Today’s Australian reports that:
THE Brumby government rejected a recommendation from a parliamentary committee that it triple the amount of controlled fuel-reduction burns carried out in bushfire-prone areas of Victoria just two months before the Black Saturday catastrophe killed 173 people.
The Victorian parliament’s environment and natural resources committee made the recommendation in June last year after holding an extensive inquiry into the impact of land management practices on recent large bushfires in the state.
The committee said the 130,000ha of controlled burning being carried out each year was insufficient to reduce the risk of bushfires and recommended the area be tripled to 385,000ha.
The report then goes on to quote Victorian Liberal leader Ted Baillieu to the effect that the Victorian Government’s refusal to implement this recommendation had contributed to the scale of the Black Saturday fires, and reports that a submission by bushfire expert Dr. David Packham has also expressed concern about the government’s failure to act on this recommendation.
This is not new news. The Victorian Government’s rejection of the Parliamentary Committee’s recommendation was a target of post-Black Saturday recriminations as far back as February. However, since then I have been able to read the Parliamentary Committee’s final report which included the recommendation, as well as many of the submissions to the Committee’s inquiry including that which the Committee solicited from Dr. Kevin Tolhurst. I have also discussed the issue with the fire experts from the Department of Sustainability and Environment who provided the data on which the Committee based its recommendation of a 385,000 hectare target. On this basis I am satisfied that (a) the Committee got it wrong; and (b) the government made the right call in rejecting this recommendation.
To begin with, the Parliamentary Committee did not recommend “triple the amount of controlled fuel-reduction burns carried out in bushfire-prone areas of Victoria”. It recommended tripling the amount of controlled burns on all public land. This is not a trivial point.
Secondly, as has been pointed out repeatedly at LP and elsewhere, the most destructive fire on Black Saturday (the Kilmore fire) started on bare farmland and got its head of steam burning through a pine plantation and across the Hume Highway, whilst the destructive Gippsland fire started on a plantation. Controlled burning (or the absence thereof) on public land was not a significant factor in these fires, whatever Ted Baillieu would have people believe.
Now to the general issue, starting with some Controlled Burning 101. The purpose of controlled burning programs carried out by Victorian Government agencies is to achieve a combination of risk management objectives and biodiversity conservation objectives. Achieving these objectives requires controlled burning on a range of different scales, intensities and temporal cycles depending on the characteristics of different ecosystem types (of which there are over 200 in Victoria). It also needs to be done in a strategic way over time scales of years if not decades. Further, each individual controlled burn is a labour-intensive, knowledge-intensive and skill-intensive exercise which also needs to be carried out in appropriate weather conditions at appropriate times of the year in order to be done safely and to avoid ecological harm. For these and other reasons which need not detain us here, it is unlikely that such a complex program can be made to fit the Procrustean bed of a numerical target whilst also achieving its risk management and biodiversity conservation objectives.
Further, the Victorian Government’s view that:
The government supports a move away from focusing on hectare-based targets, which may lead to inappropriate planned burning programs
coincides with the view of no less an authority than Dr. Tolhurst, whose submission to the Parliamentary Committee stated that:
At the moment, the primary method of quantifying fire management effectiveness is to tally the number of hectares burnt in prescribed burning programs or the area burnt by wildfires These are easily measured parameters but do not give much indication of how effective management is being.
When I discussed the specific 385,000 hectare target with DSE officials, they made two points:
(a) that the Parliamentary Committee had arrived at this figure through a very simplistic interpretation of data provided by DSE (a conclusion which I had independently drawn from my own reading of the inquiry report);
(b) that meeting this target would require extensive burning to be carried out in remote areas where no risk to human lives or property existed, purely for the sake of meeting the target, entailing a vast diversion of resources with no risk management benefit. (And, one could add, with the likelihood of changing the fire regime in these areas to the detriment of the ecology.)
Greens MLC Greg Barber has likewise commented that:
It will mean resources will be re-directed into burning hundreds of thousands of hectares out there in the Big Desert or the Coopracambra National Park just to achieve the magic number without offering greater certainty of safety to Kinglake or Cockatoo. It is a feelgood target, it is a political target, it is a 30-second sound byte target, but it does nothing to ensure the confidence of towns and communities across Victoria. The government, quite rightly, did not take the bait on that.
