International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96 (2023) 103947

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Lessons from the 2019/2020 ‘Black Summer Bushfires’

in Australia
Iftekhar Ahmed, Kylie Ledger *
School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The widespread and massive bushfires in Australia in 2019 and 2020, known as the ‘Black
Australia Summer Bushfires’ resulted in extensive devastation with severe economic, social, environmental
Black summer and political impacts, and tragically, loss of human lives and wildlife. Some of these impacts
Bushfires extended well after the bushfires to the medium and long term. Australia does have a system for
Climate change disaster risk prevention, mitigation and management in place, including legal and policy in­
Social capital
struments, and a range of capacity building and risk communication measures, and thus different
steps were undertaken to manage the bushfires at the local, regional and national levels. There
were also a number of key stakeholders involved including firefighting agencies and emergency
services agencies, and public, private and civil society organizations, and importantly, the com­
munity with abundant volunteer initiatives evidencing strong social capital. However, despite the
strong institutional structure and community social capital, various gaps and challenges were
evident at different stages – before, during and after the bushfires – especially stemming from the
uncertainty posed by climate change; particularly, recovery and rebuilding has proven highly
challenging and even after two years recovery has not been achieved for many people, who need
to rely on the social capital of their neighbours and community to cope with the difficult cir­
cumstances that they are confronted with. The Royal Commission report, which was produced as
an inquiry after the bushfires provided recommendations for future policy and practice and in this
paper a set of recommendations that are consistent with the report are presented. The future of
bushfire risk reduction and management would need to be linked to both climate change miti­
gation and adaptation, with stronger support for community social capital.

1. Introduction
This paper is pitched for an international audience to disseminate the knowledge and lessons gained from a major disaster in
Australia. With wildfires plaguing different countries around the world, this paper intends to offer insights that would be of value to a
wide audience. Australia has been experiencing and dealing with bushfires for a long time, while many countries have been experi­
encing it recently, therefore, to readers in such countries this paper would offer valuable knowledge.
Prolonged drought in Eastern Australia that led to low moisture levels in bush fuels, higher than average temperatures over an
extended period, and a series of dry lightning storms sparked a series of catastrophic, climate driven bushfires that began in July 2019
and continued until March 2020.6.2% of New South Wales burnt, the largest area in recorded bushfire history, and more than 11
million hectares of land burnt across Australia [1,2]. The fires impacted almost every state and territory in Australia, but it was the east

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ifte.ahmed@newcastle.edu.au (I. Ahmed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103947
Received 20 October 2022; Received in revised form 7 August 2023; Accepted 13 August 2023
Available online 14 August 2023
2212-4209/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
I. Ahmed and K. Ledger International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96 (2023) 103947

coast from southern Queensland to south-east Victoria, and Kangaroo Island in South Australia that bore the brunt. 25 civilians lost
their lives, along with 6 volunteer firefighters in NSW and Victoria, and 3 US aviation personnel in an air tanker crash. Thousands of
homes and buildings were destroyed or damaged, and insurance costs were conservatively estimated at AUD2.32bn. Business, in­
dustry, agricultural, and tourism losses were immense, with some estimates placing it upwards of AUD 100bn in direct and indirect
losses, and medium to long term impacts to economic growth (Biddle et al., 2021). There was extensive fire infiltration into most of
Queensland and NSW national parks, forestry reserves and World Heritage areas, including Gondwana rainforest areas not normally a
bushfire environment. Over 3 billion animals were lost, with flora and fauna extinction (Godfree et al., 2021; [1]. Prolonged smoke
haze affected almost 80% of Australia’s population for weeks at a time leading to poor air quality. As many as 417 people died from
bush fire smoke-induced health impacts and thousands more hospitalized [3]. Disaster response systems at state and national levels,
along with land management policies and practices came under intense scrutiny as a result, and a Royal Commission review was
conducted to inform the discussion on how to manage future compounding disasters in Australia (Commonwealth Government, 2020).
The role of social capital at the community level became evident as a key force in dealing with the disaster. Acknowledging the
significance of social capital in the context of such a disaster, it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed analysis and
elaborate treatise on social capital, it mainly reflects on the connections to social capital in key aspects of the disaster.

