7.1
This chapter will examine several impacts and risks of bushfires, including the impact of bushfire smoke on both human health and agricultural industries (such as the wine industry), as well as the impact of an increasingly changing climate.
7.2
It will then consider a number of hazard reduction and mitigation efforts that could assist in increasing preparedness for, and resilience to, natural disasters and the important role that early detection can have in limiting the impact of bushfires. Resilience measures, including improved building standards and retrofitting, are also considered.
Climate change
7.3
Evidence provided to the committee consistently noted that climate change is having an impact on the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather and climate systems, which in turn impacts on natural hazards.
7.4
The Royal Commission prefaced its report by noting that further global warming over the coming decades is inevitable. It noted that the 2019-20 bushfire season had made it clear that bushfire behaviour is becoming more extreme and less predictable, and it argued that:
To properly manage natural disasters of national scale and consequence, it is no longer suitable or appropriate to assess disaster risk at an individual hazard level. We must assess the risk of multiple hazard events occurring concurrently or consecutively. We must look for opportunities to reduce the exposure of communities to natural hazard events and increase the capacity of communities to prepare for and recover from their impacts.
7.5
Not only did the Royal Commission find that the that scope of natural disasters has changed, but it also noted predictions that they are expected to become “more complex, more unpredictable, and more difficult to manage”. Importantly, the Royal Commission also found that in future, catastrophic fire conditions may render traditional bushfire prediction models and firefighting techniques less effective.
7.6
The Emergency Leaders for Climate Action (ELCA) also stressed that climate change – caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas – is driving worsening bushfire conditions in Australia, by creating:
Hotter temperatures: Australia is getting hotter, with more extreme hot days and longer, hotter heatwaves. These conditions are increasing the risk of bushfires in many areas.
A longer fire season: hotter conditions mean a longer fire season, leading to more dangerous bushfires and leaving less time for hazard reduction.
Drier vegetation and fuel: hotter conditions and periods of low rainfall dry out soil and vegetation, increasing fire risk.
More lightning: a warmer climate increases the chance of lightning, which is a key factor in starting fires.
7.7
In responding to the findings of the Royal Commission, the Federal Government also factored in the impact of climate change by noting that, in future, its provision and coordination of resources will be done:
…with the recognition that due to our changing climate we will collectively face more frequent and intense natural disasters in the future, while being as prepared as possible for less frequent, but profoundly catastrophic natural events.
Bushfire smoke
7.8
According to a recent study, approximately 80 per cent of Australia’s adult population was affected, either directly or indirectly by the 2019-20 bushfires. Approximately 14 per cent (2.9 million) of the adult population were directly affected – their homes were lost, damaged or threatened, or their family was forced to evacuate. A further 15.4 million Australians were indirectly affected – through having a friend or family member who lost a home, having holiday plans disrupted, or being affected by bushfire smoke.
7.9
In addition to those living in the rural and regional areas directly impacted by the fires, during the 2019-20 bushfire crisis, bushfire smoke blanketed a number of key population centres, including Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Canberra. As a result of the bushfire smoke, the residents of rural, regional and urban areas were affected by dangerous air quality for many weeks.
7.10
In an October 2021 research article, the enormous impact that bushfire smoke had on the community was detailed, and in particular on people around the ACT. The authors of the research, published in Frontiers in Public Health, observed that the public health impacts of bushfire smoke are becoming increasingly known, with smoke travelling long distances and affecting large populations, and with 340,000 deaths per year globally attributed to bushfire smoke.
7.11
The following statistics highlight the physical health impacts of the smoke from the 2019-20 bushfires, based on a preliminary evaluation of the air pollution health burden in eastern Australia:
over 3000 excess hospitalisations for cardiovascular and respiratory problems; and
1305 presentations to emergency departments with asthma.
7.12
The research concluded that “bushfire smoke can have considerable and underestimated effects on physical and mental health, beyond those associated with direct contact with fire and the acute effects of smoke inhalation”. The authors continued that:
Greater understanding of mental health and long-term health effects is needed, particularly for at-risk groups, including parents, those with existing health conditions, or those who had previous exposure to fire and smoke. Improved public health communication is needed to strengthen individuals’ ability to prevent harm and protect the health of themselves and their families for future events.
Impacts of bushfire smoke on pregnant women and babies
7.13
Dr Rebecca McGowan, a rural GP, told the committee that she had seen first-hand the severe impacts of bushfire smoke on her patients – particularly pregnant women. Dr McGowan noted that she had seen an increased rate of babies born early, babies born small, and babies born with diseased placentas. She also reported increased rates of high blood pressure and increased rates of diabetes.
