PARK WATCH Article December 2024 |

A revised Code of Practice for Bushfire Management on Public Land is a great opportunity, but the draft has missed the mark, says Matt Ruchel, Executive Director

Over the last few years, hundreds of large hollow-bearing habitat trees have been cleared on public land, including national parks. Some contained threatened animals, such as Greater Gliders. Thousands of tonnes of potential habitat have been sold for firewood and timber products in the name of fire prevention.

Everyone recognises the critical role services such as Forest Fire Management Victoria (FFMV) play in protecting lives and assets. But does this give them a blank cheque to operate as they like outside of emergency periods?

Like any government department, they should have a high degree of accountability, and aim for best practice in everything they do.  Recently we’ve seen FFMV grow in size and scale. All fire staff from Parks Victoria have been moved to FFMV. Over 300 VicForests contractors and around 80 former VicForests staff have been added to the workforce to manage fire preparation works.

Works conducted under the guise of fire mitigation are not subject to normal forestry guidelines. Not even the minimum standards set out in the Code of Practice for Timber Production. Not even if the timber is sold. There’s no independent oversight of fire-related management on nature, such as when the Conservation Regulator oversaw VicForests. This is despite the same contractors being used. In other words, the storm clean-up and strategic fuel break construction works look a lot like forestry, or – even worse – like permanent land clearing.

The consultation draft of the code of bushfire management explicitly recognises conservation issues but repeats many mistakes and flaws of the previous code. It does little to improve transparency, accountability or oversight, and lacks consistency with national and state nature laws.

NSW’s Bush Fire Environmental Assessment Code considers threatened plants and animals, weed management and soil erosion. It has detailed rules about what can be done to ease impacts on nature and wildlife. Victoria, with over 2000 threatened plants and animals, deserves at least an equivalent of the code.

The draft code does commit to ‘maximise the conservation of native flora and fauna species through a range of actions that support persistence and diversity, and/or minimise loss or extinction (e.g. emergency interventions, extinction prevention)’. While that sounds good on paper, it doesn’t spell out how fire managers can achieve these aims.

The draft doesn’t mention any of our nature laws, such as the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. And it does not mention the state biodiversity strategy, despite it being run out of the same department.

The revised code does not include clear commitments, like those in South Australia’s Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land.

What the code does introduce is a new ‘fire sensitive zone’ that aims to ‘protect fire sensitive species and ecosystems and manage land primarily for environmental outcomes’. This is a welcome addition, but what it looks like on the ground is yet to be seen.

  • Key problems with the draft code of practice include:
  • Lack of transparency, accountability and oversight.
  • Clear gaps in the treatment of hollow-bearing trees and threatened plants and animals.
  • Missing clear definitions for some key concepts.
  • Lack of clarity on the process for site and values assessments.
  • Lack of clarity on the role of citizen science.

Every Victorian knows the harm that wildfire can cause, but causing more harm now to prevent future damage just doesn’t add up. It’s crucial to tighten the rules on fire management outside of emergency times. Any new code of practice should focus on using the best practice in an ecologically responsible way.

Read our full submission to the Consultation Draft Code of Practice for Bushfire Management on Public Land 2024