What mercenaries can teach us about climate-fuelled disaster responses
15 Jan 2025|

The devastating fires in Southern California, many of which are still burning out of control, have exposed a controversial and increasingly attractive disaster response alternative that engages the private sector.

California’s private firefighting industry, which most haven’t even heard of, is growing rapidly in the face of deteriorating climate conditions. Proponents contend that private industries ‘can fill gaps when public fire departments aren’t able to meet the demands of their local communities’. However, without careful planning and public sector engagement, expanding the industry may actually exacerbate those gaps.

We can learn from another type of privatised force: mercenaries, or private military companies.

The United Nations Mercenary Convention defines a mercenary as an individual who, among other factors, is recruited to fight and is motivated to take part by the desire for private gain. As private firefighters can be similarly defined, we can use the experiences of mercenaries in warfare to predict challenges and inform policy.

Mercenaries are paid far better than their counterparts in national armed forces. Similarly, private firefighters in California are allegedly being paid up to US$2000 an hour for their services. Comparatively, the average public firefighting wage is US$30 an hour.

The profit-fuelled growth of such private industries at the expense of losing personnel and expertise from public services presents community risks. Private contractors will act in the interest of their stakeholders and not necessarily in the interests of affected communities. For example, private firefighters may be contractually obliged to remain on standby to respond to requests from clients, rather than helping others at risk.

Public sector personnel shortages can also force governments to outsource operations to contractors, initiating cycles of dependency. This is already occurring within defence organisations: In a paper published by the Land Warfare Studies Centre, Lieutenant Colonel Ian Wing wrote that ‘many functions are now so reliant on contractors for their performance that modern military forces would find it very difficult to deploy for prolonged periods without them.’

Wing also wrote that military contractors ‘may not wish to completely resolve conflict, as to do so would remove the requirement for further contracts.’ This is concerning in the context of disaster response: firefighter arson is already a well-known phenomenon. Greater monetary incentive, in addition to desires for excitement and recognition, could further motivate contractors to commit arson and delay the extinguishing of fires.

Government employment of private contractors can also subvert accountability and undermine trust—an important aspect of effective disaster management. Compared with public operations, private contractors’ activities ‘can be attractive [to governments] as their undertakings are not as visible or readily scrutinised by the citizenry who empowers them’. For example, in the warfare mercenary context, it is alleged that the Australian government was able to maintain domestic political palatability of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars by increasing the number of contractors and thereby reducing ADF commitments and fatalities.

Although many governments may accept such a scapegoat, a lack of transparency and accountability can undermine public trust in government, jeopardising disaster management as a result. From heeding early warnings and emergency information to accepting help and guidance from institutions, trust is essential for community resilience and recovery.

Nevertheless, the benefits (for example, agility, precision, and surge capacity) of private contractors in disaster situations can be significant, if the risks have been addressed. The Australian government should begin planning and preparing for an increase in demand for large-scale private disaster industries. This should be done in consultation with states and territories, as well as local communities. The government should develop an enabling regulatory framework and identify which areas of disaster management are best placed to be supported by contractors.

Private contractors are potentially well-suited to supporting disaster planning, training, and mitigation. However, given the associated risks, Australia should consider whether these entities should be involved in disaster response.

Diverse approaches can help build resilience if they are coordinated and complementary. The government must ensure that such approaches do not come at the expense of community cohesion, and do not undermine national preparedness and efficient disaster response.