7.14
Dr McGowan argued that exposure to bushfire smoke can also create increased mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression – particularly in women who are pregnant. She noted that there have been some studies that have shown that bushfire smoke in Sydney on some of the worst days was equivalent to smoking 37 cigarettes a day, and this is estimated to be higher closer to the bushfires. Dr McGowan told the committee that:
I have cared for pregnant women who have been quite negatively affected by inhaling bushfire smoke over the season that we are discussing today, the 2019 and the summer of 2020, in my area of Albury-Wodonga. In one case, a woman had a placenta that was severely affected by smoke. This woman had never smoked in her life, yet, when she delivered her baby, the placenta was small, grainy and very unhealthy looking. According to my patient, the midwives were shocked and couldn't believe that she had never smoked. In fact, they commented that her placenta looked like she had been a pack-a-day smoker. This baby was born early and was born small. Another issue with these placentas that I am seeing in my practice is that, because the placentas are diseased, they don't come away properly as an after birth, and they become what we call in the medical profession 'retained products of conception', which means that these diseased, fragile placentas get left behind. In my practice I have seen an increased rate of women who were pregnant over this season needing to return to hospital a week or two after the birth to have the placenta surgically removed. I am also seeing increased anxiety and a sense of panic in my patients who are pregnant during the days of smoke. Often my patients may have toddlers or younger children, and they need to cope with days and days of dark smoke, not knowing what to do, not knowing whether to evacuate and not knowing where to evacuate to.
7.15
In its interim report, the committee noted that a study would be conducted by the Australian National University, in partnership with the Universities of Wollongong and Canberra, the Canberra Health Service and NSW Health. The purpose of the study, announced in August 2020, was to examine the effects of the 2019-20 bushfires on pregnant women and their babies (from the ACT and south-eastern NSW).
7.16
The committee has been following the progress of this study – The Mother and Child 2020 Study (MC2020) – a longitudinal cohort study, which has recruited participants with shared characteristics and has followed them over a period of time. The study recruited mother-child pairs in the ACT and south-east NSW who had a baby no older than 3 months or was at any stage of pregnancy on 1 February 2020, or who became pregnant by 30 April 2020. The study notes that the same population will have now also been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, so the project has adapted to include these circumstances as well. The effects of the bushfire on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their babies is also a particular focus as this group had been severely affected within the region.
7.17
The research team is working toward developing a better understanding of the impact both these crises have had on the health of mothers and babies. It is intended that these findings will inform the design of interventions to improve the outcomes for those most affected, now and in future years.
7.18
The researchers have had discussions with parents in 2021 about smoke, air quality and pregnancy in the ACT and south-eastern NSW. They have also had discussions with experts in public and maternal health, air quality, and housing. Some of the key findings from the research include:
Many women who were pregnant, or had newborn babies, experienced high levels of stress during the bushfire smoke event, including anxiety about protecting their babies/children from the smoke and disruption to daily life.
Parents were uncertain about the possible impacts of smoke exposure on their yet to be born, or new born, baby.
Almost all parents would have liked more information about smoke exposure and how they could protect themselves and their children.
Many mothers experienced disruptions to their pre- and post-natal services (often made worse by COVID-19 restrictions).
Usual social support networks were disrupted over this period for many parents, who drew on a range of other supports (including, for example, online mothers’ groups). Disrupted social support was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many parents expressed concerns about climate change and their children’s future.
7.19
Based on its findings to date, the research team has been advising government and health services that there is a need for:
time and place specific air-quality information and advice;
more detailed information about the effects of smoke exposure on infants and pregnant mothers and advice about what to do; and
better planning for future smoke events to ensure less disruption of maternal and infant care services.
Impacts of bushfire smoke on the wine industry
7.20
As noted above, smoke covered several regions for prolonged periods during and after the 2019-20 bushfires. In addition to reduced air quality, which had direct impacts on human health the smoke also impacted agricultural industries, including the wine industry.
7.21
The committee was told, for example, that wineries in the Megalong Valley had lost a year of production due to smoke taint. The Rural City of Wangaratta also indicated that a study it had commissioned on the impacts of smoke taint on the wine industry in North East Victoria had found that:
more than 18,000 tonnes of grapes were available for harvest in the rural City of Wangaratta in 2020, with a farm gate value of around $22 million;
less than 13,000 tonnes of these grapes were picked, and were only valued at approximately $9.5 million – with a large portion being sold for only 20 per cent of their original value; and
the retail value of wine lost (not produced) because of the impacts of smoke was estimated to be worth over $76 million to the economy.
