Chapter 5 - Threats to the reserve system - fire
5.1
Creating reserves is vital to meeting conservation objectives. However,
managing those reserves for the values they were designed to protect is equally
important. Reserves do not manage themselves, and they face many threats and
pressures that could degrade or even destroy their vital functions. The next
four chapters outline and discuss some of the major threats to the reserve
system, both terrestrial and marine.
5.2
Professor Ralf Buckley named the most common threats to national parks
when he told the committee:
One of the standard lines in park
management is the four Fs. They are like the three Rs of local government which
are roads, rates and rubbish. The four Fs of parks are fences, fires, ferals
and tourists.[1]
5.3
This chapter looks at fire which is one of the most complex factors in
the management of parks, being both a natural, even essential, part of
ecosystems, as well as a potential threat to biodiversity, life and property.
Fire
5.4
Fire is a natural part of the Australian landscape. Fire has also been
used as a land management tool by Indigenous people for thousands of years.
However fire can also present a major threat to natural and cultural values,
and must be managed effectively to maintain the integrity of the conservation
estate.
5.5
Fire and its management were mentioned in most submissions that
discussed terrestrial parks. Specific areas of concern were the origin of
fires, hazard reduction burning, access, the role of parks staff during
critical incidents, and the loss of assets (including biodiversity) through
current fire management regimes.
Origin of bushfires
5.6
A number of submissions claimed that bushfires regularly started within
national parks, then escaped, posing a threat to lives and other land tenures. Mr Chris Mitchell
noted:
...there have been many intense wildfires in parks and
conservation areas, particularly in New South Wales. These have been the
subject of media comment and various government inquiries. These intense
wildfires, mostly originating in national parks, have resulted in severe loss
of life...[and] degradation of conservation values in those parks.[2]
5.7
Mr David de Jongh, of the National Association of Forest Industries,
told the committee that bushfire escape was directly related to national park
management practices:
It was increasingly frustrating to see those areas [previously
state forests] go into national parks and the passive management approach being
undertaken. In a lot of cases, this involved closing of access roads and a lack
of fuel reduction burns and a large increase in fuel loads. This constantly
became a major risk to adjoining land—not only to adjoining neighbours but also
to state forestry organisations—in terms of fires getting out of those parks
into state forests and becoming a major threat to timber resources.[3]
5.8
Dr Peter Volker, of the Institute of Foresters of Australia, was
concerned that some fire management techniques that are standard forestry
practice, such as conducting hazard reduction burning in buffer zones, are not
used in national parks, where fire management seemed to receive a lower
priority:
Prescribed burning in buffer zones around the edges of parks,
where parks adjoin other land tenures, is one. There is widespread concern
that, because there is no fire management within a park, when a wildfire comes
to the edge of a park it is uncontrollable, so adjoining land tenures get into
strife. In some cases there have been policies of not fighting the fire in the
park and letting the fire burn to the fire boundary. Only then does the control
action start. That increases the risk for the adjoining land tenure, whether
that be private land or other state land, for instance. I have heard of a
number of examples of that in the last two years, including the recent Kosciuszko
National Park fires and also fires in the Grampians in Victoria, where the
fire was uncontrolled in the park and only when the fire got to the park
boundaries did active control measures come into play.[4]
5.9
Mr Clyde Leatham blamed loss of public support for national parks on
recent, intense fires that had escaped from national parks:
Given the devastating fires in Canberra and the Vic Alps and
other areas in recent years, and given that these fires escaped from improperly
fire managed crown lands, public support for more parks, etc is declining.[5]
5.10
These concerns were not confined to eastern, forested parks. Mrs Ruth Webb-Smith
noted:
Up in the Kimberley it is well known that most of the fires
start on CALM land. I think just recently one was burning for four days before
it was even reported because nobody is on the CALM land, for instance.[6]
5.11
Mr Kieran McNamara, Director-General of the WA Department of Environment
and Conservation responded:
The notion that all fires and pestilence come from crown land is
nonsense. I honestly would have thought in the Kimberley that the ignition
points would be independent of land tenure to a considerable degree, and in
fact pastoral burning for pasture management purposes would probably have more
escapes beyond pastoral leases than deliberate burning on crown reserves would
have in the other direction.[7]
5.12
The National Parks Association of NSW presented statistics to counter
claims that national parks in NSW are a major source of bushfires:
... looking at the 2003-04 fire season, of the 5,600 fires during
that period, 186 started on park and stayed on park (3.3%) and only 13 started
on park and moved off park (0.2%). 64 fires started off park and moved onto
national park (1.1%). The remaining 95.3% burned entirely off-park.[8]
5.13
This position was confirmed by the figures in Table 5.1 provided by the
NSW Government: [9]
Table 5.1 Source of bushfires
|
Year
|
Started and
controlled on-park
|
Started on
and moved off-park
|
Started off
and moved on-park
|
|
2003/04
|
186
(71%)
|
13
(5%)
|
64
(24%)
|
|
1995-2004*
|
200
(68%)
|
30
(10%)
|
65
(22%)
|
* Figure is averaged between the years of 1995 – 2004.
5.14
The percentages shown in the two submissions vary significantly because
the National Parks Association submission shows the origin and movement figures
as a percentage of all bushfires in NSW in 2003-04 (5,600), while the NSW
Government submission shows the origin
and movement figures as a percentage of those bushfires that burned inside a
NSW national park in 2003-04 (263).[10]
5.15
The Queensland Government's submission reported that:
During the 2005 fire year, which extended from March 2005 to
February 2006, EPA responded to 272 wildfires on, and adjoining its estate.
