately owned. Neither the NRFA, nor the RFAs do own any aircraft. The RFA primarily contracts aircraft to private owners or operators. Aircraft are hired on a day-to-day basis - contractors are extremely flexible and the aircraft can be deployed to help immediately, on an ad hoc basis, in case of wildfires.

The smooth working of this flexible and largely decentralised system is facilitated by the fact that private operators of agricultural aircraft are often also undertaking contract work for plantation landowners or farmers. From a cultural perspective, these individuals view firefighting as a priority job that takes precedence over ongoing tasks. This results in a high degree of flexibility as well as transparency – aerial operators are identified in the National Fire Plan and an expanded list is available on the National Emergency Resource Directory.

There is usually no need to contract from overseas, given the large pool of aircraft resources in New Zealand – however, there have been instances of exchange with Australia. Some arrangements exist between private aircraft companies in New Zealand and other countries – these are made purely on a commercial/ business basis. For instance such contracts have been signed with New South Wales and Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania (but purely on a private basis, without any involvement from New Zealand rural fire authorities).

4. Decision Making and Standard Operating Procedures

Given the small average wildfire size, wildfire fighting operations in New Zealand are primarily local.

Under an agreement between the New Zealand Fire Service and the RFAs, the Fire Service will use its resources for wildfire suppression in rural areas. These resources provide an initial attack response to rural fires. Between 90-95% of rural fires can be contained in this manner. The remaining 5-10% of rural fires extend into hours or days, requiring each RFA to activate its own or contracted resources. It is in these situations that aircraft and other heavy equipment are normally required.

New Zealand’s fire fighting strategy relies heavily on small aeroplanes and is essentially based on an aggressive initial attack approach, under RFAs purview.

The NRFA operates the Fire Weather Monitoring System (FWSYS), a tool for short- to medium-term fire management decision support that provides fire-area weather/fire danger



EPEC

110

maps and reports. It monitors resource deployment only when domestic resources are deployed overseas on request.

Owing to the flexibility of the existing structure, the country can deploy resources overseas as rapidly as within two days. A national register records all the necessary information (passports, photographs, medical records) required for a deployment.

5. Financial / Cost Sharing Arrangements

The Rural Fire Fighting Fund, set up in 1992, provides some federal financing to cover the costs of fighting wildfires. Over the past ten years, payments worth NZ$ 27million (€14million) have been made by the Fund.

The predominance of agricultural aircraft in firefighting explains why 40-45% of firefighting costs are aircraft-related. These are essentially operating costs because these resources entail little standing cost to the RFAs, as they are primarily involved in other agricultural / commercial activities.

The cost of fighting wildfires can be passed on to the landowner, or the person who caused the fire (there are powers under the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977 to recover the costs from individuals, based on ad hoc decisions of the NRFA or the relevant RFA).

In case of deployment overseas, the agency that makes the request pays for all the costs of deployment. The NRFA takes charge of insurance, and the cost of this insurance is paid for by the foreign party.

This system has several merits including a high degree of flexibility and cost-efficiency. Volunteers comprise 70% of the personnel involved in firefighting – they do not receive payment for their time and services.

Moreover, as forestry companies cannot make claims against the NRFA for fires on their estate, they are encouraged to independently manage aerial fire suppression operations within their areas.

6. Training

Due to the essentially local nature of rural fires, some guidelines have established, but not national standards related to aerial fire fighting management. The RFAs must therefore have a good understanding of the local fire environment.

Liaison meetings are organised between RFAs, but these remain informal – the small size of the country has often been cited as an enabling factor for efficient (although informal) organisation. The only concern is that the absence of national standards may prove to be a weakness in the event of a major disaster.

New Zealand is a member of the Australasian Forest Fire Management Group that was established by Australia and New Zealand as a subcommittee of the Asian Forestry Commission run by the FAO/UN. Several official assistance agreements have been signed. In the late 1990s, for instance, an agreement was signed with the USA and the province of Victoria in Australia, and in 2009, an agreement was signed with Canada. Discussions are in progress with South Africa for a similar agreement. These agreements provide for support when additional resources are required, as well as knowledge sharing and training exchanges, standards of competence and fitness, and training on the Incident Management System (ICS). Ten deployments have been made within the framework of these arrangements since 2000.

7. Lessons Learnt

The economic cost of wildfires in New Zealand is now less than what it was in the 1990s, contrary to all other case study countries, which underlines the efficiency of the highly decentralized and flexible New Zealand system.



EPEC

111

However, the Government is looking for RFA amalgamations, aiming at possibly 12-20 RFAs. This may be a sign that the current organisational structure may be at risk of not being sufficiently reactive or resilient in case of very large wildfires across major jurisdictions (catastrophic fires triggered by climate change, etc).

The purpose of enlarged rural fire districts is to improve the effectiveness of the rural fire sector through better resource management. The principle of a voluntary amalgamation of RFAs in the regions has been chosen, given the largely private nature of RFA stakeholders.

8 Appendices


National Rural Fire Authority, Mr Murray Dudfield National Rural Fire Officer Wellington Emergency Management Office -WEMO Mr Jock Darragh Pumicelands Rural Fire Authority Mr Paul Wright