“Stop the Harmful Forms of Prescribed Burning!” public campaign
Position #1
Download position as PDF file
Download position as Docx file
Contents:
Invitation to
the “Prescribed Burning Watch” group
The first
position of the “Stop the Harmful Forms of Prescribed Burning!” public campaign
I. Definition of
the harmful forms of prescribed burning
II. About a
problem of the harmful forms of artificial\prescribed artificial burning The
main focus of the campaign
2.1 The
character of prescribed burns implementation which makse this practice
destructive
2.2 The negative
consequences of the harmful forms of prescribed burning, which can be
definitely assumed basing on the character of their implementation
(i) Ecocide on
burnt natural areas, which leads to loss of biodiversity, degradation of
natural ecosystems, destruction of functionality of ecosystems, violation of
possibility of decomposition of plant litter in ecosystems
(ii) Other very
probable negative consequences of the frequent artificial burning of grass
cover, plant litter, and topsoil
(iii)The direct
and indirect influence of prescribed burns and their propaganda on wildfire
growth
III. The
position of scientific and technical experts of prescribed burning practice in
the context of the considered problems
3.1 The feedback
of scientific and technical experts of prescribed burning practice about the
obvious (very probable) negative consequences of prescribed burning usage and
propaganda
3.2
Misconceptions in the fundament of the prescribed burning paradigm
3.2.1 Concept of
“fire-adapted species” and “fire-adapted ecosystems”
3.2.2 Concept of
continuation the burning practice of ancient native people in current times
3.2.3 Frequency
of prescribed burning and the natural intervals between wildfires
3.2.4 Does the
prescribed burning really help to reduce wildfires?
IV. The
objectives of the “Stop the Harmful Forms of Prescribed Burning!” public
campaign
V. The tasks of
the “Stop the Harmful Forms of Prescribed Burning!” public campaign
5.1 The first
task of the campaign: the creation of an open access summary georeferenced
database of all lands passed by prescribed burning
5.2 The second
task of the campaign: to achieve recognition of the harmful forms of prescribed
burning as Ecocide
Reference
Appendix
Other
definitions of “Ecocide”
Photographs
illustrating the prescribed burning practice
I. Definition of the harmful forms of prescribed burning
How the prescribed burning practice is called
in different languages:
·
prescribed burn, prescribed burning, controlled
burn (English)
·
fogo queimado, fogo prescrito, queimada controlada,
queimada prescrita (Portugues)
·
quemadura controlada (Spanish)
·
предписанные выжигания, контролируемые палы, палы травы, палы (Russian)
The
artificial burnings and prescribed burnings we consider here as synonyms. It is
not very strictly, because the term “prescribed burns” means the burning,
appointed by the authorities of a region and carried out by specialized
companies. The term “artificial burns” is broader, it includes all forms of
burning in natural areas implemented by people. That is, actually “prescribed
burning”, and burning conducted by local people by their own initiative, without
special knowledge and equipment for control fire (including illegal burning).
However, in many countries there is no significant difference between the entities
of these terms. For example, in some states and provinces of the United States
and Canada, anyone can get permission to conduct burning on their private land and
then carry them out by their own efforts. Many people implement burning on their
property even without obtaining permission.
We use these
terms as synonyms because the main focus of the campaign at this stage - is the
fighting against harmful forms of prescribed burning (in the strict definition of this
term). But we also struggle with all other forms of artificial burns, which
have a similar entity in the character of their implementation and the negative
impact on natural ecosystems and people.
The
harmful forms of prescribed burnings (and any artificial burnings) according to the
position of the campaign are the burnings implemented by people within natural lands
(forests, steppe, savannah or any other) with frequency that exceeds the
natural frequency of wildfires in the area (that is, the period of time between
wildfires that would occur in nature without human influence). We define this
form of burning as a phenomenon of massive intentional multiyear ECOCIDE (see
details below in the section 2.2(i)).
For such burning
is typical the following: (i) implementation on huge natural areas (the burning
covers up to 80-100% of natural lands of the region during several years and up
to dozens of square kilometers at a single session of burning); (ii) a long period of burning (about 50-100
years of modern prescribed burning period
and hundreds or thousands years of burning by ancient native people); (iii) the
frequency of burning is much higher than the natural frequency of wildfires in
a region. For example, the prescribed burning in many regions of the USA,
Canada, and Australia are implemented every 1-2 years, while the natural
frequency of wildfires can be dozens and hundreds of years.
2.1 The
character of prescribed burns implementation which makes this practice
destructive
The main focus of the “Stop the Harmful Forms of Prescribed Burning!”
public campaign is concentration on the significant
negative consequences of the harmful
forms of prescribed burning on the natural ecosystems, biological diversity, soils and natural water quality,
climate, frequency and intensity of wildfires, human health and economy, which
can be definitely assumed basing on the following characteristics of their
implementation:
a. Prescribed burns
are often implemented on huge areas within natural lands (not only on their
boundaries). Among other places, the vast frequent prescribed burns are carried
out inside the protected natural territories - national parks, natural
reserves, wilderness areas (in the USA) and other types of valuable natural lands
where all human influence should be limited or forbidden.
For example, according to Price et al, 2012, in seven counties of
California (USA), 75.3% of the land was burned in 29 years (1979 - 2007), i.e.
approximately 2% of the land of each county was burned each year. Dozens of
square kilometers are burned at each session of burning (lasting from one to
several days) inside the national parks of the state of Florida. That is, only in Florida it can
be hundreds of square kilometers of burned natural areas annually.
According to Chris Thomson (Alternative burn theory, 2019) in Australia
hundreds of square kilometers are burned during each session. Such massive
burning is implemented by helicopters, devices for ignition from the side of a
moving car, drones.
b. The most of
prescribed burns are implemented very often, with a frequency
that significantly exceeds the natural frequency of wildfires in the area, that
is, the period of time between wildfires that would occur in nature without
human influence.
For example, it is known that in the United States, Canada, Australia
the frequency of prescribed burns can be 1-2 years, while the natural frequency
of wildfires in different regions of the planet can be dozens, hundreds and
thousands of years.
2.2 The negative consequences of the harmful forms of prescribed burning, which can be definitely assumed basing on the character of their implementation (the list can be incomplete)
(i) Ecocide on burnt natural areas, which leads
to loss of biodiversity, degradation of natural ecosystems, destruction of the functionality
of ecosystems, violation of possibility of decomposition of plant litter in
ecosystems.
The harmful forms of prescribed burning, i.e. the regular artificial burning
implemented on a vast natural area with a frequency which exceeds the natural
frequency of wildfires in this area (i.e.the period of time between wildfires that would occur in nature without
human influence) can be defined a phenomenon of massive intentional multiyear ECOCIDE.