These fires affected some 0.52 million hectares of managed lands. Of these
wildfires, 49% are known to have started off the EPA estate and at least 20%
are believed to be arson related.[11]
5.16
Government advice about the rate of bushfire escapes was not accepted by
all witnesses. When asked about the accuracy of claims that only seven per cent
of the fires in Queensland national parks had escaped onto surrounding land in
the last 12 months, Mr Brett De Hayr replied:
If it is [accurate], it would generally be because the local
land-holders have stopped it before it has got any further. With remote
management, unless they travel around in Lear jets, I doubt it would be
possible that that fire control was being conducted by government staff. It
would be local fire brigades, land-holders and local government.[12]
5.17
Mr Peter Cochrane, Director of National Parks, told the
inquiry of the difficulty in accurately establishing data in regard to fire on
and surrounding national parks:
I could preface my comments by saying that it is a very complex
area. It varies enormously around Australia. Different environments around Australia
are fire prone in different ways and obviously managed differently for
different purposes. Compiling national statistics is extraordinarily difficult,
because they are kept by different people in different ways...There is no
comparable dataset [to that for NSW] nationally of which I am aware, and even
our own datasets are not everything I would like them to be.[13]
5.18
The NSW Government submission provided figures on how fires in NSW
national parks started (Table 5.2). These figures show that most fires in NSW
national parks are caused by lightning, arson, or poorly managed hazard
reduction burning.[14]
Table 5.2 Causes of
fires, NSW
|
Year
|
2003/04
|
1995 – 2004*
|
|
Lightning
|
48
|
77
|
|
Suspected arson
|
76
|
59
|
|
Arson
|
50
|
49
|
|
Legal burn-off
|
32
|
20
|
|
Illegal burn-off
|
1
|
11
|
|
Motor vehicle
|
0
|
16
|
|
Camp cooking
|
8
|
10
|
|
Powerlines arcing
|
5
|
2
|
|
Other
|
28
|
11
|
|
Unknown
|
15
|
38
|
* Figure is averaged between the years of 1995 – 2004.
5.19
Discussing a Commonwealth park within NSW, Mr Cochrane commented:
In Booderee National Park, which is the one park we have that is
in the south-east of Australia and more akin to the sorts of problems that are
in the public mind about fire in national parks, we have had over 300 fires
since 1957, which is 50 years. Nearly half of them have been arson—deliberately
lit—either inside or outside the park. A very small percentage of them are lit
naturally by, say, lightning strikes. I think the figures are between two and
five per cent, and I suspect that that figure is probably fairly common around Australia.
Natural sources of ignition are fairly small; they are mostly started by
humans.[15]
5.20
In relation to why the lightning strike figures provided by NSW were
substantially higher than the national figures he had just given, Mr Cochrane
ventured:
...if you think about where national parks are, you will know that
they are often in high elevation areas. Certainly in New South Wales there are
areas of spectacular scenery, areas that have not been under agriculture, for
example, and they tend to be more prone to lightning strikes, not surprisingly.
So there are somewhat higher incidences of lightning strikes in national parks,
at least depending on topography, than there would be in the surrounding
country. That is a series of observations; I cannot draw it together for you
because it is enormously complex and it is not particularly informed by a lot
of factual information, frankly. Views are passionately held on all sides of
the argument.[16]
5.21
The high rate of arson reported by NSW, Queensland and the Department of
the Environment and Water Resources is consistent with Finding 6.3 of the
Council of Australian Governments' National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation
and Management:
Arson remains a significant risk for bushfire ignitions, and the
states and territories must continue to direct resources towards deterring
people from engaging in this illegal activity.[17]
Hazard reduction burning
5.22
Hazard reduction burning, sometimes called 'controlled burning',
'prescribed burning' or 'cool burning', is one of many techniques available to
land managers to reduce the likelihood and intensity of bushfires. Its use and
management remains controversial in Australia, particularly in relation to
decisions about whether or not to burn certain areas, and the timing and
frequency of burning. A recurrent theme in evidence to the inquiry was the
tension between protecting life and property and protecting biodiversity.
5.23
The Australian Government's response to two recent reports on bushfire
management, A Nation Charred: Inquiry into the Recent Australian Bushfires[18]
and National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management (the COAG
National Bushfire Inquiry ),[19]
recognised this problem when it stated:
The Australian Government recognises the principle that reducing
the amount of fuel in a landscape reduces the risks associated with bushfires
by the reduction in fire intensity and spread and assisting in suppression of
the bushfires.
Prescribed burning regimes need to recognise the priority
importance of the protection of life and property as well as the conservation
of Australia’s biodiversity, especially fauna and flora listed under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
...the Australian Government notes and supports the COAG National
Bushfire Inquiry report’s findings that prescribed burning regimes need to be
based on a shared understanding of the assets and the fire regime needs of the
assets within the landscape. Moreover, prescribed burning regimes need to be
managed in an adaptive style taking account of increasing scientific knowledge
of fire within the landscape.[20]
5.24
The Forest Industries Association of Tasmania cited A Nation Charred:
Inquiry into the Recent Australian Bushfires in support of more active
hazard reduction:
This issue [hazard reduction] received considerable airing in
the report produced from the House of Representatives Select committee (2003)
titled 'A Nation Charred: Inquiry into the Recent Australian Bushfires'
including recommendations that governments ensure adequate access to reserved
areas and sufficient resources to effectively manage fuel loads as determined
by the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre. There is no evidence that is
obvious to FIAT that any of these recommendations have been adopted and there
has been little if any on ground change in policy or funding arrangements.[21]
5.25
A Nation Charred made a number of recommendations in relation to
hazard reduction burning, of which the most relevant to issues raised in this
inquiry are:
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth through the
National Heritage Trust, offer assistance to the states and the Australian
Capital Territory to develop specific prescribed burning guides, at least to
the quality of Western Australia, for national parks and state forests through
out the mainland of south eastern Australia.
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth seek to ensure
that the Council of Australian Governments seek agreement from the states and
territories on the optimisation and implementation of prescribed burning
targets and programs to a degree that is recognised as adequate for the
protection of life, property and the environment. The prescribed burning
programs should include strategic evaluation of fuel management at the regional
level and the results of annual fuel management in each state should be
publicly reported and audited.
