THE INCREASING THREAT OF WILDFIRES

Recently the Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition discussed the ever-increasing threat from fire to biodiversity, humans and our built environment, and decided there needs to be an urgent review of fire management across the country.

The decision to lobby for a review was triggered by the fact that the Clarence Valley had been ablaze for over a month with fire-fighters brought into the district from elsewhere, along with water-bombing aircraft, to support local brigades who had been stretched to the limit for weeks. Many of the scores of fires that erupted during the month were illegally lit, and many more remained uncontained for days or even weeks. And this all took place in winter!

The catalyst for this frenzy of burning was seemingly the announcement by the Rural Fire Service in the last week of July about bringing the “fire season” forward to the 1^st of August. Since that announcement landowners, pyromaniacs, arsonists, and the just plain stupid, have been dropping matches everywhere across the valley, and residents have had to endure the choking smoke haze that has blanketed the valley ever since. Stinging eyes, blocked sinuses, and sore throats being only minor irritants compared with what asthmatics and those with lung ailments have had to endure.

Climate change is having an enormous influence on fire behaviour, not just here in Australia, but around the world. Unmanageable fires are now commonplace despite the introduction of new sophisticated techniques like fire suppressant chemicals and aerial water bombing. Catastrophic winter fires are now being reported on a regular basis on both sides of the equator, and this year summer fires even caused problems within the Arctic Circle.

No country is being spared. The human toll is mounting as is the cost of destroyed homes and infrastructure, but that comes nowhere close to the toll on the environment and wildlife. In short in many areas of the world, biodiversity declines as a direct result of fire, are leading to ecological collapse, something I fear we humans will feel the impact of in the not too distant future.

- John Edwards

This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on September 3, 2018.  

 

PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT FIRE PRACTICES

Fire is regularly used as a purported means of protecting life and property against uncontrolled wildfire. But does it work?

Haslem et al (2011) warned that we cannot manage fires beneficially without first knowing how litter behaves over long periods after fire. Now, with data gathered in time-since-fire measurements of litter tonnage per hectare (t/ha), interviews with long-term residents, historical family property records and collected materials from other earlier studies, research finally proves that burning vegetation along prescribed 30 year interval guidelines (Department of Environment and Conservation 2005/DECC 2008) based solely on an expected response to fire by plants, is less successful in protecting life and property than leaving it alone (Croft; Hunter, Reid University of New England / Office of Environment and Heritage 2016)

Observant landowners already know that fire brings only a denser layer of dropped leaves, dead sticks, fallen trees and elimination of soil moisture, fungus and organic mulch, all set for a hotter fire the next year.

In line with these views, it is now known that litter loads ('fuel' in human terms) in forests unburned for greater than 100 years pose less threat than occasionally burned areas. Also, on frequently burned sites, leaf and bark build-up is significantly greater (about 10 t/ha) than where fire is removed from the landscape.

Depending on soil and moisture, litter after fire builds up over 20–30 years to around 4–8 t/ha. It then stabilises for a further 10 or so years, then declines with an increase in humidity, fungus and soil creation. In forests unburned for greater than 100 years, litter mass remains generally constant at less than 2 t/ha. Similarly shrub cover increases rapidly in the first 10 years after fire, continues a more gradual increase up to 15–20 years, then declines, eventually reverting to its original balance beyond 100 years.

As ground litter does not, after all, continue to build up ad infinitum, as believed, the prescribed 30 year cycle fire regime is not only ineffective (Whelan 2002; Fernandes and Botelho 2003), but actually detrimental to long-term protection.

Land managers who leave forested areas alone are ensuring a much safer environment for themselves, their neighbours, and their following generations.

- Patricia Edwards

This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on October 10, 2016  

A SUN-BURNED, NOT A FIRE-BURNED LAND

In 1891, shocked by the settlers' attitude to the natural vegetation, Reverend Samuel Dixon wrote: “The farmer, the squatter, the miner and the swagman all cause extensive conflagrations, and by their oft-recurrence the arborescent growths are reduced to mere scrubs, and the more tender plants are utterly destroyed with a recklessness which can only be fittingly described as insane.'

Unhindered by neighbours, lush grass or conscience, the simple match set up a culture of fire, which is firmly perpetuated today by a stream of official documents pointing out how Aboriginals burned the land, so the bush must now be burned to stay healthy.

A far more accurate guide to the extent of fires in Aboriginal times would be Joseph Banks' diary, in which, on first seeing the sweeping, forested panorama of the Australian mainland, he noted-  “..a complete absence of smoke from fires.” (22 April 1770)

Ancient Gondwana forests, accustomed to the odd lethal lightning strike, had had to change to survive the first Australians' different fire regime. But they never had to endure the savage treatment of the last 200 years.

Burn a fertile seed or tender seedling and it is dead, a growth-cycle lost. Burn often, and the only plants that return are those that reproduce underground, have buds protected by thick bark, or have very hard seeds. Tough, dry plants, waiting in a layer of fallen leaves and tinder-dry killed stems for the next fire.

To encourage a return of the original cool, triple-layer, fire-resistant forests would be in everyone's best interest. But it would need a painful change in traditional viewpoint. It would need acceptance that generational burning has been harmful. It would need a change in terminology, from fuel loads to shaded soils and mulch, from fire hazard and rubbish to cool, natural bushland; from hazard reduction to simpler asset protection.

Creek lines need to become again the fire-retardant protective network evolved by nature, not mere convenient sections of green pick and water for cows.

And we need to stop burning the bush, just because we are afraid of fire

- P Edwards

This article was published as "Hold your fire: restore fertile seeds of forest" as the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on 15th April.