Archive for January, 2011

Forest habitat or fuel hazard?

Friday, January 28th, 2011

Australian native forests – are they valuable ecosystems and habitats for wildlife; or bushfire fuel hazards to be burned, before they burn?

Blue Mountains wet schlerophyl forest

Bushfire Management’s root problems

Bushfire Management which recognises wildlife habitat as an asset worth protecting makes the fire fighting task immensely complex. So moreover the more simplistic and cost saving rationale of ‘protecting life and property’ holds sway, where no thought is given to the conservation values or to the habitat needs of wildlife. The inculcated and unquestioned bushfire management attitude that native forests are the cause of bushfires, rather than being victims of bushfires, belies one of the three key root problems of why bushfire management is failing. Ignitions left to burn in inaccessible terrain time again have proved be devastating not just for nature and wildlife, but consequentially for human life and property. Wildfire does not discriminate.
Bushfire Management across Australia is so poorly equipped to detect and suppress ignitions when they do occur, that out of frustration, fear has been inculcated to encourage all native forests be dismissed as bushfire hazards and ‘prescribed burned’ as a precaution. Across the New South Wales Rural Fure Service, the term is quite unequivocal – ‘Hazard Reduction‘ . Broadscale hazard reduction, euphemistically labelled ‘strategic burns‘ or deceptively ‘ecological burns‘ and has become the greatest wildlife threatening process across Australia driving wildlife extinctions.’
Both the localised and regional impacts of bushfire and hazard reduction upon wildlife ecology are not fully understood by the relevant sciences – ecology, biology and zoology. Fire ecology is still an emerging field. The Precautionary Principle is well acknowledged across these earth sciences, yet continues to be dismissed by bushfire management. They know not what they do, but I do not forgive them.

Australia’s record of wildlife extinctions are the worst of any country in the past two hundred years.

‘Of the forty mammal species known to have vanished in the world in the last 200 years, almost half have been Australian. Our continent has the worst record of mammal extinctions, with over 65 mammal species having vanished in the last 50 000 years.’ [Chris Johnson, James Cook University, 2006]

‘Australia leads the world in mammal extinctions. Over the last two hundred years 22 mammal species have become extinct, and over 100 are now on the threatened and endangered species list, compiled as part of the federal government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.’ [Professor Iain Gordon, research scientist in CSIRO’s new Biodiversity Theme, 2009.]

Uncontrolled bushfires, broadscale and frequent hazard reduction, and land clearing are the key drivers causing Australia’s remaining wildlife to disappear. Once habitat is destroyed, the landscape becomes favourable to feral predators which kill the remaining unprotected fauna. Thousands of hectares of Australia’s native forests are being burnt every year and are becoming sterile park lands devoid of undergrowth habitat. Wave after wave of habitat threats continue to undermine the layers of resilience of native fauna, until fauna simply have no defences left and populations become reduced to one local extinction after another.

James Woodford in his article ‘The dangers of fighting fire with fire‘ in the Sydney Morning Herald, 8th September 2008, incitefully observed:

‘Fighting fires with fear is a depressing annual event and easy sport on slow news days. Usually the debate fails to ask two crucial questions: does hazard reduction really do anything to save homes, and what’s the cost to native plants and animals caught in burn offs? What we do know is a lot of precious wild places are set on fire, in large part to keep happy those householders whose kitchen windows look out on gum trees.

Hazard reduction burning is flying scientifically blind. Much hazard reduction is performed to create a false sense of security rather than to reduce fire risks, and the effect on wildlife is virtually unknown. An annual bum conducted each year on Montague Island, near Narooma on the NSW far South Coast has become a ritual in which countless animals,including nesting penguins, are roasted.

The sooner we acknowledge this the sooner we can get on with the job of working out whether there is anything we can do to manage fires better. We need to know whether hazard reduction can be done without sending our wildlife down a path of firestick extinctions.’

.

‘Koalas may be extinct in seven years’

[Source: Sydney Morning Herald, 20070411]

‘Extreme drought, ferocious bushfires and urban development could make koalas extinct within seven years, environmentalists are warning. Alarms about the demise of the iconic and peculiar animal, which sleeps about 20 hours a day and eats only the leaves of the eucalyptus tree, have been raised before.

But Deborah Tabart, chief executive officer of the Australia Koala Foundation, believes the animal’s plight is as bad as she has seen it in her 20 years as a koala advocate.

“In South-East Queensland we had them listed as a vulnerable species which could go to extinction within 10 years. That could now be seven years,” she said. “The koala’s future is obviously bleak.”

South-East Queensland has the strongest koala populations in the vast country, meaning extinction in this area spells disaster for the future of the species, said Tabart.

The biggest threat is the loss of habitat due to road building and development on Australia’s east coast – traditional koala country. The joke, said Tabart, is that koalas enjoy good real estate and are often pushed out of their habitat by farming or development.

“I’ve driven pretty much the whole country and I just see environmental vandalism and destruction everywhere I go,” she said. “It’s a very sorry tale. There are [koala] management problems all over the country.”

Massive bushfires which raged in the country’s south for weeks during the summer, burning a million hectares of land, would also have killed thousands of koalas.’

[Read More]

.

‘A Bushfire action plan which protects people, property and nature’

[Source: The wilderness Society, 20090219, http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/bushfire-action-plan]

In the immediate aftermath of the devastating Victorian Bushfires of 2009, The Wilderness Society, in response to bushfire management’s quick blaming of the native forests for the bushfires; drafted a ‘Bushfire Action Plan‘ that sought to recognise the need to protect nature along with people and their property.

‘Bushfire remains one of the most complex and difficult aspects of our environment to deal with. Climate change is expected to make things even tougher, with increases in the number of high fire danger days and the number of people and houses at risk increasing with the tree/sea change phenomenon.

With the onset of climate change, mega-bushfires that burn massive areas are expected to occur more often.

A joint CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology study of the impact of climate change in bushfires found parts of Victoria faced up to 65% more days of extreme fire risk by 2020, and 230% more by mid-century.

Yet clearly we have a lot to learn and the Royal Commission will set a new agenda for land and fire management, prevention and response. Many challenges will remain but some aspects seem clear. We need more money and support for fire fighters if we are to successfully protect life, property and the environment. Two key areas are the early detection of fires including the use of aerial surveillance and remote sensing especially in remote areas, increasing rapid response capacity including more “Elvis” helicopters to fight bushfires as soon as they start.

The outstanding work of firefighters on the front line needs to be backed up with the best available knowledge, planning and resources to ensure operations are as effective as possible in protecting people, property and nature. There is an urgent need to increase investment in these areas and rapidly establish scientific underpinning to fire management, as well as properly resourcing implementation and fire operations.
We also need more information for government and community about how to deliver fire management in a way that also protects the natural environment and our unique wildlife.

Fuel reduction burning has an important place in the fire management toolbox, and we support its place in scientifically underpinned fire management for the protection of life, property and the environment.

The issue of fuel reduction burning often dominates the fire debate, as if it is the only fire management tool. But it’s important to remember that this is only one tool in fire management, and not the silver bullet that will fire proof the landscape.

Environmental groups want to see the science that supports the current fuel reduction program, including a scientific justification for so-called hazard reduction burns in specific areas and the scientific justification for the route and extent of fire break establishment. Environmental groups are particularly concerned about the lack of impact assessment of these programs on biodiversity, particularly given their uncertain benefits to reduce the extent, frequency and severity of fire.

Views on these measures tend towards two extremes. One extreme is that we should fuel reduction burn all forest areas every 20 years and carve out thousands of kilometres of fire breaks, the other is that all our forests are wilderness areas which should just be allowed to burn and not manage our forests for fire at all.

For the Australian bush to be healthy and to protect people, property and nature we need a scientifically based balance between these extremes.

Fire management is not ‘one size fits all’ when it comes to the Australian bush. It needs to be targeted and specific, because we know that different kinds of bush respond differently to fire and therefore need different management. For native plants and animals to survive, fire management needs to promote “good” fire at the right time of year, of the right type and size. And that varies with vegetation type and resident native animals. Grasslands will require more frequent fires compared with forests, while areas such as rainforest will need to be protected from fire altogether.

That’s why we need good ecological science informing fire management, which has come a long way in understanding what’s best for native plants, but we need a better understanding of what fire management is best for protecting wildlife and avoiding extinctions. Its critical that scientists, fire agencies and governments work together to understand how to best manage fire to protect habitat for endangered wildlife, because no one wants fire management to lead to extinctions.

Of course, the protection of life & property needs to come first in fire management – but we can do that while also protecting nature and wildlife. A balanced approach is to prioritise the protection of life and property in areas close to farms and townships, and to prioritise fire management for the environment in remote areas and national parks.

A continuation of the expansion in knowledge, resources and support for fire management and community preparedness will best ensure the protection of life, property and the environment into the future…

We have developed a 6-point plan to reduce the bushfire risk and help protect people, property, wildlife and their habitat.

Improve aerial surveillance to detect bushfires as soon as they start.
Ramp up hi-tech, quick response capability, including more ‘Elvis’ helicopters to fight bushfires as soon as they ignite.
More research into fire behaviour and the impact of fire on wildlife and their habitat.
Around towns and urban areas – prioritise the protection of life and property with fuel reduction and fire break management plans.
In remote areas and National Parks – prioritise the protection of wildlife and their habitat through scientifically-based fire management plans.
Make native forests resistant to mega-fires by protecting old-growth forests, rainforests and water catchments from woodchipping and moving logging into existing plantations.

.

Critique of Roger Underwood’s Criticism of TWS ‘6-Point Plan‘

On 12th February 2009, Roger Underwood, a former rural firefighter and a forestry industry employee in Western Australia, had his article published in The Australian newspaper criticising the above recommendations of The Wilderness Society (TWS).

Regrettably, rather than offering constructive criticism and proposing counter arguments with supportive evidence, Underwood instead dismisses the Wilderness Society’s contribution, but disappointingly with empty rhetoric. Underwood states upfront:

“the trouble with the society’s action plan to reduce the risk of bushfires is that it won’t work.“

The Wilderness Society’s six-point action plan aims to counter the current bushfire management strategy that relies upon hazard reduction burning and the ecological damage this is causing – ‘destroying nature’, ‘pushing wildlife closer to extinction’, ‘increasing the fire risk to people and properties by making areas more fire prone’.

Underwood claims that statistics exist showing no massive increase in prescribed burning, but in fact that prescribed burning has declined. Yet Underwood fails to provide nor even reference any such statistics. He fails to recognise that both bushfires and prescribed burning collectively cause adverse impacts on wildlife. If all burning of native vegetation, however caused, is included in the assessment, then would statistics indeed show an increasing trend in the natural area affected by fire in Australia?

‘Burn it before it burns’ Theory

Underwood questions the wildlife extinction problem without any basis. He then adopts the ”old chestnut‘ theory of blaming the threat to wildlife on ‘killer bushfires‘. ‘Killer bushfires’ (the firestorm threat) has become the default justification by bushfire management for its policy of prescribed burning. This is the ‘Burn it before it burns!‘ defeatist attitude. If one burns the bush, there will be no bush to burn. Underwood’s claim that ‘killer bushfires’ are a “consequence of insufficient prescribed burning” is a self-serving slippery slope fallacy. If nature is an asset of value to be protected, then it is defeatist to damage it to prevent it from damage. The history of so-called ‘controlled burns‘ have an infamous reputation of getting out of control and becoming wildfires. If the attitude of burning as much of the bush as possible to avoid uncontrolled wildfire, then then paradoxically the implied incentive is to let controlled burns burn as much as possible to minimise the risk of unexpected fires in the same area.

In respect to each of The Wilderness Society’s (TWS) Six Point Plan, one counters Underwood’s responses as follows:

1: Improve aerial surveillance to detect bushfires as soon as they start

.

Underwood supports aerial detection as “a first-rate resource and a comprehensive system” but says that it can fail completely under hot, unstable atmospheric conditions and when there are very high winds. However, fire towers and aircraft are not the means of bushfire surveillance today. Low orbiting geostationary satellites with infrared and high resolution cameras can now spot individual cars in real time and through cloud and smoke. Satellites are not affected by atmospheric conditions such as high winds or hot temperatures. Modis-Fire is one company that specialises in such satellite technologies.

In addition, the CSIRO, with the Department of Defence and Geoscience Australia, has developed an internet-based satellite mapping system called ‘Sentinel Hotspots‘. Sentinel Hotspots gives emergency service managers access to the latest fire location information using satellite data. Fire fighting organisations across Australia have used this new strategic management tool, since it was launched in 2002, to identify and zoom in on fire hotspots. [Read More]

In 2003, an article in the International Journal of Wildland Fire entitled ‘Feasibility of forest-fire smoke detection using lidar‘ extolled the virtues of forest fire detection by smoke sensing with single-wavelength lidar.

Such technologies are available if the political will was met with appropriate investment. Such technologies could be available to a military-controlled national body, but unlikely to be available to volunteer members of the public. It all depends on the standard of performance Australians expect from bushfire management.

2: Ramp up hi-tech, quick response capability, including more ‘Elvis’ helicopters to fight bushfires as soon as they ignite.

Underwood dismisses aerial fire-bombing as a “dream” that “has never succeeded in Australia, and not even in the US” and “next to useless“.

Well, it seems Underwood is contradicted by the recent decisions of Australia State Governments across Australia’s eastern seaboard to charter not just one Erikson Aircrane but three. Not only was Elvis contracted from the United States in Summer 2010 to Victoria, “Elvis” was based in Essendon, ‘Marty‘ was based in Gippsland and ‘Elsie‘ was based in Ballarat. Clearly, the Victorian State Government considers the cost of these three aircraft justifiably cost-effective in offering quick response capability to fight bushfires.

Dedicated Fire Fighting Erikson Aircrane ‘Elsie‘ based in Ballarat, Victoria during the 2010 Summer

In South Australia, the Country Fire Service (CFS) believes in the philosophy of hitting a fire ‘hard and fast’.