2. Methodology
This paper is based on a focused literature review and draws from different publication sources including grey literature, reports
and media. Because the Black Summer Bushfires is a relatively recent event and also because of the limitations to conducting field
studies during the subsequent COVID years, there is scanty scholarly literature available. Hence the paper was supplemented by the
field-based practitioner experience of one of the authors through engagement with the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS). This experience
was important for identifying and gathering relevant documents and information through professional networks. The paper does not
include any direct empirical data. It is thus a literature review that gathers together knowledge from different sources, based on which
recommendations for future policy and practice are presented.
This methodology of a rapid appraisal of the limited but relevant documents written after a recent disaster, supplemented by field
experience, has the scope to offer an overall understanding of the post-disaster context and key issues involved. It is a way to amass and
present the available information so that future research can build on it by undertaking empirical investigations through field-based
studies, serving as a foundation piece of work. The limitation of the paper is that it cannot claim to be a comprehensive treatise on the
topic, its purpose is to highlight the key lessons that emerged after the bushfires, which are discussed in scattered sources, bringing
them together to identify the way forward.

3. Impacts of the bushfires

This massive disaster had manifold impacts of many sectors, such as business; primary industries, including timber plantations;
agriculture; tourism; transportation; education; and health. Many of the impacts had long-term implications, as discussed below.

3.1. Mortality and morbidity

The disaster led to 34 direct deaths due to direct exposure to the flames and 417 indirect deaths due to poor air quality from the
smoke haze resulting from the bushfires. The prolonged smoke haze continuing over two months led to around 4450 people being
hospitalized with cardiac and respiratory problems [4].

3.2. Economic impacts

Economic impacts of bushfires are difficult to quantify, though the Australian Productivity Commission in 2014 developed a
framework for identifying and categorizing costs that include direct market costs, indirect market costs and intangible or non-market
costs [5]. For this event the following costs were estimated as follows (see Ref. [6]; Fanham, 2020).
• Insurance costs over AUD 2 billion
• Emergency housing costs AUD 60–70 million
• Value of Statistical Life (VSL) standard on deaths AUD 134 million
• Economic production loss per displaced person at AUD 705 per person per day, with 65,000 displaced persons
• Direct and indirect economic losses in the tens of billions AUD
• Domestic and international tourism losses of AUD 4.5 billion
• Following from a prolonged drought, the agriculture sector struggled with lack of feed, destocking, and increasing stock prices in
the recovery phase.

3.3. Social impacts

Over 4000 homes, buildings, businesses and agricultural assets were lost. It was estimated that there were more than 65,000
internally displaced persons [7]. Mental health problems and trauma related impacts were widespread, some of which continued well
after the disaster. Social capital within communities and neighbourhoods was vital in coping with this significant trauma and distress
[8]; Whitaker et al., 2021).

2
I. Ahmed and K. Ledger International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96 (2023) 103947

3.4. Political impacts

The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements (Commonwealth Government, 2020) highlighted the complex
nature of disaster management and coordination in Australia. Emergency response remains a state-based responsibility, and each state
and territory have their own frameworks and agencies. Nationally there is a coordination role, but the report identified that needed
strengthening and clarification.
Politically the bushfire season exposed the responsibility gap between State and Federal governments, with the Federal Govern­
ment taking a back seat approach that reflected poorly on their governance and leadership. It took public and organizational pressure
for them to enact national measures including utilizing the Armed Forces for logistical and rescue operations, to source further aviation
resources for support and to consider compensation for volunteers who were losing income as a result of their firefighting duties. The
2019/2020 fire season highlighted challenges in the relative responsibilities of State and Federal governments in emergency and
disaster response, which became the subject of a Royal Commission Inquiry whose findings can be expected to direct future responses
(Commonwealth Government, 2020).

3.5. Environmental impacts

The bushfires burnt more than 11 million hectares of land. National Parks and nature reserves including the fire vulnerable remnant
Gondwana rainforest and World Heritage listed ecosystems were impacted. An estimated 3 billion animals were killed or lost, with
probable flora and fauna extinction of some species. There was a loss of vegetation as the primary food source for fauna and agri­
cultural stock, which also contributed to animal mortality figures. The prolonged poor air quality from bushfire smoke for weeks at a
time also had environmental impacts on ecosystems; an estimated 830 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent were released as of
February 2020 [2,9–11].

