Professor Isabel Engels, Bern University of Applied Sciences, and risk specialist Matthias Schubert, Matrisk GmbH, explain how BSV 2026 embeds proportionality and ALARP
Switzerland is preparing to introduce a revised national fire protection framework under the BSV 2026 project, following a six-year development process involving more than 140 experts from authorities, insurers, fire services, industry and research institutions.
Led by Professor Isabel Engels of Bern University of Applied Sciences and developed in collaboration with risk specialist Matthias Schubert of Matrisk GmbH, the draft regulations establish an explicit risk-oriented foundation for Swiss fire safety, embedding proportionality, defined risk acceptance criteria and the ALARP principle directly into the regulatory structure.
The framework integrates prescriptive, performance-based and risk-based verification within a single methodology, supported by data modelling, international research and harmonised enforcement principles across cantons.
In this exclusive interview with IFSJ, Professor Isabel Engels and Matthias Schubert explain how BSV 2026 was developed, how risk logic now underpins regulatory requirements and what the revised framework could mean for building owners, insurers and fire safety professionals across Switzerland.
Can you summarise the main objectives of the BSV 2026 revision and how it differs from previous Swiss fire protection regulations?
The primary objective of the BSV 2026 revision is to establish an explicit risk-oriented framework as the foundation of Swiss fire safety regulation.
A central element of this shift is the application of the principle of proportionality.
Fire protection measures are required where they are suitable, necessary and reasonable in relation to the level of risk, thereby linking regulatory requirements more directly to their intended safety benefit.
By making the safety rationale behind individual measures explicit, it becomes clearer how and why specific requirements contribute to the protection of people and buildings.
Harmonisation of regulatory enforcement across cantons is another key objective, supporting a more uniform application of fire protection regulations throughout Switzerland.
The BSV 2026 also clearly distinguish between the protection of people and the protection of buildings, anchoring both in explicit risk acceptance criteria, including the ALARP principle, which serves as a reference for decision-making and verification.
While the BSV 2015 were largely prescriptive and contained implicit risk considerations, the BSV 2026 make the underlying safety logic more transparent and structurally embedded in the regulation itself.
A further distinction is the integration of prescriptive, performance-based and risk-based design within a single framework.
Rather than treating these approaches as separate philosophies, they are understood as different levels of analysis within the same risk-oriented process.
The framework is conceptually aligned with international risk management principles and applied across verification methods.
In addition, the BSV 2026 introduce a clearer structure along the lifecycle of a building, from planning and construction to operation and decommissioning, thereby improving clarity of roles and responsibilities.
At the same time, proven elements of the previous framework are retained to ensure continuity.
The revision process has taken six years. What have been the key challenges in developing a consensus among experts and stakeholders across Switzerland?
The six-year revision process was shaped by three main challenges: defining acceptable risk, translating the risk-oriented approach into workable regulation, and ensuring broad acceptance within the professional community.
The first challenge was agreeing on explicit protection goals and acceptable risk levels.
Previous regulations were largely based on implicit safety assumptions.
Moving towards clearly defined risk criteria required a structured stakeholder process and discussion of societal expectations regarding safety, proportionality and affordability.
The second challenge lay in translating risk-based principles into rules that are understandable, practicable and legally robust for everyday planning, approval and enforcement.
Prescriptive rules ensure consistency and legal certainty, whereas a more risk-oriented approach allows tailored solutions but requires greater professional judgement.
There is also a trade-off between simplicity and risk orientation.
Simple rules are easier to communicate and enforce, but may not lead to the most proportionate allocation of resources.
It became clear that uniformity, simplicity, flexibility and risk orientation cannot all be maximised simultaneously.
The BSV 2026 therefore reflect a balanced compromise between these objectives.
The third challenge involved coordination within the professional community.
More than 140 experts from authorities, fire services, industry, research institutions and associations worked in interdisciplinary working groups.
Aligning different professional perspectives and regional practices required sustained dialogue.
Ensuring consistent terminology and shared understanding across cantons and disciplines was an important part of this process, including the development of a unified technical vocabulary.
The draft is described as “risk-oriented.” Could you explain how this approach changes the way fire safety is assessed and prioritised compared to traditional prescriptive regulations?
Traditional prescriptive regulations already contained implicit risk-based elements combined with classical hazard prevention.
The BSV 2026 make this risk-oriented logic explicit and structurally embedded.
Existing fire protection measures were systematically analysed by identifying the protected goods, the protection goals they serve and their contribution to risk reduction.
