A war of words – and glossy brochures – has flared up in the scientific world over whether Western Australia’s major prescribed-burning program across the forests of its south-west is doing more harm than good.
The South-West Forests Defence Foundation launched its publication Prescribed Burning Fact Sheets – August 2024 outlining scientific research arguing current prescribed burning practices in the south-west forest regions does not give effective protection from wildfires, is hazardous to people’s health and is causing irreversible loss of biodiversity.
Scientists and the state government are divided over the DBCA’s prescribed burning program.
The foundation, which includes prominent scientists and environmentalists, favours a rapid detection and suppression response to bushfires rather than the current approach, which is to burn 200,000 hectares annually across the south-west forest regions, and five million hectares statewide, to reduce fuel loads.
In response, the Bushfire Front advocacy group has released its own pamphlet critiquing the foundation’s “flawed” proposal, saying it’s not based on sound science and would have disastrous outcomes in the event of a major bushfire.
It states there is no evidence prescribed burns are destroying native ecosystems; that smoke from controlled burns poses less of a risk to public health than a major fire; and that the response-only method was trialled and failed in WA in the early 1900s.
“The Americans have the biggest and best fire detection and suppression systems, including early detection, a fleet of very large aircraft and thousands of well-equipped firefighters, but they are unable to stop multiple bushfires burning in heavy fuels under severe weather conditions,” the critique said.
“Response-only is the fire control system used in NSW and Victoria but has failed spectacularly.”
In California, where wildfires had taken seven lives and destroyed more than 10,000 structures at the time this article was being prepared for publication, authorities are leveraging AI-powered tools to spot fires quicker.
The Bushfire Front’s John Clark characterised the Forests Defence Foundation’s position as advocating for “expensive and untested” technology.
He said by contrast, they saw fuel reduction burning as an essential component of bushfire management which, if done properly and at the right scale, minimised the risk of calamitous fires on bad days.
Copies of the pamphlet have been sent to government ministers and agencies.
A state government spokesman said prescribed burning remained the primary means of protecting the community and environment from the devastating impacts of large bushfires and was consistent with more than 60 years of peer-reviewed research and operational evidence collected by the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.
“The Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs in 2023 tabled its report and advised that commissioning an independent review of DBCA’s prescribed burning practices was not necessary,” he said.
“The state government supports the standing committee’s findings.
“There have been several reviews on bushfires and bushfire management since 2001 in WA and throughout Australia.
“Across these reviews, there have been consistent themes in relation to the importance of individuals, local governments, and organisations managing fuel loads to reduce bushfire risk, primarily through prescribed burning.”
WA Forest Alliance convenor Carole Peters said bland statements from the DBCA and the Bushfire Front, such as “informed by the best available science” were meaningless unless backed by up-to-date, published, peer-reviewed research.
Peters said contrary to the DBCA’s current view, the latest research showed that prescribed burning actually stimulated the growth of highly flammable understory, which increased, rather than decreased, the risk of wildfire.
“A big bureaucracy, with deeply entrenched blanket prescriptions, using a strategy of simply increasing the marketing arm with repeated responses about “keeping us safe” and being “good for biodiversity” is wearing thin,” she said.
“It’s straight out of the Donald Trump-style political playbook to repeat the same old messages, inspired by retired foresters who support logging, thinning and burning, with claims that their on-the-ground experience amounts to hundreds of years of expertise.
“Repeated claims that “fuel reduction burning will keep us safe from catastrophic wildfires”, “cool burns” and “mosaic burns” are good for biodiversity, Indigenous people burnt for thousands of years, presented as standalone statements. None of this stands up to scrutiny.”
A rally will be held in Nornalup on January 18 over a burn scheduled for the famous tingle forests.
A guide to the environment, what’s happening to it, what’s being done about it and what it means for the future. Sign up to our fortnightly Environment newsletter here.