3.6. Impacts on critical services, infrastructure and businesses

Disruptions to electricity supply and direct fire impact led to telecommunications failures and power infrastructure was destroyed
in some places. Transportation routes were blocked or damaged and there were extensive agricultural and business losses. The tourism
sector and associated businesses were impacted by local and international downturn in visitors – this then moved into the COVID-19
lockdowns, further impacting business and tourism, which also happened globally. This contributed to growing health impacts, social
dislocation and disadvantage, environmental degradation and increasing economic impacts [5]; IDMC, 2020; [3].
The 2019/2020 bushfires occurred on the back of prolonged drought heavily impacting the agricultural sector as well as eco­
systems with flora dieback and lack of food sources for fauna species (Godfree et al., 2020; [2]. The tourism and business sectors
experienced cancellations locally and internationally, and by the end of the fire season in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was
spreading, forcing further cancellations and shutdowns of large sections of the industry and commercial sector.

3.7. Medium and long-term impacts

Climate Change is now evident in changes to Australia’s seasons and weather patterns, and occurrences of bushfires [12].
Increasing periods of prolonged dryness/drought events, shorter cooler seasons and longer warm to hot periods, reduce the window for
fire services to conduct hazard reductions safely. The bushfires have led to changing public attitude towards better understanding of
climate change and acceptance of the need for climate change adaptation, and the need for strengthening social capital to deal with the
future uncertainty.

4. Measures for prevention, mitigation and management of disaster risk

Information presented in this section and the following sections 4 and 5 have been garnered and adapted from various sources
including [6]; BNHCRC; 2020; Commonwealth of Australia (2020) [13,14]; and [15].
Risk prevention, mitigation and management measures operate at different levels ranging from the institutional level to policy
instruments, capacity building, risk analysis and communication, as discussed below.

4.1. Legislation/policy/guidelines/safety rules

Some of key strategic instruments include.
• Local/state/national government legislation, regulations, standards and policies on land management and landholder re­
sponsibilities, clean air provisions, hazard reduction provisions, and emergency response
• State/national emergency planning (EMPLANS) that work with the relevant combat agency
• National Frameworks for Disaster Response, Resilience, Recovery and Funding
• Accountability and transparency mechanisms
Australia has robust systems of state and federal legislation and regulatory mechanisms, however, the Royal Commission into
National Disaster Arrangements (Commonwealth Government, 2020) found that the national arrangements for coordinating disaster
management are complex, complicated by an overabundance of frameworks, committees, bodies and stakeholders, which impacts the
efficacy of national coordination and critical capability. Therefore, recommendations have been made to undertake significant
structural change to streamline all relevant stakeholders and increase transparency and accountability. At the state level, different
states are at different stages of creating an over-arching emergency and/or disaster resilience body, with some challenges around
competing interests between combat agencies in emergency and disaster response. Land management was a key point of discussion and

3
I. Ahmed and K. Ledger International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96 (2023) 103947

debate, particularly in the media, and further work and research is being conducted into indigenous land management practices and
incorporating them into agency programs.

4.2. Prevention, mitigation, preparedness and capacity building measures (structural and non-structural)
Some of the key measures include.
• National Risk Reduction Framework, National Strategy for Disaster Resilience and National Climate Resilience and Adaptation
Strategy, state-based frameworks
• State/national disaster recovery funding arrangements
• Hazard reduction programs (vegetation removal and burning)
• Land management organizations and programs (government and private)
• Community engagement and education programs (government and NGO)
• Industry Work Health & Safety legislation and regulations
• Insurance
• Organizational training and interagency incident management exercises
• Interagency cooperation mechanisms
• Organizational and institutional research
• Harmonizing of communications and energy delivery and distribution
• Warning systems – in the process of being harmonized nationally
Most of these measures were in place before the bushfires, following definitions within the different national and state frameworks
mentioned at the top of the list above. While some of the measures are activities, such as hazard reduction programs, and are time-
bound and undertaken before the bushfire season, others are ongoing activities, such as community engagement and education
programs. Other are strategic activities, such as funding arrangements and interagency cooperation mechanisms, whereas others are
institutional structures such as the frameworks, legislation, regulations and insurance, and are not time-bound, however, they undergo
periodic reviews and updating, especially after large disaster events. Some of the measures, such as warning systems, are in the process
of being improved.
Each state and territory have a series of governmental bodies and agencies who have defined roles and expected outcomes in land
management, hazard reduction, fire preparedness and community engagement and education. NGOs (non-governmental organiza­
tions) also have defined roles in the Emergency Plan (EMPLAN) and operate within the scope of their functions as defined in those
plans, however outside of the response and recovery phase they also have invested in preparedness and capacity building programs
through various information and education campaigns, interagency operations, and cooperation. In business and industry, re­
quirements under Work Health and Safety, business modelling and insurances mean businesses need to demonstrate a level of
emergency planning and practice, business continuity planning, adequate insurance and reporting on legislated benchmarks
depending on the industry. At a domestic level there is encouragement by relevant agencies and NGOs to develop and practice
emergency plans, undertake hazard reduction and bushfire preparedness, and to have the relevant insurances. The bushfire season has
highlighted the flaws in the insurance arena, with many property owners discovering significant under-insurance and difficulty in
obtaining insurance payouts, and many more with no insurance at all, and in rebuilding, difficulty in obtaining insurance or affordable
packages with the reclassification of bushfire-prone zones.

