Plain language summary: Why Do we Burn? Examining arguments underpinning the use of prescribed burning to manage wildfire risk

By Pele J. Cannon and Sarah Clement

Read the full paper here

Wildfires are a natural occurrence, but global fire patterns are changing, which is placing more ecosystems and communities at risk. Climate change is also affecting where and how often wildfires occur, and how severe or intense they are. The use of intentional fire (also known as ‘prescribed burning’) is one approach to reduce potential risks and impacts of wildfire; i.e. by reducing the amount of ‘fuel’ (vegetation) available to burn.

However, prescribed burning can also have impacts on biodiversity, and climate change is impacting the availability of windows to conduct such controlled burning. This leads to questions, tensions, and controversies—among experts, managers, and the public—about how wildfire risk should be managed, and how much risk can be effectively reduced through prescribed burning.

Our paper investigates one example of such controversy by analysing the arguments and justifications involved in a petition to review the prescribed burning program of a state government department in Western Australia (WA). The south-west region of WA is a highly biodiverse region, with evident polarisation between decision-makers, experts, and communities. Conflict here has centred on choices about the specific trade-offs involved and the evidence used to make those choices.

We reviewed all the documents associated with a Petition for an independent scientific review of the department’s program, as well as transcripts from the ensuing hearings conducted, and report published, by the parliamentary Committee tasked with responding to the Petition.

We found that the Committee failed to address two important issues raised by Petitioners: 1) that the scientific basis for the design of the prescribed burning program was flawed and needs to be reviewed, and 2) questions about the legitimacy and credibility of the department. This failure – combined with subsequent resistance to impartial external review – could explain ongoing distrust and continued controversy around the prescribed burning program in WA.

This case offers lessons for other high-conflict situations, where trust and acceptability require attending to good governance principles and focusing less on the means of managing wildfire risk (e.g. what we burn), but also engagement with the substantive issues fuelling disagreement (e.g. why we burn).