Bushfire, prescribed burning, and non‐human protection

Abstract

AbstractUnprecedented bushfire activity is increasing around the world. A catastrophic bushfire event in the Australian summer of 2019–2020 burned over 18 million hectares. The Australian bushfires were just one set of events among many across the globe. Cumulatively, the losses are extraordinary: from losing over a quarter of the Pantanal wetland in South America to California’s Sierra Nevada and losses in the Amazon Forest. Bushfire destruction means a concomitant loss of biological diversity. Increased fire activity and frequency can adversely affect adaptive capacities of flora and fauna. Accordingly, across the globe, fire management practices and mitigation strategies are under increased scrutiny. In this article, we consider the extent to which one fire suppression strategy, prescribed burning, takes account of non‐human considerations. Our examination of policy settings provides policymakers with a way to account for non‐human interests. Our focus is Australia, specifically relating to one national park within New South Wales. Across the world, fire containment strategies must be reassessed to decipher how well non‐human considerations are placed to withstand changing fire regimes. With likely increases in bush and wildfire activity across the globe, associated with Anthropocentric climate change, there is an urgent need to account for non‐human interests in prescribed burning policies and regulations.