4.3. Risk analysis and communication

Some of the key risk analysis and communication processes include.
• Bureau of Meteorology fire weather analyses and climate reporting
• Relevant agency fire prediction and modelling systems
• State based warning systems – being harmonized nationally
• National telecommunications system and radio & television-based emergency information channels
• Insurance and business continuity
• Research
The Bureau of Meteorology is the primary source of fire weather and fire danger information, and longer-term climate trends. This
data is supplied to the relevant agencies for analysis and planning, and feed into modelling, fire behaviour analysis and warning
systems. Warning systems are state-based, but there has been a campaign at the national level with Australasian Fire and Emergency
Services Council (AFAC) and Bushfire & Natural Hazards CRC (BNHCRC) to develop a standardized national system of fire danger
ratings and fire warnings. Telstra, the national (corporatized) telecommunications provider, and the Australian Broadcasting Cor­
poration (ABC - national television and radio broadcaster) provide the bulk of the emergency warning and information flow and access,
however each combat agency also maintains its own social media and website presence that provides up-to-date information. The
warning systems are dependent on power and telecommunications which failed in many areas due to fire impact, and alternative
systems were explored, and existing systems strengthened.

5. Steps undertaken to manage the bushfires

Various steps were undertaken for management of the bushfires at different levels, as discussed below.

4
I. Ahmed and K. Ledger International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96 (2023) 103947

5.1. Local level

At the local level individual State Fire Fighting Services (rural and urban), and land management agencies such as National Parks &
Wildlife, Forestry Services, State Emergency Management Systems in conjunction with State Emergency Planning policies and pro­
cedures were operational. The invocation of the State EMPLAN triggered stepping up of other emergency agencies (e.g. State Emer­
gency Services) as well as NGOs including the Australian Red Cross, Salvation Army and others. Local Councils work with agencies in
support roles, where applicable.
Whilst the fires burnt through record levels of land area, it is estimated that over 15,000 homes and buildings were saved, and loss
of human life was minimal considering the geographic size and population areas impacted by these fires. Bushfire Survival Planning,
education, and warning systems appear to have had a positive effect, although further research is still pending in this area.

5.2. National level

The activation of the AFAC National Resource Sharing Centre resulted in over 6000 interstate personnel assisting, as well as further
aviation resource sharing. Emergency declarations at State and National Levels allowed for the release of funds, support grants and
financial assistance. The ability to source interstate personnel and resources allowed for rotation and resting of local resources and
skills sharing across agencies, and the release of emergency funding allowed for the improved operational capacity for relevant
agencies.
After some procedural delays, the Federal Government eventually activated the armed forces for assistance in logistics support and
evacuation operations. This action opened the door for continued use of military assistance in emergency situations as evidenced
subsequently with COVID-19 operations and 2021/2022 floods in eastern Australia.

5.3. Regional/International level

The AFAC National Resource Sharing Centre with the Federal Government sourced international firefighting and aviation support.
Over the years Australia has contributed local resources to assist internationally, however, this is the first occasion that international
resources were called upon to assist in Australia in a significant way, with 239 Canadian, 360 US, and 320 New Zealand personnel
assisting. This effort also contributed to improving interagency cooperation and skills sharing.

6. Roles of key stakeholders

Multiple public sector agencies, and also private, as well as civil society organization, have roles in disaster risk reduction and
management, which extends to bushfires. These broad stakeholder roles at different disaster stages are discussed below, and also, the
role of the community is discussed.

