Australian Bushfires

The current Australian bushfire crisis – where can anyone start to try and understand what is happening?

While watching images of total destruction, and trying to process these images that we are seeing on a daily basis, we are also starting to hear the commentary on why this is happening, and in certain cases attempting to apportion blame. There is already discussion about the need for a Royal Commission. For myself personally I wanted to try and understand the issues, and also for my own peace of mind try to get under the headlines to appreciate how this complex situation has occurred.

 I am not expecting many people to read this article, however it will at least allow me to marshal my thoughts a little, and try to examine what is being reported.

My attempt will be to make this a non-political piece, a situation such as this transcends politics, however it is clear that political decisions have had a significant impact on the current situation.

 Firstly there is the consideration of the legal framework, there seems to have been considerable discussion with respect to protecting the environment and controlled burning. In much of the coverage this might be categorised as the “Greenies” influence.

Australia’s key national environment law is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, also known as the EPBC Act. This legislation regulates activities that are likely to have a significant impact on nationally protected matters. With respect to bushfire activities this can be broken down into two categories:

 ·        Fire-fighting—emergency actions taken to prevent bushfires damaging life or property.

·        Fire prevention—preventative actions taken to prevent or reduce the risk of severity of fires before a fire occurs.

National environment law generally does not restrict responses required to manage bushfire emergencies, nor does it regulate measures taken to fight fires.

The state and territory governments have primary responsibility for care and management of the environment. National environment law does not generally regulate fire prevention measures taken by state and territory governments, and only applies in limited circumstances. Fire prevention activities only need federal environmental approval if:

 ·        They are likely to have a significant impact on a nationally protected matter, and

·        They are not specifically exempted by the national environment law

National environment law does not appear to be designed to regulate day-to-day land management. Fire prevention activities that are unlikely to require approval by the federal government may include:

 ?      routine fuel reduction burns, including roadside burns, done in accordance with state or territory law requirements

?      routine maintenance of fence lines, access roads or tracks

?      routine maintenance of existing fire breaks, fire infrastructure, services and utilities 

?      clearing of a defendable space around a home or rural asset in accordance with state/territory and local government requirements.

So from this it would seem that states and territories are reasonably free to manage bushland as required within their own legal framework.

The next obvious question then would be to examine the effectiveness of fuel reduction burning. This is a complex area of debate.

Research has found that doubling the fuel in the forest will double the rate of spread and quadruple the fire intensity. While low intensity fires will tend to burn dead fuels below six millimetres in diameter, medium to high intensity fires will burn young trees, thick twigs and branches, bark and deep litter. Fuel reduction burning can reduce the hazard of spotting from eucalypt bark, in some cases for up to seven to ten years.

While fuel reduction burning can be seen as the principal means to reduce the risks of bushfire, under extreme conditions bushfires can burn across land with very low fuel loads, which would have been halted under milder conditions.

The development we now refer to as hazard or fuel reduction burning evolved in the twentieth century with the practices of forest managers who were trying to protect native forests from wildfires that damaged the quality of their forests as sources of timber. The foresters found that protecting the forests by excluding fire was a recipe for catastrophic fires, so they developed a regime for regularly using low intensity fires to reduce the fuel loads in the understorey of the forests. This practice was started in the 1920s in the jarrah forests of southwest Western Australia as part of a fire protection system.

Prior to European settlement the extent of fire lighting by indigenous Australians was significant, with one estimate being that forty people inhabiting 3000 hectares would light an average of 5000 fires annually. They developed firestick farming which created a variety of habitats to meet a variety of needs: hunting, removing woody regrowth, and protecting rainforest and specific habitats. Indigenous Australians in Central Australia burnt to produce a mosaic of plant communities in different stages of fire recovery as protection against wildfires for example.

The amount of the available fuel determines the amount of heat that potentially can be released in a fire. Therefore fuel loading in a forest is the only component of the mix that can be modified by land managers. This is the rationale behind the use of fuel reduction regime in forests to protect life and property.

From research it would seem that fuel reduction burning comes down to protection of life and property, but that other priorities of the land manager (typically environmental impacts) may influence how that aim is implemented.

A report written in 2002 regarding prescribed burns in the Blue Mountains from 1990-97 concluded that 30 per cent of the burns had a negative result, 40 per cent were sub-optimal, and 30 per cent could be rated as effective burns. The study indicates that fuel reduction burning may not be as successful as desired in some forest localities so this needs to be taken into consideration with any fire risk management assessment.

