International Forest Fire News

UNECE

United Nations Economic Commission For Europe Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

INTERNATIONAL FOREST FIRE NEWS

No. 44 January – December 2014

UNITED NATIONS

ECE/TIM/IFFN/2014 United Nations Economic Commission For Europe Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

UNECE

INTERNATIONAL FOREST FIRE NEWS

No. 44 January – December 2014

UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2014

NOTE

The statements made in the articles are those of their authors and do not necessarily correspond to those of the secretariat or the official views of the author's home countries. Furthermore the designations employed and the presentation of the material of this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

ECE/TIM/IFFN/2014

UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION ISSN 1029-0864 (web version)

iii

International Forest Fire News (IFFN) is an activity of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire and the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). IFFN is published on behalf of UNECE Timber Committee and the FAO European Forestry Commission. Copies are distributed and available on request from:

UNECE Trade Development and Timber Division Timber Branch Palais des Nations 1211 Geneva 10 SWITZERLAND Fax: +41-22-917-0041 E-mail: [email protected]

The publication is edited and prepared by Johann G. Goldammer, Leader of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire, at the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), Germany.

Mailing address, telephone and fax numbers of the editor:

Johann Georg Goldammer Fax: +49-761-80 80 12 The Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) Tel: +49-761-80 80 11 Fire Ecology Research Group E-mail: [email protected] Max Planck Institute for Chemistry c/o Freiburg University / United Nations University (UNU) Georges-Koehler-Allee 75 79110 Freiburg GERMANY

All IFFN contributions published between 1990 and in this current issue are accessible through country folders and other special files on this GFMC website:

http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn.htm

Call for contributions

Readers of the International Forest Fire News are warmly invited to send written contributions to the editor at the above address. These may be in the form of concise reports on activities in wildland fire management, research, public relations campaigns, recent national legislation related to wildfire, reports from national organizations involved in fire management, publications or personal opinions (letters to the editor). Photographs (black and white) and graphs, figures and drawings (originals, not photocopies, also black and white) are also welcome. Contributions are preferably received by e-mail.

INTERNATIONAL FOREST FIRE NEWS (IFFN) IS AN ACTIVITY OF THE TEAM OF SPECIALISTS ON FOREST FIRE OF THE UNECE TIMBER COMMITTEE, THE FAO EUROPEAN FORESTRY COMMISSION, AND THE GLOBAL FIRE MONITORING CENTER (GFMC)

CO-SPONSORS OF IFFN AND / OR GFMC ARE:

The U.S. Department of the Interior The UN International Strategy for Disaster Bureau of Land Management Reduction (ISDR)

United Nations University (UNU) The World Conservation Union

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale The International Boreal Forest Research Zusammenarbeit Association (IBFRA) Fire Working Group

The IGBP International Global Atmospheric The International Union of Forestry Research Chemistry Project (IGAC) Focus Impact of Organizations (IUFRO) Biomass Burning on the Atmosphere and Forest Fire Research Group 8.05 Biosphere "Biomass Burning Experiment" (BIBEX)

CONTENTS

Editorial ...... 1

Special Issue: Results and Follow-up of the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross- boundary Fire Management (United Nations, Geneva, 28-29 November 2013)

Outline of the Forum ...... 3

Recommendations of the Forum...... 10

Forum Report I: Study of the Contemporary and Expected Future Wildland Fire Problems in the UNECE Region ...... 14

Forum Report II: Proposal – Building Resilience of Nations and Communities within the UNECE Region to Wildfire Emergencies and Disasters...... 63

Forum Report III: Proposal – Adoption of Voluntary Guidelines for Fire Aviation...... 84

Forum Report IV: Study of the Contemporary and Expected Future Wildland Fire Problems in the UNECE Region – Supporting Materials...... 100

Forum Report V: Post-Forum Evaluation of the Preparatory Enquiry / Questionnaire...... 161

Forum Report VI: White Paper on Fire Management Policies and International Cooperation in Fire Management in the UNECE Region ...... 180

Follow-up of the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management: A Strategy Paper...... 184

Implementation of the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management: The International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM)...... 195

Economic Commission for Europe, Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry, Seventy- second session, Kazan, Russian Federation, 18-21 November 2014: Implementation of the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management. Note by the Secretariat ...... 206

Acknowledgements

The Secretariat takes this opportunity to thank the editor of the IFFN, Professor Johann Georg Goldammer of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and his team for preparing this issue of IFFN.

The Secretariat also wishes to express its appreciation to the national and international agencies who work together and are co-sponsoring the IFFN and GFMC: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, the International Boreal Forest Research Association Fire Working Group, the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project, the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, the United Nations University, the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, and the World Conservation Union.

EDITORIAL

In early 1980 the Member States of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) established the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire. The Team, which consisted of fire management specialists (at that time rather called “forest fire protection” experts), was mandated to initiate and foster the scientific and technical dialogue in forest fire protection among its 56 Member States. The idea of launching a regional thematic newsletter or a journal, aimed at serving the exchange of information among the Member States, was borne by the Team in 1981 at the first UNECE Conference Forest Fire Prevention and Control (Warsaw, Poland). At the second regional conference entitled Forest Fire Prevention (Valencia, Spain) it was agreed on 1 October 1986 to launch the International Forest Fire News (IFFN). After being entrusted to serve as editor of the journal, I prepared the first issue in 1988. We used an old-fashioned typewriter and pasted-in hand- drawn illustrations and photos. For the distribution of the trial issue the office of the UNECE/FAO Agriculture and Timber Division produced photocopies that were mailed to the Member States. In 1989, offset printing of IFFN at the Palais des Nations in Geneva allowed the production of high numbers of copies and improved journal quality.

Since at that time, there was no global / international journal or newsletter dedicated to fire management, IFFN aimed – from its launch – to expand its scope beyond the geographical region of the UNECE and to address fire at landscape level, keeping in mind that most wildfires globally, are started by land-use fires. IFFN was the first international journal that provided a global information platform on which advances in fire research, technology and policy development in all vegetation types were addressed, i.e. including forests and non-forest ecosystems. By 2007, the printed version of IFFN had been subscribed by and disseminated to more than one thousand agencies, research laboratories and individuals all over the world. Starting with its 19th volume (August 1998) IFFN was published online on the website of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC):

• http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn.htm

This website includes all past issues since 1990, which are organized in 88 country folders and other thematic folders.

In 1993 I was entrusted by the UNECE Member States to lead the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire. The Team collectively supported the vision that IFFN would become a global platform for exchanging information on wildland fire management, advances in wildland fire science and development of fire management policies.

Furthermore, the Team and the IFFN provided rationale and impetus for global networking in fire science and fire management. Indeed, out of the visions and experiences of the UNECE network, the Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN) evolved in the late 1990s. The GWFN became formally established in 2001 under the auspices of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and today consists of 14 Regional Wildland Fire Networks and two Regional Fire Monitoring Centers. These centers have been set up by the GFMC in its function of a Specialized Euro-Mediterranean Center operating under Euro-Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement of the Council of Europe. The Center serving SE Europe and the South Caucasus was established in 2010 in Skopje (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) and the Eastern European Fire Monitoring Center in 2013 in Kiev (Ukraine). It is expected that next year the third regional center will be established for Central Asia, based in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. This process of decentralization of the work of the GFMC is going along with the expansion of the networking expertise out of the UNECE to the global level.

By acknowledging this process, the Bureaux of the UNECE Timber Committee and the FAO European Forestry Commission recommended in 2012 “to discontinue the ToS on Forest Fires, as the issue of fires is better addressed at the global level and through other channels”.

In its final phase, the GFMC in collaboration with the ToS on Forest Fire, was mandated to prepare and facilitate the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management, which was held 2

at the United Nations, Geneva, 28-29 November 2013, and to follow-up on the recommendations of the Forum in 2014.

This Forum, which had been sponsored by the International Forest Policy Division of the German Federal Ministry for Food and Agriculture, indeed brought together UNECE Member States but also representatives from Latin America, Asia and Africa – and thus provided an opportunity to develop recommendations for future cross-boundary cooperation in fire management for the UNECE region and elaborate a global perspective and the inclusion of international partners.

This volume of IFFN presents the preparatory work of the Forum, the outcomes and the follow-up in 2014. The reader is asked to carefully study all reports, including the last three reports, which were developed in following-up the Forum and resulting in recommendations that took into consideration the lively debate during and after the Forum. One important change is the shift from the recommendation to establish an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) towards the International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM). The IWPM is a voluntary instrument focusing on building fire management capacities globally through establishing a culture of exchanging expertise at all levels from local to global. By the end of 2014, the website of the IWPM was launched – see its logo and URL below.

On 31 July 2014, the mandate and work of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire, phased out, having successfully completed its mission. The Regional Wildland Fire Networks covering the UNECE Region will continue to represent the interests of UNECE Member States in the Global Wildland Fire Network and the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group and its associated bodies and activities.

Marking the end of 35 years of the work by the Team and 25 years of IFFN – this issue is the last published under the aegis of UNECE.

However, the GFMC will continue publishing IFFN as a voice of the Global Wildland Fire Network. Together with the increasing diversity of thematic scientific and technical online journals and newsletters, these many publications resemble a collective endeavor of serving society and the environment at challenging, not to say difficult times, with much uncertainty yet ahead. The GFMC will maintain the name of IFFN even though the journal will continue addressing fires at landscape level, i.e. all vegetation types ranging from forests to agricultural lands, peat fires and land-use fires.

With this, I express my sincere appreciation to all who contributed to the make IFFN the voice of fire management globally.

I bid farewell to the Team and the “old” IFFN, and welcome the next issue in 2015, in which we will report from the 6th International Wildland Fire Conference, to be held in October 2015 in Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea.

Freiburg – Geneva, December 2014 Johann G. Goldammer

Paper 1

NATIONS UNIES ОБЪЕДИНЕННЫЕ НАЦИИ UNITED NATIONS ──── ──── ──── COMMISSION ÉCONOMIQUE ЕВРОПЕЙСКАЯ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКАЯ ECONOMIC COMMISSION POUR L’EUROPE КОМИССИЯ FOR EUROPE

UNECE / FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management

Organized by

The UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section and the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), Germany, supported by the German Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection, and the Secretariat of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), the Council of Europe through its Euro-Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)

Venue and Date: United Nations, Geneva, Palais des Nations, 28-29 November 2013

Outline

Executive Summary

The UNECE region has recently experienced a number of unprecedented large and disastrous wildfire episodes as accumulated consequence of socio-economic, land-use and climate changes. Some recent wildfire episodes also revealed an increasing vulnerability of society to direct and secondary effects of fire; e.g. the impacts of fire smoke pollution on human health and security. While there have been advances in fire management in some countries, there are still barriers preventing the sharing of scientific and technical knowledge and good practice between wildfire agencies in different States. These barriers have resulted in some wildfire agencies being unintentionally excluded from the technical information and advancements that they could utilize to develop greater national resilience and preparedness for large wildfire incidents. It is often the lack of resilience of a State to manage its own wildfire situation that results in the need for unplanned international emergency assistance.

Given the cross-boundary consequences of wildfires, e.g. transboundary transport of wildfire smoke pollutants, border-crossing wildfires and the wildfire threats to common global assets such as biodiversity, terrestrial carbon pools, atmosphere and climate on the one side, and the willingness of nations on the other side to share expertise and resources in fire management, UNECE member states could develop voluntary principles and procedures on cross-border cooperation and thus enhance economics, inter-operability and effectiveness in fire management between nations and regions.

In order to allow a coordinated, systematic approach for international cooperation in fire management, the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) through its coordinated international groups prepared the convention of the “UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management”. While the scope of the Forum will focus on the Eurasian part of the region, the participation of member states of North America (Canada, U.S.A.) in the preparatory work and by attending the Forum ensure the consideration of expertise from countries that are comparatively advanced in fire management capacity and in the development of cross-border agreements and bilateral protocols and coordinated international operating procedures in fire management.

The main aim of the Forum is to elaborate recommendations to UNECE member states to build resilience of nations and communities within the UNECE region to wildfire emergencies and disasters by enhancing national and collective regional fire management capability through international cooperation.

Background and Rationale

The UNECE region extends from Western North America to Far East Asia, covering all longitudes of the northern hemispheric land mass. While the region consists of a large variety of ecosystems and land-use systems, there are commonalities of wildland fire determinants between those countries and subregions that share similar historic and contemporary natural, cultural and social conditions.

In the Eurasian part of the UNECE region, to which the following is mainly referred, some hazards and risks associated with wildland fires have been perceived as threats only recently after the region experienced a number of large and disastrous wildfire episodes and due to a better scientific understanding of conditions influencing wildland fire. The public perception of wildland fire all over the region has been stirred significantly by the discussion of the anticipated consequences of climate change on wildfire occurrence and impacts. Some recent wildfire episodes also revealed an increasing vulnerability of society to direct and secondary effects of fire; e.g. the impacts of fire smoke pollution on human health and security.

Wildfires burning at the interface or even within residential, urban and industrial areas, and fires burning in terrain contaminated by radioactivity, industrial deposits and remnants of armed conflicts are perceived as new, unprecedented threats – although they have been around for some time, albeit unnoticed publicly and politically. For instance, it is becoming evident that the change of fire regimes in the cultural landscapes of Eurasia is driven by land-use change. In North America the fire seasons between 2011 and 2013 revealed the increasing vulnerability of human populations and economic assets to wildland fires both in forested and non-forested environments.

In temperate-boreal Eurasia several extended wildfire episodes have resulted in severe environmental damages, high economic losses and considerable humanitarian problems. After the fire crisis in the Mediterranean region in 2007, followed by the severe fire and smoke episode in Western Russia in 2010 and again in the Mediterranean region in 2012, several key issues affecting wildland fire in the cultural landscapes of temperate-boreal Eurasia have been identified, e.g.:

Increasing rural exodus and urbanization, resulting in abandonment of traditional land cultivation (agriculture, pastoralism, forestry) and thus an increasing wildfire hazard; Urbanization resulting in a reduced rural work force, including availability of rural firefighters; Limited fire management capabilities in some countries due to the historic division of mandates of public services and land owners; lack of regulations and responsibilities on agricultural lands and at the interface between wildlands and residential areas; Re-privatization of formerly nationalized forests resulting in vacuums of forest and fire management in smallholder forest estates; Weakened capacity over forestry and decreased fire management capabilities in many Eastern European and Central Asian countries as a consequence of the transition of national economies, often associated with the uncontrolled or illegal forest use and increase of related wildfires; Increasing occurrence of wildfires affecting the perimeters of metropolitan areas, settlements and developments dispersed throughout rural landscapes; Secondary problems associated with wildfires, e.g., those burning on territories contaminated by radioactivity and remnants from armed conflicts (e.g., unexploded ordnance, land mines, uranium-depleted ammunition); or wildfires affecting agricultural lands treated with pesticides; landfills, other industrial waste and structures containing hazardous materials, especially at the urban / residential perimeters; Consequences of climate change on cultural fire regimes and ecosystem vulnerability (e.g., climate-driven transformation of former fire-free or fire-protected natural ecosystems and land-use systems such as peat bogs and high-altitude mountain ecosystems to ecosystems becoming vulnerable to and increasingly affected by wildfires).

During the last two decades UNECE member states have shown an increasing interest in addressing wildfires and fire management in the region and have progressed in wildland fire science and the development of innovative scopes and methods in fire management, e.g.:

Wider application of prescribed fire in nature conservation, forestry and landscape management, with encouraging progress of countries cooperating under the “Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network” and similar initiatives; Exploitation of the results of successful international fire research projects to develop adequate public policies affecting fire management and operational fire management, e.g. the latest accomplished multi-national “Fire Paradox” and the Alpine Forest Fire Warning System (ALPFFIRS) projects; Introduction and further development of competency-based fire management training standards offering qualifications to fire fighters, foresters and land managers, e.g. the “EuroFire Competency Standards” (funded by EU Leonardo da Vinci, implemented by GFMC and available in seven languages by September 2013; with three more languages to be added by November 2013);1 New approaches in integrated vegetation management with regards to renewable energy concepts and carbon storage. Some of these initiatives fall within the context of the UNFCCC endeavor to reduce deforestation and forest degradation by identifying opportunities to incorporate wildfire hazard reduction and fire management.

With regards to international exchange and cooperation in fire management advances have been made through formal and informal arrangements, e.g.:

Building and strengthening of dedicated networks of wildland fire specialists, agencies and other civil society representatives that are covering the UNECE region, e.g. - the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire; - six of the 14 Regional Wildland Fire Networks of the Global Wildland Fire Network covering the UNECE region (the North American and the Eurasian part of the region); - the cooperation mechanism of the European Commission (Civil Protection Mechanism; European Forest Fires Information System); Application and further strengthening of existing as well as development of new bilateral agreements on reciprocal cross-boundary assistance in wildfire emergencies across the UNECE region; Endeavor to enhance governance of UNECE member states in order to provide and receive assistance in wildfire (and other environmental) emergency situations by setting up standards, protocols and agreements, e.g. procedures evolving under the lead of the UNEP/OCHA Joint Environment Unit and the UN Advisory Group on Environmental Emergencies, e.g., the newly created Environmental Emergencies Center (EEC); Recommendations of regional groups, projects, programmes and earlier regional conferences aimed at enhancing international cooperation in fire management in the Eurasian part of the UNECE region. Examples of such recommendations include - The proposed development of a “Regional Strategy for Cooperation in Fire Management in Southeast Europe” (2006);2 - The outcomes of expert meetings such as the recommendations of the workshop “Assessment of Forest Fire Risks and Innovative Strategies for Fire Prevention” – an activity of the Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) (2010); - The “Study on Wildfire Fighting Resources Sharing Models” by the European Commission;3 - Recommendations from projects supported by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative addressing wildland fire, human security and peace in the EECCA region; - Outcomes of the International Conference on Cross-Boundary Fire Management (Irkutsk, Russia, 2010)4 and the APEC Conference on Forest Fire Management and International Cooperation in Fire Emergencies of the Asia Pacific (Khabarovsk, Russia, 2010);5 and

1 http://www.euro-fire.eu/ 2 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/Strategy-WFM-RSEEWFN-2-02-05-2006.pdf 3 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/prote/perspectives_en.htm 4 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/CentralAsia/CentralAsia_6.html 5 http://lesscentr.ru/en/en/index0.htm 6

- The current development of a proposal for the establishment of a European Forest Risk Facility at the European Forest Institute, with wildfire defined as one of five risks to be addressed.

A large number of countries of the UNECE region are members of the Council of Europe, member states of the European Union and signatory states of the MCPFE, and are all concerned about the impact of climate change on forests and forest destruction by fire. In general there is also a collective demand for robust forest policies. In June 2011 the MCPFE adopted a ministerial mandate for negotiating a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe.

In the endeavor to enhance the protection of forests in Europe it should be noted that wildland fires are not only impacting forest ecosystems. Fire use and wildfire occurrence in the cultural landscapes of the region shaped by agriculture, pastoralism and forestry, have considerable positive and negative impacts on landscape patterns, land productivity, biodiversity and the atmosphere, with considerable implications for air quality, human health and security, and climate change.

Examples of conventions that are addressing tangible and pressing regional issues and that are relevant – although not yet explicitly referred to – for potentially developing a regional “wildland fire regime”, include:

- The UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution;6 - The European Landscape Convention;7 - The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention)8

While a growing acknowledgment of these issues by science and the public can be noted, there is insufficient review, adjustment or development of appropriate fire management policies, especially with regards to:

- Effects of gas and particle emissions from open burning vegetation fires on human health; - Vulnerability of industrial and rural societies to air pollution generated by vegetation fires; - Impacts of radiatively active trace gases and particles emitted by vegetation fires, which affect composition and functioning of the atmosphere and contribute to climate change; - Impacts of fire emissions on ecosystem processes; e.g. the consequences of the transport and deposition of fire-emitted black carbon to the arctic environment and its consequences on accelerating melting of ice and snow cover; - Resulting controversy in fire management; e.g. conflicting views on the acceptance of prescribed burning with regards to emissions; - Secondary problems associated with wildfires, e.g. those affecting contaminated vegetation, household and industrial waste and other hazardous materials, especially at the urban / residential perimeters.

Given the cross-boundary consequences of wildfires, e.g. transboundary transport of wildfire smoke pollutants, border-crossing wildfires and wildfire threats to common global assets such as biodiversity, terrestrial carbon pools, atmosphere and climate on the one side, and the willingness of nations side to share expertise and resources in fire management on the other, UNECE member states could develop voluntary principles and procedures on cross-border cooperation and thus enhance economics, inter-operability and effectiveness in fire management between nations and regions.

6 http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/ 7 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Landscape/default_en.asp 8 http://www.plantaeuropa.org/pe-wider_context-Bern.htm 7

global level. With the creation of the Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN) in the early 2000s, a systematic approach towards international cooperation in fire management was initiated and became functional through voluntary cooperation within the Global Wildland Fire Network with its 14 Regional Wildland Fire Networks. A decade ago an informal International Wildland Fire Summit developed a number of recommendations aimed at streamlining cooperation in fire management at the global level. Yet, these recommendations have remained largely overlooked by national and international political and policy-making bodies.

A decade of experience in defining cooperative solutions in fire management between countries globally has identified that. While there have been advances in fire management in some countries, there are still barriers preventing the sharing of scientific and technical knowledge and good practice between wildfire agencies in different States. These barriers have resulted in some wildfire agencies being unintentionally excluded from the technical information and advancements that they could utilize to develop greater national resilience and preparedness for large wildfire incidents. It is often the lack of resilience of a State to manage its own wildfire situation that results in the need for unplanned international emergency assistance.

There is a political belief that the extent and the severity of the consequences of wildfire emergencies can be mitigated by providing improvised international firefighting assistance to the affected country. Indeed, such interventions are generally perceived positively as such missions provide humanitarian assistance and political support. However, experience reveals that international interventions, which are limited to wildfire emergency response, provide little benefit to the countries involved and do not address the underlining causes of the problem, often resulting on a dependence on future international assistance.

Given that some countries already possess advanced wildfire knowledge, and have the technologies and expertise to manage wildfire risk effectively. The priority of future international exchange should be to establish a mechanism that encourages this understanding to be shared between territories, enabling all countries to develop effective wildfire reduction strategies and providing the structure for more effective collaborative efforts during wildfire disaster situations.

In order to allow a coordinated, systematic approach for international cooperation in fire management, the GFMC and the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group, which represents the interests and the members of the Global Wildland Fire Network, including the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire, have been preparing the convention of the “UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross- boundary Fire Management”. This preparatory work began in 2010.

Aim and Strategic Objectives of the Forum

The main aim of the Forum is to elaborate recommendations to UNECE member states to

- Building resilience of nations and communities within the UNECE region to wildfire emergencies and disasters by enhancing national and collective regional fire management capability through international cooperation.

Three strategic objectives will be discussed:

- Development and adoption of a holistic approach to fire management and wildfire risk reduction within the UNECE Region and, potentially, globally. - Development and strengthening of institutions and mechanisms to build national and international capacities and resilience to, and increase knowledge and understanding of, wildfire within the UNECE Region and, potentially, globally. - Facilitation of a nurturing and sustainable culture of knowledge exchange and continual improvement for wildfire practitioners and policymakers within the UNECE Region and, potentially, globally.

The Forum will take advantage of recent insights of and solutions for contemporary and expected future wildfire problems in the region, notably in the Eurasian part. Inputs from UNECE member states and other regions from outside the UNECE will provide expertise in developing formal and informal bilateral and multilateral agreements on transboundary cooperation in fire management and thus initiate a more coordinated approach to cooperative fire management at the international level 8

(confirmed attendance: Association of South East Asian Nations [ASEAN], Southern African Development Community [SADC]; Regional Wildland Fire Networks of South and Central America, South and Northeast Asia, Subsahara Africa).

The Forum will develop recommendations for national and coordinated international action. Such action should lead toward the development of specific mechanisms and guidelines for international cooperation in fire management and recommendations for a regional agreement on cross-boundary cooperation in fire management.

Thus, the Forum will be a first step towards the development of an agreement on international cooperation to enhance fire management capability in the region. The political and technical planning and consultation process in preparation for the Forum will be guided by the outcomes of the International Wildland Fire Summit (2003) and the 4th and 5th International Wildland Fire Conferences (2007, 2011)9, and will serve the preparation of the 6th International Wildland Fire Conference in Korea (2015) at which regions are challenged to present the progress of enhanced regional cooperation in fire management.

The outcomes of the Forum shall be regarded as complementary to existing agreements and mechanisms. In its preparatory stage the Forum had been planned as a contribution to the “UN International Year of Forests” (2011) to further the objectives of the international forest and climate regimes. The outcomes shall contribute to the evolving of an “international wildland fire regime” as envisaged by the UNISDR Global Wildland Fire Network. For this reason the host and organizers of the Forum have invited representatives of political entities and networks from other regions of the world.

Preparation and Organization of the Forum

The Forum will be organized at the United Nations in Geneva by the Secretariat of the UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section and the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), and co-sponsored by the Secretariat of the Euro-Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA), Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), through its work in the frame of the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC).10

The Forum will be prepared and led by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and members of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire. The meeting is in line with the Team’s Terms of Reference 2008-2013.11 The Team consists of officially appointed focal points of UNECE member states and invited representatives of international organizations and ad-hoc experts. Team members, under the overall coordination of the Team Leader, will be responsible for the planning process either as mandated representatives of UNECE member states reflecting the position of their agencies, or with their personal expert knowledge. A thoroughly planned forum shall be an important step towards enhancing cooperation between member countries of the UNECE Region, particularly those that have common international borders.

Preceding the Forum an analysis is currently conducted of the key factors determining the contemporary and expected future forest fire problems in the UNECE region. This will examine problems that are newly arising from changes in land use, socio-economical conditions and climate and which are threatening sustainable forest management. The state of current and need for future public policies that address the underlying causes of fire problems in the region will be analyzed. The Forum will particularly address countries that have displayed limited enhancement of fire management capabilities; be it as a consequence of political and administrative transition or due to difficult economic conditions, or due to extraordinary fire-related challenges. The aim is to identify the situations in which such countries would benefit from the experience of their neighbors. In support of the preparation of the study and for further evaluation the UNECE member states have been asked to fill a comprehensive questionnaire.

9 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/southafrica-2011.html 10 The Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) is sponsored by UNDP, UNEP, OSCE, NATO, UNECE and REC (Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe) 11 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/intro/ToRs-ToS-Forest-Fire-2008-2013-Revised-June-2010.pdf 9

Based on the pre-Forum analysis described above, policy recommendations for fire management in the UNECE region will be drafted in the form of a “White Paper on the State of Wildfires and Fire Management in Forests and other Vegetation Resources in the UNECE Region”, which will complement and refer to the “White Paper on Vegetation Fires and Global Change” (published by GFMC in August 2013).12

Furthermore, two preparatory activities of the Forum have drafted proposals for a systematic approach in international cooperation aimed at enhancing preparedness and efficiency in ground and aerial management of fire emergency situations:

The first activity was tasked to develop a proposal outlining how to build national resilience to wildfires within the UNECE Region through the development of a culture of preparedness. For this activity the “International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response” (IWG-CWPR) was formed and includes representatives from the UNECE member states of France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The second activity was tasked to elaborate a proposal for the adoption of Voluntary Guidelines for Fire Aviation. The voluntary guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are aimed at enhancing safety, efficiency and effectiveness of aerial firefighting operations at national and multinational incidents. This work was conducted by the International Fire Aviation Working Group (IFAWG)13, which is working under the umbrella of the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group (GFMC serving as Secretariat) and includes representatives from UNECE member states (Canada, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, U.S.A.) and other regions (Australia, Chile, South Africa, South Korea).

The two groups worked in close cooperation with one another to ensure that overlapping issues were considered and addressed.

The draft White Paper and the draft proposals will be presented to the participants of the Forum prior to the meeting.

12 http://forestrybooks.com/ 13 http://www.ifawg.org/ 10

UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC COMMISSION ORGANIZATION OF THE FOR EUROPE UNITED NATIONS

UNECE / FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management

Organized by

The UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section and the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), Germany, supported by the German Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection, the Secretariat of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), the Council of Europe through its Euro-Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)

Venue and Date: United Nations, Geneva, Palais des Nations, 28-29 November 2013

Recommendations Final Version – 05 December 2013

Preamble

The nature of wildland fire in the UNECE region and globally is changing in ways that require all relevant stakeholders to not only better cope with the current state of affairs but also adapt and develop their approaches to enhance capacity to cope with expected future, unprecedented circumstances and threats. To compound this evolving situation, management of wildland fire in countries of the UNECE region and globally has been found to be limited in a number of common ways that can be identified at all levels of management – from the fundamental, ground-level management of natural and cultural landscapes, to the strategic planning of internal, national systems as well as to the attempts that have been made to collaborate internationally to address these problems more successfully.

The main objective of the Forum was to elaborate recommendations to UNECE member states and the international community to build resilience of nations and communities to wildfire emergencies and disasters by enhancing national and collective international fire management capability through exchange of expertise.

The Forum acknowledges and supports the contents of the following preparatory documents provided to the Forum:

1) Study of the Contemporary and Expected Future Wildland Fire Problems in the UNECE Region

The study (including comprehensive supporting materials) provides background and rationale for the need to orientate and strengthen informed fire management policies and fire management capacities in the region vis-à-vis the cumulative effects of socio-economic, environmental and climate changes that will result in an increasing risk of wildfires that are likely to become more destructive and less easy to control.

2) Proposal “Building Resilience of Nations and Communities within the UNECE Region to Wildfire Emergencies and Disasters”

In order to meet current and future regional and global wildfire challenges, the "International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response" (IWG-CWPR) proposes to establish an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) for the UNECE Region and globally, that will assist nations to improve their capacity and resilience to wildfire. The mechanism will provide a platform / framework from which to cascade improved knowledge, good practice, experience and training throughout the global wildfire community for the benefit of all.

3) Proposal “Adoption of Voluntary Guidelines for Fire Aviation”

The “International Fire Aviation Working Group” (IFAWG) recommends the adoption of voluntary guidelines for the use of aerial means in wildfire management in the UNECE region and globally, in order to improve the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of fire aviation. Adoption of the guidelines would ideally form part of a wider agreement on international cooperation aimed at enhancing fire management capability within the region. The overall purpose of the proposal is to make a substantial contribution to building resilience that will reduce loss of life and damage resulting from wildfires.

4) White Paper "Fire Management Policies and International Cooperation in Fire Management in the UNECE Region"

The White Paper identifies the major forces of environmental and socio-economic changes affecting current and future fire regimes and the challenges to be prepared for. It concludes that international cooperation in the UNECE region and globally has the potential to be a very powerful tool in increasing the capability for the wildfire threat and the role of natural and management-set fire to be better understood and regulated. The ties that can be formed through improved international cooperation can, and must, have effect at the ground level and impact on the real management of the landscape to be of any value. Drawing on, and improving upon existing examples of legally-binding and voluntary international agreements, the proposals tabled at the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management have the potential to progress this goal substantially. The White Paper provides a concise set of conclusions and recommendations derived from the studies and consultations during the preparatory process of the Forum.

Recommendations

After 33 years of work the mission of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire has been accomplished. In this period the work of the Team expanded to global level by creation of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and the Global Wildland Fire Network and has been effective in advising development of national and regional fire management policies, and implementing capacity building in fire management at all levels. Keeping this in mind, the work of the ToS will continue within the six Regional Wildland Fire Networks covering the UNECE Region, and, by including other regions of the world, support the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: "Building the resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters" through the Global Wildland Fire Network, the Wildland Fire Advisory Group and the Global Fire Monitoring Center as its Secretariat.

1) Promote the understanding of and the response to the transboundary effects of fire

The cross-boundary effects of wildfires require jurisdictions at all levels to cooperate in fire management and to define collective solutions. While prime emphasis should be given to cooperation in fire management between jurisdictions sharing common borders, the long-range consequences of fire emissions are calling for strengthening existing and, if necessary, developing additional protocols addressing the reduction of adverse consequences of wildfire at international level. This call is supported by the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) and the recommendations from the international congress “Forest Fire and Climate Change” (Novosibirsk, 11- 12 November 2013).

2) Expanding the scope and strengthening of international cooperation in fire management

The formal phasing out of the Team of Specialists coincides with the current and with foreseeable future increase of wildfire problems globally. This combination of factors inspires the call for further development of the voluntary and institutional regulatory framework directly tasked with building resilience of nations and communities within the UNECE region to wildfire emergencies and disasters by enhancing national and collective regional fire management capability through international cooperation.

This is calling for the development of a voluntary regulatory institutional and policy framework aimed at building resilience of nations and communities within the UNECE region.

3) Application of a holistic approach to wildland fire management

Any recommended measures in building resilience of nations and communities to wildfire require an holistic approach to integrated fire management and wildfire risk reduction. This approach must include activities directed at wildland fire prevention, preparedness, response and post-fire recovery and restoration at landscape level including all ecosystem types, land uses and land tenure. Emphasis should be given on people-centered (participatory) approaches.

4) Adoption and continued development of the International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) and the Voluntary Fire Aviation Guidelines

The Forum proposes to establish an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) for the UNECE Region and globally, that will assist nations to improve their capacity and resilience to wildfire. The mechanism will provide a platform / framework from which to cascade improved knowledge, good practice, experience and training throughout the global wildfire community for the benefit of all.14

Furthermore, the Forum recommends that UNECE member states adopt in principle the Draft Fire Aviation Guidelines and support their continued development. The Forum recommends that in order to fully realize the potential benefits of consistent and standardized approaches in this field, the global wildland fire community also consider adoption of the guidelines.15

5) Support the International Wildland Fire Conference Series

The UN System has supported the International Wildland Fire Conference (IWFC) series through the auspices of UNISDR and FAO and, in particular, the North American Forestry Commission – Fire

14 Note: While the International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response (IWG- CWPR) initially had suggested to designate the recommended mechanism as “International Wildfire Support Mechanism” (IWSM), it was concluded during the follow-up of the Forum in 2014 that the proposed Mechanism should focus on and emphasize on enhancing “preparedness”. In 2014 the follow-up reports of the Forum therefore designated the proposed Mechanism as “International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM) – see Reports 7 and 8 in this volume of IFFN. 15 Note: The current draft of the Fire Aviation Guidelines, as presented at the Forum, needs to be completed. The recommendation to adopt the guidelines is based on the consideration that the details of the Guidelines are still evolving and the Guidelines are considered to be a living document in which details will be changed as deemed appropriate. 13

Management Working Group (NAFC-FMWG) and the International Liaison Committee (a subcommittee of the NAFC-FMWG), which oversees the IWFC series. The Forum recommends that any future UN-based Secretariat on Global Wildland Fire continue its support of the IWFC series, including the upcoming 6th IWFC being hosted by the Republic of Korea in October 2015.

6) Explore options for the transition from voluntary rules to a more formalized regulatory framework

Considering the increasing impacts and damages of fire on the one side, and the required investments in building fire management capacities at global level on the other side, the option should be explored of whether a strengthened mechanism should evolve from the currently existing voluntary framework to a more formalized framework under the auspices of and support by the United Nations taking into consideration, and supportive of, bilateral and regional frameworks.

The Global Wildland Fire Network over the past decade has been promoting fire management and networking which is appropriate to continue and expand its role as the overarching framework at the global level to host a new, strengthened global mechanism of cooperation in fire management. This framework should ensure that voluntary initiatives and the wealth of experience of individual, national, regional and international actors be utilized and shared.

It is proposed to explore options to establish a UN Secretariat mandated with the implementation of a global fire management programme that should have a key role in facilitating the free and open global transfer of knowledge. A key task of such a Secretariat would be to host and implement the proposed International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) and the maintenance and application of the Fire Aviation Guidelines. It will be built on a common, coordinated approach with the UN agencies and programmes and those of other international organizations that are mandated or involved in addressing the problems. Funding for the secretariat and its associated Global Wildland Fire Network, the Regional Wildland Fire Networks and the emerging Regional Fire Management Resource Centers must be secured.

7) Seek interest of UN Organizations

The UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire to jointly prepare a set of possible organizational scenarios that will ensure that the successful work it has carried out so far will not be interrupted, creating a vacuum, but will rather go global with a new mandate and a different setup. Based on these scenarios the leader of the Team will approach and seek the interest of UN organizations. The results of the consultation could be discussed at a team of specialists meeting to be organized before July 2014.

Participants of the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management Palais des Nations, Geneva, 28-29 November 2013 14

Global Fire Monitoring UNECE / FAO Team of Specialists Center (GFMC) on Forest Fire

UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management Geneva, 28-29 November 2013

Report 1 – Submitted by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GMFC)

Study of the Contemporary and Expected Future Wildland Fire Problems in the UNECE Region

Introduction

The UNECE region has recently experienced a number of unprecedented large and disastrous wildfire episodes as accumulated consequence of socio-economic, land-use and climate changes. Some recent wildfire episodes also revealed an increasing vulnerability of society to direct and secondary effects of fire; e.g. the impacts of fire smoke pollution on human health and security. While there have been advances in fire management in some countries, there are still barriers preventing the sharing of scientific and technical knowledge and good practice between wildfire agencies in different states. These barriers have resulted in some wildfire agencies being unintentionally excluded from the technical information and advancements that they could utilize to develop greater national resilience and preparedness for large wildfire incidents. It is often the lack of resilience of a State to manage its own wildfire situation that results in the need for unplanned international emergency assistance.

