Bushfire Frequently Asked Questions by the ACF
Below, ACF’s answers to some frequently asked questions about bushfires and their management and how we might reduce the risk of days like Black Saturday occurring again.
These links will take you to their website or scroll down:
What is the role of fire in the Australian landscape?
Fire is fundamental to the nature of Australia. Our plants, animals and landscapes have been shaped by fire. Indeed, the very survival of many species and the health of entire ecosystems depend on fire. Crucially, different types of bushland respond differently to different patterns of fire frequency and intensity. This means that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to fire management. South-eastern Australia is one of the most fire-prone parts of the world. We can never control fire but we can learn to manage it in ways that protect people and maintain healthy ecosystems.
How often do we have major bushfires?
Due to fire records not being very good, and records in the early days of European occupation almost non-existent, a clear answer to this question is not easy. There have been almost 30 significant fires in Victoria between 1905 and 2009, including Ash Wednesday in 1983 and the original Black Saturday in the 1930s. Since 2003, however, Victoria has had at least four extremely large bushfires that have been difficult or impossible to control, even with the resources available today.
What do scientists say about the link between fire and climate change?
While the 2009 Victorian fire disaster was due to a combination of factors, scientists have been warning us that climate change will bring hotter and drier weather in south-eastern Australia, together with more extreme heatwaves and heightened fire danger. A recent joint CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology study of the impact of climate change on bushfires found parts of Victoria face up to 65 per cent more days of extreme fire risk by 2020, and 230 per cent more by mid-century.
Dr David Karoly, from the University of Melbourne and head of the Victorian Government’s climate advisory group, said in The Age (11/02/09):
"The risk of increased intensity and increased frequency of fires is real, it is already occurring and it will get worse under climate change".
Prof Neville Nicholls of Monash University and former Principal Scientist with the Bureau of Meteorology said in The Age (15/02/09):
"The really crucial thing linking this to climate change is the three-day heatwave rather than the really hot temperatures on the day of the fires. By then, the situation was already primed… I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that global warming and the enhanced greenhouse effect has exacerbated the severity of this tragedy.”
The CSIRO’s Dr Kevin Hennessy said in the Sydney Morning Herald (09/02/09):
“There does seem to be a human element to bushfire risk. In terms of human contribution it is clear that most of the global warming since about 1950 is likely due to increases in greenhouse gases. Higher temperatures clearly increase the risk of bushfires."
Prof Mark Adams from the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre:
"Here in Australia fires are probably the thing that needs to be very high on our priorities list when we are concerned about possible effects of climate change. We are just facing a very dangerous decade or decades as our ecosystem recalibrates to the new climatic conditions." (SMH 09/02/09)
Blair Trewin, National Climate Centre:
"We have a fair degree of confidence that some of [the] long-term drying is consistent with climate change.” (The Australian, 09/02/09)
What have fire-fighters said about climate change?
Peter Marshall is the National Secretary of the United Firefighters Union of Australia. In an opinion piece in The Age (12/02/09) he said:
“Given the Federal Government's dismal greenhouse gas emissions cut of 5 per cent, the science suggests we are well on the way to guaranteeing that somewhere in the country there will be an almost annual repeat of the recent disaster and more frequent extreme weather events. Our existing resources cannot be expected to cope with even the ‘low global warming’ scenario of a 25 per cent increase in extreme fire days…”
What can be done to reduce the risk of big bushfires in the future?
What can we learn from Indigenous burning practices?
How do fires start?
The vast majority of fires are deliberately or accidentally lit. Causes include arson, escaped fuel reduction burns, discarded cigarettes, sparks from power lines and vehicles and unattended campfires. Lightning is the most common natural cause of fires.
What causes really big fires?
The worst fires are associated with extreme weather conditions – high heat and dry, gusting winds. Saturday 7 February 2009 was one such day. It came during the worst drought on record, following a fortnight of unprecedented temperatures across southern Australia, with high winds and the mercury rising above 46°C. Where these conditions prevail, fire reduction burning and firebreaks do little to prevent the fire from spreading, although they can result in local changes in fire intensity.
Where do fires start?