The committee recommends that, as part of its study into
improving the effectiveness of prescribed burning, the Bushfire Cooperative
Research Centre establish a national database that includes areas targeted for
fuel reduction, the area of fuel reduction achieved based on a specified
standard of on ground verification and the season in which the reduction was
achieved. The committee also recommends that in developing this database the
Cooperative Research Centre develop a national standard of fire mapping, which
accurately maps the extent, intensity, spread and overall pattern of prescribed
and wildfires in Australia.
The committee acknowledges community concerns about smoke pollution
as a result of prescribed burning and recommends that the Bushfire Cooperative
Research Centre pursue its proposed study into smoke modelling.
The committee recommends that the Bushfire Cooperative Research
Centre monitor the effect of grazing on mitigating the return of woody weeds to
recently fire effected areas across various landscapes including alpine and
subalpine.
The committee recommends that the Bushfire Cooperative Research
Centre conduct further research into the long term effects and effectiveness of
grazing as a fire mitigation practice.[22]
5.26
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National Bushfire Inquiry
made several findings in relation to hazard reduction burning and other
responsibilities of land managers, including the following that are relevant to
issues raised during this inquiry:
There needs to be a shared understanding and valuing of assets
in relation to bushfire mitigation and management. There also needs to be
better recognition of the fact that prescribed burning is a complex
matter—ecologically and operationally—and that a variety of prescribed fire
regimes might be necessary to meet a range of objectives.
There is a need to develop ways of assessing the effectiveness
of fuel-reduction programs in terms of the resultant degree of reduction in
risk.
Comparing the gross area treated annually in fuel-reduction
burning—that is, for a whole agency, region or state—with a published target is
not a good basis for assessing performance and is likely to be
counterproductive.
The Inquiry supports the adoption of an adaptive management
approach to setting fire regimes that are appropriate for biodiversity
conservation. Such an approach should:
- make explicit the biodiversity objectives;
- recognise lack of knowledge and clarify questions that need to
be answered;
- design burning prescriptions that can answer these questions;
- devise and fund monitoring and other data-collection activities;
- review and communicate results; and
- use the new knowledge to modify the management prescription.
More research and monitoring are required in order to understand
the effects of fuel-reduction burning and large-scale bushfire events on water
quality and quantity in catchment areas.
The potential for a reduction in air quality is one of several
impediments to achieving necessary levels of fuel-reduction burning. There is a
trade-off between tolerating reduced air quality and achieving risk reduction
by fuel-reduction burning. Resolution of the question requires both more
research and effective dialogue with the community.
Long-term strategic research, planning and investment are
necessary if the Australian Government and state and territory governments are
to prepare for the changes to bushfire regimes and events that will be caused
by climate change.
There is a potential trade-off between maximising native pasture
production by using fire and avoiding biodiversity loss. Too-frequent use of
fire, and too much uniformity in fires, can result in loss of biodiversity in a
region.
Natural resource management regional plans developed under the
National Heritage Trust should take bushfire management into account and be
consistent with the bushfire risk–management process.[23]
Calls for more hazard reduction –
2003 Alpine fires
5.27
Most submissions that related to the Alpine (Vic) and Kosciusko (NSW)
National Parks referred to the lack of hazard reduction burning prior to the
2003 fires that burned a substantial area of the Australian Alps. These fires,
attributed to lightning strikes, were used as an example of fires intensifying
as a direct consequence of park management. Forest Fire Victoria wrote:
Using the 2003 Alpine fires in Victoria as an example, the fires
were caused by nature but the resulting fire event was not natural. Those fires
were fed by fuels that accumulated over decades where natural fires had been
deliberately extinguished and little or nothing had been done to reduce those
accumulating fuels by planned burning or any other means. In those places the
fires were feral, and burnt over extensive areas with an intensity and
uniformity that was alien to the natural processes that forests require for
their health, diversity and sustainability.[24]
5.28
The Snowy Mountains Bush Users Group observed:
The 2003 wildfires that ravaged KNP [Kosciusko
National Park] and the ACT were indeed a tragic event.
In KNP, two thirds or 455,000 hectares, were consumed by a fire that destroyed
everything in it’s path- eg. heritage huts and sites, wildlife, vegetation,
water quality and has contributed to major soil erosion. In Canberra four lives were lost,
500 homes and 160,000 hectares burnt.
In the last month or so we have seen similar wildfires, burning
out of control in national parks and conservation reserves, in NSW, VIC, SA and
Tasmania and breaking out and destroying farming and grazing land, stock and
property, threatening human life, towns and villages.
All this is happening while bureaucrats,
scientists and sociologists debate the merits of hazard reduction burns. [25]
5.29
Mr Ralph Barraclough, Captain of the Licola Fire Brigade, compared the
fire management regimes of Parks Victoria and the Forestry Commission
unfavourably:
Fuel reduction in national parks is grossly inadequate to
protect the environment, water supplies, stop massive erosion and stop the risk
of hundreds of people being killed. Fires escaping from this mess will
eventually destroy the timber industry and continue to threaten surrounding
communities, visitors, and water supplies. Parks Victoria has said fuel
reduction responsibilities rests with the DSE [Department of Sustainability and
Environment], yet Park Rangers have the right of veto and there appears little
accountability. The right of veto needs as a priority to be removed from Parks
Victoria.
