Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

FOBIF has received a reply from the Minister for Bushfire Response, Peter Ryan. We asked him if he had considered Royal Commission Monitor Neil Comrie’s recommendation that the five per cent burning target be revised. It’s now clear from the three letters we’ve had from Government members that there is no intention of doing anything about Mr Comrie’s recommendation.

When Mr Comrie’s report was released, Mr Ryan told The Age  [August 1], ”I see the logic of what he argues and we will give it due consideration,” he said.

Mr Ryan doesn’t bother getting even this specific in his response to FOBIF. His letter runs as follows:

‘Thank you for your correspondence received by this office…in which you raise concerns regarding planned burning.

Tarilta Creek valley before this year's 'control burn': Large operations like this in remoter areas reduce DSE's capacity to do the detailed work which would enable it to protect the community without damaging the environment. The Government appears to be ignoring the Royal Commission Monitor on this matter. Photo: Dominique Lavie

‘It is important to note that planned burning is part of an integrated plan to reduce the bushfire risk to people, property and communities. Combined with community and householder preparedness, planned burning is a very effective way to reduce the risk of future bushfire by reducing the extremely high fuel loads that have built up in our environment, slowing bushfires down and  making them less intense, and therefore easier to control before they grow and threaten properties and communities.

‘As the issue you raise relates to the Department of Sustainability and Environment, I have forwarded your correspondence to the Honourable Ryan Smith MP, Minister for Environment and Climate Change, for his consideration and response.

‘Thank you for raising this matter with me.’

In other words: ‘I’m not answering your question.’ As our readers know, we have already had Mr Smith’s reply in the form of a letter from DSE’s fire boss, Lee Miezis. He didn’t answer our question either: from which we have to conclude that the Government isn’t going to do anything about Mr Comrie’s recommendation. There’s no evidence that it’s been given any consideration at all.

Continue reading →

With DSE starting burns around Castlemaine, it’s worth clarifying what the Department’s targets are. The following has been supplied to us by DSE for land within the Murray Goldfields district:

In his reply to FOBIF’s question of the safety value of the five percent target, DSE Executive Director, Fire [Lee Miezis], sought to create the impression that Asset Protection burns, those most directly concerned with human safety, had been vigorously pursued, while Landscape Management burns in remoter areas were relatively softly pursued.

It’s clear from the above table that nearly half DSE’s fuel reduction burns in the Murray Goldfields district are in remoter areas. FOBIF’s view [like that of the Royal Commission Monitor], is that the effort put into these exercises would be better spent doing a more effective job in areas closer to settlements.

This more effective work might, for example, involve fuel reduction through methods other than burning [grooming and slashing, for example]–but these can be time consuming and labour intensive.

Part of the problem is that Royal Commission recommendation 56 was for ‘prescribed burning’, not ‘fuel reduction’. There are other ways of reducing fuel than setting fire to the bush, but we have found that there is confusion in the DSE itself about whether fuel reduction by, for example, grooming 50 hectares of gorse, counts towards the five per cent target. The result is a drive to burn regardless, and the government is apparently unwilling to review this policy.

FOBIF has had another go at finding out what if anything the Government intends to do about the Royal Commission Monitor’s suggestion that the five per cent target be revised. The letter we received from DSE Director of Fire, Lee Miezis, failed to answer our question on this.

We’ve also asked Mr Miezis to give us examples to back up his claim that the Monitoring program Hawkeye is ‘guiding approaches to planned burning.’ Though we believe that local DSE fire managers are trying to tighten up their practices, we haven’t seen any evidence on the ground of a guiding research principle.

According to DSE”s 2011 publication ‘Fire ecology program achievements 2009-11’, Hawkeye is a ‘long-term biodiversity monitoring project’ established in 2010 ‘to inform the way [DSE] conducts planned burning and guide how we balance the dual objectives of fire safety and biodiversity protection.’  The project began field operations in 2011. Hawkeye might be a very good project: we think it could be. But to claim that it is already ‘guiding’ DSE approaches to planned burning –one year into a long term project!–is testing our goodwill.

It should be remembered that DSE and its predecessors have been producing Codes of Practice, Strategic Directions and Guidelines and Procedures on fire management for many years. The oldest one we have is the 1995 code, which stipulates that fire management practices must ‘be appropriate for maintaining the vigour and diversity’ of our native flora and fauna; that they must protect water quality by minimising impact on streams; that they must prevent ‘inappropriate destruction’ of soil; that the possible introduction of pest plants and animals be avoided; and that burns should be monitored when specialist officers recommend.

The claim that burning is being guided by a program that’s one year old seems to be an admission that the requirements of numerous Codes of Practice over the years have been widely ignored.