1st South American Symposium on Fire Ecology and Management Fire Paradox 2009. 11th to 13th June 2009 Centro Nacional Patagónico, Puerto Madryn, Argentina
FIRE USE PRACTICES AND REGULATION IN EUROPE1 Cristina MONTIEL University Complutense of Madrid 1. Objectives for the use of fire in Europe In the history of land-use in Europe, fire has been an important element in forestry, agriculture and pastoralism, and an important process in shaping landscape patterns of high ecological and cultural diversity (Goldammer et al, 2007). In most parts of Europe, the rural areas crisis during the second half of the 20th century, materialized in rural abandonment and industrialization processes, caused the loss of traditional knowledge and territorial uproot. These rural trends have entailed different consequences in the development of forestry in European countries. In North-western Europe and the Baltic Region rapid socioeconomic changes in post World War II led also to a change in land use systems (increase in technology and external inputs) and landscape patterns, resulting in elimination of traditional burning practices. Moreover, new air and quality standards and a generally prevailing opinion that fire would damage ecosystem stability and biodiversity, imposed fire bans in most European countries (Goldammer and Bruce, 2004). On the other hand, in Mediterranean countries, the abandonment of rural areas brought about the densification and homogenization of the unmanaged forest cover as well as the loss of traditional knowledge (See Fig.1). In this process, the notion of fire as a useful tool and as an important process in shaping landscapes was lost and its perception changed from tool to threat. However, at present, it is possible to notice another incipient change of perception, and in some cases, re-evaluation of the potential that fire can play as a substitution tool for imitating historic mechanical or zoogenic fuel treatment for the management of forest ecosystems. Both, in past and present times, the use of fire, under prescription or not, has constituted a useful management instrument with different objectives. For the use of fire in ecosystem manipulation in Europe some of the principles of interactions between natural or anthropogenic fire and ecosystems from elsewhere in the world are important for developing new concepts. However, it must be pointed out that the use of prescribed fire in
The research results presented in this paper have been developed in the frame of the FIRE PARADOX Integrated Project “An innovative approach of Integrated Wildland Fire Management Regulating the Wildfire Problem by the Wise use of Fire: solving the Fire Paradox”, financed by the VI Framework Programme. Full text: Lázaro, A. et al. (2007): Collection, classification and mapping of the current prescribed burning and suppression fire practices in Europe. Deliverable D.7.13.1 of the Integrated project “Fire Paradox”, Project no. FP6018505, European Commission (available at http: www.fireparadox.org) 1
1st South American Symposium on Fire Ecology and Management Fire Paradox 2009. 11th to 13th June 2009 Centro Nacional Patagónico, Puerto Madryn, Argentina Europe is not aiming at “imitating nature” or to reconstruct natural fire regimes. The objectives for the application of prescribed fire in Europe are rather to use fire as a tool for substituting traditional, nowadays abandoned land-use (vegetation use) systems or traditional burning practices, or transferring principles from fire ecosystems to those ecosystems in which fire under prescribed conditions has positive effects on stabilization, biodiversity or productivity.
2. State of the art regarding fire use practices in Europe The potential of using fire wisely in wildland fire management is receiving recent and growing recognition from both professionals and researchers in Europe. Although distrusted by many, changing paradigms in nature conservation and ecology as well as a demand for more economic and flexible tools for wildfire management have given either new or renovated interest to prescribed burning and suppression fire practices. However, only a limited number of studies have analyzed prescribed burning practices in Europe until now, e.g. Goldammer et al. (1997a, b), Goldammer & Page (1997) and Fernandes & Botelho (2004). Particular efforts have been concentrated in the use of prescribed burning and the history of traditional fire use practices by rural communities. European scientific research in prescribed burning started in the 1970s (e.g. Goldammer 1979, Liacos 1988) and with the introduction of this technique in Europe in the early 1980s (Botelho & Fernandes 1998). Scientific research at this first experimental stage was focused in the possibility to use this technique, and therefore in determining its ecologic effects. Nowadays, the environmental conditions which make possible the execution of prescribed fire are clearly defined for some vegetation types, e.g. maritime pine forest (Silva 1984, Botelho et al 1987, Vega et al 1994, Fernandes 1997), and research has expanded to a wide variety of aspects such as: operational issues on how to plan and execute the burning (Molina-Terrén, 2000), the evaluation of its efficiency among other tools for fire prevention (Fernandes & Botelho 2003), cost-effectiveness studies (Larranaga & Galán, 2006; Rodríguez Silva, 2004), history of fire use and the study of traditional practices taking into consideration their territorial specificities (Pyne 1997; 1999, Goldammer 1998, Goldammer and Bruce, 2004, Vélez 2005, Métailié 2006) and expanding the prescribed burning perspectives as a multipurpose tool (Goldammer et al 2007). Most of the scientific research described above, has been developed in the frame of European research projects, sponsored by the European Commission, mainly focused on wildland fire management issues. For their contribution to prescribed burning and suppression fire practices it is worth to mention the main objectives of some of the most relevant:
2
“FIRE TORCH- a management approach to prescribed burning in the Mediterranean basin”2, a multidisciplinary project conceived as an essential step to expand and consolidate the use of prescribed burning in Southern Europe with the aim to: analyze its constrains, address the current knowledge gaps concerning environmental and
For more information related to the FIRE TORCH project http://www.cindy.ensmp.fr/europe/firetorch/firetorch_fr.html
1st South American Symposium on Fire Ecology and Management Fire Paradox 2009. 11th to 13th June 2009 Centro Nacional Patagónico, Puerto Madryn, Argentina operational issues, to develop decision-support tools for PB management and to help diffusion of the technique and training of practitioners.