In fairness to the Committee, it preceded its determination of the 385,000 hectare target with the words:
Determining the appropriate extent of fuel reduction and ecological burning on public land is a complex issue and one which is unlikely to be finally resolved by the current Inquiry. Moreover, the Committee recognises that any conclusions it makes on this issue will be subject to the findings of future research.
so it is not entirely the Committee’s fault that 385,000 hectares has become a shibboleth for Ted Baillieu (David Packham, it should be noted, thinks the figure should be even higher).
With the Bushfires Royal Commission set to tackle the issue of controlled burning in its next stages, it is not surprising that we are again hearing from those who think that there is a fix to the bushfire problem in the form of hazard reduction burning according to a Big Dumb Number of hectares per year, or a one size fits all temporal cycle (once every seven years? Once every three years?) irrespective of ecosystem type. The problem with Big Dumb Number solutions to complex problems (and the bushfire policy problem is not just a complex problem but a wicked problem) are manyfold, but two in particular seem pertinent to the bushfires issue. One is that if the Big Dumb Number of hectares per annum is unable to be achieved (and 385,000 hectares per annum has only been achieved once in the past century), political and media demagogues will ascribe the failure to the baleful influence of some Promparty of TEH GREENIES within government agencies, rather than to resource constraints, adverse climatic and weather conditions, and/or the aggregate effect of bona fide professional judgements by DSE and CFA personnel. The other is that if the Big Dumb Target is achieved, people will assume that the problem is being solved when it isn’t (and is possibly being aggravated by pyrogenic shift) and thereby run the risk of sleepwalking into a Black Saturday on steroids. This must not be allowed to happen.
A final comment. The last sentence of the Australian report states that:
Mr Packham’s research has linked the levels of fuel loads in a bushfire, which dictate its intensity [my emphasis - PN], to the number of people likely to be killed.
As has been discussed several times previously at LP and elsewhere, the levels of fuel loads in a bushfire do not “dictate its intensity”. They are the dominant determinant of fire intensity in conditions of low to very high fire danger, although topography and fire size can also be significant. In conditions of extreme fire danger, and in particular in the conditions which prevailed on Black Saturday, weather is the primary determinant. Fuel loads, while not a trivial factor, are of secondary significance under such conditions. See p.11 of the Tolhurst submission linked above.
Another alarming Big Dumb Number is tree removal.
There was a bloke on the Channel 10 news last night (My bad for watching commercial trash news) opining seriously that all mature trees by the side of roads should be cut down. All of them.
Think about how many roads and tracks cover this state.
This is the same kind of person who wants all trees removed from all dwellings, despite the fact that the Black Saturday ember attacks didn’t seem to respect houses in paddocks (yes, there was That One Guy Whose House escaped, I don’t care, his anecdote is not data)
so you can imagine what Victoria will look like when all the roadside vegetation has been clearfelled, plus driveways plus around houses.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Northern SA in my youth and I’m familiar with what that landscape would look like.
The impact on the environment and climate would be catastrophic.
Paul, that’s an excellent analysis. Couldn’t have said it much better myself.
The only thing you haven’t really tackled is the efficacy of FRB in and of itself. There’s more counter evidence than we like to consider that FRB has such a limited value and may be affecting ecosystems, making them more fire prone, that we’re better off not even doing it nine times out of ten, spending the money elsewhere.
It’d look like it had fewer burnt out cars trapped on roads blocked by fallen trees, but that might not be a priority for everyone.
I will take issue with part of this.
“..Fuel loads, while not a trivial factor, are of secondary significance under such conditions…”
The areas burnt in the fires are not in any danger of burning this year, reguardless of weather conditions. And the point about trees next to raods would almost certainly save lives in some car accidents as well.
30 meters back from the road either side wouldnt create a “wasteland” either.
The fear of litigation if a fire escapes public land gives to many people involved an excuse not to burn. One fire I was involved in CALM in WA insisted to a farmer they would have to backburn on his property rather than in the national park (which was what was on fire anyway), citing environmental reasons.
If the area around any of those burnt out towns had been burnt the year before does anyone really think the loss would have been so extreme?
What Im advocating is intensive burning regimes near settlements, and a slight increase or status quo for the rest.
I encourage anyone who thinks tree removal would have changed a thing to visit the area around Marysville and have a gander. There are countless examples of a lone tree in a paddock, with 100m (conservative minimum) clearance around it, burnt to a cinder.
The flipside – a weatherboard house left unburnt, with trees and houses all around it; maximum clearance to any side of maybe fiteen metres to the nearest husk.
