As we observe the first anniversary if the horrific firestorms that ravaged whole communities on Black Saturday, a typically scorching summer has again gripped much of Australia, providing a stark reminder that such dangers are a constant threat for those living in a sunburnt country.

Tragedies such as Black Saturday have been made possible by poor forest management. Picture: AFP

Yet despite an ongoing Royal Commission, a flurry of catastrophic warnings and a flood of big-ticket resources which go right up to a water-bombing jumbo jet, little attention has thus far been given to the vital role that sustainable forestry traditionally played in essential aspects of fire management.

In recent decades, as politicians clamoured to placate the noisy environmental movement, they blissfully ignored the long-standing efforts of a sustainable forestry industry in managing forests, reducing fuel loads, building and maintaining access routes and fighting fires.

And while this failure may have cemented the votes of the latte-set, it resulted in the decay of the forest products industry, neglect of infrastructure and the loss of countless workers equipped with unmatchable knowledge of local topography, vegetation and access routes.

Changed land use decisions and policies transferred huge areas of forests into parks at the expense of multiple use managed forest systems, which incorporate limited timber harvesting and active fire mitigation activity. The unintended consequences of this have contributed to bushfires burning out of control with catastrophic social, economic and environmental results.

Across Australia, 11 million hectares of public land previously available for timber harvesting was locked away, creating huge areas where an ever-increasing amount of unmanaged bushfire fuel has accumulated.

In fact, there is now strong scientific evidence that suggests that bushfires occurring at unnatural frequencies are the greatest threat to Australia’s native forests, not sustainable timber harvesting. These more frequent and intense fires have the potential to alter forest ecological structure, promote weed invasions, eliminate endangered native species, effect water quality in catchment areas and release large amounts of carbon emissions.

As we look at all possible avenues to prevent a repeat of the Victorian fires of nearly one year ago, there is no question that forestry and sustainable timber harvesting should play a vital role. In our submission to the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, the union made clear our belief that this bushfire disaster was exacerbated by the failure of current land management policy to adequately mitigate fire risk, with that mismanagement heightening the probability and intensity of bushfires in some cases.

In the last 25 years alone, a range of State and Federal Government policies have seen the areas available for sustainable timber harvesting in Victoria reduced by more than 30 percent. The result has been that in less than two decades the number of people employed in timber harvesting dropped by nearly a third. With those jobs has gone an irreplaceable pool of on-the-ground expertise and institutional knowledge about the environment in which they work from a group who have long been quietly at the forefront of fire prevention and firefighting activities.

As the Victorian fires demonstrated, it is unreasonable to expect firefighters in an emergency situation to immediately grasp the intricacies of local topography, vegetation and access routes in the same way as forestry workers, who have accumulated this knowledge over a lifetime.

In 2008, before the tragic events of Black Saturday, the Victorian Government’s own Environment and Natural Resource Committee concluded that: “the decline in local knowledge, skill, resources and infrastructure associated with the restriction of traditional land uses has had a negative impact on the ability of relevant agencies to manage fire on public land.”

Reduced timber harvesting has also led to the deterioration of vehicle access tracks, which in the past have proved to be a reliable and highly valuable means of accessing remote forested areas when conducting fuel reduction burning and in responding to bushfire emergencies.

Along with the dilapidation of this critical road infrastructure network is the loss of specialist machinery and equipment available for firefighting emergency situations, such as bulldozers, graders and tankers utilised in timber harvesting and haulage operations.

Biomass, which in the wrong circumstances becomes bushfire fuel, has been allowed to accumulate at a greater rate than if a sustainable harvesting regime was in place. Indeed, renewable forestry has been completely neglected as a responsible and desirable means of reducing potential fuel loads, a technique that can have ecological benefits by creating a mosaic of diversity in age and density of timber stands.

With summer again gripping our wide brown land, and the Royal Commission still up to six months away from delivering its final recommendations, there are immediate steps that can and should be taken to address these issues.

Government support must be forthcoming to the industry to ensure it can viably continue to maintain vehicle access tracks and provide assistance with both manpower and machinery.

