Anthony Moore 153588 CRS100 Major

Interestingly, a study in south-eastern Australian forests described a conflict between hazard reduction and maintenance of biodiversity. Fire intervals of <4 years and 8+ years were respectively recommended; in some habitats concurrent hazard reduction and effective species conservation may not be achievable (Morrison et al. 1996). This reveals a deeper, indirect impact on the environment caused by the dominant culture knowledge system and the values it places upon property and possessions – increasingly populated bushland areas will most likely be managed for risk reduction, at the detriment of natural ecosystems.

In the Australian tropics, fire regimes are perhaps better understood and based upon a combination of scientific research and traditional knowledge. However, even in the sparsely populated indigenous lands, fire regimes in modern times are often not ecologically ideal. Largely due to centralisation and depopulation of the bush following European colonisation, many remote areas are now left for too long between burns, resulting in hot, destructive fires. Closer to settlements fire management is better; however, as people lose dependence upon the bush for resources, younger generations are becoming ignorant of the correct ways to burn (Yibarbuk 1998).

In short, current fire management in Australia is probably far from ideal. With the possible exception of the tropical savannas, it appears change in fire management has been forced due to safety and ecological concerns, rather than occurring through a conscious effort to incorporate other knowledge systems. There is movement away from the fire-exclusion policies now recognised as dangerous and ecologically damaging, perhaps hinting of evolution towards more sustainable forms of management.

What is the Status Quo?

Modern fire management in Australia widely recognises the importance of utilising low intensity prescribed burns to reduce fuel loads within bushland areas and lower the risk of wildfire impact on humans (Penman 2007). Despite developing for very different reasons, this style of management appears to be more closely aligned with traditional indigenous practices. Indeed, some modern fire management plans implemented in the tropical savannas and arid regions are specifically modelled upon traditional fire regimes ( Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2007, Kakadu Board of Management and Parks Australia 1998). However, experts maintain that in most areas, particularly the temperate Eucalypt forests, the fuel accumulation rate still greatly exceeds the rate of fuel removal or treatment – a key factor leading to extreme fire events (Bushfire CRC 2006).

The status quo in Australian fire management appears to be evolving from old fire-exclusion policies towards some semblance or at least recognition of indigenous regimes, but apparently only at a rate which does not cause inconvenience or negative economic impacts. For example, fire risk analysts recommend that prescribed burns be much more frequent and widespread than presently used, however resources for this are often limited (Bushfire CRC 2006). Further, land uses such as forestry, tourism and mining may also determine that burns are not performed when required, influencing the effectiveness of fire management.