7.22
The Rural City of Wangaratta advised that, as a result of the bushfires, a North East Wines Zone Advisory Group had been established, to provide a unified voice for the local wine industry and share information. It was noted that a number of initiatives have also been implemented to assist the industry, both in relation to recovery, and to prepare for future bushfire events. For example, a recent wine industry forum on smoke taint – Early Warning Smoke Sensor Program – had provided growers with information on ways to mitigate losses, and explored other uses and methods to process impacted grapes.
Preparation and mitigation efforts
7.23
The need for Australian communities to increase both their preparedness for, and their resilience to, natural disasters was a point made very clearly by stakeholders throughout the committee’s inquiry. As the committee noted in its interim report:
Significant and ongoing mitigation efforts are required to address emissions reduction, and the risks presented by a changing climate and the increased severity and frequency of natural disaster events like bushfires.
7.24
A consistent thread across the various inquiries and investigations in relation to the 2019-20 bushfire season, has been a common recognition that the issues of climate change, bushfire and natural disaster resilience, risk mitigation efforts, and greater cohesion between jurisdictions, are inextricably linked.
7.25
Stakeholders have argued that without direct and immediate action on climate change, mitigation strategies will be ineffective. It is also argued, that without a concentrated effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the hot, dry conditions that fuelled the 2019-20 fires will continue to worsen, meaning that bushfire seasons will be longer and more dangerous.
7.26
It has become increasingly clear that for communities to be better prepared for future natural disasters, Australia’s knowledge-base in relation to risk, resources and capability needs to be significantly increased. Future preparedness for disasters such bushfires, for example, will require strong leadership, a national approach to fire management, and a whole‑of‑community approach to disaster risk management.
7.27
The Royal Commission’s report summarised the views of stakeholders by observing that achieving an effective national approach to natural disasters will require a “clear, robust and accountable system capable of providing a comprehensive understanding of, and responding to, the aggregated risks associated with mitigation, preparation for, response to and recovery from natural disasters”. The Royal Commission also argued that such a system:
…must have unbroken linkages in place from the highest levels of government to individuals in the community; provide decision makers with timely, consistent and accurate information; be structured for decisions to be made at the most appropriate level; allow decision makers to understand and mitigate all risks so far as reasonably practicable; enable stakeholders to understand the residual risk and inform others so that they may take appropriate actions; and it must be resourced to fulfill these functions.
7.28
The importance of clear leadership in relation to bushfire mitigation, adaptation and resilience was stressed by a number of stakeholders, including members of the Cobargo community who argued that a clear statement about the need for communities to undertake climate and disaster mitigation “would provide impetus to rural regional investment and would enable communities to move forward on adaptation planning, resilience building and disaster planning”. Further, it was argued:
That's why governments and politicians at all levels and the business community must engage openly, sincerely and in a bipartisan spirit with communities as equal partners—not as victims, not as supplicants, nor as token stakeholders—to support our efforts to prepare for the next one. We don't want to find ourselves in a situation where we're trying to run to catch up to help people recover from these disasters. Pre-emptive planning is the key to good disaster recovery.
7.29
Throughout the inquiry, it was acknowledged that this type of critical planning and mitigation work – including land management and hazard reduction is frequently left to community volunteers to coordinate.
Improving resilience and taking action before disaster
7.30
The Bushfire Building Council of Australia (BBCA) made the important point that “adaptation of the built environment…adopted before disasters occur, can alleviate the underlying inequalities exacerbated by disasters”, noting that this included “creating safer homes, and affordable insurance and finance for all households”.
7.31
The BBCA continued that it was in the public interest to adapt buildings for climate and disaster resilience for “several compelling reasons including life safety, affordable insurance and finance, sustainable communities, reducing economic shocks, productivity and wellbeing”.
7.32
Further to this, the BBCA quantified that for 1000 properties retrofitted to address bushfire risk, 277 jobs would be created and an economic benefit of $33 million would be realised, as “retrofitting for disaster resilience creates new, unplanned building activity utilising existing trade skills such as landscaping, carpentry and roofing”. The BBCA also drew attention to the key roles of resilience and sustainability, saying:
Disaster resilience and sustainability are interdependent. Disaster resilient assets are more robust and have longer life cycles. Reducing the likelihood of building loss avoids the carbon impacts associated with re-building, including replacement, transport, maintenance and disposal carbon emissions. DRSR measures building performance for climate and disaster risk, a vital input in assessing the building’s lifespan and embodied carbon footprint.