There are a number of factors which decide the timing of fuel reduction burning, the weather being the most significant one. Fuel loads need to be dry enough to effectively carry out hazard reduction burning without the conditions being so severe that the burn risks getting out of control. Fuel reduction burning normally takes place in spring and autumn. An issue which has to be considered is that there is a lack of research on the impact of hazard reduction burning, and therefore the long term effects on the ecosystem.

The issue of finding appropriate windows for burns is a major concern. In 2018 Victoria only managed approximately 30% of the prescribed burning programs. Essentially there was only a two and half week window to carry out 66,000 hectares of burns. Climate change is in effect lengthening the summer season, therefore reducing available times in spring and autumn.

So there are many considerations when looking at controlled burns, so when considering this aspect of the debate we do need the understand all the impacts. If we consider the fire triangle though (heat/ignition, air, fuel) fuel is the only element which can be manipulated.

So now onto what appears to be an extremely contentious area of debate – climate change, and global warming. Please do not use these terms interchangeably, they are two distinctly different concepts. At the risk of becoming too simplistic it might be worth examining what that actually means, as often there seems to be a great deal of assumed knowledge.

The hypothesis is that humans have changed Earth's atmosphere over the past two centuries, resulting in global warming.

The assertion is that global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect. Earth absorbs radiation, primarily from the sun. This takes the form of light, ultraviolet (UV), Infrared (IR) and other types which are invisible – go back to your Secondary school Physics lessons. Approximately 30% of the radiation is immediately reflected back into space the remaining 70% is absorbed. As the earth heats it is released in the form of IR thermal radiation which passes back into space.

The exchange of incoming and outgoing radiation is referred to as the greenhouse effect – it works like a greenhouse. UV passes through the glass and weaker IR radiation is trapped inside. Gas molecules which can absorb infrared radiation such as Carbon Dioxide act like a blanket, preventing its escape. The net effect is the gradual heating of the Earth known as global warming.

Counter Hypothesis – There are many – but in summary some of the arguments presented are: that the climate has changed before, global warming can have a positive effect on Earth, and the models used are unreliable.

Climate change are the observed changes to Earth's weather patterns. There is little point in debating climate change causes in my view with respect to this discussion. It can clearly be proven that global temperatures are rising, and this is having an effect on the environment. I would strongly suggest that as individuals you try to understand as much as possible in this area of study. The area of debate within climate science communities is how are climate changes being created, and if there are other underlying issues other than CO2 emissions driving the change. If we consider the current situation long term policies for climate change will not impact the immediate issues we are facing with respect to fire danger. It would seem that the current crisis has highlighted the long term effects of climate change, which can only be for the greater good.

The next section will draw on a number of sources – but there is an extremely useful report which was prepared by the CSIRO in 2009 for the Department of Climate Change – now part of the Department of the Environment and Energy.

 It concluded the following:

?      Climate change will affect fire regimes in Australia through the effects of changes to temperature, rainfall, humidity, wind – fire components.

?      Examination of weather data from SE-Australia over the period 1973-2007 shows that fire danger rose by 10-40% at many sites from 2001-2007 relative to 1980-2000.

?      Climate change projections are for warming and drying over much of Australia, and hence an increased risk of severe fire weather, especially in south-eastern Australia. Modelling suggests an increase of 5 to 65 per cent in the incidence of extreme fire danger days by 2020 in this region.

?      Managing fire regimes to reduce risk to property, people and biodiversity under climate change will be increasingly challenging. There needs to be an enhanced research effort on the complex interactions between fire, biodiversity, people, fuel management and land use change.

In the 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review, which examined the scientific evidence around the impacts of climate change on Australia and its economy, it was predicted that without adequate action, the nation would face a more frequent and intense fire season by 2020.

We could go through a large number of papers which continue to support this line of thought, but hopefully we can see that the risk has been adequately identified.

In essence approximately 10 years ago there was research which was highlighting an increased risk of fire danger due to climate change. Under these circumstances the expectation would be that risk management needs to be applied to this conclusion. This then lead to looking at risk frameworks that government agencies can use.

There was a risk management framework developed by the Department of Environment in 2006 relating to climate change. The introduction of this guide explains; Climate change is likely to invalidate the assumption of stable weather conditions, with changes in both average conditions and the frequency and severity of extreme climate events. We can expect to live and operate in a climate that is warmer, with different patterns of rainfall, less available moisture retained in the soil and more severe storms – in short, a climate that progressively will become different from the current climate in many ways, albeit with many similar but more acute challenges and risks posed by climate variability.