This enables a more explicit assessment of the utility of individual measures.
A central change is the formal consideration of proportionality: the costs of a measure are evaluated in relation to the safety benefit it provides.
When measures are combined, diminishing marginal utility is taken into account.
Risk reduction is not additive, as lives or assets protected by one measure cannot be protected again by another.
Where full quantitative risk assessment was not feasible, structured reasoning was applied to assess whether a measure is proportionate.
It is important to note that the prescriptive pathway remains the primary means of compliance for most projects.
What changes is the decision logic behind when and why a measure is required.
Prescriptive requirements are derived from an explicit risk-oriented framework.
How have international fire incidents, research, and global best practices informed the development of the BSV 2026 draft?
The revision began with a data-driven assessment based on long-term fire and damage statistics from the Swiss cantonal fire insurance institutions.
Dedicated models were developed to describe fire frequencies and damage consequences.
International research on fire risk assessment and loss modelling was reviewed and adapted to Swiss conditions.
This includes probabilistic approaches to fire growth, detection, evacuation and intervention, as well as treatment of uncertainties.
A framework for evaluating fire protection measures based on life cycle costs was developed in parallel.
International fire incidents and accident investigations were examined to identify recurring patterns, particularly those related to enforcement gaps, unclear responsibilities or maintenance deficiencies.
These findings informed clearer allocation of responsibilities, harmonised competency requirements and inspection regimes.
A Model Code was developed as the methodological backbone of the regulation.
Drawing on international frameworks such as NFPA 550, IRCC guidance, BSI PD 7974 and SFPE approaches, system characteristics influencing risk were identified.
These include user-related, usage-related and building-specific parameters.
Together, these indicators define the risk profile of a building and form the basis for prescriptive requirements and analytical verification.
What practical improvements does BSV 2026 introduce in areas such as escape routes, smoke detection, passive fire protection, and overall fire safety management?
The practical improvements stem from the systematic review of existing requirements.
Provisions that previously led to interpretative disputes have been clarified and integrated more consistently.
In the area of escape routes, a more differentiated approach is introduced.
Under defined conditions, escape route lengths may depend on parameters such as room height, smoke storage volume, occupant density, number of escape options and the presence of automatic detection systems.
In very high rooms with sufficient smoke reservoir volume and appropriate safety measures, longer travel distances may be justified.
With respect to passive fire protection, the draft proposes a more targeted approach to cladding of building components.
Instead of requiring cladding on all sides, protection can focus on the side exposed to a potential fire scenario.
This enables more proportionate solutions, particularly in combustible construction.
With regard to smoke detection, the BSV 2026 do not introduce a general obligation for private smoke alarms in residential units; however, automatic fire detection and alarm systems remain required in certain building categories where the defined risk profile justifies such measures.
At the same time, fundamental safety principles remain unchanged.
Core requirements concerning ceiling linings with critical fire behaviour and restrictions on decorative materials continue to apply.
Adjustments are introduced only where risk analysis indicates that the overall safety level is not noticeably reduced.
How should building owners, facility managers, and insurers approach compliance under the risk-oriented framework to ensure safety beyond simply meeting regulatory requirements?
Prescriptive regulations remain the primary basis for day-to-day compliance.
For most projects, following the prescriptive pathway will remain standard practice.
The risk-oriented framework becomes relevant when prescriptive assumptions are no longer valid or when alternative solutions are proposed.
In such cases, compliance can be demonstrated through explicit risk assessment.
This requires showing that defined user risk limits are met and that the ALARP principle is fulfilled.
All requirements are systematically linked to defined protection goals and system characteristics.
Measures are explicitly connected to the objectives they serve.
This improves transparency and supports informed decision-making.
For building owners and insurers, the clearer definition of regulatory objectives may also support consideration of additional voluntary measures, for example in relation to business continuity or asset protection.
How do you envision the implementation of BSV 2026 influencing fire safety practices, risk assessment, and decision-making in Switzerland over the next few years?
The implementation of BSV 2026 is expected to strengthen the integration of prescriptive, performance-based and risk-based verification within a single framework.
The regulation allows these approaches to be applied consistently and, where appropriate, in combination.
The framework is designed to accommodate future developments, including new data, technologies and use cases.
Both new and existing buildings were considered during development, which is relevant for refurbishment, adaptive reuse and sustainability objectives.
In practice, the revised framework may support more tailored fire safety solutions aligned with building characteristics and use.
At the same time, it makes clear that safety concepts must be reassessed if occupancy or use changes.