This type of prescribed burning can be defined as Ecocide because through frequent artificial burning the destruction of the habitat of a huge
variety of organisms living in grass cover, plant litter and topsoil
of natural territories occurs. These important layers of ecosystems are called as “fuel” and “fuel load” by
practitioners of prescribed burnings and they are quasi totally burned during
prescribed burn operations (the burning of these layers of ecosystems is the
objective of prescribed burning operations). That is
the regular artificial burning should totally destroy these important layers of
ecosystems. The artificial burning obviously should lead to killing of a huge number of organisms living
in those levels of ecosystems, all those creatures for which it is impossible
to escape from even a small burning area. These are the small and middle vertebrates (reptiles, amphibians,
mammals, birds), invertebrates
(insects, arachnids, molluscs, worms, etc.), plants, fungi, and bacteria. In particular, it can be definitely assumed
that harmful forms of prescribed burning destroy or significantly reduce a key
part of any natural ecosystem - a complicated community of detritophages (animals and protest who feed on decomposing organic
material, find details here),
the organisms which under normal conditions engaged in decomposition of plant litter and other dead organic matter in a natural
ecosystem. This, in turn, should lead to
a violation of the possibility or reduction of speed the natural process of decomposition of plant litter and other
organic material in regularly burned natural territory. The direct result of the latter
consequence should be a “vicious circle”: the more people burn, the more plant litter (which is entitled by the practitioners of
prescribed burns as “fuel”) accumulates
in ecosystems, forcing people to burn even more.
Therefore, the direct result of harmful forms of prescribed burning
should be the destruction
of the normal functioning of the entire natural ecosystem of
burnt lands. The strong negative impact of which can be assumed at all levels
of the ecosystem. The direct obvious consequences of this are the degradation of this ecosystem and the loss of its biodiversity. It can also
be supposed that multiyear frequent artificial burning has led to the complete
disappearance of many species of organisms from the burnt layers of ecosystems
(grass cover, plant litter and topsoil) i.e. to the loss of
biodiversity on the planet. This risk is especially high for tropical
and subtropical regions which are home for many endemic species with a small
natural habitat.
By analogy with the definition of the notion
"Genocide", Ecocide can be
defined as a form of collective action committed with the intention to
completely or partially destroy any biological species of organisms or habitat
for species of organisms. The United Nations has been recognized genocide as an
international crime since 1948. What happens as a result of vast frequent
prescribed burning of grass cover, plant litter and topsoil in natural lands are
fully consistent with this definition of Ecocide. Other definitions of Ecocide,
which also correspond to such types of prescribed burns, are given in the Appendix.
One of the key justifications of the statement that the harmful form of
prescribed burns is Ecocide is the interval
between artificial burns. The fact that the interval between prescribed
burning is considerably higher than the natural interval between wildfires,
gives a reason to determine this form of prescribed burns as Ecocide.
Without human influence, the wildfires in nature can be caused almost
only by dry thunderstorms (lightning without rain) - a rather rare
meteorological event. The natural frequency of wildfires can be tens, hundreds
or thousands of years. Prescribed burning is carried out in many regions in the
United States, Australia, Canada, Portugal, and other countries every 1-2 years.
Our position concords with the findings published in
the scientific community. For example, Keeley et al. 2011 wrote:
“No species is
‘fire adapted’ but rather is adapted to a particular fire regime, which, among
other things, includes fire frequency, fire intensity and patterns of
fuel consumption [2]. Species that exhibit traits that are adaptive under a
particular fire regime can be threatened when that regime changes.For example,
many of the species-rich Mediterranean-type climate (MTC) shrublands are resilient
to periodic high-intensity crown fires at intervals of several decades or more.
However, when
the fire frequency increases, species can be rapidly lost”.
It means that the artificial burning with a frequency
than exceeded the natural frequency of wildfires can lead to lost species in
ecosystem.
Note!
If a volcano erupts and floods the natural areas by
lava or a large wildfire starts and burn the forest killing their animals, we
cannot blame the volcano or the wildfire in ecocide or any other crime
against nature because they are not natural and legal persons who responsible
in our society for their actions.
But
if the burning and destruction of the natural environment is carried out by a
person or a company - we can blame them using the existent codes of laws.
Even if they burn out with the same frequency, which wildfires occur in
nature by natural reasons without human influence (i.e. by dry lightning). But here the
situation is aggravated by the fact that the practitioners of prescribed
burning usually or always implement artificial burning much more often than
wildfires can occur in nature without human influence. That is, the burning
of “fuel” can be defined as intentional ecocide, which is carried out even
without the desire to repeat a natural process of wildfires.
|
(ii) Other obvious negative consequences of
the frequent artificial burns of grass cover, plant litter and topsoil on
natural ecosystems.
1. Carbon dioxide emissions into the
atmosphere and exacerbation the problem of global climate change. Without
artificial burning, a plant litter decomposes by detritophages and turns into
soil.
2. Prescribed
burning, like wildfires, produces huge amounts of soot (micro particles of
carbon). The transfer of air mass saturated with soot to the Arctic and Antarctic
regions and deposition of soot on glaciers, as well as its deposition on
mountain glaciers, causes a decrease of the albedo of glaciers and their
melting. This effect exacerbates the global and local climatic changes, has a
negative impact on the condition of glacier and near-glacier ecosystems. This
phenomenon was studied and described for wildfires. For prescribed burning can
be assumed the same effect.
3. Soil depletion and violation of
the process of soils normal formation (due to burning and removal of plant litter), an increase of erosion of
slopes.
4.
Deterioration of people’s health due to heavy smoke caused by prescribed
burning. Children, pregnant women and
people with heart and lung diseases can especially suffer.
5.
Prescribed burning implemented on large areas can kill also large wild
animals that can’t hide from the fire. In addition, press analysis shows that
people also can die from such prescribed burns. A recent example of such an accident
that can happen as a
result of prescribed burning in the forests of Fort Jackson is described in the
article (Travis D.
and Fretwell S., 2019). From the expert's brief comment – “Prescribed fires are supposed to be
carefully managed, and although there is a risk, it is rare for anyone to die
in such fires, according to S.C. Forestry Commission” – it can be concluded that such cases happen in the United States.
(iii)
The direct and indirect influence
of prescribed burns and their propaganda on wildfire growth.
The
massive use of prescribed burning and their wide propaganda in society can have a direct and indirect influence
on the growth of frequency and intensity of wildfires (that is, work in the
opposite way of their main purpose, not
to reduce, but to increase the number of wildfires). These very likely
consequences are the follows:
a. The
prescribed burns sometimes get out of control and cause wildfires themselves.
Such cases are reported in the press. It is not possible (or very difficult)
for an independent observer to estimate the frequency of such cases throughout
the country, due to the lack of open access database of prescribed burns and
open clear statistics of such incidents. Probably this database and statistics
exist, but we have not seen them yet for any country.