“EUFIRELAB, a wall-less Laboratory for Wildland Fire Sciences and Technologies in the Euro-Mediterranean Region”3, created with the aim to constitute a laboratory for effectively developing a European Research Area in wildland fire domains for: reinforcing cooperation among Euro Mediterranean teams, activating large exchanges of knowledge and know-how, developing common concepts, approaches and languages and fostering the common use of facilities for research and technological development.
“FIRE PARADOX, An innovative Approach of the Integrated Wildland Fire Management Regulating the Wildfire Problem by the Wise Use of fire: solving the FIRE PARADOX” (2006-2010)4, in which this deliverable is framed, conceived with the aim to study the use of prescribed burning and the application of suppression fire in Europe in four domains: prevention, ignition, propagation and suppression.
EUROFIRE5, a 2 year trans-European vocational training project, framed within Leonardo da Vinci funding scheme under the European Community Programme, which aims to develop and produce a multilingual, on-line training resource – the competence-based “European Wildland Fire Management Handbook”. This project is conducted by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC).
Finally, several nature conservation projects have promoted the use of prescribed management ignited fires as well as wildfires burning within prescription. Two LIFE projects have addressed the restoration of coastal dune heathlands in Denmark (Jensen 2004) and habitat management in the Black Forest in Germany (Anonymous, 2006, cit. in Goldammer et al, 2007). Moreover, prescribed burning has been part of a Life project aimed at the conservation and habitat management of the Scottish Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus)6. Also as part of the mentioned research projects, experimental networks and initiatives focused on the wise use of fire have been started with different objectives in several parts of the European Continent. In northern Europe, the Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network (EFNCN), coordinated by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), was created to provide a platform and networking mechanism for those who actively apply or conduct research in prescribed burning for the purpose of nature conservation, landscape management and forestry. The region of interest is the temperate-boreal Eurasia and adjoining countries of 3
For more information related to the EUFIRELAB project http://www.eufirelab.org/ 4 5
6
For more information related to the FIRE PARADOX project www.fireparadox.org For more information related to the EUROFIRE project www.euro-fire.eu,
For more information related to the LIFE project “"Urgent Conservation Management for Scottish Capercaillie" www.capercaillie-life.info
1st South American Symposium on Fire Ecology and Management Fire Paradox 2009. 11th to 13th June 2009 Centro Nacional Patagónico, Puerto Madryn, Argentina
Southeast Europe, Caucasus, Central and Northeast Asia7. This initiative is closely associated with several European research projects: EU FIRE PARADOX, EUROFIRE and EU LIFE projects. In southern Europe, experimental efforts have been developed by scientific institutions of Mediterranean countries. In France, the “Forest fire prevention unit” of the Institut Nationale de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) has taken part, since the introduction of PB in France, in the study of its application feasibility to Mediterranean ecosystems, its efficiency as a fuel management tool and its effects on ecosystems. Moreover, the combination of PB techniques with other fuel management options is also an important activity of the research developed by the INRA as part of the “fuelbreak working group” (Réseau Coupures de combustible) in which is involved. Portugal and Spain have scientific research centres which are actively involved in prescribed burning experimental studies. The most relevant are the University of Tras-Os Montes e Alto Douro and the Centro de Investigaciones Forestales y Ambientales de Lourizán, respectively. In Italy there is lack of experience in prescribed burning. However, recently some experiments were conducted by the Agroselviter Department of the University of Torino to investigate the use of PB both for management of particular biotopes and to reduce fuel loads (Ascoli et al, 2007) On the side of professionals, growing interest in these types of practices is also manifest in the development of experimental networks as well as in individual initiatives developed by forest and fire fighting services in southern Europe. France has numerous prescribed burning teams distributed in the Mediterranean region as well as in the Pyrenees and the Alps. These teams have different backgrounds (i.e foresters, pastoral, fire fighters) and their main objective is fuel management for wildland fire prevention, although