Given the cross-boundary consequences of wildfires, e.g. transboundary transport of wildfire smoke pollutants, border-crossing wildfires and the wildfire threats to common global assets such as biodiversity, terrestrial carbon pools, atmosphere and climate on the one side, and the willingness of nations side to share expertise and resources in fire management on the other, UNECE member states could develop voluntary principles and procedures on cross-border cooperation and thus enhance economics, inter-operability and effectiveness in fire management between nations and regions.

In order to allow a coordinated, systematic approach for international cooperation in fire management, the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) through its coordinated international groups in 2010 began to prepare the convention of the “UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management”. While the scope of the Forum will focused on the Eurasian part of the region, the participation of member states of North America (Canada, U.S.A.) in the preparatory work and by attending the Forum ensure the consideration of expertise from countries that are comparatively advanced in fire management capacity and in the development of cross-border agreements and bilateral protocols and coordinated international operating procedures in fire management.

In 2013 the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) was tasked with administering the UNECE project entitled Safeguarding Sustainable Forest Management in the UNECE Region through International Cooperation in Fire Management. This project will prepare the Forum. As part of the preparatory activities this ‘Study of the contemporary and expected future forest fire problems in the UNECE 15

region that are newly arising from changes in land use, socio-economical conditions and climate’ was commissioned.

This study summarises the current state of affairs in key scientific fields associated with wildland fires and how individual member states and international cooperation has already responded to the increasing threat of wildland fires in the UNECE region. The focus has moved beyond purely forest fires to include ‘wildland’ or ‘vegetation’ fires. These terminologies differ from ‘forest fires’ and ‘wildfires’ in that by using them this study seeks to focus on all types of fire in the landscape – the only notable exception being structural fires. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, fire in the environment is not confined to the land-use type of forests. Secondly, fire management needs to extend beyond the tired paradigm of a natural disaster that must only be stopped. Fire is an important natural and cultural phenomenon throughout the region – playing a vital role in maintaining ecosystem values and important practical and cultural roles in the highly anthropogenic landscapes of the region.

This study consists of five short chapters intended to paint a picture of the current state of affairs in the region. The study is not intended as an introduction to wildland fire science and management and a certain level of understanding is assumed amongst the member states’ representatives that will deal with it. Likewise this study does not provide an exhaustive list or analysis of issues in every member of the UNECE. Illustrative examples are instead provided with the presumption that the national experts dealing with vegetation fires or forestry in the UNECE member states will be able to get a picture of the contemporary challenges at the regional scale.

The result complements the proposals distributed to member states by the project organisers for discussion at the project forum in Geneva on 28 and 29 November 2013 (Reports 2 and 3). Additional supporting documentation is provided in Report 4.

In combination, these documents will provide a compelling platform for discussing the regional challenges of wildland fire management as well as a very sound basis for achieving popular resolutions.

This study has been conducted from GFMC headquarters in Freiburg, Germany, and should be regarded as a living document. As part of the project member states have been requested to return a completed questionnaire to the project organisers detailing the ecological, scientific, political and social aspects of wildland fire management in their countries. Such information will build upon what has already been done to provide more powerful future analysis of vegetation fire in the UNECE region.

Executive Summary

The “UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management” is presented with this study of the current state of affairs and future challenges related to wildland fires in the region, as prepared by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). When combined with the other documents presented at the forum, member states will be equipped the reasons that further cooperation in this region is desirable and the methods by which such cooperation may be achieved. The present study is divided into five chapters.

Climate Change

Projections of fire activity under conditions of global warming are made up of two components. Firstly, an outlook for the prevalence of fire-conducive weather conditions must be assembled from global climate projection models. Then, this must be applied to the current and predicted patterns of vegetation cover. Such complete models exist for Mediterranean Europe and most of North America, indicating that the coming decades will see substantial increases in the length and intensity of fire seasons, with a shift toward vegetation adapted to a more rapid and intense cycle of wildland fire.

Less complete models exist for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia. However, it is apparent from weather projections that hot and dry conditions currently experienced in the Mediterranean latitudes will, in the future, move to these areas. Also, mountainous areas are likely to begin to experience vegetation fire as a new disturbance factor.

The results from existing modeling processes return greatest uncertainty in the high latitudes of North America and Eurasia. This should be considered a vital area of further research due to the great potential for negative effects if fire begins to impact on this carbon dense and fire-sensitive part of the world.

Fire in the Wildland Urban Interface

The meeting point of the established ‘fire worlds’ of vegetation fires and structural fires is currently becoming recognized as an area requiring more scientific and policy attention. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of human and economic losses occur in this region combined with the fact that established fire management policies – from land management to firefighting – do not apply here.

Research is underway in an uncoordinated fashion in Mediterranean Europe and North America, but no comprehensive solutions have yet been achieved. In addition to this, the recognition that vegetation fire smoke may be contributing to thousands of casualties annually within the UNECE region is cause for wildland fire managers to look beyond the existing paradigm of fire damages when looking for ‘solutions’ to limit the impact of fire on human populations.

Rural Exodus and Land Abandonment

While other parts of the world continue to battle with land-clearing and deforestation, large parts of the UNECE are experiencing a ‘re-wilding’ of lands previously occupied by cultural institutions such as agriculture. In many regions this has consequences for vegetation fires because of the increased hazard posed by vegetation regenerating on abandoned lands and the declining rural population equipped to deal with this increased threat.

Rural decline and agricultural land abandonment is universally associated with changes in market conditions that make farming and rural life an unattractive option for the local community. In Western and Southern Europe and North America agricultural abandonment is being addressed to some degree by a range of policy measures designed to avoid its occurrence. On the other hand, in the post-communist countries of Eastern Europe and Eurasia, the economic turmoil that led to massive land abandonment has not been left far enough behind for countries in this region to make the same progress.

National Preparedness for Managing Wildland Fire

The management of wildland fire in the UNECE region must always be seen as the responsibility of individual member states. A number of models exist for dividing the responsibilities of fire management between the sectors that influence some facet of wildland fire (i.e. land management, emergency response etc.). However, in many cases a lack of coordination between these sectors results in inefficient and ineffective management of fire, with the result that a great deal of resources are used without producing substantial reduction in exposure of the population and its assets to fire.

A feature of comprehensive wildland fire management systems is effective inter-sectoral cooperation coordinated by a permanent, central body tasked with ensuring these cooperative agreements are achieved, functional and improved.

International Cooperation and Coordination

A logical step toward managing wildland fire as a landscape-scale disturbance is to approach it at the international scale. Fire does not heed to national boundaries any more than to ownership boundaries. As well as this, immense efficiency gains could be achieved; firstly by sharing of information and practiced techniques between countries and; secondly, by providing joint operational capability available to assist in fire emergencies abroad when not in use at home.

For the past 25 years a number of neighbourhood, regional and global efforts have been made to achieve more effective international cooperation. The UNECE member states have the opportunity to build upon these efforts for the benefit of individual countries and the region as a whole. 17

1. Climate Change and its Effect on Fire in the UNECE Region

Anthropogenic climate change is acting on vegetated ecosystems in a number of ways, including the steady creep of climatic factors that may alter the geographic range of certain plants – generally toward higher latitudes and altitudes (Moritz et al. 2012). The impact of these changes on ecosystems is a subject of concern due to the fact that it is unlikely that species will be able to keep pace with the projected geographic changes in their ecological range, and even if some can, then the disparate pace of adaption will lead to dramatic changes in the local composition of ecosystems, the loss of function and ultimately local or widespread extinction of species (Marlon et al. 2009).

These concerns are particularly strong in areas where fire is currently a relevant disturbance factor, and it is widely predicted that in such cases incremental habitat changes will be overshadowed by drastic changes to the disturbance regime, effecting extensive and rapid changes to ecosystems as well as impacting human populations unprepared for dealing with an increase in incidence of wildland fire (Lindner et al. 2010, Marlon et al. 2009).

In the regions where wildland fire is projected to become more widespread, the mechanisms for a growing fire threat can be divided into two components. Firstly, rapid changes in local environmental conditions leads to increasing mortality of vegetation directly or as a result of stress complexes, providing ample fuel available for combustion (Marlon et al. 2009, Krawchuk et al. 2009). Secondly, changes to climatic conditions to increase the intensity and duration of severe wildfire weather is highly likely to result in more extensive spread of fires that otherwise would remain small (e.g. Liu et al. 2010, Wotton & Stocks 2006). It is also relevant to note that intensified storm activity in many regions is projected to increase the incidence of lightning-ignited fires.

Projections of fire activity in a world with higher atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) universally agree on the fact that drastic changes are in store for much of the UNECE region, and indeed, the world. Contrary to the accepted wisdom of previous decades, globally this means increased fire activity in some regions and decreased fire activity in other regions, depending on the interplay between important factors such as temperature, precipitation and likely developments in vegetation cover. For example, many tropical regions are anticipated to experience a reduction in the factors that promote wildland fire (Moritz et al. 2012). While not all modelling processes return completely compatible results, there is growing momentum among relevant fire authorities across the UNECE region to both increase the accuracy of projections and begin taking real and practical steps toward understanding and mitigating the impact of climate change on fire regimes in order to reduce the impact upon populations and resources.

Models and Methods of Projection

There are several methods that have been used to estimate the prevalence of fire under future climate scenarios. None of these explicitly aim to determine when and where fires will take place in the future, but rather try to determine the existing relationship between certain environmental variables and fire prevalence and infer future fire prevalence based on projected estimations of these variables.

Climate and weather

In all cases anticipated climate and the weather patterns that may subsequently be expected are central to the projection process. Examples of this include the study by Moriando et al. (2006) in which a spatially explicit projection of the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) was created for the Mediterranean region. Similarly, the Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) was forecast at the global scale by Liu et al. (2010). Both of these indices are presently widely used by fire managers in estimating periods of high fire danger and are used to help determine expected fire behaviour. To make predictions of these indices more valuable, most studies consult historical records to determine the historical relationship between these indices and fire activity (e.g. Moreno et al. 2013, Girardin & Mudelsee 2008).

Vegetation

Vegetation dynamics are taken into account to varying degrees of complexity. In the study mentioned above, Moriando et al. (2006) complemented FWI by using historical and current maps of forest cover in the European Mediterranean countries, however did not attempt to model climate induced forest development. Moritz et al. (2012) used historic and current remotely-sensed calculations of Net Primary Production (NPP) in order to estimate fuel loads at a general scale. This step avoids the pitfall encountered by Liu et al. (2010) of predicting extremely high fire prevalence in deserts and extremely low fire prevalence based purely on weather variables. However, for projections of fire activity in the distant future (2070-2100) Moritz et al. (2012) also abandoned estimates of vegetation dynamics due to uncertainties in vegetation dynamics at the global scale at such time scales.

At a much finer scale, Schumacher and Bugmann (2006) used vegetation dynamics and further ecological variables such as species, vegetation type, slope, aspect and soil properties extensively to model fire activity in the European Alps. The focus on economically-marketable tree species allowed the authors to incorporate a wealth of existing industry data in projecting the likely growth, mortality and migration rates of individual species in response to projected climate changes and hence produce a highly detailed projection of fuel availability over time. Indeed in such a heterogeneous environment as Switzerland details were a requirement for developing a useful outcome.

In more recent years the concept of pyrogeography has begun to be used to describe the distribution of wildland fire more subtly by borrowing heavily from the field of ecology (Bowman et al. 2013). Using this, Krawchuk et al. (2009) use Global Circulation Models in combination with a breadth of variables affecting the occurrence of wildfire to create projections of wildfire at the global scale. The wide range of variables used in this approach may provide projections of fire with greater regional refinement by better considering the complex nature of interactions between environmental factors that influence wildland fire.

1.1 Regional Findings

Considering the breadth of results and uncertainties obtained from various projections, results for various regions in the UNECE region that are most recent and most in agreement are presented by region in the remainder of this chapter.

North America

Internationally, the region that has been the subject of the most scientific attention regarding this topic has been North America. This seems to be largely because both the United States and Canada are currently highly fire prone environments with a wildland fire problem that appears to be increasing rapidly. Climate change has been teased out as potentially a great contributor to this increasing problem, compounding the results of management and development.

Studies strongly indicate that although the wildland fire response to climate change will be far from uniform across North America, the overall trend will be toward a large increase in fire-conducive conditions, resulting in large increases in wildland fire frequency and area burned as this century progresses (Krawchuk et al. 2009). Increased and intensified droughts are likely to trigger a chain of events including insect- and drought stress-induced mortality, wildfire and soil erosion (Vose et al. 2012).

United States – mainland states

According to a recent study commissioned by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the prevalence of wildfires will increase by at least 100% across the country, with some regions expected to encounter burned area increases of up to 500% of recent averages (Vose et al. 2012). In most forested ecosystems of the United States, the projection of increased fire activity is related to tree mortality resulting from the tandem pressures of drought stress and insect attack. Regionally, this is driven also by invasive plants in the southern states and Hawaii, increased spring precipitation and primary productivity in the southwest and extensive habitat displacement in the northwest (Vose et al. 2012).

Liu et al. (2010) came to similar conclusions for the mainland United States without specifically considering the extant and expected vegetation. The anticipated Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) indicates that areas currently experiencing periods of ‘Moderate’ and ‘High’ fire danger will experience these for longer – i.e. longer fire seasons. Assuming that a fire danger reaching ‘Moderate’ signifies the fire season, the fire season is expected to increase from six months to 12 months in the southwest United States and from four to seven months in the southeast.

In applying the principles of pyrogeography, Krawchuk et al. (2009) project a marked increase across the United States and southern Canada in conditions conducive to wildland fire, particularly when taking into account the projected influence of climate change on vegetation dynamics.

Assessing multiple climate models and their impact on vegetation fire drivers, Moritz et al. (2012) break down anticipated wildland fire activity by vegetation type. Their findings indicate that many vegetation types in the area covering the United States are widely predicted to experienced increased vegetation fires, primarily ‘montane grasslands and shrublands’, ‘temperate coniferous forests’ and ‘temperate grasslands/savannas/shrublands’.

Northern temperate-boreal USA and Canada

Moving further north, the temperate and boreal forests of Canada and Alaska are predicted to experience a great deal more fire than currently under conditions of increased CO2. A wide range of projection techniques have led various authors and government bodies to broadly similar conclusions (e.g. CFWS 2005, 2010). Girardin and Mudelsee (2008) established the historical and projected relationship between droughts and fire events and concluded that within the coming century, fire occurrence would be highly likely to surpass any patterns reconstructed from the past.

Projections published by Krawchuk et al. (2009) and Moritz et al. (2012) both show broadly similar trends, with northern North America among the regions with globally the highest agreement in the scale and timing of anticipated changes in fire weather.

In articles specific to Canada’s forest resources, Flannigan et al. (2009) and Wotton and Stocks (2006) predict an increase of between 50% and 125% before the end of the 21st century. This is due to the influence of a range of factors, including a fire season lengthened by 30 days, a greater chance of atmospheric blocking patterns associated with dry spells and an increase in the occurrence of lightning storms.

Peatlands / non-forest

Beyond the areas already experiencing extensive fire activity, fire conditions are also expected to threaten ecosystems not currently tolerant or adapted to fire. Peat and swamp ecosystems are predicted to dry out severely due to climatic changes, which may push them beyond the threshold that has historically limited extensive combustion (Flannigan et al. 2009). The likelihood of this is still subject to debate, because models don’t tend to agree as readily in these extreme northerly areas. It seems that while fire weather is very likely to become more conducive to burning, the uncertainty remains in how the vegetation may react to both climatic change and how similar it is likely to behave to more familiar forest fuels (Moritz et al. 2012, Krawchuk et al. 2009). The effect on these areas is, however, very important due to the extremely carbon-dense nature of peat landscapes and the unique way in which peat fuels can continue to burn for many weeks or even months (Flannigan et al. 2009).

Russia

From one boreal landscape to another – by area the majority of boreal, tundra and peatland ecosystems are situated across Russia. These ecosystems were also found by Moritz et al. (2012) to be region of greatest agreement between of climatic projection models. However, other studies don’t consider latitudes above about 45°, and some studies that have considered this region return mixed results (e.g. Liu et al. 2010, Lindner et al. 2010).

Using the principles of pyrogeography to project fire occurrence indicates the likelihood of an increasing prevalence of wildland fire in a sweep of land from Mongolia to Ukraine and decreasing fire prevalence at higher latitudes – toward the tundra and peat landscapes (Krawchuk et al. 2009). However, the same study predicts vast increases in fire weather at these very high latitudes 20

(admittedly from a low starting point), which would indicate that again the models have difficulty determining the course of the vegetation element. Also, both Moritz et al. (2012) and Flannigan et al. (2009) note that peat, Taiga and Tundra landscapes are poorly understood in their present fire ecology, let al.one that predicted by modelling processes. Referring again to the issues of high carbon density and fragility of these landscapes, future studies are recommended to avoid overlooking the issue of fire in extreme northern environments

Throughout this region steppe landscapes form a conspicuous gap in the literature, probably because they are not generally seen as important either for wood production, grazing or carbon storage. However, the vast areas of steppe stretching from eastern Russia to Eastern Europe are highly active fire landscapes bordering on the forests, peatlands and communities that are otherwise considered important. While not specifically referring to wildfire, the steppe regions of Ukraine and Belarus are expected to experience more severe drought in decades to come, which may lead to increased fire activity (Krawchuk et al. 2009).

Europe

Mediterranean

The Mediterranean countries of the UNECE already suffer from severe wildland fire challenges and this is likely to increase in coming years due to extended dry periods and extended and intensified heat waves (Moreno et al. 2013, Moreira et al. 2011, Lindner et al. 2010). Liu et al. (2010) expect the average annual fire danger to increase from ‘Low’ to ‘Moderate’ according to the Keetch-Byram Drought Index and the fire season to extend to six months. Moriondo et al. (2006) and Krawchuk et al. (2009) anticipate France and northern Spain will experience the most dramatic increases in conditions conducive to rapidly spreading fires.

Inland areas of Mediterranean countries are expected to experience a much more dramatic rise in temperatures, dry periods and subsequently fires in the next few decades. However, following this period, the increased mortality of extant species and intensified droughts are expected to seriously limit plant primary production, and thus limit the fuel available to fan extensive wildfires (Moreno et al. 2013, Beniston et al. 2007).

Alpine / montane areas

Due to the fact that alpine and montane areas are geographically entwined in the Mediterranean zone, a number of authors have included these fire-inactive areas along with their priority study areas. While not generally the focus of these studies, the findings for these areas are quite telling for the true nature of the development of fire in parallel with climate change. The Pyrenees, European Alps and other temperate mountainous environments are currently considered to be almost void of fire activity (Lindner et al. 2010 and Schumacher and Bergmann 2006). However, studies have shown that these regions are highly likely to experience wildland fire as a novel disturbance in decades to come, with potentially drastic impacts on ecosystem function (Moriondo et al. 2006).

Central and Eastern Europe

While non-Mediterranean Europe is conspicuously absent as a subject of wildfire research, there are some conclusions that can be drawn from the literature that does exist. Moritz et al. (2012) found that most models agree that landscape types dominant from European Russia to the British Isles, including ‘temperate coniferous forests’, ‘temperate grasslands’ and ‘montane environments’ will experience a great increase in fire activity in decades to come. Likewise, a visual inspection of the global map created by Krawchuk et al. (2009) indicates that central and Eastern Europe will actually become ‘hotspots’ of future fire activity (Figure 1).

Clues toward the future fire scenario in this region can be pieced together from the evidence provided by Moreno et al. (2013), Moreira et al. (2011) and Moriondo et al. (2006). All these authors and many more predict future fire activity by using the likelihood of periods of hot and dry weather as a proxy for future fire activity. Few projections are informed by ignition sources and vegetation is not always included either.

In a study not specifically related to wildfires, Beniston et al. (2007) intend to summarise the effect of climate change on extreme weather situations in Europe. The focus is strongly centred on heat waves with the direct impact of heat on the human population as the incentive for research. The findings indicate that there will be a dramatic shift in European climate in such a way that the summer climatic zones will move 400-500km north. It is anticipated, for example, that France and Hungary will experience as many days and spells over 30°C as Sicily and southern Spain experience today. The diagrams published by Beniston et al. (2007) indicates that Eastern Europe, including Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and Romania, is a region that will experience a particularly dramatic increase in heat wave number, frequency and intensity. Figure 2 is an example of this published data. In relation to studies linking fire activity with extreme heat and drought events, there appears to be enough evidence to start seriously considering wildland fire linked to climate change as a real threat in central and northern Europe.

Figure 1. Changes in the global distribution of fire-prone pixels under the A2 (mid high) emissions scenario. An increase from current conditions (red) is indicated by a PD greater than unity, little or no change (yellow) is indicated by a PD around unit, and a decrease (green) is indicated by a PD less than unity. Panels show the mean PD for the ensemble of ten FIRENPP (A–C) and FIREnoNPP (D–F) sub-models. Climate projections include 2010–2039 (A, D), 2040–2069 (B, E) and 2070–2099 (C, F). Source: Krawchuk et al. (2009).

Figure 2. Mean annual number of days above 30°C reported by Beniston et al. (2007) for the 1961–1990 (upper) and 2071–2100 (lower) periods

References

Beniston M, Stephenson D, Christensen O, Ferro C, Frei C, Goyette S, Halsnaes K, Holt T, Jylhä K, Koffi B, Palutikof J, Schöll R, Semmler T & Woth K (2007) Future extreme events in European climate: an exploration of regional climate model projections Climatic Change 81: 71-95

Bowman D, O’Brien J & Goldammer JG (2013) Pyrogeography and the Global Quest for Sustainable Fire Management Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38: 57-80

CWFS (2005) Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy: A vision for an innovative and integrated approach to managing the risks Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

CWFS (2010) An update on the Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy (2008/2009) Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Flannigan M, Stocks B, Turetsky M & Wotton M (2009) Impacts of climate change on fire activity and fire management in the circumboreal forest Global Change Biology 15: 549-560

Girardin M & Mudelsee M (2008) Past and future changes in Canadian boreal wildfire activity Ecological Applications 18(2): 391-406

Krawchuk M, Moritz M, Parisien M, Van Dorn J & Hayhoe K (2009) Global Pyrogeography: the current and future distribution of wildfire PLoS ONE 4(4): e5102. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005102

Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, Kremer A, Barbati A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Seidl R, Delzon S, Corona P, Kolström M, Lexer M & Marchetti M (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems Forest Ecology and Management 259: 698-709

Liu Y, Stanturf J & Goodrick S (2010) Trends in global wildfire potential in a changing climate Forest Ecology and Management 259: 685-697

Marlon J, Bartlein P, Walsh M, Harrison S, Brown K, Edwards M, Higuera P, Power M, Anderson R, Briles C, Brunelle A, Carcaillet C, Daniels M, Hu F, Lavoie M, Long C, Minckley T, Richard P, Scott A, Shafer D, Tinner W, Umbanhowar C & Whitlock C (2009) Wildfire responses to abrupt climate change in North America PNAS 106 (8): 2519-2524

Moreira F, Viedma O, Arianoutsou M, Curt T, Koutsias N, Rigolot E, Barbati A, Corona P, Vaz P, Xanthopoulos G, Mouillot F & Bilgili E (2011) Landscape-wildfire interactions in southern Europe: Implications for landscape management Journal of Environmental Management 92: 2389-2402

Moreno J, Vallejo V & Chuvieco E (2013) Current fire regimes, impacts and likely changes – VI: Euro Mediterranean Chapter 9 in: Goldammer J (ed.) Vegetation Fires and Global Change: Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations, 115-131, Global Fire Monitoring Center, Kessel Publishing House, Remagen- Oberwinter, 398 p.

Moriondo M, Good P, Durao R, Bindi M, Giannakopoulos C & Corte-Real J (2006) Potential impact of climate change on fire risk in the Mediterranean area Climate Research 31: 85-95

Moritz M, Parisien M, Batllori E, Krawchuk M, Van Dorn J, Ganz D & Hayhoe K (2012) Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity Ecosphere 3:art49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00345.1

Schumacher S & Bugmann H (2006) The relative importance of climatic effects, wildfires and management for future forest landscape dynamics in the Swiss Alps Global Change Biology 12: 1435- 1450

Vose J, Peterson D & Patel-Weyland T (2012) Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecoysytems: A comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S Forest Sector General Technical Report PNW-GTR-870, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Station, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

Wotton B & Stocks B (2006) Fire management in Canada: Vulnerability and risk trends In: Hirsch K and Fuglem P (Tech. Coord.) Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy: Background Syntheses, analyses and perspectives, 113 pages, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Alberta.

2. Fires at the Wildland-Urban Interface

The cost, and by extension, the relevance of wildland fire to human populations is measured firstly in the lives lost and damaged by wildfire, and secondly by the economic impact of fire on individuals, communities and nations. This anthropocentric perspective view of fire is partly justified by the relative ease with which such losses can be measured in comparison to perceived damages to natural landscapes and ecosystem values or services.

Large fires burning through vegetated landscapes do result in tangible economic damages, particularly when merchantable timber is lost or watersheds are severely damaged, but the greatest costs resulting from wildfires occur when fire crosses the brink between vegetated lands and those occupied by people. The houses and infrastructure, not to mention the physical and mental health of inhabitants, are the costs that remain evident to us and are the primary inspiration for all attempts to limit the extent of wildfires.

The term ‘Wildland-Urban Interface’ (WUI) is one that refers generally to the point at which natural (or at least vegetated) landscapes meet the built environment. In practice this has generally been refined to mean the residential environment to exclude managed vegetation and other commercial activities (Lampin-Maillet et al. 2010, Radeloff et al. 2005). The term is related to a range of environmental science disciplines, but in practice has been almost exclusively used in relation to wildland fire for many years now (Lampin-Maillet et al. 2009).

The presence of an interface between people and vegetation stems from different influences in different contexts. In large parts of Western Europe and North America the freedom to build a dream home amongst natural surroundings is strongly appealing, and the resources are widely available to the middle classes to enable this, even to the point that large tracts of WUI lands are holiday homes built for only seasonal occupation (Syphard et al. 2007, Butler 1976).

In some regions, such as southern France, the decline and subdivision of agricultural lands to create a mix of urban development and regenerating fields has dramatically changed landscapes that were previously characterised by a sharp contrast between the urban and agricultural environments (Herrero-Corral et al. 2012, Moreira et al. 2011, Lampin-Maillet et al. 2010). In stark contrast, a high proportion of the population living directly from the land through small-scale agriculture keeps huge numbers of people living in areas that could be classified as WUI in Southern and Eastern Europe and across Eurasia (Moreira et al. 2011).

Identification of the WUI as a particular field of fire research only occurred in the late 1990s, although it had been identified as a problem landscape type in California as early as 1976. Until the mid-2000s fire in the WUI remained a ‘shadow’ between the established worlds of forest fires and urban fires. In the words of Butler (1976);

“There is no compelling reason why foresters should be required to study the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) tests for fire resistance of timber beams… By the same token, the fire engineer who is active in the application of fire codes to building materials will find very little use for a detailed knowledge of the packing ratio on fire spread in pine needle duff.”

Thus for many years effort was targeted toward the general measures that could be taken by residents to protect themselves against a future forest fire. Campaigns such as FireWise (USA) and FireSmart (Canada) were developed to provide residents with the information they require in order to address the risk of fire impacting upon themselves and their property by creating a defensible space directly around their homes (Gorte 2013). However, due to the fact that anything less than total compliance severely decreases the effectiveness of such actions, as well as the difficulty of enforcing legally- binding regulations, such programs are considered to be of limited success. Heavy losses have continued to occur despite increasing uptake of home defence activities (Gorte 2013).

These continuing losses, combined with the higher cost of preventing and suppressing WUI fires and the prediction that WUI areas will proliferate in coming years drives continued research into WUI fires (Gorte 2013, Maranghides et al. 2012). More specific research questions aim to eventually feed in to concrete standards guiding individuals, municipalities and urban planners (Herrero-Corral 2011, Pellegrino et al. 2013). Internationally, the research efforts are minimally coordinated, with various teams targeting different elements of the problem as well as approaching comparable issues using different methods. 25

In the European sphere, dramatic losses of life and property in a number of fire events in the early- 2000s resulted in heightened interest in Wildland/Urban wildfire – a great deal of which was presented at the Wildland-Urban Area Fire Risk Management (WARM) international workshop in Greece, 2003 (Xanthopoulos 2003). Later, a number of projects dealt with this topic by collaborating through the Fire Paradox Project to adapt and develop WUI-mapping methods for regional contexts (Lampin-Maillet et al. 2010a).

In a recent government-commissioned report, the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) identified four main streams of research demanded by scientists and policy makers related to fire in the WUI (Pellegrino et al. 2013). Namely these are; exposure quantification, development of fire-resistant materials and design, suppression response and post-fire data recovery. While the global WUI fire science community does not uniformly use these particular titles, the bulk of recent research can be categorised using these themes.

Exposure quantification

The Wildland-Urban Interface is often discussed as if it is a clearly defined region in which suburbs meet forests. However, the situation is not quite so simple due to the endless variety of housing and vegetation arrangements and types which must be combined with topographic and climatic data in order to construct a spatially explicit WUI hazard index (e.g. Lampin-Maillet et al. 2010a, Syphard et al. 2007).

US American publications for both California and the entire country use a system comprised of two levels of WUI – interface and intermix WUI. Each is defined using a classification system that combines housing and vegetation density and connectedness with the distances between these identifiable ‘patches’ (Syphard et al. 2007, Radeloff et al. 2005).

In France, the existence of municipal laws governing the clearing distances required by residents was used as guidance for developing the scientific definitions (Lampin-Maillet et al. 2010, 2010a). On top of that, input was sought from urban fire experts in relation to the maximum number of structures and the distance between these structures that could effectively be tackled by typical responding firefighting teams. This resulted in a classification scheme of up to 12 different ‘vegetation x urbanisation’ categories based on four levels of housing arrangement and three levels of vegetation aggregation (Lampin-Maillet et al. 2009, 2010).

Retro-examination of the housing densities that were divided into the various ‘levels’ of WUI confirmed that the higher overall housing density and lack of vast, uninhabited areas in France compared to the United States justified the development of a regionally-specific classification scheme that was different to existing schema used in the American context (Lampin-Maillet et al. 2009).

Results from studies in France have been developed to form the basis of commercial software known as WUImap, which is able to use cadastral, aerial photo and vegetation data to automatically classify WUI types (Cemagref 2010). Current efforts are being made to extend WUI mapping beyond the static vegetation and urban variables influencing the models described here. Addition of dynamic climate and weather data would allow more meaningful prevention and preparedness activities to be carried out with the greatest spatial and temporal effectiveness. A rudimentary description of this by Lampin- Maillet et al. (2010a) suggests using the Canadian FWI scheme in order to achieve this.

Studies in Spain have taken this one step further. As well as modifying the WUImap classification scheme to better suit the local conditions according to expert opinion, the Spanish scheme combines each ‘vegetation x urbanisation’ category with fire ignition and burned area data in order to identify 7 distinct and dominant ‘scenarios’ of WUI in the study region west of Madrid. Taking the classification to this step allows the science and management communities to identify the specific weaknesses of particular areas without the burden of highly specific classification (Herrero-Corral et al. 2012).

It is yet to be seen whether a universal definition for WUI is possible or desirable, as the situations in which WUI exists vary hugely. It is likely that the scientific community will continue to converge toward a general system for classifying Wildland Urban Interfaces while refining local variations on the system in order to account for dominant local development and landscape trends.

To the present day, only the USA has an actual estimate of what proportion of the entire country falls under the banner of WUI. Using the two definitions of WUI (interface and intermix WUI), Radeloff et al. (2005) found that 9.4% of the land area and 38.5% of the population of the lower 48 US American states lie in WUI areas. According to Gorte (2013), this area represents only 16% of private land that is within fires reach of forested land and is readily available for further development – indicating that massive expansion of the WUI is possible.

Among the European cases, the region between Aix en Provence and Marseilles was found to be comprised of 30% WUI by land area, including 56% of residential structures (Lampin-Maillet et al. 2010). The Herrero-Corral (2011) study west of Madrid went down a different road. In this case the entire region was classified as some form of WUI, thus highlighting that this scientific field is not at the point where direct comparisons are particularly informative.

An insightful result from WUI / wildfire studies is the ability to distinguish between different forms of WUI to identify the residential patterns that coincide with heightened fire prevalence or hazard. This thread is developed by Syphard et al. (2007) in a detailed study of California, which included the recorded prevalence of fire within the different types of WUI. The study found that intermediate-density WUI experiences more fires and greater burned area than either remote areas or high-density WUI. This is due to the fact that humans are most often the cause of wildland fires – in this case resulting in a feedback in which human settlements are the greatest villain and victim of wildfire damages.

Comparable conclusions have been reached in French and Spanish studies such as Lampin-Maillet et al. (2010) and Herrero-Corral et al. (2012). In the French Riviera as well as near Madrid, intermediate levels of urbanisation recorded the highest incidence of fire and often the highest burned area. This reinforces the findings from California that the gradient of urbanisation intensity results in a peak of fire activity at an intermediate population density, where there are high ignitions due to human activity, low chances of early fire detection, slow response of fire suppression forces and highly connected vegetation – allowing unhindered fire spread (Moreira et al. 2011).

Despite the higher prevalence of fire in areas of intermediate population density, it was universally found that the greatest threat to individuals is posed to remote dwellings due to the lack detection and suppression infrastructure and the much higher burden placed upon the resident to maintain a defensible space of a certain distance around the property (Lampin-Maillet et al. 2010, Syphard et al. 2007).

An approach that has not seen development in the UNECE countries is one that forms that basis of WUI mapping techniques in Australia. This focuses purely on large-scale losses of property during extremely damaging fire events, such as in Victoria 2009 and Hobart 1967 (Chen & McAneney 2010). The results of this show a fairly consistent reduction in the likelihood of damage with increasing distance from the vegetated edge, regardless of vegetation type or housing arrangement (Chen & McAneney 2010). In some parts of North America and the Mediterranean it may be suitable to focus specifically on these extreme events, but this is probably not necessary for most parts of the UNECE.

Fire resistant materials and design

In the eyes of some authors, the true Wildland-Urban Interface cannot be found on a map, but rather on the blueprints of the buildings within the range of flying embers from nearby vegetation (Manzello 2013, Manzello & Foote 2012, Butler 1976). From this perspective WUI fire must be broken down and “…pragmatically viewed as a structure ignition problem” (Manzello 2013). This perspective is based on a typical sequence of events in devastating WUI fires identified by Manzello (2013) and Chen & McAneney (2010) whereby a vegetation fire spreads to the few poorly-prepared properties in an area, subsequently overwhelming the urban firefighters on the scene. Fire is then able to spread to the less vulnerable structures due to prolonged flame or ember contact.

Although post-fire evidence is fundamentally lacking for burnt structures, the design, materials and exposure to flames and embers are factors that require much more detailed analysis to identify the specific risk factors a building is exposed to (Maranghides et al. 2012). Maranghides et al. (2012) point to factors that have proven to be highly influential in their study areas in Texas, such as the presence of Buffalo Grass around the structure, and a type of construction known as ‘pier and beam’, which allows dead vegetation to blow under a house – providing ample fuel directly contacting the flammable structure. 27

As well as identifying such weaknesses, research by Manzello & Foote (2012) led to the conclusion that real-life ember and flame attack can be reliably simulated with existing wildfire research infrastructure, indicating that rigorous and standardised building material and geometry assessment is well within our reach.

Dating back to 1976, Butler described building characteristics as fundamental to WUI research – a conclusion also reached by an expert panel of scientists, planners and insurers reported by Pellegrino et al. (2013). Recognition of fire-prone zones is becoming increasingly prevalent, with initiatives such as the Fire Prevention Fee in California (CAL FIRE 2013) and requisite cleared areas in France (Lampin-Maillet et al. 2010). However there is rarely a coherent link between the zoning of a region and the fire-preventative measures and standards that residents must adhere to (Pellegrino et al. 2013).

Development of this scientific field could lead to recommendations that would enable residents to invest in the most effective risk-reduction strategies for their property and allow legislators, developers and insurers to develop standards which must be adhered to before development rights or insurance can be granted. These types of actions must be grounded with a scientific background and could prove hugely effective in limiting the damage caused by WUI fires and the costs associated with fighting them (Gorte 2013, Pellegrino et al. 2013).