It goes on to discuss extreme events. Climate change is likely to result in increases to the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events such as heat waves, tropical cyclones and storms. The relationship between averages and extremes is often non-linear. For example, a shift in average temperature is likely to be associated with much more significant changes in very hot days. The disproportionate increase in the frequency of extreme events is not limited to the frequency of very hot days but could occur with many other climate extremes.

It recommends the use of the framework provided by the Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4360. This is essentially a method of categorising the risks and how to treat those risks. Not surprising a key risk which was identified is increased forest fire danger.

It would therefore not be unreasonable to suggest that there should be a risk mitigation plan for increased fire danger if we examine reports from 10 years ago predicting this possibility.

Given the current situation one would expect that there would be plans in place in deal with the increased possibility of extreme fire danger. The current situation could be seen as unprecedented, however even under those circumstances risk plans if in place could be expanded to cater for extremes, one would hope that we are not coming from a zero base.

This leads us to another point of contention around how to respond to the situation. Much has been made about the Federal and State responsibilities. I referenced the Department of Home Affairs where there are two relevant policies.

State & Territory requests for assistance – COMDISPLAN & Catastrophic natural disaster in Australia – NATCATDISPLAN – there did not appear to be a copy of this available.

The observation from the current situation is that the response at State Level has been extremely well co-ordinated, whereby the fire services and emergency services have been incredible in their professionalism and commitment. It starts to become difficult to understand then how the States really should engage with the Federal government. This essentially comes back to the point around a risk framework, and how to deal with such large scale events. Clearly given the events from last Saturday whereby key personnel are becoming aware of resources being made available via press releases, indicates a lack of clarity around how these plans should be activated. As I said before I will not wade into the political debate, but from a practical perspective this model is somewhat bewildering.

 Another point which has been raised is the reduction in funding to the RFS – one quoted figure was a reduction of nearly $40 million. Clearly considering all indications that we are faced with a higher risk of fires, this would seem to be totally incongruous with any logic.

As with all things relating to government budgets it is extremely complicated. The biggest issue when considering the figures is the difference between capital expenditure (which can be unevenly spread) and recurrent spending. Recurrent spending can be variable, given impacts such as workers compensation and retrospective funding for disaster payments. It is therefore not possible to simply compare year on year numbers as there can be spikes in the recurrent spending.

If projections are to be believed however, it is estimated that expenditure in NSW on fire services would need to grow by between $39 million and $50 million – that does not take into account the current situation as these numbers were calculated in early December 2019.

It is safe to say that as populations grow – NSW is predicted to grow by 1.7 per cent, that spending needs to keep pace with inflation at least. A study from 2013 concluded that the number of professional firefighters would need to grow by at least 24% to keep pace with increased fire intensity.

What does this all mean? As with any complex situation there are never easy answers. My point here is that do not always be pulled in with all the simple rhetoric, you need to dig a little to get to the real facts. The conclusions for myself so far are:

?      Controlled burns under certain circumstances can have an impact on fire risk – but it is not as cut and dried as is often explained.

?      Climate Change is clearly having a significant impact on both the available windows for controlled burns, and also increased risk of catastrophic fire danger.

?      Climate projections and risk assessments did accurately predict this increased risk up to 10 years ago.

?      It was difficult to find any information on specific risk frameworks to deal with fire danger which are in place at both a federal and state level – that is not to conclude that they do not exist.

?      The model of States having to request assistance from the Federal Government seems somewhat cumbersome and out-dated, and there appears to be a need for a national level of co-ordination for events of this scale. They are being referred to as unprecedented, and hence we need to consider our handling of events of this magnitude.

?      Given the significant increased risk of extreme fire danger, any investment in fire services needs to be at an appropriate level and justified by all levels of government based on risk management. It also needs to be reflective of a reasonable balance between professional firefighters and volunteers. As a nation we need to invest the required sums to support a professional body, and not be overly reliant on part time fire fighters to carry an unreasonable load.

?      We may also need to change our holiday habits. If we consider going to high risk areas during peak fire seasons, this may require a rethink.

There has been discussion as to the causes of the fires, with some quarters saying that arson has been the major factor. NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) Inspector Ben Shepherd has concluded that lightning was predominantly responsible for the bushfire crisis.

"I can confidently say the majority of the larger fires that we have been dealing with have been a result of fires coming out of remote areas as a result of dry lightning storms," he said. The majority of suspected arson relates to small grass fires and rubbish bins set alight, which have inflicted negligible damage and burnt a tiny area compared with fires sparked by lightning.

 Nothing is ever straightforward – so as this debate continues, and undoubtedly there will be recriminations, please consider all the facts which are out there in the public domain.