John O’Donnell

It was good to see that the NSW Government has committed $315.2 million over the next four years to complete the recommendations of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry in the 2022-23 NSW Budget in the media releases of 12 June and 13 June 2022.

Another NSW Government media release Massive investment in bushfire management and climate change adaptation was issued on Sunday 12 June 2022.

In spite of the positives, in the opinion of the author of this article there are seven areas of concern in relation to this recent funding, earlier funding, inadequate funding of key risk areas, the earlier bushfire inquiry and other concerns associated with bushfire management, as outlined below:

1. Inadequate fuel management/ prescribed burning across NSW landscapes putting NSW communities and fire fighters at high risk

A major problem is that current approaches and the bushfire inquiry did not adequately consider fuel management/ prescribed burning across NSW landscapes and with the right conditions, it won’t be long before our forests will receive further major bushfire events across landscapes.  It is understood that prescribed burning/ hazard reduction was the most common issue raised to the NSW bushfire inquiry, there were 650 submissions in regards to this. 

Information below in regards to the importance of prescribed burning as extracted from Morgan et al (2020):

The risks to human lives, property, biodiversity and the environment associated with wildfire are increasing in south-eastern Australia due to climate change, and the wider use of prescribed burning is essential for managing these. The increasing extent and occurrence of wildfire disasters in the region indicates that current fire management will not sustain the full range of ecosystem processes and biodiversity, nor reduce to an acceptable level the impact of wildfires on human lives and property. There is compelling evidence for the greater use of prescribed burning to reduce wildfire risks and impacts, rather than committing increasing resources to wildfire suppression.

As outlined in my earlier article Review of prescribed burning and wildfire burning across Australia, the NSW/ ACT dataset (prescribed burning and wildfire burn areas between 1960 to 2019) highlights the following observations:

• Prescribed burning has been very low over the full range of the data set, noting some increased areas were undertaken between 1975 to 1991. 
• Prescribed burning has been higher than wildfire burn area in a small-moderate number of years, notably when wildfire burn area was at a low level.
• Wildfire burn area has overtopped prescribed burning area in a very large way in a large number of years.
• There have been extreme peaks in wildfire burn area in many years over the dataset.

In conclusion, there is a long term inadequate prescribed burning program across the landscape in place that needs to be urgently addressed.

The available NSW data confirms inadequate prescribed burning in general and across landscapes (data extracted from RFS Annual Reports):

• the average annual prescribed burning in NSW between 2003/2004 to 2010/11 was 112,803 hectares over 20.4 million hectares of forest in NSW.
• the average annual prescribed burning in NSW between 2011/12 to 2018/ 2019 was 146,681 hectares over 20.4 million hectares of forest in NSW.
• in 2020/ 21, the prescribed burning figure in NSW was 161,959 hectares, including private 88,852 ha, NPWS 53,145 ha, Forestry Corporation of NSW 9,506 ha, Lands 1,559 ha and Local Government Authority 553 ha.  Note that RFS undertook approximately 6,062 ha of prescribed burning, allocated in the above figures.

These prescribed burning areas are very small, and mostly less than 1% of forested areas per annum in NSW and inadequate to reduce fuel loads, reduce wildfire risks and areas and maintain healthy forests.

It is accepted that there will be some increases in areas prescribed burnt in NPWS areas and RFS as a result of the new funding for these agencies.

2. Funding appears to be issued for selected agencies and missing key sectors and opportunities

Matt Kean Treasurer Minister for Energy James Griffin Minister for Environment and Heritage, Massive Investment in Bushfire Management and Climate Change Adaptation, key points:

• Minister for Environment James Griffin said the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), in collaboration with the Rural Fire Service (RFS), conducts about 75% of all hazard reduction burning in NSW.
• “This is a major part of our response to the Bushfire Inquiry, which resulted in a 20% increase in NPWS hazard reduction targets in high-risk areas.
• “This will ensure NPWS can increase hazard reduction activity, strengthen remote area  firefighting capability, and is supported to continue its critical work protecting communities and the environment from the threat of bushfires.”

As the Ministers noted in a media release, two agencies undertake about 75% of all prescribed burning in NSW across approximately 7 to 8 million hectares, if this figure is accurate. 

It is unclear what new NSW funding will apply to other key agencies such as Forest Corp, Crown Lands, forested local Government areas (not state owned lands), as well as large areas of freehold and lease lands, all key components in regards to NSW bushfire management.  There is of the order of 12 million hectares of forests across these areas in NSW. 