Suppression response

The WUI is widely recognised as a ‘shadow’ between the established fire spheres of forests and buildings, and as such, the emergency response capability to wildfires affecting the WUI remains divided between these camps. Pellegrino et al. (2013) conclude that the limited capability merely points to the fact that specialised tactics in these landscapes are lacking. The only suggestion tabled is that individual fire crews be expanded to be able to deal with more buildings simultaneously to stop the building-to-building fire spread that results in the most widespread damage once a fire has entered an urban area. This can easily be seen to draw parallels with the findings of Manzello & Foote (2012), which indicate that multiple structural fires lead to an overwhelmed urban firefighting force.

Post-fire data recovery

Theoretically, the heart of efforts to understand the specific vulnerabilities of the Wildland-Urban Interface is the consistent gathering of information in the post-fire environment. However, this is a field which has thus far been largely lacking due to the more immediately demanding tasks of assessing the damage and mitigating the human toll taken by damaging wildfire events (Maranghides et al. 2012). A further constraint to collecting useable data after a fire is the inherent lack of evidence of the ‘before’ state of affairs, especially the fine details of building and vegetation types and the state of maintenance of each. These fine details are highly informative because the state of maintenance of vegetation and buildings are vitally important to their fire resistant properties (Manzello 2013).

The Australian example mentioned previously gets around a lack of on-the-ground data collection by comparing readily available aerial photographs, although this only gives a certain amount of detail (Chen & McAneney 2010). On the other hand, thorough post-fire evaluation allowed Manzello & Foote (2012) and Maranghides et al. (2013) to develop empirical data relating to, respectively, the characteristics of ember showers and common features of houses that are or are not destroyed in wildfires. 28

Fire Smoke and Human Health

The human cost of wildfires is usually counted in the casualties falling victim to the flames, heat or smoke of a fire at close-quarters. In these cases it is obvious that the direct impact of fire has lead to injury or death. However, at a much broader scale, a high number of people impacted upon smoke from all types of vegetation fires are not generally considered as direct victims of wildland fire damage.

It has been known for many decades that smoke and other fine particles are deadly given sufficient exposure. Regulations for vehicle emissions, home heating and tobacco consumption across the world are proof of this knowledge. Vegetation fire smoke is no different. It contains large quantities of the small particles (<2.5µm) which enter deep into the lungs, causing and aggravating respiratory and cardio illness. As well as the acute effects of these compounds, consistent exposure to vegetation fire smoke can lead to chronic illness and eventually premature death (Schwela et al. 1999, NRDC 2013).

Wildland fire smoke pollution episodes across South East Asia in 1997/8 instigated the World Health Organisation (WHO) to assemble a task force and draft the Health Guidelines for Vegetation Fire Events (Schwela et al. 1999). This document urges governments to recognise the fact that smoke episodes are a very real public health issue, with responsibility for limiting the damage falling on a range of sectors, including land managers and law enforcement, agencies dealing with public information and, naturally, the health system. Guidelines are provided for strategies that may be employed in each of these areas.

However, the true scope of the issue remains an area of great uncertainty. Single fire events in Greece (1998), California (2003) and European Russia (2010) have resulted in estimates based on a number of averaged casualty metrics. Results report locally-elevated death tolls of, respectively, 50- 90%, 69, and ‘hundreds’ in these cases (Statheropoulos 2013, Knowlten et al. 2011, Goldammer 2010).

The dispersed nature of wildland fire smoke and the fact that it may be one of many concurrent contributors to poor health lead to such uncertainty. In a recent attempt to account fully for long-term, though acute, exposure to smoke episodes Johnston et al. (2012) report that around 339 000 deaths annually can be attributed largely to the effects of ‘landscape fire smoke’, with many more health problems contributing to the human and economic costs.

The vast majority of these modelled fatalities occur in Sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia, and the number is currently impossible to verify. However, given the potential scope of the issue and its infant stage of research, it is an issue that must be addressed in one way or another by the UNECE region and the global community.

Conclusions

The recognition of the Wildland-Urban Interface as the epicentre of wildfire catastrophes in anthropocentric terms has developed in the last 15 years and is fast becoming a highly recognised scientific and social topic, particularly in light of increasing damages and casualties resulting from wildfire events. The scientific and policy communities are beginning to undertake real dialogue in order to identify the bounds of our knowledge on various aspects of WUI fire and strive to find the most effective means of damage and cost reduction.

The greatest future challenges will be for municipal, state and federal governments and the insurance industry to communicate the results of this dialogue to WUI communities in order to raise awareness of the true costs and risks of living in fire-prone WUI areas. This must result in greater regulation of the development and maintenance of WUI communities if emergency services are to have any hope of reducing the currently unacceptable risk for the public posed by wildfire on the urban fringes.

References

Butler C (1976) The urban/wildland fire interface Fire Prevention Notes #10, California Department of Forestry

CAL FIRE (2013) California Fire Prevention Fee California Government, Accessed from http://www.firepreventionfee.org/ 13/09/2013

Cemagref (2010) Caractérisation et cartographie des interfaces habitat-forêt – Guide Méthologique Cemagref, Groupe de Recherche Écosystèmes méditerranéens et Risques, 3275 route de Cézanne, CS 40061, F-13182 Aix en Provence

Chen K & McAneney (2010) Bushfire penetration into urban areas in Australia: a spatial analysis Risk Frontier and Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, Macquarie University

Goldammer JG (2010) Preliminary Assessment of the Fire Situation in Western Russia in 2010 by the Global Fire Monitoring Center, 15 August 2010 International Forest Fire News No. 40, 20-42, Accessed from: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_40/03-Russia-I.pdf

Gorte R (2013) The rising cost of wildfire protection Published online, access from http://headwaterseconomics.org/wildfire/fire-costs-background/ on 18.06.2013

Herrero-Corral G, Jappiot M, Bouillon C & Fournel M (2012) Application of a geographical assessment method for the characterisation of wildland-urban interfaces in the context of wildfire prevention: A case study in western Madrid Applied Geography 35: 60-70

Johnston F, Henderson S, Chen Y, Randerson J, Marlier M, DeFries R, Kinney P, Bowman D & Brauer M (2012) Estimated global mortality attributable to smoke from landscape fires Environmental Health Perspectives 120(5): 695–701. Published online 2012 February 18. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1104422

Knowlton K, Rotkin-Ellman M, Geballe L,, Max W & Soloman G (2011) Six climate-change-related events in the United States accounted for about $14 billion in lost lives and health costs Health Affairs 30(11) doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0229

Lampin-Maillet C, Jappiot M, Long M, Morge D & Ferrier J (2009) Characterisation and mapping of dwelling types for forest fire prevention Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 33: 224-232

Lampin-Maillet C, Jappiot M, Long M, Bouillon C, Morge D & Ferrier J (2010) Mapping wildland-urban interfaces at large scales integrating housing density and vegetation aggregation for fire prevention in the South of France Journal of Environmental Management 91: 732-741

Lampin-Maillet C, Mantzavelas A, Galiana L, Jappiot M, Long M, Herrero G, Karlsson O, Iossifina A, Thalia L & Thanassis P (2010a) Wildland urban interfaces, fire behaviour and vulnerability: characterisation, mapping and assessment In: Silva J et al. (ed.) Toward integrated fire management – outcome of the European project Fire Paradox Research Report 23, European Forest Institute

Manzello S & Foote E (2012) Characterising firebrand exposure from wildland-urban interface (WUI) fires: results from the 2007 Angora Fire, Fire Technology, Springer. Published online 22 September 2012

Manzello (2013) Special issue on Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fires Fire Technology, Springer. Published online 06 January 2013

Maranghides A, Mell W, Ridenour K & McNamara D (2012) Initial reconnaissance of the 2011 wildland-urban interface fires in Amarillo, Texas Fire Technology, published online 04 September 2012

Moreira F, Viedma O, Arianoutsou M, Curt T, Koutsias N, Rigolot E, Barbati A, Corona P, Vaz P, Xanthopoulos G, Mouillot F & Bilgili E (2011) Landscape – wildfire interactions in southern Europe: implications for landscape management Journal of Environmental Management 92: 2389-2402

NRDC (2013) Where there’s fire there’s smoke: Wildfire Smoke Affects Communities Distant from Deadly Flames National Resources Defense Council, Issue Brief, October 2013, IB:13-09-b, Accessed from http://www.nrdc.org/health/impacts-of-wildfire-smoke/files/wildfire-smoke-IB.pdf 30/10/2013

Pellegrino J, Bryner N & Johnsson E (2013) Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Research Needs: Workshop Summary Report National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Report 1150, U.S: Department of Commerce

Radeloff V, Hammer R, Stewart S, Fried J, Holcomb S & McKeefry J (2005) The wildland-urban interface in the United States Ecological Applications 15(3): 799-805

Schwela D, Goldammer J, Morawska L & Simpson O (1999) Health Guidelines for Vegetation Fire Events: Guideline Document Institute of Environmental Epidemiology, Ministry of the Environment, Singapore and the UN Environment Programme, Nairobi

Statheropoulos M, Karma S & Goldammer JG (2013) Vegetation Fire Smoke Emissions and Human Health Chapter 18 in: Vegetation Fires and Global Change. Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations (JG Goldammer, ed.), 239-249. A publication of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). Kessel Publishing House, Remagen-Oberwinter, 398 p

Syphard A, Radeloff V, Keeley J, Hawbaker T, Clayton M, Stewart S & Hammer R (2007) Human influence on California fire regimes Ecological Applications 17(5): 1388-1402

Xanthopoulos G (2003) Forest Fires in the Wildland-Urban Interface and Rural Areas in Europe: An integral planning and management challenge Volume of Proceedings, International Workshop, Athens, Greece, May 15 & 16 2003

3. Rural Exodus

Contrary to land-clearing and deforesting trends in many parts of the world, large tracts of the UNECE region are experiencing land-use change that is moving in the direction of increasing vegetation cover and density, particularly by changing the nature of agricultural lands.

In most cases forested land was converted to agriculture over the past centuries, so abandonment is followed by a succession toward higher biomass environments such as shrublands and eventually forests (Moreira et al. 2011).

Increased biomass naturally leads to increased fire hazard, especially in the early succession period following abandonment due to the abundance of fine, connected fuel types. At a landscape scale abandonment is often associated with a vegetation homogenising effect, which enables ignitions to grow to large fires more readily than in the heterogeneous agricultural landscape that has been succeeded. This is more of an issue in regions where fire is already prevalent, but cannot be ignored in other regions due to the likelihood that fire will become more prevalent in many parts of the UNECE region (see Chapter 1).

Few case studies specifically make the link between agricultural abandonment and fire, but their findings can reasonably lead to inferences for regions where agricultural abandonment is of interest for social and economic reasons. In southern European Russia, the cessation of grazing in grasslands shortly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union is linked with an increase in fire prevalence (Dubinin et al. 2011). These results can reasonably be assumed to hold true across bioclimatically similar regions of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Mongolia. Likewise, the observed changes in fire regime closely associated with abandonment trends noted by Lloret et al. (2003) and Pérez et al. (2003) in Spain, Mouillot et al. (2005) in Corsica and Moreira et al. (2001) in Portugal can be expected to hold true for other parts of the Mediterranean that are experiencing abandonment which has not been the subject of specific wildland fire research.

The fundamental driver of agricultural abandonment is socioeconomic change leading individual farmers to actively choose less intense forms of land management, eventuating in practically unused land. Land of poor agricultural quality and land isolated from economic centres and transit routes bear 31

the most obvious signs of neglect as farmers tend to focus on more economically favourable lands when continuing to work all lands becomes impractical or unviable. This is true across the entire UNECE region with regional variations expressed as products of the particular history and landscape in which they exist. In some instances favourable landscape factors have allowed regions to weather substantial socio-economic changes with a relatively intact agricultural land base. However, on the other hand, extensive land abandonment does not tend to occur in the absence of socioeconomic instigation.

The specific governance factor that has been found to be most influential in leading to land abandonment is the agricultural market environment. The agricultural market environment, including available subsidies and credit for boosting production as well as access to markets to sell to, is a very strong determinant of the profitability of specific farming practices, and it is widely found that the farming community responds quickly to changes therein.

Beyond this, there are several other factors that play important parts in land abandonment depending on the particular circumstances of the region.

Patterns of tenure, such as land parcel size and spatial arrangement and particularly the right of land sale, also play an important role in helping or hindering the farming community in finding workable solutions to get the most out of their land. Also, relatively static biophysical factors such as simple isolation and the suitability of land for agricultural production based on temperature, precipitation and soil quality play decisive roles in some contexts.

The decline of human capital in rural areas is a phenomenon that can be identified as both a cause and effect of rural economic decline. Increasingly attractive alternatives off the land draw the young and ambitious away from rural areas to cities and abroad. This depletion has led to increasing disadvantage for these regions, in which hope for revival becomes ever fainter.

As well as contributing to the dwindling economic virility of rural regions, a declining and aging population has a direct effect on the ability of the local population to prevent, prepare for and defend property against wildfire. Increased fire risk due to overgrown agricultural land is met by a decreased ability for local populations to deal with it – this situation of complimentary dangers is common across the UNECE region.

Regional patterns will be discussed here, including some degree of prognosis of land abandonment trends in the UNECE region. A compilation of published land abandonment data in UNECE countries is provided in Table 1.

3.1 Eurasia

The largest and fastest mass transition of land ownership in modern history occurred throughout the early years of the 1990s in the countries that had, until that time, made up the Soviet Union. Adding to the 145 million hectares of mostly farmland transferred from public to private ownership in the Soviet States, regime change and continued instability in Eastern and South Eastern Europe throughout the 1990s added more land to that moving from public to private hands (Dudwick et al. 2005).

Generally speaking, under the various regional shades of communism, vegetated land was almost exclusively publicly managed and was wholly allocated to uses such as agriculture and timber production. The agricultural sector was held in high esteem and received highly favourable conditions such as subsidies and credit for fertilisers and machinery and guaranteed markets for all that could be produced. The pursuit of ideals and protection from more productive foreign competition encouraged the industry to expand the land base and employment share in agriculture. Although gross production was quite impressive, these actions had the effect of maintaining an agricultural sector characterised by low land and labour efficiency by western standards of the time (e.g. Prishchepov et al. 2012, Lerman 2009, Kuemmerle et al. 2006).

The rapid change of the political and economic systems and the subsequent vacuum of guidance and funding effectively took the rug from underneath the entire regional agricultural economy. Agricultural production collapsed across the region. Stabilisation of the agricultural economy has, in most cases, now been achieved, resulting in a once-again productive sector. However, in no case has this been without a period of economic turmoil mirrored by dramatically reduced productivity figures, which 32

themselves are indicative of rural decline and land abandonment (e.g. Hostert et al. 2011, Lerman 2009, Kuemmerle et al. 2009, Ioffe 2005).

Transfer of land tenure to those most interested in continuing agricultural practices has played an important part in facilitating rural self-determination. However, different strategies in reallocating agricultural land equitably have, at times, not facilitated this, resulting in land with absent owners, or land that cannot be effectively transferred to those that may wish to use it. In such cases abandonment has occurred (e.g. Prishchepov et al. 2012, Sikor et al. 2008).

In many parts of this region simple isolation of farming lands from markets and even transport routes is on scale barely comprehensible in other parts of the world. Population density and road density and quality often prove important determinants of rural vitality and subsequently, agricultural abandonment. In addition, some parts of this region were very marginal for agricultural production even under the highly protectionist policy environment of the socialist regimes. Once this system collapsed it became all but impossible to maintain this artificially inflated system (Prishchepov et al. 2013, Ioffe 2005, De Beurs & Henebry 2004).

The decline of human capital in rural areas of the former soviet states has been particularly severe by international standards. The abrupt and intense change in the opportunities in cities and abroad led to massive rural exodus, which has then continued thanks to the depressing impact of the first to flee. Such a downward spiral has been very difficult to control in some areas (e.g. Sikor et al. 2008, Ioffe 2005, Dudwick et al. 2005).

This section will present the variety of situations stretching from Eastern Europe eastward across Eurasia by considering land abandonment in relation to its most influential drivers, using examples from the region. Beyond the examples mentioned in the text, a summary table of countries in the region for which some data is available is provided in Table 1.

Agricultural Markets

Concerted efforts by some governments to emulate existing well-supported capitalist agricultural markets have occurred with varying degrees of success in nurturing dynamic and profitable agricultural industries. In these cases abandonment has still occurred, but rather as part of a planned exit from agriculture rather than a by-product of increasing carelessness and hopelessness.

The obvious cases include those countries that have reformed as part of the process for relatively early accession into the European Union (EU). In relation to agricultural markets, these Eastern European countries, including Poland, Hungary, the Slovak and Czech Republics and the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia), have benefited in recent years from the highly supportive agricultural policies of the European Union. Combined with the fact that these countries were not as thoroughly socialist as the truly soviet states, this has enabled a relatively smooth transition to a modern, mechanised, subsidised, low employment intensity agricultural sector (Dudwick et al. 2005). However, agricultural abandonment has occurred with little regard for the exact nature of reform, ranging from very low rates in the Czech, Hungary and Slovakia and up to 42% of pre-1990 farmland in Latvia (Prishchepov et al. 2012, Kuemmerle et al. 2006).

Although a smooth transition to a new, stable agricultural economy does not necessarily prevent widespread agricultural abandonment, a rocky transition does tend to compound the initial disruption caused by regime change. Incomplete agricultural market reform by the governments in countries such as Bulgaria, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Moldova has inhibited the ability for private enterprise to flourish. A lack of commitment to reforms and repeated interventions reminiscent of the soviet era have resulted in large, inefficient farms continuing to struggle on the edge of survival by simultaneously intensifying production on the best land and abandoning the worst (Baumann et al. 2011, Kuemmerle et al. 2011, Dudwick et al. 2005).

Land ownership patterns

A number of studies have pointed to the various trajectories of land ownership as a driver of land abandonment (Kuemmerle et al. 2009, Sikor et al. 2008, Lerman 2009, 2008). While this can in no 33

case be identified as the sole reason, in certain circumstances it has very likely played an important role.

In most cases, land ownership rights were transferred to local people in a way intended to be as equitable as possible. In cases where the pre-collectivisation owners were known and land ownership at that earlier time had been reasonably equitable, restitution of land was often attempted. However, due to the decades-long gap of ownership and the vastly different agricultural economy of the 1990s to the, say, 1940s, many ‘new’ owners had no interest in farming and often did not even know where their land was located (Prishchepov et al. 2012, Kuemmerle et al. 2009, Kuemmerle et al. 2006). Poland and Latvia are very good examples of this, resulting in levels of agricultural abandonment between 14% in Poland and 42% in Latvia (Kuemmerle et al. 2006, Prishchepov et al. 2012). In these cases vegetation often became increasingly fragmented as small, household-farm-sized patches have overgrown.

Where the previous owners were not known, or the pre-collectivisation land distribution had been unfair (e.g. rich landowners employing many peasants) land was distributed by other means. This generally resulted in the large, mechanised farms being divided into a multitude of tiny patches, with each member of the collective receiving a number of small patches in different areas to avoid the disadvantage of being allocated only poor land due to slope or soil characteristics. While well- intentioned, such distribution resulted in severely decreased efficiencies of farming small patches and travelling between these postage-stamp fields. Notable cases include Romania and Albania, where such land distribution combined with other factors eventuated in the abandonment of the more impractical land parcels (Kuemmerle et al. 2009, Müller & Munroe 2008, Sikor et al. 2008). The character of land abandonment in these areas was one of large patch size because areas unsuitable for agriculture were generally abandoned by all the farmers with a patch of land there.

In some cases the opposite situation has caused problems of its own. In Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan collective members were sometimes given equal shares of the collective and all its land. However, management continued in the old manner, and being unable to break up the land base through sale, a situation was created in which the large and cumbersome farms continued to attempt to survive with old practices in a vastly deteriorated economic climate. Abandonment was a major result on large swathes of land (Lerman 2009, Kuemmerle et al. 2006, Dudwick et al. 2005).

A problem that has been widespread in the post-soviet world was that in many cases no effective land market existed for some time after the political transition and land distribution. In some cases this was a result of disorganised reforms, but in other cases it was a tool to prevent speculators buying up large tracts of land and sitting on it waiting for a market to develop. The dual effects of this were to stymie the efforts of entrepreneurial farmers to expand their operations as well as robbing those not interested in farming of the potential income that could be derived from selling their land. Even if land could be sold, markets were immature and prices very low, so many non-farmers held on to their land as some kind of safety net. Again, the result of this was an under-utilisation of land throughout the 1990s, which has continued due to the difficulty of returning land to agricultural production (Prishchepov et al. 2013, Prishchepov et al. 2012, Müller & Munroe 2008).

Isolation / poor agricultural conditions

Characteristics that are particularly distinguishing of large parts of Russia and Kazakhstan are isolation and poor agricultural conditions. Huge tracts of these countries have very low population density and very distant markets for agricultural products. This is compounded by the degraded state of transport infrastructure, making agricultural products increasingly uncompetitive. Huge grassland areas of northern Kazakhstan and southern European Russia have reduced their livestock densities to virtually nil, resulting in revival of the native grass species. Around five years after abandonment wildfires returned to the region after decades of absence, which in this case is a return to a more natural state of affairs (Dubinin et al. 2011, Dubinin et al. 2010, Lerman 2008, Dudwick et al. 2005, De Beurs & Henebry 2004).

Compounding isolation in some areas, the difficult growing conditions across Eurasia meant that agriculture was, in many cases, only viable with the massive state support for the agricultural sector. Ioffe (2005) notes that the most promising agricultural regions in Russia would be considered marginal agricultural land in the United States. Without access to ample fertilizers and intense labour these 34

regions became unproductive, uncompetitive and largely abandoned (Ioffe & Nefedova 2004, Ioffe 1991).

Human capital

The dramatic rise in opportunities during the transition period did not affect all parts of this region equally. Rural areas were far less attractive for those wanting to profit in money and experience than cities and western countries. The outflow of particularly the young and the motivated resulted in what Sikor et al. (2008) refer to as ‘orphaned pensioners’ when studying the effects of a population reduction of up to 70% in rural Albania through the 1990s. The reduced population reduced the necessity for cultivating land as extensively as before, as well as the capacity to do so (Kuemmerle et al. 2009, Müller & Munroe 2008).

Russia

The key factors influencing and driving land abandonment in the post-soviet sphere are to be found in spades in the Russian Federation. The central force of the USSR possessed the greatest area by far of agricultural land and had transitioned most completely to a collectivised style of agricultural economy in the decades since the New Economic Policy was abolished in 1928.

The area of agricultural land peaked in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1978 and started to decline slowly throughout the 1980s as intensification, rather than expansion became the means for increasing agricultural production (Ioffe & Nefedova 2004). Farming enterprises were universally very large and subject to state regulation as well as receiving heavy state subsidies (Ioffe 1991).

In the 1980s, annual subsidies for fertilizers and machinery etcetera reached $60 billion (adjusted to 2005 prices), which allowed the maintenance of extensive, high employment farming despite the difficulties presented by severe conditions and isolation. Between 1991 and 1998 this state support disappeared almost completely. In 1998 annual subsidies reached a low point of $1 billion adjusted to 2005 prices. As a comparison, Russian farmers were receiving average subsidies of just $12.50 per hectare and year while US American farmers were receiving $200 and European Union farmers $800. Combined with sudden exposure to international markets, Russian farms became highly unprofitable (Ioffe 2005).

Such a hurdle only adds to the difficult conditions inherent to the Russian landscape. Even in European Russia – home to the highly productive Central Chernozem Region and 75% of Russia’s arable land – generally poor soils, long winters and low precipitation combine to give a bioclimatic potential far below that of competing regions in Europe and North America. Remoteness is also an integral factor in discussions of Russia, and applies justifiably to European Russia as well as Siberia and the Far East. Markets and the population are highly dispersed and trade routes in poor condition. In the Soviet era remote producers were given particularly favourable trade conditions in order to maintain a presence in the landscape. In the absence of such conditions remote areas have suffered more than most, with profitable producers only found now in rings around major population centres (Prishchepov et al. 2013, Ioffe & Nefedova 2004, Ioffe & Nefedova 2001).

Although the market conditions changed dramatically, farmland continued to be managed as large collectives (now ‘enterprises’) after 1991 (Lerman 2009). By 2005 it was estimated that 95% of these farms were in levels of debt beyond any chance of being repaid. Crop output dropped to 56% of 1990 levels by 1998, and between 20 and 40 million hectares became abandoned by 2004 (Ioffe 2005).

According to Ioffe and Nefedova (2004), farms generally become chronically unprofitable when population density falls below 10/km² and the retired population makes up more than 40% of the total population. Such demise comes sooner for remote areas and areas with particularly poor environmental conditions. According to this observed pattern, 52% of farmland in European Russia is at high risk of abandonment in the coming years – this is approximately double that which has already been abandoned and would have a profound impact on the lives of the 32% of European Russians living in the identified regions.

3.2 Western and Southern Europe

Shared history

Land abandonment across Europe has followed some general trends over time largely due to relatively synchronised development over the past 200 years, developing from the ‘starting point’ of extensive subsistence agriculture followed by the industrial revolution, the agricultural revolution and finally the unified policies of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy (EU CAP). Still, the fundamental rule holds true – that patterns of land abandonment are reflective of broader socioeconomic factors of the time (Verburg et al. 2006, Busch 2006). Again, localised factors of markets, land tenure, land suitability and isolation play roles of various importance depending on the local circumstances.

Beginning from the mid-19th century, European societies were profoundly transformed by the Industrial Revolution. Of the estimates that exist, rural population density and cultivated land area in some European regions peaked in the mid eighteenth century (Olarieta et al. 2008, Taillerfumier & Piégay 2003). The changing nature of industry and trade and associated political transformations took many people off the land to urban areas. Simultaneously, greater efficiencies of industrialised agriculture began to reduce the amount of land required under crops and grazing.

The real dramatic transformation of European agriculture occurred as mechanisation, chemical inputs and greater appreciation of agricultural sciences drove the technological revolution in agriculture from around 1950. The rapid increase in labour costs relative to the cost of machinery and chemicals pushed farming toward intensified production utilising minimal human labour (Lorent et al. 2008, Strijker 2005). Marginal land and land unsuitable for mechanised practices was first to suffer from neglect while higher total yields than before were possible from more concentrated farming practices (Mottet et al. 2006).

This trend was fortified for many years by the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union by strongly supporting agricultural technology and its transfer by subsidising agricultural products primarily based on gross yield. The effect of this was for farmers to ‘intensify or perish’ – those without favourable land generally perished and their land became overgrown (Mottet et al. 2006, Strijker 2005, MacDonald et al. 2000).

In 2003 the CAP was overhauled to lower the prices paid for crops and rather provide income support to farmers regardless of their gross productivity. This move was, in fact, partly inspired by growing concern about the abandonment of rural lands and its close association with rural community decline and rural exodus. As part of the newly invoked Single Farm Payment (SFP) it is even specified that land may not fall out of use, but may transition to less intensive uses that spread the environmental impact of the farm over a broader area. Since this rule began to apply there has been a notable drop in intensive cereal crop cultivation in favour of uses such as woodland and bioenergy crops (Tranter et al. 2007, van Meijl et al. 2006).

Characteristics of abandoned land

There are certain characteristics of land that has been abandoned in recent decades that are ubiquitous across Europe. Of these, the biophysical factors include isolated areas and areas of poor productivity and accessibility – especially mountainous areas. Socioeconomic factors include aging rural population, small farm size and farmers that benefit from several income streams such as small business or other local work.

Biophysical factors

Generally speaking, the effect of the above-mentioned abandonment drivers has been to intensify agricultural production on lands which are already more productive and those that are more accessible. Abandonment has been noted particularly on poor or rocky soils and lands with poor vehicular access – notably terraced vineyards – by Olarieta et al. (2008) in north eastern Spain, Lloret et al. (2002) in eastern Spain, Debussche et al. (1999) in the French Riviera, Mottet et al. (2006) in the French Pyrenees and Falcucci et al. (2007) in Italy.

In mountainous regions all these factors tend to coincide and are compounded by isolation. Being highly unsuitable for modern, intensive agriculture, these steep, rocky and high-altitude regions were sometimes traditionally used for very small scale cultivation, although livestock grazing has always been far more common. The labour-intensive nature of keeping animals in such an environment has proven unable to compete economically with intensive livestock rearing, despite assistance from the CAP under the Less Favoured Areas legislation intended to provide extra help to farmers working in severe environments (Gehrig-Fasel et al. 2007,MacDonald et al. 2000). Many mountainous regions across Europe are experiencing land use change whereby pastures are overtaken by shrubland and forest. Examples are described by Peroni et al. (2000) in Italy, Pérez et al. (2003) in Spain, Taillefumier & Piegay (2003) in the subalpine France and by MacDonald et al. (2000) and Moreira et al. (2011) at the European scale.

Socioeconomic factors

Socioeconomic factors linked by various studies tend to echo similar themes when dissecting agricultural abandonment in Europe. The relatively low attractiveness of farming as an occupation has led to an increasing average age of lead farmers across the continent. From Denmark (Kristensen et al. 2004) to Spain (Hill et al. 2008, Romero-Calcerrada & Perry 2004) and Greece (Brouwer et al. 1997) it is found that the overwhelming trend is for farmland to be run by those over the age of 60. This has been the case for some time now and has hence seen a lot of people already drop out of the agricultural business as they approach an appropriate retirement age.

However, not all farmers last so long in the industry, and it has been found that those farmers with several streams of income – the ‘jack-of-all-trades’ type folks – tend to leave farming to pursue more profitable occupations (MacDonald et al. 2000, Brouwer et al. 1997). Linked to this is the fact that small farms, employing only a handful of people, are particularly likely to break up and sell the best of their land while allowing the rest to grow over. Several authors suggest that small farms are at particular risk of abandonment, possibly linked to the fact that small farms do not qualify for assistance under the Less Favoured Areas programme (the minimum size threshold varies from 0.5 – 3ha, depending on country and region). Southern Europe – from Portugal to Greece – has a far higher proportion of farms falling below this threshold that are hence more vulnerable to economic pressure (Brouwer et al. 1997).

Interplay with wildland fire

Southern Europe is of particular concern because of the existing prevalence of fire in the landscape. Many studies have linked landscape-scale trends of increasing biomass volume and homogeneity with increasing prevalence of wildfires, with large fires becoming particularly problematic (e.g. Moreira et al. 2011, Moreira & Russo 2007, Vega-Garcia & Chuvieco 2006, Lloret et al. 2003, 2002). The characteristic succession of abandoned agricultural land to shrubland is repeatedly identified as the major cause of increasing fire occurrence. As well as replacing pastures and crops, fire-adapted, early-succession shrub species have been found to be replacing forests following large fire occurrence (Mouillot et al. 2005, Pérez et al. 2003, Lloret et al. 2002). The effect of this on a broad scale is a vast increase in the area and connectedness of a highly flammable vegetation type. Teamed with fairly constant human ignition sources, this can lead to much larger and more intense fires when the weather conditions allow it (Viedma et al. 2006, Pérez et al. 2003, Moreira et al. 2001).

While the above is particularly true for abandoned land that is not subject to some kind of management plan, converting abandoned lands to another productive use is not necessarily a solution. Afforestation projects are often seen as an attractive alternative to abandoning lands or, alternatively, to the ‘greening’ of landscapes (Van Doorn & Bakker 2007, Viedma et al. 2006, Moreira et al. 2001). This may negate some of the negative economic results of moving away from agriculture, but if forests of highly flammable nature such as Pinus and Eucalyptus are not managed specifically for fire, they could themselves become a serious fire hazard. This is particularly true across the Mediterranean, where fast-growing exotic species have been widely planted since the 1970s (Moreira et al. 2011, Lloret et al. 2003). An extreme example is that of Israel, where rapid expansion of forest cover has been linked with massively destructive fire events such as that of 2010 (Carmel & Cadmon 1999).

3.3 North America

Generally speaking, the same universal drivers of agricultural abandonment as Europe have made their influences in North America. However, a key difference seems to be that at the time of the industrial and agricultural revolutions, large parts of this region were under the continuing influence of agricultural expansion and settlement. This is particularly notable in Canada, where unproductive or poor-access land was very rarely converted from its indigenous state to cultivation because its poor qualities were apparent and the settlers only used the best land in what they thought was terra nullius (Villani 2012, Hofmann et al. 2005, Parson 1999). As a consequence Canada can be largely written out of discussions about agricultural land abandonment.

This phenomenon is less pronounced in the United States, but can be noted in the West and Midwest, which underwent European settlement much later than the east coast. Total agricultural land area in the United States peaked around 1949, but this total figure hides the fact that in the northeast, farmland area started to decline already in 1880 and in the southeast around 1930, while farmland west of the Mississippi continued to expand until the 1970s (Waisenan & Bliss 2002). Also, the decline has been much more dramatic in the east, while the west basically stabilised close to its peak area (Brown et al. 2005). Overall, the area of farmland has continued to fall to the current day since the high point in 1949 (Nickerson et al. 2011).

Northeast

The pattern of agricultural abandonment in the north eastern states of the USA can be paralleled with that of Western Europe, albeit with local variations. Being settled by Europeans prior to the industrial revolution, farmland took on a character similar to traditional European agriculture limited by mechanisation and transport possibilities. The early decline of north eastern agriculture after the peak in 1880 was directly linked to rail access opening up more productive farmland further west to the large markets in the populated eastern states. Small farm plots and rapid population expansion dictated a pattern where large areas fell out of production to urbanisation and farm amalgamation (Nickerson et al. 2011, Waisanen & Bliss 2002, Hart 1968).

Southeast

Cultivated later than the north east, south eastern agriculture developed at a time when the realities of industrialised society were apparent. However, extensive abandonment of land occurred as a result of the cotton industry’s collapse in the early 20th century, which was largely due to Boll Weevil outbreaks. Not idle for long, the great proportion of this land has been replanted with Pinus species for timber production. This has created a fire risk inherent to large-scale forests, but a risk which is relatively known to the managers of the land (Brown et al. 2005, Waisanen & Bliss 2002).

Guided by policy

In neither UNECE country of North America is there official recognition or discussion of a heightened fire risk associated with abandoned land. However, there is strong movement to limit the true abandonment of land in favour of a more controlled retreat from intensive land uses where necessary.

In 1981 it was already recognised in the United States that the land base under agricultural use included a certain amount of surplus and that this surplus may contribute to some kind of degradation if left unchecked (USDA 2013). The response to this came in the form of the Farmland Protection Policy Act, which aimed to account for, and limit, the amount of agricultural land being abandoned and developed (USDA 2013, 2011). Later, in 1985, the Conservation Reserve Program added to this by providing a mechanism for farmers to gain a low income for registering land as ‘idle cropland’, which set the foundation for a central repository of this information which could be used to monitor the extent of agricultural land use trends and guide policy related to this (USDA 2009, Lubowski et al. 2006). In the same period other government interventions into the agricultural market, such as increasing the level of crop insurance support and transitioning subsidies from yield-based to income support, aimed to stabilise the agricultural industry to take away the economic shocks that tend to cause farmers to leave the industry and their land (Nickerson et al. 2011). From the slow decline in agricultural area it can be assumed that these policies have had the effect of minimising the economic turbulence experienced by farmers and the amount of land being abandoned. Nonetheless, from 2002 to 2007, 27 million acres changed classification from ‘pasture cropland’ to ‘pasture’ according to the United States Department of Agriculture, leaving the smallest area of cropland recorded since 1945 38

(Nickerson et al. 2011). This change indicates that a continuing decline of cultivated land is taking place.

3.4 Conclusions

The conclusions that can be drawn from the information available point to the fact that economic reasons – particularly rapid changes – are universally the trigger for agricultural abandonment. Other local factors such as the agricultural potential of a certain site and the nature of the local population are highly influential in determining which land becomes abandoned and how rapid this process is. In economies where land abandonment has been recognised as undesirable, government intervention has been able to provide a supportive environment which allows farmers to choose more freely whether to stay or go. The lesson from this is that the farming community is highly dynamic and resilient. This should be useful knowledge when more countries recognise a need for revival of rural communities – the farming population is not afraid of reinventing itself.

Whether by coincidence or not, the regions which already face the greatest threat from wildfire due to climate and vegetation also seem to face the highest likelihood of agricultural abandonment.

The effect of the fall of the USSR on the region of Eastern Europe and Eurasia has been profound in many ways. The agricultural sector has certainly not been immune and the shock of transitioning from a largely state-supported economy to one of the most unforgiving type of capitalism. This transition has provided the instigation for many former farmers to try their luck elsewhere. Fire in this region is periodically a massive threat, and one that has become more potent in a landscape with higher fuel loads and better connected fuels.

Southern European countries are supposed to benefit from the stabilising forces of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy, but the patterns of ownership in this region don’t allow the full benefits from this relationship to be realised. Fire in southern Europe is a constant threat, and much of the vegetation making its way into former farmland is well adapted to living with the kind of fires that people prefer to live without.

Table 1. Abandoned land estimates for countries of the UNECE. The figure provided is the decline (as a percentage) of land that was being used at the beginning of the study for agriculture. In some cases an area of decline was reported. Projections are not included.

