5% of public land

The Royal Commission recommended burns to over 5% of our natural landscape annually have finally been shown to be a waste of time, money and horrifically damaging to our biodiversity.
The recent review (link is external) of the burn targets used 12 criteria to measure how effective the blunt hectare-based target is compared to the proposed risk-reduction target. The hectare burns scored 13/48 (a serious flunk!) while a risk-based target scored 40/48. This is what EEG and thousands of others have been saying since day one. This excellent and informative summary originally published by Environment East Gippsland (EEG) here: http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/news/planned-burns-review-and-recommendations-%E2%80%93-admits-failure-%E2%80%93-plans-for-more-effective-risk See also AWPC fire and wildlife conference for more background.

In Feb 2015 Environment Minister, Lisa Neville asked for a review of the 5% burn target and their effectiveness. Tony Pearce, the Inspector General of Emergency Management released this report and recommendations in April/May - a surprisingly quick turnaround time.

It was welcome relief to see the review recommend a shift from just burning, to look at more effective measures to keep people safe and the environment protected. Let’s hope our wildlife and ecosystems can recover after five years of horrendous arson attacks across millions of hectares.
One worrying aspect was the suggestion that it could take another year of the old burning regime before they can implement the new direction of reducing risk rather than reducing our environment. They still need to develop their capability on risk-based planning they say. With a score of 13/48, and maximum environmental damage to boot, maybe they’d be better off to not burn at all until they develop their new program.

What the report said

The Review acknowledges that Rec 56 of the Bushfire Royal Commission just had a broad 5% target policy to burn areas that “are not of equal value”, and that it refers to public land “but remains silent on whether that land is treatable or untreatable”. p2.

In 2013, Neil Comrie the Bushfire Royal Commission Implementation Monitor stated clearly in his report that the 5% target was not achievable, affordable or sustainable. This was repeated in subsequent reports.

The Code of Fire Management has 2 primary objectives – one being to minimise the risk of bushfire and protect human life. The other which has been totally neglected in the last 5 years is:

To maintain or improve the resilience of natural ecosystems and their ability to deliver services such as biodiversity, water, carbon storage and forest products. P 30

How they measure ecosystem resilience is still a question. DELWP don’t have the capacity despite it being a requirement of them to ensure such resilience. It’s still ‘in development’.

The review stated that a risk based approach was:

• More efficient at achieving fuel management
• Provides better incentives (not relying on a numbers game)
• More adaptive, transparent, efficient and equitable.

After years of convincing the public that leaf litter is a killer, the Department fire managers now have to re-set their messaging to convince a fearful public that they were a bit wrong, and there are now better ways to make communities safer. They mention shared responsibility - with other agencies and by encouraging people to be responsible for their own assets we assume. There is also a welcome acknowledgment of the serious health and economic impacts from burn-off smoke.
They talk of community preparedness, shared responsibility, improved rapid first-strike attack, fire shelters and evacuation. We would also like to see them consider other options such as remote heat sensing cameras installed at key points, enhancing the natural fire resistance of our forests and less financial incentives to keep fires going.

Another welcome sentence was:

...bushfire risk can be reduced through activities other than fuel management, such as land use planning controls, community education, suppression strategies, availability of fire refuges, or evacuations…”

and that:

…recommendation 56 (5% burn target)… is only one of many relating to bushfire management.

There was a telling chart which showed the level of planned burns in relation to major bushfire events. There was no correlation that could be drawn between more burns and less bushfires.
Modelling by DELWP estimates that the 5% burn target reduces bushfire risk to people by about 18%, whereas the risk based approach could achieve a 30% risk reduction for the same cost.

The environment gets a look in

The review received 127 written submissions from groups or individuals. Most were very concerned at the devastating impacts the burns policy has had on their local and the wider environment. The policy evaluation which the review carried out showed that under the criteria ‘ensure the resilience of natural ecosystems and their services’, the 5% burn target score ZERO out of four. Under the proposed new approach, it scores three out of four. Not only that, but it is also more effective at keeping people safe and the best return on money spent. A fire safety plan where ecosystem protection scores four out of four would be even better though.

The report also mentions the need to monitor water and air quality in relation to burns. There is a need for more information, reporting, performance measurements and reviews, and in a way that is accessible to the public it says. All this would be conditional on funding and resources of course.
The RMIT was engaged to carry out an independent analysis of the impact on the environment. Under the 5% target it said:

The primacy of the hectares burned target dis-incentivises incorporation of ecosystem resilience considerations… Ecosystem resilience can be actively harmed by large scale burns when they destroy micro-ecosystems and fauna lack alternative habitats within reach. Appendix 4, p11.

