Although FOBIF believes that the five per cent burning target supported by both major political parties is harmful and does little or nothing to improve public safety, our immediate concern is that in implementing this policy DSE is not observing its own code of practice.

Two examples [of many] in recent times are an asset protection burn on Mount Alexander which was allowed through lack of supervision to destroy ten times the target area; and the Tarilta burn which was theoretically intended to achieve ecological outcomes, but was in fact a mindless holocaust.

Raked earth around a tree in DSE burn zone, Muckleford forest: this practice is essential to protect older trees, but seems to be done erratically, and there is suspicion that it is done mainly closer to tracks, where damage will be more obvious. Environment groups have asked DSE for maps and documents which would show transparently the detailed planning which is supposed to go into every operation.

Environment groups at the Bendigo meeting tabled a list of documents they would like to see before the next Fire Operations Plans are finalised. The intention of the list is to get some kind of transparency into DSE’s fire practices. We would like to know what the reasoning is behind each burn, and what measures will be taken to ensure that the stated objectives are achieved. We were not promised anything, but were assured that efforts would be made to produce what documents were possible.

DSE staffing around the state, including Bendigo, is understood to have been cut by about 30%. The State Government as given assurances that none of the cut positions is ‘front line’, but this is a shady justification, suggesting that if you’re not ‘front line’, you’re not really needed. The documents listed below are produced by people who are essential to the proper conduct of ‘front line’ operations.

There will be a follow up meeting in June. The ‘wish list’ includes the following:

- Map (at least 1:100,000 scale) of whole region showing all proposed burns AND all past planned burns, stratified by season and burn cover.

- Map (at least 1:100,000 scale) of whole region showing Fire Management Zones and Urban Areas/Built Assets.

- Map (at least 1:100,000 scale) of whole region showing all completed monitoring points (stratified by monitoring type), undelayed by all past planned burns.

- Map (at least 1:100,000 scale) of whole region showing all Historical Wildfires, including all fire less than 5 ha shown as a point feature.

- Map (at least 1:100,000 scale) of whole region showing fuel hazard rating for individual hazard components (surface fuels, near surface fuels, elevated fuels and bark hazard, and overall hazard assessment score) and all assessment points shown as a point feature.

- Map (at least 1:100,000 scale) of whole region showing Municipal Fire Prevention Strategic Fire Breaks.

- Map (at least 1:100,000 scale) of whole region showing all other DSE proposed and completed/past strategic fire prevention works (e.g. slashing, road upgrades/widening etc)

- Map of whole region showing the fire risk model which has been applied identifying each component and how it is calculated.

- Map (at least 1:100,000 scale) of whole region showing Nature Print, Bioregional Conservation Significance, and Highly Localised Assets

- Individual maps (at least 1:15,000 scale) including adjoining areas around parcel, showing all individual proposed burn parcels including contours (10m), EVC, flora and fauna species records biodiversity atlas (including restricted records), roads, proposed monitoring points, waterways and seasonal creek lines.

- Computer and projector with high resolution DSE Aerial photography (displayed in a GIS, not online) covering all burn parcels.

- For each proposed burn provide a detailed Adaptive Management Framework which is being applied stating how it will improve ecological management outcomes, how it will be monitored, how change will be detected, and how it will be reported.

- DSE to provide a list and explanation of all operational actions that can be used to prevent negative ecological effects.

- DSE to provide a list and explanation of the recognised ecological effects resulting from past planned burning in the Goldfields Region.

- DSE to provide a detailed model of age class distributions that it aims to achieve for the region through the planned burning program, explaining how this will enhance specific biodiversity values.

The draft is quite startlingly brutal in its assessment of its predecessor, 2003-7 Strategy: ‘low level of ownership’ by the community, ‘rapidly outdated’, ‘lack of baseline data’, vague targets and vagueness in assigning responsibility for achieving targets are a few of the criticisms it lists of that now defunct document.

This one aims higher, but its success will depend heavily on the willingness of individuals and groups to have a go. This Strategy tries to be specific, and its approach is to begin by identifying assets in the region which can be clear targets for constructive action.

