Australia: Blaming enviros for firestorm is absurd
There have been claims the bushfires were exacerbated by a lack of
pre-emptive burn-offs, and by too much forest being locked up in
reserves. But Peter Kanowski, professor of forestry at the Australian
National University, said this is an oversimplification. Prof
Kanowski’s main message was that in some areas, and under certain
weather conditions, there was a high risk of fire and people had to
live with that.
Get full text; support writer, producer of the words:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25044204-5005961,00.html
“There are locations which under certain conditions are not
defensible,” he said. He said the wet eucalypt forests that dominate
the bushfire zone northeast of Melbourne are not suitable for fuel
reduction burns. “It is unlikely, in the general sense, that more fuel
burning would have been possible,” Prof Kanowski said. “Broadscale
fuel reduction across the landscape is not really an option because of
the nature of those forests.”
Prof Kanowski said wet eucalypt forests, characterised by tall trees and a dense understory, did not usually burn well because they were too damp. But during extremely hot, dry weather they could burn, and burn ferociously, because they were so dense. This is what happened at the weekend. He said burn-offs were not appropriate in these forests because the only time they worked was in very dry, hot weather, and that was far too risky.
Prof Kanowski also said it was not accurate to blame the bushfires on too much forest being locked up in national parks. Forests in reserves could be
burnt off, he said, but there were not always the funds to stage such
operations and this was a problem. Prof Kanoswki, who has advised
state and federal governments on minimising fire risks, said a key
issue was the use of treeless buffer zones between homes and forests.
In some fire-hit areas it appeared trees had grown too close to
houses, “or the houses had been built too close to the trees,” he
said.
Get full text; support writer, producer of the words:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25044204-5005961,00.html
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/we-need-to-talk-about-the-forests/1440908.aspx
This post-fire period has seen many prominent commentators, including politicians, journalists, academics and even an expert on women’s rights observe that a lack of fuel reduction in our forests, by prescribed burning or clearing, is to blame for the devastation of February 7, 2009.
These comments paint a picture of fires that raged through forest of uniformly high fuel loads.
Mapping available online from the Victorian Government illustrates a different reality. These maps show the Victorian fires moved across a mosaic of forest that has been prescribed burnt and logged, converted to plantations and cleared. Marysville had a large area around it that was prescribe-burnt last year over which the fire advanced. Callignee is surrounded by a mosaic of cleared land and forest.
Fires burnt destructively in these places in spite of areas of reduced fuel loads.
Forest fires spread due to a combination of wind, humidity, temperature, fuel load and slope. Research indicates that when weather conditions are extreme, as was the case on February 7, the spread of fire becomes more responsive to wind than to fuel loads.
The suggestion that all forest should be prescribe-burnt also fails to recognise that this is not feasible.
Ecologists, foresters and firefighters who have been associated with wet forests that occur in areas burnt by the Murrindindi complex of fires understand that these forests carry fire only in hot, dry seasons.
In other words, they cannot be safely prescribe-burnt. The native vegetation in these wet forests has burnt and regenerated under a regime of infrequent intense fires for millennia.
Another argument aired in the media is the need to relax native vegetation clearing laws, and thereby enable landholders and public authorities to remove native vegetation from the land they manage. Bushfire regulations permit some clearing around infrastructure in Victoria and other parts of Australia.
However, relaxing vegetation laws further to permit broadscale clearing, clearing over larger areas, carries other risks.
Until recently Australia was one of the principal land clearing countries in the world along with Brazil, Indonesia, The Democratic Republic of Congo and Russia. Land clearing laws in Australia have been tightened in several states during the past decade for several reasons.
Maintaining mature natural forests is the most cost-effective way to provide high quality drinking water. Major catchments in most cities of Australia, including Melbourne, remain forested for this reason.
Broadscale clearing leads to problems that affect agricultural production such as soil loss and salinity.
Ceasing broadscale clearing was reported by an advisory group appointed by the previous Howard government as the most cost-effective way to conserve biodiversity in this country.
Land clearing globally accounts for 20 per cent of human greenhouse gas emissions.
Forest wildfires have a comparatively minor impact on greenhouse gas emissions because they do not incinerate the major carbon pools in forests and the forests regenerate.
A reduction in land clearing is the principal reason why Australia has met its Kyoto target and Australia now funds programs to reduce deforestation, and its attendant greenhouse gas emissions, in other countries such as Papua New Guinea.
It would therefore be ironic if the fires in Victoria result in an increase in land clearing that, in turn, contributes to further greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately a greater likelihood of extreme weather events like those on February 7.
Forests are a major tourist attraction and therefore economic resource to many of the towns that have been affected by these fires. The Black Spur drive between Healesville and Marysville is a classic drive that attracts many Victorians every weekend.
And finally, the forest itself attracts many people to live in these areas.
What is the right balance between modifying forests and modifying the way people live in forests in order to improve public safety?
Australia needs to have this conversation.
It concerns me that a disproportionate focus on fuel management in our forests will not guarantee life and property under extreme weather events such as those on February 7 and create a host of other environmental problems instead.
Dr Gibbons is a Senior Fellow at the Fenner School of Environment and Society at The Australian National University and a former firefighter for the Victorian Government.
Forest fires are an unfortunate occurence, and like many such occurences they’re inevitable. Blaming the environment is pointless as doing so is simply making a scapegoat of an unaccountable thing. Lets not blame anyone or anything but rather look at how it happened and how to reduce that risk in the future. Solutions and not fingerpointing are the way to make progress.
.-= Australia Mark´s last blog ..Photography =-.