Canadians and Wildland Fire: A Shared Risk

1. Canadians and Wildland Fire: A Shared Risk Presentation to the CCFM Deputy Ministers June 23, 2004 - Haines Junction, Yukon

2. Presentation Overview • Federal government interests in wildland fires • Assessing and Managing the Risk • Risk trends • Current Response • Shifting the paradigm • Economic issues • Proposal and decision points • Discussion

3. Wildland Fire: Federal Interests • Safety of Canadians/Communities • PSEP, DND, Env. Can., NRCan, Health Canada • Federal Lands/Aboriginal Issues • Parks Canada, DND, INAC • International issues • Climate change, biodiversity, trans-border smoke • Sustainable Development/S&T • Economic competitiveness, environmental stewardship, sustainable communities • Efficiency of federal expenditures • Disaster relief payments

4. Fire Management is Risk Management Risk Trends • Wildland-Urban Interface – more people living among flammable vegetation • Climate change – fire activity is projected to increase by >50% by 2040. • Health – rising concerns about wildfire smoke impacts • Fire Expenditures – higher costs and greater annual variability • Forest Sector Competitiveness – fire’s impact on wood supply/quality • Ecosystem health – uncertainty about the ability to use fire to ensure long-term forest productivity/biodiversity

5. Current Response • Municipalities responsible for fire in rural and urban areas • Provincial/territorial and federal governments manage fire on designated crown lands • Primary focus is on fire suppression • World-class fire suppression capability (still 3-5% of fires escape) • Limited emphasis on managing risk in an integrate and strategic manner (e.g., land-use planning, building codes, structural and wildland fuels management) • Responsibility rests primarily with governments (less so with individuals and industry) • Federal government – insurer of last resort

6. Status quo – declining response capability • CIFFC 5 Point Plan - enhanced response • FireSmart Fire Wise – proactive hazard mitigation (emphasized in Filmon Report, California Blue Ribbon Commission) • Insurance Model – hazard mitigation, post-fire recovery, shared risk options • Dangerous Goods Model – education, mitigation, and response; includes all levels of government Shifting the Paradigm Suppression (response) Risk/Hazard Management (mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery)

7. Cost Stabilization Minimize total expenditures; reduce annual variability Area Burned Total Cost Variable costs (EFF) Base cost (budgeted)

8. Where to Invest? Forest fire suppression is approaching its limit of economic and physical effectiveness Level of Protection Analysis For Ontario 2-4% of wildfires will continue to escape initial attack Low fixed cost High fixed cost

9. Proposal Conduct a comprehensive analysis of wildfire manage-ment in Canada resulting in the production of a federal-provincial/territorial discussion paper/strategy Essential characteristics of a new strategy Relevant and Manageable – Aligned with respective issues and priorities of all levels of government; fiscally manageable proposals/initiatives Comprehensive and systems-based - includes elements of risk mitigation, preparedness, and recovery, as well as response/suppression Integrated – proactive risk management strategies are incorporated into all aspects of land and resource management Balanced – seeks to balance the social, economic and ecological impacts and benefits of fire Evidence-based – use of modern risk/decision analysis tools (e.g., simulation, optimization, cost-benefit analysis) and internationally-proven best practices

10. Moving Forward – Decision Points • Are all organizations/agencies willing to consider a broader, more strategic and systems-based approach to wildland fire management that considers mitigation, preparedness, and recovery, as well as response/suppression? • Is it possible to obtain commitment (at least in principle) at senior levels (i.e., premier/cabinet) that investment in fire management is a priority? • Is there the desire and ability to invest resources (people and dollars) in developing and using evidence-based approaches/analyses (e.g., simulation, optimization, cost-benefit analysis) to evaluate where to make future investments? • Do the members of the CCFM want NRCan-CFS to lead or co-lead this initiative?

11. Discussion