6.1. Firefighting agencies (volunteer and career)

Pre-disaster activities include community engagement in bushfire preparedness, hazard reduction, liaison with other agencies and
governmental bodies on preparedness strategies, risk assessments and research. During a bushfire, they serve as the primary combat
agencies for fighting fires and coordinating firefighting efforts (both ground and air), and provide information updates through media
liaison, undertake community liaison, and support emergency warning systems. In the post-disaster stage, these agencies conduct
building impact and damage assessments and fire investigations. They also overhaul and render safe, provide logistical support, and
critical incident support for their members, together with conducting further risk assessments and research. This is the area where
social capital plays the most significant role - Australia has the world’s largest volunteer fire fighting cohort, and is unique from other
international agencies where its volunteers are on the front line of fighting fires and engaging with communities. Bushfire Brigades are
iconic in Australian culture and grew from community coming together to face a common threat. These community links are still very
strong, and utilise social capital at family, community and agency level to provide a comprehensive system of bushfire management,
response and community safety and recovery.

6.2. Land management agencies

Before a disaster, these agencies are engaged in management of parks and land assets. They also conduct fire trail maintenance and
hazard reduction and promote community engagement in fire safety. During a bushfire, they provide firefighting response and
assistance with firefighting operations (ground and air), together with logistics support. Similar to firefighting agencies, after a
bushfire disaster they carry out overhauling/rendering safe activities, and undertake rehabilitation, research and planning.

6.3. Other emergency agencies

The State Emergency Services (SES) is the primary agency in this regard. They engage in pre-disaster interagency and community
activities for preparedness and organising resources. During a disaster, they provide assistance with logistical support and community
liaison. Post-disaster, they also provide assistance with overhauling/rendering safe, and undertake community engagement and
liaison, and research.

6.4. Non-government organizations (NGOs)

Pre-disaster activities of NGOs include community engagement and education in disaster preparedness, identification of vulnerable
communities, and provision of financial assistance. During a disaster they provide emergency response and support – Australian NGOs
have specified roles in emergency plans (EMPLANS) covering administration, welfare, evacuation centre operations, catering, food,

5
I. Ahmed and K. Ledger International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96 (2023) 103947

clothing and household items, psychological first aid and referral, missing persons management, supporting combat agencies with
catering and logistical support. NGOs also coordinate and manage fundraising for disaster victims and source extra firefighting re­
sources. After a disaster, NGO activities include community liaison, welfare checks, psychological first aid, financial and other
assistance, community building programs, and continued disaster resilience and preparedness programs.

6.5. Government departments/agencies

Pre-disaster government roles relate to provision of information, advice and support, financial assistance and communications.
When a disaster occurs, they assist in emergency response and support – in Australia, government departments and agencies have
specified roles in emergency plans (EMPLANS) including administrative and evacuation centre management, community assistance,
ongoing post-disaster support, research, working with combat agencies to protect and maintain key infrastructure, and participate in
Incident Management Teams. Post-disaster, government departments and agencies undertake continued community engagement and
support, financial assistance, grants and programs for rebuilding, and infrastructure repair and maintenance.

6.6. Business and industry

Pre-disaster activities of private sector entities include emergency/disaster planning and practice, business continuity planning,
identification of emergency response roles within and external to organization, and training and managing staff ‘volunteers’ for
preparedness schemes. During a disaster, private organizations maintain business continuity where practicable, and work with combat
agencies in logistics and supply provision. Post-disaster, they assist with or contribute to community overhaul and rebuilding via
grants, donations of funds and/or goods/services in kind and engage in volunteering and managing business continuity for economic
flow and employment.

6.7. Community
There is strong social capital with Australian communities, evident from the extensive volunteering spirit and initiatives in highly
organised and structured modes. Before a disaster, the community participates in community engagement activities, and undertakes
emergency and disaster preparedness, volunteering and community networking. When a disaster occurs, social capital comes into play,
demonstrating that Australia has a strong culture of spontaneous volunteering and community support to the extent that there are
frameworks in place for harnessing this during and after a disaster. The community is responsible for enacting emergency action plans
and following the directives of authorities and combat agencies. After a disaster, as per the disaster stage (recovery, rehabilitation,
reconstruction) the community is involved in contributing to research and data gathering efforts and engage in promoting building
back better and safer in recovery within the community.
To reflect on the three main types of social capital posited by Ref. [16] and their manifestation in the bushfire context of Australian
communities: ‘Bonding’ social capital, that is ties between family members, neighbours, friends, etc tend to be less pronounced than in
less affluent countries, and people pride themselves on their independence and self-reliance. Nonetheless, during the bushfires such
barriers were crossed and there were extensive examples of neighbours helping each other. ‘Bridging’ social capital, ties between
different communities was less clearly evident, although organizations such as RFS and SES that draw upon volunteers from different
communities served as a vehicle for bridging across different communities affected by the widespread bushfires. Evidence of ‘linking’
social capital, that is, ties to those in positions of influence such as government authorities was limited during the bushfires, whereas in
the response and recovery stages, government support was provided, although at that time affected people in some communities
expressed their disappointment at the lack of earlier support[17]. These reflections are based on the authors’ field observations
because there is limited literature on social capital in this context, which can be an avenue for further research.

