I’m pleased to report that my latest publication is now available. My colleague Geoff Cary, Associate Professor within the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the ANU, and I have co-authored a paper entitled ‘You own the fuel, but who owns the fire?’ It currently appears as a peer-reviewed and edited version before inclusion in a printed issue of the International Journal of Wildland Fire. You can download a free copy of the article from the IJWF Online Early webpage.
This paper is a development of a paper that we presented at the 2016 AFAC Conference in Brisbane (Eburn, M. and Cary, G., You own the fuel, but who owns the fire?, 1 September 2016). Following feedback from that conference we further developed the paper and the ideas in it. The abstract for the published paper now says:
In this paper, we argue that the statement ‘Whoever owns the fuel owns the fire’ implies a duty on landowners to manage fuel on their land to reduce the likelihood of bushfires, however started, from spreading to neighbouring properties. However, the notion ‘Whoever owns the fuel owns the fire’ has not been analysed from a legal perspective. This paper reviews Australian law to identify who is legally responsible for fire that starts on privately owned land. We argue that the correct interpretation of existing Australian law is: ‘Whoever owns the ignition owns the fire’ – that is, liability to pay for losses caused by bushfire has always fallen on those that intentionally start a fire, not on the owner of the fuel that sustains the fire. That legal conclusion could have dramatic implications for fire management policies. It will be shown that liability for starting a prescribed burn is clear-cut whereas liability for allowing accumulated fuel loads to contribute to the spread of fire is almost unheard of. As a result, we argue that the law is pushing landowners in a direction away from the policy direction adopted by all Australian governments. After identifying the current legal position, we recommend changes to align the law with the national policy direction.
We hope that the paper will me a significant contribution to the policy debate around hazard reduction burns and the development of ‘shared responsibility’ for hazard management.
Australian Emergency Law 
Very interesting document. Something we take for granted that could be a game changer in the future
An interesting paper. To implement change similar to what is painted in the conclusion my see strong headwinds by various State and Federal owners of vast tracts of native bushland.
Conservationists, and green politics may also see any intended change as a threat to more/easier/mandated burning of native areas.
Often Crown land management policy is we don’t burn for native forest and “green” zones.
Where some of these lands may be leased to private interests for grazing etc, the landowner declines approaches from the lessor to manage/mitigate fire risks to the leased land and neighbouring freehold by prescribed burning of standing and accumulated fallen vegetations.
It is safer and easier for the landowner to do nothing, even when the risks are identified and solutions are asked to be implemented.
Thank you for your excellent work in this area.
In relation to:
Conclusion on the common law (page 5)
Liability for starting a fire is well established and is recognised by the care that must go into planning and igniting prescribed burns and the limited opportunities for burning when all relevant factors are considered.
What about instances where we don’t start a fire (lightening strike) but we do stop natural fire(s)?
What if it could be determined that over many decades we have stopped natural fires and as a result, the fuel loads in particular areas had built up?
It is an interesting concept that we (as firefighters) are often accused of damaging the bush with fire (a correct accusation when fires get too hot) but we are also impacting upon the natural cycle when we put out some fires.
The idea of allowing natural fires to burn is now almost impossible because of the current fuel load but we could return later to add fire as nature had intended.
A good one for the “Greenies” to ponder…
There is debate in the literature about the contribution a policy of fighting every fire has had no fuel loads. I understand that in the US they have at times adopted an approach of letting fires burn as they are, in effect performing a hazard reduction function. As I’m a lawyer not a fire ecologist I don’t read this literature in detail and can’t now give the references but I am aware that it is a matter of discussion.