Hazard reduction
7.33
Land management – including fuel management and hazard reduction – are contested and divisive issues. Over the years, numerous theories, reviews, research projects, and perspectives have been offered up in relation to fuel management and hazard reduction, and their impact on communities and the environment. However, the usefulness these methods, and their value in terms of reducing bushfire risk remain matters of ongoing debate.
7.34
Professor David Lindenmayer, one of the world’s most highly cited scientists, particularly in forest ecology and management, provided very clear evidence to the committee on these issues. Professor Lindenmayer argued that from the meta reviews and other research he has been involved in over the past 38 years, several things have emerged:
The first one is that the relationship between climate change and fire is critical. What we've seen in the last six decades, since 1960, the year that I was born, is there's been a ten-fold increase in the number of high forest fire danger index days. We've already seen in parts of Australia a 1.5 degree increase in temperature and a marked drying in south-western and south-eastern Australia. There's also been an increase in high-severity fire, so the area that is burnt by high-severity fire has increased. There's been an increase in the frequency of fire, including high-severity fire. Underneath this impact of climate change, there's also an effect of forest management. Our work and work by many other people indicates that there is a strong relationship between logging and the proneness of forest to burn at high severity. There is a new study from the 2019-20 fires which was accepted a couple of months ago. … It clearly shows that young log forests are at elevated risk of high-severity fire, and the overwhelming evidence shows that the lowest severity fire occurs in the oldest forests.
7.35
Professor Lindenmayer also noted that one of the key topics he has worked on is hazard reduction burning. He told the committee that it has become quite clear that under extreme conditions – particularly those associated with climate change – hazard reduction burning has reduced effectiveness. The Professor went on to argue that:
In fact, in some cases, it is possible that hazard reduction burning may make ecosystems more prone to high-severity fire. There's integrated thinking around increasing climate change effects. Increasing flammability of forests, reduced hazard reduction burns to mitigate the effects clearly show that we need to have new approaches to tackling fire. We need to do more lightning modelling to detect fire ignitions much more quickly. We need to use new technology to engage in early detection, we need new technology for rapid suppression and we need to target those activities around areas of high risk, particularly where there's been an increase in the flammability of forests. We need to reduce the flammability of forests by not logging them, we need to engage in processes of deeply thought through cultural burning that intersects with Western science—that's an intersection of Indigenous knowledge and Western science knowledge—and we need better plantation design. This is critical for several reasons. One is that we know from work that we've done on the plantation sector—and this is a book that looks at exactly that—there are ways of designing plantations to reduce their fire risks. We also know from some work that has just been published in the International Journal of Wildland Fire … [the] frequency of high severity fire means that the long-term sustainability of the native forest sector is untenable. Fire is simply burning too quickly and at too high severity…
7.36
The committee noted, that to many observers, the Professor’s views would seem to be counterintuitive. Professor Lindenmayer was, therefore, asked to explain why an approach that has historically been adopted in Australia, can actually have either a negligible effect, or a negative effect, on the flammability of trees.
7.37
In response, Professor Lindenmayer told the committee that very early in the life of a forest (after it has initially been logged) there is a very low risk of high-severity fire. What happens after that, however, as the forest becomes much older and the fuel changes, is that the risk increases steeply.
7.38
Professor Lindenmayer also indicated that the conventional thinking in relation to thinning of forests – entering forests and thinning them out mechanically – has also changed. He told the committee that expert analysis of what had happened during the 2019-20 bushfires, had shown that thinning had either had no effect, or in some cases, had made it worse. In explaining this situation, he noted that:
thinning opens up the forest, creating warmer conditions and more open conditions, which is likely to be more conducive to bringing fire from the forest floor to the canopy;
in an Australian context, often a lot of the material that is cut in a forest during a thinning operation is actually left on the forest floor;
there is a marked difference between what we see in Australia and what happens in North America, because thinning is tied with prescribed burning in those ecosystems; and
in Australia, prescribed burning is largely removed from native forest wood production areas because of the damage that prescribed burning does to the timber.
7.39
Professor Lindenmayer concluded by saying that “we should not be logging close to human settlements, and we should not be thinning forests close to human settlements”. When questioned further about the likely impact of prescribed burning close to urban areas or rural properties, Professor Lindenmayer told the committee:
What do we do in those cases of a forest-urban settlement interface? We need to be doing prescribed burning in those places, but we need to do it in a very focused way. It needs to be done very close to human settlements and it needs to be done very regularly. When I say close, I mean it needs to be done within a kilometre or two, and every three to five years. It needs to be done frequently and it needs to be done in close proximity. The reason we need to do that is that we need to stop forests entering into that highly flammable phase. We need forests to be quite young in terms of the understorey and other cover. That means that those areas are going to need to be burnt repeatedly and close to human settlements.