But…

Regarding ‘fuel reduction’ it also states that:

Given planned burning is the most effective approach to reducing the fuel hazard over large areas, the practice is likely to remain a significant component of the Bushfire Management Program. p46.

So while it states that there are many tools in the tool box and burning was a costly, relatively ineffective and environmentally destructive tool, it will still be a significant part of annual fire safety measures. This was the worrying sentence within an otherwise refreshing document. The only other criticism is that the review was five years too late. But we thank Lisa Neville for realising that such a rethink was finally needed.

See also: 1 in 10 wild bees faces extinction in Europe, study warns (25/3/15)

Inappropriate fuel-reduction could see more losses of threatened species.

In late January, 2014, after wildfires tore through two conservation parks in South Australia, researchers scoured the charred terrain for signs of life.  Tragically, they found nothing; only the charred silence of an empty, burnt landscape!  The 60 remaining breeding pairs of Mallee emu-wren (Stipiturus mallee) in South Australia had been lost and the species was now extinct in the state.

The fires ignited in two conservation parks in South Australia’s Mallee region that were home to the only remaining South Australian populations of the endangered Mallee Emu-wren, and another fire in the Victorian mallee, 12 kilometres southwest of Ouyen, burnt the entire 13,000-hectare reserve that was one of two small populations in Victoria of the endangered Black-eared Miner. (Article republished from the Australian Wildlife Protection Website at "End of the line for the tiny Mallee Emu-Wren?"

The only remaining population in the world of Mallee Emu Wren occurs at a single area in north-western Victoria. They became extinct in South Australia last summer after wildfires burnt them out.

“The fact that we lost several significant bird populations in fires linked to a single heat wave event highlights just how vulnerable many of these species are,” says ecologist Dr Rohan Clarke from Monash University’s School of Biological Sciences.

(image: Mallee Emu-wren)

“There is nothing left of an emu-wren after a fire, not even a pile of ash,” says Professor Michael Clarke, head of Life Sciences at La Trobe University. These tiny birds are unable to flee an approaching fire, and any that survive the flames have nowhere to live after the fire has passed. He says that “the Mallee region, which is home to less than 3 per cent of the state’s at-risk population, has been repeatedly targeted for planned burns in recent years, with up to 17 per cent of the program being held in that area“. Ironically, the Mallee does not have high human populations! Government agencies will choose the least risky areas and the more convenient areas to burn, to complete their target, rather than protect human lives and property.

According to Birdlife Australia, the Victorian Government (Lib) stands accused of all but guaranteeing the extinction of threatened Mallee birds as a consequence of its bushfire prevention policy. The Mallee emu-wren, in particular, was just one fire away from being wiped from the planet. At the end of last year, 2014, there were at total of 314 in Australia – and five of them, including the Victorian Murray Mallee, are in danger of losing the species for which The Mallee was one of the most important sites for birds in the world!

In 2006, it was estimated that less than 3000 Mallee Emu-wrens remained and are mainly restricted to conservation zones. With a highly fragmented habitat, each of the five or six isolated populations is particularly vulnerable to being wiped out by fire.

After the devastation of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission set a yearly target to burn five per cent of public land to reduce bushfire risk across the state.

Birdlife Australia’s head of conservation, and Guy Dutson, a world authority on birds of the south-west Pacific region, says “cannot be reburnt for at least 15 to 20 years”.

The Mallee Emu-wren is about 10 to 15 cm in length and has a mass of 4 to 6.5 g. The adult male has a black bill and the adult female has a dark brown bill, but both sexes have dark-brown irides and pinkish-brown legs and feet. The Mallee Emu-wren occurs in mallee regions south of the Murray River, in south-eastern South Australia and north-western Victoria. The decline of the Mallee Emu-wren has mainly been due to the extensive loss, degradation and fragmentation of its habitat caused by broad-scale clearing and fire.

Despite the listing of the Mallee emu wren under the Flora and Fauna Act, the Victorian Coalition failed to develop an action plan for its protection despite a massive expansion of native forest burning under the banner of “hazard reduction” burning! In fact most of the Mallee burning in remote areas contributes little to improving the safety of lives and property, but is about fulfilling government targets!