Country, Estimate Notes Source Region Albania 28% 1988-2003 Müller & Munroe (2008), Sikor et al. (2008) Belarus 1) 8% 1) 1980-2004 1) Lerman (2009) 2) 13% 2) 1990-2000, 2 regions – north east 2) Prishchepov et al. 3) 38% and north west (2012) 3) 1992-1999, Southern region 3) Hostert et al. 2011 Bulgaria widespread Post-1991 Dudwick et al. (2005) Canada, East Decrease Until 2001 Hofmann et al. (2005), Parson (1999) Canada, West Increase Until 2001 Hofmann et al. (2005), Parson (1999) Canada, total 3.1% 1951-1991 Parson (1999) Czech 12% 1991-2008, north west region Baumann et al. (2011) Republic Estonia 30% 1991-1993 Kuemmerle et al. 2006 France 1) 82% 1) 1828-1991, south east region 1) Taillefumier & Piegay 2) 95% 2) 1774-1997, central Corsica (2003) 3) 7% 3) 1950-2003, Pyrenees 2) Mouillot et al. 2003 3) Mottet et al. 2006 Georgia 6% 1980-2004 Lerman (2009) 39

Table 1. (continued)

Italy 1) 883km² 1) ‘Current’ for 1990-2006, Sardinia 1) Ricotta et al. (2012) 2) 26% 2) 1960-2000, entire country 2) Falcucci et al. (2007) 3) 100% 3) 1950-2000, Apennines’ mountains 3) Peroni et al. (2000) Kazakhstan 1) 60% 1) 1980-2004, mostly grazing pasture 1) Lerman (2009) 2) wide- 2) Post-1991 2) Dudwick et al. (2005) spread 3) 1990-2000, cropland area 3) De Beurs & Henebry 3) 38% (2004) Kyrgyzstan 55% 1980-2004 Lerman (2009) Latvia 42% 1990-2000, south east region Prishchepov et al. (2012) Lithuania 28% 1990-2000, eastern region Prishchepov et al. (2012) Moldova 5% 1980-2004 Lerman (2009) Poland 14% 1990-2000, northern region Prishchepov et al. (2012) Portugal 1) 29% 1) 1989-2004, Iberian Peninsula, area 1) Hill et al. (2008) 2) 10-18% following ‘rural exodus’ trend 2) Van Doorn & Bakker 3) 29% 2) 1985-2000, small study in Alentejo (2007) 3) 1958-1995 3) Moreira et al. (2001) Romania 21% 1990-2000, southern Carpathians Kuemmerle et al. (2009) Russia, Euro. 1) 31% 1) 1990-2000 – eastern Kaliningrad, 1) Prishchepov et al. 2) 90% sections of northern Euro. Russia (2012) 3) 31% 2) 1985-2007, livestock numbers 2) Dubinin et al. (2010) 3) 1990-2000, parts of Smolensk, 3) Prishchepov et al. Kaluga, Tula, Rjazan, Vladimir (2013) Russia, total 1) 12% 1) 1980-2004 1) Lerman (2009) 2) 20-30 2) 1990-2005 2) Ioffe (2005) million 3) 1990-2010 3) Prishchepov et al. hectares (2012) 3) 40 million ha Spain 1) 6317 ha 1) 1956-1993, Tivissa, Catalonia 1) Lloret et al. (2003) 2) 29% 2) 1989-2004, Iberian Peninsula, area 2) Hill et al. (2008) 3) 21% following ‘rural exodus’ trend 3) Olarieta et al. (2008) 4) 13% 3) 1860-1999, Vallès, Catalonia 4) Romero-Calcerrada & 4) 1984-1999, central region Perry (2004) Switzerland 1-4% 1985-1997, High alpine areas Gehrig-Fasel et al. (2007) Turkmenistan 2% 1980-2004 Lerman (2009) Ukraine 1) 11% 1) 1980-2004 1) Lerman (2009) 2) 30% 2) 1986-2008, western region 2) Baumann et al. (2011) 3) 63% 3) 1992-1999, northern region 3) Hostert et al. (2011) USA, east 1) 22% 1) 1950-2000 1) Brown et al. (2005)

USA, total 1) 11% 1) 1950-2000 1) Brown et al. (2005) 2) 22% 2) 1982-2007 (48 states) 2) USDA (2009) Uzbekistan 24% 1980-2004 Lerman (2009)

References

Brouwer F, Baldock D, Godeschalk F & Beaufoy G (1997) Marginalisation of agricultural land in Europe Conference Paper, Livestock systems in European rural development conference, Nafplio, Greece, 1997, Accessed from http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/livestocksystems/nafplio/proceedings/index.htm#Start 05/09/13

Brown D, Johnson K, Loveland T & Theobald D (2005) Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States, 1950-2000 Ecological Applications 15(6): 1851-1863

Busch G (2006) Future European agricultural landscapes – What can we learn from existing quantitative land use scenario studies? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 121-140

Carmel Y & Kadmon R (1999) Effects of grazing and topography on long-term vegetation changes in a Mediterranean ecosystem in Israel Plant Ecology 145: 243-254

De Beurs K & Henebry G (2004) Land surface phenology, climatic variation and institutional change: Analysing agricultural land cover change in Kazakhstan Remote Sensing of Environment 89: 497-509

Debussche M, Lepart J & Dervieux A (1999) Mediterranean landscape changes: evidence from old postcards Global Ecology and Biogeography 8: 3-15

Dubinin M, Potapov P, Lushchekina A & Radeloff V (2010) Reconstructing long time series of burned areas in arid grasslands of south Russia by satellite remote sensing Remote Sensing of Environment 114: 1638-1648

Dubinin M, Luschenkina A & Radeloff V (2011) Climate, Livestock and Vegetation: What drives fire increase in the arid ecosystems of southern Russia? Ecosystems 14: 547-562

Dudwick N, Fock K & Sedik D (2005) A stocktaking of land reform and farm restructuring in Bulgaria, Moldova, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan Environmentally and Socially sustainable development: Europe and Central Asia region, Forum Paper, 77 pages, Landwirtschaft im Spannungsfeld von Märkten, Institutionen und Politik Herausforderungen und Strategien, June 29 - July 01, 2006, Leibniz-Institut für Agrarentwicklung in Mittel- und Ost-Europa (IAMO)

Falcucci A, Maiorano L / Boitani L (2007) Changes in land-use / land-cover patterns in Italy and their implications for biodiversity conservation Landscape Ecology 22: 617-631

Gehrig-Fasel J, Guisan A & Zimmermann N (2007) Tree line shifts in the Swiss Alps: Climate change of land abandonment? Journal of Vegetation Science 18: 571-582

Hart J (1968) Loss and abandonment of cleared farm land in the eastern United States Annals of the Association of American Geographers 58(3): 417-440

Hill J, Stellmes M, Udelhoven Th, Röder A & Sommer S (2008) Mediterranean desertification and land degradation: Mapping related land use change syndromes based on satellite observations Global and Planetary Change 64: 146-157

Hofmann N, Filoso G & Schofield M (2005) The loss of dependable agricultural land in Canada Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin 6(1)

Hostert P, Kuemmerle T, Prishchepov A, Sieber A, Lambin E & Radeloff V (2011) Rapid land use change after socio-economic disturbances: the collapse of the Soviet Union versus Chernobyl Environmental Research Letters 6, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/045201

Ioffe G (1991) Shifts in rural population patterns and changes in the agriculture of the central regions of the European USSR Geoforum 22: 91-97

Ioffe G (2005) The downsizing of Russian agriculture Europe-Asia Studies 57: 179-208

Ioffe G & Nefedova T (2001) The Russian food system’s transformation at close range: A case study of two Oblasts National Council for Eurasian and East European Research, Washington, USA

Ioffe G & Nefedova T (2004) Marginal Farmland in European Russia Eurasian Geography and Economics 45: 31-45

Kristensen L, Thenail C & Kristensen S (2004) Landscape changes in agrarian landscapes in the 1990s: the interaction between farmers and the farmed landscape. A case study from Jutland, Denmark Journal of Environmental Management 71: 231-244

Kuemmerle T, Radeloff V, Peranowski K & Hostert P (2006) Cross-border comparison of land cover and landscape pattern in Eastern Europe using a hybrid classification technique Remote Sensing of Environment 103: 449-464

Kuemmerle T, Müller D, Griffiths P & Rusu M (2009) Land use change in Southern Romania after the collapse of socialism Regional Environmental Change 9: 1-12

Lerman Z (2008) Agricultural recovery in the former Soviet Union: an overview of 15 years of land reform and farm restructuring Post-Communist Economies 20, 4: 391-412

Lerman Z (2009) Land reform, farm structure and agricultural performance in CIS countries China Economic Review 20: 316-326

Lorent H, Evangelou C, Stellmes M, Hill J, Papanastasis V, Tsoulis G, Roeder A & Lambin E (2008) Land degradation and economic conditions o agricultural households in a marginal region of northern Greece Global and Planetary Change 64: 198-209

Lloret F, Calco E, Pons X & Diaz-Delgado R (2002) Wildfires and landscape patterns in the Eastern Iberian Peninsula Landscape Ecology 17: 745-759

Lloret F, Calvo E, Pons X & Diaz-Delgado R (2003) Wildfires and landscape patterns in the Eastern Iberian Peninsula Landscape Ecology 17: 745-759

Lubowski R, Bucholtz S, Claassen R, Roberts M, Cooper J, Gueorguieva A & Johansson R (2006) Environmental Effects of Agricultural land-use change Summary Report, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture

MacDonald D, Crabtree J, Weisinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleury P, Gutierrez Lazpita J & Gibon A (2000) Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response Journal of Environmental Management 59: 47-69

Mottet A, Ladet S, Coqué N & Gibon A (2006) Agricultural land-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: A case study in the Pyrenees Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 296-310

Moreira F, rego F & Ferreira P (2001) Temporal (1958-1995) pattern of change in a cultural landscape of northwestern Portugal: implications for fire occurrence Landscape Ecology 16: 557-567

Moreira F & Russo D (2007) Modelling the impact of agricultural abandonment and wildfires on vertebrate diversity in Mediterranean Europe Landscape ecology 22: 1461-1476

Moreira F, Viedma O, Arianoutsou M, Curt T, Koutsias N, Rigolot E, Barbati A, Corona P, Vaz P, Xanthopolous G, Mouillot F & Bilgili E (2011) Landscape-wildfire interactions in southern Europe: Implications for landscape management Journal of Environmental Management 92: 2389-2402

Mouillot F, Ratte J, Joffre R, Mouillot D & Rambal Serge (2005) Long-term forest dynamic after land abandonment in a fire prone Mediterranean landscape (central Corsica, France) Landscape Ecology 20: 101-112

Müller D & Munroe D (2008) Changing rural landscapes in Albania: Cropland abandonment and forest clearing in the postsocialist transition Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98(4): 855- 876

Nickerson C, Ebel R, Borchers A & Carriazo F (2011) Major uses of land in the United States, 2007 Economic Research Report, December 2011, United States Department of Agriculture

Olarieta J, Rodriguez-Valle F & tello E (2008) Preserving and destroying soils, transforming landscapes: Soils and land-use changes in the Vallès County (Catalunya, Spain) 1853-2004 Land Use Policy 25: 474-484

Parson H (1999) Regional trends of agricultural restructuring in Canada Canadian Journal of Regional Science 22(3) 343-356

Pérez B, Cruz A, Fernández-González F & Moreno J (2003) Effects of the recent land-use history on the postfire vegetation of uplands in Central Spain Forest Ecology and Management 82: 273-283

Peroni P, Ferri F & Aveno G (2000) Temporal and spatial changes in a mountainous area of central Italy Journal of Vegetation Sciences 11: 505-514

Prishchepov A, Radeloff V, Baumann M, Kuemmerle T & Müller D (2012) Effects of institutional changes on land use: agricultural land abandonment during the transition from state-command to market-driven economies in post-Soviet Eastern Europe Environmental Research Letters 7, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024021

Prishchepov A, Müller D, Dubinin M, Baumann M & Radeloff V (2013) Determinants of agricultural land abandonment in post-Soviet European Russia Land Use Policy 30: 873-884

Romero-Calcerrada & Perry G (2004) The role of land abandonment in landscape dynamics in the SPA ‘Encinares del rio Alberche y Cofio, Central Spain 1984-1999 Landscape and Urban Planning 66: 217-232

Sikor T, Müller D & Stahle J (2008) Land fragmentation and cropland abandonment in Albania: Implications fort he roles of state and community in post-socialist land consolidation World Development 37(8): 1411-1423

Strijker D (2005) Marginal lands in Europe – causes of decline Basic and Applied Ecology 6: 99-106

Taillefumier F & Piégay H (2003) Contemporary land use changes in prealpine Mediterranean mountains: a multivariate GIS-based approach applied to two municipalities in the Southern French Prealps Catena 51: 267-296

Tranter R, Swinbank A, Wooldridge M, Costa L, Knapp T, Little G & Sottomayor M (2007) Implications for food production, land use and rural development of the European Union’s Single Farm Payment: Indications from a survey of farmers’ intentions in Germany, Portugal and the UK Food Policy 32: 656- 671

USDA (2009) Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 123 pages http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2007/2007_NRI_Summary.pdf

USDA (2011) Farmland protection policy act Annual Report for FY 2011 United States Department of Agriculture

USDA (2013) Farmland Protection Policy Act United States Department of Agriculture, accessed from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/landuse/fppa/ 02/09/2013

Van Doorn A & Bakker M (2007) The destination of arable land in a marginal agricultural landscape in South Portugal: an exploration of land use change determinants Landscape Ecology 22: 1073-1087 van Meijl H, van Rheenen T, Tabeau A & Eickhour B (2006) The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 21-38

Vega-Garcia C & Chuvieco E (2006) Applying local measures of spatial heterogeneity to Landsat-TM images for predicting wildfire occurrence in Mediterranean landscapes Landscape Ecology 21: 595- 605

Verburg P, Schulp C, Witte N & Veldkamp A (2006) Downscaling of land use change scenarios to assess dynamics of European landscapes Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 39-56

Viedma O, Moreno J & Riero I (2006) Interactions between land use / land cover change, forest fires and landscape structure in Sierra de Gredos (Central Spain) Environmental Conservation 33 (3): 212- 222

Villani R (ed.) (2012) A snapshot of Canadian agriculture Statistics Canada, accessed from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-640-x/2012002/00-eng.htm 02/09/2013

Waisanen P & Bliss N (2002) Changes in population and agricultural land in conterminous United States counties, 1790 to 1997 Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16(4) 84/1-84/19 43

4. National Fire Management

The management of fire in the environment is currently most strongly associated with firefighting efforts to suppress forest fires. However, contemporary fire management must necessarily look beyond this and involve a broad range of public and private sectoral interests. The broadening of fire management beyond forests and suppression receives varying, but generally increasing, degrees of traction in UNECE member states. This is partly reflected in the evolution of terminology associated with wildland fire management. For example, the term ‘wildland fire’ in itself signifies a move away from considering only forests (forest fire) and uncontrolled fires (wildfire) to include all types of burning in any part of the vegetated landscape while correctly continuing to exclude structural fires.

The Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines (FAO 2006) outline the fact that, from a legal perspective, wildland fire must be considered in some way by a number of sectors, such as land management, health, rural development and the criminal justice system. This runs parallel to the private interests such as lives, homes, businesses and their associated insurances that are involved.

The general field of wildland fire management is touched upon in so many sectors for good reason. Fire not only affects different lands and their user groups in different ways, but the long-range effects, the health and property damaging potential of wildfire and the contrasting strategies between managing planned fire and uncontrolled fire result in a wide and complex range of stakeholder interests related to vegetation fire (Montiel & Herrero 2010).

Ultimately the management of wildland fire must be governed by legislating for all stages of the wildland fire process. The responsibilities must be divided rationally according to each agency’s geographic and thematic jurisdiction as well as their respective abilities to influence, regulate and police fire-related activities (Montiel & Herrero 2010, Morgera & Cirelli 2009).

A typically straightforward example of responsibility assignment can be found across the UNECE region in the fact that the relevant Forestry agency is generally responsible for forest fuel management and fuel breaks within forests. Poland practices this kind of model, with the Forest Fire Protection Department working permanently with the Poland National Forest Service on all aspects of fire prevention, preparedness and response (IBLES 2002, 2012). In contrast, since 1998 the Greek Forest Service has been relieved of its fire management duties by the Greek Fire Service (Xanthopoulos 2000).

On the other hand, the responsibility of fire suppression may depend on where a particular fire started, and then become complicated by what it may potentially burn. Perhaps the greatest area of blurred responsibility lines is in post-fire investigation and imposition of reparations and sanctions. A fire that started in, for example, agricultural land and crossed into forests and urban areas while being fought by as many as five different agencies will result in a nightmare of compensation considerations for costs associated with losses and firefighting activities (Morgera & Cirelli 2009).

This kind of situation is common in the case that each agency approaches wildland fire in isolation and only from their perspective. The result is often that the country ends up with a jumble of ad-hoc wildland fire-related legislation scattered among the breadth and depth of government, with cooperation agreements drafted bilaterally only when deemed necessary.

4.1 Wildland Fire Management Strategy

One way of approaching this situation is through the development of a national level Wildland Fire Management Plan or Strategy. The overall aims and requirements of wildland fire management in a country can be drawn together at the national level and responsibilities delegated to the most appropriate agency. For example, Portugal is working from a National Fire Plan, which delegates and coordinates responsibilities such as fuel management, fire suppression and wildfire monitoring and assessment (European Commission 2012). However this is not the norm, as most countries in the UNECE tend to rely on the existing relationships developed between agencies, as discussed below.

As well as the sectoral breadth of relevant agencies, the process of identifying appropriate wildland fire responsibilities should address the question of to which level of government certain responsibilities should be allocated (Montiel & Herrero 2010). In most cases the national-level agencies are 44

considered best equipped to provide general planning and preparedness guidance for landscape management on one hand and large-scale support to emergency coordination on the other - for example the role played by the United States Forest Service (Everett 2002).

Ground-level preventative actions and most preparedness activities need to be guided by bodies much closer to the ground level. In a move in this direction, since 2007 Russia has delegated all responsibility for forest management, including fire prevention, to the federal forest districts while maintaining central control of emergency response through EMERCOM. While at a conceptual level this should be a positive move, lack of preparedness at the regional level to take over such responsibility meant that the fire prevention and suppression capabilities were initially reduced after the change (Goldammer et al. 2013).

Interagency cooperation

A challenge inherent to wildland fire management alluded to above is the need for coordination between sometimes vastly different sectoral interests. The web of isolated and ad-hoc agreements between various agencies serves the usual purposes of each and allows them to cooperate reasonably effectively in the circumstances that those agencies typically face but may actually lie dormant for long periods. However, in extraordinary circumstances such as emergency wildfire response, these relationships are required to work under intense pressure with potentially grave consequences resulting from misunderstandings (Montiel and Herrero 2010, Montiel et al. 2010).

In saying this, it is also apparent that the ‘response’ phase of wildland fire management is generally the pinnacle of interagency cooperation, with any existing flaws receiving amplification due to their consequences. Areas of responsibility such as fuel management or ignition prevention do not enjoy high levels of cooperation between agencies (FAO 2006).

In many UNECE countries the cooperation that exists between agencies responding to wildfires is maintained by annual meetings held to agree on such matters as geographic areas of responsibility, incident management arrangement and hierarchy and cost-sharing agreements. Outside of these particular meetings, most agencies work independently until a complex fire event occurs. This arrangement is notable and proudly proclaimed by many countries reporting to the European Commission Joint Research Center in their annual Forest Fires in Europe report (e.g. European Commission 2012).

Many of these arrangements are very positive and progressive in their aims to approach fire from the perspectives of multiple land managers or multiple responding agencies. However, to move beyond sporadic, emergency-only cooperation and improve wildland fire management as a whole – including prevention, preparedness and post-fire assessment – some countries have taken the step to establish a permanent interagency body charged with coordinating and harmonising wildfire-related activities between agencies and levels of government.

While the exact model differs between countries depending on the existing allocation of responsibilities, bodies such as the U.S. American National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Center (CIFFC), the Portuguese Integrated System for Relief and Protection Operations (SIOPS) and the localised inter-agency task forces operating in Ireland since 2012 provide examples of permanent, multi-sectoral approaches to wildland fire management (Nugent 2012).

Such agencies actively seek inter-agency collaboration with the aim of reducing the number of gaps, overlaps and conflicts between agencies responsible for various aspects of wildland fire. The resulting harmonised strategy increases the effectiveness of each agency in their own work as well as their coordination efforts so that fewer casualties, fewer material losses, better environmental outcomes and cost savings are the eventual result.

The establishment of an organisation such as this grows from a collective realisation that multilateral negotiations will be more effective than bilateral negotiations in serving the goals mentioned above. In recent years a number of UNECE member states have been undertaking this process such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine and Greece. This process has been kicked off by the organisation of ‘national round table’ meetings in which relevant stakeholders share their views and concerns. From that point it is possible to begin harmonising policy and other actions within and between sectors (Goldammer 2011, OSCE 2012). 45

Beyond the general theme of interagency cooperation and specifically the effectiveness of suppression operations and coordination there are a number of particular aspects of wildland fire management which require special attention in some parts of the UNECE region. The remainder of this chapter will discuss some of the aspects of high importance within the UNECE region.

4.2 Specialised Training and Equipment

In some UNECE countries on-the-ground management of vegetation fires is handled by dedicated teams for whom wildland fire is the primary task and qualification. Such forces are present in a small number of countries such as the United States and Spain and provide potent fire suppression capabilities. In a far greater number of cases members of forest management or emergency services such as Fire and Rescue Services (United Kingdom), the Forest Service (Italy) and Volunteer Fire Brigades (Austria) are able to access some degree of specific vegetation fire training in addition to their usual emergency response capabilities. In areas where wildfires are a common occurrence, regular exposure to wildland fire operations can also make these forces highly effective. Finally, a number of UNECE member states do not provide any meaningful forest or vegetation fire training to the forces that are expected to respond to these incidents, whether this is the urban fire service, the forest service or the military (European Commission 2012, Montiel et al. 2010).

The lack of emphasis on vegetation fires in the last two of these groups is generally due to the fact that vegetation fires pose a low perceived risk because history has shown that they are a rare occurrence. Records do show that some regions, particularly northern Europe, experience severe wildfires only on rare occasions – perhaps even decades apart. This region is predicted to experience increased wildland fire activity in the future, and may be dangerously underprepared (Montiel & Herrero 2010). The lack of specific and practiced skills results in poor response strategies which drive up the cost of suppression hugely and leave the window open for the fire to spread, cause damage and flare up if weather permits (Montiel et al. 2010).

Vegetation fires differ from other natural and human disasters in the key aspect that they can be combated during the event. Earthquakes and landslides cannot be stopped or ‘diverted’ to any great degree, so disaster management in those cases is more focussed on infrastructure standards intended to minimise damage before the event and response capacity to manage the cleanup and deal with affected communities after the event. Within the realm of fire, vegetation fires also differ in key ways from structural fires as they are a mobile disturbance influenced heavily by factors that have little impact on structural fires, such as weather, terrain and the nature of the fuel.

A mixed bag of countries institutionalises wildland fire competence by providing specific publications and obliging a certain proportion of their emergency responders to be trained in wildland fire suppression techniques. As well as the typical North American and Mediterranean examples, others are striving to put themselves ahead of the problems that are currently faced and those that are likely to await them in the future (Montiel & Herrero 2010). As well as enhancing human capital, some countries are choosing to invest in more appropriate equipment for suppression of vegetation fires. In 2011 Latvia invested heavily in off-road pickup trucks and heavy tankers fitted with hand tools, pumps and hoses better suited to vegetation fire suppression. European support is available for enhancing wildfire preparedness through appropriate training and equipment. Since 2008 Lithuania has been accessing EU funding to set up a semi-automated forest fire detection system (European Commission 2012).

An important international effort aimed at disseminating reliable and standardised wildland fire competency information is EuroFire – a project carried out under the auspices of the European Union Leonardo da Vinci Programme. Initially published in English, French and German, these competency standards provide an understanding of the fundamentals of wildland fire as well as practical techniques for its suppression, which are assessed through a competency-based training framework. As part of the European Qualifications’ Framework they also serve as a template that can be edited and implemented at the national level and as such have already been translated in Russian, Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijani. Translations for use in Greece, Ukraine and FYR Macedonia are currently being prepared (GFMC 2013a).

4.3 Fire History

One of the fundamental tools that allow effective and holistic wildland fire management is a reliable knowledge of when fire is likely to happen and under what conditions. Systematically kept records of fire statistics feed into the entire system of fire management by quantifying the nature of fire in the local environment. From this information the concept of a ‘fire season’ can be established, which is the foundation upon which a chain of actions can be built to enhance the preparedness of a certain country for the fires that it is likely to experience.

Many member states of the UNECE record some details of vegetation fires, although in most cases in an incomplete way. Recording burnt area seems to be mostly an initiative of forestry agencies as they try to estimate their ‘losses’ due to fire and other disturbances. The majority of countries included in the European Commission Joint Research Center (JRC) Forest fires in Europe 2011 mention that most vegetation fires start in agricultural landscapes before crossing into other land use types European Commission 2012). This important factor is widely recognised, though not systematically recorded. This is partly a result of the existing sectoral approach to wildland fire management, but the result is that the true nature of fire in the environment is not well understood. To gain such an understanding, all fire incidents in the landscape should be recorded, including their ignition source, the fuel affected (and to what intensity), the time of year and the weather conditions at the time of ignition and propagation (Montiel & Herrero 2010).

Going back to the concept of a ‘fire season’, one of the main reasons that this is so important is that it can guide reasoned actions for pre-season prevention activities and in-season preparedness activities, providing structure to the basic understanding of fire management. Such actions start with intensifying fire detection strategies, conducting awareness campaigns, daily updated fire activity reports and fire weather forecast and may extend to seasonally reinforcing fire suppression employment (among other examples, these strategies are employed, respectively by Sweden, Hungary, Poland and Greece) (European Commission 2012, Montiel & Herrero 2010, IBLES 2002).

At the European level, the European Forest Fire Information Service (EFFIS) has been compiling the European Fire Database since 1980. A number of European countries contribute their national statistics to this database but the figures reported are only for forested lands, so only tell part of the story (European Commission 2012). Also, the database is bound to nationally-produced statistics, which has been found to be of dubious accuracy in some cases, with remote Russia serving as a prime example. The large size and low population density of Russia means that they have long used a variety of methods to detect vegetation fires and collect forest fire data. However, the official annual burned area reported internally and to the international community has been found by Goldammer et al. (2013) to be a massive underestimate of the true figure.

4.4 Fire Danger Ratings and Early Warning

Following closely from the topic of fire history, the development of a system of forecasting fire risk in real time is one of the major tools that can be developed directly as a result of understanding the historical nature of fire in a particular region of interest. This necessarily involves the cooperation of multiple sectors – most importantly meteorology agencies (Montiel & Herrero 2010).

The most basic form of early warning system is one that unites climatic factors to give a relative approximation of the potential severity of a fire event if it were to occur in fuel that could carry it. Temperature, humidity and recent and expected rainfall are factors that feed into such an index. The Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) operates along these lines by drawing the connections from these weather factors to their effect on fuel moisture content and finally to likely fire behaviour. As well as being used in Canada, a number of countries in Europe, such as Hungary, use the Canadian FWI internally (GFMC 2013b). It is also the basis for European fire danger projections from EFFIS (European Commission 2012).

Other UNECE member states have developed internal fire danger rating systems which can be likened to the Canadian FWI. Russia and Poland have similar systems which are updated daily during the declared fire season, and Switzerland has developed a system which fits into their natural hazard rating system used otherwise for storms and avalanches (European Commission 2012). As an 47

example of a very specific fire danger rating system, European alpine countries have developed an alpine fire danger rating system as part of the ALP-FFIRS project (ALP-FFIRS 2013).

At a global scale, the Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics (GOFC-GOLD) provides an online tool which links the FWI to fires detected as presently active by satellite observations. The combination of these provides a more realistic projection of where fire activity is more likely to worsen (GOFC-GOLD).

4.5 Use of Fire in the Environment

The intentional, or at least tolerable, use of fire in the landscape serves a number of different purposes. In ecosystems that have evolved with natural fires such as the ‘Light Taiga’ forest types of Central and Western Asia fire may be used (or tolerated) to facilitate floral and faunal processes requiring the unique combination of disturbance and post-combustion chemicals that fire provides (Valendik et al. 2013, Lazaro & Montiel 2010).

Beyond this, cultural uses of fire include artificial landscape management for biodiversity or cultural purposes (such as maintaining open lands in the absence of grazing), or more immediately practical reasons, such as waste disposal, crop residue disposal or hazard reduction. Throughout most of the UNECE, cultural fire in the landscape is subject to an outright ban because it is presumed, often correctly, that most destructive fires start from these sources. It has also become intolerable, particularly for land management agencies, to undertake burning which impacts upon the population through perceived heightened fire risk, smoke pollution and for a variety of other reasons (Lazaro & Montiel 2010).

Some European Union countries and the United States are able to police such burn bans and more importantly, have provided alternatives to burning – particularly in the agricultural sector. However, over vast tracts of the UNECE land masses this is not the case. The continued necessity of burning from land users’ perspectives combined with arbitrary sanctions for those who get caught has resulted in fire becoming an uncontrolled force in the landscape as citizens start fires clandestinely and disappear to avoid the law. If land management fires were legal, the fire could be kept under the eye of the landholder so they could serve the desired purpose in the target area without impacting upon neighbours. However, under current conditions such fires often spread beyond the intended boundaries of the target area. Again, this fact is widely recognised by countries reporting to the EU Joint Research Center but is not examined further. In some member states a system of fire permits and assisted burning does exist but is currently either too inflexible or too expensive to make it an attractive option (Lazaro & Montiel 2010, Moore et al. 2002). In a number of UNECE member states, including Sweden, Denmark and Norway, there is no mention of legal uses of fire, which leaves its use in something of a grey area (Lazaro & Montiel 2010).

The category of human-ignited fire that has started to grow in acceptance in UNECE countries in recent years is prescribed fire used to reduce vegetative fuels ahead of the high danger periods of the fire season. Many countries have started working with prescribed fire with the aims of increasing the effectiveness of legally-binding land clearing laws around buildings and preventing severe fires in forests by instigating low-intensity burns in cool or humid weather. An exceptional example exists in Ireland, where the acceptance of traditional use of prescribed fire in heathlands has instigated authorities to formalise and regulate this activity through legal means and the publication of the Prescribed Burning Code of Practice (Nugent 2012). Such activity must always be based on deep understanding of the nature of fire in the landscape – a goal pursued by agencies such as the US Forest Service, the Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network and the EU Fire Paradox project. The results of the Fire Paradox Project and the practical outreach work and pilot projects of the Fire Ecology Research Group continue to influence fire mitigation strategies across Europe – particularly the Mediterranean (Lazaro & Montiel 2010, Goldammer 2009). Outside of the EU and North America prescribed burning is regaining recognition in Russia and some neighbouring countries as a research topic. It has been practiced in the past, but since the 1980s has fallen out of favour. If found to be effective and controllable, it can be expected that fuel management through planned burning will filter through into forest and landscape management (Valendik et al. 2013).

4.6 Rural Empowerment

Adding another layer to the idea that wildland fire must be dealt with using a whole-of-landscape approach, it is essential to consider local communities and their residents – particularly in rural areas (Montiel & Herrero 2010). It is well known that no single agency can ‘deal’ with the complex issues concerning wildland fire, so it follows logically that those with the most to lose – potentially their lives, property and livelihoods – should be fundamentally involved in managing fire in the landscape (Moore et al. 2002). This idea is considered across the UNECE region but usually extends only to fire suppression, when more or less organised local residents willingly leap into action to protect themselves and their neighbours (VDPO 2013). However, as has been discussed, wildland fire management is about a lot more than fire prevention, and the cross-boundary nature of fire would logically lead to the conclusion that all regional land owners and managers (the community) be involved in all stages of the fire management process through true community engagement Moore et al. 2002).

The concept of community engagement has been formalised by the term Community-Based Fire Management (CBFiM), which itself developed from the term Integrated Forest Fire Management (IFFM) - a concept that became popular as part of development strategies in the 1990s starting in Indonesia and Namibia. In more recent years CBFiM principles have been applied beyond the traditional ‘development’ context as so-called ‘developed’ countries have reflected on how these principles are implemented in their own wildland fire management systems (FAO 2003, Goldammer et al. 2002).

This is evident in publications related to the European Fire Paradox project, which ran through the first decade of the 2000s and which is partly based on the principle of ‘Integrated Fire Management’ – the shortened name also signifying a move away from the view that wildland fires are purely a forest phenomenon (Silva et al. 2002).

The most common form of CBFiM operating across the UNECE region is the existence of volunteer fire brigades made up of local community members, particularly in rural areas (VDPO 2013, European Commission 2012). Intimate local knowledge of terrain and accessibility and the fact that small teams are dispersed across the rural landscape means that these volunteer brigades are very often first to respond to vegetation fires, and often act without requiring any support from professional crews (VDPO 2013, FAO 2003, 2006). This is relevant over the length and breadth of the UNECE region, although the details of how volunteer fire brigades are organised and funded and their exact responsibilities do differ.

The primary role of volunteer fire brigades is to support the professional fire authorities in fire suppression activities, although often this ‘support’ takes the form of a leading role. Good examples of this include the USA and Poland (Everett 2002, IBLES 2002). However, a number of problems arise when citizens are doing potentially dangerous work for the benefit of the community.

The first of these is appropriate training and equipment. While volunteers may provide willing and cost- free labour, ensuring safe and efficient operation demands that volunteers are trained and equipped sufficiently to deal with the situations they are expected to face (ITS 2012, IBLES 2002). In some countries, for example Germany, the organised and highly resourced Volunteer Fire Brigades (Freiwillige Feuerwehr) are in fact poorly prepared to deal with vegetation fires – acting without specific training or tools (Lazaro & Montiel 2010). On a related point, issues such as liability have the potential to become relevant, especially considering on whose behalf these volunteers are working (Morgera & Cirelli 2009). Volunteer Fire Brigades in Russia and Kazakhstan exist traditionally as a true community initiative. Although they are coordinated to some degree at the national level by, for example, the All- Russian Volunteer Fire Organisation, government regulation in terms of training and liability is generally rejected as it is seen to clash with the fundamental concept of a community initiative (Vorobyov 2012, MCHS 2010). This potentially puts the actions and possible damages of such volunteer forces into a legal grey area.

The second and more fundamental problem associated with the prevailing arrangement of volunteer fire brigades is that it approaches Community-Based Fire Management at only one point of the wildland fire cycle. While it is certainly a boon to fire suppression to be able to tap into low-cost, locally-knowledgeable human resources, these same resources are rarely utilised as part of wildfire prevention activities (Everett 2002). The prevention phase of wildland fire management is well recognised as being economically and socially much better value – not least because it may reduce 49

the need for community members to throw themselves into hazardous fire suppression activities (Montiel & Herrero 2010).

A number of UNECE member states, particularly where fire is a common threat, require or recommend that residents take some kind prophylactic action against vegetation fire damages. However, these only extend to the property of the individual. France is an example of this, where clearing distances around buildings are regulated and monitored in fire-prone areas. Taking this a step further, programmes such as FireWise in the United States and FireSmart in Canada aim to build community awareness, including working with neighbours and existing community groups to build resilience to wildland fire as a community. In both cases, communities can gain recognition for actions they take part in, including consulting with local land management agencies to inform themselves of the threat to their particular community (NFPA 2013, PiP 2013).

However, even these programmes do not truly qualify as ‘CBFiM’ because they do not extend fire prevention rights beyond the borders of an individual’s property, i.e. residents do not have explicit influence over neighbouring lands, even those that are publicly owned, such as forests (Moore et al. 2002, Everett 2002). This signifies the lack of a central facet to wildfire prevention because vegetation fires generally cross ownership boundaries before causing great damage. It can be reasonably assumed that each land manager will act to reduce fire risk and consider their neighbours. However, a structural lack of communication and coordination between centrally-managed public lands and privately-owned property runs counter to the ideas of Community-Based Fire Management and Integrated Fire Management and is widespread across the UNECE region.

Village Defence Guidelines

A current and ongoing development in the UNECE that is closely linked to the EuroFire wildland fire suppression modules mentioned above is the drafting of the Village Defence Guidelines for Rural Communities. As a joint initiative of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), the European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) and the Maria Tsakos Foundation (Greece), guidelines have been compiled that includes separable sections relevant to local residents and local governments, respectively (GFMC 2013c). When combined with the EuroFire Competency Standards, a coherent set of three documents can be distributed to the relevant parties in rural areas – organisational guidelines for local government, EuroFire training and assessment materials emergency services and home defence guidelines for local residents. Based on social research in Greece and backed up by the word of managers across Europe it was found that local residents are often not aware of what they can do to prevent fire damage to their property or of the respective responsibilities of various government agencies (Mitsopoulos 2013). This trio of documents is primarily aimed at the eastern Mediterranean region and synthesises home-defence and community preparedness examples from across the world into a set of guidelines relevant to the local environmental and socio-economic circumstances. The format, like EuroFire, is one that can be modified and translated for use in other countries and regions.