An example of a big forest fire caused by
prescribed burning is the case of the Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico in 2000 (Cerro Grande Fire in
New Mexico in 2000, wiki)
b. The
practice of prescribed burning is widely promoted in the societies of the
countries where it is used. This is done
through television, press, social networks (Facebook groups), training courses
and the special
governmental programs of influence on the population. The well-paid state
programs of prescribed burning propaganda probably have the greatest impact on
the population and, for this reason, they are the most dangerous. Examples of those
programs in the United States are illustrated by the following papers: Butler and
Goldstein, 2010; McCaffrey,
2006).
The intensive propaganda of prescribed burning teaches ordinary people (including children) to careless attitude to fire in natural territories and practice of burning for any reason. It teaches from a young age. There are examples of promoting and teaching of prescribe burning practices among school children, for example, Maclay School, 2019. It can be definitely assumed the result of this propaganda – the growing number of people who will burn for security and fun reason on private and public lands without proper control, professional skills, and official permits. It can be definitely assumed that these factors significantly increase the frequency of severe wildfires. At the same time, they are difficult to detect and prevent, because in many countries the control of any people's activity on private lands is limited or not possible. In other words, the wildfires launched by burning of ordinary not skilled people (including children) on private and public lands are almost impossible to prevent as well as it should be very hard to detect this reason as a reason for wildfires.
The data from Australian scientist Philip
Zylstra show that flammability (i.e. the number and intensity of wildfires)
correlates much more with the composition and structure of plants than with the
fuel load in ecosystems. He found that plant succession in different natural
zones formed after prescribed burning much more
easily covered by wildfire than the mature ecosystems, i.e. those ones which do not have
burning or wildfire for many years. (Zylstra P. 2011, 2013, 2016, 2018).
At the
same time, we suppose that the forms of artificial burning useful for wildfires
prevention and fighting, restoration of the disturbed natural ecosystems or
serve as an acceptable compromise in those purposes can exist.
The intensive propaganda of prescribed burning teaches ordinary people (including children) to careless attitude to fire in natural territories and practice of burning for any reason. It teaches from a young age. There are examples of promoting and teaching of prescribe burning practices among school children, for example, Maclay School, 2019. It can be definitely assumed the result of this propaganda – the growing number of people who will burn for security and fun reason on private and public lands without proper control, professional skills, and official permits. It can be definitely assumed that these factors significantly increase the frequency of severe wildfires. At the same time, they are difficult to detect and prevent, because in many countries the control of any people's activity on private lands is limited or not possible. In other words, the wildfires launched by burning of ordinary not skilled people (including children) on private and public lands are almost impossible to prevent as well as it should be very hard to detect this reason as a reason for wildfires.
The
photographs with the examples of prescribed burns in Appendix illustrate the considered negative consequences of this practice.
III. The
position of scientific and technical experts of prescribed burning practice in the
context of the considered problems
3.1 The feedback of scientific and
technical experts of prescribed burning practice about the obvious (very
probable) negative consequences of prescribed burning usage and propaganda
The considered obvious (very probable) negative consequences of prescribed burning practice are recognized in society but only a little discussed. In general, they are almost completely ignored by the scientific and technical experts of this practice. This conclusion we obtained through long personal communications with those experts in the facebook groups consolidating the apologists of prescribed burning practice (Association of Fire Management Activists and several others).
We created the impression through personal conversation in these groups that members of those communities sincerely believe in complete security and the importance of prescribed burning practice. They did never think about the negative obvious consequences of this practice, considered in the position of the campaign. It allows to conclude that they haven't read about this topic anywhere, this theme is not covered at all by information sources in the countries where the prescribed burning is intensively used.
The personal discussions in the groups also did not help to convince them, their mind seems to be closed to such understanding. They ignore unpleasant questions and arguments (do not answer, change the topic, use demagoguery techniques in order to get away from a direct answer).
In general, we see that the whole society in the world does not pay appropriate attention to these hard problems, i.e. the widespread usage of harmful forms of prescribed burning in many countries; the existence of a list of very serious (catastrophic!) negative consequences of this practice, the lack of scientific study and discussion of these possible consequences, the presence of a wide propaganda of this practice and its unlimited distribution among the world.
In those countries where prescribed burning is prohibited by law or not used (Israel, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Finland, partly Russia) the press do not write about these problems and covers only their regional specifics (remind to people about the prohibition of burning, remind that grass burning can lead wildfires). In those countries where the harmful forms of prescribed burning are intensively used (USA, Canada, several European countries, several African counters, Australia, Argentina), this practice is covered only from a positive side. If the press or scientists write about any disadvantages or questions of prescribed burning, they present them as an insignificant, unimportant factor.
This can be explained by the fact that authorities, press, science, environmental organizations, and ordinary people do not have a true awareness about the spectrum of serious negative (catastrophic!) consequences of prescribed burning. The statements of unconditional benefit and safety of this practice are dominated on the surface of the information coverage. Probably it is the result of well-paid propaganda campaigns promoting the prescribed burning industry in the world. The facebook groups mentioned above – are a clear example of wide propaganda of prescribed burning which is provided by the apologists of this practice among the countries.
3.2 Misconceptions in the fundament of the
prescribed burning paradigm
3.2.1 Concept of “fire-adapted species” and
“fire-adapted ecosystems”
There are quasi no scientific investigations devoted to study of the considered obvious negative effects of the vast frequent prescribed burning. Most of the researchers focused their studies on the benefits which burning gives to one or a few plant or animal species in the ecosystem, which are usually called “fire-adapted species”. The presence of some of these species in natural area is unreasonably considered by prescribed burning experts as indicator and evidence that the entire natural area is “fire-adapted ecosystem” and, for this reason, it needs of artificial burning, which is usually implemented with frequency much more higher than the natural frequency between wildfires in this area. The scientific experts of prescribed burning usually totally ignore the influence of frequent artificial burning on all other species of ecosystem and on other components of the biosphere. An example of this scientific relationship is seen in the Gabbert, 2019:
“On average, over the past five years, 11,819 acres have been burned on
post annually, along with 2,388 thinned. “It creates a habitat (RCWs--
red-cockaded woodpecker) prefer,” said wildlife biologist. It allows for open
park lighting”.
Another example of this attitude is given in Fig.4 (Appendix). There are a lot of similar examples of prescribed burns implementation for the benefits of a single or a few species in the ecosystem with total ignorance of the condition of all other species in this ecosystem. They are presented in scientific papers and press. Consideration of the ecosystems of many regions of the planet a “fire-adapted ecosystem” which are “needed in frequent artificial burning” is one of the main postulates of the prescribed burning paradigm.