‘CFS volunteers and aerial firefighting aircraft are responded within minutes of a bushfire being reported and as many resources as possible are deployed to keep the fire small and reduce the chance of it getting out of control. It is not widely known that South Australia has a world class initial attack strategy of aerial firefighting. The value of a rapid aerial firefighting approach has been supported by Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre research. In their 2009 report titled ‘The cost-effectiveness of aerial fire fighting in Australia, the Research Centre wrote the following in their summary

The results of the analysis show that the use of ground resources with initial aerial support is the most economically efficient approach to fire suppression. Aircraft are economically efficient where they are able to reach and knock down a fire well before the ground crew arrives. This buys time for the ground forces to arrive and complete the containment. Rapid deployment of aerial suppression resources is important. This advantage is much greater in remote or otherwise inaccessible terrain. Where other suppression resources are unable to reach the fire event within a reasonable time period, sole use of aircraft is economically justified.’

[http://www.bushfirecrc.com.au/research/downloads/The-Cost-Effectiveness-of-Aerial-Fire-Fighting-in-Australia.pdf].

Underwood claims that: “Elvis-type aircranes cost a fortune, burn massive amounts of fossil fuel, use gigalitres of precious water and are ineffective in stopping the run of a crown fire that is throwing spot fires. Water bombers do good work protecting houses from small grass fires. But against a big, hot forest fire and during night-time they are next to useless.”

Underwood conveys a sense of dogged reliance in traditional fire truck centric thinking as if to preserve an old firie culture of ‘we know best‘ and ‘nothing is going to change our thinking‘ mindset. May be it is out of petty envy wherein many volunteer firies can command trucks but wouldn’t have a clue flying helicopters and so would feel sidelined.

Well, since the 2009 Victorian Bushfires, more than A$50 million worth of new initiatives have been introduced or are under development.

“Further changes are likely to be introduced as the Royal Commission, which was established to investigate the Black Saturday disaster, is ongoing. Aerial firefighting is set to be addressed by the commission. Among new initiatives in Victoria is a A$10 million trial of a very large air tanker (VLAT) – the first-ever such experiment in the country. On 14 December, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 Super Tanker, leased from US company 10 Tanker Air Carrier, arrived in Melbourne. Australian regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and underwent final compliance assessment to allow it to enter service in January.”

[Source : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/09/338056/australia-puts-firefighting-tankers-to-the-test.html]

Underwood may well dismiss aerial suppression technology as ‘razzle-dazzle‘, but he is right to state that such investment requires governments to put more resources into research and into monitoring bushfire outcomes, including the environmental impacts of large, high-intensity bushfires and continuous feedback to management systems from real-world experience out in the forest.’

3: More research into fire behaviour and the impact of fire on wildlife and their habitat

While Underwood claims that he supports more research into fire behaviour and fire impacts, he is dismissive of the conclusions of much of the research already done, but offers no explanation. This seems an internal contradiction. What are the conclusions of the research?

Underwood claims the conclusions do not support the Wilderness Society’s agenda. How so? What is TWS agenda?

Underwood conveys an unsubstantiated bias against the Wilderness Society, only offering an ad hominem fallacious argument – attacking the messenger, not the argument.

The science on fire ecology is still emerging. The Wilderness Society validly states above that ‘bushfire remains one of the most complex and difficult aspects of our environment to deal with‘, that ‘there is an urgent need to increase investment in these areas and rapidly establish scientific underpinning to fire management, as well as properly resourcing implementation and fire operations‘ and ‘the lack of impact assessment of these programs on biodiversity, particularly given their uncertain benefits to reduce the extent, frequency and severity of fire‘.

4: Around towns and urban areas – prioritise the protection of life and property with fuel reduction and fire break management plans.

Underwood here perceives an inconsistency in TWS Action Plan – suggesting its support for fuel reduction around urban areas contradicts its claim that fuel reduction makes the burned areas “more fire prone”. However, this action item is about prioritising fuel reduction on a localised basis around the immediate areas where life and property are located.

Whereas broadscale hazard reduction that is carried out many miles from human settlements has become a new strategy of bushfire management. The excuse used is euphemistically termed a ‘strategic burn‘ or even an ‘ecological burn‘ in the name of encouraging biodiversity. Except that the practice seems to be a leftover habit from the Vietnam War in which helicopters are used to drop incendiaries indiscriminately into remote areas without any care for the consequences.

A so-called ‘ecological burn‘ of Mt Cloudmaker

This was conducted by helicopter incendiary by NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (DECCW)

in the remote Krungle Bungle Range of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area

(Photo by editor from Hargraves Lookout, Shipley Plateau, 20080405 , free in public domain)

A recent example is the ‘strategic burn’ authorised and executed by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) in the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area on 12th May 2010. Some 2500 hectares of remote wilderness was deliberately set alight around Massif Ridge, some 12 kilometres south of the town of Woodford in wild inaccessible forested area of the World Heritage Area. The excuse was to reduce the available ‘fuel’ (native vegetation) for potential future wildfires. [>Read More: ‘National Parks burning biodiversity‘ ]

5: In remote areas and National Parks – prioritise the protection of wildlife and their habitat through scientifically-based fire management plans.

Underwood contends another stock standard industry claim that where native forests have been protected, they have naturally accumulated fuel loads in which sooner or later an uncontrollable landscape-level fire occurs. So his anthropocentric theory runs that is humanity’s responsibility not to let nature be nature, but to control nature and so to burn the bush before it burns. This theory is premised on the defeatist approach that in the event of a bushfire, bushfire management is not in a position to detect and suppress it.

And so Underwood, poses the standard industry response of “more frequent planned burning under mild conditions“. He assumes that leaving the overstorey and the soil intact will ensures a diversity of habitat for wildlife. Yet Underwood is not a zoologist and has no understanding of the vital role that dense ground vegetation provides to Australia’s native ground dwelling mammals (e.g.the Long-footed Potoroo, Spotted-tailed quoll, Eastern Pygmy Possum, the Petrogale penicillata, Broad-toothed Rat, Bolam’s Mouse, the Smoky Mouse, the Eastern Chestnut Mouse, the Long-nosed Bandicoot), as well as nexting birds, flightless birds, amphibians and reptiles.

Eastern Quoll – Dasyurus viverrinus – EXTINCT on mainland Australia

Underwood’s view reflects the simplistic misguided view of biodiversity of most of Australia’s bushfire management – that the presence of trees and regrowth of fire-tolerant plants equates to biodiversity.

Can Underwood name one species of Australian fauna that is fire tolerant?

Underwood misinterprets the text of TWS which advocates an holistic fire management system, not as a silver bullet or ‘one-size-fits- all’ convenient panacea that pretends to fire proof the landscape. The only guarantee of ‘one-size-fits- all’ hazard recution is a sterile forest devoid of biodiversity and causing local species extinctions. TWS argues for a scientifically-based and balance approach recognising that some forest ecosystems like rainforests are most definitively fire-intolerant.

6: Make native forests resistant to mega-fires by protecting old-growth forests, rainforests and water catchments from woodchipping and moving logging into existing plantations

Underwood challenges this last item stating there is no evidence that old growth forest is less likely to burn than the regrowth forests. This is false. Australian native forests that regrow after fire are those that are fire-resistant. Typically, these genus (Eucalypt and Acacia) regrow quickly and become dense mono-cultures. If a fire passes through again, the fire is often more intense and devastating. Old growth forests, rainforests and riparian vegetation around water catchments tend to be moist and so less prone to bushfires.

But this sixth item is not about the relative propensity of old growth forests to burn more readily than regrowth forests, so Underwood’s argument is a distracting red herring. TWS’ aim here is more about placing a higher value on old growth and rainforests due to their greater biodiversity and due to their increasing scarcity. Clearly, TWS is ideologically opposed to woodchipping and logging of old growth forests and rainforests. Logging operations typically involve follow up deliberate burning and such fires have frequently got out of control. Underwood’s needling criticism of TWS for having a lack of knowledge of fire physics or bushfire experience is a typical defensive criticism leveled at anyone who dares to challenge bushfire management. Conversely, if Underwood has the prerequisite knowledge of fire physics or bushfire experience, he is not very forthcoming except to defend the status quo of bushfire management.

The recent bushfire results are demonstrating that bushfire management is increasingly unable to cope with bushfire catastrophes nor meet the expectations of the public to protect life, property and nature.

.

The Gardens of Stone Park Proposal Stage Two

.

Joint Media Release 28 November, 2005 by Colong Foundation for Wilderness, Blue Mountains Conservation Society and the Colo Committee:

.
‘Today the Colong Foundation for Wilderness, the Blue Mountains Conservation Society and the Colo Committee launched a new proposal to protect 40,000 hectares. The proposal, centred on the township of Lithgow, is called the Gardens of Stone.

“The Gardens of Stone area is scenically, environmentally and historically unparalleled. Its current low level of protection shows a scandalous disregard of this magnificent heritage. The Gardens of Stone proposal is an innovative approach that will ensure better protection of these unparalleled areas and greatly enhance tourism in the western Blue Mountains-Lithgow region”, said Dr Brian Marshal, President of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society.

“’This area for too long has been taken for granted, yet is truly a national gem. Its geology is dramatic and spectacular, its biodiverisity is fascinatingly diverse, and its cultural history is extensive. It is time at last for the overlooked to be valued and acknowledged. This is a fantastic area that truly deserves reserve status!”, said Haydn Washington, Secretary of the Colo Committee.

“The Gardens of Stone is a place worth saving that has great potential for quiet, family-based recreation. The proposed system of new Gardens of Stone parks will greatly enhance tourism opportunities in the central and western Blue Mountains around Lithgow,” said Keith Muir, director of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness.

The Gardens of Stone has iconic heritage of national significance. The park proposal aims to protect and manage:

the first three rugged mountain passes west to the interior of Australia;
the outstanding Aboriginal cultural sites on and around Newnes Plateau;
the wonderful oil shale mining ruins on spectacular Airly Mesa;
some of the highest plant diversity in the Blue Mountains; and
some of the most beautiful and intricate sandstone formations in Australia.

.
“The plant, animal and Aboriginal heritage of the proposal reflect the landscape’s diversity. The proposal’s many rare plants, unique snowgrass-snowgum woodlands, shrub swamps and heathlands are not protected elsewhere, said Mr Washington.

“The Gardens of Stone is a geological wonderland of coloured escarpments, narrow canyons, rock arches, cave overhangs, lonely sandstone peninsulas and remnant forested sand dunes from the last ice age”, Dr Marshall said.

Mr Muir believes that “Heritage-based tourism could draw Lithgow toward a more environmentally sustainable future”.

“The proposal provides an integrated plan of action to protect, manage and interpret the area but recognises the realities of existing coalmining operations”, he added.

[Source: http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/media_releases/media_archive05.htm#MR05112800]

.

The following article is that by Ian Brown of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness which may be located under the heading ‘Seeing the Gardens by Ian Brown.’ It is based upon a report on the recreational and tourism potential of the Gardens of Stone Stage 2 park proposal, jointly commissioned by the Blue Mountains Conservation Society and the Colong Foundation.)

‘The Gardens of Stone Park Proposal Stage Two (GoS2) was launched by the Colong Foundation in 2005. It covers an area of 40 000 hectares of sandstone escarpment and plateau in the western Blue Mountains , on the western side of the existing Greater Blue Mountains World heritage area park system. The proposal takes in parts of the upper Capertee Valley , Coxs River headwaters, Turon River headwaters, Newnes Plateau and Blue Mountains western escarpment.

The objective of the GoS2 proposal is to achieve better management and protection of this area’s many important natural and cultural values. The GoS2 park system is proposed to be a mixture of state conservation area (SCA) and national park tenure. SCA status allows underground coal mining to continue.

The GoS2 area’s outstanding conservation values have been well documented in the Colong Foundation’s The Gardens of Stone Park Proposal Stage Two (October 2005). There is no doubt that the area’s scenery and heritage can also offer a diverse range of low impact recreational activities attracting significant visitor numbers, thus expanding the local tourism industry. One purpose of the current study was to show that GoS2 can deliver significant economic benefits to local communities.
.

An under-valued landscape

.
‘GoS2 offers the part of the Gardens of Stone landscape that is easily accessed and enjoyed by the general public. The nearby parks offer similar features and experiences, but they tend to be accessible to visitors with bush skills due to more rugged topography. GoS2, which is largely of more subdued terrain, brings the unique landscape of the Gardens of Stone to the majority of people.

This article will focus on the northern sectors that make up most of the proposal and which have the greatest potential for improved conservation and recreation management. These include the Airly-Genowlan mesas and Ben Bullen, Wolgan and Newnes State Forests. The other main sector, the western escarpment Crown reserves extending from Hassans Walls at Lithgow to Medlow Bath, is already well developed for recreation with increasingly effective management by local councils.

But the existing management regime over Airly-Genowlan and the state forests can best be characterised as lassez faire in relation to recreation and relatively passive in relation to conservation. The dominant land uses of coal mining and forestry have led to a devaluation of the important natural and cultural heritage values of the area in the public mind. Off-road vehicle activity, particularly trail bike riding, has been allowed by neglect to become the dominant recreation, even though most of it is illegal (unregistered vehicles, unlicensed riders and creating new tracks). This has further alienated less damaging activities such as walking, which mainly takes place on the fringes of the plateaus.

The GoS2 area has not yet been presented or promoted to the public as a great place to enjoy a remarkable landscape. Hence, the strong potential of the GoS2 area for low-impact, nature-based recreation and tourism has been under recognised and under-utilised.”
.

A better future

.
‘This can be changed by implementing the GoS2 reserve proposal and advancing a recreation and tourism plan for the area. With the right presentation and promotion, environmentally benign recreational use of GoS2 can be expanded dramatically.The natural and cultural attractions are many, varied, widespread across the area and highly appealing. Some features (e.g. Lost City , Carne Creek gorge, new Hartley mining heritage, Wolgan Valley Rail Trail) have the potential to become iconic attractions. A number of easy wildlife viewing opportunities exist and several Aboriginal heritage experiences are available.

This alternative vision presents an existing network of touring routes for motor vehicles and bicycles, accessing a range of potential camping areas, bushwalks, lookouts and cultural and wildlife experiences. Most of the proposed places of interest can be linked into a ‘Gardens of Stone Grand Tour’ which could be taken over one to three days by 4WD vehicle or mountain bike.

Although providing for these recreational activities will have some localised impacts, a number of already-disturbed sites can be utilised. Furthermore, the likely impacts are minor when compared to the existing and future impacts of the current recreational regime.

The current controversy over government plans to expand private tourism development within national parks has been taken into account, and the GoS2 plan seeks to demonstrate how low-key, low impact visitor facilities can provide the backbone of local tourism without damaging the parks with accommodation and similar developments.