References

ALP-FFIRS (2013) Alpine Forest Fire Warning System ALP-FFIRS Project, Accessed from http://www.alpffirs.eu/ 10/10/2013

European Commission (2012) Forest fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2011, Joint Research Center Technical Report EUR 25483 EN

Everett Y (2002) Community participation in fire management planning: a case study from California, USA In Moore P, Ganz D, Cheng Tan L, Enters T & Durst P (eds.) Communities in flames: proceedings of an international conference on community involvement in fire management, p.125-133. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2002/25, 133 p.

FAO (2006) Fire management: voluntary guidelines. Principles and strategic actions Fire Management Working Paper 17, FAO, Rome, 61 p.

FAO (2003) Strategic Paper: Community-Based Fire Management. Outcomes of the International Wildland Fire Summit, Sydney, October 8, 2003. Int. Forest Fire News No. 29, 20-35

GOFC-GOLD (2013) Global Observation of Forest and Landcover Dynamics Global Terrestrial Observing System, FAO, Accessed from http://www.fao.org/gtos/gofc-gold/ 10/10/2013

GFMC (2013a) EuroFire Competency Standards Accessed from www.euro-fire.eu 10/10/2013

GFMC (2013b) Global Wildland Fire Early Warning System. GFMC Wildland Fire Early Warning Portal. Global, Regional and National Fire Weather and Climate Forecasts. Background Materials. Accessed from http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/fwf/fwf.htm

GFMC (2013c) Defence of Villages, Farms and Other Rural Assets against Wildfires. Guidelines for Rural Populations, Local Communities and Municipality Leaders in the Balkan Region. Published on behalf of the European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA), Council of Europe, supported by Maria Tsakos Foundation, International Centre of Maritime Research & Tradition (in press)

Goldammer JG (ed.) 2009 White Paper on Use of Prescribed Fire in Land Management, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia Results and recommendations of the Symposium on Fire Management in Cultural and Natural Landscapes, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia and members of the Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network (EFNCN), Freiburg, Germany, 25-27 January 2008. Int. Forest Fire News No. 38, 133-152

Goldammer JG (2011) Introduction of the ENVSEC Project “Enhancing National Capacity on Fire Management and Wildfire Disaster Risk Reduction in the South Caucasus” In: Proceedings of the conference “Forecast, Prevention and Suppression of Forest and Grassland Fires”, Yerevan, Armenia, 14 September 2011, p. 62-69. Report on behalf of OSCE, published by UNDP-GEF/00051202 Project “Adaptation to Climate Change Impacts in Mountain Forest Ecosystems of Armenia”

Goldammer JG, Stocks B, Sukhinin A & Ponomarev E (2013) Forest Fires in Russia – Past and Current Trends In Goldammer J (ed.) Vegetation Fires and Global Change, 51-78, Global Fire Monitoring Center, Freiburg, Germany, Kessel Publishing House, Remagen-Oberwinter.

Goldammer J, Frost P, Jurvélis M, Kamminga E, Kruger T, Moody S & Pogeyed M (2002) Community Participation in integrated forest fire managment: experiences from Africa, Asia and Europe In Moore P, Ganz D, Cheng Tan L, Enters T & Durst P (eds.) Communities in flames: proceedings of an international conference on community involvement in fire management, 33-52. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2002/25, 133 p.

Heikkilä T, Grönqvist R & Jurvélius M (2007) Wildland Fire Management Handbook for Trainers Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Helsinki

IBLES (2002) Fire Situation in Poland Forest Research Institute of Poland. Accessed from http://www.ibles.pl/structure-10/scientific-departments/forest-fire- protection/internal/fire_situation_poland.pdf 5/3/2013

IBLES (2012) Forest Research Institute, Forest Fire Protection Department, Poland

ITS (2012) Report on regional fire fighting resources of Ukraine Inspectorate of Technogenic Safety of Ukraine: Accessed from http://www.ditb.gov.ua/content/dergnaglyad.html 05/10/2012

Lazaro A & Montiel C (2010) Overview of prescribed burning policies and practices in Europe and other countries In Silva et al. (2010) Towards Integrated Fire Management – Outcomes of the European Project Fire Paradox, European Forest Institute 137-150

MCHS (2010) Interview with Head of the Department of Firefighting Forces, Specialized Firefighting Service and Civil Defence Forces EMERCOM of Russia Mikhail Verzilin Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense, Emergencies and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters. Accessed from http://www.mchs.ru/eng/interviews/detail.php?ID=51806 20/08/2013

Mitsopoulos I (2013) Defense of Villages, Farms and Other Rural Assets against Wildfires: Guidelines for Local Community and Municipality Leaders in the Balkan Region. Report of the Chios Field Visit 25-28 February 2013. Interviews with local population affected by the wildfires of August 2012. Internal report on file at GFMC.

Montiel C & Herrero G (2010) An Overview of policies and practices related to fire ignitions at the European Union Level In Silva et al. (2010) Towards Integrated Fire Management – Outcomes of the European Project Fire Paradox, European Forest Institute 35-48

Moore P, Ganz D, Cheng Tan L, Enters T & Durst P (eds.) (2002) Communities in flames: proceedings of an international conference on community involvement in fire management FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2002/25, 133 p.

Morgera E & Cirelli M (2009) Forest fires and the law: A guide for national drafters based on the Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines FAO Legislative Study 99, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 175 pages.

NFPA (2013) About Firewise National Fire Protection Association, Accessed from http://www.firewise.org/about.aspx 28/09/2013

Nugent C (2012) Draft Prescribed Burning Code of Practice – Ireland Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Dublin, Ireland. Accessed from http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/landandforestfires/CofPPrescribedBurningFinal9 0212.pdf 15/09/2013

OSCE (2012) OSCE helps to fight wildfires in Armenia Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Press Release, Accessed from http://www.osce.org/yerevan/82456 09/10/2013

PiP (2013) About FireSmart Canada Partners in Protection, Accessed from https://www.firesmartcanada.ca/about 28/09/2013

Silva J, Rego F, Fernandes P & Rigolot E (2002) Introducing the Fire Paradox In Silva et al. (2010) Towards Integrated Fire Management – Outcomes of the European Project Fire Paradox, European Forest Institute 3-9

Valendik E, Goldammer J, Kisilyakhov Ye, Ivanova G, Verkhovets A, Bryukhanov A & Kosov I (2013) Prescribed Burning in Russia In: Goldammer J (ed.) Prescribed Burning in Russia and Neighbouring Temperate-Boreal Eurasia Kessel Publishing House, Remagen-Oberwinter, Germany, 325 pages

VDPO (2013) An abstract of voluntary fire prevention organisations abroad All-Russian Volunteer Organisation. Accessed from http://www.vdpo.ru/main/english/international-collaboration 28/09/2013

Vorobyov R (2012) Russia’s plans to regulate volunteers Russia Behind the Headlines. Accessed from http://rbth.co.uk/articles/2012/07/17/authorities_plan_to_regulate_volunteers_16435.html 25/08/2012

Xanthopoulos G (2000) Fire Situation in Greece. Int. Forest Fire News No. 23, 76-84

5. Existing International Agreements Relevant to the UNECE

Wildland fire, by nature, is not bound by arbitrary human boundaries such as ownership or other property rights. As has been previously management of fire as a landscape-scale disturbance. The natural end-point of this theme is to consider the management of wildland fire at the international level – where agreements must be made with neighbours discussed in terms of national wildland fire preparedness, this poses certain challenges in the and other countries further afield. This chapter will outline important agreements that are currently valid for the UNECE region, as well as some international examples that may be useful in considering what else could be done in the region.16

16 For further reading see reviews by the GFMC (Goldammer 2006, GFMC 2012) 52

Cross-border agreements

From the most practical perspective, bilateral agreements between countries sharing common borders have been in place in a number of instances in the UNECE for many years. Examples from the US- Canada (1947, 1986, 1998), the France-Spain (1960) and the Finland-Russia (1994) border regions are among a large number – many drafted in the 1990s – of agreements that stipulate the terms upon which border-region cooperation in wildland fire prevention and suppression is based. A list of 15 elements, which are recommended to be considered in agreements is provided in Appendix 1. This list mirrors Paper II of the Outcomes of the 2003 International Wildland Fire Summit (Sydney, Australia, 2003) (Frey & Velez-Muñoz 2003) and a review featured by Goldammer (2013).

Following such guidelines allows the local authorities in border regions to cooperate with their counterparts across the border and even move across the frontier without needing to go through the unwieldy process of seeking permission from a central authority. Potentially problematic factors such as the communication, compensation, legal questions and the exact area of allowable activity are organised ahead of time and refreshed at the beginning of each fire season, making joint response smooth and effective (Rodriguez y Silva 2003).

To reinforce the advantages of pre-determined wildfire suppression arrangements, Rodriguez y Silva (2003) cites a number of cases across the Mediterranean where coordinated wildfire response has failed due to incomplete agreements being hastily drafted in the throes of an unfolding emergency. It seems that such failures have led, in some way, to wider involvement of fire-prone countries in bilateral agreements.

While most international, cross-border agreements involve just two countries (or even just the provinces either side of the border) working bilaterally, there are some cases where a single agreement is designed to be effective across a number of countries. Since early 2013 the former Soviet States making up the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) appear to be working on coming to such an agreement including joint training, preventative actions and suppression activity up to 10km each side of national borders (Novitskaya 2013). While this may create a positive regional community appearance, bilateral agreements are often preferred due to their relative simplicity in initial drafting and especially in their revision, when necessary.

Long-distance agreements

Since the early 2000s there have been some cases where bilateral agreements have not followed the typical cross-border model, but rather been forged between distant partners. The most notable agreements exist between North American countries United States and Canada) and Pacific countries (Australia and New Zealand). These agreements are based on a fundamentally different principle than those across a land border – instead of relying on the neighbours, it is understood that the neighbours are likely to experience a similar fire danger situation at the same time, so may be busy. Forging agreements between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres largely avoids this problem, with the respective fire seasons being almost mutually exclusive (Anonymous 2003, 2003a, 2003b).

While factors such as cost-sharing and liability arrangements needed to be drafted specifically for these cases, there are aspects to these agreements that have certainly made the process a lot easier than may otherwise have been the case. To start, the almost exclusive use of English between all countries involved allows visiting crews to work with their hosts effectively without the need for a specific structure designed to deal purely with language. Starting from a common language also greatly helps the process in achieving a common understanding of wildland fire-specific terminology. The requirement of a common terminology is mentioned in all reports and templates for building an effective working relationship – especially in emergency situations. Finally, willingness to use a common incident management system – in this case the Incident Command System (ICS) – in all joint operations allows visiting crews to fit into and understand, the structure of command used by the local forces – again highly advantageous in emergency situations (Goldammer 2013).

Regional agreements

Other long-distance, bilateral, wildland fire agreements mostly exist in the context of development, such as the Finland-Burkina Faso (1998) agreement mentioned by FAO (2004). On the other hand, there are cases where a common understanding of direct, but long-distance effects of wildland fire may logically lead to a legal agreement between several distant countries at the regional scale. The transport of wildland fire smoke and soot has come to the attention of international bodies such as the Arctic Council and the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transport of Air Pollution in the UNECE region, as well as the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) outside of the UNECE.

Some other regional agreements exist or are under construction for a combination of the reasons mentioned. The European Commission and Southern African Development Community are working toward functional regional agreements that will serve to limit damaging wildland fires through cooperative planning and prevention and assisted response.

European Union

A regional initiative on dealing with wildland fires that is particularly relevant to the UNECE is the Civil Protection Mechanism (CPM), administered by the European Community Humanitarian Office (OCHA). The CPM is a mechanism designed primarily to provide reliable and standardised response to natural and technological disasters to assist the affected country in the recovery phase. While it was originally designed to provide mutual assistance between the member states, it has quickly become the case that most responses occur outside of these countries to third parties (ECHO 2013).

Wildland fire is one of the categories of disaster and assistance packages listed as eligible for response, but is not central to the CPM’s operations. The general role of the various agencies that constitute the CPM are described below, with wildland fire-specific information also provided.

The CPM responds to natural and technological disasters by way of activating disaster recovery ‘modules’ according to what is requested by the hosting country. In all cases these modules must be able to work almost wholly independently in order to avoid duplication of efforts and other problems that may arise due to language and coordination limitations in the ‘clean-up’ and recovery phases of disaster management.

In the case of wildland fire, almost all ‘activations’ of the CPM comprise of aerial assistance in the form of helicopters and Canadair CL-215 water-bombing aircraft. In most cases this has simply provided a different organisational structure to pre-existing bilateral agreements on the sharing of aerial resources between west Mediterranean countries, although activations have spread toward the Balkan states in recent years (ECHO 2013a).

As yet the CPM has not been able to develop international wildland fire response capability far beyond what was already in existence prior to its inception in 2001. There remain no centrally-recommended Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the commonly-utilised aerial response and mobilisation of expert fire suppression commanders or ground forces has been almost non-existent (ECHO 2013b, ECHO 2013c). Part of the problem is that wildland fire presents a different type of challenge than other emergencies, such as floods and earthquakes. Wildfire can potentially be managed during the event by aircraft but usually does not last long enough for ground crews and vehicles to be of much use if they have to travel long distances. This unique combination requires very rapid response by aerial resources and assisting experts followed by assistance with recovery, if that is also beyond the national capabilities. The CPM has not developed systems of deployment that improve this kind of response beyond what was already available. However, it has seen increasing use as member states make use of the centralised information and coordination facility.

Since May 2013 the Emergency Response and Coordination Centre (ERCC) has taken over the central organisation role of the Civil Protection Mechanism that was previously played by the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC). This body’s primary function is to organise requests and offers of responding modules in the case of emergency. All participating parties work through the ERCC rather than contacting each other directly. The ERCC is also responsible for communicating the regional risk of vegetation fire based on input from the European Forest Fire Information Service (EFFIS) (ECHO 2013).

As well as the activities mentioned, a key aspect of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism is to improve joint preparedness of the European Community for emergency events in the region. This is done through joint training and the Exchange of Experts programme (ECHO 2013b). While these activities have been regularly practiced for other types of emergencies, the capacity to deal with vegetation fire has not seen a great deal of attention (ECHO 2012). Related to wildfire, the Exchange of Experts programme has been used six times since its inception in 2008, with some interesting exchanges occurring between northern and southern European countries. Although a system of seasonal wildfire manager secondments is part of the CPM system, it appears that this hasn’t yet been utilised through the CPM (ECHO 2013d). A joint training exercise with a partial focus on wildfires is planned in the Balkan region for early 2014 (ECHO 2013).

UNECE Convention on Long Range Transport of Air Pollution

Smoke pollution episodes emanating from Russia in the early 2000s that affected East Asia and Britain led, for a short time, to discussions of how vegetation fire smoke may be tackled as part of the existing UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transport of Air Pollution (CLRTAP) (Goldammer 2010). More recently, this debate has transformed to focus on Black Carbon pollution and particularly its affect on albedo of ice- and snow-covered regions in the Arctic after deposition. The Gothenburg Protocol of 1999 extended the original 1979 CLRTAP to include a number of industrial pollutants such as sulphur compounds and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) negatively affecting forests, water bodies and soils. In 2012 this was amended to include Black Carbon (soot) as a short-lived atmospheric pollutant with significant climate forcing potential. As well as industrial and transport sources of Black Carbon, agricultural practices are explicitly mentioned in this amendment, making management for mitigation of smoke episodes a responsibility of the UNECE member states (UNECE 2013).

Arctic Council

In a move that strongly supports the CLRTAP decision to extend its focus to Black Carbon, the Arctic Council, which consists of eight member states with overlapping membership of the UNECE, has also begun to focus on Black Carbon as a pollutant affecting the arctic environment. The 2011 and 2013 Task Force on Short-lived Atmospheric Pollutants reports both identify vegetation fires as important targets for the management of Black Carbon emissions. As a short-lived pollutant, the temporal and spatial patterns of Black Carbon emissions are highly influential in determining their effect on Arctic Warming. Consequently, successful mitigation should have a very meaningful impact on localised climate change and ice-melt in the Arctic (Arctic Council 2013).

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

In October 2010 member states of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) met in Khabarovsk, in Russia’s Far East to discuss vegetation fire management at the regional level. The resulting paper – ‘Recommendations on Management and International Cooperation in Preventing Forest Fires in the APEC Region’ – encouraged member states to seek and enter into bilateral agreements within the region to cooperate on preventing forest fires and promoting sustainable forestry as well as to support the APEC secretariat in cooperation with neighbouring regional entities such as ASEAN and UNECE. However, since this time APEC appears to have been relatively dormant in action on forest and other vegetation fires, with disaster and emergency focus moving toward other issues such as flooding and tsunamis (Goldammer 2013, APEC 2013).

Council of Europe

In light of devastating wildfire events in Russia, the Balkans and Greece between 2007 and 2010 and the moves towards a unified European Forest Code, the members of the European Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) have recommended that the organisation increase its work on encouraging cooperation on forest fires in the region both to protect forests and the communities living in contact with them. A particular focus of the EUR-OPA work on wildland fire has been in relation to lands contaminated by radioactivity, unexploded ordnance and other industrial pollutants (Council of Europe 2011). 55

There are significant cases of contaminated lands in the member states of the Council of Europe and the UNECE, and only recently has this come to the conscience attention of national and regional land and fire managers. The complications of fire burning in radioactively contaminated land in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and land containing unexploded ordnance in military training areas and formally mined areas has important consequences for firefighter safety, public health and security and nature conservation (Goldammer 2013a).

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)

The OSCE has been working with UN Environment and Security (ENVSEC) and the Global Fire Monitoring Center in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to build understanding and cooperation in the region from the perspective of common interest in positive environmental outcomes in border areas. Development of national fire management capacity and cross-border cooperative strategies of vegetation fires are seen as important bridges upon which to build regional confidence and, to some degree, security (Goldammer 2013, ENVSEC 2013).

Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s a number of smoke and haze episodes in South East Asia related to, often illegal, land use and forest fires prompted ASEAN member states to draft the Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution in 2003. Globally, this was the first multilateral agreement to focus on vegetation fire and its effects in a legally-binding way. The agreement bound ratifying nations to cooperate to regulate and reduce forest and land-use fires, prevent their occurrence, warn of their likelihood, respond to active fires and impose sanctions upon those breaking the laws. These actions are coordinated through a regional centre, which is unfortunately hindered in its potency by the fact that Indonesia – a country heavily affected by vegetation fires – has not yet ratified the haze agreement (Nguitragool 2011).

Southern African Development Community (SADC)

In a region that acutely recognises the natural and cultural importance of fire in the environment as well as its potential to inflict damage, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) has made important steps in recent years toward tackling damaging wildland fire through the Regional Fire Management Programme, officially launched in 2010. Building on the SADC Forestry Strategy of 2002, the 14 member states focus on fire in the specific context of the region and its characteristics – a largely fire prone landscape with a large, highly diverse and mostly rural population. As such, the principles of Community-Based Fire Management (CBFiM) have been taken on as central to the ethos and operations of fire management in the region. Other activities include joint goal-setting, shared GIS and fire detection systems and joint, standardised training through the ‘Working on Fire’ initiative and the Wildland Fire Training Centre in South Africa (Goldammer 2013, SADC 2010).

South and Central America

Since the first Mesoamerican Meeting of Forest Fire Protection in Guatemala City in 2002 cooperative agreements have developed across this region and in South America. The Caribbean, Central America and South America Regions of the Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN) work closely together and with other regions of the GWFN to better deal with wildland fire in the highly varied landscapes of the region. Cooperation includes working with the forestry sector, emergency services and universities (Goldammer 2013).

6. Operational International Fire Management Guidelines

Fire management guidelines

A number of examples exist where international organisations have published fire management guidelines to be used as a basis upon which to develop guidelines at the national level. The Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines (FAO 2006), Forest Fires and the Law (Morgera and Cirelli 2009) and the Handbook for Trainers, published by Heikkilä et al. (2007) offer good general overviews of the important components of functional and achievable internal wildland fire management.

Regionally specific guidelines exist for much of the world, including Tropical Forests, Peatlands and Peatland Forests, Temperate and Boreal Forests and Sub-sahara Africa created by ITTO (1997), Adinugroho et al. (2011), FAO (2002) and Goldammer & de Ronde (2004), respectively.

All these guidelines offer more or less detailed advice on how successful fire management programmes can be developed with the specific goal of tailoring the message to the locally prevalent ecological, economic, social and political circumstances of each region.

EuroFire Competency Standards

One aspect of successful wildland fire management touched upon by all wildland fire management guidelines is that appropriate standards of operation should exist in order to effectively and safely work with fire in the environment. One response to this has been the development of the EuroFire Competency Standards developed under the banner of the EU Leonardo da Vinci Programme. Based on a detailed review of international best practice in actual fire suppression, these standards were developed within the European Qualifications Framework in order to adhere to a widely-accepted model for training and assessing skills for work in potentially dangerous environments (GFMC 2013).

Originally produced in French, German and English, the format of the training and assessment materials was designed to facilitate translation and has, as such, already been translated into Russian, Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijani, with new versions currently in progress for use in Greece, FYR of Macedonia and Ukraine.17

International Fire Aviation Working Group

The fact that the great majority of operational international wildfire cooperation takes place through the sharing of aerial assets has led the international wildland firefighting community to pursue greater harmony in this potentially hazardous work. The International Fire Aviation Working Group (IFAWG) was formed in 2008 and has since been working on developing a set of common rules specific to fire aviation operations to build on the already highly regulated world of civil aviation. Their work will be presented to the UNECE at the Fire Management Forum in November 2013 (Goldammer 2013).

7. United Nations Cooperation and Initiatives

None of the global, legally-binding United Nations conventions specifically refer to vegetation fires as a phenomenon in need of addressing. However, within the UN system a wide range of agencies have an interest in vegetation fire management as part of an overall strategy of achieving their particular goals. These range from the Rio Conventions and their interests in biodiversity and climate change to the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) in planning for a more resilient future and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in empowering and protecting communities from natural disasters and environmental emergencies. It is beyond the scope of paper to recall in detail the development of all interested parties or even to completely cover all actions supported by UN agencies. Rather, an overview is provided of the most relevant global UN agencies currently dealing with wildland fire.

17 http://www.euro-fire.eu/ 57

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)

At a strategic level, the UNISDR provides leadership to the UN agencies on matters relating to natural and technological disaster risk reduction. In recent years the emphasis from this central perspective has trended toward building ‘resilience’, having moved on from the concept of ‘preparedness’. The central strategy dictating the current direction of the United Nations is the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), which was the major outcome of the first World Conference for Disaster Risk Reduction in 2005. Wildland fire is represented directly at the UNISDR level by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), which in its function of coordinator of the Global Wildland Fire Network serves as one of 13 Thematic Platforms and advises the UN on such matters (UNISDR 2013).

In order to receive input from all parts of the globe both within and outside of the UN system, the UNISDR is advised by the Wildland Fire Advisory Group (WFAG). This group, whose secretariat is also housed by the GFMC, represents the regions of the Global Wildland Fire Network and international organizations, including UN agencies and programmes, and works toward the harmonisation of wildland fire management principles across the world through the sharing of information, human & technical capacity and resources. Members are organised into 14 networks around the globe and hail from all sectors related in some way to vegetation fire management in order to have the most effective transfer of information to the realm of policy and management (Goldammer 2013, GFMC 2012).

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Again acting more at the strategic level, the FAO has conducted a high number of projects and case studies relating to forests and fire around the globe. The combined results of these activities have given the FAO a good overview of vegetation fire practices and vulnerabilities at the global scale. This has been put in use in the publication of thematic reviews such as Legal Frameworks for Forest Fire Management (FAO 2004) and practical guidelines such as the Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines and its oversight body – the Fire Management Actions Alliance (FAO 2006). FAO also partnered with the GFMC in developing Global Forest Fire Assessments and, jointly until 2005 with the Global Observation of Forest Cover / Global Observation of Landcover Dynamics (GOFC/GOLD) Fire Mapping and Monitoring Team, in devising the idea of a “Framework for the Development of the International Wildland Fire Accord” (GFMC 2013).

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA)

Within the United Nations’ system, UN OCHA coordinates the practical UN response to emergency situations affecting the health and security of vulnerable populations, including natural disasters and environmental emergencies. Acting through the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination Team (UNDAC) and the OCHA / UN Environment Programme Joint Environment Unit (JEU), OCHA serves member states by coordinating response efforts to environmental emergencies and natural disasters, as well as conflict-related and humanitarian emergencies. This response takes the form of expert individuals and teams with proven competencies that can be quickly deployed to the site of an unfolding catastrophe with the coordination of a central office. Development of the capacity of crews responding to internal or external emergencies can be arranged through OCHA to take advantage of the competency standards that have been developed (OCHA 2013). Currently vegetation fire is addressed by the OCHA system through interface procedures with the GFMC.18

References

Adinugroho W, Suryadiputra I, Saharjo B & Siboro L (2011) Manual for the Control of Fire in Peatlands and Peatland Forests Wetlands International – Indonesia Programme and Wildlife Habitat Canada, Bogor

18 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/emergency/un_gfmc.htm 58

Anonymous (2003) International Arrangements on the Sharing of Wildland Fire Suppression Resources between the United States of America and Australia and New Zealand. In. Forest Fire News No. 29: 59-61

Anonymous (2003a) Wildfire Arrangement Between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture of the United States of America and the Australian Participating Agencies In. Forest Fire News No. 29: 62-65

Anonymous (2003b) Annual Operating Plan for the Wildfire Arrangement Between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture of the United States of America and the Australian Participating Agencies In. Forest Fire News No. 29: 66-71

APEC (2013) Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation: Emergency Preparedness Accessed from http://www.apec.org/Groups/SOM-Steering-Committee-on-Economic-and-Technical- Cooperation/Working-Groups/Emergency-Preparedness.aspx 18/10/2013

Arctic Council (2013) Task Force for Action on Black Carbon and Methane with links to reports, Accessed from http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/resources/news-and-press/news- archive/782-the-task-force-for-action-on-black-carbon-and-methane 21/10/2013

Council of Europe (2011) Draft recommendation 2011 – 2 on preventing and fighting wildland fires in a context of climate change European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA): Accessed from www.coe.int/europarisks 10/06/2013

ECHO (2012) The European Civil Protection Training Programme European Civil Protection Mechanism, Accessed from http://ec.europa.eu/echo/index_en.htm 18/05/2013

ECHO (2013) European Community Humanitarian Office Accessed from http://ec.europa.eu/echo/index_en.htm 18/10/2013

ECHO (2013a) Activations Overview 2007-2011 European Civil Protection Mechanism, Accessed from http://ec.europa.eu/echo/index_en.htm 18/10/2013

ECHO (2013b) Fighting forest fires in Europe – how it works European Civil Protection Mechanism, Accessed from http://ec.europa.eu/echo/index_en.htm 18/10/2013

ECHO (2013c) 4th Annual Civil Protection Forum Report 4th Annual Civil Protection Forum, Brussels, 15-16 May 2013, Accessed from http://ec.europa.eu/echo/partners/civil_protection/forum2013_en.htm 18/10/2013

ECHO (2013d) EU Exchange of Experts Reports Accessed from http://www.exchangeofexperts.eu/Field-reports 18/10/2013

ENVSEC (2013) ENVSEC in the South Caucasus, an overview of projects Accessed from http://www.osce.org/eea/89301 10/10/2013

FAO (2002) Guidelines on Fire Management in Temperate and Boreal Forests Forest Protection Working Papers, Working Paper FP/1/E. Forest Resources Development Service, Forest Resources Division. FAO, Rome (unpublished).

FAO (2004) Legal Frameworks for Forest Fire Management: International Agreements and National Legislation. Follow-up Report to FAO/ITTO International Expert Meeting on Forest Fire Management, March 2001. Forest Protection Working Papers, Working Paper FFM/3/E. Forest Resources Development Service, Forest Resources Division. FAO, Rome (unpublished).

FAO (2006) Fire management: voluntary guidelines. Principles and strategic actions Fire Management Working Paper 17, FAO, Rome, Accessed from www.fao.org/forestry/site/35853/en 20/09/2013

Frey T & Velez-Muñoz R (2003) Strategic Paper: International Wildland Fire Agreements’ Template Int. Forest Fire News No. 29, 10-14

Goldammer JG & de Ronde C (2004) Wildland Fire Management Handbook for Sub-Sahara Africa Global Fire Monitoring Center, 432 pages, ISBN 1-919833-65-X

Goldammer JG (2006) Fire Management. Review of International Cooperation. FAO Fire Management Working Paper FM18, 45 p.

Goldammer JG (2010) Fires in Eurasia 2010 and globally: Underlying socio-economic causes and implications on public policies and politics UNFCCC COP-16 US Center Side Event, Cancun, Mexico, 2 December 2010

Goldammer JG (2013) International Protocols and Agreements on Cooperation in Wildland Fire Management and Wildfire Disaster Response: Needs, Current Status and the way ahead Chapter 23 in: Vegetation Fires and Global Change. Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations (JG Goldammer, ed.), 313-341. A publication of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). Kessel Publishing House, Remagen- Oberwinter, 398 p

Goldammer JG (2013a) Beyond Climate Change: Wildland Fires and Human Security in Cultural Landscapes in Transition – Examples from Temperate-Boreal Eurasia Chapter 22 in: Vegetation Fires and Global Change. Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations (JG Goldammer, ed.), 285-311. A publication of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). Kessel Publishing House, Remagen-Oberwinter, 398 p

GFMC (2005) Framework for the Development of the International Wildland Fire Accord. Concept Paper, fist published in 2004, final version 12 April 2005. Accessed from http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/Global-Wildland-Fire-Framework-12-April-2005.pdf 30/10/2013

GFMC (2012) UN Interagency Cooperation and Coordination in Wildland Fire Management, including Key International Organisations A Review by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), Secretariat, UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group, prepared in following up the Informal Consultation on Global Wildland Fire, United Nations, Geneva, 29 June 2012, Global Fire Monitoring Center, Accessed from http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/un/GFMC-UN-Interagency-Wildland-Fire-Cooperation-Nov- 2012.pdf 30/10/2013

GFMC (2013) EuroFire Competency Standards Accessed from www.euro-fire.eu 10/10/2013

Heikkilä T, Grönqvist R & Jurvélius M (2007) Wildland Fire Management Handbook for Trainers Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Helsinki

ITTO (1997) Guidelines of Fire Management in Tropical Forests ITTO Policy Development Series No. 6, Accessed from http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/itto/itto.htm 15/10/2013

Nguitragool P (2011) Environmental cooperation in Southeast Asia: ASEAN’s regime for transboundary haze pollution. Routledge, Abingdon and New York, 191 p

Novitskaya R (2013) CIS countries unite in fight against forest fires Belarus Forest Gazette, No. 23, 6/6/2013, Accessed from http://www.lesgazeta.by/archives/articles/5812.html 15/10/2013

OCHA (2013) Environmental Emergencies Accessed from http://www.unocha.org/what-we- do/coordination-tools/environmental-emergencies 13/10/2013

Rodriguez y Silva F (2003) Fire Cooperative Arrangements in the Mediterranean – Successes and Shortcomings Paper submitted to the International Wildland Fire Summit, Sydney 2003 Accessed from http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/summit-2003/3-IWFC/Papers/3-IWFC-123-Rodriguez-y- Silva.pdf 15/10/2013

SADC (2010) SADC Regional Fire Management Programme Document, Draft Proposal 2010 Accessed from http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/Africa/SADC%20Regional%20Fire%20Management%20Programme%20 Document-Final-6.pdf 20/08/2013

UNECE (2013) Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone, amendments and full text Accessed from http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/multi_h1.html 21/10/2013

UNISDR (2013) Thematic Platforms Accessed from http://www.unisdr.org/partners/thematic-platforms 12/10/2013

Vélez R (2009) Silva Mediterranea Working Group on “Forest Fires in the Mediterranean” Work Plan 2009-2012 FAO, Rome, Accessed from http://www.fao.org/forestry/19303-08bd4935e205c7a298b5a76b0ccaa5073.pdf 15/10/2013 61

Appendix 1

International Wildland Fire Management Cooperation Agreements Standard Entries Used to Identify Common Elements in International Agreements

Source: International Wildland Fire Summit Paper #219

Outline for International Cooperative Agreements

1. Parties to the Agreement Includes governmental and non-governmental agencies and organizations at a variety of levels.

2. Purpose Defines areas and forms of cooperation. Define the scope of the cooperation.

3. Definition of Terms Defines terms used in the agreement to insure there is no confusion or misinterpretation as to the meaning of the content of the agreement.

5. Expenses and Costs Personnel – Defines how personnel costs will be set such as per person, per crew, per day or per assignment. Equipment – Defines how equipment cost use will be set such as per day or per assignment. Reimbursement of costs – Sets the procedures, amount, and criteria for reimbursement. Some agreements call for reimbursement only after a certain threshold of time or level of support has been reached. Non-reimbursable – Under certain agreements all parties may agree to assist each other on a mutual aid, non-reimbursable basis.

6. Information and Coordination Communication channels – Defines the protocols and methods to coordinate and exchange information. Information exchange – Defines the types, amount and timing of information exchange. Notifications – Sets the notification procedures for emergencies or for other significant events. Coordination of work – Defines how and under what organizational structure the coordination of work will take place.

7. Liabilities, Claims and Compensations Cross-wavier of claims/exemption from liability – Lists and defines how and when the cross-waivers and exemptions are in force for personnel that are being exchanged. Exemptions to cross-wavier of claims – Lists and defines those areas or circumstances where the exemptions do not pertain to personnel that are being exchanged. Damage to a third party – Outlines remediation methods and limitations for third party damage. Medical assistance for injured personnel – Defines the protocols and procedures for assisting and possibly evacuating injured personnel. Compensation in case of injury or death – Defines the timing, levels and limitations of compensation for injury or death. This may also be addressed above in the cross waivers and exemptions. Privileges and immunities for the assisting personnel – Describes and defines the levels and limitations of privileges and immunities that the receiving country will provide to assisting country personnel.

19 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_29/IWFS-2-Paper-2.pdf For more details on the International Wildland Fire Summit see: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/summit-2003/introduction.htm and Goldammer (2013) 62

8. Operating Plans / Operational Guidelines Provision for operating plans/operational guidelines – Operating plans/operational guidelines are a critical component of all cooperative agreements. They should be carefully crafted and reviewed by all parties to the agreement. The plans and guidelines outline and define specific operational areas to insure that the agreement can implemented in a timely and efficient manner. They include items such as points of contact, procedures for requesting resources, entry procedures, annual updates of costs, reimbursements, and cross waivers, and updated standards, qualifications or training requirements Also identifies how often and by whom the plans and guidelines will be reviewed, updated and the method for revalidating the contents of the plans and guidelines.

9. Border Crossings Sets protocols and procedures for simplifying of border crossing including the following: o Opening of alternative border-crossing points to facilitate the assistance o Customs provisions: - Concerning personnel - Concerning equipment and materials - Concerning officer responsible for equipment - Concerning aircraft Portions of this information will also be included in the operational plans and guidelines.

10. General Provisions Entry of force of the agreement - Defines when agreement is activated. Duration – Specifies how long the agreement will remain in force Withdrawal – Defines how countries or organizations can withdraw from the agreement. Termination – Defines under what circumstances the agreement will terminate. Interpretation – Provides understandings and interpretations for countries and organizations concerning under what circumstances and limitations each party is entering into the agreement. Settlement of disputes – Defines the method of dispute resolution. Amendments – Defines when and how amendments to the agreement may be submitted, reviewed, and acted upon.

11. Other Provisions Provides the opportunity for any country, agency or organization signing this agreement to define other areas of cooperation that they want to include in the agreement such as: Shared training activities, including materials Study tours, technical exchanges, and joint exercises Relationship of this agreement to other agreements Standards for personnel Safety equipment Limitations on the type and use of telecommunications equipment Method of recall of firefighting resources

12. Participating Countries/Agencies/Organizations Signature Page It is important that all potential participants review and confirm their authorities to sign such an agreement.

Global Fire Monitoring UNECE / FAO Team of Specialists Center (GFMC) on Forest Fire

UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management Geneva, 28-29 November 2013

Report 2 – Submitted by the International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response (IWG-CWPR)

Proposal Building Resilience of Nations and Communities within the UNECE Region to Wildfire Emergencies and Disasters

Executive Summary

In the light of apparent and anticipated future changes of wildland fire regimes and wildfire risk in the UNECE region and at the global level, and the observed increase in vulnerability of ecosystems and society to wildfires, appropriate fire and land management solutions are required to reduce the risk and impacts of wildfire. Allied to this, there is a need to ensure that appropriate preparedness and response capacity exists within all 56 UNECE Member States and globally. The transboundary environmental consequences of wildland fires can be severe, e.g. the cross-border movement of wildfire smoke pollutants, and the impacts of vegetation fire emissions on the composition and functioning of the global atmosphere are a major issue, as is when wildfires cross borders from one States territory to another. The negative transboundary consequences of wildfire highlight the need for governments to establish a greater focus on territorial cooperation and inter-State cohesion to minimize the impact of wildfire on the UNECE region and beyond. Improved territorial cooperation between national agencies, international organizations, non-government organizations and civil society would bring operational and strategic benefit helping solve anticipated and avoidable social, economic and environmental crisis.