The more restrictions put in place with fuel reduction burns the
more escapes of fires onto private land from more fuel building up. There needs
to be a return to the days when people from the old Forests Commission waited
for the right weather conditions and simply flew around throwing incendiaries
out wherever they were needed. I am unable to remember one solitary fire that
got away in our area or caused a problem. This method made the place safe at a
fraction of the cost of what is not working now.[26]
5.30
Submissions from other areas cited the Alpine fires in support of calls
for increased hazard reduction burning in their own areas. The Forest Industries
Association of Tasmania (FIAT) wrote:
FIAT believe that there has been wholly insufficient resources
directed to the management of reserved forest areas including but not limited
to fuel reduction activities including controlled burning. Extensive wildfires
in Victoria, NSW and the ACT along with several smaller but equally damaging
fires in Tasmania are testimony to the lack of attention to this vital
management tool by governments. [27]
5.31
Several submissions from Alpine regions, including that of Mr Philip Maguire,
advocated grazing as a form of hazard reduction:
I submit that the greatest threat to the Bogong High Plains is
wildfire emerging from sub-alpine forests which carry an unprecedented fuel
load and pose an extreme risk. Following each successive hot fire the fuel load
increases substantially and the risk to the plains increases exponentially.
This risk will be exacerbated seriously by the cessation of grazing due to a
build up [of] waste grass and other combustible material.[28]
5.32
However, there was scientific evidence suggesting this may not be a good
approach:
The scientific evidence on the grazing of cattle in the high
plains of Victoria is as strong as you could possibly ever get from science. It
damages sphagnum bogs; it has altered the herb field structure above the tree
line. The scientific evidence has always stacked up on one side...In the 2003
fires, above the snow line where the alpine grazing occurred, there was no
difference whatsoever with the areas burnt between the areas that had had cattle
on them for the last 50 or 100 years and those areas that did not have cattle.
The areas in which cattle have grazed in the high country for 100 years to
prevent burning showed no difference when that wildfire swept through the area...
I say again: isolate the cultural from the ecological here. You
can have a very good debate about mountain cattlemen and their role in a
cultural sense...You also have to ask the question about whether you are going to
believe the independent scientists with no vested interest in the outcome or
the people who are paying very little money to graze on public land having
never been required to go through an expression of interest process or any kind
of public tendering process for their grazing rights.[29]
5.33
Bushfire records suggest that the scale of the 2003 fires was not
unprecedented in that region, and that fire outbreaks in the Australian Alps
have been regular seasonal occurrences under previous management regimes:
These were not the first severe alpine fires, and they certainly
won't be the last. South-east Australia's vast alpine region contains some of
the most bushfire-prone country in the world. Recent data presented to the
Australian Alps Liaison committee showed there had been around 170 bushfires in
the alpine region between 1800 and 2003. Only 15 of those fires occurred after Kosciusko
National Park was formally created in 1967.
The worst alpine fire occurred in 1939. Pastoralists in the
region had by then spent almost 100 years grazing, logging and burning the high
country only to see a catastrophic fire tear through the Alps. It only stopped
when it reached the coast and remains the largest single fire event in the
alpine region's European history. Twice the area that burned in 2003 burned in
1939 and 71 people lost their lives.[30]
Calls for ecologically appropriate
burning and fire management
5.34
The inquiry received several submissions recommending that burning
regimes need to be better tailored to the ecological properties and needs of
specific areas. These calls are consistent with Findings 6.4, 6.7 and 6.11 of
the COAG National Bushfire Inquiry outlined above.
5.35
Mr Allan Holmes of the SA Department for Environment and Heritage noted
recent changes to fire management in South Australian parks that included both
the introduction of hazard reduction burning, and the recognition that there
were circumstances, sometimes temporary, where fire should be excluded from
some areas:
...one of the problems for us is that, from an ecological point of
view, we have had too much fire in a number of our parks. Ngarkat, a large park
on the Victorian border, has been extensively burnt over the last 10 years. We
would prefer to keep fire out of it altogether for a period of time. So it is
very complex. It [fire] is one of the big threatening processes—both too much
and too little.[31]
5.36
Addressing submissions that had questioned the capacity of national
parks to meet their own burning schedules, Mr Peter Cochrane explained why it
was not always appropriate to conduct hazard reduction burns in areas with high
fuel loads:
Where you have sizeable tracts of bush that have high fuel loads
and are increasingly dry, which is certainly what is happening at the moment,
the risk of even setting small fires can be too great...the cumulative effect of
this tends to mean that the risk goes up. This is not confined to national
parks; it equally applies to state forests. No-one in their right mind would
burn in unsuitable conditions. Irrespective of the nature of your land
management purpose, if it is too risky to burn, it is too risky to burn. It
would apply to pastoralists as well as those who live in country that fire is a
management tool. It does not just apply to us.[32]
5.37
Dr Beth Schultz, representing the Conservation Council of Western
Australia, questioned the extent to which Western Australian park managers
relied on burning as a management tool, while other fire management strategies
previously endorsed by the Western Australian government were not implemented:
It is of concern to me how much of that [funding provided for
park management] goes into burning. Burning is a huge issue. The federal
government—the Prime Minister, in fact—instigated an excellent inquiry by the
Council of Australian Governments into bushfire mitigation and management. They
came up with 29 excellent recommendations. The states all endorsed that, but it
is not being implemented in Western Australia. So when it comes to park
management in relation to fire, I think the excellent recommendations of that
inquiry should be implemented...Fire management is a major issue with park
management, and I think in Western Australia far too much money is spent on
burning—actually doing the burning—when there are other more environmentally
friendly ways of mitigating and managing wildfires. [33]
5.38
The priority given to activities such as firebreaks and aerial fire-setting
was also raised in relation to Queensland. Dr Paul Williams told the committee
that 'currently, evaluation of park performance primarily targets the numbers
of hectares burnt or sprayed rather than looking at whether those burns or weed
control programs have met their ecological objectives'.[34]
He observed that thorough fire management was labour intensive, and that a lot
of the fire resources allocated to QPWS were spent on broad-acre activities,
leaving other fire-management work under resourced:
Fire management in parks requires a great deal of staff time to
implement appropriately. Many of the animals in tropical Australia that are
thought to be in decline are those that live and feed amongst the grass layer,
such as granivorous birds and small mammals. It is thought that some grassy,
woodland communities will benefit from progressive burning throughout the dry
season—that is, starting to burn early enough in the dry season when only small
patches burn and progressively burning sections later in the season. This can
extend the availability of seed supply throughout the year, which is critical
for these birds and mammals. Naturally, this requires great skill and time to
implement it. The extra QPWS funding for fire management mentioned at the Brisbane
hearing primarily covers the maintenance of fire breaks and aerial ignition.