What are those assets? You can help answer that question by turning up at Campbell’s Creek on the 17^th and having your say.

This is a wonderful opportunity to have input into the Regional Catchment Strategy – it’s reviewed every 6 years or so and many things can change in that time. It’s important that the community consultations highlight programs to protect, enhance and connect native fauna and flora: these are important not just in themselves, but as partners in creating the kind of land health which can underpin production.

If the word ‘strategy’ turns you off, there are probably lots of good reasons, over use being one. The draft Castlemaine Diggings NHP management plan some years ago listed as an aim the development of ‘a list of strategies…to develop strategies…!’ The word is often used to cover up a lack of activity: it’s important that the Regional Catchment Strategy doesn’t end up like that.

Details of public meetings, and access to the Draft Strategy, can be found by going to http://nccma.bangthetable.com/.

Professor Hoffman’s absorbing talk was built on a number of propositions: the climate is changing rapidly—more rapidly than it ever has; the ability of plant communities to cope with change is directly related to genetic diversity; and that, therefore, we can enhance the ability of our vegetation communities to survive rapid change by increasing their genetic diversity.

Loddon River near Guildford, September 2010: Professor Hoffman used the example of River Red Gum to suggest that restoration works should use a proportion of plants sourced some distance from the work site, in order to enhance genetic diversity.

Professor Hoffman acknowledged that his argument potentially ran counter to the accepted thinking of Landcare groups and other land restoration practitioners: these currently operate on the belief that revegetation projects should be done with plants sourced from seeds collected locally: that plants having ‘local provenance’ will be best suited to local conditions. Ari Hoffman agreed that this is generally the case, but argued that in times of change, and in situations where plant and animal communities had been fragmented by land clearing and development, isolated populations can lack the degree of genetic diversity which could increase their resilience in the face of change. He suggested that future revegetation projects should use a provenance system roughly divided as follows: about sixty per cent ‘local’; thirty per cent sourced from a ‘medium’ distance away; and ten per cent from a significant distance away. A variety of approaches could be used, depending, for example, on whether a species used wind or birds to disperse seeds.

Professor Hoffman acknowledged that there were risks in this procedure, but noted that some natural hybridisation was common, and that experimental evidence had shown that isolated populations were strengthened by the introduction of new genetic material.

Discussion of this idea was lively, probing and constructive, and the audience stayed for a long time after the talk—encouraged by the presentation of outstanding supper desserts by Growing Abundance.

]]> http://www.fobif.org.au/2012/04/fobif-poster-available-again/feed/ 0 http://www.fobif.org.au/2012/04/2012-mamunya-photo-exhibition/ http://www.fobif.org.au/2012/04/2012-mamunya-photo-exhibition/#comments Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:56:18 +0000 fobif http://www.fobif.org.au/?p=1867 Continue reading →]]> FOBIF’s 2012 Mamunya photo exhibition will be held in Tog’s Cafe Castlemaine from June 7 until July 13.

The purpose of the exhibition, as for its predecessors held in Newstead and Wesley Hill in the last two years, is to ‘honour and celebrate the box ironbark forests of Central Victoria.’ Photos will be selected from the FOBIF website gallery, supplemented by new pictures submitted by local photographers.

If you would like to contribute photographs or have any enquires, ring Bronwyn on 5475 1089 or email us on info@fobif.org.au. We need to have all contributions by 17 May to allow time for framing.

The natural biodiversity assets of Kalimna Park are under constant threat from human actions:

• invasion of exotic weeds (boneseed, gorse, blackberry, bridal creeper and garden escapees),
• pest animals (foxes, domestic cats and dogs)
• road widening
• rubbish dumping
• fire risks

Hardenbergia in Kalimna Park: the Park's proximity to Castlemaine makes it a rich asset, but also presents management challenges.

In addition, because of the Park’s proximity to housing, there is pressure on park managers to apply fuel reduction procedures which may damage the extremely high biodiversity values which persist in this part of the Park.

Aim of the Weed Mapping Project:

To support improved management of the park, a weed mapping project has been designed to identify the areas containing these weeds to assist the volunteer friends and the land manager (Parks Victoria) in their control.