I would argue that the prescribed burning done in very remote areas is largely wasted money. We should be focusing the money that we do have set aside for hazard reduction burning close to where it's going to be most effective. How do we know that this is where it's most effective? Work done by my colleagues Geoff Cary and Phil Gibbons at the Australian National University looked at the extent of house loss after the 2009 fires, and climate and weather were the major drivers of house loss. Prescribed burning did have an effect, but it needed to be done frequently and it needed to be done close. So, yes, hazard reduction burning is important, but it needs to be targeted. We shouldn't be wasting efforts in very remote areas that will have very little effect in terms of protecting people's houses and their lives.
State inquiry findings around hazard reduction
7.40
The Victorian Government’s Inquiry into the 2019-29 Victorian Fire Season noted that throughout its inquiry, communities expressed a strong interest in both the application and effectiveness of hazard reduction burning. The Victorian report also acknowledged that it is a contested issue, noting that:
At one end of the scale are those who believe that regular and repeated planned burning will reduce or eliminate uncontrollable bushfires. At the other end are those who favour total exclusion of fire from the landscape.
7.41
In presenting its findings, the Victorian Government’s report reflected that while planned burning (and other fuel management techniques) can alter fuel loads, it must be carefully applied to reduce the risk of bushfire. It also made the point that even with an extensive fuel management program, bushfire risk remains, and increases as the vegetation regrows.
7.42
The issue of hazard reduction – as a tool for bushfire prevention, mitigation and suppression – was likewise closely examined by the NSW Bushfire Inquiry. The NSW Bushfire Inquiry recommended improvements to risk planning, reporting and audit responsibilities around bushfire risk management planning. The NSW Government has committed to an increased level of funding to focus on implementing recommended improvements, and a number of amendments have been made to relevant NSW legislation. This includes the introduction of new legislation to encourage public authorities and private corporations to better engage with their responsibilities to minimise bushfire hazard on their land.
7.43
In terms of bushfire risk management planning, the NSW Government submitted that the NSW Rural Fire Service applies a strategic risk-based approach to hazard reduction works, and prioritises carefully targeted burns that protect the community, homes and the environment. Further, the NSW Government argued that while hazard reduction is one of the most effective measures to prevent, mitigate and suppress bushfires, it is not, however, a panacea for bushfire risk.
Local experiences and views
7.44
It was submitted to the committee that, in addition to a lack of clarity around responsibilities, permissions and development applications, obstructive regulations have resulted in many property owners not undertaking adequate hazard reduction. Further, it was argued that the NSW Government – and in particular the NSW RFS administration – have some culpability in allowing the build-up of excessive fuel that was the essential component of the fires. Some of the experiences and points of view of residents regarding hazard reduction are detailed below.
7.45
For example, Bilpin residents Martin and Marion Tebbutt submitted that they have lived in an area that the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) has classed as a Category One Bushfire Prone Area, since 1972. When they initially moved to the area there were no restrictions on landholders doing their own hazard reduction or clearing. Over recent years, however, it was argued that “there has progressively been a continuing raft of NSW regulations obstructing/preventing rural landowners from doing any clearing without onerous consents being first sought”.
7.46
Macdonald Valley resident and RFS Volunteer, Mr Stephen Brown, submitted that the Macdonald Valley has a slow, but evolving program for hazard reduction which addresses the interface of properties and asset protection as well as the National Park and crown lands. Mr Brown indicated that, anecdotally:
the conduct of hazard reduction in the prior 2-5 years did not appear to influence a reduced fire performance/impact, and afford mitigation because the fuel loads had re-developed;
historically farmers conducted very regular lower intensity winter burns from the valley floor into the hills (National Parks), to manage fuel load and provide winter gazing, something that is more akin to indigenous practices;
there is no transparent and accessible program for hazard reduction and fire mitigation for the vast footprints of the National Parks/crown lands which encircle the region.
7.47
Further, Mr Brown argued that a more ambitious and better resourced National Parks and Wildlife Service and a Rural Fire Service that consults locally (and has a planning and execution framework) could deliver greater mitigation preparation. If this was combined with encouragement and assistance for local land owners to conduct hazard reduction, this coordinated effort may lead to greater levels of preparedness.
7.48
Blue Mountains resident, Mrs Leanne Hanvey, submitted that hazard reduction burning is not a silver bullet, and noted that according to independent experts, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service had more than doubled the amount of prescribed burning on park land over the past decade. Mrs Hanvey argued that the additional hazard reduction hadn’t stopped or reduced the scale or severity of the 2019-20 bushfires, and may in fact be causing more problems than it is alleviating, for example:
The impact of prescribed burning on air quality has a significant impact on human health, with poor air quality impacting every cell in the human body according to recent research. Smoke from last summer’s bushfires caused more deaths than the actual fires themselves.
