126 P O’Malley
almost everything about sustainability is contested, including how it is
measured and the tools for assessing it – albeit under a veneer of general
acceptance that ‘sustainability’ is a focal concern. This contest – reflected
in ‘fire politics’ around the English-speaking world at least – pits developers
and some government agencies against fire insurers and fire departments.
Crudely put, developers and their allies seek to minimise the costs of fire
prevention. In pursuit of this goal, they support: performance-based (rather
than prescriptive) standards where these allow for cost reductions; a focus
on the building’s fire preventive sustainability to the point of transfer to
the owner (‘cradle to gate’); and emphasising ‘active’ fire prevention (such
as sprinklers) as means for reducing costs. On the other side, insurers and
their allies focus on the total life course of the building and seek to maximise long-term fire prevention (‘cradle to grave’). Among other things this
means putting greater emphasis on ‘passive’ fire protection (materials and
construction), stressing prescriptive standards, and highlighting the environmental costs of fire damage and reconstruction. Both parties, in turn,
seek to define, measure, and operationalise ‘sustainability’ in ways that
mesh with these contrasting interests and strategies.
The report by the Government of Victoria thus appeared as a signal victory to the developers as it required little change to their existing practices
and confirmed the status of performance over-prescriptive standards. Yet
the report also noted that insurers were using the insurance premium to
enforce compliance to their preferred standards – by raising premiums or
refusing to insure where these were not adhered to. This has been a longterm tactic of fire insurers around the world, indicating that the fire politics
continues, whatever the report may suggest, and whatever apparent agreement there is about the importance of environmental sustainability.
While this chapter will focus on the struggle as it has been played out in
Australia, it is by no means an isolated case study. Rather, as mentioned, it is
one site of a struggle carried on over the long term and internationally (e.g.
Tebeau 2003, O’Malley & Hutchinson 2007). And, as will be seen throughout
this chapter, the politics has been fought out in and through international
technical literature – as research is carried out by both sides in the struggle,
and as independent research is appropriated by whichever side regards findings advantageous to its interests. The fire politics in Australia has echoed,
drawn upon and deployed arguments, tools, techniques, and so on that originate overseas – particularly in North America. As well, as may be expected,
parties to the struggle in Australia are often components of international
conglomerates, particularly in the building and insurance industries 2 .
Fire insurance, fire politics, and sustainability
For the better part of two centuries, the fire insurance industry internationally has been a major protagonist in politics focused on preventive policies
and practices aimed at protecting the built environment and its inhabitants
almost everything about sustainability is contested, including how it is
measured and the tools for assessing it – albeit under a veneer of general
acceptance that ‘sustainability’ is a focal concern. This contest – reflected
in ‘fire politics’ around the English-speaking world at least – pits developers
and some government agencies against fire insurers and fire departments.
Crudely put, developers and their allies seek to minimise the costs of fire
prevention. In pursuit of this goal, they support: performance-based (rather
than prescriptive) standards where these allow for cost reductions; a focus
on the building’s fire preventive sustainability to the point of transfer to
the owner (‘cradle to gate’); and emphasising ‘active’ fire prevention (such
as sprinklers) as means for reducing costs. On the other side, insurers and
their allies focus on the total life course of the building and seek to maximise long-term fire prevention (‘cradle to grave’). Among other things this
means putting greater emphasis on ‘passive’ fire protection (materials and
construction), stressing prescriptive standards, and highlighting the environmental costs of fire damage and reconstruction. Both parties, in turn,
seek to define, measure, and operationalise ‘sustainability’ in ways that
mesh with these contrasting interests and strategies.
The report by the Government of Victoria thus appeared as a signal victory to the developers as it required little change to their existing practices
and confirmed the status of performance over-prescriptive standards. Yet
the report also noted that insurers were using the insurance premium to
enforce compliance to their preferred standards – by raising premiums or
refusing to insure where these were not adhered to. This has been a longterm tactic of fire insurers around the world, indicating that the fire politics
continues, whatever the report may suggest, and whatever apparent agreement there is about the importance of environmental sustainability.
While this chapter will focus on the struggle as it has been played out in
Australia, it is by no means an isolated case study. Rather, as mentioned, it is
one site of a struggle carried on over the long term and internationally (e.g.
Tebeau 2003, O’Malley & Hutchinson 2007). And, as will be seen throughout
this chapter, the politics has been fought out in and through international
technical literature – as research is carried out by both sides in the struggle,
and as independent research is appropriated by whichever side regards findings advantageous to its interests. The fire politics in Australia has echoed,
drawn upon and deployed arguments, tools, techniques, and so on that originate overseas – particularly in North America. As well, as may be expected,
parties to the struggle in Australia are often components of international
conglomerates, particularly in the building and insurance industries 2 .
Fire insurance, fire politics, and sustainability
For the better part of two centuries, the fire insurance industry internationally has been a major protagonist in politics focused on preventive policies
and practices aimed at protecting the built environment and its inhabitants