Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

On the subject of monitoring and reporting, almost everything in the Monitor’s Report referred to developing strategies, frameworks, ‘additional measures’ to be implemented: to things that are going to be done, not things that have been done. Meanwhile, the burning program charges on: it’s like someone driving flat out along the highway at twice the speed limit, while a group of experts in the back seat try to figure out whether this is dangerous, or whether the engine might burn out.

We’ve put some giveaway passages in bold:

‘[The draft new annual reporting framework] is a comprehensive framework that also includes commentary on community engagement activities. Data will be presented in a simple, user-friendly format, which displays outcomes against performance indicators via a traffic light ratings system. The framework reviewed by the BRCIM was indicative and did not include actual data. Data will be incorporated in time for publication in the DEPI 2012-13 Annual Report on the Planned burning program.

‘The BRCIM notes the progress in the development of additional measures to ensure planned burning outcomes are captured and reported. It is, however, premature to comment on the efficacy of these initiatives until they are incorporated into the DEPI Annual Report on the Planned Burning Program as outlined in recommendation 57(a) above. The BRCIM will revisit action 57(b) in the 2014 Annual Report.

Continue reading →

 On the subject of the hectare target, Mr Comrie appears to accept the Government’s view that all is going well in the development of an informed approach to fuel management: but most of what he cites as evidence for this is talk, not action:

‘The BRCIM notes that in May 2013, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change stated in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee:

“We are also doing a lot of work around developing a risk based strategic approach to fuel management on public land. We want to have a program that is based on the risk to human life and critical assets. We want to have an approach that helps us make evidenced-based decisions around bushfire management and also allows us to assess the work we have done and make sure that we have the policy objective of reducing the risk of bushfires while having an eye on property and critical infrastructure and certainly on ecosystems.” p 63

Sludge in the Tarilta Creek after an 'ecological burn', March 2012. 'We want to have an eye on critical infrastructure, and certainly ecosystems.' The question is: why should 'having an eye on ecosystems' have to wait for the development of a flash new system?

‘The BCRIM has been advised that the State has recently adopted a broad accounting framework for planned burning and fuel management on public land as part of the strategic risk based approach described above by the Minister. The BRCIM strongly supports this more holistic approach to managing and reporting bushfire fuel reduction on public land. In the accounting framework, planned burning will be acknowledged as one (albeit the most substantial) of a range of fuel management treatments. Others will include slashing, mulching, mowing, spraying, grazing and under certain specific circumstances, bushfire which as mentioned above has traditionally been excluded from planned burning targets.

Continue reading →

Participants at the July 15 Bendigo information session on the Fire Operations Plan were briefed on the ‘Risk Landscapes’ project. This consists of running models of different fire scenarios and fuel reduction exercises through a computer to see how they would affect the two aims of human safety and ecological resilience.

The project uses a program called ‘Phoenix rapidfire’, and was proclaimed as the next big thing in 2011–though specific details of what it has achieved were markedly absent from Monday’s presentation.

It’s theoretically possible that if researchers put every available bit of relevant information about a particular piece of land into a computer, and ran various scenarios [about weather conditions, etc] through the program, they could simulate how damaging a bushfire would be. If they varied the information to make assumptions about how much fuel reduction had taken place in those parcels of land, they could see what effect this fuel reduction would have on a possible fire. They could use the same research approach to simulate how ecologically damaging a bushfire would be, and similarly, how much damage a fuel reduction exercise would be.

Continue reading →

 As previewed in our July 2 Post, FOBIF members went to Bendigo on Monday night for an information session on the upcoming Fire Operations Plan. The draft plan will be made public on August 1.

Experience has taught us to expect this kind of session to be both informative and frustrating, and Monday was a good example.

Mount Alexander: habitat trees destroyed in a 'reduction burn' which was allowed to spread beyond its supposed boundaries in 2009. DEPI information on what exactly was achieved in this operation is not publicly available. Nor are DEPI assessments of other burns.

On the informative side, we were given a preview of planned burns for the next three years. We will review these in more detail when updated maps become available in August. New burns include a number of small [usually less than 15 ha] plots close to settlements. On the whole we do not oppose these operations: their safety function is usually clear, and the brutal fact is that ecological values are sacrificed to that end. We were also informed that the ‘Environment and Water’ team had reviewed 65 burns and recommended ‘mitigation measures’ [this seems to mean mainly putting in exclusion areas] in 54 of them. This last information is encouraging…but frustratingly vague, as illustrated by answers to the following questions:

Question: Is the information given to burn managers about ecological values publicly available?

Answer: No.

Question: The Code of Practice says that the Department ‘will make publicly accessible information about…how well bushfire management actions and strategies are achieving the two primary objectives for bushfire management on public land.’ [These objectives are human safety and ecological resilience.] Can we have this information about specific burns which we are concerned about?

Answer: No.

These answers are refreshingly frank. What they mean, however, is

Continue reading →

FOBIF and other groups have been invited to an information session in Bendigo on July 15 on the upcoming Fire Operations Plan.

We have accepted the invitation, but have asked that the meeting specifically address how past monitoring and research have influenced fire managers’ practice in management burns. This would be consistent with the Department’s Code of Practice, which stipulates that

‘The Department will aim to continually learn from and improve its practices and

acknowledges that a range of parties are interested in this…

‘The Department will make publicly accessible information about:

— the performance of its bushfire management actions, and the status of achievements of strategies and objectives

–information gained from monitoring and evaluation activities

— how well bushfire management actions and strategies are achieving the two primary objectives for bushfire management on public land.

‘Information from monitoring and evaluation will be made available in ways that

increases the capacity to interpret the information and apply it to their local

situation.’ [page 31]