The skills and knowledge of forestry workers should be given recognition within public policy as being vital in forest and fire management, and their unique, detailed knowledge of forested areas better utilised in the prevention and fighting of fires.

Fuel reduction should also be increased, with sustainable forestry and increased levels of fuel reduction burning used as tools, as well as the investigation of techniques for mechanical management of biomass.

To further undermine the role of sustainable forestry in regional Australia would represent a dangerous step towards further amplifying the fire risk already posed by Australia’s often savage climate.

Most commented

29 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • T.Chong says:

      06:53am | 10/02/10

      Well done Mick, youve found a good place to preach about the evilness of greenies. Most here will agree that too much has been locked away in order to secure the votes of the “latte crowd”.
      Only problem Mick is you represent a union, and as lots here will tell you, unions are only for commie red losers who cant survive as individuals.
      ( they will also probaly have forgotten that noble spectacle of your union so proudly supporting Little Johnny [remember him, the pollie who tried to destroy unions via WorkNoChoices] in Tassie.
      So it should be fun watching Right Punchers supporting yur UNION against the wicked socialist state and federal govts.
      Now for a stirring rendition of “Im a lumberjacjk and Im OK…,”

    • Malone says:

      10:49am | 10/02/10

      “...commie red loser who can’t survive as individuals”? I guess those people who went on strike for months on end for fair pay, penalty rates, sick days, maternity leave and holiday pay, so that the government would change laws and allow ALL people to have access to these rights, would be woefully disappointed that someone who benefits from their actions, gives no thanks ot the stuggle they went through.

      Are unions perfect? No. Are employers perfect? No. There needs to be constant vigilance of all stakeholders, this is the price of democracy.

      As for this particular union, their views in no way reflected the view of majority union memebers. (Common Cause, 2007).

    • John A Neve says:

      07:47am | 10/02/10

      Michael,
      While interesting to read, your comments miss the obvious. For 60 thousand years this country survived without man’s interference. There were more trees, many more trees. Fires burnt and still do, man will never stop them.
      The facts are, you build a combustable home in the middle of a forest, you are taking a risk. If you know the region at all? You would know many of the houses destroyed should have never been allowed to be built.
      We have even had plantation forests burn, based on your comments that should never happen!!

    • Rafe says:

      12:19pm | 10/02/10

      WRONG!

      Aboriginals used fire in Australia for a long time before Europeans arrived.

    • John A Neve says:

      12:52pm | 10/02/10

      Rafe,

      Please tell just what is “WRONG”?
      Where have I ever said Aboriginal didn’t use fire?
      Just what are you on about?

    • iansand says:

      08:16am | 10/02/10

      Duffy.

    • Helen says:

      08:21am | 10/02/10

      they will also probaly have forgotten that noble spectacle of your union so proudly supporting Little Johnny [remember him, the pollie who tried to destroy unions via WorkNoChoices] in Tassie

      No, many of us haven’t forgotten and it has contributed to the breakaway of many old Labor voters to the Greens. Not just the disastrous attitude to the Tasmanian environment, but the grubby politics as well. That was a shameful performance from O’Connor and Gillard. O’Connor is concerned with his political machinations, not about helping the environment.

    • Mountainman says:

      08:41am | 10/02/10

      John, I agree about the planning issues. Living in the bush is wonderful, and offers a unique lifestyle, but it comes with inherent risks. If you chose to live in bushfire prone regions you need to ensure your house is up to the task, you have adequate plans to protect yourself and your family, and you are willing to lose your property to the flames in the worst case scenario.
      T.Chong / Helen: I see that in true punch style you have abandoned reasoned debate about the topic at hand and instead want to get into personality politics. If your viewpoints are so superior argue them on their merits. With a royal commission and millions of dollars being pumped in to stop a repeat of the horror of Black Saturday, I think all options should be put out there, discussed and the best ones followed up. To ignore on option because the person suggesting it did or said something you didn’t like six years ago is at best childish, and at worst downright dangerous.