7. Key gaps and challenges

Despite extensive institutional arrangements and social capital at the community level, various gaps and challenges became evident
at different stages before, during and after the bushfires. Some of these challenges persisted well after the disaster, particularly in terms
of achieving effective recovery. The key issue is that gaps in the pre-disaster stage have an impact during the disaster and are com­
pounded in the recovery stage. This underscores the important of pre-disaster prevention, preparedness and management activities so
that the risk is reduced such that the disaster has less impacts, and speedy and effective recovery can thereby be undertaken.

7.1. Pre-disaster risk prevention, reduction and management

In 2011, the Garnaut Review [14] into Australia’s response to climate change predicted that by 2020 the country would be
experiencing frequent and severe bushfires. The Climate Council, which includes retired leaders of the Australian Fire Services also
predicted severe fire conditions in the lead up to the 2019/2020 season given the preceding severe drought conditions and were
exhorting the government to prepare and bring in additional aviation resources, which however did not happen until well into the fire
season.
Land management practices including the use of fire-mediated hazard reduction has been subject to increasing regulatory re­
quirements, which in some instances has reduced the ability to conduct hazard reduction burns for both land and fire agencies as well
as landowners. This has subsequently been reviewed, with a focus on indigenous land management practices, including cultural
burning [18].
Community risk perception of bushfires is generally heightened in Australia, and each state and territory rural fire agency have
community engagement programs in place to educate and inform on bushfire preparation and safety, which may have contributed to

6
I. Ahmed and K. Ledger International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96 (2023) 103947

the relatively low loss of life. However, the changing nature of these fires (incursion into areas not normally prone to fire; development
of multiple firestorm events) meant that communities not normally impacted were, in some instances, overrun, with their social capital
undermined, which is reshaping the conversation around bushfire risk and preparedness.

7.2. During management of the disaster event

The lack of interoperability in agency communications systems has been identified in the Royal Commission Inquiry (Common­
wealth Government, 2020) as a system that needs harmonizing. Insufficient aviation resources was a key challenge – with the changing
climate fire seasons in the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere are now experiencing significant overlap, and the current
firefighting aviation fleet needs to be shared and travel between the two zones. This has prompted agencies and the Federal Gov­
ernment to purchase extra resources and investigate other leasing options.
The fire season ran for almost 9 months – the majority of rural fire fighting operations is undertaken by volunteers, and the
extended time period placed not only a huge demand physically and mentally, it also impacted businesses economically (through
releasing staff to attend fires or business owners and farmers stopping work to attend fires) and socially (extended periods absent from
family). This prompted calls for financial support and assistance for both volunteers and businesses; some states have built-in
mechanisms, but these were inadequate for such an extended period. The Federal Government offered a compensation scheme, but
it was planned in such a way that few volunteers qualified for the financial support [19].

7.3. During planning and undertaking post-disaster recovery

The geographical extent of the bushfires, remoteness of homes and communities and fire impacted infrastructure has prolonged the
recovery phase; even two years later, the recovery process continued. The end of the bushfires coincided with the onset of the COVID-
19 pandemic, which further compounded recovery challenges. Beyond institutional support, affected people relied strongly on their
social capital and were supported by their neighbours and communities to go through the difficult circumstances.
Underinsurance and lack of insurance was quickly identified as a significant challenge in the recovery phase, which required
government and charity support to provide economic and logistical interventions in accommodation and replacements of goods. The
extent of fire incursion has also altered the insurance landscape, with areas previously deemed not a fire risk now included as bushfire
prone areas, raising policy costs significantly and pushing people out of the market, or rendering some areas uninsurable [15].
Severe drought leading into the fire season had depleted agricultural food stocks. Post-bushfires there was difficulty in accessing
sufficient feed for remaining livestock as well as providing food support for wildlife. Farms had also begun to destock due to drought,
and then bushfires, and in the recovery phase stock prices rose significantly leading to difficulty in replenishing livestock numbers,
particularly breeding stock [15].
Charities/NGOs such as the Australian Red Cross collected donations in the AUD hundreds of millions, which presented major
logistical challenges in managing and disbursing funds effectively. They became the target of a campaign of misinformation around
funds handling, which continued to impact their fund inflow and reputational standing.