We believe that it is false pseudoscientific postulate, which contradicts to the Ecology science, Conservation biology science, and worldwide conservation concepts. None of the results of nature management which are interpreted by people as “benefits” for one or a few species in the ecosystem can’t be considered as benefits for the entire natural ecosystem. Always we have to consider the influence of human influence on the entire natural ecosystem, on all its components and species, including the biological evolution as an independent significant factor which inherent to wild nature. Therefore, we cannot state that if some species determined as “fire-adapted species”(or those species who receive benefits from wildfires or burning) were found in a forest, then the entire forest ecosystem can be called as “adapted to fire”. This is one of the misconceptions or false scientific arguments on which the concept of prescribed burns is based. In addition, the understanding of the “benefits” of people and nature is different. It is also can be a cause of misconceptions - a simplistic view on the benefits for species of wild areas and providing these “benefits” in natural areas by the aggressive management.
This strategy used by prescribed burning practitioners fundamentally contradicts the concept of the passive nature conservation (the absolute nature reserve), which have been developing in biology conservation science and conservation practice in Russia, Europe, and the USA since the XX century. In accordance with this concept, the ideal of conservation of the valuable wild natural area and all its species and components is complete non-interference of humans in natural processes. According to this, the more nature management moves away from this ideal (the more active people use various regulatory measures in natural areas), the worse it for the state of the wild natural ecosystem, all its species, and components.
3.2.2 Concept of continuation the burning practice of ancient native people in current times
The scientific and technical experts of prescribed burning practice of North America and Australia believe, that in current times people should continue the same burning tactics, as the Native People (American Indians, Australian aboriginens) used in ancient times. This statement and confidence are one of the main cornerstones of a philosophical system of prescribed burning paradigm in North America and Australia. It is one of the principal arguments used in the propaganda of prescribed burning practice around the world. We met this opinion frequently in the facebook groups of prescribed burning practitioners as well as found a lot of sources in press, research papers, official websites of companies conducted prescribed burning, manuals (find some examples in the Reference, Additional list – 3.1 Sources which promote the traditional burning of ancient native people).
However, in all these sources, their authors, who promote the continuation of the tradition burning of ancient people and justify by this the modern methods of prescribed burning, do not explain the rationale reasons for their persuasion, the reasons which consider the knowledge about the influence of ancient people on nature and biodiversity of the planet. They do not explain why do they believe that burning, which ancient people implemented in nature, was a good thing for nature and why do they think that now people need to continue this practice.
According to archaeological data (Harari Y. N, 2011- 18, 19,20), since the separation of humans (Homo sapiens) from other animals about 70-100 thousand years ago – it has become the most destructive species for ecosystems on the planet. As soon as people arrive in a new continent or an island – it quickly (for hundreds or thousands of years) lost about 60-90% of the species diversity of large animals (mammals, reptiles, and birds). Ancient people were the direct or indirect cause of death of hundreds of species of insects and molluscs. The whole megafauna of mammal and bird species disappeared on all continents and islands because of ancient humans which spread there. In particular, it is known that human colonization of Australia (45 thousand years ago) and both Americas (16 thousand years ago) caused there an environmental catastrophe, the disappearance of the majority of large animal species and significant change of natural ecosystems. For example, the fossils of plants confirm that 45 thousand years ago eucalyptus trees grew in a small quantity in Australia. But after the arrival of Homo sapiens on this continent, the eucalyptus trees suddenly spread everywhere, displacing all other trees and bushes. This change in the vegetation composition affected the animals of Australia. Many species of animals of all sizes could disappear because of changes in their habitat, and not because of hunting them people. Similar processes can be supposed on all continents and islands inhabited by people (Harari Y. N, 2011 – 20). The main instruments of such influence of ancient people were - burning of forests and hunting, later – cutting the trees. Some huge deserts of the planed were made by ancient people (Saharan, probably the deserts of central Australia and others).
It can be concluded that the ancient human practices of burning in all continents and islands were catastrophically destructive for natural ecosystems and biological diversity of the planet. The ancient people caused the extinction of a huge number of animal species of all sizes and quasi entire megafauna of the planet. There is no reason to continue in our time the destructive practices of ancient people – the burning of natural territories and the hunting. Therefore, the confidence that currently people should continue the burning tradition of ancient people - is another false postulate or misconception in the base of the prescribed burning practice, which contradicts to common sense and worldwide objectives of nature conservation.
It is important to say that ancient people burned natural areas for survival; it was their way of life and food production. At first burning of wild forests were implemented for hunting. Later burns were conducted for primitive agriculture (slash-and-burn agriculture). These actions have caused catastrophic destruction in the nature of all territories, where people lived. They can be explained and can be "forgiven" to ancient people, but they cannot be idealized and considered as goodness! As it now occurs in the sphere of apologists of prescribed burning practice, which used it like a cornerstone.
Also, the man-made landscapes created in the course of anthropogenic burning influence cannot be considered as a benefit. Maybe some of them can be maintained by special measures, but the main territories must be free from the anthropogenic burning press, which now people do not need to survive. Now the society is organized according to other principles and people do not need to get their food by hunting and conduct slash-and-burn agriculture. Therefore, there is no rational reason to continue the destructive practice of burning which was used by ancient people. On the contrary, now there is an opportunity to finally free nature from this long destructive anthropogenic press.
3.2.3 Frequency of prescribed burning and
the natural intervals between wildfires
It should be noted that 50 or more years of the development of the prescribed burning practice, its apologists have not initiated any research devoted to study the natural frequency of wildfires in any region of the planet (that is the period of time between wildfires that would occur in nature without human influence, i.e. wildfires which were caused by dry thunderstorms). At least we are not aware of such studies. This means that scientific and technical experts of prescribed burning practice do not have information about the natural intervals between wildfires for none of the regions of the planet. From this, it can be concluded the natural frequency of wildfires is not even supposed to take into account in prescribed burning operations. However, apologists and experts of this practice are characterized by misunderstanding or ignoring these questions in the dialogues. Some of them assert that they consider this interval in prescribed burning operations, which can’t be the truth, because the information of natural interval between wildfires does not exist for none of the regions of the planet.
Investigations of wildfires frequency about 300-400 years ago were conducted in the United States for a few regions. This method uses the old trees which save the traces of wildfires in their wood. But this is a period of time when the territory of North America was inhabited by American Indians or by European colonists, who themselves intensively burned. Therefore, these studies provide data about the frequency of anthropogenic burning, not natural wildfires.
Important to note, that often or always this frequency of wildfires used by American Indians in ancient times is not taken into account in prescribed burning operations, which are implemented more often than American Indians did.