BirdLife Australia welcomed the announcement in February this year that the Federal Government will fund a program to protect the birds. The announcement builds on the outcomes of an Emergency Summit which BirdLife Australia hosted last year. The program will create an insurance population could be a lifesaver. Mallee Emu-wren and Black-eared Miner (VIC) got $110,000! However, a captive “insurance” population can’t replace species living where they naturally live, to further be extinguished on release by fires! It’s a band-aid, politically-motivated token, rather that the holistic approach of actually protecting the birds in their natural habitats!

Australian wildlife, along with insects, and fungi,once played a key role in ensuring ‘cool’ burns rather than the all-devastating wildfires. The loss of leaf eating moths, dung beetles and a variety of leaf and coarse woody debris recycling insects is contributing to a potentially high frequency fire cycle. The torching of wildlife, assumed to be collateral damage to keep “us” safe, is barbaric, anthropocentric, and will fuel more fires by working against Nature, rather than with it.

Habitat clearance and degradation has been the major threat to Black-eared Miners. Old growth mallee is the preferred habitat of Black-eared Miners, and they prefer habitat that has not been burnt for 40 years or more.

David Packham, former bushfire CSIRO scientist, is urging more 'fuel reduction' burns to our precious bushland. But more and more people are noticing that wildlife are not 'bouncing back' after the constant burning in Victoria. The yearly target of burning five per cent of public land, purportedly to reduce bushfire risk in Victoria (after the 2009 bushfires), means that within 20 years or even less, there will be no viable bushland left in this state on public land if people allow this to happen. Forests and their inhabitants just do not recover from this kind of assault, despite common propaganda that this is 'normal' for Australia. Kooris have since denied that this was their practice. People need to ask themselves, 'Who benefits?" when they hear calls for even more burning. The forestry industry benefits by replanting rows of straight pines which provide little habitat for animals and are in fact very flammable. The property development industry also benefits when bushland is razed by fire.

After the devastation of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission set a yearly target to burn five per cent of public land to reduce bushfire risk across the state.

According to former CSIRO bushfire scientist, David Packham, forest fuel levels have worsened over the past 30 years because of “misguided green ideology”, vested interests, political failure and mismanagement, creating a massive bushfire threat.

He is arguing that unless the annual fuel reduction burning target, currently at a minimum of 5 per cent of public land, “is doubled or preferably tripled, a massive bushfire disaster will occur”!

Rather than Victoria’s “failed forest management” being a threat, our State’s excessive and draconian response of 5% to be burnt each year is itself a threat to forest environments. We must live with Nature, not destroy it with draconian “management”.

This expert is failing to see the forests for the trees, and seems to think that the wholesale destruction of forests, with more burning, will “save” them – in a maligned effort to protect human lives and assets?

Many academics are promoting fire for forestry and mining. The Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre shares a chairman with the cooperative Research Centre Mining and the forestry Co-operative research Centre based at Tasmania University.

State agencies will choose the easiest route of randomly burning sensitive environments, to fill quotas, and in the process kill off flora, fauna and habitat features as mere collateral damage!

Reports published by the CSIRO and BirdLife Australia cite “inappropriate fire regimes” as threatening more than 50 Australian mammal and 50 Australian bird species.

They concede that to some extent the old adage ‘fight fire with fire’ applies. Used well, fire is an effective, economical tool for land managers.

Reintroduction of occasional fire into some landscapes, and return to a finer mosaic of burning, will not prevent wildfires; it may, however, reduce their impact, by maintaining fire-dependent habitat and

protecting fire-sensitive birds. Kakadu National Park, subjected to decades of management burning, has all but lost its fauna from too frequent fire, which is likely the cause of the loss of the hollow dependent Gouldian Finch from vast areas of its frequently burned former range.

(image:”GouldianFinches” by Nigel Jacques (Kris) – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons)

The original forests of Gippsland were not flammable, settlers of Fish Creek were not able to burn the forest to clear land until the railway line was cut through, bringing in a ‘draft’. This is a common story Australia wide in formerly wet forested areas.

Climate change is also said to be playing a role, with the biennial Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO State of the Climate Report 2014 finding that rising greenhouse gas emissions are causing fire seasons to lengthen and are contributing to an increase in the number of fire risk days, particularly in the south-east of Australia.

