FORESTRY Australia (FA) has criticised a recent report released by Australia National University (ANU) and Curtin University (CU) that claimed logging and prescribed burning of forests can make them more flammable.

Prescribed burns have been a fire mitigation tool used with the aim of reducing fuel load to minimise the intensity and severity of fires.

To be better prepared for future bushfire seasons, the new research calls for a greater connection between forestry and fire science to understand how fire prevention strategies affect the natural environment.

The study challenged the notion that broadscale interventions were necessary to manage fire risk and the researchers argued these concepts were grounded in simplistic models that didn’t account for long-term dynamics.

FA hit back the day after the report was released and said the ideas were “misguided” and in contrast to established science.

The research also called for a unified framework that enables the prediction of areas where disturbance is likely to cause a surge in flammability and bushfire risk.

The authors claimed a predictive approach allowed for better informed and targeted management strategies.

“We’ve understood for a long time now that logging can make bushfires worse, but it’s only in the last few years that evidence is showing that prescribed burning could be doing the same thing,” ANU lead researcher Professor David Lindenmayer said.

Co-author, CU associate professor, Philip Zylstra said, “If they’re too tall to catch fire, plants calm bushfires by slowing the wind beneath them.

“If disturbance kills those taller plants, replacements regrow from the ground and add to the fuel.”

“Fire sensitive species thrived for millions of years because so many forests naturally create these less flammable environments.”

The report also recommended advances in drone technologies and the application of AI (artificial intelligence) could help detect small fires and even contain them before they develop.

“We need to invest heavily in rapid response remote area firefighting specialists and embrace new technologies that allow us to detect fires and suppress them faster,” Professor Lindenmayer said.

“We need to be thinking about forestry and fire management in a more holistic way and look to limit actions that could be increasing flammability.”

But FA science policy adviser, Dr Tony Bartlett said the fundamental claim was absurd.

“Scientific consensus amongst bushfire scientists confirms that prescribed burning is a key tool in managing bushfires,” he said.

“While there is no panacea for reducing the impacts of catastrophic bushfires, prescribed burning is a scientifically proven part of the solution. Simply, reduced fuel levels in forests will reduce the severity of bushfires on all bar the most catastrophic fire weather conditions.

“Any criticism that prescribed burning can make Australian forests more flammable is misguided. Criticising prescribed burning is like dismissing the value of seat belts in cars because people still die in car accidents. Both seat belts and prescribed burns are highly beneficial most of the time.

“Forestry Australia’s view is that using cool burning to reduce fuel hazards is critical to good forest fire management and very consistent with the way Aboriginal people managed these forests for thousands of years.

“Importantly, Australia’s bushfire management is based on decades of on-ground research and lived experience.

“While new ideas on how to improve bushfire management are always welcome, it is essential that untested theoretical concepts are carefully considered in light of the existing knowledge on how wildfires behave in Australian forests.

“Increased investment in prevention and preparedness is essential to achieving enhanced management of fire and to address the increased risk of more frequent and severe bushfires”.

Dr Bartlett also indicated that “the claim that further investment in drone technologies can contain bushfires has not been proven”