While that is good, more funds are also needed to increase the availability of
ranger time to implement and evaluate fires, including funding for travel,
overtime for night burns and possibly even casual extra employment.[35]
Figure 5.1 The committee inspecting fire break work being
conducted in a Queensland national park
5.39
Dr Williams expressed the concerns of witnesses from other states when
he told the committee that fire management required appropriate evaluation to
ensure that the objectives of activities were met:
To do the fire properly you have to go out there and have a
look, firstly to see whether the area needs burning that year and what your
objective is. You implement the fire and then you have got to go back and see
whether or not it worked. I believe this is where we are falling short in many
areas. We do not have the resources to necessarily implement enough fires in
many areas anyway, but we are certainly not evaluating them appropriately...from
a fire management point of view, we need to look more ecologically at why we
are doing it—such as weed control or promoting the abundance of a certain
animal or plant—and whether we achieved the objective.[36]
5.40
Ms Virginia Young, of the Wilderness Society, drew attention to the
ecological impact of using burning techniques that are inappropriate for a
particular site:
...perhaps you could have a conversation with CALM about not
burning the Stirling Range from the bottom up and setting off a really hot fire
that is fundamentally changing the ecology of the Stirling Range. What
naturally happens in those environments is that you have a lightning strike on
the peaks and a trickle-down, very cool, fire. What has been happening for
years is the exact opposite, and—surprise, surprise—all the ecology of that
region is changing.[37]
5.41
Some local environment groups expressed concern that reactive responses
to critical incidents could lead to excessive hazard reduction burning, or the
total suppression of fire, ultimately resulting in environmental damage. The
Blue Mountains Conservation Society wrote:
Fire management tends to be developed in a climate of
recrimination, too often fanned by the media. Governments exercise the
knee-jerk reaction, particularly if someone dies. It is far too easy to say
that ‘x’ wouldn’t have happened had ‘y’ been burned; but even though the
argument has some validity, it disregards the whole basis for having national
parks. Taken to the absurd, fire management would be greatly improved by
clearing everything and covering the remains with concrete![38]
5.42
Gecko, the Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council, was concerned
that beliefs about the adaptation of some Australian species to fire were used
as a general justification for burning, without regard to effects on particular
species, or the impact of landscape modification:
Fire management presents a very precarious problem. While some
native vegetation has adapted to fire and even rely on it to reproduce, another
part of it can be irreparably harmed in the process of proscribed burns.
Debates still occur between scientists that believe they are desirable and
those that believe it's harmful, but other affected parties, such as farmers
also have concerns. Some plant species may have fire coping mechanisms but that
in no way indicates that they are fire dependent...Many patches of wildlife
habitat are already too patchy and burning can fragment animal populations after
driving them of their land.
Queensland, along with other states, has problems with
over-reaction to bushfires, and unnecessary frequency, intensity, and
inadequate planning for intentional fires in Brisbane’s vicinity.[39]
5.43
Gecko recommended that fire management plans should be tailored to
particular ecosystems, with reference to the effects of fire at a species
level:
Fire management plans must include considerations of the species
contained within a region. Studies must be done to determine whether the
animals can survive and if there is sufficient habitat in the vicinity that is
suitable for them to sustain themselves. Studies of the specific plants and
their needs, as opposed to what they can withstand, are assessed. Many fires
are unnecessary and greater planning and knowledge would help alleviate this
problem...However, thus far most regions have not successfully designed or
implemented fire regimes that reflect the needs of their regions.[40]
5.44
Oatley Flora and Fauna Conservation Society noted that the suppression
of fire in urban areas could be detrimental to some species:
Changes in the frequencies and intensities of bushfires cause
adverse changes to habitats and species. This can be an important problem in
reserves near urban areas where fire frequencies may be either increased
through human contact, or almost eliminated to protect nearby properties. As a
number of native plants are dependent on bushfires for seed germination or for
controlling competing species, less frequent fires may be as detrimental for
some conservation purposes as more frequent fires.[41]
Current fire management practices
in national parks and reserves
5.45
Fire management is a priority activity for national parks managers. The
Department of the Environment and Water Resources noted in their submission
that:
Considerable resources must be allocated to fire management,
particularly where the safety of visitors and residents is at risk as well as
where sensitive cultural and natural values need protecting.[42]
5.46
Reserve managers who provided evidence to the inquiry described some of
the difficulties and tensions involved in managing fires on public land. Mr Peter Cochrane
told the committee:
All park agencies around Australia have been paying increasing
attention to fire and fire management for a variety of reasons, certainly not
the least being biodiversity conservation. They are trying their hardest to
both understand and then mimic natural fire regimes so that you are trying to
return country back to the state that might have existed before Europeans came
and dramatically changed both fire risk and burning. Asset management, the
pressure of neighbours, the pressure of looking after property in and around
national parks, as well as public perceptions, are all very significant drivers
on national park agencies getting fire management right. It is a very difficult
thing to get right, though.[43]
5.47
Mr Cochrane cited Booderee National Park as an the example of the
difficulty of matching burning schedules to prevailing conditions, resulting in
fuel build-up:
Essentially, we have a window of four months in a year—two lots
of two months, in spring and autumn—when we can burn. This year we burned
something like 12 per cent of the area that we planned to burn, because those
narrow windows were just not sufficiently safe to have those fires going.