Burning vegetation emits large amounts of carbon dioxide that exacerbates the impacts of climate change.
Regular burning of native vegetation changes the kind of vegetation that exists in an area. The plants that survive are more fire-prone and burn more easily, the moisture in the soil decreases, and wind increases through the landscape as the vegetation is opened up by the fire which in turn causes more drying.
7.49
The NSW RFS ‘10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code Practice for New South Wales’ (known as the 10/50 Code) allows landholders to clear trees on their property, if within 10 metres of a home, without seeking approval; and to clear underlying vegetation (other than trees) within 50 metres of a home, without seeking approval. Lower Blue Mountains resident, and member of the Community Fire Unit, Mr Bruce Saunders, called for amendments to the existing 10/50 Code, arguing that changes would enable residents in the Blue Mountains whose property backs on to bushland, to better clear hazards within 50 metres of their homes.
Use of technology in an integrated system
7.50
Professor David Lindenmayer argued strongly that what Australia needs is an integrated system in relation to bushfire. Professor Lindenmayer noted that during the 2019-20 fire season, there had been almost no instances of arson, with almost all of the major ignitions being due to dry lightning. He told the committee that:
there are ways to mathematically model lightning strikes during lightning storms (where there might be a thousand touchdowns in any overnight period);
there is a way to detect dry lightning strikes with drone fleets; and
there is a way to extinguish those ignitions very quickly when it’s possible to do so, and they are very limited in spatial extent.
7.51
Professor Lindenmayer also indicated that these more technical ways of focussing firefighting efforts are currently being considered by researchers:
There's also a way to focus your extinguishing efforts, your suppression efforts, by selecting those areas that have high flammability where we know we need to do the suppression very quickly. So the broader thinking here, and at ANU we've been thinking about this deeply for the last year, is that integration of lightning modelling with new technology around rapid detection, around new technology for rapid suppression and prioritisation to focus where you do the suppression very quickly. So if you're dealing with a young heathland that's burnt relatively recently, you would have that lower on your priority list relative to a 20-year-old or 30-year-old logged forest which has a high risk of high-severity fire because it's very flammable. So it allows you to prioritise these efforts for the best outcome. I think there's a very powerful case for integrating these aspects of fire detection and suppression and prioritisation.
7.52
Professor Lindenmayer concluded his evidence to the committee by arguing that the opportunity exists for Australia to be a leader in bushfire technology, but it will require a coordinated effort and appropriate funding:
There hasn't been a lot of progress so far. ANU has worked pretty hard to develop a proposal around the integration across lightning modelling, detection, suppression, prioritisation and focusing of hazard reduction burning. I think it's important that it's an integrated package. We've thought deeply about how much it would cost to get that happening. There have been discussions between our vice-chancellor and the emergency services minister in New South Wales, and discussions in Victoria, but we haven't yet made traction to actually see that implemented. I think there is an enormous opportunity there. Our estimates are that it would cost about $41 million to implement that kind of project. That sounds like a lot of money, but I think it's trivial relative to the insurance bill, for example, in Mallacoota, Cobargo or any number of places that were severely affected in the 2019-20 fires. There are still discussions that need to be had there. There is an enormous opportunity for Australia to be a leader in that space, including manufacturing drone technology and other technologies to help with that. I think there is an enormous opportunity, but we haven't realised it. We haven't capitalised on it yet, so to speak.
Indigenous land management practices
7.53
Evidence to the committee also considered the role that First Nations land use and management practices, and cultural burning, could contribute to hazard reduction.
7.54
For example, Mrs Hanvey observed that fire has been a part of the Australian landscape for tens of thousands of years and plays an important ecological function for many native species. It was noted that Aboriginal cultural burning uses quite different techniques to hazard reduction burning and may therefore offer a viable alternative. Ms Hanvey also pointed to anecdotal evidence that the amount of smoke released during cultural burning is lower than for hazard reduction burns. She also noted that while these burns are smaller in size, cooler, and have less impact on the landscape, they are as effective as current practices.