Globally a number of bilateral and multilateral legal agreements as well as voluntary multilateral cooperative efforts reveal a rich experience of cross-boundary cooperation in fire management. Within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire was established in the early 1980s to foster cooperation in fire management between the Member States. Since the early 1990s, the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) became responsible for the leadership of the Team and gradually expanded the scope of work to the global level. With the creation of the Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN) in the early 2000s, a systematic approach towards international cooperation in fire management was initiated and became functional through voluntary cooperation within the Global Wildland Fire Network with its 14 Regional Wildland Fire Networks. A decade ago an informal International Wildland Fire Summit developed a number of recommendations aimed at streamlining cooperation in fire management at the global level. Yet, these recommendations have remained largely overlooked by national and international political and policy- making bodies.

A decade of experience in defining cooperative solutions in fire management between countries globally has identified that while there have been advances in fire management in some countries, there are still barriers preventing the sharing of scientific and technical knowledge and good practice between wildfire agencies in different States. These barriers have resulted in some wildfire agencies being unintentionally excluded from the technical information and advancements that they could utilize to develop greater national resilience and preparedness for large wildfire incidents. It is often the lack 64

of resilience of a State to manage its own wildfire situation that results in the need for unplanned international emergency assistance.

There is a political belief that the extent and the severity of the consequences of wildfire emergencies can be mitigated by providing improvised international firefighting assistance to the affected country. Indeed, such interventions are generally perceived positively as such missions provide humanitarian assistance and political support. However, experience reveals that international interventions, which are limited to wildfire emergency response, provide little benefit to the countries involved and do not address the underlying causes of the problem, often resulting in a dependence on future international assistance.

Given that some countries already possess advanced wildfire knowledge, and have the technologies and expertise to manage wildfire risk effectively, the priority of future international exchange should be to establish a mechanism that encourages this understanding to be shared between territories, enabling all countries to develop effective wildfire reduction strategies and providing the structure for more effective collaborative efforts during wildfire disaster situations.

In order to allow a coordinated, systematic approach for international cooperation in fire management, the GFMC and the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group, which represents the interests and the members of the Global Wildland Fire Network, including the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire, have been preparing the convention of a “UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross- boundary Fire Management”. This preparatory work began in 2010.

The aim of the Forum is to elaborate recommendations to the UNECE member states to develop an agreement on international cooperation aimed at enhancing fire management capability within the region. In addition, the Forum is seeking participation from other regions of the world in order to initiate a more coordinated approach to cooperative fire management at the international level.

The Forum will be co-sponsored by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), the Council of Europe (CoE) through its Euro-Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and will be held at the United Nations, Geneva, 28-29 November 2013.

In preparation for the Forum, the “International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response” (IWG-CWPR) was formed and tasked with investigating and identifying opportunities for multilateral communication and cooperation within the UNECE Region to improve the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of wildfire emergency preparedness and response activities. The Working Group operated in cooperation and complementarity with the International Fire Aviation Group (IFAWG). The collaborative approach of these two groups of experts has resulted in the development of a proposal which will better suit the international community’s needs for wildfire preparation and disaster response.

The IWG-CWPR analyzed examples of good practice from within the UNECE Region and identified skills, knowledge and expertise that all wildfire agencies should possess and utilize. It was identified that wildfire management agencies must have the ability to:

- Assess and manage wildfire risk using appropriate safety systems. - Gather intelligence from all available sources, utilizing existing state-of-the-art information technology and data, e.g. fire early warning/danger rating, satellite derived and other real- to near-real time information sources to support decisions; - Predict likely fire behaviour and potential fire spread across the landscape, as influenced by the weather, topography and fuel types; - Implement appropriate incident management systems for wildfires, including an appropriate incident command system; - Identify and allocate the resources required and understand the capabilities and limitations of available resources, including ground and aerial resources; - Develop and implement appropriate wildfire suppression plans which utilize safe and effective tactics;

The IWG-CWPR identified that wildfire management agencies in some countries exhibit the skills mentioned above which has enabled them to more successfully manage wildfire incidents and 65

emergencies and maintain greater resilience. Consequently, they are more capable than other countries at reducing the potential impact of wildfires.

The IWG-CWPR have concluded that to meet current and future global wildfire challenges, it is absolutely necessary to establish an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM), for the UNECE Region, with the future potential to expand to other regions globally, that will assist nations to improve their capacity and resilience to wildfire. The mechanism will provide a platform/framework from which to cascade improved knowledge, good practice, experience and training throughout the global wildfire community for the benefit of all. The IWSM would initially consist of a number of wildfire institutions and wildfire specialists who already have significant experience in:

- Development of effective domestic wildfire risk management and response capability; - Effective and efficient response to major domestic wildfire emergencies and disasters.

The creation of the IWSM will be a catalyst for stimulating the sharing of knowledge and experience across the region, establishing a mechanism to enable all wildfire agencies to benefit from the membership of a wildfire community dedicated to increasing international collaboration and cooperation. A significant strength of this proposal is that existing personnel could be trained to a required standard and could become part of the IWSM.

The IWG-CWPR proposes that the primary aim of the IWSM should be the reduction of wildfire disaster situations within the UNECE Region. In order to achieve this, it is proposed that three strategic objectives should be set. The successful achievement of each of these strategic objectives requires the completion of a number of priority actions. The three proposed strategic objectives are:

Background and Rationale

In the light of apparent and anticipated future changes of wildland fire regimes and wildfire risk in the UNECE region and at the global level, and the observed increasing vulnerability of ecosystems and society to wildfires, appropriate fire and land management solutions are needed to reduce wildfire risk and impacts. Allied to this, there is a need to ensure that appropriate preparedness and response capacity exists within all 56 UNECE Member States and globally.

The transboundary consequences of wildland fires can be severe, e.g. the transboundary transportation of wildfire smoke pollutants, the borderless transport and impacts of vegetation fire emissions on the composition and functioning of the global atmosphere, and border-crossing wildfires. The transboundary nature of wildfire impacts highlights the need for governments, national agencies, international organisations, non-government organizations and civil society collaboratively increase their efforts to address these newly arising problems.

Considering the willingness of global society to share expertise and resources in fire management, it is recommended that international cooperation in fire management should be systematically streamlined and strengthened. The development of agreed voluntary principles and procedures on cross-border cooperation will enhance inter-operability, efficiency and effectiveness in fire management between nations and regions. In doing so, it will contribute greatly towards the achievement of UNECE’s major 66

aim of promoting pan-European economic integration, whilst at the same time lowering each nation’s preparatory costs.

Between the 1960s and the early 1980s, initiatives began to seek the exchange expertise and human and technical resources in fire management between nations at regional levels, e.g. within North America and the UNECE region. Large fire episodes in the 1980s, e.g. the escalating use of fire in land-use change in the tropical regions of Asia and the Americas, drew attention to the global impact of forest fires and other vegetation fires. Besides the initiation of International Wildland Fire Conferences in the late 1980s, the following decade saw numerous initiatives by the UN system and other international organizations addressing wildland fire at an international level. In 2001 the Working Group on Wildland Fire was created under the Inter-Agency Task Force for Disaster Reduction of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), followed by the creation of the Global Wildland Fire Network and the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group, an advisory body to the UN system and international organizations. An informal International Wildland Fire Summit held in 2003 recommended strengthening collective action and acceptance of international standards in fire management.

However, besides a noted increase of bilateral agreements and cooperative activities, often but not exclusively developed between nations sharing common borders, the need has been recognized to develop standards as a basis for inter-operability in fire management between nations and regions. These common standards need to promote common language and definitions, common methodologies and common operational procedures in fire management, as well as qualification, competency, and certification of human resources. These required standards should also establish a common approach to the identification of different types of wildfire management resources according to their functionality, capabilities and limitations.

In November 2013 the UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management, co-sponsored by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), will be held at the United Nations, Geneva (28-29 November 2013). The aim of the Forum is to elaborate recommendations to the UNECE member states to develop an agreement on international cooperation to enhance fire management capability in the region. In addition, the Forum is seeking participation from other regions in the world in order to allow the initiation of a coordinated approach in cooperative fire management at the international level.20

In preparation for the Forum, the “International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response” (IWG-CWPR) was formed and tasked with investigating and identifying opportunities for multilateral communication and cooperation within the UNECE Region to improve the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of wildfire emergency preparedness and response activities. The Working Group operated in cooperation and complementarity with the International Fire Aviation Group (IFAWG)21 and, as a consequence, did not address aerial firefighting operations. The collaborative approach of these two groups of experts has resulted in the development of a proposal which will better suit the international community’s needs for wildfire preparation and disaster response.

This proposal complements and builds upon other work completed at an international scale with regards to disaster management. In particular, this proposal aligns with the priority areas identified within the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. If this proposal is adopted, its main expected outcome is a substantial reduction in the loss of life and damage to societies, economies and the environment as a result of wildfire disasters. The proposal recommends a number of sustainable measures that can be implemented to build capacity and resilience of nations within the UNECE Region and globally to wildfires. It also outlines a number of actions that can be implemented to strengthen effective preparedness of the international community to wildfire emergencies and to reduce the number of future wildfire disasters. Essentially, the proposal offers a mechanism in which members of the international community can cooperate to their mutual economic, social and environmental benefit.

20 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/intro/UNECE-Fire-Forum-2013-Draft-Outline.pdf 21 www.ifawg.org 67

1. Introduction

In November 2013 the UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross-Boundary Fire Management at the United Nations, Geneva (28-29 November 2013) will elaborate recommendations to the UNECE Member states for developing agreements on transboundary cooperation in fire management. The Forum will be prepared and led by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and members of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire. In preparation for the Forum, two groups of wildfire specialists were established.

• The International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response (IWG-CWPR) was formed in January 2013 to develop a proposal outlining how to build national resilience to wildfires within the UNECE Region through the development of a culture of preparedness. This group included representatives from the UNECE member states of France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. • The International Fire Aviation Working Group (IFAWG), which emerged from the recommendations of the two international conferences in 2007 and 2008 and which is works under the umbrella of the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group, was tasked with producing final draft voluntary guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) aimed at enhancing safety, efficiency and effectiveness of aerial firefighting operations at national and multinational incidents. This group includes representatives from UNECE member states (Canada, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, U.S.A.) and other regions (Australia, Chile, South Africa, South Korea).

The two groups worked in close cooperation with one another to ensure that overlapping issues were considered and addressed. However, this document only presents the proposals made by the IWG- CWPR. The final draft guidelines developed by the IFAWG are presented separately, but should be considered as complementary to this proposal.

This proposal will be shared with the participants of the Forum, including those from other regions of the world.

1.2 Differentiating between wildfire emergencies and disasters

For the purpose of this proposal and to provide clarity, the IWG-CWPR has defined two key terms:22

Wildfire emergency – A wildfire incident that requires action(s) to be taken to prevent or minimize loss of life, damage to property or damage to the environment.23 The responsible agency(agencies) remains in control of the emergency, but in certain circumstances this control may only be maintained through the timely request of external or international assistance.

Wildfire disaster – A wildfire emergency that exceeds the ability of the responsible agency to remain in control of the situation and which has the potential to/will result in substantial human, material, economic and/or environmental losses.

2. Rationale for enhancing cooperative efforts for Fire Management in the UNECE Region

2.1 Potential increase in wildfire risk and disasters in the UNECE Region

The White Paper “Vegetation Fires and Global Change” (GFMC, 2013) states that globally fire regimes are altering in parallel with and under the influence of socio-economic developments, land-use change and climate change. This trend is increasing the vulnerability of society to the direct and secondary effects of wildfires. These, as well as the transboundary consequences of wildfires, are prompting countries and international organizations to define their common interests to enhance sustainable and

22 It is not the intention of the IWG-CWPR to replace existing terminology. These two terms are simply included here for the sole purpose of providing an appropriate context for the arguments contained within this document. 23 Based on the definition of a “wildfire incident” included in the European Glossary for Wildfires and Forest Fires (EUFOFINET, 2012) 68

integrated fire management capacities. In particular, it is in the common interest for nations to become more efficient in the sharing of resources, scientific and technical expertise, and finding solutions to problems. The transition from informal information exchange and networking to a more systematic and collaborative approach is more necessary than ever.

If predicted changes to fire regimes across the UNECE Region occur, the number and severity of wildfire incidents will increase, which could potentially lead to an increase in wildfire emergencies and wildfire disasters. This situation may be compounded by the current economic trends which have resulted in budget reductions for wildfire agencies in many countries. This means that many agencies are facing a future where they will be required to attend a greater number of larger and more complex wildfire incidents yet operate with fewer resources. This will increase the need for wildfire management agencies to become more effective and knowledgeable.

The IWG-CWPR have concluded that to meet current and future global wildfire challenges, it is absolutely necessary to establish an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) that will assist nations to improve their capacity and resilience to wildfire. The mechanism will provide a platform/framework from which to cascade improved knowledge, good practice, experience and training throughout the global wildfire community for the benefit of all.

There are also compelling economic arguments for the formation of the IWSM. For example, the mechanism could assist UNECE countries to build a culture of shared preparedness and the establishment of a more informed collaborative international approach based on the cross-border and interagency exchange of specialist knowledge and understanding. This cooperative and supportive approach would enable greater efficiency and cost reduction, irrespective of the scale of a nation’s wildfire problems. It will also enable countries to build their own national capacity and resilience to wildfires, therefore enhancing efficiency at both the national and regional scales.

2.2 Different approaches to Wildfire Preparedness across the UNECE Region

Many nations within the UNECE Region have developed their own approach to addressing the risk of wildfire and, as a result, the lack of commonality in approaches severely reduces interoperability between wildfire agencies. The preparatory actions taken by a State are generally, but not universally, determined by the level of the perceived risk that wildfires pose to its community, economy and environment. The IWG-CWPR identified four key different types of approach to wildfire preparedness across the UNECE Region. These four different approaches are now summarized in the following sub- sections.

2.2.1 Countries dependent upon a traditional approach to wildfire risk reduction

Designated national wildfire agencies have often developed a localized response, normally in isolation from other international wildfire agencies and without due consideration to good practices that have been developed elsewhere. Current understanding and suppression methods are often based on historic experience and traditional fire fighting techniques, and the policies that are implemented often do not take into account broader national or international good practice. Those agencies that possess only a limited understanding of wildfire, and which are restricted by tradition, can often be quickly overwhelmed by fires that display unfamiliar behaviour which is beyond their understanding and consequently their capacity of control. This localized and ‘traditional` approach to wildfire risk management is a key reason why many countries within the UNECE Region have a low resilience to wildfires and are subject to wildfire emergencies and disasters.

2.2.2 Countries that have assigned responsibility for wildfire risk reduction to Fire and Rescue Services

In many countries Fire and Rescue Services (FRSs) have been given the mandatory responsibility to extinguish all fires, including wildfires, and these agencies are often focused on urban fire fighting and tend to rely heavily on their traditional and extensive structural fire fighting skills and experience when dealing with wildfire. With a wide portfolio of other emergency responsibilities, many have not developed a specific understanding of the wildfire environment and/or effective fire fighting techniques, and some do not even provide specific wildfire training to personnel. FRSs are also constrained by the fact that many have only a tentative connection with land managers/agencies and seem to exert little influence on land management policies on risk management and reduction. The occasional nature of wildfires in some areas further exacerbates those challenges already noted and it is, to some extent, 69

understandable that many Fire Services will concentrate on preparing for those risks they most frequently face. The outcome, however, is that many are poorly prepared and equipped for large and persistent wildfires when they do occur.

2.2.3 Countries that have developed a holistic approach to wildfire risk reduction

In other countries, particularly those that suffer from frequent and significant wildfires, statutory responsibility for wildfire suppression has been given to agencies that have specifically been formed and tasked with managing and reducing national wildfire risk. With a clear mandate, many of these agencies have successfully developed an excellent understanding of wildfire science allowing the subsequent development of systems that are specific to wildfire suppression and control. These agencies are generally well organized, well prepared, and efficient and have a highly trained and specialized workforce. They rarely require international assistance and when this is required, it is normally pre-planned and arranged through ‘mutual aid’ bilateral or multilateral agreements. These agencies are sometimes well-positioned to exert a strong influence on other land management and government agencies and are able to initiate effective risk reduction and fire prevention programmes. In summary, these agencies have developed a holistic and more comprehensive approach to addressing the risks posed by wildfires.

2.2.4 Wildfire agencies that fail to recognize their own limitations

Another common cause of wildfire incidents that escalate to emergency and disaster situations is that some wildfire agencies fail to recognize their own limitations. This results in the potential for the suppression agency to underestimate the scale of the incident and/or to make ineffective and inappropriate judgments in relation to the management of the incident, causing the agency to lose control and/or become overwhelmed by the situation(s). This situation is likely to occur when an agency is faced by unusual fire behaviour that is beyond its experience/understanding and which cannot be brought under control using its normal firefighting methods. When an agency fails to recognize its own limitations it will typically respond by committing increasing amounts of resources to a situation that is beyond its capacity to control. Consequently, resources may be sent into dangerous positions and/or may be utilized ineffectively. Agencies that maintain an awareness of their own limitations have a better understanding of fire behaviour and will only commit resources at times and places where the fire is within their threshold of control and they can safely succeed in their task(s).

2.3 Current barriers and difficulties regarding international assistance for wildfire incidents

Because of the complex nature of wildfire incidents, the IWG-CWPR concluded that the international mobilization of wildfire suppression personnel and equipment is fraught with practical difficulties. In summary, the key difficulties that currently exist within the UNECE Region include:

1. The existence of different fuel types, fire regimes and fire magnitudes in different countries; 2. Different institutional fire management capabilities of UNECE Member States due to different levels of multi-generation accumulated expertise; 3. The use of different and sometimes incompatible incident management systems; 4. Different strategic approaches in fire management and applied tactics and operational systems in wildfire response 5. Training systems that do not provide sufficient knowledge and understanding of the complexities involved in managing wildfire and the incompatibility of some existing training programmes; 6. Lack of interoperability of equipment; 7. Lack of pre-planning and preparedness for emergency situations which may escalate to a level requiring international assistance; 8. Difficulties in the identification and supply of the resources actually required; 9. Absence of a common language and terminology for wildfire across the whole region; 10. The time taken to effectively mobilize and deploy resources over large distances.

The lack of urgency shown in consideration of whether international assistance will be required can greatly affect the efficacy of subsequent responses. Wildfires are dynamic, grow quickly and are different from many other disasters requiring international intervention in the sense that the situation can change very rapidly. Only wildfire management agencies that are able to understand their own limitations and the potential of a fire(s) will be able to request international assistance in a timely 70

manner. This necessitates a collaborative approach to risk assessment and management. In order to achieve this, all countries need to identify, assess and continually monitor risk to ensure international assistance is requested at an early stage of any wildfire emergency to help prevent a worsening situation. Apart of traditional fire risk indices, such as fire-danger rating forecasts or fire-weather based early warning systems, the different causative agents of wildfires, particularly human-caused wildfires, as well as advanced systems allowing to predict expected wildfire behaviour and size, and the thresholds of control (that are dependent on national fire management capabilities), need to be considered.

The timing of requests for international assistance is crucial to enable an appropriate and timely response. Timely requests and responses enable the international deployment of resources that reinforce on-going operations to support the host nation.

There is also considerable scope and potential for the provision of international assistance during the investigative and post-fire recovery phases of a wildfire. This type of assistance is not currently facilitated by an existing international mechanism and could provide significant opportunities to overcome current issues and prevent the reoccurrence of similar events.

Another key factor limiting international assistance and cooperation is that there are currently few internationally recognized standards for wildfire management. Likewise, there is currently no single common language for wildfire management within the UNECE Region. Indeed, even within some UNECE countries there appears to be an absence of national standards and accepted terminology. Although there have been attempts to develop common standards through previous international collaboration projects in the Eurasian part of the UNECE Region (for instance, EuroFire, Fire Paradox, EUFOFINET, FIRE 4/5), there is currently no evidence of widespread adoption and implementation. The absence of common standards presents difficulties for establishing effective multi-agency cooperation within individual UNECE member states and barriers to international cooperation and assistance between UNECE countries.

There is currently a willingness from some States within the UNECE region to provide assistance for wildfire incidents, as evidenced by the existence of international mechanisms such as the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and bilateral agreements between some UNECE countries. Many requests for international assistance are unplanned and unexpected, which means that responses tend to be ad- hoc. There is a danger that responses made on an ad-hoc basis may be reactive and tokenistic and/or may not provide the assistance that is really needed. There is also sometimes a lack of assurance that resources provided via international assistance are managed efficiently and used to maximum effect. The current reactive approach also greatly limits the ability of countries to assist each other through preparatory actions that can help to enhance resilience, such as the cross-border mobilization of resources to high risk areas to help prevent the onset of extreme wildfire events.

2.4 Essential skills necessary to improve wildfire management within the UNECE Region

1. Assess and manage wildfire risk using appropriate safety systems. 2. Gather intelligence from all available sources, utilizing existing state-of-the-art information technology and data, e.g. fire early warning/danger rating, satellite derived and other real- to near-real time information sources to support decisions; 3. Predict likely fire behaviour and potential fire spread across the landscape, as influenced by the weather, topography and fuel types; 4. Implement appropriate incident management systems for wildfires, including an appropriate incident command system; 5. Identify and allocate the resources required and understand the capabilities and limitations of available resources, including ground and aerial resources; 6. Develop and implement appropriate wildfire suppression plans which utilise safe and effective tactics.

The IWG-CWPR identified that wildfire management agencies in some countries exhibit the skills mentioned above which has enabled them to more successfully manage wildfire incidents and 71

emergencies and maintain greater resilience. Consequently, they are more capable than other countries at reducing the potential impact of wildfires.

At a strategic level, similar skills, expertise and understanding are required to ensure a coordinated national response that maintains national resilience. The assembled specialists/experts of the IWG- CWPR agreed that in some countries within the UNECE Region the agencies that have responsibility for managing and suppressing wildfires do not have some or all of these skills at the local and/or national level. This skills and capability gap poses a potential threat to local, national and regional resilience. The IWG-CWPR also identified that in some countries wildfire agencies seem to have a limited and basic knowledge of the wildfire phenomena and of the methods and techniques that can be used to control it. This lack of understanding can result in even well-resourced agencies being unable to effectively manage relatively insignificant fire events. In many cases, it is the lack of understanding of the wildfire environment and resulting fire behaviour, not the availability of adequate resources, which results in a fire developing into a disaster situation. There is a further complication that even where specialist knowledge exists within firefighting agencies, these agencies may lack influence to the extent that their knowledge and expertise is not used to inform the development of national policy.

The IWG-CWPR concluded that relevant actors and decision-makers must have an understanding of the environment within which they are expected to operate and must appreciate the limitations of the available resources; if they do not, they may be quickly overwhelmed. Understanding a fire’s potential to grow and spread across the landscape is fundamentally important, and enables the formation of a suppression plan that maximizes the timely deployment and effectiveness of available resources. For this reason the IWG-CWPR believes that the achievement of a substantial reduction in wildfire disasters is possible but that this is inextricably dependent upon suppression agencies further developing their intellectual capacity to manage wildfires. This would be best achieved agencies working collaboratively with other national and international wildfire agencies to agree and adopt best practice. Furthermore, the IWG-CWPR believes that through a collaborative national effort and the issuance of more timely requests for international assistance, the likelihood and impact of wildfire emergencies and disasters can be reduced.

3. Introducing the Concept of an International Wildfire Support Mechanism24

3.1 Overview of the proposed International Wildfire Support Mechanism

While each State within the UNECE Region has primary responsibility for the management of wildfire risk within its territory, an enabling international environment is vitally important for stimulating and contributing to a more coordinated and cohesive regional approach to the prevention, preparedness and finally response to wildfire emergencies. Capacity building in wildfire prevention and response preparedness must have highest priority.

The IWG-CWPR has identified that there is presently no formal arrangement or mechanism in place to facilitate and embed a knowledge exchange and preparedness culture across the entire UNECE Region. The IWG-CWPR therefore proposes the establishment of an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) for the UNECE Region, with the future potential to expand to other regions globally. The IWSM would initially consist of a number of wildfire institutions and wildfire specialists who already have significant experience in:

• Development of effective domestic wildfire risk management and response capability • Effective and efficient response to major domestic wildfire emergencies and disasters

Some of the institutions and specialists will also have developed the expertise and experience to enable them to provide a range of support for wildfire emergencies outside of their own country.

24 Note: While the authors of this report (the International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response – IWG-CWPR) initially had suggested to designate the recommended mechanism as “International Wildfire Support Mechanism” (IWSM), it was concluded in the follow-up of the Forum in 2014 that the proposed Mechanism should focus on and emphasize on enhancing “preparedness”. In 2014 the follow-up reports of the Forum therefore designated the proposed Mechanism as “International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM) – see Reports 7 and 8 in this volume of IFFN. 72

3.2 Guiding principle for the formation of the International Wildfire Support Mechanism

The title of this document presents the key guiding principle behind the formation of the IWSM. This guiding principle is for countries and communities within the UNECE Region and beyond to build resilience to wildfire emergencies and disasters through international cooperation and collaboration. This would primarily be achieved through the development of national capacity.

3.3 Interim host and advisory group for the International Wildfire Support Mechanism

It is proposed that the initial creation of the mechanism must be overseen and driven by an interim host and secretariat. The secretariat will in turn need to be supported by an advisory group. The advisory group should consist of wildfire specialists, experienced practitioners and policy experts. The individuals involved will be dedicated to facilitating and stimulating the exchange of information and dissemination of good practice between countries in the UNECE Region.

The initial success of the mechanism will be dependent upon the provision of adequate funding and the involvement of wildfire management agencies that currently implement, and are willing to share, good practice – particularly those that are prone to wildfire emergencies and those that are most likely to provide international assistance and necessary expertise required to develop more effective international collaboration and assistance. These agencies could cascade their knowledge and understanding to, and share their experience with, other wildfire agencies within the UNECE Region, during the preparation, response and post-fire recovery phases. This process will act as a catalyst for expanding the mechanism within the UNECE Region and for building an international community of wildfire specialists. This community would formulate common standards and procedures for use across the UNECE Region, which will further improve future international cooperation and collaboration. Members of this community will also be able to benefit from lessons learned across the Region which they could use to continually improve their understanding, capabilities and resilience to wildfire.

4. Proposed Aim, Objectives and Priority Actions of the International Wildfire Support Mechanism

4.1 Primary aim of the proposed International Wildfire Support Mechanism

The IWG-CWPR proposes that the primary aim of the IWSM should be:

“The reduction of wildfire disaster situations within the UNECE Region”

It is also proposed that the IWSM can only achieve this aim through the establishment of a network of similarly trained, skilled and experienced wildfire organizations across the UNECE region which will facilitate the dissemination of knowledge and understanding to wildfire agencies. The IWSM would be ideally placed to support the development of a regional programme of wildfire risk reduction and establish a commonality of response within UNECE member states and beyond. This process is needed to strengthen national and international attempts to reduce wildfire emergencies and disasters and will provide a framework for establishing a sustainable approach to reducing the need for emergency international assistance.

The mechanism should also utilize the expertise and experience generated from existing mechanisms, including current bilateral agreements and other forms of cooperation on fire management between nations.

In order to achieve the primary aim of the IWSM, it is proposed that three strategic objectives should be set. The successful achievement of each of these strategic objectives requires the completion of a number of priority actions. The three strategic objectives and their associated priority actions are now presented.

4.2 Strategic Objective 1 – A holistic approach

The first strategic objective is:

“Development and adoption of a holistic approach to fire management and wildfire risk reduction within the UNECE Region and, potentially, globally.”

The proposed priority actions for Strategic Objective 1 are:

1. Assessment of current fire regimes, and potential future changes to fire regimes, across the UNECE Region to better understand wildfire risk. 2. Review the effectiveness of national strategies and real capabilities for wildfire management to identify opportunities for improvement. 3. Encouragement and promotion of the benefits of a multi-agency approach to wildfire risk reduction. 4. Establishment of vulnerability reduction programmes, building capacity through knowledge transfer, to reduce wildfire risk.

4.3 Strategic Objective 2 – Capacity building

The second strategic objective is:

“Development and strengthening of institutions and mechanisms to build national and international capacities and resilience to, and increase knowledge and understanding of, wildfire within the UNECE Region and, potentially, globally.”

The proposed priority actions for Strategic Objective 2 are:

1. Identify and promote best practice in wildfire prevention and fire management at the landscape level. 2. Facilitate information sharing and knowledge exchange. 3. Standardization of international wildfire terminology within the UNECE Region. 4. Promote the adoption of a common organizational system based on the Incident Command System (ICS). 5. Establish a training programme for member states based on common standards of competencies. This may include accreditation, certification and/or training centres. 6. Prepare for, firstly, effective national response and, secondly, international response. 7. Lead the changes which will allow for improved monitoring of risk and better establishment of early warning systems. 8. Provide experts who can assess the various human resource and capacity arrangements within member states.

4.4 Strategic Objective 3 – developing a culture of knowledge and resource exchange

The third strategic objective is:

“To facilitate a nurturing and sustainable culture of knowledge exchange and continual improvement for wildfire practitioners and policymakers within the UNECE Region and, potentially, globally.”

The proposed priority actions for Strategic Objective 3 are:

1. Develop a learning culture and sharing of good practice. 2. Foster and promote collaborative involvement of national wildfire agencies and actors. 74

3. Identify and disseminate good practice. 4. Establish a system within the IWSM for the sharing and dissemination of lessons identified. 5. Establish agreed standards, competencies, procedures and protocols to improve safety, efficiency and effectiveness of wildfire management organizations. 6. Facilitate an international exchange programme to develop experience and expertise. 7. Establish a framework and governance for the IWSM. 8. Guide pre-planning activities for wildfire emergency situations through the facilitation of international collaboration and the development of mutual aid agreements. 9. Develop a robust and timely international response for wildfire emergencies within the UNECE Region.

5. Key Functions of the International Wildfire Support Mechanism

It is proposed that the IWSM should perform an advisory and support role in relation to two key elements of wildfire management:

- Prevention and Preparedness - Response to wildfire incidents

5.1 Prevention and preparedness

The IWSM will need to:

1. Facilitate the exchange of knowledge, understanding and lessons learned. 2. Facilitate networking between wildfire specialists within the UNECE Region. 3. Provide advice to wildfire agencies from UNECE Member States on: 4. Prevention activities 5. Preparedness activities 6. Intervention activities 7. Develop common role descriptions for different wildfire specialists. 8. Develop an inventory of good practice initiatives to support wildfire agencies within the UNECE Region. 9. Evaluate the relative strengths and vulnerabilities of existing wildfire management approaches currently adopted by UNECE Member States and provide advice on potential improvements to adapt and strengthen response to wildfire. 10. Identify actions to assist wildfire-prone and “at risk” countries to develop resilience, capability and capacity. 11. Develop procedures for reviewing national progress towards improvements. 12. Collaboratively develop common standards, a common language and common Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for wildfire agencies within the UNECE Region. 13. Develop common training programmes for wildfire agencies within the UNECE Region. 14. Support regional mechanisms and capacities for early warning systems and provide support to States through more coordinated international assistance for wildfire emergencies. 15. Encourage and promote the participation of wildfire-prone and “at risk” countries in the work of the IWSM. 16. Maintain awareness of new ideas, concepts and approaches within the professional wildfire environment and to use these advances to continually inform the development and improvement of advice provided, common standards, Standard Operating Procedures, training programmes and risk reduction. 17. Encourage and promote the development and improvement of bilateral and multilateral mutual aid agreements within the UNECE Region.

5.2 National response to wildfire incidents

Initial response to wildfire emergencies could be made by IWSM qualified specialists from within the country affected, if available. If the affected country’s specialists require additional support, or are unavailable, IWSM qualified members that have the skills/expertise and past experience to fulfill the requirements of the mission could be mobilized from other countries within the UNECE Region. 75

5.3 International cooperation and collaboration for wildfire incidents

As has been outlined earlier in this proposal, there are presently a number of barriers to the provision of international assistance for wildfire incidents. To provide an example, the length of time it takes to mobilize personnel and equipment for travel over large distances to another country presents logistical difficulties. There are also significant difficulties in mobilising large numbers of wildfire firefighters and their equipment to other countries where they have little or no experience of local fire behaviour patterns that result from local fuel, weather and topographical conditions.

Although it is perfectly feasible for neighbouring countries to agree arrangements for cross border assistance, it becomes increasingly difficult to provide unplanned emergency assistance as distance increases.

The IWG-CWPR proposes that these and other existing barriers to international assistance could be overcome if assistance were sent in the form of a small group or team of well-trained and experienced individuals with specialist knowledge and understanding of the particular fire regime. Small teams of advisors can be rapidly deployed to countries experiencing wildfire emergencies to provide advice and support. For example, these teams could provide objective assessments on prevention and preparatory activities. They could also be requested to provide specific technical advice to Incident Commanders and/or Coordination Centres during on-going wildfire emergencies. The benefits of this type of assistance cannot be overestimated. This proposed approach provides a cost effective, efficient means of providing meaningful and timely advice and assistance through the mobilization of specialists from within the UNECE Region who have the relevant knowledge and experience of different operational environments. This type of innovative response will help the host nation to improve its management of the situation, strengthening its resilience and, importantly, reducing the need for further substantial international assistance.

The IWG-CWPR proposes that the IWSM could provide a more robust national and international response to wildfire incidents. The emphasis of the mechanism will be on the improvement of wildfire preparedness, resilience, and fire fighting capacity within each individual UNECE country. It will also provide a mechanism for UNECE countries to develop collaborative plans, particularly through the development of bilateral and multilateral mutual aid agreements, in order to reduce the need for unplanned emergency international assistance. Once fully developed, the IWSM for the UNECE Region could potentially provide other UN Regions with emergency assistance and/or help and advice in developing similar mechanisms for wildfire management, thus providing the foundation for an enhanced global response to wildfire.

The IWG-CWPR proposes that IWSM wildfire specialists deployed to provide national or international assistance during wildfire emergencies will:

1. Provide support to national wildfire agencies through technical advice on logistical, strategic and tactical issues; 2. Evaluate the effectiveness and resilience of local firefighting plans, and whether they are achievable within the limitations of local or national capacity; 3. Evaluate whether incidents are adequately and appropriately resourced; 4. Evaluate whether national assets are used most effectively; 5. Assess when external assistance is required and, if they exist, instigate the activation of bilateral and multilateral mutual aid agreements at the appropriate time; 6. Ensure that any international assistance received is managed and coordinated effectively, and that the benefit of any international support received is maximized.

In relation to the provision of technical advice, IWSM wildfire specialists will advise Incident Commanders and/or Coordination Centers on:

1. Assessment of risk and identification of appropriate risk management approaches, including safe systems of work and the implementation of appropriate safety protocols. 2. Identification of the potential impact of a wildfire(s) on society and the environment. 3. Development of appropriate Fire Suppression Plans. 4. Appropriate, efficient and effective resourcing of incidents and the subsequent management of resources. 76

5. Application of efficient and effective tactics, including the coordination of ground and aerial resources. 6. Provide advice to a host country on when and what international assistance might be required and encourage specific and timely requests for international assistance. 7. Production of post-mission reports and communication of lessons learned to the host country, the mechanism and to existing national and international disaster management agencies.

When mobilized, IWSM wildfire specialists will have the knowledge, skills, training and expertise necessary to provide advice for the particular mission.

5.4 International assistance involving the deployment of equipment and large teams of personnel

It is the opinion of the IWG-CWPR that international assistance through the deployment of equipment and large teams of personnel is most effective when arranged via bilateral or multilateral agreements. Existing bilateral agreements with regards to wildfire have been highly successful, for instance the agreements between the USA and Canada, between Spain and Portugal, and between Spain and France. The common factors contributing to the success of these existing bilateral agreements include:

• The use of compatible incident management systems25 and procedures by the two countries involved. • Interoperability of equipment used (particularly communication equipment) and the standardization of how resources are typed or categorized. • Preplanning of arrangements so that countries are prepared for making and receiving requests for assistance. • Reduction in deployment times due to the shorter distances involved.

Bilateral and multilateral agreements can be important disaster prevention tools as they provide countries with a means to plan for emergency situations and to obtain international assistance before disaster situations occur. It is therefore recommended that the mechanism, where applicable and appropriate, should promote the development of bilateral and multilateral agreements for assistance between countries to facilitate the exchange of equipment and/or personnel.

During previous wildfire emergencies involving pre-planned bilateral and multilateral deployments, language barriers, which often present difficulties for cross-border assistance, have been overcome through the use or adoption of commonly understood command and communication systems, such as the Incident Command System (ICS). It is therefore proposed that the IWSM will promote the adoption of ICS across the UNECE Region.