It can be concluded from the literature analysis and communication with prescribed burning practitioners, the intervals between prescribed burnings are determined either from the well-being of one or a few species of an ecosystem which are called as “fire-adapted” (often they are economic tree species or some animal species who are restored by this way). Or most often only by the "fuel load" parameter in the ecosystem, that is, without any environmental parameters at all (Fig. 4, Appendix).
3.2.4 Does the prescribed burning really
help to reduce wildfires?
In addition to the considered problems, the issue of the effectiveness of reduction the “fuel load” (which is mostly a plant litter and grass cover) by regularly burning as a measure to mitigate or prevent wildfires is vigorously debated.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a study using its own georeferenced data of the territories passed by wildfires and prescribed burning for 29 years (1979-2007) in seven counties of the California state (USA). This study revealed that prescribed burning showed 0% efficacy in the prevention of subsequent wildfires. The result of the study also doubts on the argument that the accumulation of fuel due to the suppression of past fires increased the probability of large wildfires. These data were published in the paper Price et al, 2012. In addition, the authors suggested that worldwide the effectiveness of the prescribed burning for mitigation of wildfires can be very low. They concluded that it is necessary to burn from 1 to 4 hectares of the territory in order to prevent a subsequent wildfire on 1 hectare of this territory. For this reason, it makes sense to carry out the prescribed burning only for the local protection of valuable objects (human settlements, valuable natural areas) and to conduct them in narrow bands:
“The result also casts further doubt on
the argument that fuel accumulation due to past fire suppression has increased
the chances of large, damaging fires occurring.
Our study suggests that low encounter rates and relatively rapid fuel
recovery means that fire activity is relatively insensitive to the distribution
of fuel ages and so the effect of suppression is likely to be minimal.
Our study has found that regional-scale patterns of fire extent in
southern coastal California are not influenced by fuel age, and hence
prescribed fire treatment will not help to reduce wildfire area. However, this
does not negate the inhibitory effect that individual burned patches have on
subsequent fire, should one encounter a recently burned patch. Hence, fuel
treatment should be focussed close to the assets that need protection”(Price et al, 2012)
In general, the whole paradigm of prescribed burning is based on the
idea that it is necessary to constantly burn out the “fuel load” (that is,
regularly almost completely destroy or severely deform the key parts of
ecosystems – grass cover, plant litter, and topsoil) in order to prevent or
mitigate the subsequent wildfires.
In other words, for the purpose of reduction the wildfire, with approval
of science and the governments, the massive multiyear Ecocide is implemented and causes the destruction of the
functionality of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity, the killing of a huge
number of living organisms.
Ecocide from massive frequent prescribed burning has been happening for
many years and on a huge scale. For example, in some states of the United
States, provinces of Australia and Canada – the most of natural territories,
including lands of national parks and even a number of wilderness areas of USA
(the most valuable wild nature areas protected by law from any human impacts),
are exposed to frequent prescribed burning about 50 or more years. The exact
data of the scale and geography of the natural areas suffered from prescribed
burning should be found out. In the same countries the modern burning was
preceded by centuries of the burning of ancient native people (American
indigenous, Australian aborigine).
The scale of the burning of ancient people is not well known. According
to scientists, the burning of native ancient people in North and South America,
Australia, Africa – significantly changed the natural ecosystems. Probably the
ancient burning caused the disappearance of many species of flora and fauna.
Undoubtedly, that strong wildfire is a disaster for nature and people. But it is not possible to treat one disaster by another disaster, which is many times worse! This is what is happening now when the prescribed burning is used for the reduction of wildfires.
Undoubtedly, that strong wildfire is a disaster for nature and people. But it is not possible to treat one disaster by another disaster, which is many times worse! This is what is happening now when the prescribed burning is used for the reduction of wildfires.
At the same time, even the main basis of the
prescribed burning paradigm – the effectiveness of burning for mitigation of
wildfires is doubtful. The independent research suggests zero or very low efficiency of prescribed burning for mitigation of
wildfires (Price et al, 2012, Zylstra P. 2011, 2013, 2016, 2018). If we add to
this the obvious indirect effect of
prescribed burns on wildfires (the burning themselves often start
wildfires; the propaganda of burning in society motivates the ordinary people
to burn, which further increases the probability of wildfires), the benefits of
prescribed burns turn exactly the opposite. Most likely, they do not reduce
wildfires but increase them. This hypothesis can be confirmed or disproved when
an open database of prescribed burns will be created in the countries (see
section 5.1 The first task of the campaign: the creation of an open access
summary georeferenced database of all lands passed by prescribed burning).
IV. The objectives
of the “Stop the Harmful Forms of Prescribed Burning!” public campaign
The first objective of the campaign is to launch
independent scientific studies and public control of the scale of prescribed burns in the world (geography, area, frequency) and the negative consequences of prescribed burns for biodiversity and functionality of
natural ecosystems, condition of soils, natural waters, climate
and health of people. To study the direct and indirect
impact of the massive practice and wide propaganda of prescribed burning on the
frequency of severe wildfires, and through this their impact on the welfare of people and economy.
It is
necessary to launch such independent investigations, public control, and
publications of the results in each country where this practice is used, that
is, in USA, Canada, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, some other countries of
Africa, Portugal, Spain, Italy, some other countries of Europe, Russia and not
mentioned in the list.
The second
objective of the campaign is to implement the following purposes in the global community and, above
all, in the countries conducting the harmful forms of prescribed
burning.
Purpose 1. The problems caused by regularly frequent prescribed burning on the vast natural areas (i.e.
the negative consequences of the harmful forms of prescribed burns which can be
definitely assumed basing on the character of their implementation) should be
formulated, recognized, studied and discussed:
a. The problem of loss of biodiversity, the destruction of functionality of natural ecosystems, degradation of natural ecosystems (due to frequent destruction of the habitat of a huge variety of organisms living in grass cover, plant litter and topsoil of natural territories and killing of those organisms themselves; by this violation of possibility or reduction of speed of natural decomposition of plant litter in ecosystem);
b. The
problem of damage to soil conditions (due to soil
depletion and disruption of the process of their normal formation due to the
burning of plant litter); and natural waters (due to pollution by products of
burning)
c. The
problem of influence on climate: both on global climate (due to burning of plant organic matter and emission of large volume
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which without burning would turn into the
soils without carbon dioxide emission) and
on local climate especially of glacier and near-glacier ecosystems (due to deposition of
soot on glaciers and their melting)
d. The
problem of the influence of prescribed burning on the human’s health (due to strong smoking and incidents inside the burned
areas)
e. The
problems of direct and indirect influence of massive prescribed burning
practice and its wide propaganda in society on the frequency of severe
wildfires and through this - on people’s welfare and economy of the country (prescribed burns sometimes start wildfires themselves
and motivate the ordinary people to burn, which further increases the
probability of wildfires).
Purpose 2.
Development of the possible solutions to these problems and launch them.