8. Recommendations for future policy and practice

The compounding effect of a changing climate that led to severe drought and changes in weather patterns were the catalyst for this
unprecedented bushfire season. It has triggered a national conversation that is now reshaping government agencies, driving adaptation
and mitigation strategies, and has focussed a spotlight on national climate policies and practices. There is now stronger acknowl­
edgment in political circles of the role of climate change in this complex disaster and the necessity of implementing an effective climate
strategy and carbon reduction targets.
The following set of recommendations pertain not only to bushfires but can be extended beyond to a wider range of disasters. They
are aligned with the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements report (Commonwealth Government, 2020),
which was tasked to look at the bushfire disaster impacts and response mechanisms.
• Clearer emergency and disaster risk reduction and response roles of and coordination between Governments at national, state and
local levels, with a ‘whole of nation, ‘whole of government’ and ‘whole of society’ approach that draws on social capital at all levels.
• Understanding the changing nature of disasters resulting from natural and human-induced hazards, and acknowledging the role of
a changing climate in contributing to frequency and severity, and particularly the effects of compound and cascading disasters on a
national scale.
• Disaster mitigation will need to be a key strategy for building resilience and supporting social capital.
• Strategic leadership in resilience, including leadership at the ministerial level.
• Expanding the role of Emergency Management Australia to assist with inter-jurisdictional assistance and cooperation, coordination
and resource sharing.
• Improving technology including operational communication interoperability and improved telecommunications.
• Training, accreditation, and joint exercises that would provide a national level of consistency and competency standards.
• National register of personnel and equipment for resource sharing.
• National-level and cross-border exercises.
• A firefighting aircraft fleet that would be state-based but part of a national shared register, as well as a nationally based fleet.
• Data management should be standardized and a national level role in coordinating data, information, and standards setting, but
still managed in conjunction with states and territories.

7
I. Ahmed and K. Ledger International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96 (2023) 103947

• Supporting social capital within communities in preparing for and managing their own risk and to understand the dynamics of
disaster and develop a level of self-reliance through community education, standardized warning systems, danger ratings and
information, and reducing complexity in recovery systems, and clarifying land management principles and practices.

9. Conclusion
Australia’s strong governance systems provides it with a strategic advantage in being able to shape and implement changes.
However, the broader discussion around climate policy and governance regime may hinder meaningful steps forward in addressing the
elements that triggered these unprecedented bushfires. Global research shows the incidence and severity of natural hazards are
increasing, and as a nation there is a need to improve community engagement, resourcing and response capability, the financial
systems that will support the community through hard times, and the leadership to make positive and meaningful steps forward.
Climate change adaptation and mitigation are two sides of the same coin, and to be balanced both need due attention. At the moment,
there is a stronger focus on mitigation, more attention will be required to adaptation to an already changed climate.
Finally, the key resource, social capital at the community level, evident from the strong spirit of volunteerism reflected in the
extensive cadres of volunteer firefighters need to be fully recognised and supported. Social capital has significantly enabled com­
munities to prepare for, cope with and recover from this massive disaster event and will need to continue playing a central role despite
the uncertainty of future climate change scenarios and related hazards. Future research will need to examine opportunities for
enhancing future social capital for disaster resilience and to understand how its nature needs to adapt to a transforming context, and
step-up to the challenges of more massive and serious future disasters.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors do not declare and commercial interest or conflict of interest, or any interest that might be adverse to the publication of
this paper.

Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data.

Acknowledgements
This paper is drawn from an unpublished case study report produced by the authors, a summary of which is included in an annexure
of the publication UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) (2021) Scoping study on compound, cascading and systemic
risks in the Asia Pacific. Geneva: UNDRR.