6. Developing a sustainable model for the International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM)

It is the proposal of the IWG-CWPR that the mechanism should be created according to a sustainable model. This means that the group should not be onerous to administer or expensive to maintain, but it will require some financial support from a central agency. However, the IWG-CWPR believes that the relatively small financial investment which is needed to create and maintain the IWSM would bring substantial efficiencies and cost savings for wildfire management within the UNECE Region. Also, following the provision of initial funding required to build and establish the IWSM, the IWG-CWPR has identified potential opportunities for some activities to be made financially self-sustaining in the longer term.

The sustainable model proposed here will involve the formation of small groups or clusters of national experts within each participating UNECE country with the ultimate goal of developing strong wildfire management agencies in all UNECE Member States. The number of specialists required within each

25 Including, but not limited to, preparedness systems, resource management systems, communication systems and incident command systems. 77

country will depend upon individual countries’ national assessments of risk and capacity. These experts will first and foremost be national assets, adding considerable resilience to their own state’s wildfire management capacity. Furthermore, these national IWSM specialists will be trained to provide advice within their country to develop and enhance wildfire prevention and preparedness activities aimed at reducing risk, cost and vulnerability to wildfire disasters. National IWSM specialists will also be utilised to provide tactical advice and support at local and national wildfire emergencies. As part of the IWSM, national specialists will also be available to be mobilised to provide advice and support to other countries.

IWSM specialists will be part of an international wildfire community, which will provide the opportunity for them to join a network and share knowledge and experience with other members across the UNECE Region through a formalized approach. This international community will provide the means for specialists to proactively provide support, coaching and mentoring to others.

6.2 Communication and terminology

It is proposed that the IWSM will define an internationally acceptable vocabulary and will ensure that this is provided in an appropriate range of languages. The mechanism will also explore the potential for the development of common symbolism to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of communication between parties from different countries. In addition, this vocabulary/terminology and symbolism will be integrated within the common training and standards that the IWSM will adopt and promote.

6.3 Common competencies for wildfire specialists within the UNECE Region

The IWSM will need to identify and define, through agreement, the competencies and qualification procedures that wildfire practitioners will require to enable them to participate within the mechanism. It is proposed that the IWSM will need to evaluate the EuroFire Competency Standards26 and also explore, among other, the potential for emulating the very successful INSARAG certification system.27

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Conclusions of the IWG-CWPR

Following an assessment of current issues and future trends in fire management within the UNECE Region, the IWG-CWPR has identified that there are many different types of regime within the region which places wildfire management agencies under different pressures and which pose different challenges; however, there is a significant variation in the level of understanding and preparedness exhibited by different wildfire management agencies across the region. Some agencies and countries are apparently more or less prepared than others. In many cases, the less prepared nations are those that will require emergency international assistance. The IWG-CWPR concludes that if this situation persists than there will be many states that will require emergency international assistance in the future to help prevent and/or recover from wildfire disasters. The IWG-CWPR also predicts that, as a result of climate change and the current economic conditions, there will be an increase in requests for emergency international assistance in the near future.

The IWG-CWPR is of the view that it is timely to build and enhance capacity and resilience to wildfires within the UNECE Region and these proposals represent an excellent opportunity to do so. The source of many problems within the UNECE region is not quantity of resources but knowledge and understanding of how to most appropriately utilize resources. The IWG-CWPR has identified the existence of high levels of knowledge and understanding within some UNECE countries and this could form the foundation of a culture of preparedness and knowledge and good practice exchange. The knowledge and understanding required to effectively manage wildfire risk and reduce wildfire disasters already exists within the UNECE Region. In order to benefit from this existing knowledge and expertise, there is a need for mechanism which can facilitate and stimulate the exchange of knowledge and good practice.

26 http://www.euro-fire.eu/ 27 http://www.insarag.org/ 78

7.2 Recommendations of the IWG-CWPR

The IWG-CWPR recommends that there is an urgent need to establish a culture of preparedness in wildfire disaster risk reduction throughout the UNECE Region. This will necessitate a proactive approach to planning and preparedness and a need for closer collaboration and cooperation between international partners. It will also necessitate that UNECE countries are encouraged to share knowledge and good practice with one another.

The ultimate goal of developing a culture of preparedness within the UNECE Region is to build capacity and resilience of individual nations to wildfires for the purpose of avoiding wildfire disasters. The achievement of this goal will, in the long-term, lead to the development of strong self-sufficient wildfire management organizations that are capable of cooperating and collaborating through pre- planned and pre-arranged agreements with other organizations during wildfire emergencies. The establishment of a culture of joint cooperation and mutual collaboration within the UNECE wildfire community will represent a significant achievement.

The IWG-CWPR has concluded that capacity and resilience to wildfires within the UNECE Region can be built and enhanced through the achievement of three key strategic objectives which should be assigned to an International Wildfire Support Mechanism. These three strategic objectives are:

1. Development and adoption of a holistic approach to fire management and wildfire risk reduction within the UNECE Region and, potentially, globally. 2. Development and strengthening of institutions and mechanisms to build national and international capacities and resilience to wildfire within the UNECE Region and globally. 3. Facilitation of a nurturing and sustainable culture of knowledge exchange and continual improvement for wildfire practitioners and policymakers within the UNECE Region.

A key benefit of establishing a more collaborative approach that builds capacity and resilience across the region is that it will reduce the need for states to require emergency international assistance. Another significant benefit of this approach is that when assistance is required it will be pre-planned and agreed through bilateral and multilateral agreements, rather than through current unplanned ad- hoc responses.

While this approach is new and highly innovative, there would be significant benefits and synergies to linking and harmonizing the IWSM with existing mechanisms. The IWG-CWPR proposes that the IWSM has not been conceived to replace existing emergency/disaster response mechanisms but to complement them by significantly improving resilience and response to wildfires within the UNECE Region.

The IWG-CWPR has identified that the successful formation of the IWSM will require the completion of the following process:

• Stage 1 – The appointment of a secretariat and the establishment of a reporting line to the UNECE. • Stage 2 – Convention of a meeting of stakeholders to form a steering group/advisory group for the IWSM. The invitations will be broad and inclusive. • Stage 3 – Establishment of a decision-making process for the IWSM. • Stage 4 – Development and approval of a communication strategy which will promote the principles of the IWSM. • Stage 5 – Creation of an evaluation process to monitor progress against the strategic objectives of the IWSM.

The four attached Annexes provide further contextual details about particular aspects of this proposal:

• Annex 1 – Proposed Governance of the IWSM • Annex 2 – Development of National and International Management and Administration Infrastructure • Annex 3 – Development of an integrated National and International Framework for Training IWSM Specialists • Annex 4 – Preparedness Considerations for the IWSM

7.3 Presentation of this proposal to the UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management

This proposal and the recommendations outlined above have been prepared for presentation to UNECE Member States and discussion by participants of the UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management, organized by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and co-sponsored by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), on 28-29 November 2013 in Geneva, Switzerland. The aim of the Forum is to elaborate recommendations to UNECE Member States to develop an agreement on international cooperation to enhance fire management capability in the region.

Bibliography

During the development of this proposal, the IWG-CWPR consulted and took cognizance of the following documents:

European Community Civil Protection Mechanism Activations overview – 01.01.2007-31.12.2011. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/disaster_response/EUCPM_activations_since_01012007.pdf

European Glossary for Wildfires and Forest Fires (2012). Available online at: http://www.northumberland.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=4604 and at: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/literature/glossary.htm

Ferris, E. and Petz, D. (2013) In the Neighborhood: The Growing Role of Regional Organizations in Disaster Risk Management (Brookings Institute, London School of Economics; London). Available online at: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/02/regional-organizations-disaster-risk-ferris

Goldammer, J.G. (2006) Fire Management Review of International Cooperation, FAO Fire Management Working Paper FM18. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/J9406E/J9406E00.htm

Goldammer, J.G. (2013) International Protocols and Agreements on Cooperation in Wildland Fire Management and Wildfire Disaster Response: Needs, Current Status, and the Way Ahead. In Goldammer, J.G. (ed.) Vegetation Fires and Global Change – Challenges for Concerted International Action, A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations (GFMC; Freiburg, Germany). Kessel Publishing House, 400 p., ISBN 978-3-941300-78-1.

INSARAG (2012) International Search and Rescue Group External Classification/ Reclassification Handbook (INSARAG; Geneva). Available online at: https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/IEC-R%20Handbook%202012%20Edition.pdf

INSARAG (2012) International Search and Rescue Group Guidelines and Methodology (UN OCHA; Geneva). Available online at: http://www.insarag.org/en/methodology/guidelines.html

GHK Consulting (2010) Study on Wildfire Resources Sharing Models – Final Report (GHK Consulting; London). Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/prote/perspectives_en.htm

Global Fire Monitoring Center (2010) International Multi-Lingual Fire Management Terminology (GFMC; Freiburg). Available online at: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/literature/glossary.htm

UN OCHA (2006) UNDAC Handbook (UN OCHA; Geneva). Available online at: http://www.unocha.org/what-we-do/coordination-tools/undac/overview

UN General Assembly Resolution 57/150 of 16 December 2002 on “Strengthening the Effectiveness and Coordination of International USAR Assistance”. Available online at: http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/idrl/I238EN.pdf

UNECE/FAO International Forest Fire News (IFFN) No. 29, Special issue on the International Wildland Fire Summit 2003 (for copies of bilateral agreements and Annual Operating Plans for fire management). Available online at: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_29/content29.htm

UNISDR (2005) Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (UNISDR; Geneva). Available online at: http://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf

USDA Forest Service (2003) ‘International Arrangements on the Sharing of Wildland Fire Suppression Resources between the United States of America and Australia and New Zealand’ in International Forest Fire News, No. 29, 59-61. Available online at: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_29/U.S.A.-Australia-NZ-Int-Arrangements.pdf

ANNEXES

Annex 1

Governance of the International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM)

The governance of the IWSM would be established via a three stage process. The first stage would require an agreement on an organization to act as a focal point/umbrella organization for the IWSM. The focal point/umbrella organization would then appoint a Secretariat. During the final initiation stage, the Secretariat would be tasked with creating an Advisory Group to seek agreement on the development of management and administrative protocols for the IWSM. Once these protocols have been established, the Secretariat will support the Advisory Group to implement the IWSM’s activities. The Secretariat would in turn report and be responsible to the focal point/umbrella organization.

In summary, some of the important governance and strategic issues that will need to be addressed will include:

• Identification of a suitable umbrella organization / international focal point - A potential role could be with the UNEP / OCHA Joint Environment Unit

• Appointment of a Secretariat (including an option for an Interim Secretariat) - Who – An initial interim solution could be offered by the project, which is facilitating the preparation, organization and follow-up of the UNECE/FAO Regional Form on Cross-boundary Cooperation in Fire Management (until 31 July 2014) - Role - Responsibilities - Accountable to whom - Financing

• Formation of an IWSM Advisory Group by the Secretariat in collaboration with the umbrella organization / international focal point - Who – recruitment of wildfire agencies and individuals - Role - Size of the group - Responsibilities and accountability

• Promotion of the concept and proposal of the IWSM to countries within the UNECE Region

Annex 2

Development of National and International Management and Administration Infrastructure

The effective governance of the group and management of its activities will be dependent upon the production of appropriate documentation and other written material. This will include both operational guidance and administrative protocols.

The Secretariat, in consultation with the Advisory Group, will define and supervise the development of the following administrative protocols for:

• Management and organizational systems • Finance • Recruitment • Communications – for example, the establishment of a website and associated protocols and the establishment of networking and stakeholder collaboration protocols • Logistics – for example, rosters and rota systems • Records and reports • Host and donor country arrangements

The Advisory Group, which will be facilitated and supported by the Secretariat, will define and supervise the development of the following operational guidance:

• Standard Operational Procedures (SOPs) • Identification/development of an agreed glossary of terminology by the IWSM • Identification of an official language(s) to be used by the IWSM • IWSM Guidance Manual(s) • IWSM Operational Handbook

The following topics should be addressed within the operational guidance:

• Safety protocols • Incident command system (such as ICS) • Aerial and ground tactics • Host and donor country responsibilities • Team member roles and responsibilities • Communication systems and protocols • Reports and record keeping

Annex 3

Development of an integrated National and International Framework for Training IWSM Specialists

In order to form the IWSM and to support countries and organizations in the process of national wildfire capacity building, the Secretariat, supported by the Advisory Group, will develop and assist in the delivery of training of national wildfire specialists within the UNECE Region.

To develop a comprehensive training system, it will be necessary for the Secretariat and Advisory Group (SAG) to consider a number of key issues. Firstly, the SAG will need to identify the knowledge, expertise and experience necessary for national wildfire specialists to perform their role as national assets to provide advice on improvements to national resilience and capacities for preventing, preparing for and responding to wildfires. Secondly, the SAG will need to identify the knowledge, expertise and experience necessary for national wildfire specialists to function effectively as part of the IWSM to share good practice between countries in the UNECE Region. Finally, the SAG will need to identify the knowledge, expertise and experience necessary for national wildfire specialists to operate effectively as a multinational team during international prevention, preparedness and response missions.

Following the SAG’s identification of the knowledge, expertise and experience required to establish a training framework, the SAG would need to achieve the following key objectives:

• Agree and define appropriate standards and competencies. • Agree and define a suite of training modules aimed at wildfire specialists operating at different hierarchical levels. • Establish a suitable validation and certification process. • Facilitate a collaborative exchange programme between UNECE countries to provide specialists with experience of different fire regimes and operational conditions. • Organize a programme of national and multinational wildfire exercises and other training events. • Provide supporting training material and documentation.

Annex 4

Preparedness considerations for the IWSM

The Secretariat, supported by the Advisory Group, will need to prepare the IWSM to be capable of responding to national and international requests.

In preparation for the development of effective national preparedness activities, national wildfire specialists will need to identify and address wildfire risk and, supported by the Secretariat, implement adequate measures to manage that risk so as to improve national resilience. The support provided by the Secretariat might include arranging deployment of other wildfire specialists from within the IWSM to provide additional advice and guidance.

To enable the IWSM to provide international support, the Secretariat will need to ensure appropriate arrangements are in place to coordinate the mobilization and deployment of specialists from within the IWSM who have the specific knowledge and expertise required for the mission. Such deployments can be complex, and it will be necessary for the Secretariat to ensure that specialists within the IWSM have the appropriate skills and training to perform missions that they are deployed to undertake. The Secretariat will also need to establish systems and responsibilities for the overall management of international deployments. In particular, the Secretariat will need to establish its responsibilities and the responsibilities of donor and host countries.

It is suggested that some of the key responsibilities for the Secretariat will be:

• Preparedness - Advocate and promote national and international preparedness and capacity building for wildfire. - Facilitate and coordinate the development of internationally agreed standards and guidance material for wildfire. - Address any logistical issues. - Act as a focal point and coordinator for the IWSM.

• Mobilization of international teams for international missions for prevention, preparedness and incident response - To coordinate an effective and efficient system for the mobilization and deployment of international teams of wildfire specialists.

• Operational missions - To provide support to international teams deployed to emergency and non-emergency situations. - To coordinate requests for additional support from other UN and international agencies, as required.

• Demobilization of international teams - To coordinate an effective and efficient system for the demobilization and post- mission evaluation and reporting of international teams of wildfire specialists.

It is also suggested that the Secretariat will need to ensure that host countries requesting assistance through the IWSM will have responsibility for the following:

• Establishing a national focal point for national wildfire specialists • Establishing a process to request international assistance from the IWSM for non- emergencies, such as for missions involving the development of national preparedness, capacity and resilience for wildfire. • Establishing a process to request international assistance in a timely manner from the IWSM before or during wildfire emergencies. • Providing assistance to enable rapid entry of international teams of specialists into the country • Providing appropriate support and logistics to incoming international teams.

In preparation for international missions, the Secretariat will need to consider the political and cultural sensitivities that may be encountered by deploying international teams across national borders. These issues should be addressed through the training and exchange programmes that will be organized through the training framework and, where possible, specialists with prior experience of working within specific regions/countries should be utilized. Prior to deploying teams on international mission, the Secretariat should also brief IWSM specialists of any specific political and cultural sensitivities that may be encountered within the host country.

Global Fire Monitoring UNECE / FAO Team of Specialists Center (GFMC) on Forest Fire

UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management Geneva, 28-29 November 2013

Report 3 – Submitted by the International Fire Aviation Working Group (IFAWG)

Proposal Adoption of Voluntary Guidelines for Fire Aviation

Executive Summary

This report recommends the adoption of voluntary guidelines for the use of aerial means in wildfire management in the UNECE region, in order to improve the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of fire aviation. Adoption of the guidelines would ideally form part of a wider agreement on international cooperation aimed at enhancing fire management capability within the region. The overall purpose of the proposal is to make a substantial contribution to building resilience that will reduce loss of life and damage resulting from wildfires.

This report is complementary to the report to the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management from the International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response (IWG-CWPR)28 which in turn proposes the implementation of an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) for the UNECE Region. It is intended that fire aviation will be an integral component of the IWSM, and that the adopting the guidelines for use of aerial means that are referred to in this paper will be complementary to, and consistent with, the priority actions for implementing the IWSM strategic objectives.

The purpose of this report is to: a. Provide a briefing to UNECE member states regarding the status of the production of a set of draft voluntary guidelines for the use of aviation resources in fire management. The guidelines are referred to here as the Fire Aviation Guidelines29. The current draft of the Fire Aviation Guidelines has been developed by the International Fire Aviation Working Group – a working group of the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group. b. Recommend the adoption of the draft Fire Aviation Guidelines by UNECE member states. Adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines would implement components of the recommended aims, objectives and priority actions contained in the proposed IWSM. c. Recommend that the UNECE and member states support the continued development of the Fire Aviation Guidelines. d. Recommend that the UNECE promote the adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines globally as an integral part of a globally expanded IWSM or any other agreement arising from the Forum and thereafter, and also promote the guidelines for independent endorsement and application

28 Building Resilience of Nations and Communities within the UNECE Region to Wildfire Emergencies and Disasters. Report of the International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response (Final Draft, October 2013) 29 The guidelines are titled the Fire Aviation Guidelines as the scope is intended to cover all aviation activities in fire management including fire prevention. Refer to 3.2 “Scope”. 85

by individual operators and agencies or within the framework of bilateral and multi-lateral agreements.

The use of aircraft in fire and emergency management has expanded rapidly in recent decades. Aircraft now provide very valuable support to fire management activities around the world. Globally, many countries make very effective use of aircraft in a wide range of roles, however there is evidence to suggest that these specialised, versatile and relatively costly resources could be utilised more effectively and efficiently in many circumstances. There will be increased pressure to ensure that the use of aviation resources is as safe, efficient and effective as possible, particularly as the demand for aerial support grows with the anticipated changes in fire regimes, the increased wildland fire risk across the globe; and the increased expectations of communities regarding effective response.

Sharing of aviation resources between jurisdictions provides the potential to generate considerable economic benefits and to improve effectiveness and efficiency of fire prevention and response. There are current examples around the world of effective protocols for cross-border sharing of fire aviation resources, including between some UNECE member states. In the past there have been many instances of effective international collaboration in fire aviation to support response to wildfire emergencies and wildfire disasters. However it is reasonable to say that there have also been examples of ineffective and inappropriate sharing of aircraft resources. Sharing of aircraft across borders is likely to be an increasing feature of wildland fire management and there are opportunities to significantly enhance resource sharing and improve outcomes by establishing common operating procedures and standards and by embedding robust resource exchange procedures into pre-planned inter-jurisdictional agreements.

The Fire Aviation Guidelines are intended to assist nations across the globe to build resilience to deal with wildfire by improving the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of a principal support capability. The guidelines aim primarily to: 1. Assist in the development and management of appropriate, effective, high quality aviation capabilities through the provision of common guidance to adopting states regarding recommended minimum standards and appropriate best-practices; and 2. Enhance effective sharing of aviation capabilities between states by: a. Developing common standards and common operating practices for fire aviation, thus enhancing interoperability; and b. Providing recommended procedures and supporting information for effective sharing of fire aviation resources.

The Draft Parts I and II of the Guidelines are provided in the Annex to this report.

1. Introduction

In November 2013 the UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross-Boundary Fire Management at the United Nations, Geneva (28-29 November 2013), will consider recommendations to UNECE member states for developing an agreement on international cooperation aimed at enhancing fire management capability within the region.

This paper proposes adoption of a set of voluntary guidelines for the use of aerial means in wildfire prevention and management – the Fire Aviation Guidelines as part of the agreement on international collaboration. The Fire Aviation Guidelines aim to build resilience by improving the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of resident fire aviation capabilities in member states, and to enhance the opportunities for transboundary cooperation through the sharing of aviation resources between states.

This report is complementary to, and should be read in conjunction with, the proposal of the International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response (IWG-CWPR) – “Building Resilience of Nations and Communities within the UNECE Region to Wildfire Emergencies and Disasters”.

Fire aviation is only one of a whole range of tools available to fire managers. Although aerial means can provide extremely valuable and effective support to fire managers in many situations, the decision 86

to use aircraft must be appropriate for the prevailing circumstances, and must carefully consider a wide range of contextual factors. It has been well demonstrated that in order to be effective and efficient in fire management, aerial means cannot be considered in isolation and must be integrated with other fire management activities.

As such, the rationale for proposing the adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines is common with the other proposals of the IWG-CWPR report, and accordingly is not duplicated in this paper. The effect of changing fire regimes, socio-economic developments, land-use changes and climate change as drivers for improvement are comprehensively outlined in IWG-CWPR report and apply equally to fire aviation as to other wildfire activities. As noted by the IWG-CWPR, the apparent and anticipated future changes of wildland fire regimes and wildfire risk at global level, along with the observed increasing vulnerability of ecosystems and society to wildfires, require appropriate fire and land management solutions to reduce wildfire risk and impacts. In turn there is a need to ensure that appropriate preparedness and response capacity exists in all UNECE member states and globally. This extends to aviation resources.

The need for transboundary cooperation and for wildfire management agencies to share information and resources to become more efficient and knowledgeable is also compelling in the case of fire aviation. The IWG-CWPR proposal observes that there is already a willingness of global society to share expertise and resources in fire management, but that there is a need to streamline and thus strengthen international cooperation. More systematic and formalised cooperation is required. Again this very much applies in the case of fire aviation.

2. Background

“Efficient and effective management of aerial wildfire fighting resources is needed if the twin challenges of growing vulnerability to wildfires and heightened pressure on public finances are to be managed successfully” (GHK Consulting 2010).

2.1 Aviation in fire management

Aviation resources have been used regularly to support wildfire management since the early 1920s, however in recent decades there has been rapid growth in the sector. This growth is partly due to improving technology and to an increase in availability, capability and versatility of aviation resources, but is also due to the increasing risk posed by wildfires in many regions. Aircraft have played an increasingly important role, as fire managers struggle to find ways to deal with more frequent and more extensive fire emergencies and disasters, as well as the increased probability that wildfires will directly impact communities with serious consequences. Changing demographics and settlement patterns in many regions have also significantly influenced the increased use of aircraft, especially with expanding settlement in urban-rural interface areas where aerial means, if used properly, can offer particular advantages in combating wildfires.

The transboundary consequences of wildfires have also seen a greater emphasis on the use of aircraft, in order to mitigate impacts, both political and practical, of fires on neighbouring states in a timely fashion.

It would also be reasonable to say that in some regions of the world the use of aircraft has been partly driven by increased expectations of communities at risk from wildfire and by political leaders who are keen to demonstrate that all practical means are being invoked to protect communities that are perceived as vulnerable to fire. In this respect there may be high expectations of aviation resources – perhaps higher than can reasonably be delivered.

Aviation resources exhibit particular characteristics which can make them very valuable in fire management. They provide speed, accessibility and a perspective that is generally not available through other means.

Used effectively, aircraft provide valuable support to fire managers in fire prevention and suppression, but it is important to recognise that aviation resources are not a universal remedy in wildfire management. Aircraft use must be integrated with ground-based operations. Safe, effective use of 87

aircraft requires intensive management and support and close attention to high quality decision making.

Aircraft are now used regularly and effectively in a wide variety of important support roles in fire management. For example, these may include: • Direct or indirect attack on the fire, for a range of tactical purposes (e.g., fire suppression, asset protection, ground firefighter support, or “buying time” for other tactics), by dropping water or other suppressants and retardants; • Delivery of firefighters to the fire by conventional air transport or by specialised means such as parachuting, winching or rappelling; • Provision of a platform for fire detection and reconnaissance; • Supervision, command or monitoring of aerial resources or other ground-based resources; • Gathering of information and intelligence, often using specialised sensors; • Provision of warnings or evacuation orders to communities; • Transport of stores, fuel and equipment; • Aerial ignition of planned fires for fuel management or for wildfire suppression (backburning and burning out); • Arson prevention and enforcement; • Fire size and burned area assessment, and rapid damage assessment; • Provision of communications.

At the same time, operating aircraft safely, effectively and efficiently in a fire environment poses significant challenges. Fire aircraft operate in a hazard-laden situation with low margins for error and significant, unique safety risks that must be closely managed. Aircraft operations require extensive, specialised and highly competent support and supervision. Aviation is, in most states, heavily regulated, requiring additional and often complex limitations to be considered in planning and executing operations.

Worldwide, use of aircraft in wildfire suppression has a poor safety record. Comparable, representative statistics are difficult to obtain and compile, but suggest that the rate of fatal accidents in fire operations is at least five times that of some other related sectors, such as emergency medical transport. Similarly the fatal accident rate is more than five times that experienced in other industries that are often used as benchmarks. In at least one UNECE member state, aircraft accidents have been the leading cause of fatalities in wildland fire operations over extended periods. As far as can be determined from the available information, the key causal factors in the majority of fatal accidents in wildfire aviation are human factors and systemic organizational failures. Most of these accidents would be classified as avoidable. There is considerable opportunity to improve this record through relatively straightforward organizational and human factors improvement programs. One of the benefits of enhanced international cooperation would be the opportunity to better share, collate and analyse aircraft accident information in order identify patterns and “lessons learnt” and to develop and target safety initiatives and operational risk reduction strategies across the region.

Importantly, aircraft are expensive. Whilst the expense of providing an aviation capability to address wildfire risk will be well justified in many circumstances, there is high potential to be wasteful or to divert considerable resources and funding from other means. One could also speculate that a focus on aviation as a wildfire response measure, which will inevitably command a high public profile, may potentially even redirect attention and resources from preventative measures such as fuel management.

A particular challenge for fire managers who utilise aviation assets is assessing relatively recent technological developments in the field. In some cases these developments reflect “trickle-down” of military technology into the civilian arena. An example is the rapidly growing use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). Other examples include airborne remote sensing and mapping technologies. In an increasingly competitive global marketplace it is not unusual for new and indeed the more traditional aviation related technologies to be marketed assertively or through political channels. Managers need to be able to deflect marketing pressure and make informed sensible operational decisions regarding adoption and integration of new capabilities. Fire agencies must be in a position to properly evaluate aviation technologies against common standards in a consistent and rigorous way. The adoption of 88

common standards, along with streamlined mechanisms for sharing of information and for collaborating in technology evaluation processes, will provide strong support to agencies in making informed decisions.

2.2 International collaboration in fire aviation

It is not unusual for aircraft to be the first or only resources shared between jurisdictions in a developing wildfire emergency. Currently, the majority of requests for international assistance for wildfire emergencies to the EU Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) have been in the form of aerial assistance. The inherent characteristics that make aircraft particularly useful in fire management will also often make aircraft the “resource of first choice” for inter-jurisdictional support. Some of the general barriers to the provision of international assistance become of lesser consequence when considering aviation resources. Aircraft are normally able to transit the longer distances required in a reasonable timeframe, and there are well established mechanisms for international movement of civilian and military aircraft. In this context it is important to remember that the most effective assistance will likely be rendered early in the development of a wildfire and that aircraft are often well placed to provide timely assistance. Empirical and experiential research demonstrates that early use of aircraft in wildfire suppression will provide the greatest benefits. Additionally, many aircraft are versatile and can undertake a number of roles, thus enhancing their intrinsic value to the jurisdiction receiving assistance.

Many countries have also recognised that it is not always sensible or cost effective for each and every jurisdiction to establish resident aviation capabilities that provide the means to deal with every likely fire situation. Economic benefits can be achieved by regular, systematic inter-jurisdictional sharing of high-cost, specialised resources such as aircraft. In this sense, the international sharing of aviation resources may be considered slightly differently from some other wildfire resources, in that there is greater potential to “mainstream” or regularise the sharing of aviation resources, rather than regarding inter-jurisdictional deployment as being applicable only in wildfire emergency or disaster situations. Indeed the greater economic and community benefits from sharing aircraft resources are most likely to arise from early intervention in order to prevent incipient wildfires developing into emergencies and disasters.

Effective sharing does however require rigorous, pre-planned bilateral or multilateral arrangements for efficient redeployment of aerial resources between states.

There have been many examples of highly effective international collaboration in fire aviation, and many instances of effective inter-jurisdictional sharing of aviation resources, including aircraft, support infrastructure and specialist supervisory personnel. Unfortunately there have also been many examples of ineffective and unsafe sharing of resources. In particular, political decisions that do not account for operational realities have resulted in inappropriate and ad hoc exchanges of resources. Other difficulties include: • Lack of clarity in requests for resources, or requests that fail to define the outcomes required; • Failure of receiving nations to properly supervise aerial resources; • Failure to provide adequate support systems such as communications, refuelling, supply of water and additives, or water scooping sites; • Failure of host nations to properly integrate aerial resources, sometimes as a result of lack of knowledge or understanding of specific aircraft capabilities and limitations; • Language difficulties; • Absence of a common terminology for wildfire activities; • The use of different and sometimes incompatible incident management systems; • The use of different procedures and systems; • Inappropriate and incompatible training programmes and competencies; • Lack of interoperability of equipment, especially communications equipment; • Lack of pre-planning and preparedness for emergency situations; • Lack of pre-planning and preparedness for the exchange of aircraft resources.

It will be noted that many of these difficulties are common with the general barriers to international mobilization that have been identified in the IWG-CWPR report.

It is also evident that these barriers can be significantly mitigated or removed altogether through pre- planning, shared preparedness and the alignment of standards and operating practices.

2.3 Fire aviation in the UNECE Region

In many ways fire aviation in the UNECE Region mirrors fire aviation elsewhere in the world. Some countries have maintained highly developed, sophisticated aviation capabilities for many decades, with aircraft providing a key defence against wildfire. Other countries have only recently introduced systemised approaches to fire aviation.

As with other fire management activities, many nations within the UNECE region have developed their own approaches to the provision of fire aviation capabilities, and as a result there is some lack of commonality, which in turn reduces interoperability.

One notable feature of the region is the wide variety of ways in which fire aviation capabilities are operated and provided to fire management agencies. The various arrangements for operating aircraft in wildfire operations in the region include, for example: 1. State owned, state operated aircraft, either: - owned and/or operated by the fire or land management agency itself, or - owned and/or operated by a civil protection agency with services provided to a fire agency through a contract or agreement; 2. State owned aircraft, operated by a civilian private sector contractor; 3. Contractor owned and operated; 4. Military owned and operated, either - by a squadron or unit dedicated to fire aviation, or - as an adjunct to other military activities.

In many UNECE countries a mixture of these approaches is used – for example a particular class of firefighting aircraft may be operated by the military, with other classes of firefighting aircraft provided by civilian contractors. In some countries a national capability may be provided through a national government organisation, while at the same time regional governments contract fire aviation services directly from civilian contractors.

In countries where the defence forces are not regularly involved in providing a fire aviation capability, they may still be asked to play a role when a wildfire event has escalated to an emergency or disaster situation. This is not always successful, as military units may be called upon to deliver aerial firefighting services for which they have not fully prepared or trained.

These different arrangements reflect internal factors in each country, and are not inherently a barrier to collaborative efforts. The diversity of approaches does however reinforce the critical need for standardisation and common operating practices, embedded in comprehensive pre-planned arrangements, if collaboration is to be effective.

There are examples of effective existing arrangements for sharing of aircraft resources between UNECE member countries, mostly through established bi-lateral agreements between neighbouring countries. A key factor in the success of these arrangements is the use of compatible operating procedures delineated in the pre-planned agreements. It is also worth re-stating the other common factors identified by the IWG-CWPR that contribute to the success of these arrangements, which include: • The use of compatible incident management systems and procedures; • Interoperability of equipment (particularly communication equipment) and the standardisation in categorising resources; • Preplanning of arrangements so that countries are prepared for making and receiving requests for assistance. 90

One feature of aviation that is unique to the UNECE region is that a significant number of member states subscribe to European Union’s European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). EASA administers civil aviation regulations that are therefore becoming relatively harmonised, at least across the EU. In a world where exceedingly complex and at times conflicting civil aviation legislation can pose insurmountable barriers to sharing of aircraft resources, this has the potential to offer significant efficiencies and to remove a number of obstacles.

The overall geo-political landscape in much of the UNECE Region is also generally conducive to, and would maximise the benefits arising from, effective sharing of aircraft resources. There is a relatively high density of countries, with often relatively short (for aircraft) distances to transit. Countries with currently well-developed capabilities sit alongside countries who are still in the process of initiating a capability – thus maximising opportunities to efficiently share not only actual aircraft resources and supporting infrastructure and systems, but also knowledge and expertise.

2.4 The International Fire Aviation Working Group (IFAWG)

The first draft of the Fire Aviation Guidelines has been developed by the International Fire Aviation Working Group (IFAWG). The IFAWG is a working group of the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group (WFAG). The background to the UNISDR Global Wildland Fire Network and WFAG is provided in the IWG-CWPR Report.

In brief, the genesis of the IFAWG was at the the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference, hosted by Spain in 2007. During that conference a thematic workshop was held on Aviation Management. The aim of the session was to identify opportunities for multilateral cooperation to improve the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of aerial fire fighting. The recommendations encompassed: • The need to continue to identify opportunities for sharing of information and resources; • The need to establish frameworks to properly evaluate the net benefit (including accounting for benefits of prevention of losses) of applying of aerial means; • The need to ensure that aerial operations are managed, supervised and supported to a high standard, and are properly integrated with other aspects of fire operations; • The establishment of a formal network to facilitate the continued sharing of information, with a priority on safety-related information; • The need to standardize approaches to integrated management of aerial means.

One year later the first International Aerial Firefighting Conference was convened in Athens, Greece, in October 2008. The conference brought together the aerial fire community and those working on the ground.

Participants of the conference expressed strong support for continuing the formation of cooperative mechanisms. It was envisaged that this would ultimately lead to the establishment of two groups that would attend to interests of the aerial firefighting community. The first group would be relatively compact and streamlined – based around representatives or key contact points from participating jurisdictions (government or semi-government representatives, nominated by their country / jurisdiction). This anticipated group was notionally designated as the "Fire Aviation Working Group". The second group would be more inclusive, and would provide for membership of all interested parties, including from the supplier industry, and would be more of an "association". It was considered that this second group could be notionally designated as the “Aerial Firefighting Association” and, given that it may include commercial interests, might be best formed either independently or perhaps in conjunction with an existing group like the International Association of Wildland Fire.

During 2009 and 2010 the Global Fire Monitoring Centre (GFMC), on behalf of the WFAG, convened a number of teleconferences of interested parties to develop draft terms of reference for the group notionally designated as a "Fire Aviation Working Group", which subsequently evolved to be termed the “International Fire Aviation Working Group” (IFAWG). Further work was undertaken at various side meetings to international aerial firefighting conferences and meetings.

As a result, an initial core group met formally at the GFMC offices in Freiburg, Germany on 26 June 2010 and endorsed a mission, terms of reference and action plan for the IFAWG. On 27 June 2010 91

the mission, terms of reference and action plan were presented to and endorsed by a formal meeting of the WFAG.

The IFAWG met in conjunction with the Fifth International Wildland Fire Conference in South Africa in May 2011. The Group considered the increasingly valuable role being played by aerial means in supporting fire and forest management, and in particular in gathering intelligence and information to support operations, in rapid intervention to incipient wildfires and in fire prevention and risk reduction operations. The group also noted concerns regarding reported incidences of ineffective and potentially unsafe application of aerial means.

The group reinforced the importance of: • Safe operating practices; • Deployment decisions made as part of a risk-based framework that properly considers the costs and benefits of deployment; • Aerial means to be applied as part of a fully integrated approach, working in conjunction with ground-based operations. The group also considered opportunities for improving the sharing of aircraft and support resources between jurisdictions. It was noted that effective sharing of resources internationally offered potential to utilise relatively expensive and specialised resources in the most efficient and effective manner. The group considered that in order to improve the potential for sharing resources it was necessary to: • Further develop bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements that set out pre-planned deployment and operating arrangements; • Develop and implement consistent standards and operating practices for international deployment. The meeting considered the development of voluntary guidelines containing standards and consistent operating practices, noting that such guidelines would have the benefits of: • Identifying best management practices that agencies could adopt to optimise safe and effective aerial operations; and • Facilitating the development of common standards and operating practices to support safe and effective deployment of aircraft and support resources between jurisdictions. The group therefore initiated a significant project to identify appropriate standards and best management practices to underpin development of voluntary guidelines.