Purpose 3. Stop
the use of harmful forms of prescribed burning in all countries.
Purpose 4.
Determine what types of artificial burning can be carried out in the future.
* *
*
The
campaign is aimed at termination of the harmful
or destructive forms of prescribed
burning (as well as illegal artificial burning of the same character),
which we define as the burning
implemented inside natural lands with a frequency which exceeds the natural
frequency of wildfires in this area or the period of time between wildfires
that would occur in nature without human influence).
The third objective of the campaign is to
highlight the compromise non-harmful forms of artificial burning and to focus
the attention of society on them as an alternative to destructive forms of
burning. We believe that this work should be carried out in open public space
(with information coverage of press, social networks, and Internet resources) and
in conjunction with formulation and solution of hard problems of damage which
already have been done to natural ecosystems by the harmful forms of prescribed
burning.
For this purpose, the information about such alternative
(non-harmful and compromise) forms of artificial burning will be collected.
The promising alternative forms of artificial burning can be the
following (the list may be incomplete):
a.
Use
prescribed burning for the creation of relatively narrow stripes to avoid
vegetation for making the barriers for wildfires. Implement this
burning around the human settlements, agricultural farms, valuable natural
areas (i.e. around the specific valuable objects), when the danger of wildfires
is great and other ways of wildfires prevention (mechanical cutting the grass, plowing)
are not acceptable.
The main difference
from the harmful forms of prescribed burning – the burning is not implemented
inside the natural territories, it is carried out only on their edge.
This type of
prescribed burning can be considered as an acceptable compromise (a relatively
little damage and risk to the ecosystem to save it from fires). However, if it is
possible, it is necessary to use other ways to create the strips avoid of plant
cover (digging, cutting the grass). This type of prescribed burning must also
be registered in the prescribed burning database (see section 5.1 The first task of the campaign: the creation of an open access
summary georeferenced database of all lands passed by prescribed burning) to create an opportunity to detect the performers of
burning which launch of wildfires.
For example, in
Russia, exactly this type of prescribed burning is carried out to protect forests
from fires. But they often are implemented carelessly (with violation of safety
rules, without an appropriate control). Because of it they often lead to forest
fires.
b.
Use the artificial burning as a method of fighting against the
current wildfire (when the fire is launched on the ground to stop
the movement of the coming fire). In professional terms this method is called suppression fire, back burning, burning off,
and counter fire.
c.
Use
prescribed burning to restore the disturbed natural ecosystem
For example, use artificial
burning to restore an ecosystem damaged by invasive plant species. To implement burning at once to transfer the
entire ecosystem to the initial stage of succession, after which never to burn
again, only to monitor the restoration of native vegetation. This form of
prescribed burning for restoration of natural forest vegetation is used in
Finland (according to the personal report of the representative of the Finnish
forest service).
This method can be
very promising, but it should be used thoughtfully, with rigorous use of
scientific methods and environmental concepts.
Thus,
exactly the goals of restoration of natural ecosystems are often used to
justify the implementation of frequent prescribed burning in the national parks
of the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia. However, usually the scientists aim to
support a few plant and animal species which are supposed to receive benefits
from burning. They call those species as “fire-adapted
species”. It is
incorrect because they totally ignore the negative influence of frequent
artificial burning on all other species of ecosystem and on other components of
the biosphere.
This
issue will be discussed in the material of the campaign later (it is a big
complicated topic). However, in short, the principle can be simple. The
frequency of artificial burning should not be higher than the frequency of
natural wildfires in the area (i.e. the interval between wildfires that would
occur in nature without human influence). If scientists can prove that they
implement the burning in the natural territory in accordance with this
condition – probably then they can realize it. But now it is impossible to
prove for any region of the planet because there is no credible scientific data
on the natural frequency of wildfires (due to absence of such investigations).
At the same time, currently quasi all regular prescribed burns are carried out
with a frequency much higher than the natural frequency of wildfires, that is,
they are harmful to ecosystems.
V. The tasks of
the “Stop the Harmful Forms of Prescribed Burning!” public campaign
The tasks of the campaign are relatively small
specific steps that should be implemented to achieve the main objectives of the
campaign.
5.1 The first task of the campaign: the creation
of an open access summary georeferenced database of all lands passed by
prescribed burning
To be able to fulfill the first objective of the
campaign, we aim to achieve the creation of the Open access summary
georeferenced database of all lands passed by prescribed burning for each
country where this practice is used (authorized burning and, if possible,
illegal burning). These data should be put in open access Internet service for
all existent years. In the future, it is necessary to put data for every year in
each country, where the prescribed burns are implemented for wildfires
prevention, agricultural, scientific, ecosystem restoration, and all other
purposes. In this database each case of prescribed burning implementation should be registered by
the following parameters:
• georeferenced
polygon of the burnt area (shape polygonal file as a standard file
of GIS systems);
• date of burning
(or interval of dates, for example, from 10 to 15 March 2019);
• performer of
burning (company and\or a person responsible for the burning).
Currently, no one country in the world does not
have an open access database of areas passed by prescribed burning. Some of
these data exist in a closed form distributed to hundreds of companies that
perform the burning. In many cases, burns are recorded only on paper or
PDF\DOCX files in the form of textual reports. There is no summary
georeferenced database of lands burnt by artificial burning which are ready for
analyses. The burning carried out inside the private property most likely are
not recorded anywhere at all.
Hypothetically, these data can be obtained if requests
to all companies implemented the prescribed burning and ask them data, pay a
lot of money for these data and waste a lot of time to turn different reports
into a summary georeferenced database. However, in reality, the absence of consolidated
standard open access (free of charge) summary database of georeferenced data of
prescribed burns for each country, makes
it quasi impossible to conduct independent public control and independent
scientific research of prescribed burns geography, scale, frequency, and
consequences.
If the georeferenced
database of lands passed by prescribed burning will be created for each country,
it will open the wide opportunities
for the establishment of independent public control and scientific study of the
entity and consequences of prescribed burning. Also, it will be extremely the important
for improvement of methods of positive forms of artificial burning and for
justification of their safety and benefits. Those opportunities are the
following:
1. Independent researchers and environmentalists
will be able to study geography, scale, frequency, positive and negative
consequences of prescribed burns over all years of published data using the
analytical and mapping functions of GIS and Remote sensing techniques, as well
as other open access georeferenced databases of natural and social process.
2. Any observer (citizen, environmentalist, officers
of federal firefighting agency, police, etc) will obtain the possibility to easily
reveal the cases when prescribed burns launch wildfires. Currently, it is quasi
impossible or very difficult.
