Why doesn't Australia have a single, usable national database for bushfire information – and what would it take to build one?
The Natural Hazards Research Australia (the Centre) July Hazardous Webinar drew from the expertise of researchers A/Prof Nader Naderpajouh from the University of Sydney and Dr Raphaele Blanchi from CSIRO to discuss their research into the path to a national bushfire database through the Bushfire information database - scoping study project.
David Field from the New South Wales Rural Fire Service (NSW RFS) provided an end-user perspective, shedding light on historic challenges and the future usefulness of such a database.
The panel unpacked the research methodology, current state of bushfire data nationally and internationally and what a workable national database might look like in practice.
Setting the scene: why a national database?
A/Prof Naderpajouh explained the project's starting point: a national inquiry and independent NSW inquiry both identified that Australia lacks an appropriate, usable national bushfire database.
The research team – drawing on academics from the University of Sydney, RMIT University and the CSIRO, working alongside the NSW RFS and funded by the Centre – set out to understand what bushfire data currently exists, how it's characterised and how it's organised.
Their methodology combined a desk review of standards and catalogues (including international comparisons) with 25 semi-structured interviews across national, state and territory agencies.
A/Prof Naderpajouh outlined the proposed technical foundations for any future database – including the ISO 19115 metadata standard and controlled vocabularies to align terminology across jurisdictions — before turning to the case for a national system.
Benefits identified through the research include improved data discoverability, more consistent cross-jurisdictional situational awareness, better support for inquiries and Royal Commissions.
He also covered some of the barriers – including technical and bureaucratic complexities.
A/Prof Naderpajouh explained a national database should complement rather than replace local contextual data.
Learning from international systems
Dr Blanchi presented a comparison of overseas and Australian systems across 12 criteria, including geographic coverage, data type, purpose and metadata standards.
She highlighted that while Australia holds high-quality data, it has historically been managed separately by states and territories, whereas leading international systems succeed by integrating multiple sources onto a single platform using shared standards.
A view from the operation room
Mr Field provided an end-user, operational perspective from the NSW RFS. He explained why building a usable national database is so challenging in practice: data collected during an active bushfire emergency prioritises capturing as much information as possible, not necessarily verifying or refining it.
Early information — such as a fire's ignition point, often derived from a Triple Zero call — is naturally imprecise and only becomes more accurate over time.
In terms of the challenges of bushfire data collection and sharing, Mr Field said that some of the benefits to addressing this issue are not directly realised by the agencies.