experience has widen the primal objective to other applications such as range management, habitat improvement, silviculture, landscape management or training for wildfire suppression. Together, they constitute the National Network of Prescribed Burning Teams, which was created by the wildfire prevention team of the INRA (Avignon) in 1990. The main objectives of the network are: knowledge transfer, experience exchange, training and stimulating the dialogue between the different stakeholders involved (Rigolot, 2000). Portugal has groups specialized in wildland fire prevention, Sapadores florestais, which among other activities develop prescribed burnings and controlled rural burnings. Besides wildland fire prevention, they have wildfire detection and suppression duties. These teams are dependent of private forest owners associations or the State, depending on the property of the land where they develop their work; private crews are obliged to dedicate some of their time to public service, as they are funded by the Forest Service. Spain has developed over the last years a similar figure, but with an important social focus in wildland fire prevention. The Equipos de Prevención Integral de Incendios Forestales (EPRIF), developed by the State to collaborate with the autonomous regions located in high risk areas, take part in: investigation of wildland fire causes, rural awareness campaigns, promotion of prescribed burnings to end with clandestine burnings and other preventive actions such as thinning, as well as wildland fire suppression when necessary. 7
For more information related to the Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network (EFNCN) http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/natcon/natcon.htm
1st South American Symposium on Fire Ecology and Management Fire Paradox 2009. 11th to 13th June 2009 Centro Nacional Patagónico, Puerto Madryn, Argentina MAIN FINDINGS
Traditional fire use: although fire use has been recognized as a widespread tool for rural Europe, its current state presents two different situations: i) a general abandonment of traditional fire practices in Central European and Baltic countries in contrast with ii) the maintenance of fire as a deeply-rooted tool for agricultural and livestock purposes in Mediterranean Basin as well as in other European countries of recent integration in the EU (i.e: Bulgaria, Lithuania) in which agrarian activities are still an important part of local economies. The influence of ongoing socioeconomic dynamics has been identified as fundamental for the maintenance/ eradication of the traditional use of fire and hence should be a factor to be incorporated in the future assessment of PB and SF practices which will be developed by February 20088.
PB as a substitution tool in the context of fire use in Europe: In Europe the introduction of prescribed fire is not aiming at “imitating nature” or to reconstruct natural fire regimes, but presented as a substitution tool for traditional - nowadays abandoned - land use and management systems or traditional burning practices, and hence is to be applied in cultural ecosystems rather than in natural fire ecosystems.
Development of PB in Europe: the incipient development of PB practices in Europe has taken place in different areas and with different objectives. Results obtained till the moment show how in Mediterranean countries this technique has been introduced mainly for wildfire prevention purposes, while in Northern Europe silviculture and nature conservation are the main objectives for its application. However these tendencies have shown to evolve with time since some southern countries (i.e. France and Portugal) have started to expand its objectives to forest and biodiversity management, while the increase of wildfire risk in North and Central European countries might entail the development of PB initiatives for wildfire prevention in a near future (i.e. Germany).
PB for wildfire prevention: the application of PB for wildfire prevention is concentrated in the southern European countries. Although the introduction of this technique in Europe took place in the early 1980s, results obtained till the moment evidence how its development has acquired a relevant progress towards the end of the 90s and the beginning of 21st century.
Development of SF practices in Europe: the information gathered for suppression fire practices shows evidence that these techniques are mainly concentrated in the southern European countries, having an earlier development between the 70s and the 80s in Portugal and Spain and more recently in southern France and other European countries. However, in some cases, its monitoring has been hindered by the confusion between traditional suppression fire use by rural population and its implementation by forest and civil protection services, as well as due to the clandestine character associated to this technique in many European countries.