The proposed network of visitor experiences would provide the basis of a whole new nature-based marketing initiative for the western Blue Mountains, promoting the Gardens of Stone as the very distinctive other side of the Blue Mountains. Just two hours from Sydney and with all the services any visitor could need in adjacent towns, GoS2 could become an iconic venue for campers, bushwalkers, tourers, cyclists and nature and heritage enthusiasts. The suite of opportunities creates a sound basis for commercial tourism enterprises such as guided tours and local off-park accommodation.

Such a future could realise significant economic opportunities through visitor expenditure, and for both specialised services (tours, eco-accommodation) and more general commercial activity in the surrounding area.”
.

Economic benefits

.
Estimating tourism to protected areas and resultant economic benefits can be difficult. Based on comparable statistics and studies from NSW, Queensland and Victoria, a conservative upper estimate for tourism to a GoS2 park with the proposed facilities is 50,000 visitors a year. This level of tourism activity has been estimated to produce substantial net benefits to the community in the order of $28M to $38M, depending on the discount rate used. These net benefits may represent a minimum value since management costs savings to Forests NSW have not been able to be included and the levels of timber production and royalties assumed may be conservatively high.The regional economic benefit produced by 50,000 visitors to GoS2 is estimated as a direct spend of around $3M to $4M. Over and above this would be expenditure on park management, and the expansion of commercial tour activities and the establishment of new visitor accommodation in nearby areas which is likely to follow.

The case for protecting the GoS2 lands for both conservation and direct community benefit is strong. It is now up to the NSW Government to do it.’

[Source: http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/features.htm]

.

But the Gardens of Stone are being destroyed by Centennial Coal

.

The magnificent rugged and rare geomorphology and high plateau ecosystems of the Bkue Mountains region is under serious irreverible threat of destruction by coal mining. The natural heritage values of the Gardens of Stone are being impacted by coal mining, causing bedrock subsidence, longwall mining is cracking the creekbeds and mine effluent pumping are destroying the natural groundwater acquifers. The rare geodiversity is being destroyed as Centennial Coal’s mining at Angus Place Colliery and Baal Bone Colliery cause cliff falls.

Aboriginal heritage rock art is being fractured. Creeks, rivers and upland swamps such as East Wolgan Swamp are being polluted by heavy metals from Centennial Coal’s mines. The mining is causing surface subsidence, stream flows are disappearing in Kangaroo Creek and the Wolgan River

A media release by the Colong Foundation for Wilderness 27 April 2010, highlighted current threats posed by Coal Mining:

The Gardens of Stone – a story to break the hardest heart

‘Imagine, New South Wales has its very own Bungle Bungle Range just 2½ hours from Sydney on the western edge of the Blue Mountains. It is a place of superlative scenery and tremendous botanical diversity. Today the Colong Foundation reveals that this little known wonderland called the Gardens of Stone may soon be spoiled if high impact coal mining is not curbed..“The Colong Foundation’s recent report (The impact of coal mining on the Gardens of Stone) documents how the coal industry’s environmental record is being etched and caved onto the Gardens of Stone landscape,” said Keith Muir Director of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness.

“Coal mining has:

Caused several hundred cliff collapses in the most beautiful part of the Blue Mountains;
Monitored these cliffs falls for 30 years, rather than acted to reduce the damage;
Turned (nationally endangered) swamps to dust by cracking near-surface aquifers;
Poisoned (nationally endangered) swamps with eco-toxic mine effluent;
Turned the Wolgan River red;
Claimed an environmental award for providing dirty, saline mine effluent to a power plant that shortly afterwards required a major repairs to its condensers costing tens of millions of dollars;
Blighted the landscape with a network of roads, pipes, survey lines and power lines;
Polluted drinking water supplies for Lithgow with nickel.

.The list goes on”, Mr Muir said.“In its monitoring reports to government the coal industry regularly understate the damage caused,” he said. “Mine operations do not work minimise environmental damage and have been largely unresponsive to environmental concerns”, he added.

“Crevasses, cliff falls and rock fractures are spoiling the sandstone beauty of the Gardens of Stone. Yet despite the intense study of mine subsidence for 30 years, the natural geomorphological processes that control cliff falls are not understood”, said Mr Muir.

“The Gardens of Stone in NSW is as spectacular as the Bungle Bungle Ranges, with a far greater floristic diversity. It must not be needlessly degraded by coal mining, as it can be preserved for everyone to enjoy,” Mr Muir said.

The damage can be curbed by reducing mining intensity. Taking such action would actually employ more miners and save this outstanding environment. One colliery has reduced its mining intensity, and a new one is about to start that will be far less damaging than previous operations. The State and Federal Governments should step in to protect from further damage the nationally endangered shrub swamps, the streams, cliffs and the sandstone pinnacles called pagodas that make up this natural wonderland”, Mr Muir said.

.

New mining prospect for Capertee

[Article from the local newspaper, The Lithgow Mercury, 20080705]

‘The Capertee community could benefit from a significant economic boost in the near future, including the direct creation of 80 jobs, if Centennial Coal’s Airly Project proceeds. Airly is an 80 million tonne coal resource located approximately 3 km north east of the Capertee township and is a project acquired by Centennial Coal in 1997 with an existing planning consent (originally granted in 1993).

There had been previous activity on the site including underground mining to obtain a bulk sample and verify mining conditions. Further work required to establish a trial mine commenced in April 1998. A Trial Mine Phase commenced in December 1998 when about 70,000 tonnes of coal was extracted over a 12 month period. An access road and other surface works were also completed.

“Lately, locals will have noticed an increase in traffic movement around Airly as a variety of visitors to the site complete studies, update data and review planning and engineering options for the site,” Centennial’s General Manager: Projects, Richard Tacon said.

“The proposed mine design would include the construction of a rail loading facility to ensure all coal from the site can be transported by rail.

“We anticipate the internal assessment process will be finalised over the next few months placing Centennial in a position to formalise a decision to proceed with the project,” Mr Tacon said.

“If Centennial does decide to proceed with this project, we will inform the community, place an utmost priority on minimising environmental impacts and strictly comply with the appropriate planning laws.”

[Source: http://www.lithgowmercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/new-mining-prospect-for-capertee/804919.aspx ]

.

Wolgan Road Project

.

On Centennial Coal’s website, under ‘Operations’ there is mention of a proposed Wolgan Road Project to be located within the Angus Place Colliery Lease. The project area is approximately 14km northwest of Lithgow, approximately 5km to the east of Mount Piper Power Station and 4km north of Wallerawang Power Station.

The area contains a small shallow coal resource between the underground workings of Wallerawang and Angus Place, with an estimated mine reserve of approximately 4.9 million tonnes, recoverable by open cut methods. Further detailed work including geotechnical investigations, environmental management assessment, community consultation and detailed mine planning would need to be completed before the requisite approvals could be sought.

[Source: http://www.centennialcoal.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=54, accessed 20110126]

Sounds inoccuous enough, except that the Angus Place Colliery Lease is not ‘north west‘, but north of Lithgow. This places it within the Wolgan River catchment in sensitive escarpment country within the proposed Gardens of Stone NP Stage Two.

Map from the 2008 NSW Coal Industry Profile.

.

Centennial Coal’s Environmental Claims

Centennial Coal on its website under the heading of ‘Environmental Management‘ claims that Centennial’s Directors and Management are:

“committed to continual improvement in environmental and community management and performance.”

Centennial recognises the importance of effectively managing the environmental impacts associated with each mine and, over the years, has developed an Environmental Policy that commits the Company to continual improvement in its environmental management and performance.

‘Impact of Coal Mining on the Gardens of Stone’

.

CENTENNIAL COAL’S VISION

“To conduct our business in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner, that is compatible with the expectations of our Shareholders, government, employees and the community.”

‘Impact of Coal Mining on the Gardens of Stone’

CENTENNIAL COAL’S GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

.
1. Appropriate decisions are made

2. Risk management strategies are implemented based on clear science and valid data

3. Stakeholders are identified and respected

4. Environmental impacts are recognised and minimised

5. Legal obligations are known and respected

6. Environmental management is integrated into our business

7. Environmental performance is continually improved

8. Natural resources are used efficiently

9. Performance is assessed and reported

‘Impact of Coal Mining on the Gardens of Stone’

The Centennial Environmental Vision and logo designed to assist in raising the awareness and visibility of the group’s environmental effort, seeks to deliver two messages:

Firstly, that the environment matters to Centennial, ie it is a fundamental part of Centennial’s business; and
Secondly, environmental matters, or elements of the biophysical environment (air, plants and animals, ground/soil and water) that sustain society can be affected by Centennial’s activities if not appropriately managed

‘In a “branding” sense, the motto ” environment matters” is designed to be a distinctive reminder of Centennial’s aims and commitments.’

[Source: http://www.centennialcoal.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4:environmental-management&catid=10:who-we-are&Itemid=12]

Such is this company’s calculated greenwashing

to the extent of strategic misinformation,

so long as it exploits,

scams impunity from its heavy metal contamination,

inflicts irreversible bedrock subsidence….

Somehow justified by

‘temporary jobs, temporary jobs, temporary jobs’.

…an ethical investment?

.

[1] Gardens Of Stone Stage 2 Proposal, ^http://bluemountains.org.au/gos2.shtml

[2] The Impact of Coal Mining on the Gardens of Stone [read full publication],

http://www.colongfoundation.org.au
.

[3] Gardens of Stone National Park – Draft Plan of Management [read full publication]

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/parks/PoMDraftGardensOfStoneNP.pdf

[end of article]

.

Tags: Airly mine, Airly-Genowlan mesas, Angus Place Colliery, Baal Bone Colliery, Banpu, Ben Bullen State Forest, Blue Mountains Conservation Society, Blue Mountains western escarpment, Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, Capertee Valley, Carne Creek Gorge, Centennial Coal, Centennial Coal’s Airly Project, Clarence Colliery, Coal Mining, Coalex Pty Ltd, Coalpac Pty Ltd, Colong Foundation for Wilderness, Coxs River headwaters, DECCW, Gardens of Stone, Gardens of Stone National Park, Gardens of Stone Park Proposal Stage Two, GoS2, Hassans Walls, Henry Gold, Kores Aust. Pty Ltd, Lost City, Newnes Plateau, SK Corporation Pty Ltd, Springvale Colliery, Sydney Catchment Authority, Turon River headwaters, Wolgan River pollution, Wolgan Valley Rail Trail
Posted in 07 Habitat Conservation!, Blue Mountains (AU), Threats from Mining | 1 Comment »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

National Disasters Best for Capable Army

Wednesday, January 5th, 2011

by Editor 20110105.

Australia has a history of national disasters, which our detached apathetic politicians repeatedly fail to plan for.

Rockhampton Flood of 1918

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~auscqfha/floods.htm

The Central Queensland (CQ) Family History Association Inc. knows and respects the history of Central Queensland. It has well documented the flooding of the Fitzroy River through Rockhampton.

A. E. Herman in his account ‘The Fitzroy River and its early Floods‘ wrote:

‘The Fitzroy River and its tributaries drain a vast expanse of country. Captain Cook, in the Endeavour, sailed along the eastern coast. On May 26, 1770, anchored in and named Keppel Bay, and Flinders, in the Investigator, anchored in the Bay, ascended Sea Hill, named Broadsound and found The Narrows, but failed to discover the great river coming down from the far interior of the continent. The streams that feed the Fitzroy flow through some of the richest grazing and agricultural lands in Queensland. Fresh water continues to some five miles (8 Km) past Yaamba, the old northern crossing 21 miles (33.8 Km) by road and 34 miles (54.7 Km.) by river from Rockhampton. Here tidal influence commences.’ ‘The country drained by the Fitzroy River is estimated to be 55,666 square miles (144,174 square Km.) of which 54,800 square miles (141,932 square Km.) is upstream from Rockhampton and because it drains an immense area it must, of course, carry enormous quantities of water at times.’

[Source: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~auscqfha/floods.htm ]

.

Indeed, Rockhampton has flooded many times throughout its history, mainly through the Wet Season.

Jan 1918: 10.11 metres

Feb 1954: 9.4 metres

Jan/Feb 1978: 8.15 metres

May 1983: 8.25 metres

Jan 1991: 9.30 metres

Feb/Mar 2008: 7.50 metres

.

[Source: Bureau of Meteorology, FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM for the FITZROY RIVER, http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/fitzroy/fitzroy.shtml ]

.

And the 2011 flood is expected to peak at 9.4 metres – not as ‘unprecedented‘ as the politicians would have us believe.

.

Bligh Expects Queensland Flood Emergency to Exceed $5 Billion

.

Rockhampton Flood @ 9.2m in 2011

Rockhampton is again under flood along with many townships of central Queensland.

Today [5th Jan 2011] Queensland Premier Anna Bligh estimated that the total economic impact of the flood damage to Queensland could be $5 billion. Julia Gillard has previously said the Federal Government would be providing assistance that would run into the hundreds of millions to assist the recovery process. Clearly that falls well short of the $5 billion minimum estimated by the Queensland Premier.

And now the politicians are promising, pontificating and filibustering. The political party that herald’s itself as representative of rural Australians, the National Party, has called for a national disaster fund set up and that it be contributed by a household insurance levy. NSW Nationals Senator John Williams said Senator Boswell’s insurance levy should be replaced by a levy on council rates to catch all landowners.

Senator Williams has called for a debate around a national “emergency fund” of up to $10 billion that would help in the event of a flood or other disaster like drought, fire or earthquake.

“Bring on the debate, the money has to come from somewhere. We can’t just pluck it off trees,” he said. “I think a national fund would be a great step forward so the money is there when a fellow Australian is in need of it. There will obviously be some impact on the Australian economy but I would think the Australian economy is large enough and robust enough, as it does almost every year, to be able to cope with these sort of natural disasters,” he said. [1]

.

So serious is this round of disasters in Queensland, Australia’s Prime Minister ‘Julia Gillard ‘has ordered more government funds be diverted to flood-ravaged Queensland in a bid to prevent the state slipping into a long economic slump.’

‘In what may become Australia’s largest and most costly rebuilding operation, clean-up grants of up to $25,000, along with low-interest loans, were offered by the Prime Minister yesterday in addition to the commonwealth’s normal emergency relief payments. Production has almost ground to a halt in the coal industry, while early assessments of Queensland’s agriculture sector have put the cost of the floods at more than $1 billion in lost production.