    • Tim says:

      08:50am | 10/02/10

      Has John A Neve not heard of indigenous Australians and their thousands of year’s long role in land management, including processes of ‘fuel reduction’? Is it conceivable he does not understand that indigenous people have been removed from these roles by the rest of us and that the land use management practices they employed have not been replaced in most cases?

      There are lessons we should learn from eons of history and one of those is that our land has for thousands of years been managed and it needs to be managed now. Paying for that management process by sustainable production forestry for timber and biomass energy is a necessary feature of that management process.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:41am | 10/02/10

      Tim,
      Any one born here is “indigenous”, if you are talking about early Australians, yes, I’ve heard the stories. “Fires burnt for
      thousands of miles”. I also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause.

      Just how many early Australian do you think there were Tim?
      Do you really think they guarded ALL the forests?

    • persephone says:

      10:00am | 10/02/10

      Tim

      the Aborigines burnt where they lived - the flat grassy plain areas, in order to keep them clear of shrubs and trees.

      The majority of our severe fires occur in forested and mountainous areas, where they only rarely ventured. Any fires which occured in these areas historically were the result of lightning strikes.

      Most modern burn off programs target these areas, as the flat grassy plains tend to be pastureland now.

      There is NO research into whether or not reduction burning actually reduces fire intensity - all our knowledge is based on observation alone, and people confronting firestorms do not always make the best scientific observers.

      At the moment, we are undertaking a regime of reduction burning on the principle that ‘it feels like the right thing to do’ rather than on the basis of real research.

    • Nigel says:

      12:24pm | 10/02/10

      Who is ‘we’ persephone?
      ’ we are undertaking a regime of reduction burning ...’  Are you a spokesperson for the NSW Government or the Federal Government

    • Carl Palmer says:

      01:52pm | 10/02/10

      I’m no expert, but it would seem to me that if I’m walking in the bush on what would appear to be the equivalent of “dry paper” that it would make sense to somehow remove it when the time was right.

      Back burning doesn’t guarantee that you won’t experience a bush fire but I’m sure as hell far more comfortable that it was done. I’m happy and fully support back burnning in my area.

    • persephone says:

      02:20pm | 10/02/10

      ‘We’ is the community, Nigel.

      Carl - back burning is not fuel reduction. Back burning is what you do when there’s a fire front coming; you burn back to it to deprive it of fuel.

      As I said, at present fuel reduction occurs on the same basis of your comment: it seems like a good idea.

      And so it probably is, but it would be better if it were a good idea backed up by science. Then we (the community) would also have a better idea of how much to do and when.

    • Randal says:

      04:05pm | 10/02/10

      Persephone, you continually state as facts things that you either know that are untrue or that you know nothing about.

      There has been ongoing research into the affects of reduction since the Black Friday fires in 1939, in fact every Royal Commission after Black Friday dealing with months of expert witnesses has recommended increased fuel reduction as way of limiting the risk of wildfires (this is of course precludes the current ongoing Royal Commission into the Black Saturday fires).

      Organisation’s such as the Bushfire CRC and most universities have also conducted research into this area and in all research that I am aware of fuel reduction is an essential part of the any plan to combat the threat of bushfires upon regional homes, businesses and townships.

      Only the mad or deranged (aka Greenies) would think that prescribed and planned burning to reduce the fuel loads around population centres would not limit the impact that a fire may have on those areas.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      04:06pm | 10/02/10

      @ persephone says: 03:20pm | 10/02/10

      Us non technical suburb folks refer to it as back burning, strangely so does the RFS but if it’s fire reduction, then fine splitting hairs for mine.

      I didn’t ask the local brigade to start the back burning / fire reduction exercise and I doubt that they started it just because they felt it was the right thing to do. I suspect that there may have been a higher authority involved who probably have a higher understanding of the issue backed by no doubt common sense and a bit of science.

      Finally, speaking to the people on the ground – as a few have alluded to here is far better and defiantly quicker than waiting for the science to get its act together. I think that’s what the author was also alluding to.