8
D7.1-3.2 Assessment document on prescribed burning and suppression fire practices in European countries and in North African countries.
1st South American Symposium on Fire Ecology and Management Fire Paradox 2009. 11th to 13th June 2009 Centro Nacional Patagónico, Puerto Madryn, Argentina The regulation of fire use practices in Europe adopts a wide variety of formulas: from a controlled burning with no written plans supported by codes of practices (SEERAD, 2001), to a prescribed fire with detailed prescriptions adopted in a plan. Again in this section it is important to differentiate the regulation of traditional fire use practices from the regulation of prescribed burning techniques.
Existence of influencing factors determinant for fire use practices: Spatial contexts and on-going socioeconomic dynamics have been identified as determinant influencing factors for the existence and nature of fire use practices in the different countries and regions. The identification of the particular factors influencing fire use practices at the regional and national levels will be one of the main elements to be considered in the future assessment of fire use practices. Their identification is fundamental since only an appropriate application of the fire use techniques according to regional specificities will have the possibility to achieve a necessary social and political agreement allowing the use of fire for management purposes.
Importance of traditional fire use practices: among the influencing factors upon fire use practices in a particular context, the existence of traditional fire use and knowledge has been identified as one of the main factors, which is going to determine and guide the strategies and recommendations to be applied over a given context. Thus, there are three types of areas in accordance with the possibility to approach their fire use practices:
i) Dynamic rural areas: Areas where local communities have maintained rural activities with potential to manage the territory. Among them, traditional fire use practices have been preserved. The traditional knowledge still alive is a support and a referent for the future development of prescribed burning and suppression fire practices. However the lack of dialogue between rural communities and professionals represents a problematic particular for these areas, which should be faced by an agreed and coordinated dialogue and regulation of traditional practices.
ii) Abandoned rural areas: Areas which have gone through strong rural abandonment processes, in which traditional territorial uproot have been completely lost.
fire
use
and
iii) Suburban rural areas: Areas with predominance of urban spatial models. Rural activities have been lost and hence the possibility to intervene upon land management. In these areas fire is conceived as a threat both by urban society and professionals. Fire use strategies and recommendations upon these areas should be based on professionalization.
Considering the existing diversity of fire use practices in Europe, according with the management objectives, the influencing factors and the kind of regulations, Fire Paradox is going to propose a new Framework Directive for starting a shift in fire policies in Europe. Furthermore, the envisaged Fire Framework Directive could be the
1st South American Symposium on Fire Ecology and Management Fire Paradox 2009. 11th to 13th June 2009 Centro Nacional Patagónico, Puerto Madryn, Argentina most appropriate method to avoid uniformity in legal treatment across EU territory whilst, at the same time, establishing a basic minimum harmonising legislation with sufficient flexibility so as to avoid unwanted homogenisation.
Prácticas de uso del fuego y regulaciones g en Europa p Fi use practices Fire ti and d regulation l ti iin E Europe CRISTINA MONTIEL MOLINA Universidad Complutense de Madrid
La paradoja:
Elemento natural y cultural
Riesgo y catástrofe
Cultura del fuego Presente en las tradiciones y fiestas populares en el ámbito mediterráneo
Cultura del fuego Una práctica habitual en las actividades agro-silvo-pastorales tradicionales.
Cultura del fuego
J. Goldammer & D. Kraus: “Joining hands between the Non-EU R&D activities in prescribed burning in Central-WesternNorthern Europe with FIRE PARADOX” PARADOX , Fire Paradox Kickoff Meeting, Lisboa, 7 Marzo 2006
Referencias históricas a los incendios forestales FUENTES ARRIMADAS, n. DE LA : Fisiografía g e Historia del Barco de Ávila,, 1211.“Que cualquier pastor que desde primero d mayo hasta de h t fin fi del d l mes de d octubre, t b que truxere yesca o pedernal, e fuese hallado con ello, que pague la pena por cada vez e de 100 mara maravedíes edíes para dicho Concejo. E cualquiera que en todo el año quemase Escobar o monte cualquiere de los de la Tierra Tierra, aya pena de 2.000 2 000 maravedíes para el Concejo, de más del daño que ficiese” (MARTINEZ RUÍZ, Í E. “Comportamiento del fuego en un gran incendio”, II Curso Superior sobre defensa contra incendios forestales, abril 1987)
Cultura del fuego El uso del fuego es la técnica agrícola más antigua
+ (CIVILIZACIÓN) Ó
“a cubierto” Técnicas del fuego
“a descubierto”
-
(RIESGO)
Autor: Colin Legg
El control del fuego es expresión de poder
Nadine Ribet: “Le brûlage dirigé, une révolution plus politique que technique”, Info DFCI, Junio 2008, nº 60
El fuego útil: usos tradicionales del fuego
El fuego f ego como herramienta
Quema agrícola (Benisa, Alicante, diciembre 2007)
Ribera del Ebro (Rasquera, Tarragona)
Quema pastoral (Portugal)
El fuego catastrófico
Incendios forestales
Autor: Eric Rigolot
Causas de los incendios forestales: prácticas tradicionales inadecuadas
© Ricardo Vélez
Prohibición de uso del fuego
CASTILLA-LA MANCHA
CATALUÑA
COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA
COMUNIDAD DE MADRID
Prohibición de uso del fuego g
Clandestinidad (contrafuegos) ( g ) Pérdida de control (quemas agrícolas y pastorales)
Aumento del riesgo por conflictividad social
Necesidad N id d d de nuevos enfoques f políticos y jurídicos jurídicos, adaptados a los nuevos contextos socioeconómicos y espaciales.