The open access georeferenced database of lands
passed by prescribed burning in combination with free services that show wildfires as hotspots on the ground for
every day (for example, the Fire
Information for Resource Management System,
FIRMS) will
allow to reveal all cases when prescribed burning launched wildfires. This, in its
turn, will allow the following:
·
To put the financial and juridical responsibility
for the damage caused by wildfire to the state budget, people’s property and
nature on the perpetrators of this wildfire, that is on the company or land’s
owners who carried out the prescribed burning which launched the wildfire.
·
To increase the responsibility of all performers of
prescribed burning and to reduce their volumes (people will try to avoid
unnecessary burning because they will be afraid to start a fire and pay for the
damage).
We suppose that only this simple measure (the
creation of open access summary georeferenced database of all lands passed by
prescribed burning) in a few years may significantly reduce the number of
severe wildfires in the United States, southern Europe, Australia, Russia, and
other countries.
5.2 The second task of the campaign: to
achieve recognition of the harmful forms of prescribed burning as Ecocide
The second task of the campaign is to achieve
recognition of the harmful forms of
prescribed burning (i.e. the burning
implemented inside the natural lands with a frequency which exceed the natural
frequency of wildfires in this area or the
period of time between wildfires that would occur in nature without human
influence) at the nationals, European Union (EU) and United Nations (UN) levels as a phenomenon of ECOCIDE.
For this, to show an analogy between this entity of
Ecocide (which the prescribed burning practice demonstrates) and the phenomenon
of Genocide, which was recognized as international crime in 1948 by the United
Nations General Assembly.
By analogy with the definition of the notion
"Genocide", Ecocide can be defined as a form of collective action committed
with the intention to completely or partially destroy any biological species of
organisms or habitat for species of organisms. The United Nations has been
recognizing Genocide as an international crime since 1948. What happens as a
result of vast frequent prescribed burning of grass cover, plant litter and
topsoil in natural lands is fully consistent with this definition of Ecocide. The full list of reasons why the harmful form of prescribed burning can be
defined as Ecocide is considered above in the section 2.2 (i).
We consider
unacceptable for the doubtful purposes of wildfires mitigation and for any
other purpose to allow the massive Ecocide, destruction the functionality of
natural ecosystem and reduction of their biodiversity, as well as other obvious
negative consequences of massive frequent prescribed burning!
Therefore, we will
achieve the condemnation of this phenomenon of Ecocide at the level of the
United Nations, the European Union and national levels and recognition it as an
international and criminal offense as it was done for the phenomenon of
Genocide in 1948.
For information.
Currently, Ecocide is recognized as a criminal offense only in 10 countries -
Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova,
Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. In 2010 and 2013, the attempts to
give the concept of Ecocide the status of international crime and a criminal
offense in the European Union were made. Both attempts failed.
Continuity. If this
task of the campaign will be implemented, it will fulfil of the civil
initiative for the recognition of Ecocide as a criminal offense in the European
Union (European Citizens' Initiative), which was submitted in 2013 to the
European Union; and the project of the environmental lawyer Polly Higgins who
submitted a proposal to the United Nations in 2010 about recognition of the
concept of Ecocide as an international crime (Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecocide)
Reference
Papers,
books.
Harari Y.N. Sapiens. A Brief History of Humankind, 2011
Sources cited by
Yuval Noah Harari and used in the position:
(18)Stephen Wroe and Judith Field, ‘A Review
of Evidence for a Human Role in the Extinction of Australian Megafauna and an
Alternative Explanation, Quaternary Science Reviews 25:21-22 (2006), 2692-2703;
Barry W. Brooks et al., ‘Would the Australian Megafauna Have Become Extinct If
Humans Had Never Colonised the Continent? Comments on “A Review of the Evidence
for a Human Role in the Extinction of Australian Megafauna and an Alternative
Explanation” by S. Wroe and J. Field’, Quaternary Science Reviews 26: 3-4
(2007), 560-564; Chris S. M. Turney et al., ‘Late-Surviving Megafauna in
Tasmania, Australia, Implicate Human Involvement in their Extinction,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:34 (2008), 12150-12153.
(19)John Alroy, ‘A Multispecies Overkill
Simulation of the End-Pleistocene Megafaunal Mass Extinction, Science, 292:5523
(2001), 1893-1896; O’Connel and Allen, ‘Pre-LGM Sahul’, 400-401.
(20) L.H. Keeley, ‘Proto-Agricultural
Practices Among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Survey’, in Last Hunters,
First Farmers: New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture,
ed. T. Douglas Price and Anne Birgitte Gebauer (Santa Fe, N.M.: School of
American Research Press, 1995), 243-272; R. Jones, ‘Firestick Farming’,
Australian Natural History 16 (1969), 224-228.
Price, O. F, Bradstock R. A., Keeley J. E., and
Syphard A. D. The impact of antecedent fire area on burned area in southern
California coastal ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 2012,
301-307.
Zylstra P. The historical influence of fire on the
flammability of subalpine Snowgum forest and woodland. - Victorian Naturalist
130(6), 2013, p.232-239.
Zylstra P.
Forest Flammability Modelling and Managing a Complex System.- Thesis
submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy at School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences, The
University of New South Wales Australian Defence Force Academy, 2011, 435 p.
Zylstra P., Bradstock R.A., Bedward M., Penman
T.D., Doherty M.D., Weber R.0., Gill
A.M., Cary G.J. Biophysical Mechanistic Modelling Quantifies the Effects of
Plant Traits on Fire Severity: Species, Not Surface Fuel Loads, Determine Flame
Dimensions in Eucalypt Forests.- PLOS ONE, DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0160715,
2016. p 1-24.
Zylstra P. Explaining feedbacks between fire and
flammability in the Snowgums and beyond. -
Australasian Plant Conservation, Vol 24, №4, 2016б p. 14-16.
Zylstra P. Flammability dynamics in the Australian
Alps. - Austral Ecology 43(4), 2018, p.578–591
Philip Zylstra – a research
Fellow at University of Wollongong, Centre for Environmental Risk Management of
Bushfires, Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions.
Yuval Noah Harari - is an
Israeli historian and a professor in the Department of History at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
Alternative burn theory by Chris Thomson, January
17, 2019
Butler, W. H., and B. E. Goldstein. The US Fire
Learning Network: springing a rigidity trap through multiscalar collaborative
networks. - Ecology and Society, 2010, 15(3). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art21
Cerro
Grande Fire in New Mexico in 2000, Wikipedia
Gabbert B. Wildlife biologist dies at prescribed
fire at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. - Wildfire Today, May 23, 2019.
Maclay School, Tall Timbers will conduct prescribed
burn demonstration. - Tallahassee Democrat, 7 May 2019 (article in press):
McCaffrey S. M. Prescribed fire: What influences
public approval. - In: Dickinson, Matthew B., ed. 2006. Fire in eastern oak
forests: delivering science to land managers, proceedings of a conference; 2005
November 15-17; Columbus, OH. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 192-198.