Either the humidity was too high and a fire would not take or humidity was
lower than was desirable and we therefore halted the fire. I think that is the
experience of protected area agencies around the country. There are narrow
windows when you can do this safely...those windows can be very short or not
there at all, in which case you start accumulating a stock of land that you
would have burned but cannot, and that tends to build your fire risk.[44]
5.48
Several park managers reported that they had received enhanced funding
since the 2003 fires. Mr Kieran McNamara told the committee that the annual
budget available to the WA Department of Environment and Conservation for fire
purposes had been increased in recent years by 'probably $7 million or $8
million per annum'.[45]
The Department's submission explained how the additional funding was being
used:
This funding is allowing for improved fire preparedness and
on-ground fire management to occur as well as the progressive implementation of
planned fire regimes through prescribed burning in remote areas. Additional
fire ecology research capacity has also been funded.[46]
5.49
Several states reported recent changes in their approach to fire
management. Mr McNamara explained that the WA department was currently engaged
in research that would inform management of the Kimberley region, because they were
concerned about significant changes to the landscape caused by altered fire
regimes:
Fire in the north and inland is a problem, and altered fire
regimes—with the cessation of traditional Aboriginal burning and with large,
intense wild fires that run for months and cover hundreds and hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of hectares in single fires—are a serious problem
in terms of the homogenisation of that landscape...For the first time we have
appointed a fire ecologist out of our science division to the Kimberley,
because we are concerned about those issues.[47]
5.50
Fire management on private conservation reserves has not attracted the
criticisms directed at national parks. Mr Atticus Fleming described the Australian
Wildlife Conservancy's cross-tenure approach to hazard reduction on their
private reserve in the Kimberley:
Fire management is a critical issue for us up there. The Kimberley
burns to a crisp every year now. We are doing fire management from helicopters.
In the last 12 months we have introduced an aerial incendiary device which had
not been used in the Kimberley previously, so we are in a sense leading the way
in terms of fire management up there. We are working with our neighbours, with
CALM and with the Aboriginal communities. We are a conservation organisation
and this year we were invited to do fire management on the neighbouring
pastoral properties as well as the neighbouring Aboriginal land. There are
probably not too many examples of where that occurs.[48]
5.51
The systematic use of burning in South Australia is relatively recent,
and reflects a change of approach in response to community concerns. Mr Allan Holmes
told the committee that:
In South Australia there is not a history of burning for
ecological or fuel reduction purposes. That is just the way it has been here
for a long period of time. However, probably in the last 10 years, as the
result of significant fires in New South Wales, the ACT and Victoria, questions
have been asked about the appropriateness of our approach to burning. In 2002
this government committed to a major change in its approach to fire management
on public land. Over the last four years we have engaged in a program of reintroducing
fire management into public land management on any scale, both for fuel
reduction or fuel management purposes and for biodiversity conservation
purposes.
The reality is that it requires a great deal of technical
expertise and technical competence to do it well. You do not turn that round
overnight. In four years we have built some capacity. We are now able to
conduct fuel reduction burns and ecological burns at scale. In South Australia
we are starting to see that become part of our management tool kit. As I said
at the very start, it is a different landscape to the Victoria, New South Wales
and Western Australian landscapes where you have high-value forests and
different fuel levels, fire behaviours and fire ecology, so it is a different
scale. [49]
5.52
Mr Holmes described his department's fire responsibilities, noting that
the department worked within a context where there was a predictable cycle of
assigning blame following catastrophic fires:
The obligations that we have relate to that boundary protection,
reduction of fuel along boundaries and trying to ensure that you actually have
control lines on park boundaries. If you look at the work that we have done
over the last 10 years in the Adelaide Hills, which is where there is the
greatest risk, they are probably defensible. You could say: ‘Look, this land
management agency has done the right thing. It has firebreaks. It has fuel
reduction burns. It has got resources deployed. It works well with the
community fire-fighting organisations. It works well with local
government.’ But I still fear the day when we get another Ash Wednesday in the
Adelaide Hills. You will get catastrophic fire. Houses will burn, and the
inquiries will come looking to blame public land managers. You have seen that
played out in New South Wales, Canberra and Victoria. In a large part, they are
pretty good land managers who do pay attention to fire management. It is just
that we have forgotten that we live in a very dangerous environment.[50]
5.53
The Queensland Government provided details of their fire management
program, noting that expenditure had increased since 2004 'as part of an
election commitment to enhance fire management':[51]
In the 2005 fire year, the EPA planned burning program achieved
more than 0.5 million hectares of managed lands across the state. Many of these
burns are scheduled over the winter months to address protection issues [in] protected
areas and other reserves with an urban interface. In preparation for this
year’s fire season, EPA carried out ongoing pre-emptive work to ensure
on-ground readiness, including the upgrading of some 1,500 kilometres of high
priority firebreaks on and adjacent to the estate. Almost 2,000 kilometres of
firebreaks are scheduled for upgrading in the 2005-06 financial year...