Prohibición vs. Regulación
Quemas prescritas y quemas controladas Quemas prescritas.- Diferentes OBJETIVOS DE GESTIÓN: mantenimiento del paisaje, manejo de la biodiversidad, prevención de incendios. Quemas controladas.controladas - Resolución de conflictos: PREVENCION SOCIAL PIRINEOS ATLÁNTICOS, Francia. Cécile Aguerre, Pastum, nº 88, 2008
Autora: Andrea Lázaro
Quemas controladas El objetivo principal es la reducción del número de incendios Renovación y regulación de prácticas tradicionales
Quema controlada 2005, Navacepeda de Tormes, Ávila Quema controlada 2008, Cangas de Onis, Asturias
A. Lázaro: El uso del fuego para la gestión territorial en Europa, proyecto de Tesis Doctoral.
Spanish EPRIF Programme
Ricardo Vélez: “Usos históricos del fuego en el mundo mediterráneo”, Simposio Internacional Incendios Forestales, lucha o adaptación?, Madrid, 3-4 octubre 2007
Profesionalización
Quemas prescritas
El fuego g como herramienta de gestión, con distintos objetivos
QUEMAS PRESCRITAS PARA LA CONSERVACIÓN DE LA NATURALEZA (matorral de Atlantic call calluna, na LÜTJENHOLM SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN, Alemania)
QUEMAS PRESCRITAS PARA PREVENCIÓN CONTRA INCENDIOS FORESTALES (Pinar litoral, (Monte de Bages, Vaude, Francia)
Author: M. Raínha, 2003
Autthor: E. Rigolot
Author: © N. Ribet, 2006
Author: J.G G. Goldammer, 2006
QUEMAS PARA LA MEJORA Y GESTIÓN DEL PASTO (MARGHINE MONTIFERRU C (MARGHINE-MONTIFERRU, Cerdeña, d ñ It Italia) li )
QUEMAS PRESCRITAS EXPERIMENTALES PARA LA FORMACIÓN DE PROFESIONALES (MARÃO MOUNTAINS, Portugal)
A. Lázaro: El uso del fuego para la gestión territorial en Europa, proyecto de Tesis Doctoral.
Regulación de las Quemas Prescritas Países nórdicos: Las quemas prescritas se utilizan con objetivos forestales y de conservación de la naturaleza (inclusión de esta práctica en los standares de certificación forestal de Suecia y Finlandia) El uso del fuego no está considerado en la legislación forestal de los países escandinavos (Noruega, Suecia y Finlandia). Lituania, Letonia y Estonia plantean restricciones, ya que continuan persistiendo las prácticas tradicionales. Otras restricciones proceden de políticas no forestales, como las políticas de conservación de la naturaleza, donde impera el paradigma de la “ i t “no-intervención” ió ” en reservas naturales t l
BROCHURE OF THE JÄMTGAVELN NATURE RESERVE (VÄSTERNORRLAND, SWEDEN)
http://www.y.lst.se/english.4.17431b9f54 4f8dca97fff1395.html
Regulación de las Quemas Prescritas Países de Europa Central y Occidental: Algunos países han establecido prohibiciones absolutas al uso del fuego; otros no tienen leyes de prohibición directa, pero lo hacen indirectamente a través de restricciones desde otros sectores (i.e. emisiones CO2, calidad del agua, seguridad, etc.)
