Faculty of Science | University of Melbourne
Fire Ecology and Biodiversity
  • News
  • Our projects
    • Fire & Fragmentation
    • Fire, Landscape Pattern & Biodiversity
    • Fire in Tall Wet Forests
  • People
  • Opportunities
  • Publications
  • Contact

Welcome to 

Fire Ecology and

Biodiversity


School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences | Faculty of Science

University of Melbourne

About us

Saving homes, saving wildlife: Victoria ditches burnoff targets

28/11/2015

1 Comment

 
Trent's article was originally published on The Conversation and is republished here with permission. Read the original article.
Picture

Last week Victoria announced a new plan to manage bushfire risk by conducting prescribed burns.

Previously, Victoria had adopted a plan to burn 5% of the state’s area each year to manage bushfire risk. The 5% target has been criticised by scientists for damaging the environment without necessarily reducing risk. But, following a review, the state is shifting to a new “risk-based” strategy.

So, how does the new strategy work and what can we learn from it?

Targets: a blunt instrument

Immediately following the devastating Black Saturday bushfires there were many questions about whether the government could have done more to either prevent such an event or at least reduce the impact of the fires.

A Royal Commission considered a range of submissions from government, the public and scientific committees. Following careful consideration of the information, the commission handed down 67 recommendations. Recommendation 56 was to adopt a long-term program of prescribed burning with a rolling average of 5% per year on public land.

A range of research has since been conducted examining the role of prescribed burning in reducing the risk to people and property (some examples here, here and here), as well as the impact on biodiversity (some examples here, here and here).

The key message is that a hectare target is not the most cost efficient way of reducing risk to people and property, and that such an approach can have negative impacts on biodiversity.

Therefore, an alternate approach is needed to achieve the two objectives in the Code of Practice for Bushfire on Public Land:

To minimise the impact of major bushfires on human life, communities, essential and community infrastructure, industries, the economy and the environment. Human life will be afforded priority over all other considerations.

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

The risk of bushfires

The new risk-based approach means that the state government will be able to focus their efforts in strategic areas, such as places close to houses and infrastructure, or areas where due to landforms there is a high chance of fires starting or spreading quickly.

Reducing fuels in these areas can result in the greatest reduction in risk from wildfires to the assets, but have a much higher risk of damage if the prescribed burn escapes such as we have seen recently at Lancefield.

Risk to people and property will be measured through fire behaviour simulation using the PHOENIX RapidFire program. This allows the state to compare the risk of losing houses between maximum fuel load (and maximum risk) and fuel loads after burnoffs.

The difference between the two is known as “residual risk” and is expressed as a percentage of the maximum risk. Victoria has set a target of 70% residual risk which means that burnoffs will remove at least 30% of the maximum risk. While there may be debate about the actual value, adopting a risk-based metric represents a more outcome focused approach to developing fire management strategies.

Residual risk methods currently consider only the impacts on people and property, however equivalent methods are being developed for the environment.

As a researcher in the field, it would be remiss of me not to say that there is great scope for improving both the underlying fire behaviour model and the methods of calculating risk. There is a big difference between developing a model in the lab and applying it to public safety. In time, new methods will be developed and Victoria will need to consider whether these represent improvements over their current system before they are adopted.

Doesn’t remove risk

The new plan advocates a reduction in risk, but doesn’t entirely remove it. This is simply not possible.

Black Saturday fires could occur again in the future under either a hectares or a risk reduction approach to fuel treatment as these fires are driven primarily by catastrophic fire weather.

What is important to note is that a risk reduction approach aims to reduce the impact of such fires so that we hopefully do not see the same devastating loss of life and property.

Fire management on private land and the preparedness of communities for wildfire will remain vital. Communities in at-risk areas need to be actively involved in fire management decision making and preparedness. Some communities may elect to live with the risk while others may actively be involved in reducing risk. Regardless of the decision, it is important that all parties understand the risk they are exposed to and take actions accordingly.

Overall, Victoria’s new plan is a major step forward for fire management in the state and Australia. Explicitly adopting risk as a measure of success is a brave and positive step by the Victorian government. The success of the new policy will be assessed in time, but in my opinion, it will make fire management decisions more transparent.

Such transparency will allow for better community involvement in the planning and application of fire management. In time, the inclusion of other asset types in the estimation of risk will complicate the process, but also allow for better assessments of the extent to which both objectives for fire management can be met.

The Conversation

Trent Penman, Lecturer, Bushfire Behaviour and Management, University of Melbourne

1 Comment

Fieldwork fun and other spring pursuits

26/11/2015

1 Comment

 
Alarmingly, it’s been two months since our last news item, so we’ve put together a collection of photos to illustrate some of our springtime activities.

Many thanks to Julio and Alan for these photos.
1 Comment

    Author

    Fire Ecology and Biodiversity at UniMelb

    Archives

    September 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015

    Categories

    All
    Birds
    Camera Trapping
    Conference
    Connectivity
    Ecosystem Function
    Edge Effects
    Elliott Trapping
    Fieldwork
    Fire And Fragmentation
    Flammability
    Fungi
    GPS Tracking
    Heterogeneity
    Invertebrates
    Mammals
    Microbats
    Mount Lofty Ranges
    Plants
    Pollination
    Predators
    Prescribed Fire
    Reptiles
    Teaching
    Thesis
    Time Since Fire
    Vegetation Structure
    Wet Forest
    Wildfire

    RSS Feed

    Links

    Bushfire Behaviour and Management at UniMelb
    Quantitative & Applied Ecology Group at UniMelb
    Integrated Forest Ecosystem Research at UniMelb
Picture

Where to find us

University of Melbourne
4 Water Street
Creswick
Victoria 3363

Phone +61 (0)3 5321 4300 or email us

Photos contributed by Holly Sitters, Bronwyn Hradsky, and remote cameras.
Proudly powered by Weebly