Authorities also worry that receding floodwaters will reveal unexpected damage to infrastructure, raising the political pressure on all levels of government to chart a clear course to recovery.’ [2]

.

National Disaster Management Grossly Neglected in Australia

.

But yet again, after another natural disaster politicians cry to escape all implications of government culpability and so distract public attention by claim of ‘act of God‘ and ‘unprecedented‘ and calling for Australians to chip in and dig deep. Instead of confidently relying upon years of government investment in contingency planning and infrastructure, politicians become shy and distractingly appeal for ‘community spirit’. But now what choice does the community have now that a disaster is upon them? They only have community spirit, despite the bleeding guv’ment.

The floods have also badly affected New South Wales, the Gascoyne and western Victoria. This has included the NSW border town of Goodooga ‘which lies directly in the path of the Queensland floodwaters and is expected to be isolated by the weekend and could remain cut off for the next six weeks.’ The NSW Premier Kristina Keneally has said that evacuations are already underway. The NSW government has declared another eight local government areas to be natural disaster areas, bringing the total to 59. [3]

Also currently occurring is the severe flooding of the Gascoyne Region including the town of Carnarvon, 900km north of Perth. The State Fire and Emergency Services Authority is similarly advising residents to watch for changes in water levels and be ready to evacuate.’ [4] On 19th December 2010, the river had reached 7.7 metres and the president of the Carnarvon Shire, Dudley Masien described the flood the worst he had witnessed. “The hotel roof is only just peaking out of the water“, he said. [AAP 20101220].

Meanwhile in South Australia, over the 2011 New Year period temperatures had been forecast to be 40 degrees Celsius threatening “catastrophic conditions” for bushfire. Luckily an early change averted this risk, but even so several major fires have occurred across South Australia in the past few days including grass fires at Kangarilla, Salisbury East and Keith. The SA Country Fire Service has warned of very high danger ratings remain in place for the North-West Pastoral, North-East Pastoral, West Coast, Eastern Eyre Peninsula, Flinders, Mid-North Yorke Peninsula and the Riverland. [5]

Seriously, Australian governments at all levels need to stop their ‘too-little-too-late’ reactionary responses to emergency management in Australia . The Australian people, the Australian economy and the Australian natural environment deserve better. Currently, we have disparate grossly underfunded State run groups largely staffed by local volunteers – volunteer rural fire services, volunteer state emergency services, and total dependence upon various charities like the Red Cross and Salvation Army.

The responsibility for emergency management throughout Australia has been run on the cheap by successive State and Federal governments since Black Friday of 1939. National Disaster Management is probably the most neglected responsibility of all government services, because to do it right involves long term planning beyond election cycles and costs so much money.

Do we love our ‘sun burnt country‘?

http://poeartica.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-country.html

Since Victoria’s catastrophic and multiple Black Saturday bushfires about this time two years ago, Australia has emerged from decades of prolonged drought across many states; as well as experienced wild damaging storms; and bushfires this summer in South Australia and WA (again deliberately lit). Australia has copped cyclonic conditions across the north and now flooding rains throughout central and southern Queensland and into northern regions of New South Wales. Each new year that comes the risk of damaging weather is not likely to wane.

Last September, Australia’s closest neighbour, New Zealand, suffered a devastating earthquake in Christchurch, and we don’t have to travel far back to recall the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami that devastated coastal Sumatra, Thailand, Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

Australia has a litany of disasters through its recent history:

March 1899: more than 400 die in Cyclone Martha at Cape York, far north Queensland.
December 1916: Flood kills 61 at Clermont, Queensland
April 1929: Northern Tasmanian floods kill 44
December 1934: Melbourne floods kill 36 and leave 3000 homeless
March 1935: Cyclone in Broome, West Australia kills 141
February 1955: Hunter Valley floods kills 25 in Singleton and Maitland, NSW
February 1967: Tasmanian bushfires kill 62, most in Hobart
January 1974: Brisbane floods kill 14 (Cyclone Tracy 25,000 made homeless)
December 1989: Earthquake in Newcastle, NSW kills 13
July 1997: Landslide at Thredbo, NSW kills 18
February 2009: Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria kill 173
and many others.

[Source: The Australian newspaper, ‘Summer, season of catastrophe’, 20110112, p.11]

What is Australia doing about National Disaster Management on its own doorstep and to prepare its poorer neighbours in the South West Pacific? Australia as a rich wealthy nation has a moral responsibility to harbour its close exposed neighbours.

But what disaster monitoring and preparation strategy does Australian have for weather research & monitoring, disaster contingency planning, investment in defensive infrastructure to ensure community resilience, damage mitigation, natural disaster response training?

Where is Australian political leadership in national emergency management?

Australia has a recurring pattern of natural disasters. Simple searches on Google reveal that weather history in Australia is only repeating itself. It’s not new. It’s not ‘unprecedented‘ as government politicians try to excuse their leader’s unpreparedness, or is it disinterest?

Classically in Australian literature, Dorothea Mackellar’s Australian epic poem ‘My Country’ prevails and I borrow the following pertinent excerpt, which is prone to regurgitated reference by the media:

“I love a sunburnt country,

A land of sweeping plains,

Of ragged mountain ranges,

Of droughts and flooding rains.

I love her far horizons,

I love her jewel-sea,

Her beauty and her terror —

The wide brown land for me!”

.

But bear in mind Mackellar wrote that poem back in 1904. She was insightful! Colonial Australia struggling out of raw survival in a retched landscape and through someone’s noble sense of ‘Federation’, Australians will have felt the natural onslaught of the ‘terror’ of natural disasters.

But surely a hundred years hence with the time and luxury of foreign lifestyle, our irresponsible governments do not deserve pardon for their gross public ineptitude.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has come out declaring it was well aware of the impending torrential downpour from the current La Ni√±a event and of the likelihood of extensive flooding pending for south east Queensland. Historically, La Ni√±a has always caused high flooding cross SE Queensland big river regions. Hello! So where were the Queensland Government’s risk assessment, contingency planning, infrastructure investment and community preparation to lessen the likely disaster scenarios for the big river communities? Is Bligh a joke talking?

We’re now in the 21st Century, not Mackellar’s era. Australians in all states and territories have a public right to expect that our Australian national government will dutifully properly prepare, manage and mitigate the impacts of national disasters. It is all about good governance. What do we pay taxes for if it is not for times like this?

While many of us who can take out general insurance, those insurance companies can only respond to natural disasters in a financial sense but after the disaster. But it is not the job of insurance companies to manage disaster; it is without equivocation the responsibility of government and quite simply that is why we must pay our taxes throughout our lives. Government civic infrastructure is still not in place to mitigate known historic recurring disaster risk and so since the risk remains so the proportional premium increases. Consequently, many thousands of Australians are in a Catch 22. They are not eligible or cannot afford the requisite insurance to cover their property against natural disaster because the premiums are prohibitively expensive, but they can’t sell and relocate because their property values will have plummeted.

Over the decades thousands of Australians have had their building approved by government on land with a history of natural disaster – flooding, bushfire and drought for instance. If that is not reckless enough, governments at all levels continue to renege on disaster risk mitigation and defensive infrastructure to withstand known disaster types. So in the event of these recurring natural disasters, look at the record of the Australian Government’s contingency planning and performance protecting the Australian public – their lives, property, and to Australia’s most vulnerable our wildlife and its natural habitat? Thousands of hectares of forests have been cleared across the Brisbane River that naturally would have absorbed much of the deluge. Now bare hills and hard surfaces and many thousands of storm water drains, the rains are not absorbed. Housing development continues to be approved in bush settings that are undefendable in the event of a bushfire. Agricultural approval is provided for cropping on marginal lands with repeated histories of drought and/or flood.

Unlike back in 1904, Australia in 2011 is supposedly a wealthy, technologically advanced society. Australia easily has the financial and resource capability to be disaster prepared at national level. But failure to contingency plan condemns Australians to ‘planning to fail‘. When disaster hits Australians are on their own! When a government lets down its people it has lost all legitimacy.

.

So what is ‘Emergency Management Australia’ ?

.

Nationally, Australia has no central organisation that deals with national disasters, natural or otherwise. The job is left to the relevant State Government concerned; somewhat a leftover remnant of colonialism.

There is a token agency under the Federal Attorney General’s Department, called Emergency Management Australia [compulsorily abbreviated to an acronym like most government agencies to ‘EMA‘, but the name is more impressive than the tasks it performs.

In 2005 under the Howard Government, Emergency Management Australia was on paper “tasked with co-ordinating governmental responses to emergency incidents” and with providing training [at Mount Macedon] and policy development, yet “the actual provision of most emergency response in Australia (was)… delivered by State Governments.”

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emergency_Management_Australia&oldid=32590701]

.

In November 2007 under the Rudd Government, the Emergency Management Australia focus was modified, slightly:

“On request, the Australian Government will provide and coordinate physical assistance to the States in the event of a major natural, technological or civil defence emergency. Such physical assistance will be provided when State and Territory resources are inappropriate, exhausted or unavailable.” – and they gave it an acronym ‘COMDISPLAN‘ standing for Commonwealth Government Disaster Response Plan.

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emergency_Management_Australia&oldid=174306765 ]

That is, in lay terms, the Australian Government will only help in national emergencies when the States can’t handle a public emergency.

Such a bureaucratic attitude is hardly proactive leadership from our wealthy developed nation!

.

In recent years, the Rudd/Gillard Government renamed the organisation Emergency Management in Australia (visit the site http://www.ema.gov.au/), which seems to have been a way of playing down its national leadership role to one of being simply an informational resource. Again, this is divulging responsibility for national emergencies to the next tier of government. Imagine if the states and territories did the same and divulged such responsibility down to local councils?

Emergency Management in Australia doesn’t even have a dedicated minister responsible. Instead, the entire responsibility is tagged on to the Federal Attorney General’s Department. Currently the task is being delegated to an ‘Acting’ Attorney-General Brendan O‚ÄôConnor and shared with Minister for Human Services Tanya Plibersek. It is as if the Australian Government has a head in the sand approach to national emergencies at home, hoping they won’t happen, but when they do, she’ll be right mate! – we’ll fob our way through it as best we can with what’s lying around.

What a bloody irresponsible approach to national emergency management! And all the government does is to encourage the thousands of Queensland residents affected by the flooding to lodge a claim for the Australian Government‚Äôs Disaster Recovery Payment ‘AGDRP‘ – another acronym!

Other reactionary responses from Canberra are currently listed on the EMA website as ‘Flood-affected residents urged to apply for assistance’, ‘Extra disaster assistance for flood-affected communities in Queensland’, a ‘Boost for Territory Disaster Resilience’, a ‘Boost for Tasmanian disaster resilience’, ‘Commonwealth response to the final report of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission’, and when in doubt, ring Triple Zero (000). How reassuring!

Perhaps one initiative positively worth noting is that the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) met in Brisbane on 7 December 2009 and agreed to a range of measures to improve Australia‚Äôs natural disaster arrangements. COAG recognised “the expected increase to the regularity and severity of natural disasters“, and so agreed to a new whole-of-nation ‚Äòresilience‚Äô based approach to natural disaster policy and programs.” Under a Natural Disaster Resilience Program, at Federal level we are now supposed to have Commonwealth funding for disaster mitigation works and support for emergency management will be approximately $110 million over four years.

Well at least it’s a step in the right direction – adopting a ‘whole-of-nation’ approach is long overdue. Yet the current funding scope again is classically ‘too-little-too-late‘. The politicians pontificate. How much of this $110 million will be required for the 2010 Queensland Floods disaster? How much reached the victims of the 2009 Black Saturday disaster across Victoria?

What inevitably happens is that when the disaster situation gets beyond the local volunteers and State and Federal Governments are in a lather not being able to cope, the standard response is to call in the Army? As if the Army knows better than the experienced volunteers?

But for a national government to resort to calling in the Army is a public confession that the government’s emergency management plan has utterly failed the people. At this very point government raises the white flag of failure in national emergency management. One’s government is suddenly incompetent.

And just like what the Federal Government did in Victoria after Black Saturday’s shemozzle of a disaster management, this is just what they are again doing now in Queensland. Enter Major General Mick Slater, poor bugger!

.

Army deployed to manage the 2011 Queensland Floods Recovery

.

On 5th January 2011, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh announced that Major General Mick Slater would lead the state’s flood recovery taskforce, as more than

200,000 Australians in 40 communities across Queensland have been impacted in some way by the floods. The Army will be tasked to rebuild houses, economies, regional communities and infrastructure. It is estimated that about 1,200 homes across Queensland have been inundated by floodwaters thus far, with another 10,700 homes affected and 4,000 residents evacuated, and the flood bill could be well above $5 billion.

But as a freshman to national disaster management, incoming Army officer Slater has revealed that despite his Army experience has not prepared him for this challenge:

…’one of his first duties will be to talk to Major General Peter Cosgrove, who headed the Innisfail rebuilding project after Cyclone Larry in 2006.

“I believe he’s returning from overseas today and I hope to speak to him tonight. This is early days for me. I’ve just been appointed to this job, but I do understand that time is of the essence as we progress down the recovery mode. However, it is very important that we get it right the first time. “If we rush in and do patch-up jobs… then we will have got it wrong. We must get it right from the start and that will take some time.”

[Source: ‚ÄòArmy general to head flood recovery taskforce‚Äô, ABC, 5^th January 2011, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/05/3106898.htm ]

Reading between the lines, it is clear that the Army is not trained, skilled, experienced or prepared to deal with national disasters. The Army is traditionally trained to fight battles against a human enemy. It has recently evolved to deal with peacekeeping missions, but national disasters remain outside its core skill set.

Premier Bligh has recognised:

“This is a large and complex effort. It will not happen quickly. It will require all of us working together across different levels of government.”

And so once again, instead if a single national professional response, a hotch-potch of agencies is thrown together from Federal and State Governments. Volunteers and charities will play a key role and asking the public for charity has already started.

Once again a desperate government declares ineptness and phones a friend in Canberra – ‘please send in the Army and make our politicians look like we’re taking decisive action what now there’s a good chap, meet you at the club for afters’.

.

Australian Army Not Equipped for National Disasters

CRITICAL QUESTIONS: What does the Australian Army know about national disaster management? More that the State Emergency Services or Fire Brigades? I don’t think so. But the Army has resources, and that it why it is brought in. So why don’t the emergency agencies have the resources in the first place? Emergency agencies do emergencies. The Army fights wars.

Let’s look at the record…

Army Deployed to Manage the Recovery after the 2009 Victorian Bushfire Disaster

Between 10th February and 14th March 2009, Australian Prime Minister Rudd and Victoria‚Äôs Premier Brumby agreed to have the Australian Army Reserve deployed to assist the multiple emergency services in the immediate aftermath ‘mopping up’ of the Victorian bushfire emergency, dubbed by the media as ‘Black Saturday‘. The Army set up Joint Task Force 662 based to the north of Melbourne under the command of Brigadier Mike Arnold.

Under ‘Operation VIC FIRE ASSIST’, Joint Task Force 662 involved about 450 Army Reservists in a recovery support role – mainly a construction and an engineering regiment with assistance from the School of Armour and a Combat Services Support Battalion. Specifically, ‘Search Task Group’ was set up comprising around 160 Army Reserve soldiers to assist police locate human remains with perimeter security around many townships and residents destroyed including the two Kinglakes, Strathewen, Marysville, and Flowerdale. An RAAF AP-3C Orion aircraft was deployed to provide aerial imagery to assist in the identification of residences affected by the fires.

Army support included delivering food parcels, and putting tents and facilities into place to help accommodate, feed and support people left homeless.

An Engineer Support Group, comprising around 70 personnel, five army bulldozers, a front-end loader and a grader, working with the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment and Country Fire Authority, to assist with improving fire breaks and containment lines, and clearing roads of vegetation and debris throughout the many bushfire affected areas.

Somewhat outside core duties, Defence personnel from Northern Command and Townsville launch bushfire undertook direct fundraising collecting donations at the gates to Larrakeyah Barracks, Northern Territory and Lavarack Barracks, Townsville. On Friday 13th February five RAAF members from Combat Support Unit Edinburgh also conducted a collection in aid of the Red Cross Bushfire Appeal at the main and south gates of RAAF Base Edinburgh.

[Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2009/feb/20090210/index.htm ]

So the Army involvement in dealing with the national disaster of ‘Black Saturday‘, was effectively a post-disaster mop up operation assisting police and providing civil engineering support and relief effort. The Army was not deployed at the outset of the known bushfire risk on Monday 3rd January 2009 when weather forecast was extreme and fires had already started. Nor was the Army deployed during the disaster period itself – Saturday 9th through Monday 11th January. This is due to the Army not being best trained to deal with such emergencies and the false expectation that the volunteer Country Fire Authority were.

The emergency conditions were such:

“The majority of the fires ignited and spread on a day of some of the worst bushfire-weather conditions ever recorded. Temperatures in the mid to high 40s (¬∞C, approx. 110‚Äì120¬∞F) and wind speeds in excess of 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph), precipitated by an intense heat wave, and almost two months of little or no rain fanned the fires over large distances and areas. “

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires]

.

Army Deployed to Manage the Response and Recovery after Cyclone Larry in 2006

Severe Tropical Cyclone Larry made landfall in Far North Queensland as a Category 4 storm crossing the coast near Innisfail at dawn on 20 March 2006. With wind gusts up to 240kph Cyclone Larry was regarded as the most powerful cyclone to affect Queensland in almost a century. In addition to the high winds, the cyclone moved inland and developed into a tropical depression causing protracted torrential rains and extensive over the following week.

The wind and flooding damage extended north to Cairns and the Atherton Tablelands and as far west as Mount Isa. After landfall, Tropical Cyclone Larry moved over north-western Queensland on 22‚Äì23 March, with heavy rain falls across the region. Most of the damage occurred in the Innisfail coastal region where 80% of buildings were damaged, power and phone lines were downed, water was contaminated and the region’s main agricultural crop, bananas, was decimated. The economic damage bill came to around A$1 billion in damage, and there was one fatality.

The usual array of disparate organisations attended the immediate emergency response including the standard local emergency services (fire brigades, ambulance and police) as well as local volunteer fire brigades (Thuringowa) and unpaid State Emergency Service volunteers. Perhaps unlike other states, the umbrella organization Emergency Management Queensland initially led and coordinated the disaster management (response and recovery) including SES, Emergency Service Units, and EMQ Helicopter Rescue.

Local councils were handed authority to enforce mandatory evacuations once Queensland Premier Peter Beattie declared Larry a ‚Äòdisaster situation‚Äô. Desperately though, even local prisoners who ‚Äòcould be trusted‚Äô were considered for recovery and clean up work-gangs, then around 150 tradesmen from around Australia arrived in Innisfail within days to repair houses, schools and public buildings.

The Australian Army was also deployed early. Within hours of the cyclonic winds subsiding, the nearby Townsville-based 3rd Brigade and Cairns-based 51st Battalion were deployed as well as the Far North Queensland Regiment. Three UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters were reserved for rescue and logistical support. A Combat Services Support Battalion was set up to manage the disaster relief effort based at Innisfail Showgrounds to provide basic food, water, shelter and sanitary needs to evacuated residents. Onsite health care, environmental advice, fresh food and purified water (as well as testing local supplies), tarpaulins, bath and shower facilities, and up to 500 beds were provided.

The Navy and Air Force were also deployed including a CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopter, one Seahawk helicopter, three Navy Balikpapan class LCH Landing Craft, two Caribou aircraft, two C-130 Hercules, and several LARC-V amphibious 4WD vehicles.

By 23rd March, three days after the cyclone hit, Prime Minister John Howard and Premier Beatty appointed former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, General Peter Cosgrove, to take charge of recovery efforts labelled the ‘Cyclone Larry Taskforce‘. One quick decision made by Cosgrove was to call for an economic assessment by state and federal governments, and specified a moratorium on businesses’ debt repayments to banks for 3 months. (An outside the Army square type of thinking).

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Larry]

Previously as a Major General in the Army, Cosgrove had successfully managed the 1999-2000 complex UN INTERFET peacekeeping taskforce in East Timor dealing with post-war humanitarian and security crisis. He was credited with commanding thousands of personnel from many countries and completing a successful mission to transition the country to relative stability.

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERFET]

This experience had given Cosgrove disaster management skills beyond traditional Army combat roles, and clearly had well prepared him to lead the Cyclone Larry Taskforce. But Cosgrove’s peacekeeping civil emergency experience in a complex environment singled him out as the best person to lead the management of a national disaster in Australia. His success ought to serve as a model for future emergency management planning.

Yet Cosgrove’s experience is atypical of the Australian Army’s broader experiences. The Army’s role and experience in national disasters has been purely responsive and supportive. The main contributions by the Army in national disasters has been using Army equipment and military training to try to help a civil emergency. Following desperate orders from the Prime Minister of the day, the Army responds the best it can with what it has got in a situation it is not expertly trained or resourced to do professionally. The Army’s role in emergency management is not strategic, national nor involved in risk assessment, contingency planning nor leadership of the emergency response. But it should be.

The Australian Regular Army and its volunteer Army Reservists are tasked for traditional military combat, not for the new emerging role of international peacekeeping, nor for managing civil unrest, nor for anti-terrorism, nor for natural and national disaster management. Yet recent world events and trends point to such roles becoming more important and likely than traditional military combat. So the role of the Army, its capabilities and its culture need to change to better meet Australia’s true ‘defence’ needs in the broader 21sst Century context. The Army’s 20th Century traditional military combat role belongs to the 20th Century.

.

Irresponsible to Expect State-based Volunteers to Manage National Disasters

Tropical cyclones are not new in northern Queensland nor indeed across northern Australia. They invariably occur every Wet Season generally between the months of November and April and each year only varies in their intensity. This author experienced Cyclone Joy back in 1990 while living in Cairns. The need for a national disaster management organisation probably dates back to Cyclone Tracy of Christmas 1974 which flattened Darwin.

Darwin following Cyclone Tracy at Christmas 1974

¬© Film Australia. http://www.abc.net.au/aplacetothink/html/cyclone.htm

Australian natural history is one of recurring natural disasters. Current flooding along the Murrumbidgee River in New South Wales is again affecting the town of Gundagai, but since Australian history is poorly taught these days, few will be aware that a major flood back in 1852 wiped out the original town site of 71 buildings, and 89 of the town’s 250 inhabitants perished.

Bushfires, severe storms and cyclones, prolonged droughts, flooding rains, and even earthquakes have frequented the landscape, almost annually. With climate change apparent, however caused, there is every expectation from climate science that extremes of weather in Australia, around the world and in our region, will not lessen but more probably will increase both in frequency and severity. New forms of natural disaster may also occur in future such as tsunamis, landslide (recall Thredbo 1997), storm surge, even possible tornado or tsunami, a volcanic eruption from our north or plague and pestilence. National disasters affecting Australia and our region may also not only be naturally caused, such as a major bridge collapse, major dam collapse, major gas explosion and given ongoing tensions and terrorist events pervading our now global society, new forms of national disaster may loom.

While the 1939 ‘Black Friday’ bushfires in Victoria killed 71 people, the accompanying heat wave – which triggered the blazes – claimed 438 lives and yet remains largely unacknowledged. With climate change, a recurrence is almost certain.

Is Australia prepared to cope, manage and mitigate the effects of national disasters? Is the current emergency management framework centred on State-based and local volunteers adequate to the task?

In localised low grade emergencies, the current system generally copes well. But when it comes to national disasters like Cyclone Larry, Black Saturday and the 2011 Queensland Floods, the answer is clearly ‘no’. The test is, do most Australians believe that the emergency authorities in each case were sufficiently prepared and resourced and adequately responded? Do most Australians believe that the impacts of these national disasters could have been considerably mitigated by better risk assessment, contingency planning, the immediacy and appropriateness of the response and co-ordination of recovery?

Such questions go the core of Australia’s national security and to the role and expectation of government to protect its people and assets. The concept of ‘national security‘ needs to extend beyond the narrow military sense to encompassing defence against all forms of adverse impact to our society, economy and environment. National security also extends to Australia’s immediate region; since to ignore national disasters of our neighbouring nations would be not only immoral but likely have spillover effects on Australian eventually.

So what to do about the problem of recurring national disasters?

Government urban planning, human settlement approvals and investment in civic infrastructure to properly protect its citizens from the impacts of national disasters, and the funding of general and life insurance are interrelated key socio-economic issues that will likely come to the fore as communities recognise history repeating itself and governments are found wanting – but they are a focus is for another article.

The contention in this article is not to criticise the work of emergency service volunteers and professionals of the many organisations that get involved, but rather to highlight that the framework and resources in which they operate is woefully inadequate. Volunteers must feel like pawns in a loosely run reactive system, but culturally they are condemned if they dare criticise.

Yet the repeated evidence is that Australia’s current emergency management framework fails the delivery and performance expectations of Australians in our wealthy and advanced society. Look at the records since the first national disaster of the 1939 Black Friday bushfires! Below in the Further Reading section, a number of online references provide links to the many national disasters throughout Australian history. Natural history is repeating itself, but regrettable so is the laissez faire, even ‘head-in-the sand’ attitude of successive Australian governments to avoid serious investment and planning in emergency management for national disasters.

National disasters are costing Australian lives, communities, economies and environments. The full triple-bottom-line costs (direct and indirect) cumulatively reach the billions almost annually. The cost has to be paid in one way or another and often it is in the form of economic loss, decline in rural society and environmental degradation. Instead of governments investing billions up front to mitigate the damage and costs, governments are forking out afterwards anyway and Australian morality is tweaked to donate in order to make up the funding shortfall. The old adage of ‘prevention being better than the cure‘ holds so true here, but the solution seems beyond the short term narrow thinking of our political leaders.

‘So serious is this round of disasters in Queensland the Prime Minister ‘Julia Gillard has ordered more government funds be diverted to flood-ravaged Queensland in a bid to prevent the state slipping into a long economic slump.’

In what may become Australia’s largest and most costly rebuilding operation, clean-up grants of up to $25,000, along with low-interest loans, were offered by the Prime Minister yesterday in addition to the commonwealth’s normal emergency relief payments. Production has almost ground to a halt in the coal industry, while early assessments of Queensland’s agriculture sector have put the cost of the floods at more than $1 billion in lost production.’

[Source: ‘PM Julia Gillard to help flood-hit Queensland weather storm‘, by Sean Parnell and Jared Owens, The Australian, 4th January 2011. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-julia-gillard-to-help-flood-hit-queensland-weather-storm/comments-fn59niix-1225981305357 ]

.

“Surely it’s time for Julia Gillard to stop seeing the Queensland floods as a series of media opportunities and start showing some practical leadership. She does not appear to have had the truly national implications of this disaster made clear to her.”

[Source: David Williams, Frewville, SA, Letter to the Editor, The Australian, 20110112, p13)

.

Full Costs of National Disasters Many Times Greater than Government Investment in its Volunteer Emergency Management Model

.

http://on-walkabout.com/tag/bushfires/

Economic Cost of National Disasters of Living Memory

In terms of direct economic damage alone, in Australian dollars the Queensland Bligh Government has estimated the cost of the current 2011 Queensland Floods to exceed $5 Billion. The economic damages bill for the 2009 Victorian Bushfires exceeded $2 billion. The economic cost of the 2006 Cyclone Larry was in excess of $1.5 billion. The 2003 Canberra Bushfires insurance cost came to $250 million. The 1991-95 drought across in north-eastern New South Wales and much of Queensland cost the economy around $5 billion.

In 1990, over one million square kilometres of Queensland and New South Wales (and a smaller area of Victoria) were flooded in April 1990. The towns of Nyngan and Charleville were the worst affected with around 2,000 homes inundated. Six people were killed and around 60 were injured.

The insurance claims payouts from the 1983 Ash Wednesday Bushfires for Victoria and South Australia combined were $1.3 billion (2007 adjusted terms). The preceding four-year drought across south-eastern Australia (1979-1983) cost the economy around $7 billion mainly in agricultural losses.

In January 1974, the weakening Cyclone Wanda brought heavy rainfall to Brisbane and many parts of south-eastern Queensland and northern New South Wales. One third of Brisbane’s city centre and 17 suburbs were severely flooded. Fourteen people died and over 300 were injured. Fifty-six homes were washed away and 1,600 were submerged. At Christmas 1974 Cyclone Tracy killed 65 people and caused over 600 injuries in Darwin and 70% of all houses had serious structural failure. The total damage bill was around $800 million (1974 $s). In 1970 Tropical Cyclone Ada caused severe damage to resorts on the Whitsunday Islands, Queensland. Fourteen people were killed and the damage bill was estimated at $390 million.

Many other national disasters have occurred in Australia as well as in neighbouring countries. The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami claimed more than 150,000 people dead or missing and millions more were homeless in 11 countries, making it perhaps the most destructive tsunami in history. An estimate by the World Bank and Indonesian government put the total bill for the destruction of property and businesses at more than US$4.4 billion.

[Sources: Various references online, most notably http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/naturaldisasters/ ]

Many minor emergencies that occur each year particularly involving storms and bushfires would add to the aggregate costs of these major events.

So a broad brush stroke estimate of the direct economic costs alone of national disasters affecting Australia would average in the range of between $2 billion and $5 billion per year. This excludes the social costs of people experiencing trauma and losing loved ones and livelihoods as well as the unknown environmental costs which should be measured and included and disclosed by the Australian Government so that the cost truth of national disasters is know to the Australian public. Without triple bottom line measurement, the true scale of the problem remains hidden and the ability to problem solve and to make cost effective and cost benefit investment decisions is greatly diminished.

Disaster Compensation

So in the current instance involving the 2011 Queensland Floods, Prime Minister Gillard has promised a $25,000 grant to each flood-affected property owner and $15,000 to those similarly affected in the flooded Gascoyne Region of Western Australia. Assumedly, flood-affected property owners in northern New South Wales will be similarly compensated. Under Queensland’s Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) the State and Federal Governments share the compensation costs and include other Disaster Relief Measures such as providing Counter Disaster Operations and a Personal Hardship Assistance Scheme (to alleviate personal hardship), an Associations Relief Assistance Scheme, Restoration of Public Assets, Concessional Loans to Primary Producers, Freight Subsidies to Primary Producers, and Concessional Loans to Small Businesses.

[Source: Queensland Disaster http://www.disaster.qld.gov.au/support/ ]

But the financial compensation offered by the Australian government varies with each national disaster and the aggregate cost information is not readily available online, perhaps intentionally. In the main, each state government sets up a range of compensation funds on a disaster event basis. The Australian Government provides a website Disaster Assist that summarises what compensation is available for a given disaster event, usually with references to CentreLink and back to the relevant state government. Visit: http://www.disasterassist.gov.au/www/disasterassist/disasterassist.nsf/

In the case of the 2011 Queensland Floods disaster, an Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment rate is $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per child.

“Claims for this assistance can be lodged at Centrelink until 4 July 2011 as application for the payment is available for a period of up to six months.”

Identified Disasters on the website are listed as follows:

Current Disaster Assistance

* Queensland Floods – December 2010

* Financial assistance for flooding and severe weather events November – December 2010

* NSW Flooding – October 2010

* South East Queensland Flooding – October 2010

* New South Wales Weather Event – September 2010

* Victorian Flooding – September 2010

* Victorian Bushfires – January/February 2009

Previous Disasters

* Victorian Storms – March 2010

* Queensland Floods – March 2010

* WA bushfires December 2009

* Mid-North Coast Flooding – November 2009

* Samoa Tsunami – September 2009

* Human Swine Influenza (H1N1) Outbreak 2009

* New South Wales Floods – March 2009

Annual Funding in Australian Emergency Management

On 12th May 2009, the Rudd Federal Government issued a media release entitled ‘Improving Disaster Resilience‘ as part of the Federal Budget 2009-2010. It stated:

‘The Rudd Government will invest $79.3 million to strengthen efforts to prepare for and combat major natural disasters.

A comprehensive ‚ÄòDisaster Resilience Australia Package‚Äô will integrate a number of existing emergency management grant programs, providing the flexibility to effectively meet the requirements of local communities threatened by disaster. The additional funding will be part of this new package.

…The package will integrate the current Bushfire Mitigation Program (BMP), Natural Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP), and the National Emergency

Volunteer Support Fund (NEVSF). The funding will:

support disaster mitigation works including flood levees and fire breaks

assist Local Government meet its emergency management responsibilities

support the work of volunteers in emergency management

build partnerships with business and community groups to improve their ability to respond to emergencies.

…In addition, the Commonwealth will also provide more than $12.8 million over the next four years to assist States and Territories lease additional fire fighting aircraft for longer periods during bushfire seasons.

Aircraft will be leased through the cooperative National Aerial Firefighting Arrangements (NAFA) and will help individual States and Territories access a range of specialised aircraft that would otherwise be out of reach.

‚ÄúAerial firefighting has emerged as a valuable tool in the fight against bushfires and the national arrangements have proven to be an efficient, collaborative approach that shares the cost of these specialised assets,‚Äù Mr McClelland said.

This additional funding brings the Government‚Äôs total contribution to the National Aerial Firefighting Arrangements to $14 million per year from 2009-2010.

Following recommendations of the 2008 Homeland and Border Security Review, the Government will also establish new briefing facilities and establish an enhanced Government Coordination Centre to support decision-making in the event of a national crisis or major natural disaster.’

[Source: Australian Government – Attorney General’s Department]

On 8th June 2010, the New South Wales Keneally Government announced it would invest $972 million in emergency services across NSW, including the NSW Fire Brigade, NSW Rural Fire Service and NSW State Emergency Services.

The NSW Emergency Services Minister, Mr Whan states:

“Our emergency services are our first line of defence against storms, floods, tsunami, fires and other emergencies and it is vital that they have the personnel, facilities and resources they need to protect communities around NSW.”

“…Over the past two years, our SES volunteers have responded to a string of emergencies, including major floods in Northern NSW, the Central West and Far West.

“Given the predicted impacts of climate change, this workload is expected to increase in coming years and it is important that the SES is ready to face the challenges ahead.”

The Budget highlights for the emergency services were listed as follows:

NSW Fire Brigades (professionally paid)

The NSW Fire Brigades 2010/11 budget is $637 million. Spending includes:

* $18 million for more than 35 new fire engines and specialised vehicles

* $8.4 million for firefighting and counter terrorism plant and equipment

* $10 million for Cabramatta and renovated fire stations and training facilities

* $2.5 million for Community Fire Units

* $1.3 million for a Workplace Conduct and Investigation Unit

NSW Rural Fire Service (largely unpaid volunteers)

The Rural Fire Fighting Fund for 2010/11 is $220.4 million. Spending includes:

* $32.2 million for about 200 bush fire tankers

* $16 million for new and renovated stations and fire control centres, including installing water tanks

* More than $17 million for bush fire mitigation, including $6.7 million for works crews

* $7.8 million for aerial firefighting resources

NSW State Emergency Service (largely unpaid volunteers)

The State Emergency Service budget for 2010/11 is $64.1 million. Spending includes:

* $2 million to assist with the cost of about 60 emergency response vehicles

* $1.4 million for rescue equipment, including $600,000 for about 20 floodboats

* $1.4 million for communication and paging systems

* $930,000 towards the cost of upgrading unit headquarters around NSW

[Source: http://www.nswfb.nsw.gov.au/news.php?news=1656 ]

The division of emergency services management by the State of NSW into three separate governments agencies, of which only the urban-based fire brigade is fully professionally paid, is typical of the other Australian states and territories. NSW is the most populous state in Australia and so has the greatest taxation revenue with which to fund its public services such as emergency services. An actual annual aggregate figure of the combined capital and recurrent expenditure on emergencies services across Australia would be welcomed and should be disclosed on the Australian Government’s website.

But for a quick comparison, let’s assume that the annual aggregate investment by governments at all levels across Australia, including that of local councils is in the range of $3 billion to $4 billion per year. The investment is almost on par with the economic cost outlay of Australia’s national disasters. It is important to recognise that the funding cost is separate from the disaster economic cost, and that the socio-environmental costs are excluded.

So Australia’s total economic spend on national disasters and civic emergencies probably averages close to A$10 billion per year.

.

A Case for Disaster Management to be ‘professionally nationalised’ across Australia.

Google Search on ‘Disaster Management‘ (globally)

First some problem solving questions:

Why are national disasters causing such massive impact on Australia’s environment, society and economy?
Is the damage caused by natural disasters impossible to mitigate (a fatalistic acceptance), or can more be done to mitigate their damage to the environment, society and economy?
Does Australia have a history of natural disasters and are any of the recent ones socalled ‘unprecedented‘ or are they just a repeat of what has gone before and even less severe than previously?
Who is responsible for planning and mitigating the impact of national disasters when they do occur?
Is not national disaster management as vital a function as military defence?
Is the current framework of multiple disjointed independent State and locally based organisations the most effective and efficient structure to do the job?
What if Australia’s Defence Force had the same framework and organisational structure as current emergency management? Could Australia’s Defence Force perform the same as it currently does? Why not?
How is current disaster contingency planning and response performance measured and are the measures appropriate to quantifying the desired standards of performance?
Is the current disaster contingency planning and response performance acceptable to the Australian community?
How short of ideal is the current performance?
Why is the current emergency management response not able to mitigate the impact to an acceptable level?
How do Australia’s emergency management operations measure up against world best practice?
What countries have world best practice emergency management?
Does the funding structure facilitate or inhibit the capacity of the emergency planning and response?
Are grants and subsidies an appropriate revenue source for such a vital service?
Ought funding be guaranteed as it is with the Defence Forces?
What are the alternatives to Australia‚Äôs current disaster contingency planning and response framework?
Do other countries have a proven success record of disaster contingency planning and response, which Australia could learn from and adapt?

United States: Federal Emergency Management Agency

Probably the global best practice structure currently for dealing with national disaster management (from risk assessment through reconstruction phasing) exists not surprisingly with the United States of America. Try searching elsewhere and frankly, the US is hard to beat.

Until 1979,the United States had no comprehensive plan for federal emergency response. Then President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order creating the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which consolidated the emergency response duties from multiple agencies across the country that each had disjointed emergency operational plans. National legislation was enacted in 1988 to effectively nationalise Federal response to disasters. Under the National Contingency Plan, multiple organisations were united to deal with disaster preparedness and response.

In 1992, US President Bill Clinton appointed James Lee Witt as the head of FEMA, who substantially changed FEMA to adopt an all-hazards approach to emergency planning. Clinton elevated Witt to a cabinet-level position, giving the Director access to the President. So for the first time, a national disaster management organisation had a National Response Plan and reported directly to the head of the US government – the President.

Since then, following the 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States thrust disaster management to the forefront of national priority for obvious reasons and it is due to this that the United States probably more than any other country, bar perhaps Israel, has a world leading disaster management structure today. Since 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has absorbed FEMA and since 2008, the National Response Plan has been replaced by the National Response Framework.

Check out: US Federal Emergency Management Agency and FEMA National Response Framework [NRF]

The United States National Response Framework (NRF) is part of the National Strategy for Homeland Security that presents the guiding principles enabling all levels of domestic response partners to prepare for and provide a unified national response to disasters and emergencies. Building on the existing National Incident Management System (NIMS) as well as Incident Command System (ICS) standardization, the NRF’s coordinating structures are always in effect for implementation at any level and at any time for local, state, and national emergency or disaster response.

.

NRF five key principles

Engaged partnership means that leaders at all levels collaborate to develop shared response goals and align capabilities. This collaboration is designed to prevent any level from being overwhelmed in times of crisis.
Tiered response refers to the efficient management of incidents, so that such incidents are handled at the lowest possible jurisdictional level and supported by additional capabilities only when needed.
Scalable, flexible, and adaptable operational capabilities are implemented as incidents change in size, scope, and complexity, so that the response to an incident or complex of incidents adapts to meet the requirements under ICS/NIMS management by objectives. The ICS/NIMS resources of various formally-defined resource types are requested, assigned and deployed as needed, then demobilized when available and incident deployment is not longer necessary.
Unity of effort through unified command refers to the ICS/NIMS respect for each participating organization’s chain of command with an emphasis on seamless coordination across jurisdictions in support of common objectives. This seamless coordination is guided by the “Plain English” communication protocol between ICS/NIMS command structures and assigned resources to coordinate response operations among multiple jurisdictions that may be joined at an incident complex.
Readiness to Act: “It is our collective duty to provide the best response possible. From individuals, households, and communities to local, tribal, State, and Federal governments, national response depends on our readiness to act.”

‘NRF CORE’

Roles and responsibilities at the individual, organizational and other private sector as well as local, state, and federal government levels
Response actions
Staffing and organization
Planning and the National Preparedness Architecture
NRF implementation, Resource Center, and other supporting documents incorporated by reference

NRF ANNEXES

* ESF #1 – Transportation

* ESF #2 – Communications

* ESF #3 – Public Works and Engineering

* ESF #4 – Firefighting

* ESF #5 -Emergency Management

* ESF #6 – Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing, and Human Services

* ESF #7 – Logistics Management and Resource Support

* ESF #8 – Public Health and Medical Services

* ESF #9 – Search and Rescue

* ESF #10 – Oil and Hazardous Materials Response

* ESF #11 – Agriculture and Natural Resources

* ESF #12 – Energy

* ESF #13 – Public Safety and Security

* ESF #14 – Long-Term Community Recovery

* ESF #15 – External Affairs

NRF SUPPORT ANNEXES:

* Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR)

* Financial Management

* International Coordination

* Private-Sector Coordination

* Public Affairs

* Tribal Relations

* Volunteer and Donations Management

* Worker Safety and Health

NRF INCIDENT ANNEXES:

* Incident Annex Introduction

* Biological Incident

* Catastrophic Incident

* Cyber Incident

* Food and Agriculture Incident

* Mass Evacuation Incident

* Nuclear/Radiological Incident

* Terrorism Incident Law Enforcement and Investigation

.

Proposed New Defence Corps: Australia’s ‘Civil Emergency Corps‘

.

As one solution to Australia’s failing governance of national disasters, I propose the complete overhaul of Australia’s current state-based and volunteer based disparate organisations, by consolidating, nationalising and professionalising them all into one. I propose a new national defence corps be established under new national legislation – Australia’s ‘Civil Emergency Corps‘. This Corp would be an equal partner with our Army, Navy and Air Force, but instead of focusing on national defence against human-based threats, the Civil Emergency Corps will focus on national defence against mainly natural threats.

A special national commission should be established by the Australian Government to review and shape the purpose, functional scope, framework, organisation structure and strategies of this new corps. The initial intent is that this Civil Emergency Corps is to be modelled along the lines of the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Federal National Response Framework (NRF), but tailored to Australia’s specific needs and circumstances. The design of the organisation will be based on input received from current emergency personnel, emergency experts and from the broader Australian community. Ideas from comparable organisations overseas will also be considered, such as from nations having proven effective national civil defence organisations.

Funding is to be on par and have the same budget process as the Australian Regular Army. No more raffles, grants and fund raising. The organisation would be professionally paid, run in a military structure and discipline. Like the Army it would have core full-time regulars and a part-time reserve component. It would be initially staffed by the current people already performing emergency service work. Over time the organisation will evolve to coming up to par with the equivalent performance standards as the Army. It’s resourcing would be exponentially increased to equip it to being a national effective fighting force to deal with national emergencies, properly.

Essential Functions of the Civil Emergency Corps

All the work of the State Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue Agencies
Disaster Risk, Contingency, Mitigation Planning – from local to national and indeed regional scale
Natural Disaster Response ‚fire, explosion, contamination, flood, drought, storm, sea surge, earthquake, etc
Disaster Relief
Disaster Recovery
HAZMAT Response
Disaster Management Training
Community Education in Natural Disaster Preparation and Mitigation
Post-disaster review an analysis and recommendations for future best practice and preparation to the Federal Government
Ongoing national disaster research input

Mascot

Australia’s magnificent wedge-tailed eagle should be the mascot of this new organisation. It is uniquely Australian, a highly respected native bird and the eagle traditionally is a symbol for guardianship, protection, power, strength, courage, wisdom and grace. All these qualities quite apt for a Civil Emergency Corps. An appropriate motto is ‘defending our community‘ – but instead of in English or translated back to Latin, better in Australian Aboriginal.

Australia’s Wedge-Tailed Eagle

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wedge_tailed_eagle_in_flight04.jpg

Incorporated into Australia’s Defence Context

1. Australian Regular Army / Army Reserve

2. Royal Australian Navy / Navy Reserve

3. Royal Australian Air Force / Air Force Reserve

4. Civil Emergency Corps / Civil Emergency Reserve

State Corps

Regional Brigades

Local Units

National Government Ministry

Minister for Civil Emergency
Deputy Minister for Civil Emergency
Parliamentary Secretary for Civil Emergency

.

Organisational Structure

In the same way as Australia’s three other corps are configured, the new Civil Emergency Corps is to be comprised of ‘Regulars‘ – full-time and professionally paid, as well as ‘Reservists‘, who commit on a part-time on demand basis, who are professionally trained and paid commensurate on time served.

The organisational structure is to geographically-based into a respective ‘State Corps‘ for each State and Territory, then into ‘Regional Brigades‘ and then at local level into ‘Local Units‘. Each component will have its share of regulars and reservists. The existing infrastructure of the various emergency services agencies would be utilised.

In addition, in order to deal with highly specialised functions, dedicated Corp Specialist Regiments will be established (see proposed list below).

A ‘National Command Centre’

headed by the Corps General Marshall
based in Canberra next to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), for strategic reasons

State & Territory Corps

each headed by a ‘Corp Brigadier’
organisation structure based on a hybrid geographical model of both Fire Brigades and State Emergency Service, decided on a region by region assessment

Regional Brigades

each headed by a ‘Regional Commander’

Local Units

each headed by a ‘Unit Captain’

Note: Currently, in the New South Wales State Emergency Service (SES), NSW is divided into 17 ‘Regions’ based on major river systems.

‘Each of the 226 volunteer units belongs to a Region, which is led by a Region Controller. Region boundaries coincide as nearly as possible with major river systems. Each Region Controller is responsible for the operational control of emergency flood and storm responses, including planning, training, operational support and other functions within their area of control. The Region Headquarters also provides administrative support to the units in its region. The Region Headquarters all have fully functioning Operations Centres and a group of volunteers who help with training, planning, operational and other functions.’

[Source: http://www.ses.nsw.gov.au/about/ ]

Merger and Integration of the following national organisations into the new Civil Emergency Corps:

Emergency Management Australia
Care Flight Group
Australian Volunteer Coast Guard
St John Ambulance Service

NSW Corps

A merger and integration of the Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW Police Rescue Unit, Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service (NSW), CareFlight Group, Marine Rescue NSW, Community Emergency Services Incorporated

Victorian Corps

A merger and integration of the Victorian Fire Brigade, Country Fire Authority, State Emergency Service, Search and Rescue Squad (of the Victorian Police).

Queensland Corps

A merger and integration of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, Queensland State Emergency Service and Volunteer Marine Rescue, Queensland Rural Fire Service, RACQ CareFlight, Capricorn Helicopter Rescue Service (Rockhampton), Royal Flying Doctor Service, Volunteer Marine Rescue Association of Queensland.

South Australian Corps

A merger and integration of the South Australian Metroplitan Fire Service, Country Fire Service, State Emergency Service, South Australian Sea Rescue Squadron.

ACT Corps

A merger and integration of the ACT Fire Brigade, ACT State Emergency Service, ACT Rural Fire Service.

West Australian Corps

A merger and integration of the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (which has already merged its emergency service agencies), and the Volunteer Marine Rescue Western Australia.

Northern Territory Corps

A merger and integration of the Northern Territory Fire and Rescue Service, Northern Territory Emergency Service, Bushfire Volunteer Brigades, Rescue Co-ordination Centre (Northern Territory Transport Group).

Tasmanian Corps

A merger and integration of the Tasmanian Fire Service, State Emergency Service Tasmania, Tasmanian Air Rescue Trust, Sea Rescue Tasmanian Inc.

.

Corps Specialist Regiments

Each specialist regiment shall have its own part-time payrolled Reserve component.

‘Evacuation Regiment’

emergency field transport and logistics to effect evacuation of people and their personal effects
assumes basic human needs provision of displaced persons (emergency accommodation, food and clothing, emergency sanitation, emergency childcare
currently performed by charity groups like The Salvation Army, The Australian Red Cross, St Vincent de Paul Society, Anglicare Australia, Mission Australia, Catholic Mission, and others

‘Utilities Regiment’

public utility repair and rebuilding – drinking water, sewage and sanitation, electricity, gas services

‘Reconstruction Regiment’

debris clearance, demolition, salvage, engineering, construction, civil infrastructure, and relief housing, farm fencing repairs.

‘Communications Regiment’

Corps internal communications including satellite, (attached to Army Signals), plus public communications – land phone, mobile/SMS, public broadcast services, internet services, including evacuee/missing persons database and related communications

‘Search and Rescue Regiment’

assumes land search and rescue functions previously performed by various State Police special units

‘Maritime Regiment’

assumes functions previously performed by Coast Guard, including sea search and rescue and vessel salvage functions

‘Medivac Regiment’

assumes functions previously performed in times of disaster by State-based Ambulance Services, Royal Flying Doctior Service, Army Medics, St John Ambulance and paramedics, air-ambulance, field medicine and medical emergency evacuation, hospital transfers, disease prevention, containment and vaccinations
Not a replacement of the State-based Ambulance Services

‘Community Regiment’

provides the full range of trauma counselling, psychological and associated mental health services

‘Vet Regiment’

Specialised livestock and pet recovery, animal sheltering, emergency veterinary services, emergency relief livestock agistment, stock feed provision and distribution

‘Biosecurity Regiment’

All biosecurity emergency planning and response to disease outbreaks, pandemics, epidemics, pestilence, plague, national health threats or emergencies, including mass casualty events, communicable disease outbreaks, and quarantine emergency planning and response.

Civic Emergency Strategic Partners

Australian Regular Army
Engineering
Signals (Communications)
Logistics/Transport
Royal Australian Navy
Royal Australian Air Force
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Government Department of health and Aging ‚Äì Health Emergency
Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation
State and Federal Governments ‚Äì Premiers Departments
New Zealand Government ‚Äì Ministry of Civil Defenc and Emergency Management CentreLink
CSIRO
Bushfire CRC
Seismology Research Centre, Australia
Geoscience Australia
Australian Broadcasting Commission
Department of Community Services (and State equivalents)
Major Supermarket Retailers ‚Äì Coles, Woolworths, Metcash
Shipping Container company
Satellite Service Provider – Australian Satellite Communications Pty Ltd,
Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL)
Telstra
Qantas
Brambles Shipping
Salvation Army
Red Cross
Infrastructure Australia
Ambulance Services
State Hospitals
Metcash, Coles, Woolworths
LinFox, Toll Holdings,
DOCS
CentreLink
State Morgues and Funeral Directors
Business Council of Australia
Small Business Council of Australia
Insurance Council of Australia

and others.

Nationalisation brings serious investment.

‘The world’s biggest fire-fighting plane ejects water during a demonstration in Hahn, Germany.

The altered Boeing 747 can carry more than 75,000 litres of water. California has chartered one’.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01473/jumbo-jet_1473655i.jpg

.

Cost- Benefits

Collectively across all the existing emergency organisations, Australia already spends billions in emergency management, but is not coping and is under-performing against 21st century triple bottom line expectations
Cumulatively, Australia already spends billions in emergency management, but most of the cost is in response due to being underprepared. Prevention is better than the cure – cheaper economically and on lives.
A professional organisation, on the payroll is fairer to the workers involved. Government reliance on community volunteers is exploitative and the standards can never collectively match full paid professionals with state of the art resourcing. Taxes are paid by the people so that government will protect them in both military and civil defence.
A single national Corps is better positioned than multiple disjointed organisations to prepare for and respond to the ever increasing array of national disasters, but such an organisation would retain the critical advantage of regional and local personnel and resources. Economies of scale and efficiency gains from removing duplication in administration and overheads would come from a single Corps. But a key condition must be that any job losses would attract full retrenchment payouts.
Many secondary school leavers could be readily recruited into a Civil Emergency Corps service for limited services, than are attracted to the traditional three military corps.

Can Australia afford it?

Can Australia afford not to? Wait until the next disaster and then ask the question again?

When Australians observe the hundreds of millions of dollars (indeed billions) of taxpayer moneys spent by State and Federal Governments in wasteful projects, the answer is a simple yes, easily. Question the opportunity cost of the following recent examples of government inappropriate spending and waste:

Prime Minister Gillard donates $500 million to Indonesian Islamic Schools [^ November 2010]
Senate inquiry into the Rudd-Gillard Government’s botched $300 million Green Loans program has confirmed that some groups of assessors hired as part of the program are still owed over $500,000 in fees due to mismanagement and poor administration procedures under the scheme with some assessors blasting the Federal Government for failing to implement proper checks and balances. [^July 2010]
The Rudd Government has recorded an $850 million blow-out in the cost of its household solar power program. Labor had only intended to spend $150 million over five years on solar rebates but instead splurged $1 billion in just 18 months! [^March 2010]
Queensland Premier Bligh committed $1.2 billion into the Tugun Desalination Plant, which has been plagued by problems since it opened last year, will be shut early next year, along with half the $380 million Bundamba treatment plant and the new $313 million plant at Gibson Island. Water infrastructure has cost Queenslanders $9 billion recently and they are entitled to know the money is being spent wisely. [^December 2010]
Queensland Premier Anna Bligh shelved a $192 million project involving carbon capture research. Bligh has said she is determined to make carbon capture storage economically viable and has committed another $50 million of taxpayers money to finding the answer. The Bligh government has already spent $102 million researching cleaner coal technology through the state-owned ZeroGen, a joint state-commonwealth government and industry led-research project for coal-fired power production. [^December 2010]
Victorian Premier Brumby’s Wonthaggi desalination plant will cost Victorians $15.8 billion over the next three decades, departmental figures show, leading the state opposition to accuse the government of hiding the project’s true cost. [^Sept 2010]

And disaster management it is better invested up front in prevention and response, than afterward in relief and recovery.

.

[1] ‘Reform 03 ‘Formation of a Civil Emergency Corps‘, >Link

[2] ‘Nat MPs push levy for disaster fund‘, by Joe Kelly, The Australian, January 05, 2011,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/nat-mps-push-levy-for-disaster-fund/story-fn59nsif-1225982479225]

[3] ‘PM Julia Gillard to help flood-hit Queensland weather storm‘, by Sean Parnell and Jared Owens, The Australian, 4th January 2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-julia-gillard-to-help-flood-hit-queensland-weather-storm/comments-fn59niix-1225981305357

[4] ‘Premier visits NSW towns in flood’s path’ , ABC, 6th January 2011,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/06/3107563.htm

[5] ‘Carnarvon on flood warning but levees hold’, 20th December 2010, ABC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/20/3097642.htm

[6] ‘SA has been facing ‘very high’ fire danger’, ABC, 1st January 2011,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/01/3104707.htm

[7] Bushfires in Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bushfires_in_Australia

[8] Floods in Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Floods_in_Australia

[9] Droughts in Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Droughts_in_Australia

[10] Severe Storms in Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_storms_in_Australia

[11] Cyclones in Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cyclones_in_Australia

[12] Black Saturday Bushfires

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires

[13] Earthquakes in Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Earthquakes_in_Australia

[14] 1997 Thredbo Landslide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Thredbo_landslide

[15] Role of the Australian Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_Force

[16] Australian Government – Natural Disasters in Australia

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/naturaldisasters/

-end of article –

Emergency Management Australia (EMA) is an Australian Federal Government Agency tasked with coordinating governmental responses to emergency incidents. EMA currently sits within the Federal Attorney General’s Department.

Australian state and territory authorities have a constitutional responsibility, within their boundaries, for coordinating and planning for the response to disasters and civil emergencies. When the total resources (government, community and commercial) of an affected state or territory cannot reasonably cope with the needs of the situation, the state or territory government can seek assistance from the Australian Government.

On request, the Australian Government will provide and coordinate physical assistance to the States in the event of a major natural, technological or civil defence emergency. Such physical assistance will be provided when State and Territory resources are inappropriate, exhausted or unavailable. The Australian Government accepts responsibility and prepares plans for providing Commonwealth physical resources in response to such requests. Emergency Management Australia (EMA) is nominated as the agency responsible for planning and coordinating Commonwealth physical assistance to the states and territories under the Commonwealth Government Disaster Response Plan (COMDISPLAN).

The Commonwealth Government Disaster Response Plan (COMDISPLAN) provides the framework for addressing state and territory requests for Commonwealth physical assistance arising from any type of emergency. COMDISPLAN is normally activated when Commonwealth assistance for emergency response or short-term recovery is requested or likely to be requested.

After the 2009 restructure of the Federal Attorney-General’s Department, responsibility for the Australian Emergency Management Institute (formerly the Emergency Management Australia Institute) was taken over by the National Security Capability Development Division. The Institute conducts extensive emergency management education and training courses from the vocational education and training (VET) Public Safety Training Package. The programs delivered include eleven competencies which make up the Advanced Diploma in Public Safety (Emergency Management) including Emergency Coordination Centre Management, Exercise Management, Undertake Emergency Planning and Recovery Management as well as three nationally-accredited short courses: Risk-based Land Use Planning, Business Continuity Management and Emergency Management for Local Government. Program participants are drawn from the range of the emergency response agencies: fire, police, ambulance, State Emergency Service (SES) as well as local, state and Federal Government; NGOs such as the Red Cross and representatives from the private sector deemed “critical infrastructure” (i.e. water/power/transport).

Emergency Management involves the plans, structures and arrangements which are established to bring together the normal endeavours of government, voluntary and private agencies in a comprehensive and coordinated way to deal with the whole spectrum of emergency needs including prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.

Tags: Anna Bligh, Australian Regular Army, Black Saturday, Brisbane flood, bushfire, Christchurch earthquake, Civil Emergency Corps, Cyclone Yasi, defensive infrastructure, disaster contingency, Dorothea Mackellar, droughts, Earthquake, Emergency Management Australia, Emergency Services Minister Neil Roberts, FEMA National Response Framework, floods, Gascoyne flood, Goolgoolga, John Brumby, Julia Gillard, Labor Waste, Major General Mick Slater, national disaster management, national emergencies, natural disasters, Qld floods, queensland flood aftermath, Queensland Floods, Rockhampton, storms, Toowoomba flood, Victorian Bushfires 2009, Wonthaggi Desal Plant, ZeroGen
Posted in Threats from Bushfire | 2 Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Arsonists Read Newspapers

Saturday, January 1st, 2011

The Bush Arsonist

.

Once again in the lead up to Christmas in Australia, State governments and their media PR cohorts remind us of “extreme temperatures”, “low humidity”, “forecast high winds”, “declared total fire bans” and even “catastrophic bushfire conditions”.

So what’s new? – hot Australian Summers are not really newsworthy.

Perhaps to create news, readers were again stirred with the fear and dread of bushfire risk and reminded of previous Summer bushfire catastrophes – “State Warned of heatwave and black Christmas” (Sydney’s Daily Telegraph page 1 headline, 23-12-05].

But media talking up bushfire risk must surely stir dormant bush arsonists, as if overtly tempting drugs to addicts?

Take the following newspaper quotes of recent days (SMH, AAP, Telegraph):

“It will be a bad fire day with the wind hitting late afternoon in Sydney and moving up to Port Macquarie with a bang on Saturday night.”
“The worst is yet to come”
“Essentially, now any fires that might start would be very very hard to bring under control.”
“Authorities fear scorching temperatures.. will fuel further fires.”
“The weather is providing perfect firestorm conditions.”

…like a red rag to a bull.

Then sure enough, starting from Christmas Eve (with no reported lightning) we hear of the spate of bush fires started across NSW, of multiple ignitions forming into a fire front near Woy Woy, a suspicious grass fire next to the old Canberra brickworks, and of many other bushfires across NSW and interstate.

Long respected is the media code of ethics not to report suicide deaths because experience has sadly shown that such publicity encourages copy-cats.

Yet invariably each year preceding Christmas, some media stir up this supposedly ‘inevitable’ bushfire threat. Such emotive language risks fuelling serial arsonists, drawing recidivists out of hibernation to prove media forecasts correct.

Arsonists read newspapers. The media are part of the solution – headline the convictions not their crimes.

.

[This letter by the editor was first published in the Blue Mountains Gazette 20060118.]

Tags: arson, arson media incitement, Black Saturday, bushfire arsonist, bushfires in Australia, forest fire, media responsibility, Reduce Deliberate Bushfires, serial arson, stir dormant bushfire arsonists, Threats from Bushfire, Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission
Posted in Threats from Bushfire | Comments Off on Arsonists Read Newspapers

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Habitat Topics

Welcome to Habitat Country
"We're coming to you from the custodial lands of the Hairygowogulator and Tarantulawollygong, and pay respects to uncle and grandaddy elders past, present and emerging from their burrows. So wise to keep a distance out bush."

Recommended Links

Action Bioscience

Activists Rights

African Wild Dog Conservancy

African Wildlife Foundation

Amazon Rainforest

Ancient Forest Alliance

Animal Defenders International

Animal Info. on Endangered Animals

Animal Justice Party

Antarctic Ocean Alliance

Arid Lands Environment Centre

ARKive (endangered species)

Australia World Heritage List (UNESCO)

Australia's Threatened Species

Australian Conservation Foundation

Australian Fauna.com

Australian Geographic

Australian Native Plant Society

Australian Paper Watch

Australian Platypus Conservancy

Australian Registry of Wildlife Health

Australian Seabird Rescue

Australian Stable Population Party

Australian Student Environment Network

Australian Wildlife Carers Network

Australian Wildlife Conservancy

Australians for Animals

Badger Protection League

Badger Trust

Badger Watch and Rescue

Bagheera (Endangered species)

Ballaarat Wildlife Park

Biodiversity International

Birdlife Australia

Birdlife International

Birdwatch Ireland

Blue Marine Foundation

Blue Mountains Bird Observers

Blue Mountains Birding

Blue Mountains Conservation Society

Blue Mountains Wildplant Rescue Service

Bob Irwin Wildlife Fund

Bookend Trust

Born Free Foundation

Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation

Botanical Gardens Conservation International

Buffalo Field Campaign

Buffalo Field Campaign blog

Bush Heritage Australia

Bush Warriors

Butterfly Conservation

Cairns and Far North Environment Centre

California Gray Whale Coalition

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Cat Action Treasury

Cave Hill Conservation Campaign

Center for Earth Jurisprudence

Center for Plant Conservation

Chipstop

CITES

Coalition Against Duck Shooting

Code Green Tasmania

Colong Foundation for Wilderness

Conservation Council ACT Region

Conservation Council of South Australia

Conservation Council of Western Australia

Conservation Evidence

Conservation International

Convention on Biodiversity

Cool Forests

CREO (recent extinctions)

Cruelty Free Shop (The)

CSIRO Publishing

Cybec Foundation

David Suzuki Foundation

Defenders for Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife (savewolves)

Devils in Danger

Eaglehawk Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre

Earth Justice

Earthcare St Kilda Inc.

Earthwatch Institute Australia

Earthways

Earthways Foundation

ECO

Eco Ranger

Ecology Project International

Ecos Magazine

EDGE of Existence Programme

EnAct International

Endangered Species Link

Endangered Wildlife Trust

Environment East Gippsland

Environment Institute ANZ

Environment Tasmania

Environment Victoria

Environmental Defenders Offices

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Law Foundation

Environs Kimberley

Essex Badger Protection Group

Ethical Paper

Eurobodalla Regional Botanic Gardens

F.A.M.E.

Fauna & Flora International

Film Makers for Conservation

Florentine Protection Society Inc.

Forest and Bird

Forest Media

Forest Network

Forest Peoples Programme

Forest Policy Research

Forest Protection Portal

Forest Rescue

Foundation for Critical Thinking

Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife

Foundation for Rabbit-Free Australia

Four Paws International

Friends of Five Forests

Friends of Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment

Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

Friends of the Earth (UK)

Friends of the Earth Australia

Gilbert's Potoroo Action Group

Ginninderra Catchment Group

Global Raptor Information Network

Global Trees Campaign

Goongerah Environment Centre

Great Barrier Reef Blog

Green Belt Movement

Greenpeace Australia

Gunns 20 Case

Habitat Destruction

Habitat Network

Hancock Watch

Hawk Mountain Sanctuary

Healesville Sanctuary

Help for Wildlife

Herts and Middlesex Badger Group

Humane Society International

Huon Valley Environment Centre

Iberia Nature

Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association

Inland Rivers Network

Institute of Wildlife Research

International Anti Poaching Foundation

International Fund for Animal Welfare

Intl Community of Ecopsychology

Intl Union for Conservation of Nature

Invasive Species Council

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Kakapo Recovery

Kanuguba

Keep the Habitat

Kew Gardens

Keystone Conservation

Kimberley (Save the Kimberley)

Kimberley Wildlife Carers and Associates

Kimberley Wildlife Rescue

Lake Pedder Restoration Committee

Lawyers for Forests

Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Linnean Society of London

Markets for change

Mass Extinctions

Melbourne Water Catchment Network

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Molonglo Catchment Group

Moon Bears (Korea)

My Environment

National Birds of Prey Trust

National Geographic

National Geographic Network

National Geographic Wild

National Institute for Amazonian Research

National Parks Association of NSW

National Parks Conservation Assoc.

Native Forest Action

Native Forest Network

Native Forests

Natural Edge Project

Natural History Museum

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature

Nature and Society Forum

Nature Conservation Council of NSW

Nature Conservation Trust

Nature's Crusaders

Naturschutzbund Deutschland

Nepenthes (defending rainforest)

North East Forests Alliance

NZ Birds

NZ Ecological Restoration Network

NZ Ecological Society

NZ Native Forests Restoration Trust

NZ Trust for Conservation

Observer Tree

Orangutan Foundation International

Otway Ranges Environment Network

Our Common Ground (Tasmania)

Photos and Feathers

Preserve Our Islands

Primate Info Net

Purves Environmental Fund

Queensland Conservation Council

Quercus

Race Against Extinction

Rainforest Action Network

Rainforest Rescue

Rainforests (mongabay global website)

RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands

Raptor & Wildlife Refuge of Tasmania Inc.

Rhino Resource Center

Rising Tide Australia

Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Sahara Conservation Fund

Save America's Forests

Save Biogems

Save Ralph's Bay Inc.

Save the Badger

Save the Blue Tier

Save the Cassowary

Save the Kimberley

Save the Koala

Save the South Sister

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

Saving Rhinos

Saving Species

Sea Shepherd

Sierra Club

Sierra Forest Legacy

Six Degrees

Smithsonian Museum (Natural History)

Society for Conservation Biology

Society of Wildlife Artists

South East Forest Rescue

South East Region Conservation Alliance

Southern ACT Catchment Group

Still Wild Still Threatened

Strait 4 Devils

Sussex Wildlife Trust

Ta Ann

Taiga Rescue Network

Tarkine National Coalition

Taronga Conservation Society Australia

Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.

Tasmanian Land Conservancy

Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill Inc.

Terra Nature

The Central Highlands Alliance

The Change Agency

The Forest Activist Network

The Forest History Society

The Kerulos Center

The Kimberley Toadbusters

The Last Stand

The Last Tree

The Monkey Sanctuary

The Nature Conservancy

The Rainforest Information Centre

The Wild Foundation

The Wilderness Society

THINKK

Tigers in Crisis

Total Environment Centre

TRAFFIC (wildlife trade)

Tree Council (Ireland)

Tree Council (UK)

Tree Project

Trees for Life

Trees Not Gunns

Trust for Nature

UN Environment Programme

UN FAO on Global Forests

UNESCO World Heritage

University of Ulster (Natural Science)

Vegan Society (The)

Victorian Rainforest Network

Voiceless

Vulturejam

W.I.R.E.S.

Water S.O.S. Tasmania

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists

Western Alliance for Nature

Western Wolves

Wielangta Forest

Wild Futures

Wilderness Truths

Wildlife Art Society of Australasia

Wildlife Australia

Wildlife Conservation Society

Wildlife Mismanagement

Wildlife New Zealand

Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia

Wildlife Protection Association of Australia

Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales

Wildlife Victoria

Wildscreen

Wolli Creek Protection Society

Wolves and Humans Foundation

Wombat Awareness Organisation Ltd

Woodland Trust

World Commission on Protected Areas

World Database on Protected Areas

World Land Trust

World Rainforest Movement

World Society for the Protection of Animals

World Wildlife Fund

WWF New Zealand

The Habitat Advocate

Archive for January, 2011

Forest habitat or fuel hazard?

Bushfire Management’s root problems

.

‘Koalas may be extinct in seven years’

.

‘A Bushfire action plan which protects people, property and nature’

.

Critique of Roger Underwood’s Criticism of TWS ‘6-Point Plan‘

‘Burn it before it burns’ Theory

1: Improve aerial surveillance to detect bushfires as soon as they start

.

2: Ramp up hi-tech, quick response capability, including more ‘Elvis’ helicopters to fight bushfires as soon as they ignite.

3: More research into fire behaviour and the impact of fire on wildlife and their habitat

4: Around towns and urban areas – prioritise the protection of life and property with fuel reduction and fire break management plans.

5: In remote areas and National Parks – prioritise the protection of wildlife and their habitat through scientifically-based fire management plans.

6: Make native forests resistant to mega-fires by protecting old-growth forests, rainforests and water catchments from woodchipping and moving logging into existing plantations

.

Further Reading:

.

.

Further Reading:

Gardens of Stone at risk from Coal Mining

.

.

The Gardens of Stone Park Proposal Stage Two

.

.

An under-valued landscape

A better future

Economic benefits

.

But the Gardens of Stone are being destroyed by Centennial Coal

.

The Gardens of Stone – a story to break the hardest heart

.

.

New mining prospect for Capertee

.

Wolgan Road Project

.

.

Centennial Coal’s Environmental Claims

.

CENTENNIAL COAL’S VISION

CENTENNIAL COAL’S GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

.

Further Reading:

.

.

National Disasters Best for Capable Army

.

.

.

.

Bligh Expects Queensland Flood Emergency to Exceed $5 Billion

.

Rockhampton Flood @ 9.2m in 2011

.

.

National Disaster Management Grossly Neglected in Australia

.

Do we love our ‘sun burnt country‘?

.

.

So what is ‘Emergency Management Australia’ ?

.

.

.

.

.

Army deployed to manage the 2011 Queensland Floods Recovery

.

.

Australian Army Not Equipped for National Disasters

Army Deployed to Manage the Recovery after the 2009 Victorian Bushfire Disaster

.

.

Army Deployed to Manage the Response and Recovery after Cyclone Larry in 2006