Excepciones: Cambios en la política forestal en ALEMANIA (Baden-Württemberg State) y Códigos de Buenas Prácticas para Quemas de Brezales en el REINO UNIDO
QUEMA TRADICIONAL DE BREZALES EN ESCOCIA
Regulación de las Quemas Prescritas Países del Este de Europa:
La mayoría de países cuenta con prohibiciones parciales o totales sobre el uso del fuego en zonas forestales o naturales. Sin embargo, el uso del fuego en actividades rurales sigue siendo la alternativa más económica y utilizada. El marco legal restrictivo puede, por tanto, incrementar el número de incendios por prácticas clandestinas clandestinas.
Regulación de las Quemas Prescritas Paises del Sur de Europa Regulación del uso del fuego en las actividades rurales (periodo de quemas, responsabilidad, autorizacion, procedimientos de comunicación) Algunos países han incorporado medidas relativas a quemas prescritas en su marco normativo general, o han desarrollado una legislación específica al respecto.
DIÁLOGO ENTRE PROFESIONALES Y GANADEROS (SALAMANCA, SPAIN)
Author: E. Rigolot
Author: I. Juarez 2006 A
En los países descentralizados (i.e. España e Italia) hay diferencias regionales en la regulación de las prácticas tradicionales y de las quemas prescritas
BAGES FOREST (VAUDE, FRANCE)
A. Lázaro: El uso del fuego para la gestión territorial en Europa, proyecto de Tesis Doctoral.
Prohibición vs. Regulación Prohibición Regulación y profesionalización
Concertación y participación Profesionalización P f i li ió
CONFLICTO (riesgo) GESTIÓN ( (herramienta) )
Políticas de exclusión vs. Políticas de gestión El empleo del fuego para la gestión del combustible y para la l extinción ti ió del d l incendio i di
© Johan Goldammer
© Domingo Molina
Contrafuego
La primera técnica de extinción de i incendios di fforestales t l Problemas principales: p p seguridad g y responsabilidad civil. Problemas añadidos: percepción de la población urbana
La solución de la paradoja
La legislación y los instrumentos políticos son la vía para introducir nuevos enfoques en la gestión de los incendios forestales
FUEGO ≠ INCENDIO
¿¿
??
Promover el uso responsable y útil del fuego, adaptado a los diferentes contextos y demandas socioeconómicos y espaciales de acuerdo con: espaciales, - exigencias técnicas - intereses sociales sociales, de forma que el fuego sea HERRAMIENTA DE GESTIÓN - del riesgo de incendios forestales (quemas prescritas y contrafuegos)
- del territorio (uso agropecuario, gestión del paisaje, conservación de la naturaleza)
Recomendaciones adaptadas al contexto territorial
Propuesta de DIRECTIVA MARCO DEL FUEGO •
Regarding the EU competences and the legal basis chosen: a) EU responsibilities in the field: environmental policy and accomplishment of the subsidiary test. b) Selection of the legal basis (art. 175.1 (co-decision Parliament and Council) versus art. 175.2 (unanimity in the Council) of the European Community Treaty ((ECT). ) Problems in regard g to the territorial significance g of the regulation g and its influence to the related matters of art. 175.2 of ECT. c) Choice of a new legal basis: the suitability of adopting a Framework Directive Adoption of a minimum basic measures that were adaptable to Directive. the various territorial frameworks: the regulation must be flexible enough so that any State, regardless of their natural conditions, could apply the instruments provided, despite the fact that their goals have greater sense in the Mediterranean countries. Likewise, it is necessary to face a harmonization of the regulations which help to reduce the current dispersion in the g regulations.
Propuesta de DIRECTIVA MARCO DEL FUEGO
The Directive, as usual, should include a precept with definitions of basic concepts in order to clarify the terminology. Along with extinction aspects (linked to events already consummated and directly related to civil protection) it is also necessary a basic regulation package regarding prevention aspects (f (forest management, zoning, preventive infrastructures, f risk periods, prescribed burning). The proposal should include a basic regulation on fire use for various purposes (forest, agriculture or landscape management …) from two perspectives: prescribed burnings and technical fires. If p possible, a revision of spatial p planning p g and land use p policies has to be considered through a proper planning and the adoption of measures to reduce risks, taking into account the legislation on environment and climate change.
Una nueva actitud ante el fuego
http://www.fireparadox.org
[email protected]