    • persephone says:

      07:17am | 11/02/10

      I’m a member of my local CFA. I talk to firefighters all the time. I talk to the DSE guys in charge of local burns all the time (who freely admit there is no research to back their actions). I was involved in a research project into local fires - we’ve had 3 major ones in the last eight years - which, with the aid of the Victorian CFA and Monash University, searched for over a year to see if there was any research into the effectiveness of fuel reduction burning.

      Couldn’t find any.

      Certainly there is no lack of expert witnesses (and local volunteers) willing to get up and talk on the subject, but I have not been able to find any hard research.

      If you know of any , I would be most happy to hear about it.

      As I said, there is heaps of anecdotal evidence, but that’s all we have. I don’t doubt there is a role for fuel reduction burning, all I’m saying is we (the community) need to invest in the science so that there’s better understanding of what we’re doing and why.

      I would qualify on any count as ‘a person on the ground’ BTW.

      I have been brought up with an interest in fire and fire behaviour; my grandfather was the sole survivor from a small bush settlement burnt in 1929 and lived for most of my childhood next to a forest which had been burnt out in 1939 (we could still see the dead trees very clearly).

    • Carl Palmer says:

      10:22am | 10/02/10

      Michael, I think that you make a valid point. However your proposition must be balanced with a number of other initiatives to reduce – as much as possible the possibility of people loosing their lives, livelihoods and homes.

      I am by no means an expert but I do live near the bush and have over a number of years been evacuated because of bush fires - thankfully only a few times and no loss.

      The problem resides at all levels of Govt and the continued stupidity to build in areas where there will be no chance of survival or the protection of property should a bushfire come their way staggers me.

      The greens and the parties that benefit from their preferences have a lot to answer. They are all for protecting the environment (which we all support) but when people sustain damage and loss of life because of their policies they conveniently disappear nowhere to be found. The guy who cleared his land and survived the Victorian bushfire found himself in court because of his actions. To me this is Green / environmental policy gone mad.

      For mine, I will support any policy that will tilt the balance back towards the protection of property & people over the protection of Flora and Fauna.

    • farm boy says:

      10:33am | 10/02/10

      I need someone to answer i question of mine that has been bugging me for about six weeks.  I live on a farm in a valley.  North of the farm is the dorigo national park south or behind the farm is state forrests.  Around winter last year the national parks did s fire reduction program by lighting fires in lines you know basic fire reduction stuff.  Actually it was quite spectactular to watch the fire lines criss crossing the mountains.  My question is why is it right for the national parks to do a fire reduction and the state forrestry to do nothing.  now i do agree that there are idiots who live up here in the bush who wouldn’t have a clue about fire safety.  My Family are freinds with the captain of the local bush fire brigade.  He tells us his frustrations with dopy idiouts.  But he also tell us about city experts who come up to the area with no local experince and will not listen to the local who have been on the bushfire brigade for a long time and tell them about how the fire usually behavies up here

    • Carl Palmer says:

      01:33pm | 10/02/10

      Beautiful soil and a beautiful part of the state.

      I know the Old coast road quite well.

    • Louis McLennan says:

      10:41am | 10/02/10

      City people, they’ll never get it.

    • Helen says:

      12:16pm | 10/02/10

      City people, they’ll never get it. O RLY. Yes, I’ll never get why the people of Mirboo North let off a fullsize fireworks display at 9 am (I kid you not) on the Sunday preceding the Churchill fire, IN a piece of roadside bush with uncut grass and tinder dry bark everywhere on a 30-something degree day. (For the Catholic Festival of st Paul I believe.) And they did it again this year as far as I know altho’ I wasn’t there and my bro told me they toned it down a wee bit. Yes, as a mere city person I don’t understand it, but you see country people have this special innate wisdom…
      What about the people in the city who are scientists and botanists? What about country people who commit arson?  What about country people who are tree changers who commute? At what point do they cross over? This city people/country people thing is such a crock.