Considering the barriers to prescribed burning, bureaucracies within the process, prosecution risks and lack of any real incentives for prescribed burning, the author is of the opinion that it is somewhat of an achievement that landholders and managers of these areas are undertaking the limited prescribed burning areas that they are undertaking. 

Also, in the author’s opinion, there are huge opportunities to work with these groups, including in cooperative prescribed burning programs across landscapes, incentivising prescribed burning for these identified sectors and reducing barriers to prescribed burning.

Increased focus on these other areas/ sectors would increase prescribed burning, result in healthier and more resilient landscapes and reduce bushfire risks to forests, including conservation areas in major bushfire years, reducing the risk of long run bushfires across large areas of landscapes.

3. Presence of very high fuel loads across NSW resulting from inadequate prescribed burning programs across all tenures

As outlined in “The Truth About Fuel Reduction Burning” on the Western Australia Bushfire Front website, real data gathered from almost 60 years of historical data from the forests of south west WA that unequivocally shows that when the area of prescribed burning trends down, the area of uncontrolled bushfires (wildfires) trends up. There is a simple explanation: bushfires are more difficult to put out in long unburnt, heavy fuels. The area annually burnt by bushfire escalates exponentially when the area of prescribed burning in a region falls below 8% per annum. Burning about 8% per annum results in about 40% of bushland carrying fuels 0 to 5 years old.   

Fuel loads and fuel ladders/ strata are important issues and not given the importance they deserve in NSW. Average annual prescribed burning in NSW ranges around 1% across forested areas per year. Burning about 1% per annum results in about 5% of bushland carrying fuels 0 to 5 years old, way below necessary levels.   

The issue of fuel loads across the 5.4 million hectares of NSW impacted by the 2019/ 20 bushfires receives scant attention.  Fuel loads and strata build up very quickly after intense bushfires, refer Figure 1.

The other important issue is fire brand and ember risks.  With such little prescribed burning and large areas of high fuels, firebrands are a very high risk where the many applicable fire brand tree species are located.

4. Inadequate focus on establishing and managing resilient, healthy and safe landscapes across NSW

The current approach to inadequate prescribed/ ecological maintenance burning impacts on the health of forests as organic matter builds up, eucalypts decline.  If readers have the time, take a look at the tree crowns and assess the extent of fuel and strata, extent of dead branches, sick crowns and epicormic growth where low intensity fire hasn’t occurred for long periods.  Also take a look at the crowns of eucalypts impacted by intense bushfires.  This issue is of national importance and is poorly understood or in many cases ignored.

Jurskis et al (2020) note some important information in relation to establishing and managing resilient, healthy and safe landscapes:

Mild burning of these anthropogenic landscapes consumes relatively little biomass and produces relatively little charcoal. Although burning by people has typically been regarded as an ecological disturbance, the historical evidence, together with traditional Aboriginal knowledge, suggests that it is actually maintenance, essential to sustain our natural environment. We conclude that people can reinstate resilient, healthy and safe landscapes irrespective of climate change.

The USA/ US Forest Service has recognised the importance of healthy and resilient forests.  In the USA, the Forest Service is responsible for restoring, enhancing and maintaining the national forests. The Department administers a number of programs to achieve this objective.

The Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) was enacted in 2003. The Initiative aimed to restore forest landscapes to historical fire-resilient ecological conditions. The HFI allowed the USDA Forest Service to plan and conduct fuel reduction treatments across the breadth of the national forest system. This was to be achieved through combined use of prescribed burning and mechanical harvesting. The HFI was followed by the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Programme (CFLRP). The CFLRP was created in 2009 to, amongst other aims, reduce emergency wildfire costs and risks.

In 2022, the US Forest Service released the important document Confronting the Wildfire Crisis, A Strategy for Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in America’s Forests and associated documents in mid-January 2022. 

Fire Adapted Communities Leaning Network (2021) (in the USA) notes:

The vision of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy asks us, as a nation, to live with wildland fire. To achieve this sweeping vision, the Cohesive Strategy has three goals: fire adapted communities, safe and effective wildfire response and resilient landscapes. We can’t achieve any of these goals without the fundamental interaction between people and place.

It is important for NSW and Australia to implement the establishment and management of resilient, healthy and safe landscapes using low intensity fire.

In another NSW Government media release, Farmers supported to build natural capital of 19 June 2022, Matt Kean, James Griffin and Dugald Saunders:

Matt Kean said this landmark investment will reward farmers who voluntarily reduce their carbon emissions and protect biodiversity. “This is great news for farmers and the environment. This funding will help improve biodiversity and lower emissions across NSW, and our farmers will receive tangible benefits for sustainable land management practices,” Mr Kean said.