Bill Gammage is an Adjunct Professor at the Humanities Research Centre, studying Aboriginal land management at the time of contact. He has convinced quite a few environmentally concerned people through his book ‘The Biggest Estate on Earth’ that regular burning is needed. It contains many fundamental flaws and represents ‘blind advocacy’ for repeated burning’ because ‘Aboriginal people did it’. Mooney et. al. examined over 200 sediment cores of 70,000 years or more of age to determine fire frequency. They found that fire frequency increased 50 fold with the arrival of Europeans.

However, more fires to fight fire is like using a sledge hammer to drive in a tack, or killing fleas on a dog with a shotgun!

Joel Wright, a Gunditjmara Linguist, has found no evidence of landscape burning in the Victorian western district but outlined the use of fire for smoke signals, and as an effective weapon against settlers. Research shows that fires have increased 50 fold since European settlement, so “fuel reduction” to make the bush less flammable seems to be having the opposite effect.

Natural ecological functions have always existed to limit fires, such as fungi, bacteria, insects, native species, high forest densities and tree canopies.

The Andrews government will review the minimum 5 per cent burning target in response to a Inspector-General’s report. Five years ago, both major parties backed the “minimum of 5 per cent” target, a key recommendation of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission held after Black Saturday.

Fire management needs to be multidisciplinary, and not simply about human welfare, stock and property assets. The timing of the burns should also take heed of breeding times and seasons for the species present, particularly those that are already rare or threatened due to the loss of habitat, food or human encroachment. We need to work out how we carry out our works without disturbing the nesting, roosting and breeding times for those animals in that immediate areas near human settlements.

Fire management needs to be optimised and based on where the greatest risks are, not on the metrics of hectares or percentages of Victoria’s landscape.

Prescribed burns in Victoria, leave many hundreds of thousands of dead wildlife- have just watched this video and am shocked – had no idea how bad the results of prescribed burns are- video exposes unsustainable toll on native animals with planned & implemented burns in Victoria, causing immense suffering and death ~Maryland Wilson

Article reprinted from AWPC website

Government sanctioned prescribed burns is the biggest wildlife issue in Victoria.

One of the most critical issue is the restriction placed on wildlife rescuers and carers by DEPI which prevents them from attending fires & get in and do rescues before DEPI ‘clean up’ dead and kill injured wildlife.

Approximately 4 years ago DES compiled protocols for the rescue of animals from fire areas. Many rescuers and carers were trained in the protocols and bought their personal protection gear; some were given further training as Team Leaders which was sponsored by Wildlife Victoria, gaining a TAFE qualification. To date none of these rescuers and carers has been allowed onto any fire ground in time to save animals, they were kept waiting for days and weeks until the fire ground was ‘safe’ meaning cold.

The DEPI clean up is difficult to prove but there are stories of shooters being employed in Wilson’s Promontory National Park to shoot injured and dying animals but they are said to have run out of ammunition. Photos were only possible when people could get into fires before the ‘bag men’ arrived & buried the dead wildlife which they likely did at Walkerville this year. Out of sight out of mind

Public reaction to Sam Koala that the firemen gave ‘a drink’, in lead up to Black Saturday Fires was massive. However the original ‘Sam’ was injured during a fuel reduction burn and eventually died!

Scientists found that fire dramatically changes the abundance of resources critical to animals in semi-arid ecosystems, such as spinifex hummocks and tree hollows. This doesn’t just occur in the immediate aftermath of a fire; the impacts continue for a century after burning.

There needs to be an alternative approach that identifies areas to burn on the basis of where the greatest reduction in risk to life and property can be achieved, while also minimising the risk to biodiversity.

The Conversation: Burnoff policies could be damaging habitats for 100 years

With an election coming up it may be opportune for the incoming Government to pause and reflect on the situation with DEPI, the huge loss of wildlife and wildlife rescuers being allowed onto fire grounds.

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc is totally opposed to any deliberate burning and burning vast areas of vegetation much of which is remote from human habitation for perhaps, for no other reason than to fulfil the annual 5% requirement of prescribed burns as set by the Royal Commission for the sole reason of reaching the state-wide target. It's like shooting a dog to kill the fleas!

Groups based in Western Victoria, have produced a You Tube video titled ‘Victoria-what are we really burning?". It is an excellent, hard- hitting expose of the government’s fuel reduction burning program and its effects on native wildlife species. It encourages us all to write to Environment Ministers Victoria (and West Australia) urging them to review the burning program. We hope the video goes viral and minister gets swamped with angry responses from people everywhere. We hope it will lead to a change in government’s burning policy. DEMAND CHANGE.

Following the disastrous Black Saturday wildfires, the Victorian Government has established a policy to burn 5% of all public land each year despite any fires which have occurred by lightning or other means. Sadly, most of the burning occurs in national parks and wilderness areas (where no one lives), simply to reach their ‘target’ of burning nearly 400,000 hectares annually.

If successful in achieving their ‘target’ it would mean there’s no bush on public land in Victoria (including national parks) older than 20 years. As most people are aware, there are a great many species of native plants and animals that require old-growth habitats- such as the critically endangered Malleefowl and the Mallee Emu Wren.

This mindless burning program is carried out with little (if any) scientific research or long-term monitoring. “I can assure you that prescribed burns go far beyond barbarity- and need to be highlighted as such by us-if not us who else? Hope this helps. I want to see that full page spread on FACEBOOK” ~ Peta Rakela West Australia.

Peta says further “I do not think AWPC should drop the issue under any circumstance whatsoever. I have given thought to the matter and believe it is our responsibility to ensure that the public know the truth. Do not be silenced by others. A friend of mine uses the word perception a lot. She says that when you use it you are not putting yourself in the firing line re the threat of being sued. When I tell you the Victorian and West Australian Governments act barbarically, and criminally, that is exactly what I am telling you. You can state that there is a perception that the acts are criminal etc…There is a general perception… I am with you 100%- enough of the namby pamby talk- call it as you see it…it hasn’t worked for the last 200 plus years They are not only burning the ‘s- – -‘ out of everything but chopping every tree in sight down- this is lunacy- and incitement of mass hysteria and is totally irresponsible and reprehensible government policy. I’d also encourage a call for photos and evidence from general public to get it out there, date time place”

(image below on YouTube: Clive Crouch OAM Pic: dead koala/ring-tail possum)

CommunityRun petition: End deadly prescribed burns in Victoria

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My email to Hon, Lisa Neville: Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change

The Hon. Lisa Neville, MP
[email protected]
Dear Lisa Neville,

The members of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council are concerned about the horrendous amount of burning in Victoria, of 5% each year, to reduce fuel.

For three years the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission’s independent monitor Neil Comrie has strongly advised the Victorian Government to abandon one of the commission’s recommendations: the call to burn 390,000ha of public land annually for fuel reduction.

Yet Environment Minister Ryan Smith is sticking to that target and, even more puzzling, DEPI plans to increase that annual target to an extraordinary 450,000ha. There is more than an environmental, but political reason for all this burning in our State! The evidence is increasing that this overly simplistic target is not the best way to increase public safety, and it is likely to lead to long-term damage to our finest natural areas.

Five leading fire behaviour scientists in Australia, Canada and the US have demonstrated that managing the ignition point of a fire through increased capacity for rapid attack, and by closing public access to remote areas during high fire danger days, was more effective in reducing the extent of fire than fuel management.

This is an over-reaction to Black Saturday, and is broad-scale burning all over our State, even in remote areas. The VNPA has always argued against the 5% target, saying it is an unnecessarily simplistic solution to a complex problem. Even the Royal Commission's own Expert Advisory panel said it wouldn't work. Many burns are now being undertaken in areas where they are impacting greatly on native species, such as the remarkable Mallee Fowl, a species that requires increasingly rare long-unburnt habitat. How many native birds, animals and their habitats must be destroyed when there's no guarantee that this carnage will avoid another Black Saturday?

Many studies show that we now have very little long-unburnt bush left in Victoria, even in remote areas such as the Mallee, and that the impacts on native wildlife are serious and growing. Already our native animals are struggling against multiple human impacts, and climate change, yet these burns will destroy more of their habitats, and cause carnage that can't be justified.

A more conclusive and targeted response would be to build fire-resistant homes, be fire-ready, and reduce fuel in targeted areas close to human habitation and livestock areas, not just in an ad hoc manner across the whole of our State.

The future statewide target of 390,000 ha is setting us on a level of management burning unprecedented in Victoria's history. This 'rolling target' (if it is not reached in any one year, the deficit is to be added to the next year's target) is to be achieved regardless of the extent of bushfire in any season.

Australia has the highest rate of mammal extinctions in modern times, and there's no room for complacency with regards the the protection and survival of our biodiversity.

We would appreciate your Party's policy and position on this issue, before the next State elections.

Thank you
Vivienne Ortega
Secretary, Australian Wildlife Protection Council
KINDNESS HOUSE
Suite 18, 288 Brunswick St
Fitzroy 3065 Victoria