    • formersnag says:

      01:24pm | 10/02/10

      All of you have forgotten about “grazing animals”. Before white man, there were millions of roos & wallabies eating the undergrowth in these forests & afterwards there were domesticated cattle, etc keeping fuel loads lower. In recent years many of these areas have become bush weekenders devoid of farming animals & feral carnivores have eaten the roos as well. Throw in lunatic fringe greenie politics as well & you have a disaster waiting for the lightening strikes, dodgey power poles & wind.

    • persephone says:

      02:27pm | 10/02/10

      formersnag

      no, in fact there are more roos now then there ever were pre settlement.

      Again, they lived on the grasslands (which is why the aborigines burnt these, to encourage the grass for the roos) with far far fewer in mountainous terrain.

      The worry about fuel reduction is that it encourages plants which like to burn.

      After the 1939 bushfires, there was a Royal Commission into fires. One of the experts at the time was from the Melbourne Water Board (MMBW).

      They used no form of fuel reduction at all, because they believed that the forest, left to itself, became highly fire resistant- the vegetation on the ground rotted, created a wet environment and the plants which liked to burn were replaced by ones which were more fire retardant.

      Although the MMBW’s views were rejected by the commission, this regime was kept in place on MMBW land.

      Some of this did burn in 2009 - the first fire through that area since 1939 - but the area seems to have not been as severely affected as one would have predicted and is recovering well now (and anyway, one major fire in 70 years is good going by Victorian standards!)

      As I keep saying (sorry, hobby horse) we need more research in this area.

    • 6clegs says Pulp the Mill says:

      02:51pm | 10/02/10

      ” Throw in lunatic fringe greenie politics as & you have a disaster waiting…’‘

      whereas of course the fundie conservatives always have all the country/bush living athesits, and ‘bush labor voters’, not to mention the Environment front and centre in all their policies…

      IM’umbleO ALL levels of govt ‘allowed’ the tradgedy that was Black Saturday 09. by ‘allowing’ houses be built where they were, and skinny and winding roads that offered no evacuation plan be put in place.

      (i also cannot get the vision of John Winston Howard being lauded by YOUR union members in the Albert Hall out of my head !) BTW Mr O’connor, care to enlighten we Punch readers/contributors on *just how many people ACTUALLY work in ‘the Tasmanian timber industry*?
      For it seems to be a number, that if known, no one wants to share.
      I wonder why?
      It wouldn’t be because the number is tiny, would it?

      NO, to a dirty stinking pulp mill!

    • formersnag says:

      06:03pm | 10/02/10

      Sorry persephone, i am well aware of the oversupply of big greys & reds out west on Australia’s grasslands, but there were many other species of rock wallabies, etc, all over Australia, in the forest. Many of them are now extinct thanks to predation by feral carnivores. If you go back a little further in our history say 40,000 years or so, we also had mega fauna which the aborigines killed off. Which also changed our forests from mostly pines to eucalypts & mostly wet rain forest, to dry.

    • persephone says:

      07:23am | 11/02/10

      formersnag

      There’s a fair few Eastern greys banging around, too - saw some in the grounds of my local hospital yesterday!

      I take your point on rock wallabies (not big forest grazers) and the like, but would point out that in the areas where they might have had some impact on fuel reduction, they have in fact been replaced by larger grazing animals such as brumbies and deer.

      And you are, of course, correct about the megafauna, but I’m not sure of their relevance to this discussion.

    • James Gray says:

      03:38pm | 10/02/10

      You nailed it Michael. Humans must be re-empowered to manage forests and maintain safe fuel loads in forests. There is nothing sustainable about a national park system that slurps huge taxpayer dollars yet can’t protect forests from ravaging mega fires. This is a major national problem.

      You’re also right when saying sustainable forest management that includes harvesting timber is the answer to protecting the environment and communities from bushfire. Now we need State and Federal policies to support an increased capacity of the forest industry to protect our environment and communities, and ensure native forests are there for future generations.

    • blossom fungus says:

      08:29pm | 27/08/10

      The bush is crying out to us .... ie the planet .
      I have worked for ten years as a horticulturalist.
      I earn 25 thousand dollars a year and support a family - I cope because I know real food and I know your law ie common
      I am not a scientist.
      I am an anarchist

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter