Rural
6 October, 2026
Study fuels debate
A LANDMARK 60-year comparative study has claimed Victoria’s bushfire death rate is 18 times higher per capita than Western Australia’s and pinpointed the failure to regularly reduce forest fuels annually by a specific statistical threshold as the primary cause.
The findings, published in the August edition of Australian Forestry, potentially offer an indictment of the Victorian government’s forest management trajectory over several decades, reflecting a sharp difference in outcomes between the two states, with New South Wales also faring poorly.
The study, authored by Gippsland forestry consultant John Cameron, former CSIRO scientists David Packham and Dr Glen Kile, and former Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions science director Dr Neil Burrows, examined fire history from 1965 to 2024 across the public native forest estates of WA (2.5 million hectares), Victoria (7.8 million hectares), and NSW (18.9 million hectares).
Over the 60-year period, WA treated an average of 9.2 per cent of its forest region each year with prescribed fire, Victoria treated just 1.9 per cent, and NSW managed a mere 0.7 per cent.
The authors claimed planned burns have had a measurable difference in outcomes not just in per capita deaths, but with proportional loss of property and forest area consumed.
Victoria lost five times as many homes per capita to bushfire as WA, while NSW lost twice as many.
In respect of forest area, unplanned bushfires burnt the equivalent of 60 per cent of WA’s, 112 per cent of Victoria’s, and 141 per cent in NSW.
Across south-eastern Australia, many areas have been incinerated multiple times.
The key figure that appears to make a difference is four per cent.
From the abstract at the beginning of the study, the authors make the claim the amount of damage incurred from bushfires had “an inverse relationship between the proportion of the region treated with prescribed fire and the area burnt by wildfire”, but the connection disappeared “when the mean annual area burnt was <4 per cent”.
“Our analysis suggests that, for forest regions, at least 5-8 per cent should be prescribed burnt each year to reduce the area burnt by wildfire and to reduce wildfire losses,” the study said.
One thing that potentially made this study especially robust in its findings was the anticipation of the authors against certain criticisms, one being an assumption WA is generally less fire-prone.
Factors such as spring-summer rainfall were considered, along with drought indices, fire season length, number of Total Fire Ban days and fuel loads within local species – the study concluded WA actually should’ve experienced more severe fire damage, but didn’t.
Another anticipation was in relation to proximity of prescribed burning, dealing with a claim that it was only effective in reducing house loss when undertaken within 3 kilometres of the peri-urban interface.
But the study argued this strategy was inadequate: “it is critical to reduce fuels in the broader landscape to reduce the likelihood of ignitions becoming large wildfire and to increase opportunities for rapid and safe suppression,” citing the roughly 100,000 fires effectively covered by the meta-analysis compared to the small number relied on for the 3km claim – just 13 fires.
Any questions of long-term climate change were also addressed, with the authors emphasising worse conditions argued that “appropriately managing fuels is even more critical for the future protection of our communities, our firefighters and our environment.”
The alignment of the study with several Royal Commissions – the 1939 Stretton Royal Commission (which first recommended controlled burning), 1961 WA Royal Commission and 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, which recommended at least five per cent prescribed burns, also lent weight to it.
The strategic failures of forest land management at a departmental level mean many local volunteers are essentially being set up for failure.
Pomonal fire brigade captain Steve Field said the real-world experience of the area around his station vindicates the value of consistent levels of prescribed burns, especially in the wake of the recent fires in the Grampians and a roughly two-decade history of management leading up to them.
“In January 2006, a fire took hold from Mount Lubra, burning approximately 180,000 hectares,” he said.
“Pomonal was spared but singed on three sides. Since then there has been no fuel reduction burns along the western or eastern face of the Serra Range.
“Fast forward 18 years, Pomonal is ravaged by fire; it only burnt 2000ha but one third of the residential area is lost.
“It was a catastrophic day, over 40 degrees and winds exceeding 100 kilometres per hour. The result from this is a severely changed landscape.”
He said two years on and the fire scar still resembles something from the Flinders Ranges, with “rocks and sand making up the view”.
The lack of native plants and wildlife has allowed introduced species to move in and decimate what was once “a thriving forest”.
“Erosion from wind and rain is changing the mountain, and all it needed was a little help,” Mr Field said.
“Fuel reduction burning in jigsaw puzzle pieces each year to reduce the intensity of fire for the flora, fauna and community.
“The closer the bush is to communities, the more the fuel needs to be tapered down and reduced particularly the ladder fuels, keeping fire out of the canopy.”
Steve lamented the process to get the burns done was “a lengthy one and sometimes takes years” and believed their benefit went beyond just the direct reduction of fuel load, but also to give CFA volunteers experience “watching fire behaviour and getting a real sense of heat to find out what burns at what temperatures”.
“Fuel reduction is an important learning tool and needs to be mandated as part of protecting assets and training to be a better, safer firefighter,” he said.
With a study now referring to significant levels of historical data from three different states and aligning with extensive official investigations, common sense and what rural communities on the ground have been saying for decades, the only question is what will the relevant authorities do with this to help mitigate future loss of property, infrastructure and life, not to mention the intangible cost of emotional impact.