Methods of control could include:

• manual pulling out
• spot spraying
• cut and painting of stumps
• controlled burning.

Process:

To employ a contractor to identify and map the weeds on the western, or township side, of Kalimna Park and to provide this map for volunteer groups and PV to use in future planning. This mini project will be managed by FOBIF in consultation with the Friends of Kalimna Park.

Follow up

FOBIF notes the recent launch of the CFA’s Landscaping for bushfires document, and the emphasis in it on choice of non flammable plants for gardens in bushfire areas. We believe that a relatively small amount of research by local volunteers could identify which plants indigenous to Kalimna Park are relatively non flammable, and that a long term program of encouraging such plants on the township side of the Park could be undertaken. Such a program could run in tandem with work done in connection with the Forest Creek Action plan, and could be integrated into Parks Victoria’s weed strategy, when this becomes available.

FOBIF is currently looking for funding to proceed with this proposal.

Fire Management on Victorian Public Land and Community Consultation

This document briefly outlines the legislative basis for fire management on public land in Victoria.  It has a particular focus on the role of prescribed burning and community consultation. It provides answers to the following questions:

• Who is responsible for fire management on public land in Victoria?
• What is the Code of Practice?
• What are they key requirements of the Code?
• What are the community consultation requirements of the Code?
• What are the DSE’s biodiversity protection requirements?

The purpose of this memo is to help individuals concerned about the environment to understand how the law surrounding fire management, especially prescribed burning, and what place community consultation holds in this process.

Who is responsible for fire management on public land in Victoria?

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (the DSE) is the government body largely responsible for managing fire on Victoria’s public land.

Public land includes National Parks, State Parks, State forests and Crown Reserves.

The DSE is headed by the Secretary of the DSE, who is currently Greg Wilson.

The DSE’s specific responsibilities are set out in the following Acts:

• The Forests Act 1958:
  • Section 62(2) states that the Secretary must carry out ‘proper and sufficient work’ for the immediate ‘prevention and suppression of fire’ and for the ‘planned prevention of fire’ in States Forests, National and State Parks, wilderness areas and Crown Reserves.
  • Sections 63 to 69 sets out the Secretary’s general powers in relation to fire suppression and prevention. These include powers to order landowners to carry out burning off activities.

• National Parks Act 1975:
  • Section 17(2)(b) states that the Secretary shall ensure that ‘appropriate and sufficient measures are taken to protect each national park and State park from injury by fire’ (s17(2)(b)).

The DSE’s fire management responsibilities are balanced by other responsibilities, such as its responsibilities to protect biodiversity, which are set out below.

Other government bodies with a role in fire management are the CFA and local councils.  The Forests Act 1958 also sets up a Chief Fire Officer of the DSE (Craig Lapsley), who is responsible for overseeing reform in fire management following the Black Saturday Bushfires.

What is the Code of Practice?

The primary instrument that regulates DSE’s fire management responsibilities is the Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land (the Code).

The Code is made under section 31 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, which allows the Minister to make Codes of Practice specifying standards and procedures for the carrying out of any of the objects or purposes of a relevant law.  Another example of a Code of Practice made under this section is the Code of Practice for Timber Production which sets out the standards and procedures for logging.

The Code is not legally binding, however in using fire on public land, the Secretary must have regard to the Code (Forests Act, s62A).

The Code was first made in 1995, and then updated in 2006.  The 2006 version of the Code is the currently applicable Code.

The Code is currently under review, and an updated Code is expected to be released in June 2012.

What are the key requirements of the Code?

The Code sets out the framework for how DSE is to plan for and deal with fire risks.

The Code sets the minimum standards and guidelines for address the threat of wildfire (under the headings ‘prevention’, ‘preparedness’, ‘response’ and ‘recovery’) – these are set out at Part 4 of the Code.

It also sets out the processes and requirements for:

• Formulating regional and local plans for dealing with fire risks (Part 2).
• Carrying out prescribed burning (Part 3).
• Auditing DSE’s compliance with the Code (Part 5).