Some say national parks and nature reserves pose the biggest fire risk to the surrounding landscape. This notion does not stand up to the evidence:
- The Australian landscape has experienced fire since time immemorial – long before areas were set aside in national parks. (Around 16 per cent of Victoria is in parks and reserves, half of this is public land.)
- Parks are not ‘locked up’. Rather, they are actively managed as part of regional fire protection plans. The Department of Sustainability & Environment routinely conducts fuel reduction burns in most national parks, and creates access roads and firebreaks in and around parks.
- The majority of fires do not start in parks and reserves. A study by Rees (1984) of fire and land tenure for the period 1974-84 in Victoria found forest fires were four times more likely to occur in ‘managed state forest’ than in national parks and that state forest fires burnt eight times the area of park fires. Only 5 per cent of fires started in national parks.
On Saturday 7 February fires raged through towns, timber plantations, managed state forests, national parks and farms. By Sunday night, most of the area affected was private land, not state forest or national park.
What is ACF’s position on fuel reduction burning?
How effective and practical is fuel reduction burning?
Fuel reduction burning is just one of the tools available to manage bushfire risk. Senior Lecturer in the Department of Forest and Ecosystem Science at the University of Melbourne, Dr Kevin Tolhurst, said on the ABC’s 7.30 Report (18/02/09):
"It's the severity of the weather conditions, not just the fuels. I'm a great advocate for prescribed burning but it's not a panacea for fire protection."
Prof Ross Bradstock from Wollongong University’s Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires said in the Sydney Morning Herald (17/02/09):
“Was the Victorian disaster preventable through fuel reduction? Yes – the wholesale removal of forests and replacement with concrete would have prevented it. This (fortunately) is unlikely in practice. Fuel reduction measures therefore can only mitigate the risk posed by fires to people and property. They cannot eliminate it …We cannot expect miracles. The creation of unrealistic expectations fosters complacency, angst and unwarranted pressure on emergency services and land managers. A sober assessment of what can be practically achieved is required.”
"The extreme fire conditions that we experienced on Saturday would have caused significant fires regardless of the fuel levels… We experienced severe losses in areas where fuel was extremely low."
How much fuel reduction burning is done in Victoria?
In 2007-08, some 464 fuel reduction burns took place over 153,000 hectares of public land in Victoria, for public safety and ecological purposes. These burns were done in all areas of public land, including extensive burns in many national parks. This was an increase on the burning done in recent years, with an average of 350 management burns per year between 2003 and 2007. Since 2003, a combination of management burning and wildfire has burnt nearly three million hectares of native vegetation in Victoria, which is close to half Victoria’s public land.
What are the risks associated with fuel reduction burning?
Can we do more fuel reduction burns?
Does ACF oppose the clearing of native vegetation to protect property?
ACF is not opposed to clearing for legitimate fire breaks around homes and infrastructure in fire prone areas. The law allows landholders in fire prone areas to apply for permits to clear firebreaks. This shouldn’t lead to complacency, however; the 2009 Victorian fires were so intense and of such a scale that, in many instances, they leapt containment lines and firebreaks. A bigger question is how we manage urban growth in a rapidly changing climate.
Would cattle grazing reduce the fire risk?
Grazing can be helpful in reducing some more flammable weedy grasses, for instance along roadsides. However, given that lives and property were lost in farmland, it is unlikely grazed areas proved much of an obstacle to the 2009 Victorian fires. Decades of research in Victoria’s High Country show that cattle grazing had no effect on the extent of severity of fire in alpine areas. Fire is spread by shrubs that the cattle don’t eat.
What should the Royal Commission investigate?
ACF welcomes Victorian Premier Brumby’s swift decision to establish a Royal Commission to thoughtfully and soberly explore the facts. The Premier has said “no stone will be left unturned”. ACF hopes the Royal Commission will, amongst other things:
- Examine planning and urban growth policies in an increasingly harsh climate.
- Use the best available science to assess what difference, if any, different land management practices could have made.
- Consider how stronger action on climate change now can minimise the risk of more and more intense fires in the years to come.
- The Royal Commission is an opportunity to strongly engage the community in these and other issues concerning fire management.