Close liaison continues between EPA and all bushfire management
agencies in Queensland, particularly the Rural Fire Division of the Queensland
Fire and Rescue Service. Under its Good Neighbour Policy, EPA places an
emphasis on working with adjoining landholders, local communities and
traditional owners to manage fire on the land it manages and on surrounding
areas. This aids in developing and maintaining cooperative arrangements with
stakeholders and assists in resolving issues associated with hazard reduction
burning, fire trails and wildfire suppression.[52]
Indigenous fire knowledge
5.54
Aboriginal customary burning is incorporated into the management plans
of some reserves managed by the Director of National Parks, for example:
In both Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks, fire is used
by park management and traditional owners as a management tool, as outlined in
each management plan.[53]
5.55
Burning practices in Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park contribute to
employment and community involvement opportunities for the local Indigenous
('Anangu') people. Ms Mirjana Jambrecina told the inquiry:
Within the natural and cultural resources area we have four
staff that work on an ongoing basis with us, part time. We also have quite a
good crew of members of the community who come on as day labour...the types of
programs that we run at the moment include, for example, fire. We are doing our
burning now, in the cooler winter months. You might have noticed yesterday as
you were going out to Kata Tjuta that there was quite a crew of Anangu out
there burning with park staff.[54]
Figure 5.2 Committee
members with Parks Australia staff at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park
5.56
Some Anangu traditional owners believe that their obligations to burn
and otherwise protect country that is currently leased to Uluru-Kata Tjuta
National Park could be better supported under formal agreements between the
government and traditional owners. Mrs Barbara Tjikatu AM, said:
We have talked for a long time. We have been trying with joint
management for a long time but there are some frustrations about the lack of
support for us to extend and to get better opportunities through joint
management to better look after our country and to better look after future
generations...The work that we have to do is extensive. It is to do with looking
after fauna, burning the country to protect it and hunting—going out and being
able to continue our knowledge of our hunting skills. The government, though,
has for a long time not actually really made these things happen. They have not
signed the document that allows that kind of work to go on. The reports that
might have been made have not come to anything.[55]
5.57
The loss of Aboriginal burning regimes and other management activities
in Far North Queensland parks is threatening biodiversity in that region. Mr Bruce
White, of the Aboriginal Rainforest Council, warned that:
The failure to include Aboriginal people in the management of
the ecology of this area will ultimately result in loss of biodiversity, and
the evidence is already being reported in the annual reports of the Wet Tropics
Management Authority. They refer to the rare mahogany glider and the bettong.
The problem is that there is no longer an Aboriginal burning regime or fire
regime. The loss of the Aboriginal fire regime is putting biodiversity in
danger. When we refer to this area as being biocultural, we are just making
that very simple point: you cannot manage this area without having regard to the
role that Aboriginal people...[56]
5.58
Ms Margaret Freeman, Jiddabal traditional owner and delegate to the
Aboriginal Rainforest Council Management Committee, discussed some of the
differences in practices and outcomes between Jiddabal burning regimes and
those used by the Queensland EPA:
Let us look at what will work, what things have not worked,
where we can utilise the knowledge we have as traditional owners who have been
managing the country daily, and how we can fit that into the bureaucratic
regime. If I want to burn, it will depend on when the food sources might be
available and what the weather is. However, with EPA, it might be when their
resources are available and when they can get out to burn. I have gone out and
just about had a heart attack because they are burning at the wrong time of the
year in some places. But when you say to them, ‘You don’t burn now,’ they say,
‘Oh yes, but this is when we can do it.’ I have said, ‘It doesn’t matter when
you can do it; you are not going to regenerate the land or get the seeding of
plants to be able to revegetate if you do it now.’
Even, as a result of Cyclone Larry, when talking to the affected
traditional owner groups and saying, ‘Has EPA considered fire burn?’ they would
say, ‘Oh no, they are just going to push it all back in and let the scrub
rehabilitate itself.’ I said no, and people said, ‘But you lived in the
rainforest; you couldn’t burn,’ and I said, ‘Yes, we did burn.’ We may have
spot burnt small patches, whereas EPA will go along and say, ‘Yes, let’s burn
the whole hillside.’ That was not something that we would have done. But when
you try and put it across to them to say, ‘Look, we’ve been doing it for
thousands of years; you would think you would learn,’ they will come back 12
months later and say, ‘Oh, what did we do to the site?’ My response would be:
‘Well, you burnt it at the wrong time. That is why it hasn’t recovered to the
way it was. That is why the weeds have taken over. You burnt it at the wrong
time, or you did not supplement by environmental harvesting.’ You might have a
bug that did this job at that certain time of the year and that reduced some
other issue.[57]
5.59
Ms Freeman concluded:
That is the type of information we are trying to share with the
agency, but they are not being very receptive to it. We can see straightaway
how their lack of management has damaged our country, but it is not as evident
to them.[58]
5.60
Other traditional owners in the Cape York area have expressed concern at
being expected to entrust responsibility for protecting their country to
authorities who demonstrate little awareness of culturally appropriate burning
practices. Ms Rhonda Brim, Djabugay Native Title Holder, told the committee:
Our concern as traditional owners is that, if our sacred sites
get burnt, there is nothing to replace them and noone is accountable. Although
the government has these different departments in place caring for country, if
anything goes wrong with our cultural sites or anything, who is liable?...we
should have the permit for our sacred sites for protection. I can protect my
own history. Why wait on someone else to protect it for you?[59]
5.61
As discussed above, the WA Government is currently investigating intense
fire behaviour in the Kimberley region, because it is concerned that disruption
of Aboriginal burning has contributed to significant changes in both the
landscape and bushfire regimes.
5.62
In South Australia, there is debate about appropriate fire management on
Kangaroo Island, where the landscape and fire regimes are markedly different
to those on the mainland because they developed without adaptation to
Indigenous burning:
I do not think South Australia has those tensions that the
eastern states have—or not to the same degree—but concern about fire in South
Australia largely relates to burning on Kangaroo Island, from which Aboriginal
people were absent for probably 10,000 years. The fire regimes in Kangaroo Island
were largely natural in the sense that they were lightning induced, whereas on
the mainland of course there were both natural fires and Aboriginal burning.
They are quite different fire regimes. The concern expressed on Kangaroo Island
is that you need to be cognisant of that different regime in what you do on Kangaroo
Island. That has really been the most sensitive issue.[60]
5.63
The COAG National Bushfire Inquiry recommended (Recommendation 6.4)
that:
[F]ire agencies, land managers and researchers continue to work
in partnership with Indigenous Australians to explore how traditional burning
practices and regimes can be integrated with modern practices and technologies
and so enhance bushfire mitigation and management in current Australian
landscapes.[61]
5.64
There is potential for the management of national parks to implement co-operative
and respectful approaches towards using Indigenous knowledge, including
knowledge about fire management. Ms Melanie Stutsel, of the Minerals Council of
Australia, provided examples of how incorporating Indigenous practices into the
management of land rehabilitation had improved relations between mining
companies and Aboriginal communities, and produced benefits for both parties:
Where possible, we have tried to use Indigenous knowledge in
terms of fire management, seed regeneration and rehabilitation and revegetation
practices. Some of that revegetation has been in seeking to grow bush foods in
an area, to provide economic opportunity for Aboriginal people post closure.