The Code requires DSE to plan for fire risks through the preparation of a series of plans:

• DSE must prepare a 10-year Fire Management Plan for each area in Victoria, which must include:
• A Fire Protection Strategy (previously known as Fire Protection Plans) setting out the strategies to be used in each area to address fire risk.
• A Fire Ecology Strategy setting out how fire will be used to address fire risk (such as through prescribed burning).
• Links to local fire planning documents, such as Municipal Fire Management Plans (where they exist).

Despite these requirements, in most areas in Victoria only a Fire Protection Strategy exists.

• DSE must also prepare annual Fire Operations Plan setting out how the strategies in FMPs will be implemented in the next 1 to 3 years.

The Fire Protection Strategies divide areas into four different fire management zones.  The different zones relate to how important each area is to be protected from wildfire, and the mechanisms available to do so (such as prescribed burning):

• Two of the zones are focused on protection from fire: Asset Protection Zone and Strategic Wildfire Management Zone.
• Two of the zones are more focused on protecting ecological values: Ecological Management Zone, Prescribed Burning Exclusion Zone.

Prescribed burning

The location and timing of prescribed burning should be set out in the plans set out above.

In addition, the Code requires that all burns must be the subject of an approved Burn Plan.  Prescribed burning must be carried out in accordance with the Burn Plan and its conditions.

Auditing

The Code requires DSE to regularly audit its own compliance with the Code.

DSE must carry out one audit per year on a specific theme.  In addition, it must carry out a comprehensive independent audit once every five years.

What are the community consultation requirements of the Code?

The Code places particular emphasis on the importance of community consultation in fire management, particularly in the planning stage.

The Code states that fire management must be planned and conducted in partnership with the general Victorian community, in accordance with the ‘Community Partnership Principles’.

The Community Partnership Principles are:

• Community members to be appropriately involved at the local, regional and State level.
• Processes to be open and accessible to people of different backgrounds and cultures (especially Indigenous communities).
• To be transport and accountable with appropriate reporting back to the community.
• Local community knowledge and information to be actively sought, respectfully managed, and used to inform decision-making, where appropriate.
• Recognises that fire management outcomes are maximized when public and private landholders work cooperatively.

The Code sets out general principles that are to guide the preparation of the plans set out above.  In particular, one of the principles states that:

“community and stakeholder contributions to be actively sought for all fire management planning activities to inform decision making to the maximum extent practicable.”

When preparing Fire Management Plans, the Code requires that:

• The DSE must involve public and private land managers and specialists in accordance with the community partnership principles.
• The DSE must prepare a community consultation plan in accordance with known local concerns and the principles of community partnership.
• The DSE must make Draft Fire Management Plan available for public comment for 8 weeks before it is finalized, and the DSE must consider and respond to community comments, in accordance with the Community Partnership Principles.

When preparing Fire Operations Plans, the Code requires that:

• The forward planning schedules and maps for prescribed burning and new works must be made available for public inspection.
• If DSE wishes to undertake prescribed burning outside that set out in the Fire Operations Plans, these should be performed following consultation with relevant specialists and the general community.

Prescribed burning

The Code sets out the following principles which are to guide the planning and carrying out of prescribed burning:

• Prescribed burning to achieve stated land management objectives will be thoroughly planned, follow safe working practices, be controlled and the outcomes will be monitored and recorded.
• The DSE will work with communities to facilitate understanding of the role of fire as a management tool in the Victorian environment.
• Prescribed burning activities and processes are to be planned in partnership with communities.

The Code does not set out any specific consultation process that DSE must follow in the preparation of Burn Plans (which set out where prescribed burning will take place).

The Code sets out some requirements for notification when prescribed burning is to be carried out.

What are the Department’s Biodiversity Protection Requirements?