There is also, but not for much longer, a chance to walk through the ghastly beauty of a burnt out forest of snow gums in a foot of snow. Up on Lake Mountain, and probably elsewhere too.
Helen @ 1 – I have some friends building in the bush in a high fire risk area at the moment and to get planning approval for a new house they have to clear trees about 20-30m around the house. Is there a good reason for new houses to be treated differently from existing houses?
Re: roads – its probably too late for many established roads, but setting back how close trees are allowed to new roads is probably a good idea. And perhaps for major routes – especially when the road is the only way to leave an area we will have to live with clearing trees far enough back such that if they fall they won’t block the road. It would probably have a positive side effect on the road toll as well.
Craig Mc – well we could forbid everyone to use a boat, which would prevent quite a few drowning deaths. And we could require all men to be castrated at 30, which would prevent deaths from testicular cancer… You see the point.
And Chris (Cfmtb?) that much removal from the roadsides would have a huge impact on habitat. The way we have decimated Victoria’s tree cover, the roadside habitat is actually quite important in the survival of our wildlife. Extrapolate that to every roadside and you are losing a shitload of habitat.
Re-thinking our “right” to live wherever in the bush might be the best way to go. Fewer deaths, less impact on the remaining natural environment.
As a survivor of ash-wed (and black-sat) I would now like to know why the power supply is not shut down on ultra-bad forecast days. Since Ash-wed whole forests have been cut down along power lines yet still the force of the winds and the nature of climate change means this is for nought…without a power black-out and concomittent ‘general-strike’.
I realize a strike is fiendishly difficult for any modern neo-labor party to arrange but as they say in the classics…life wasn’t meant to be easy.
What if you knew… and saw her lying dead on the gound?
Echoing Helen’s middle para, in most cleared agricultural landscapes, the roadsides are vital habitat, for species such as the grey crowned babbler.
I disagree that we should remove humans from the landscape, but we need to accept personal responsibility and risk for that decision.
The number of days last year when any burn-offs could be conducted were greatly reduced due to the drought. Aside from all the faulty logic involved with the conclusions reached, for anyone at this point to attempt to seize political gains on the back of February 7 loss of life does a huge disservice to those still attempting to come to terms with their losses. That this is happening at the six month period has huge implications for the effects of bereavement and loss on many people. I wish we could see it through the prism of the psychologists working with those involved, to try to get some understanding of how a political bunfight over scapegoats might be affecting those most closely and personally involved. Grieving is hard without being further complicated or used as a tool by a political process. No wonder the practices of the media and politicians sickens so many people.
Yep – It’s acceptable for roads in bush areas to be death-traps.
Craig I guess you’ll be volunteering to clear all the roads in bushfire prone areas.
Zorronsky, speaking of volunteering, perhaps all people who live in bushfire prone areas should be volunteer members of the local fire association?
Perhaps they should have regular training nights and working bees for their area? A bit like Neighbourhood Watch, but with a more deadly threat at stake?
Not every bush road is a potential death trap,and leaves and twigs give off enough moisture to have eucalpytus and other flavoured water hot and cold.Vacuuming them up is pretty easy,but, some would object to an environmental impact process because they saw their eyes flash money,and first to spot an oppurtunity.OK. Norton, a well presented case!?
You never heard of the CFA Elise?
And this very afternoon I have had the dubious pleasure of listening to the member for Gippsland,independent Craig Ingram,(not sure which electorate) ranting about the lack of controlled burning. I live in neighboring NSW in an area that is experiencing a very severe drought. Last weekend a number of forestry burns took off in the high wind and we now have a state forest with +800 hectares burnt and a real fear that if we get more wind this fire will become even more problematic than it already is.This sort of fire behaviour in this part of NSW(Monaro) is almost unprecedented at this time of year.Climate change may well be at work in this area,neighbors tell me their annual rainfall is down 70% on 30 year average.
I expect that the point I am clumsily trying to make is that burning off per se is a political feel good, when the circumstances to burn have been so unfavorable and the local politican knows that only too well but uses the circumstances to his advantage. bloody sickening really. And I do know that a couple of years ago country that had been burnt by lightning only months before(Duea National Park) burnt really good when a nutter with a can of petrol lit a fire on a really extreme day, so I can’t help but feel that “hazard reduction” aint all it’s cracked up to be, and this constant burning does encourage the growth of woody species which add to the fuel load.