Interestingly, the use of low intensity fire assists in the reduction of carbon emissions and protecting biodiversity, whilst reducing wildlife risks and impacts, and appears to fit this program well.  It is opportune that the farming industry could progress this important issue, a win win situation.

5. Focus on bushfire suppression in NSW and inadequate levels of fire mitigation

Keeping communities safe is a big issue of the media release.  It is an important issue, but the focus remains on suppression and much less so on prevention measures such as prescribed burning programs in NSW, this also applies to Australia and the USA, particularly across landscapes.

The Menzies Research Centre (2020) policy paper found:

In addition to the recommendations outlined in the report; IAG urges governments at all levels to increase funding for mitigation works to make communities safer and more resilient for the long term. We look forward to working collaboratively with governments and community organisations to support our customers, our people and the community remain safe from natural perils.  Chapter 3 of the report titled Prevention is better than cure is critical reading, I have teased out major points made as dot points including:

Despite this relentless commitment to inquiries, in 2014, a report released by the Productivity Commission into Natural Disaster Funding Arrangements found that government natural disaster funding arrangements had been inefficient, inequitable and unsustainable. ‘They are prone to cost shifting, ad hoc responses and short term political opportunism.’ The Productivity Commission lamented that the funding mix was disproportionately recovery-based and did not promote mitigation. It observed that the political incentives for mitigation were weak, ‘since mitigation provides public benefits that accrue over a long-time horizon,’ and that over time this would create entitlement dependency and undermines individual responsibility for natural disaster risk management.’

Adams et al (2020) noted:

More recently, an international group of authors emphasized that an ever-increasing focus by governments on fire suppression was a trap, as it allowed fuels to accumulate to levels that would eventually burn at intensities well beyond the capabilities of any fire fighting service, anywhere (Moriera et al., 2020). Sadly, these predictions have proved correct in Australia.

As noted by Deloitte Access Economics (2022):

“Australia’s disaster relief strategies are underpinned by a cycle of underinvestment in resilience and adaptation. It’s been estimated by the Productivity Commission that 97 per cent of all-natural disaster funding in Australia is spent after an event, with just 3 per cent invested prior to an event to reduce the impact of future disasters.”

As noted by Kohler and Evans (2021) in the USA:

As suppression resources continually struggle to cope with the increased frequency and severity of wildfire, wildfire prevention awareness has been recognized as an important component of any successful strategy to reduce human and ecological loss (…). Investments in fire prevention awareness have demonstrated effectiveness at reducing preventable human-caused ignitions (….). The United States Forest Service (USFS) asserts that for every one dollar increase in preparedness funding there is a decrease of $1.70 in suppression costs (….).

As noted above the focus on suppression and suppression funding needs to reverse to a focus on mitigation and mitigation funding. As noted in Burrows (2018), prescribed burning greatly assists fire suppression and synergises community preparedness.

6. Inadequate fire fighter safety across forested landscapes and community protection

Keeping fire fighters and communities safe is a big issue of the media releases.

However, because of the low levels of prescribed burning across landscapes, focus on suppression, not establishing resilient landscapes and other issues, it is more than likely that bushfire landscape runs will continue to be very long, as per the 2019/ 20 bushfires in NSW.

Taking into account the very high fuel loads across forests, fire fighters will be both exposed to and entering many very dangerous fire grounds across forested landscapes because of the high fuel loads across landscapes, fuel strata/ ladders and in many cases inadequate access/ escape points.

Statements in the above NSW government media releases of 12 and 13 June 2022 include:

• “as well as improving the preparedness of bush fire prone communities” when landscape fuels are high and town/ city bushfire defences are in many cases inadequate.
• …. this important funding will also help protect firefighters when they respond to future emergency events.
• …  and this investment takes our spend to over $830 million in bush fire proofing our State.”
• … we are ensuring people across our State are better prepared for the challenges we face from natural disasters”.

At this time, the author is not totally convinced by any of the above media statements, especially noting the areas of concern raised in this article.  Only time will tell.

If readers have concerns or questions, one option is to ask for the bushfire mitigation/ fuel management history of forested landscapes in the region/ local government area surrounding your town, city or location, as well as fire mitigation measures within/ on the edge the town or city or location and then assess in your own opinion if the area would be able to be defended in extreme bushfire conditions. 

Note, many towns were burnt in the 2019/ 20 and other bushfires.  Another source of information is your local bushfire risk management plan.