In carrying out its fire management activities, DSE must also comply with the following biodiversity protection requirements:

• Any environmental controls in the Code of Practice for Timber Production.
• The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the FFG Act):
  • The FFG Act contains the objective of ensuring that Victoria’s native flora and fauna can survive, flourish and retain their potential for evolutionary development (section 4).  The FFG requires the Secretary to administer the Act ‘in such as a way as to promote the flora and fauna conservation and management objectives’.  DSE must also be administered so as to have regard to the objectives.
  • The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999:
    • Fire management must be consistent with the Commonwealth EPBC Act.  The EPBC Act requires that any action that will have a significant impact on a ‘matter of national environmental significance’ cannot proceed unless it has been approved by the Federal Environment Minister.  The matters of national environmental significance protected by the EPBC Act include threatened species listed under the Act, and National Heritage places (like the Alpine National Parks).

The meeting did not discuss State Government fire policy. It was solely concerned with the implementation of this policy, in the light of conservationists’ dissatisfaction with the way burns are being conducted.

The objectives listed below were put to DSE officers at the meeting. They would require managers to be very precise in their burn plans about how they will manage key risks and how they will take into account community submissions. They would also require the publication of clear assessments of each burn in the light of the plans:

Objective 1 - DSE to provide detailed mapping of each burn parcel, as listed in Appendix B of the Code of Practice, to identify a broad range of regionally specific ecological values.

Burned moss patch, Muckleford State Forest, March 2012. Moss is not flammable, and is sensitive to fire. It performs a valuable role in forming crusts which protect land from erosion and soil loss. Prescribed burns which destroy such patches do not reduce fuel, but they do damage the bush. Conservation groups in Bendigo want DSE to specify what its objectives are in burns--and to be open about what they really achieve.

Objective 2 – DSE to provide detailed fuel load mapping for each burn parcel and across each Fire Management Zone.

Objective 3 – To ensure the expectation for adaptive management in the Code of Practice is met, DSE to provide detailed responses to community Fire Operations Plan input, accurately describing how this has been incorporated within the approved burn plan.

Objective 4 – DSE to prepare a fire ecology strategy before commencing further burning in the Goldfields Bioregion to ensure the expectation for adaptive ecological management in the Code of Practice is met.

Objective 5 – DSE to visit sites with community stakeholders and physically identify values visibly in the field prior to burning operations occurring, and in addition recoding the information in a spatially explicit manner to be provided in the effective Burn Plan.

Objective 6 – DSE to accurately specify the prescriptions for each burn, describing how these reflect the environmental sensitivity of regional ecosystems, and specific values within each parcel. 

Objective 7 – DSE staff will visit burn parcels with community groups to assess impacts of burn operations.

The meeting was run by a mediator, and was conducted in a good spirit. However, DSE was unable to commit to any of the objectives put before them, although these objectives are consistent with the Department’s own Code of Practice. They are also in line with recommendation 57 of the Royal Commission:

RECOMMENDATION 57 – The Department of Sustainability and Environment report annually on prescribed burning outcomes in a manner that meets public accountability objectives, including publishing details of targets, area burnt, funds expended on the program, and impacts on biodiversity.

We suspect that there would be a resourcing problem in fulfilling them.

The aim of the objectives is to introduce some clarity into the prescribed burning regime: we know a lot of fires have been lit, but what exactly has been achieved by it? Has community safety really been increased? What have been the ecological outcomes? In theory, DSE should be able to supply some answers to these questions. We haven’t been able to access these answers.

Accountability remains the central concern for environment groups: despite persistent efforts to raise awareness of ecological values with local DSE staff through existing processes, unnecessary impacts continue to occur.

There will be follow up meetings to discuss the annual Fire Operations Plan [FOP] in:

July – preview of the draft FOP, to address ecological concerns before release of the draft in August, and to review outcomes from previous burning activities,

September – detailed feedback about FOP input on specific ecological values and measures to protect these.

Thirty-Metre Tunnel, Quartz Hill. Photo by Dominique Lavie, 15 April 2011

Sliding Fold, Quartz Hill. Photo by Frank Forster, 15 April 2012

More photos of Quartz Hill and surrounds can be found on Dominique Lavie’s Facebook page. An interesting history of mining activity at Quartz Hill can be found here.

FOBIF’s next walk on 20 May will also be in Chewton. It will include the Monk and a circuit taking in Cobbler’s Gully, the Herron’s Reef diggings and possibly the Crocodile reservoir.