7.55
The President of the Megalong Valley Community Landowners Association, Mr Max Horn, told the committee that hazard reduction doesn’t just involve controlled burning. It is an approach that reduces the fuel load in an area, and it is the fuel load which is key. Mr Horn indicated that it was his understanding that pre white settlement, fuel load was effectively limited through a combination of uncontrolled natural fires and Indigenous burning practices. He related to the committee a story told to him by a neighbour, who had grown up in the Megalong Valley in the fifties:
…an Indigenous elder explained to him that healthy bush was clear enough to throw a spear through. If you go into the national parks today, that is often not what you see. In general, in modern times we work hard to control naturally lit fires and we don't apply Indigenous burning practices in the same broadscale way anymore, so fuel loads in our national parks have increased. Fires are burning hotter, are harder to control and kill wildlife on a tragic scale. Further, due to the growth of dense scrub, there is less native grass in the bush, so native animals like kangaroos are forced out onto farmland.
7.56
Mr Horn argued that Indigenous burning practices shouldn’t be ignored, and that community members would like to see these practices encouraged and done for the right reasons, within the bounds of practicality. He told the committee that:
Ultimately, we want to take advantage of all practical methods to reduce the fuel load in our environment. Excess fuel loads, combined with global warming—projections of greater winds and longer dry spells—are the death knell of our environment. What happened in the 2019-20 fires could be seen as an indictment of current management practices of our national parks. There was so much fuel that fires burned so hot in some areas they killed everything. There is a reason the Megalong Valley farmland saw its first koalas in living memory, because there was no safe refuge left in the so-called World Heritage area.
7.57
When asked about the issue of cultural burning practices, and whether they would be useful in areas close to rural properties and urban settlements, Professor David Lindenmayer indicated that:
There's an opportunity here to think about hazard reduction burning going hand in glove with cultural burning in understanding house loss and the dynamics of vegetation. There's an important opportunity here to meld Western science and Indigenous knowledge in culturally appropriate and scientifically robust ways. There are very important and valuable places to do that. An example of a good opportunity would be at Booderee National Park with the Wreck Bay Indigenous community. There's a long history of existing fire and biodiversity work in that area and a community that's willing to engage in cultural burning. There's a very important opportunity to bring Western science and cultural knowledge together to see where we can advance this space.
7.58
Recommendation 25 of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry recommended that Government adopt the principle that “cultural burning is one component of a broader practice of traditional Aboriginal land management and is an important cultural practice, not simply another technique of hazard reduction burning”. The NSW Rural Fire Service is working with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, and the Cultural Fire Management Cross Government Working Group to facilitate cultural burning.
7.59
The issue of Indigenous land management was also examined by the Royal Commission. It was acknowledged that there is growing recognition of the value of Indigenous use of fire to improve disaster resilience by mitigating the effects of bushfires. This is particularly evident in the north of Australia, where it has been used to reduce the intensity and extent of bushfires. It was noted that research in northern Australia has demonstrated that savanna burns conducted early in the dry season can reduce the incidence of more destructive and higher intensity fires.
7.60
The Royal Commission also noted, that while reducing bushfire risk is not necessarily the primary purpose of Indigenous land management, reduced fuel loads and improved ecosystem resilience can be important benefits of its application. Included in the Royal Commission’s recommendations was that federal, state, territory and local governments should “engage further with Traditional Owners to explore the relationship between Indigenous land and fire management and natural disaster resilience”.
Royal Commission findings
7.61
The Royal Commission acknowledged the strong public interest that exists in relation to fuel management activities. It also recognised that there are polarising views on fuel management activities – particularly prescribed burning.
7.62
In reporting its findings, the Royal Commission indicated that considerable research has been undertaken on the effectiveness of fuel management, particularly prescribed burning. The outcomes of this research were summarised as follows:
Fuel load management, including prescribed burning, can materially reduce the risk to settlements when undertaken in the wildland-urban interface.
Fuel load management in targeted areas in the broader landscape, away from the wildland-urban interface, can materially reduce the wildfire risk to settlements. The areas targeted for these purposes can include high ignition areas (for example, high points in the landscape susceptible to lightning strikes), areas where the topography and forest types facilitate fire runs, ridges and other areas known to be associated with high intensity crown fires, and areas that are accessible for suppression and treatment activities.
Fuel management can reduce bushfire-related impacts on ecological assets and areas of high conservation value.
The amount of prescribed burning in the landscape (independent of the placement or arrangement of treatments) can materially affect the extent of bushfires. However, the evidence also suggests that the effectiveness of prescribed burning varies in different ecosystems and climates.
The effects of fuel load management in reducing bushfire impacts and enhancing the effectiveness of suppression and other mitigation measures is relatively short-lived. Generally, fuel loads re-accumulate relatively quickly in Australian forests, meaning fuel load management activities must be done reasonably regularly to be effective in mitigating risk. Consistent with this, research suggests that prescribed burning is most effective in reducing the severity of bushfires in the first 1-4 years post-treatment. Depending on the severity of the weather and forest type, it can aid suppression for up to approximately 15 years.