Zorronsky, yep I have heard of the CFA, obviously. The question was: Are households automatically enrolled if they lie within the area, and people duty-bound to attend? I had a notion that it was not something everyone was involved in.
Automatic enrollment might sound a bit draconian (like compulsory military service – uggh!), but it is a self-interest and self-preservation issue. There is a precedent for suggesting this concept.
I was partly thinking of the “velforening” (loosely translated “community wellbeing”) in Norway, where you are automatically enrolled in a group of households in your area and expected to join in.
Sounds dreadful at first thought, but it provides for Neighbourhood Watch and much more: evening patrols for child protection after dark, monitoring and modulating the activities of exhuberant inebriated teenagers, community amenities like basketball rings and sandpits (including erecting the ubiquitous Norwegian flagpole), bulk rubbish bins for street cleanups, get-togethers for national day, annual summer bonfire and bbq for the street, etc.
It turned out to be fun and an interesting insight into another way of thinking. I would never have got to know the neighbours (other than those on either side) by any other way, especially being from another country and new to the area. I think their children benefitted more from this approach, and felt more secure, compared with the modern Aussie isolationist style. In a crisis, if the parents were out, the kids knew their neighbours and did not have to ask complete strangers for help.
It is a bit of a long bow, but I thought it was an interesting concept. Perhaps we had more of this approach in earlier pioneering times in Australia, but have lost it with the growth of large cities?
Here is what the Victorian National Parks Association has to say in its submission to the Bushfires Royal Commission.
Yep – It’s acceptable for roads in bush areas to be death-traps.
Disingenuous rubbish. Try arguing in good faith, please.
No, Wilful, I wouldn’t remove hamans from the landscape, but I’d encourage Australians to really rethink the treechange / commuter lifestyle.
People employed on farms, in national parks and country occupations – yes.
De facto dormitory suburbs fostered by inflated urban residential prices and temporarily cheap fuel, overlaid by a romanticism about living in bushland without the concomitant skillz – maybe that needs a rethink.
Elise 17,
I do like that concept, the lite version anyway. I did enjoy the one “clean up Australia” day that I have been engaged in. We are way too hooked into our “freedoms” which turn out to be anti freedoms, in many ways.
It is an interesting thought that freedom should lead to isolation.
The VNPA submission should be read by all who would wish to inform themselves of the arguments for and against proscribed burning in all its different forms.
Thanks Paul for the opportunity to do so.
You can kill a lot of trees, harm a lot of environments, convert to a more fire disaster prone environment and maybe save the odd life. Or you can insist on fire refuges, learn from the way the better cyclone prone communities operate and save a lot more lives. Once you start depending on people driving to escape fires people will inevitably be killed even if no trees fall across roads.
Car accidents kill far more people every year than fires do or ever have. We accept that that’s the risk associated with driving a car; we don’t have hysterical rants accusing society of condoning murder because we continue letting people drive.
Similarly, there are risks associated with living in one of the most bushfire prone areas of the world (I’m not saying the bush, which implies non metropolitan – I shudder to think about a fire hitting Eltham, for example). We can minimise these risks but we can’t remove them entirely.
Arguing that all trees should be removed from roadsides is as ridiculous as arguing that all cars should be speed limited to 40 k (which I guarantee would save more lives).
People shouldn’t be on roads on days of extreme fire danger, full stop. If they live in areas with limited access, they should get out beforehand.
(Have lived through three bushfires now, 2003, 2006, 2009. My grandfather was the only survivor of a community hit by the 1927 fires).
…and fuel hazard reduction only burns off undergrowth. It doesn’t (and couldn’t, or there wouldn’t be any bush left) burn the crowns of trees.
Firestorms are created by fires crowning – burning from treetop to treetop. It’s the gases released by the burning gumleaves which are the problem.
So the kind of controlled burning referred to has some effect in purely ground based fires (I question how much; I walked through blackened areas a few weeks after the 2003 fires. There was plenty of fuel left on the ground; because the fires had dried everything out, it was probably just as flammable as the previous thick moist undergrowth had been).
It only has environmental benefits if it mimics the natural cycle, which is easy to recreate from the habits of the trees themselves – snow gums do not regenerate, suggesting fires are extremely rare; mountain ash do not regenerate, and take over a decade to set viable seed, suggesting fires are once in twenty year events at least; lowland eucalypts bounce back instantly, suggesting a frequent fire regime.