Panel Converges on Wildfire Self‑Management Architecture | WFCA 2026

Designing the Interface to Survive the Wildfire Era

Panelists for Day Two | Morning Plenary

• Kim Connors — Former Executive Director, CIFFC (Retired)

• Jason Fisher — Executive Director, Forest Management Society of BC

• Tony Pesklevits — Manager, Wildfire Prevention and Cultural & Prescribed Fire, BC Wildfire Service

Moderator

• John Betts

The panelists in the morning of Day Two at the WFCA 2026 Annual Meeting in Victoria, Jan 29, 2026,  converged on a single, unavoidable truth: Canada has entered a wildfire regime where the old assumptions no longer hold. The losses of Lytton, Jasper, and Fort McMurray are not isolated tragedies; they are structural warnings. Each burned out community demonstrates climate‑driven fire behaviour outpacing the design of communities, governance systems, and communication strategies. The question is no longer whether communities can be protected by provincial agencies alone — it is whether communities can co‑design the interface that keeps them alive.

Beyond Steel Roofing and Arbor Barriers

For decades, wildfire mitigation was framed as a technical checklist: FireSmart materials, defensible space, ember‑resistant vents, and vegetation management. The panelists argued that while these remain essential, they are no longer sufficient. The new wildfire reality demands systems‑level design, not just structural hardening.

Communities need:

• Integrated evacuation logic built into street grids, not improvised during crisis
• Distributed safe zones that don’t rely on a single chokepoint
• Cultural and prescribed fire programs embedded in local governance
• Shared situational awareness platforms that allow residents to understand risk in real time
• Local operational capacity — not to replace provincial agencies, but to interface with them

This is the evolution of self‑management: not independence, but interdependence with agency.

The Interface as a Living System

The panelists described the “interface” not as a boundary between forest and town, but as a living system of relationships — between residents, fire practitioners, planners, Indigenous knowledge holders, and emergency managers. When this system is weak, fire finds the seams. When it is strong, fire meets resistance long before it reaches a rooftop.

A functional interface includes:

• Governance pathways that allow communities to request, authorize, and participate in prescribed fire
• Communication protocols that treat residents as partners, not recipients
• Local knowledge networks that track fuel conditions, wind patterns, and seasonal anomalies
• Design standards that anticipate ember storms, not just flame fronts

This is the shift from “protecting communities” to communities participating in their own protection.

Climate Change and the Acceleration of Risk

The panel did not mince words: climate change is accelerating wildfire risk faster than policy frameworks are adapting. Longer fire seasons, drier fuels, and more extreme wind events mean that the window for action is shrinking. The losses of Lytton and Jasper were not failures of individual decisions — they were failures of systems designed for a climate that no longer exists.

Urgency now has a different meaning:

• Communication must be proactive, not reactive
• Planning cycles must shorten from decades to years
• Community engagement must be continuous, not seasonal
• Risk literacy must become universal, not specialized

The climate signal is clear. The governance response must match its speed.

Designing Communities for a Fire‑Adapted Future

The panelists outlined a future where communities are designed, not retrofitted, for wildfire resilience. This includes:

1. Urban Form That Anticipates Fire

• Street networks that avoid dead‑ends
• Building clusters that reduce ember accumulation
• Public spaces that double as fire breaks
• Materials chosen for heat resistance, not just cost

2. Governance That Shares Power

• Local fire stewardship committees
• Indigenous‑led cultural fire programs
• Community‑driven risk assessments
• Transparent decision‑making during high‑risk periods

3. Communication That Builds Trust

• Real‑time risk dashboards
• Plain‑language alerts
• Community briefings that explain why decisions are made
• Two‑way channels that allow residents to report conditions

4. A Culture of Preparedness

• Annual community fire drills
• Household‑level readiness plans
• Local volunteer capacity integrated with provincial systems
• Schools teaching fire ecology as part of climate literacy

This is not fear‑based adaptation. It is agency‑based adaptation.

The New Social Contract of Wildfire

What emerged from the panel is a reframing of the social contract in wildfire country. Governments still carry responsibility, but communities now carry capacity. The interface is no longer a line on a map — it is a shared project of survival, stewardship, and design.

The men on this panel were clear: Canada cannot afford another Lytton, another Jasper, another Fort McMurray. The climate is accelerating. The risk is rising. The only viable path forward is to build communities that are not merely protected from wildfire, but adapted to live with it.