Travis D. and Fretwell S. Civilian who died at Fort
Jackson remembered for devotion to her children, wildlife, - The State,
Military News, May 24, 2019
Additional List of Sources
3.1 Sources which promote the traditional
burning of ancient native people
Aboriginal fire management – part of the
solution to destructive bushfires. - Article in the press, Australia, 2016.
Firesticks Alliance Indigenous Corporation. Cultural
burning healthy communities, healthy landscapes. - Website of
organization.
It is an Indigenous led network and aims to
re-invigorate the use of cultural burning by facilitating cultural learning
pathways to fire and land management. It is an initiative for Indigenous and
non- Indigenous people to look after Country, share their experiences and
collectively explore ways to achieve their goals.
Aboriginal Cultural Guidelines for Fuel and
Fire Management Operations in the ACT, 2015
(manual, Australia)
Raish C., Gonzalez-Caban A, Condiec C. J., The
importance of traditional fire use and management practices for contemporary
land managers in the American Southwest.- Environmental Hazards 6 (2005)
115–122.
3.2 Sources of personal communication in
social networks
Association
of Fire Management Activists is the largest facebook group and community
joined the apologists of prescribed burning practice (scientific and technical
experts, practitioners, professors, representatives of burning companies and
federal agencies). This group was created by Ed Komarek, a great enthusiast of
this practice. He also created the regional groups where the material is
repeated from the main group - Prescribed Fire Asia, Prescribed Fire
Australia, Prescribed
Fire North America, Prescribed Fire
Central & South America, Prescribed Fire
Africa
All these groups are the example of wide propaganda
of prescribed burning which is provided by the apologists of this practice
among the countries. Except for groups, there are a lot of other Facebook
groups dedicated to the benefits of prescribed burning. The propaganda of
harmful forms of prescribed burning is conducted mainly.
Appendix
Other definitions of “Ecocide”
There are several definitions of a concept
“Ecocide” which can also be used to denote the massive frequent prescribed
burning of grass, plant litter and topsoil as an Ecocide phenomenon.
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecocide):
Ecocide describes attempts to criminalize human
activities that cause extensive damage to,
destruction of or loss of ecosystems of a given territory; and which diminish
the health and well-being of species within these ecosystems including humans.
It involves transgressions that violate the principles of environmental
justice, ecological justice and species justice. When this occurs as a result
of human behaviour, advocates argue that a crime has occurred. However, this
has not yet been accepted as an international crime by the United Nations.
From the book and movement of Polly Higgins
"Eradicating Ecocide": https://eradicatingecocide.com/
Ecocide is the extensive damage to,
destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that
peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be
severely diminished.
Ecocide is a crime against the living natural
world – ecosystem loss, damage or destruction. Ecocide is a crime against the
Earth, not just humans. Further, ecocide can also be climate crime: dangerous
industrial activity causes climate ecocide.
Polly Higgins is a
lawyer and environmentalist who fought for the recognition of Ecocide as an
international crime. She submitted a proposal to the United Nations in 2010,
but it was rejected. Polly Higgins died at the age of 50 on 21 April 2019.
Photographs illustrating the prescribed burning practice
Fig 1. Prescribed burns in the
national park of the Florida State, USA. Technicians burn dunes near the ocean.
Even the scientific
experts of prescribed burning practice criticized these actions as unwise
measures. The dunes have been recovering for decades after the fire. What is
the reason of burning the dunes inside the national park (protected natural
area)? How many years they will recover
after this fire? To these questions, we failed to answer in the group “South Florida Interagency Fire Management Council” (where this
photo was put on the background), and in the group “Association of Fire Management Activists” (where this photo was shared). But the comments of
two practitioners of prescribed burning under this photo are very typical. They
like it. They do not know the answer to the above questions, they do not need
it. The most important – that the fire is burning
well!
Fig 2. Prescribed burning in the forest. It is seen that the burning is
implemented inside the forest itself. The grass cover, shrubs, plant litter are
in fire.
Fig 3. Prescribed burning on the area
of 100 hectares in the forest of Worimi Conservation Lands, USA (Source)
The burning produces a cloud
of smoke similar to the bomb explosion. The source says nothing about the
causes of burning, except that it is “100-hectare hazard reduction burn”.
Apparently, this is a type of burning, which is carried out for regular removal
of the “fuel load” (plant litter and grass cover).
Fig 4.
Prescribed burning in the forest area of Florida state,
USA (Source).
It is seen that the
burning goes inside the forest, covering shrubs, grass cover and plant
litter. The source gives the answers
about justification of prescribed burning which is very typical for the apologists
of this practice. Below is the citation from the text of the article and our
comments.
1. “Prescribed fires
are really an economical way to manage lands….Without the flames wiping forest
floors clean, not only will the wildfire threat be increased, but new grasses
won’t be spurred to grow”.
According to the
people who implemented the burning, how did the grass grow in this forest
before the arrival of the first people with torches and matches? They do not
ask themselves this question, as well as other difficult questions about the
consequences of what they are doing. The main thing for them - faith in these
words: “Prescribed fires are really an economical way to manage lands”.
2. “These tracts are split
into sections, which forestry monitors for debris buildup or a lack of plant
life for the ground-feeding quails, turkeys or tortoises to survive on. If
it gets too thick or bushy ... they can’t eat, Tear said. We plan ahead of time
throughout the year when managing lands to burn”.
The answer shows
concern for 3 species (or 3 groups) of animals and total disregard for the
impact of burning on the other plant and animal species of forest ecosystem.
Unjustified confidence that without burning these three species will not be
able to eat is shown.
3. “Tear said animals living
in the path of these fires are safe and know to migrate beyond the firebreak or
burrow underneath, out of reach from the low-temperature burn”.
Whether the
author of these words knows about existence of animals of small and tiny size in
forest ecosystem for which it is unreal to escape from the burning territory
even in some square meters? These are reptiles, amphibians, small mammals and
birds, all invertebrates. Who should die from such burning on 100% of their
quantity. Due to regular frequent burning the most of small species should have
disappeared from the forest ecosystem long time ago.
4. “Once a prescribed or controlled burn is needed, forestry “writes a prescription” that outlines its plan for the manmade fire”.
A clear
confirmation of the fact that prescribed burning is implemented very often and
natural intervals of wildfires are not taken into account. The frequency of
burning is determined by the officials of the forest service, based on the
amount of accumulated “fuel” in the ecosystem.
5. “We appreciate everybody’s support of our program, Tear
said. We just want people to understand there’s true benefit to prescribed
fires”
Only a series of
erroneous pseudo-scientific statements are visible in the justification of
burning given in this article, not the benefits.
Comments
Post a Comment