But when we are using that information, it is very important that we respect
the appropriate cultural protocols in using it. So there are some situations in
which that work is undertaken purely by Indigenous people on behalf of the
industry. There are other aspects where it is undertaken in partnership. We
would argue that those principles could be applied to the management of
conservation areas as well.[62]
Community attitudes and skills
5.65
In urban areas, fire is no longer widely used as an everyday tool,
either in the household for cooking and heating, or for small-scale land
management activities such as burning rubbish or leaves. Some submissions
pointed to this loss of familiarity with fire as cultural deskilling that
encourages negative or fearful attitudes towards using fire as a management
tool. Mr Douglas Treasure wrote:
The management of fire is another issue that needs looking at. A
lot of work is just starting on that issue. A lot of this fire stuff is urban
driven. My wife is a secondary school teacher. She teaches science. She said
that if you give kids a Bunsen burner and a box of matches today they just do
not know how to handle them as fire is not part of our everyday life these
days. Fire is thought of as being bad. You read in the paper that fire destroys
things. But fire regenerates things in the high country. It is a matter of how
it is managed.[63]
5.66
The Bushfire Front identified lack of fire awareness and skills amongst
park managers and staff as a serious problem that increases the risk of fires
behaving unpredictably:
One of the most serious consequences of the failure of park
services to build and maintain good staff is the decline in field operatives
with sound experience in the practicalities of green burning. It is almost as
disastrous as no burning to put a burning program in the hands of people who
don’t know how to burn. The result is fires which are too hot, which escape and
cause damage, and which reduce the credibility of the entire approach.[64]
5.67
Mr Allan Holmes called for greater awareness and acceptance of the risks
of living in fire-prone areas:
The harsh reality is that people who live in fire-prone areas
have got to look after themselves. There has to be some community resilience.
You cannot do enough to protect them. Our loss of life on Eyre Peninsula last
year, where almost a dozen people perished, shows that. When you look back at
that, we were in the business of trying to apportion blame: ‘Was it a land
manager’s fault? Was it the firefighters’ fault?’ But if you read all of the
coronial inquiries into fires over the last 30 years, you conclude that we have
forgotten that we live in a very fire-prone environment where on catastrophic
days you are going to get fires that will burn houses and threaten life. If you
live in those environments, you have got to take care. I think that is a really
important starting point.[65]
5.68
WWF-Australia and the IUCN proposed that for a fire management strategy
to be effective it must address prevention, response and restoration. In
relation to prevention, they proposed a number of measures designed to change
community attitudes towards fire, stating:
...many forest fires need not occur, however they will continue to
ignite and degrade forests as long as governments fail to focus on both the
direct and underlying causes of unwanted fires. In practice this means that
governments must develop and implement programmes that influence people to
modify the way they use fire, for example through enacting and enforcing laws
that focus on prevention of fires and through focussed efforts on changing
attitudes towards the use of fire. They must also ensure that laws and policies
are fair (e.g. result in equitable sharing of costs and benefits and
recognition of community-use rights), and seek out and remove perverse
incentives that may encourage harmful fires.[66]
5.69
The Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council suggested that
planning regulation could be used more effectively to reduce fire risks to
people and property:
As one of the main reasons people call for proscribed burns is
that they are concerned for the safety of their houses and property, it is
advisable to restrict new building to areas that are sufficiently removed from
the bush. Although many building plan restrictions include a reference to this,
it is not sufficient.[67]
5.70
This call for better use of planning controls to reduce perceived risks
to the public from fires in national parks was supported by the National Parks
Association of NSW:
A strategic approach that focuses on asset protection at the
perimeter of bushland and good planning controls on new development is a far
more realistic and effective approach.[68]
Conclusion
5.71
Fire needs to be carefully and thoughtfully managed in the Australian
environment. It appears fire is in many respects still poorly understood,
particularly in terms of evaluating the effectiveness of different fire
management strategies and assessing fire's impacts.
5.72
It was obvious from evidence received by the committee that, by land
managers' own admission, more could be done to manage fire, but better
management will rely to some degree on developing a better understanding of
fire. In this regard the committee endorses the call of the House of
Representatives inquiry for more research, and hopes all governments will give
a sense of urgency to those research efforts. The committee notes that the
Australian government's response to the House of Representatives committee
report included additional funding for the Bushfire CRC.[69]
5.73
The committee was particularly struck by three aspects of the evidence
it received, including impressions gained during site visits. One was that fire
will always be a natural part of the Australian environment, and the very
nature of that environment (with frequent dry spells and limited periods during
the year when it is safe to attempt controlled burns) means that there will
always be uncontrollable bushfires from time to time. This is most evident from
evidence regarding the Australian Alps, which experienced their worst fires in
1939, under a completely different land tenure and management regime to that in
place when fires burnt there in 2003. A significant part of living in and
managing the environment must be acceptance of fire and ensuring preparedness
for it.
5.74
The second was the importance of State based departments having adequate
resources on the ground for fire management. This was a recurrent theme during
the inquiry, along with the over-use of fire as a management tool. The
committee will return to this issue in later chapters.
5.75
The third was the scope for Indigenous knowledge and participation to
assist in effective use of fire in Australian environments, from the desert to
the rainforest. Where it is possible, the committee strongly endorses a greater
role for local Indigenous people in the use of fire to manage the conservation
estate.
Recommendation 3
5.76
The committee recommends that all governments give greater priority to
Indigenous knowledge and participation in park management generally, and fire
management in particular.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page