7. Increasing insurance levels and safety for householders and communities

As explained in the Insurance Information Institute (2019):

In the USA, many insurance companies, particularly those with business in California, are deeply invested in working to reduce wildfire risk for many reasons. Just like homeowners and businesses, insurers would prefer wildfires not happen at all. High claims payouts for catastrophic events can take a significant toll on insurer profitability and insurers work hard to keep their rates low and affordable, which can be difficult following a catastrophic loss. California is the largest insurance market by premium volume in the United States — and one of the largest in the world. Insurers have a strong economic incentive to offer coverage to households and businesses in the state. As destructive wildfires may increasingly become more common in California, it is to the insurance industry’s advantage to encourage at-risk communities to be more wildfire resilient and to develop innovative products that help better measure and transfer risk. Insurers, many of which have employees and customers in high-risk areas, are also intimately aware of the large human toll wildfires can take and of course would prefer that no one fall victim.

In Australia, the Menzies Research Centre (2020) noted:

that in addition to the recommendations outlined in the report; IAG urges governments at all levels to increase funding for mitigation works to make communities safer and more resilient for the long term. We look forward to working collaboratively with governments and community organisations to support our customers, our people and the community remain safe from natural perils.

Bushfire insurance costs are increasing and many areas have large bushfire exposure risks.  Approaches such as working with the insurance industry and establishing fire adapted communities and other measures would be very suitable approaches for NSW communities to improve bushfire safety and assist in reducing insurance costs.

Conclusions

The author will be checking the RFS Annual Reports over the next few years, checking prescribed burning and wildfire burn areas to ascertain progress in relation to the areas of concern highlighted above.

In the opinion of the author, NSW and Australia is going further and further backwards with the main focus on bushfire suppression and increasing major air fleets, without sound fire mitigation programs across landscapes to reduce bushfire areas and risks. Lives are being lost and there are huge impacts from bushfires.

The author suggests that NSW needs to fully learn from the 2019/ 20 bushfires and earlier bushfires, innovate, remove prescribed burning/ ecological maintenance and cultural burning barriers, explore all fire opportunity areas, increase cooperation and quickly adapt, otherwise very large area, massive, intense and unsafe bushfires will repeatedly occur.  Now is the time is to move forward with a much greater focus on mitigation, as outlined above.  There are also lessons from the USA that need to be captured.

Key lessons from the 2022 flooding disaster in northern NSW could be used in relation to bushfire management, looking at the issues on a wholistic basis, considering both adequate landscape wide mitigation as well as suppression, establishing safe, healthy and resilient landscapes, reducing bushfire risks and impacts on communities and reducing bushfire risks and impacts on fire fighters and communities.

The author and others of the same view would be happy to meet the government and associated agencies in good faith to discuss the issues identified above, noting that there are many areas of concern that need to be discussed and opportunities hopefully to progress.

References

– Mark A. Adams, Majid Shadmanroodposhti, Mathias Neumann (2020), Causes and consequences of Eastern Australia’s 2019–20 season of mega-fires: Global Change Biology / Volume 26, Issue 7 / p. 3756-3758, Letter to the editor, A broader perspective, First published: 16 April 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15125.
– Burrows, Neil D (2018), Conflicting Evidence Prescribed Burning: When ‘Evidence’ Is Not the Reality, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions WA, Adjunct Professor School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia.
– Deloitte Access Economics (2022), Deloitte Access Economics report “Economic reality check, Adapting Australia for climate-resilient growth” from January 2022.
– Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network (2021).
– Insurance Information Institute (2019), Fighting wildfires with innovation, November 2019.
– Vic Jurskis, Roger Underwood, Neil Burrows (2020), How Australian Aborigines Shaped and Maintained Fire Regimes and the Biota, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2020, pp. 164-172. doi: 10.11648/j.eeb.20200504.17
– Kohler and Evans (2021), Investing in Wildfire Prevention, Gabe Kohler And Alexander Evans, The Forest Stewards Guild.
– Menzies Research Centre (2020), Strengthening Resilience:  Managing natural disasters after the 2019-20 bushfire season
– US Forest Service (2022), Confronting the Wildfire Crisis, A Strategy for Protecting Communities and Improving Resilience in America’s Forests FS-1187a (https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Confronting-Wildfire-Crisis.pdf ) and associated documents published in mid-January 2022.

About John O’Donnell

John is a retired district forester and environmental manager for hydro-electric construction and road construction projects.   His main interests are mild maintenance burning of forests, trying to change the culture of massive fuel loads in our forests setting up large bushfires, establishing healthy and safe landscapes, fire fighter safety, as well as town and city bushfire safety.