References
[1] S. Davey, A. Sarre, Editorial: the 2019/20 Black summer bushfires, Aust. For. 83 (2) (2020) 47–51.
[2] S. Kahn, Ecological consequences of Australian “Black summer” (2019-20) fires, Integrated Environ. Assess. Manag. (2021) 1–5.
[3] Y. Zhang, P. Beggs, A. McGushin, H. Bambrick, S. Trueck, I. Hanigan, G. Morgan, H. Berry, M. Linnenluecke, F. Johnston, A. Capon, N. Watts, The 2020 special
report of the MJA-Lancet countdown on health and climate change lessons learnt from Australia’s “Black Summer”, Med. J. Aust. 213 (11) (2020) 490–492.e10.
[4] N. Mackee, Bushfire Smoke: 417 Deaths Attributable to Summer Fires. Insight Plus Issue 11, 2020. Retrieved on 19 October 2022 from, https://insightplus.mja.com.
au/2020/11/bushfire-smoke-417-deaths-attributable-to-summer-fires/.
[5] N. Biddle, C. Bryant, M. Gray, D. Marasinghe. Measuring the Economic Impact of Early Bushfire Detection, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, 2020.
Retrieved on 19 October 2022 from, https://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/2020/9/Measuring_the_economic_impact_of_early_bushfire_
detection.pdf.
[6] AIDR (Australian Institute of Disaster Resilience), 2019-20 Major Incidents Report: an Overview of Major Incidents that Have Involved the Fire and Emergency
Services Sector from July 2019 to June 2020, AIDR & Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, Melbourne, 2020.
[7] E. Du Parc, L. Yasukawa. The 2019-2020 Australian Bushfires: From Temporary Evacuation to Longer-term Displacement, Internal Displacement Monitoring
Centre, 2020. Retrieved on 19 October 2022 from, https://reliefweb.int/report/australia/2019-2020-australian-bushfires-temporary-evacuation-longer-term-
displacement.
[8] BNHCRC (Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre), Calculating the Losses This Fire Season, 2020. Retrieved on, https://www.bnhcrc.com.
au/news/2020/calculating-losses-fire-season. (Accessed 20 October 2022).
[9] ABC News, 3 Billion Animals Killed or Displaced in Black Summer Bushfires, Study Estimates, 2020. Retrieved on 16 May r 2023 from, https://www.abc.net.au/
news/2020-07-28/3-billion-animals-killed-displaced-in-fires-wwf-study/12497976.
[10] M. Boer, V. Resco de Dios, Unprecedented burn area of Australia mega forest fires, Nat. Clim. Change 10 (2020) 170–172.
[11] DISER (Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Bushfires in Australia’s Temperate Forests: Focus on
2019/20: Technical Update, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2020. April 2020.
[12] C. Henderson, Retrieved on 19 October 2022 from. The 2019-2020 Australian “Black Summer” Bushfires: My Project Introduces the Complicated Concept of
Bushfires in Australia and Their Relationship to Climate Change, 2021. storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/7038df46dfaa4cf69f972316682513ea, https://www.
industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-04/estimating-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-bushfires-in-australias-temperate-forests-focus-on-2019-20.pdf.
[13] Climate Council, ‘This Is Not Normal’: Climate Change and Escalating Bushfire Risk, 2019. Briefing Paper. Retrieved on, https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/CC-nov-Bushfire-briefing-paper.pdf. (Accessed 19 October 2022).
[14] R. Garnaut, The Garnaut Review 2011: Australia in the Global Response to Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.
[15] NSW Government, Final Report of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry, 2020. Retrieved on, https://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/assets/dpc-nsw-gov-au/publications/NSW-
Bushfire-Inquiry-1630/Final-Report-of-the-NSW-Bushfire-Inquiry.pdf. (Accessed 19 October 2022).
[16] M. Woolcock, D. Narayan, Social capital: implications for development, theory, and policy, World Bank Res. Obs. 15 (2000) 225–249.

8
I. Ahmed and K. Ledger International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96 (2023) 103947

[17] BBC News. Australia Fires: Angry Residents Berate PM Morrison in Blaze-ravaged town, 2020. Retrieved on 16 May r 2023 from, https://www.bbc.com/news/
world-australia-50973232.
[18] Commonwealth of Australia. Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, 2020. Retrieved on 19 October 2022 from, https://
naturaldisaster.royalcommission.gov.au/.
[19] Volunteering Australia, Position Paper: Australian Government Compensation Scheme for Emergency Service Volunteers, 2020. Retrieved on, https://www.
volunteeringaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/February-2020-Position-Statement-Australian-Government-Compensation-Scheme.pdf. (Accessed 19 October
2022).