Weather has the greatest influence on bushfire behaviour and that, as fire weather conditions deteriorate, the influence of fuels declines. This means that the benefits of fuel load management activities also decline as fire weather conditions deteriorate. Research suggests that most bushfire-related impacts on lives and property in Australia have occurred in severe, extreme or catastrophic fire weather conditions.
No single fuel management strategy
7.63
The Royal Commission concluded that decisions made by land managers in relation to appropriate hazard reduction have to be tailored to both local conditions and context. They must also take into consideration geographic and landscape variables and the nature of the assets that are to be protected; including built, cultural and environmental assets.
7.64
The Royal Commission also concluded that there is no single fuel management strategy or technique that is applicable Australia-wide. It also noted that all forms of fuel management come with costs and risks, including:
resourcing associated with implementation (labour and equipment);
training to maintain currency of skills;
damage costs associated with fires escaping and accidents (through loss of life, injury or property loss);
respiratory-related health impacts associated with smoke exposure (when prescribed burning is conducted close to urban settlements); and
adverse environmental and heritage impacts (for example loss of amenity or loss of biodiversity).
Committee view
7.65
The need for a cohesive, overarching response to the problems Australia will continue to face in relation to bushfires has been a central theme of the committee’s inquiry. Climate scientists, environmentalists, and community and industry leaders continue to call for a coordinated, national response to bushfires, but at the same time note that an increased effort to develop effective mitigation strategies will also be required.
7.66
The committee also notes that over the years, considerable research has been undertaken into fuel management and prescribed burning, including how it influences fire behaviour. It also notes, however, that there are still gaps in the science, particularly into how fuels loads react in extreme fires. Consensus has also yet to be reached regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of fuel management strategies and techniques.
7.67
The committee is of the view that the impacts of climate change on natural disasters – particularly bushfires – have yet to be fully explored. The committee would like to see future research work fully consider the latest research and predictions in relation to the additional impact climate change is having in terms of the scale and severity of bushfires.
7.68
Evidence provided to the inquiry has made it clear that while hazard reduction can help reduce fuel loads, it is only one way to mitigate bushfire risk and reduce the intensity of fires. Increasingly, it has been recognised that hazard reduction is most effective when used in conjunction with good land use management and mitigation strategies.
7.69
The committee notes that the Royal Commission supported further inquiry and review of the legislation and processes relating to bushfire mitigation, hazard reduction and vegetation management.
7.70
The committee also points to the Royal Commission’s recommendation that federal, state and territory governments review their assessment and approval processes in relation to vegetation management, bushfire mitigation and hazard reduction.
7.71
Considering these findings and similar evidence put before this inquiry, the committee recommends a nation-wide review which examines legislation and processes in each jurisdiction for hazard reduction, vegetation management and land use management strategies.
7.72
The committee further recommends that the review take into account the impact that climate change is having on fuel load across the country, with a view to working towards more cooperation across states and territories, and a national position on the issue of hazard reduction and mitigation efforts.
7.73
The committee considers it important that this review be conducted collaboratively across states and territories to potentially reach a national, cooperative position on the issues of land management, hazard reduction and mitigation efforts.
7.74
There has for many decades been a broad consensus among landholders, firefighting agencies, national parks and forestry agencies, and other land managers and custodians about the methods and efficacy of a variety of hazard reduction methods.
7.75
It is clear from the submissions and other evidence received during the course of this inquiry, that the long-standing consensus is breaking down under climate change, and the scientific evidence paints a very different picture of future fire behaviours and risks to that which has persisted for most of the past century. A new consensus is needed. One which draws on the science of climate change, the science of forest ecology, the science of fire behaviour and the experience of landholders’ custodianship of the land.
7.76
In this light, the committee makes the following recommendations.
7.77
The committee recommends that the National Cabinet agree to establish a working group to undertake a review into each jurisdiction’s legislative framework and processes for:
vegetation management; and
land use management strategies, including Indigenous land use management practices;
with a view to developing a national position and strategy on hazard reduction and land use management, in urban, regional and rural settings. The review would consider the impact of climate change on fuel loads and other bushfire hazards.
7.78
The committee recommends that the working group draw on the expertise of subject matter specialists, including (but not limited to) tertiary researchers, wildlife and environmental managers, climate change experts, peak bodies (such as the CSIRO and the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre), and First Nations communities with regard to land use management practices and cultural burning.
7.79
The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider a targeted research and investment program into new fire early detection and suppression technology, in partnership with Natural Hazards Research Australia.