Fire has always been part of the Australian landscape—shaping ecosystems through bushfires, regeneration cycles, and millennia of Indigenous land stewardship¹². After decades of fire suppression and increasingly severe bushfire seasons, interest has grown in reintroducing planned burning methods to reduce risk, support biodiversity, and strengthen cultural practices. Prescribed burns vary in their objectives, techniques, and outcomes. Understanding the distinctions between fuel reduction burns, ecological burns, and cultural burns is essential to designing effective and respectful fire regimes—especially in a changing climate.
However, not all forest types should be managed with fire or mechanical treatments—fire-sensitive systems such as rainforests and wet gullies may be harmed by these interventions and require alternative strategies³.
Fuel reduction burning
Fuel reduction burns are the most widely recognised type of prescribed fire. Their primary aim is to reduce bushfire risk by decreasing surface fuels, such as dry leaf litter and twigs, which can carry fire rapidly through forests. In Australian forests, where vegetation types vary greatly, fuel loads can build differently: a wet sclerophyll forest may accumulate 25 tonnes of fuel per hectare in just 12 years, while dry sclerophyll forests might take 25 years to reach the same levels⁴ ⁵.
These burns are usually carried out under tightly controlled weather conditions to reduce the risk of fire escape and to protect life, property, and infrastructure. Research indicates that areas treated with prescribed burns within the past three years can significantly reduce wildfire severity, especially under moderate fire weather conditions⁶.
Limitations:
Fuel reduction burns are increasingly constrained by shorter safe-weather windows caused by climate change⁷. Proximity to towns and infrastructure limits their use due to smoke risks and potential for escape⁵. In some ecosystems, burning under the wrong conditions can trigger mass seeding or coppicing, creating dense regrowth that increases future fire risk if not managed⁷. These factors require careful site-based planning.
Ecological burning
Ecological burning is applied with the goal of conserving biodiversity and promoting regeneration of native plant and animal communities. These burns are tailored to local ecosystems and the fire adaptations of the species present. Some plants depend on fire for seed release or germination, while others regenerate from underground buds.
Ecological burns must consider the fire regime—that is, the frequency, intensity, season, and type of fire—because misapplied fire regimes can lead to biodiversity loss and have been listed as a key threatening process under national environmental law¹.
Limitations:
Ecological burns are not suitable during drought or when species are still recovering from past fire. Incorrect timing or frequency can damage sensitive species or cause habitat simplification⁸. These burns require detailed ecological knowledge and ongoing monitoring to ensure biodiversity outcomes are met.
Cultural burning
Cultural burning, practised by First Nations people for tens of thousands of years, is deeply rooted in caring for Country. These low-intensity burns are often highly targeted, supporting hunting, ceremony, food production, and ecosystem health. Cultural burning, while spiritual and cultural in nature, also creates fine-scale mosaics of burnt and unburnt areas, promotes landscape resilience, and encourages species diversity.
What sets cultural burning apart is that it inherently integrates all three objectives: it reduces fuel loads, enhances ecological integrity, and maintains cultural responsibilities to Country. This multifunctionality has been demonstrated in modern contexts. Following the catastrophic 2019–2020 Black Summer bushfires, areas in Eden and parts of New South Wales managed with cultural burns were significantly less impacted than surrounding landscapes. These areas had undergone recent traditional burning and exhibited reduced fire severity⁹ ¹⁰.
Limitations:
Cultural burning is not immediately feasible in long-unburnt forests with heavy fuel loads. Without preparation, fire intensity may exceed what is safe for cultural or ecological values. In such cases, preparatory thinning or debris reduction may be needed first¹¹ ¹². Cultural burning must be guided by First Nations fire knowledge and landholder collaboration.
Mechanical fuel treatments: an alternative approach
When prescribed burning is unsuitable due to environmental conditions, proximity to assets, or ecological concerns, mechanical fuel treatments offer an alternative. These involve the physical removal or modification of vegetation to reduce fuel loads and alter fire behaviour.
Limitations:
Mechanical treatments—like mulching, slashing or thinning—are useful where burning is unsafe, but they are costly and difficult to apply at large scale⁷. They may also disturb soils, damage understorey vegetation, and remove habitat features such as logs and coarse woody debris⁵. In culturally significant areas, mechanical works must be planned with care to avoid harming heritage values or future cultural burning opportunities.
|
Aspect |
Fuel Reduction Burning |
Ecological Burning |
Cultural Burning |
Mechanical Fuel Treatments |
|
Primary objective |
Reduce surface fuels to mitigate bushfire risk |
Conserve biodiversity and promote regeneration of native species |
Maintain cultural practices, ecosystem health, and reduce fuel loads |
Reduce fuel loads where burning is unsuitable |
|
Techniques |
Controlled burns under specific weather conditions |
Tailored burns considering species-specific fire adaptations |
Low-intensity, targeted burns informed by First Nations knowledge |
Physical removal or modification of vegetation using machinery |
|
Outcomes |
Decreased fire intensity and spread in treated areas |
Enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem resilience |
Integrated benefits: fuel reduction, ecological health, and cultural continuity |
Reduced fuel loads and altered fire behaviour near assets |
|
Timeframe of effect |
Most effective within 3 years post-treatment |
Depends on ecosystem and species; requires monitoring |
Long-term cultural and ecological benefits |
Immediate effect; may require maintenance |
| Limitations or when not suitable |
Constrained by climate conditions; unsuitable near assets; may cause regrowth if misapplied (Ximenes et al., 2017; McCaw & Burrows, 2020) |
Not suitable during drought or species recovery; requires specialist knowledge (Driscoll et al., 2010) |
Not feasible in long-unburnt forests without prep; must be First Nations-led (Steffensen, 2020; AIDR, 2020) |
Costly and site-limited; may cause ecological disturbance (Ximenes et al., 2017; McCaw & Burrows, 2020) |
Active conservation