The recommendations of the Fifth International Wildland Fire Conference30 included the following statement:

“The conference acknowledges the valuable supporting role played by aerial means in fire and forest management. The conference also acknowledges and supports the benefits of sharing aircraft and support resources between jurisdictions. The conference recommends that: • Agencies and groups develop methodologies to ensure that aerial means are safely applied as part of an integrated approach to fire and forest management, and are deployed according to assessed risk and sound economic principles. • Agencies continue to develop bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements that set out pre- planned arrangements and operating practices to facilitate safe and effective deployment of aerial means between jurisdictions. • Agencies and groups work together to develop voluntary guidelines regarding standards and operating practices for aerial means, in order to promote best management practices and in order to support safe and effective deployment of resources between jurisdictions; and that agencies support the International Fire Aviation Working Group’s project to identify appropriate standards and best-management practices on which to base the development of voluntary guidelines.”

More information regarding IFAWG is available from www.ifawg.org or from GFMC. The GFMC continues to act as convener and secretariat of the IFAWG.

30 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/southafrica-2011.html 92

3. The Fire Aviation Guidelines

3.1 Preparation

The first draft of the proposed Fire Aviation Guidelines accompanies this paper. This draft of the guidelines has been prepared primarily by a core group of the IFAWG comprising representatives of Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Italy, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain and the USA. The drafting process included expert consultations with member countries, private sector organisations, and non-governmental and inter-governmental organisations.

3.2 Scope

The Fire Aviation guidelines are intended to apply to all fire related aviation operations associated with landscape-scale vegetation fire management activities, including planned burning for fire prevention as well as wildfire suppression. This is the reason for titling the guidelines the “Fire Aviation Guidelines” as distinct from “Aerial Firefighting Guidelines” or a similar term of narrower scope.

3.3 Status of development

The draft Fire Aviation Guidelines accompanying this paper are intended to be a “first edition”. This first edition includes the guidance regarded as essential by the IFAWG but it will be noted that many of the specific guidelines for detailed technical and operational matters are still under development and are yet to be included. This is not seen as a barrier to adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines at this time. The proposed underlying principles, strategic actions and the key standards required to underpin resource sharing are included in the current draft. In fact endorsement of these principles and the key guidance embodied in the current draft is required in order to continue and finalise the development of the more detailed aspects. The part of the guidelines that deals with more technical and operational matters will in any case be a “living document” that will require ongoing development and regular review. The format of the draft Fire Aviation Guidelines has been designed such that detailed technical guides may continue to be added as they are required, developed and approved.

3.4 Structure of the Fire Aviation Guidelines

The guidelines comprise two main parts: 1. The first part is “Framework Document”, which provides background, contextual and supporting information and sets out the Core Principles that underpin the guidelines.

Following on from the Core Principles are a number of Basic Strategies. The guidelines recommend that all jurisdictions developing or maintaining a fire aviation capability adopt these strategies.

2. The second part of the guidelines is the “International Manual of Common Rules for Fire Aviation” (IMCR). The IMCR provides key guidelines and further detail to support implementation of the principles and strategies outlined in the first part. The IMCR will also provide some recommended procedures for international deployments of aerial firefighting resources.

The IMCR then incorporates “Practice Guides” which provide even more detailed technical and operational information and recommendations regarding specific activities or situations.

The IMCR is the part of the guidelines that is intended to be a living document that will continue to be added to and updated as procedures and best-practices are developed, improved and refined.

3.5 Core principles

For ease of reference the Core Principles advocated by the Fire Aviation Guidelines are reproduced here:

1. Safety Safety is a core principle of aerial fire management operations that must not be compromised. The preservation of human life is an overriding consideration. 2. Environmental sustainability Aircraft use in fire management should be environmentally responsible and sustainable as far as practicable. 3. Efficiency and effectiveness Aircraft use in fire management should always strive to be as efficient and effective as is practicable. This requires comprehensive management and operational planning of a high standard. 4. Knowledge-based The use of aircraft for fire management must be continuous improvement underpinned by knowledge and should strive for continuous improvement. 5. Good governance Safe, efficient and effective aircraft operations must be supported by documented policies, procedures, standards and operating practices that are based on the best available knowledge and are regularly reviewed and updated. 6. Legality Aerial fire management operations must comply with the relevant laws and regulations of the state pertaining to the use of aircraft.

3.6 Relationship to other guidance material

As far as practicable the Fire Aviation Guidelines have been produced to be consistent with and complementary to other publications that offer international operational guidance in fire and emergency management. Examples include the UNDAC Handbook (UN OCHA 2006), the Host Nation Support Guidelines (EU 2012) and the International Search and Rescue Group Guidelines and Methodology (INSARAG 2012). These guidelines are also complementary to the principles and strategic actions outlined in the broader FAO Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines (FAO 2006).

3.7 Use of the Fire Aviation Guidelines

The Fire Aviation Guidelines draw on material from handbooks, manuals and planning documents that have evolved to guide aerial fire management operations in various countries around the world. Although the Fire Aviation Guidelines have been designed to be able to standalone and be self- contained if necessary, it is generally intended that individual jurisdictions will incorporate the material from the guidelines into their own internal doctrine as appropriate. Similarly, it is envisaged that operators of aircraft will incorporate appropriate provisions from the guidelines into their own policy and procedure manuals. Countries and aircraft operators that already have well developed fire aviation doctrine may find the guidelines a useful checklist for ensuring their existing material is suitably comprehensive.

3.8 Terminology and definitions

Effective international collaboration on any technical or emergency issue is dependent on the use of common language that is understood by all parties. A key to this is the use of widely agreed definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations.

The IWG-CPWR identified that a key factor generally limiting international assistance and cooperation is the current lack of common language within the UNECE region and globally for wildfire management agencies. There have been attempts to develop common standards and terminology 94

through previous international collaboration projects but there is currently no evidence of widespread adoption and implementation.

The IFAWG drafting team has remained mindful of not creating yet another set of terminology and definitions, and accordingly have attempted to use, as far as possible, definitions and terminology from existing material, in particular: • FAO/GFMC Wildland Fire Management Terminology (GFMC 2010); • EU Host Nation Support Guidelines (EU 2012); • FAO Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines (FAO 2006).

As fire aviation is a specialist area that uses terminology not commonly used in other aspects of fire management, some definitions have however necessarily been developed or adapted specifically for the Fire Aviation Guidelines.

IFAWG is of the view that it is most important for these new or refined definitions, if accepted, to also be included in wider dictionaries and glossaries developed for wildfire agencies and other emergency management agencies in the UNECE region and globally. There is also a need to continue to strive to resolve ambiguities and inconsistencies between existing glossaries.

3.9 Relationship to civil aviation regulation and legislation

The guidelines have been developed, as far as practicable to be complementary to civil aviation legislation and regulation. Generally, the guidelines aim to provide standards and guidance that is not otherwise covered by civil aviation legislation. For example civil legislation will normally provide standards for general pilot training and competency however will not extend to the specific competencies required for firefighting.

The Fire Aviation Guidelines are not intended to prejudice or contravene any laws or regulations that administer or regulate aviation in the state where fire aircraft are operating, or the state in which the aircraft are registered. Where a conflict may exist, the relevant laws of the host country clearly take precedence.

IFAWG is hopeful that as the Fire Aviation Guidelines continue to be developed and refined, aviation legislators will consider opportunities to incorporate appropriate fire aviation practices into state aviation legislation, in order to assure the highest standards of safety.

3.10 Maintenance of the guidelines

As is normally the case in the aviation and fire management sectors, technical doctrine must be regularly reviewed and updated. In turn, documentation must be carefully administered in a quality controlled system to assure version control and to ensure that users are always accessing the most up-to-date information. As the Fire Aviation Guidelines have been drafted by an essentially volunteer advisory group, ongoing administration, development, maintenance and distribution of the guidelines does pose a challenge.

Adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines will require a commitment to supporting an ongoing process of reviewing, improving, updating and augmenting the guidelines.

4. Relationship with the proposed International Wildfire Support Mechanism

The IWG-CWPR has operated in cooperation with the IFAWG to develop complementary proposals as it was considered that this approach would better suit the international community’s needs for wildfire preparation and response at this time.

As a consequence, the proposed IWSM does not specifically address fire aviation in detail. Nonetheless the guiding principle and the rationale for enhancing cooperative efforts for fire management in the UNECE region does very much apply to the use of aircraft. Likewise the findings of the IWG-CWPR regarding the dichotomy across nations of the essential skills necessary to improve 95

wildfire management are also completely relevant to aircraft operations, so too is the concept of the proposed IWSM to cascade knowledge and good practice throughout the global wildfire community.31

Adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines would be consistent with and will implement, in part, the aims, objectives and priority actions of the IWSM such as, for example, “establish agreed standards, competencies, procedures and protocols to improve safety, efficiency and effectiveness of wildfire management organisations.”32

At the same time, implementation of the IWSM or a similar model would facilitate the adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines in the UNECE Region and will provide for complementary measures that will further improve the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of fire aviation in the overall context of wildfire management. A culture of shared preparedness across UNECE countries, including the development of pre-planned bilateral and multilateral mutual aid agreements, is particularly critical in respect of aircraft resources. Mechanisms proposed by the IWSM, such as collaborative training and certification schemes, will need to consider aviation roles alongside other ground-based roles and the Fire Aviation Guidelines will provide guidance regarding the content for such schemes as they are developed. Similarly it is expected that concepts outlined the IWSM, such as the development of groups or clusters of national experts, the exchange of experts and the deployment of small teams of advisors would include fire aviation expertise where appropriate.

In particular, it is proposed that the IWSM will define an internationally acceptable vocabulary and when required will ensure that this is provided in the appropriate range of languages. It is important that terminology used in fire aviation be included in this project.

Fire aviation is a support capability which must be integrated with other fire management activities and is only one of various means that are available to fire managers. However there are some particular characteristics of fire aviation and the opportunities for developing cooperation and collaboration which warrant additional focus at this time: • For the foreseeable future, aircraft will remain the capability that is most likely to be shared between jurisdictions, at least whilst resilience and interoperability is developed in other fields; • Deployment of aircraft resources to wildfire emergencies within the region and globally is already happening on a reasonably regular basis. Where these deployments happen outside of the existing, generally robust, mutual-aid arrangements, there are significant concerns regarding efficacy and safety aspects. Often these deployments are ad hoc in nature and may be driven in part by less than prudent political decisions. As outlined in the IWG-CPWR report there is a danger that responses made on an ad-hoc basis may be reactive and tokenistic; • Aircraft are the resource for which inter-jurisdictional sharing is most likely to be mainstreamed – that is, to become a regular component of normal wildfire preparedness and response, not just in times of emergency and disaster. The geo-political landscape of much of the UNECE region is particularly conducive to mainstream sharing of aircraft resources for fire management, and regularised sharing offers potentially significant economic benefits; • There is a good opportunity to improve the apparently relatively poor safety record in fire aviation; • Arguably, inappropriate or ineffective use of aircraft has particularly significant negative economic consequences, due to the risks and high costs involved.

It is for these reasons that the IWG-CPWR and IFAWG have taken a complementary approach in the presentation of proposals to the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management. There is arguably a particularly high priority, even an urgency, to move towards appropriate common standards and practices for fire aviation. A complementary approach ensures that the Fire Aviation Guidelines can standalone if necessary, while other cooperative mechanisms are developed and refined.

31 Note: While the International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response (IWG- CWPR) initially had suggested to designate the recommended mechanism as “International Wildfire Support Mechanism” (IWSM), it was concluded in the follow-up of the Forum in 2014 that the proposed Mechanism should focus on and emphasize on enhancing “preparedness”. In 2014 the follow-up reports of the Forum therefore designated the proposed Mechanism as “International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM) – see Reports 7 and 8 in this volume of IFFN. 32 IWG-CPWR (2013) Actions for Strategic Objective Number 3 96

It may be considered that the adoption of guidelines of an operational nature, such as the Fire Aviation Guidelines, is “jumping ahead” of the development of wider agreements on international cooperation and of the implementation of the IWSM or similar agreed arrangements in the UNECE region. The two advisory groups are of the view however, that the adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines is an appropriate measure at this time irrespective of the progress of the IWSM or other agreements, given the particular circumstances applicable to aerial means. Indeed the development of more robust collaborative mechanisms for aviation may be a most useful proving ground that will help develop and refine the IWSM and collaboration in other fields of fire management.

While the UNECE/FAO Forum on cross-boundary fire management is an initial activity aimed at serving the UNECE region, there is scope for a future wider, global application of the IWSM or similar mechanisms. Accordingly the Fire Aviation Guidelines should also be promoted for independent endorsement and application by individual operators and agencies or within the framework of bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements across the world.

Finally, it is important to develop interoperability not only within the UNECE region, but between UNECE members and states in other regions. Adoption of the guidelines within the UNECE region would be an important step to global harmonisation of best-practice and interoperability to support resource sharing across the world.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions of the IFAWG

Used appropriately, fire aviation has the potential to be an important component in the successful management and prevention of wildfires in many situations. Situations where the use of aerial resources will help improve outcomes are likely to increase in frequency and scale in coming years, in accordance with global and local trends. Accordingly it is prudent for nations in the UNECE region to continue to develop fire aviation capabilities that are appropriate to their particular circumstances. A well-conceived, effective and efficient aviation capability will enhance the resilience to wildfires in the region.

Although many countries in the region have already developed highly effective aviation capabilities, there is a significant variation in capability and in the level of understanding and preparedness to utilise aircraft across the region. Considering current trends in fire risk and economic conditions, there is likely to be a general increase in requests for emergency international assistance in the future. Given the particular suitability of aircraft for servicing requests for assistance, a high proportion of these requests are likely to involve aircraft resources. There is also likely to be a further trend towards mainstreaming the sharing of specialised, relatively expensive aviation capabilities, to the extent that the cross-jurisdictional sharing of aircraft resources becomes a routine operation. Although currently, in some instances, opportunities may be restricted by a lack of interoperability or by the limited ability of a receiving nation to effectively utilise or host specialised resources, the UNECE region is very well placed to take greater advantage of the prospects for sharing aviation resources, whether on a regular basis or in the case of emergencies and disasters.

Fire aviation is a specialised field requiring high quality management and support. Aircraft are expensive. There are many considerations, limitations and risks that need to be recognised and appropriately managed in order to ensure safe, effective and efficient aircraft operations. In particular, resourcing and deployment decisions must be made as part of a risk-based framework that considers costs and benefits, and aerial means must be applied as part of a fully integrated approach, supporting and working in conjunction with other means.

Globally and within the UNECE region, fire aviation has a safety record that is not optimum. Inappropriate use of aircraft, and ad hoc and unplanned inter-jurisdictional sharing of aircraft, has the potential to significantly increase risks in both aircraft and ground operations. There is considerable scope to implement measures that will reduce losses and improve the safety of local and inter- jurisdiction aircraft operations.

Overall, resilience to wildfires in the region will be enhanced by: • Further developing appropriate, effective, high quality local fire aviation capabilities; • Streamlining and improving opportunities for inter-jurisdictional sharing of aircraft resources, either as a mainstream activity or in response to emergencies and disasters; and • Exchanging expert knowledge and experience.

Building and maintaining local fire aviation capabilities that are safe and effective and efficient requires the implementation of standards and consistent operating practices that are based on knowledge and experience in a framework that provides for continuous improvement.

Effective sharing of aircraft resources must be the subject of comprehensive, multi-lateral or bi-lateral agreements which set out robust, pre-planned arrangements. Such agreements must also incorporate agreed common standards and common operating practices.

5.2 Recommendations

In parallel with the findings and recommendations of the IWG-CWPR, the IFAWG is similarly of the view that it is timely to continue to build and enhance capacity and to improve resilience to wildfires within the UNECE Region. The on-going development, maintenance and preparedness of appropriate, safe, effective and efficient fire aviation capabilities, along with robust mechanisms for inter- jurisdictional deployment of those capabilities, will be an important component of this resilience.

The adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines is expected to assist in the development and management of appropriate aviation capabilities through the provision of common guidance to states regarding recommended minimum standards and appropriate best-practices.

The Fire Aviation Guidelines are also expected to enhance the effective sharing of aviation capabilities between states within the region, as well as inter-regionally, by providing common standards and common operating practices for fire aviation and therefore improving interoperability. The Fire Aviation Guidelines will also provide recommended procedures and supporting information for effective sharing of fire aviation resources.

As with other aspects of fire management, the knowledge and understanding required to develop and manage high-quality aviation capabilities already exists within the UNECE region. Likewise, in order to fully benefit from this existing knowledge and expertise, there is a need for a mechanism which can facilitate and stimulate the exchange of knowledge and good practice. In part, this mechanism is serviced by the Fire Aviation Guidelines, which will reflect the combined knowledge and experience of UNECE member states and other countries. The implementation of a complementary mechanism, such as the proposed IWSM, will also facilitate the exchange of knowledge and good practice, as will assist in extending appropriate understanding and knowledge of fire aviation witihin the fire management community generally.

The IFAWG therefore recommends that:

1. The Forum support the adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines across the UNECE region for independent endorsement and application by individual operators and agencies, or within the framework of bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements; 2. Any wider agreement on international cooperation aimed at enhancing fire management capability within the region, such as the IWSM or any other agreement arising from the Forum and thereafter, should incorporate and promote the Fire Aviation Guidelines; 3. Member states support and participate in the continuing development of the Fire Aviation Guidelines; 4. The UNECE promote the adoption of the Fire Aviation Guidelines globally; 5. The IWSM for the UNECE region, if established, considers the Fire Aviation Guidelines and appropriate requirements around fire aviation generally when developing elements such as, for example: steering and advisory groups, collaboration mechanisms and national and international training frameworks; and language and glossaries. 6. The secretariat or umbrella organisation for the IWSM for the UNECE region, if established, incorporate a capacity to assist in administering and coordinating the application of the Fire Aviation Guidelines in the UNECE region; and in the further developing the guidelines, in cooperation with IFAWG.

5.3 Presentation of this proposal to the UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management

Bibliography

EU Host Nation Support Guidelines - European Commission Staff Working Document; Brussels (2012). Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/about/COMM_PDF_SWD%2020120169_F_EN_.pdf

EUFOINET (2012). European Glossary for Wildfires and Forest Fires. Available online at: http://www.northumberland.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=4604 and at: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/literature/glossary.htm

FAO (2006). Fire management: voluntary guidelines. Principles and strategic actions. Fire Management Working Paper 17, Rome. Available on line at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/35853/en

GHK Consulting (2010). Study on Wildfire Resources Sharing Models – Final Report; GHK Consulting; London. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/prote/perspectives_en.htm

Global Fire Monitoring Center (2010). International Multi-Lingual Fire Management Terminology GFMC, Freiburg. Available online at: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/literature/glossary.htm

Goldammer, J.G. (2013). International protocols and agreements on cooperation in wildland fire management and wildfire disaster response: Needs, current status, and the way ahead. Chapter 23 in: Vegetation Fires and Global Change. Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations (J.G. Goldammer, ed.), 313-341. A publication of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). Kessel Publishing House, Remagen- Oberwinter, 398 p. (ISBN 978-3-941300-78-1). http://www.forestrybooks.com/

INSARAG (2012). International Search and Rescue Group External Classification/ Reclassification Handbook UN OCHA; Geneva. Available online at: https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/IEC- R%20Handbook%202012%20Edition.pdf

INSARAG (2012). International Search and Rescue Group Guidelines and Methodology UN OCHA; Geneva. Available online at: http://www.insarag.org/en/methodology/guidelines.html

IWG-CPWR (2013). Building Resilience of Nations and Communities within the UNECE Region to Wildfire Emergencies and Disasters; International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response report to the UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management; Geneva.

UNDAC Handbook UN OCHA; Geneva (2006). Available online at: http://www.unocha.org/what-we-do/coordination-tools/undac/overview

100

Global Fire Monitoring UNECE / FAO Team of Specialists Center (GFMC) on Forest Fire

UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management Geneva, 28-29 November 2013

Report 4

Study of the Contemporary and Expected Future Wildland Fire Problems in the UNECE Region

Supporting Materials

Introduction

This report contains supporting materials to Report 1 “Study of the Contemporary and Expected Future Wildland Fire Problems in the UNECE Region”. The first two parts have been published preceding the UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management as chapters 22 and 23 of the volume “Vegetation Fires and Global Change: Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations”33

This Global White Paper provides the nexus between regional and global approaches in fire management. The introduction of the “Global White Paper” provides the rationale for this global analysis:

Today, fire interacts with human environmental concerns in terms of catastrophes, carbon and climate. Future fire management will not only require implementing fire where it belongs and restricting it where it does not, but also must address the increasing vulnerability of flora, fauna, ecosystems and our society – all already affected by global environmental changes, notably changes of climate and land. This is an increasingly challenging undertaking given increasing social, economic and environmental pressures at a global scale.

At the present time only a few countries have implemented policies addressing the role, consequences and management of vegetation fires comprehensively and across sectors. It seems that information generated and synthesized to support the development of informed policies is scant.

The Global Wildland Fire Network, which is operating under the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and partnering with a large number of national and international agencies and organizations, through its Wildland Fire Advisory Group, provides advisory support to the United Nations. The Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), acting as Secretariat of the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group in conjunction with the United Nations University – the think tank of the UN system – felt obliged to take the initiative for developing a White Paper on Vegetation Fires and Global Change that would close this gap.

33 Goldammer, J.G. (ed.) 2013. Vegetation Fires and Global Change: Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations. A publication of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). Kessel Publishing House, 400 p., ISBN 978-3-941300-78-1 (http://www.forestrybooks.com/) 101

This White Paper has a strong focus on analyzing the historic, current and expected / projected trends of future fire regimes in the main vegetation zones. In other words: It is not the intent of the White Paper to develop a comprehensive and all-embracing analysis of the multi-facetted aspects of global fire ecology. The chapters rather provide an insight to the state-of-science at the end of the first decade of the 21st century that may be considered useful for medium- and long-term fire management planning at national and international levels.

Several international (global) conventions, such as the three “Rio Conventions” (Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD], United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification [CCD], and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [FCCC]) and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands are examples of international legal agreements that provide rationale and a catalogue of environmental protection obligations for signatory countries. However, none of these or any other legally binding conventions or informal or voluntary international instruments, such as the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, are explicitly addressing wildland fires as a driver of environmental degradation. Nor do they address the need for integrating natural and prescribed management fires in those ecosystems and land-use systems that require fire for maintaining their function, sustainability and productivity. There are also not yet protocols in place that provide internationally accepted standard methods and procedures for countries that provide and receive assistance in wildland fire emergencies that would ensure inter-operability, efficiency and safety of cooperating parties.

The contributions of this White Paper reveal that globally, fire regimes are altering in parallel with and under the influence of socio-economic developments, land-use change and climate change. Increasing vulnerability of society to the direct and secondary effects of wildland fires, as well as the transboundary nature and consequences of wildland fires are prompting countries and international organizations to define their common interests in enhancing sustainable and integrated fire management capacity. The requirement for systematic and efficient sharing of scientific and technical expertise, solutions and resources, including transboundary cooperation, means that the transition from informal information exchange and networking to a more systematic and formalized cooperation is more necessary than ever.”

The Third Part is the “White Paper on Use of Prescribed Fire in Land Management, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia” Edited and published by the Global Fire Monitoring Center / Fire Ecology Research Group, Freiburg, Germany, on behalf of the participants of the “Symposium on Fire Management in Cultural and Natural Landscapes, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia” (January 2008) and members of the Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network (EFNCN).34

34 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/natcon/natcon.htm 102

Part I – Global White Paper Chapter 2235

Beyond Climate Change: Wildfires and Human Security in Cultural Landscapes in Transition – Examples from Temperate-Boreal Eurasia 36

Abstract

In many regions of Eurasia cultural landscapes that were formed by traditional agrarian societies over centuries are changing rapidly. The process of rural exodus and the rapidly accelerating trend of urbanization is associated with abandonment of land cultivation and thus directly or indirectly affecting cultural and wildland fire regimes. This chapter looks at the specific issues linked with wildland fire, land use and land-use change in Eurasia, and to wildfires and threats emerging from the heritages of civilization. While the temperate-boreal zone of Eurasia is in the focus of this chapter, some views to the cultural landscapes of North America reveal comparability and similarities between continents. An increasing awareness of newly arising or newly perceived fire-related problems by the general public and by policy makers is apparent. However, development of fire management solutions such as the adjustments to public policies affecting land management and operational fire management to the changing land use conditions and society’s vulnerability are lagging behind. Changing paradigms in ecology and nature conservation have recently led to reconsidering fire-exclusion policies in certain sectors of land / landscape management, nature conservation and forestry. However, the use of prescribed fire in ecosystem management in Europe may not exclusively target those vegetation types that have been shaped by fire over historic time scales, but rather to introduce fire as a tool to substitute abandoned cultivation practices. However, use of fire in agriculture is being questioned where new insights into the side effects of burning are revealed by recent research. For example, there are indications that deposition of black carbon emitted from agricultural spring fires in Northern Eurasia are impacting the albedo of the Artic environment, leading to acceleration of warming and melting of snow and ice cover. As a symptom of these developments the terms “necessary” and “unnecessary” burning in the agricultural sector in temperate-boreal northern Eurasia are entering the wildland fire terminology.

Keywords: Cultural landscape fire, rural exodus, land cultivation abandonment, radioactive pollutants, prescribed burning

Introduction

Socio-economic Changes, Industrial Heritages and Emerging Fire Threats in Eurasia

Temperate-boreal Eurasia extends from Western Europe to Asia’s Far East and spans more than 200 degrees of longitude. While the region contains a large variety of ecosystems and land-use systems, there exist commonalities of determinants of wildland fire between these countries and subregions that share similar historic and contemporary natural, cultural and social conditions.

35 Goldammer, J.G. 2013. Beyond Climate Change: Wildland Fires and Human Security in Cultural Landscapes in Transition – Examples from Temperate-Boreal Eurasia. Chapter 21 in: Vegetation Fires and Global Change: Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations (J.G. Goldammer, ed.), 285-311. A publication of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). Kessel Publishing House, Remagen-Oberwinter, 398 p. (ISBN 978-3-941300-78-1). 36 Johann Georg Goldammer, Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, c/o Freiburg University / United Nations University (UNU), Freiburg, Germany. Address for correspondence: [email protected] 103

Some hazards and risks associated with wildland fires have been perceived as threats only recently due to a better scientific understanding of conditions influencing wildland fire. The public perception of wildland fire throughout the region has been stirred significantly by the discussion of the anticipated consequences of climate change on forest fire occurrence and impacts. However, some recent wildfire episodes also revealed the vulnerability of society to direct and secondary effects of fire such as the impacts of fire smoke pollution on human health and security.

Wildland fires burning at the interface of, or even inside residential, urban and industrial areas, and fires burning on terrain contaminated by industrial deposits and heritages of armed conflicts are perceived as new, unprecedented threats – although they have existed before, albeit unnoticed publicly and politically. It is also becoming evident that the alteration of fire regimes in the cultural landscapes of Eurasia is driven fundamentally by land-use change.

Recent wildfire episodes in temperate-boreal Eurasia have resulted in severe environmental damages, high economic losses and considerable humanitarian problems. After the Mediterranean fire crisis in 2007, followed by the fire and smoke episode in Western Russia in 2010, several key issues affecting wildland fire in the cultural landscapes of temperate-boreal Eurasia have been identified:

- Increasing rural exodus and urbanization, resulting in abandonment of traditional land cultivation (agriculture, pastoralism, forestry) resulting in an increasing wildfire hazard; - Urbanization resulting in a reduced rural work force, including availability of rural firefighters; - Re-privatization of formerly nationalized forests resulting in the absence of forest and fire management in smallholder forest estates; - Weakened governance over forestry and decreased fire management capabilities in many Eastern European and Central Asian countries as a consequence of the transition of national economies, often associated with the uncontrolled or illegal forest use and increase in related wildfires; - Increasing occurrence of wildfires affecting the perimeters of metropolitan areas, settlements and developments dispersed throughout wildlands; - Secondary problems associated with wildfires, e.g., those burning in territories contaminated by radioactivity and remnants from armed conflicts (e.g., unexploded ordnance, land mines, uranium-depleted ammunition); or wildfires affecting agricultural lands treated with pesticides; landfills, other industrial waste and structures containing hazardous materials, especially at the urban / residential perimeters; - Consequences of climate change on cultural fire regimes and ecosystem vulnerability (e.g., climate-driven transformation of former fire-free or fire-protected natural ecosystems and land-use systems such as peat bogs and high-altitude mountain ecosystems to ecosystems becoming vulnerable to and increasingly affected by wildfires).

The assessment of changing fire regimes and the increasing vulnerability of society and subsequent public policy responses are influenced by new scientific insights into the composition of fire emissions and their impacts on the environment and human health and must address the following considerations:

While a growing acknowledgment of these issues by the public and by policy makers can be noted, there is a lack of review, adjustment or development of appropriate fire management policies.

The recently published White Paper on Use of Prescribed Fire in Land Management, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia (Goldammer, 2010a) is an example for 104

changing perceptions of the role of fire in cultural landscapes. The white paper reveals that the use of fire – including disturbance related to swidden (shifting) agriculture and other land cultivation practices – have contributed to shaping landscape patterns of high ecological and cultural value and diversity across temperate-boreal Eurasia in areas such as heathlands, open grasslands and meadows. In the eastern Euro-Siberian biota, e.g. in the light taiga, natural fires have shaped open and stress-resilient forest ecosystems (Sannikov and Goldammer, 1993).

Changing paradigms in ecology and nature conservation have recently led to reconsidering fire- exclusion policies in certain sectors of land / landscape management, nature conservation and forestry. However, the use of prescribed fire in ecosystem management in Europe may not exclusively target those vegetation types that have been shaped by fire over historic time scales, but rather may introduce fire as a tool to replace abandoned cultivation practices (Goldammer, 2010a).

A sound understanding of the “pros and cons” of prescribed fire application is as necessary as consideration of the side effects of fire use. Large areas threatened by land abandonment are embedded in industrialized regions in which society is becoming increasingly intolerant of fire emissions. The fire and smoke episode in Western Russia in 2010 is a striking example of both increased perception and vulnerability (Goldammer, 2010b). Legal restrictions for open burning are included in clean-air rules and the obvious general necessity to reduce those gas and particle emissions that are threatening human health (cf. chapter 18 of this volume). Concerns of those parties that consider prescribed fire emissions a contribution to the increase of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect and thus global warming complicate the debate. The traditional use of fire in agriculture is being questioned due to new insights into the side effects of burning emerging from recent research. For example, there are indications that deposition of black carbon emitted from agricultural spring fires in Northern Eurasia are impacting the albedo of the Artic environment, leading to acceleration of warming and melting of snow and ice cover (Clean Air Task Force, 2009; Doherty et al., 2010; Hegg et al., 2010; McCarty et al., 2012). As a symptom of these developments the terms “necessary” and “unnecessary” burning in the agricultural sector in temperate-boreal northern Eurasia are entering the wildland fire terminology.37

On the other hand it is noted that nature conservation agencies, non-government actors and the general public have developed a rather sound understanding and perception of the “nature of fire” compared to the situation two to three decades ago. International (regional) dedicated networks and research projects such as the Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network (EFNCN)38, within which the White Paper on Use of Prescribed Fire was developed, and particularly the European Integrated Project Fire Paradox, have significantly contributed to the acceptance of fire use in wildfire hazard reduction and fire suppression (Sande Silva et al., 2010; see also Birot, 2009).

Pressing Issues

Some of the newly arising or recently perceived wildland fire problems in the Eurasian region are strongly related to cultural and industrial heritages and recent changes in the cultural landscapes. The examples given in the following reveal that the most immediate impacts of wildland fires on society are determined by human activities, rather than by nature or climate change. Some of the examples highlight events that have been influenced or generated by policies and politics. While some cases may uncover some unspoken problems, there is no intent to blame or accuse any party, nation or country.

37 The International Conference on Open Burning and the Arctic (Russia, November 2010), which explored the impacts of emissions from open fires on Arctic climate, particularly black carbon emissions from set fires in Northern Eurasia, provide a critical view of the escalating fire use in the agricultural sector (Clean Air Task Force, 2009; Clean Air Task Force / Bellona, 2011). 38 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/natcon/natcon.htm 105

Rural Exodus

The interest and insight into cultural landscape ecology has been driven by the increasingly visible socio-economic changes in the past four decades – notably the rural exodus all over Eurasia, which has resulted in abandonment of traditional land-use methods over wide areas (Dimitrakopoulos and Mitsopoulos, 2005). With the elimination of land cultivation, including traditional burning practices, large areas of Europe are reverting to fallow lands – a process that is associated with ecological succession towards brush cover and forest and an overall loss of open habitats. Besides the loss of valuable biodiversity the fire regimes of abandoned lands are transitioning from fuel-limited to water- limited (Pausas and Fernández-Muñoz, 2011), resulting in an increased wildfire hazard.39 This trend is evident in a number of extremely severe wildfires such as in Southern Mediterranean Europe and the Balkans in 2007 (Xanthopoulos, 2008) and Western Russia in 2010 (Goldammer, 2010b). Similarly, the exclusion of fire in natural ecosystems such as northern boreal and sub-boreal coniferous forests in Eurasia has resulted in changing vegetation composition and an increase of wildfire hazard, notably in Central-Eastern Eurasia.

The country with the highest rate of abandoned villages and agriculture is Russia (Ioffe, 2005; Ioffe et al., 2006, 2011). Between 1939 and 1989 the rural population of the USSR declined from 130.2 to 97.7 million. Within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) alone the decline averaged 100,000 people per year between 1979 and 1988.40 In 2010 alone more than 3,000 villages in Russia became deserted41, a development obviously supported by government policy aimed at relocating people from rural areas and impoverished towns to larger metropolitan areas in order to improve living conditions.42

The consequences of rural exodus in Russia and its neighboring countries of temperate-boreal Eurasia on changing fire regimes have not yet been subject to dedicated research. After the collapse of the former Soviet Union the decreasing support of the agricultural sector by the Russian government resulted in abandonment and fallow of 27 million ha of agricultural lands between 1990 and 2009 (Schierhorn and Müller, 2011). Empirical observations suggest that abandonment of agricultural lands, coupled with uncontrolled succession towards bush encroachment and natural reforestation constitute an increasing wildfire hazard – at least during the transition phase to forest formation. At the same time it seems that intentionally set fire is increasing - to keep agricultural lands open or to dispose of crop residue – with the consequence of uncontrolled wildfires spreading to surrounding vegetation, including forest and peat swamps. Recent studies of agricultural burnings at the global scale (e.g., Korontzi et al., 2006) are revealing the magnitude of occurrence but cannot yet prove long-term changes of agricultural fire regimes in temperate-boreal Eurasia related to the historical and current trend of rural exodus.

Increasing vulnerability of urban and peri-urban populations

The weakening or depletion of the rural work force is another factor aggravating the newly arising fire problems in these cultural landscapes in transition. Abandoned villages, along with those with aging populations are increasingly unprotected. As witnessed in 2010, the risk of wildfires spreading uncontrolled into villages and the resultant damage appears to be becoming a serious problem.

The problems and vulnerabilities of infrastructures and populations neighbouring or interspersed with wildlands have received increasing interest by the Western European research community and led to some policy response.43 Many countries have created guidelines and legal instruments obliging owners of properties at risk of wildfire to take precautionary and preventive measures for wildfire hazard reduction, and jurisdictions to enforce these policies (Xanthopoulos, 2004).

39 Recently the consequences of rural exodus on increasing wildfire hazard and occurrence has been investigated and proven for the Western Amazon region (Peru) (Uriarte et al., 2012) 40 Data provided by „Seventeen Moments in Soviet History“: http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php 41 See report „Exodus leaves Russia's villages to ghosts”, published on 30 August 2011 by http://rt.com/news/rural-russia-dying-villages-411/. 42 See report „Russia Plans Mass Exodus”, published on 17 November 2010 by http://www.nodeju.com/5449/russia-plans-mass-exodus.html. 43 For comprehensive literature on the wildland-urban fire research, including modeling, see: http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/userpages/wmell/public.html#sec_publications. 106

Secondary effects of wildland fire, however, have been largely neglected in the past, notably vegetation fire smoke pollution impacts on human health and security. The episode of drought, wildfires and smoke pollution in Western Russia in July-August 2010 revealed the humanitarian problems arising in metropolitan areas from smoke emitted by burning of natural vegetation in the rural landscape as well as through long-distance smoke transport (Goldammer, 2010b).

Other threats have also been largely ignored. Wildfires burning houses, industrial infrastructure, agricultural lands treated with pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers and fires affecting landfills (residual waste) and other waste (e.g. batteries, radioactive materials) generate substantial amounts of hazardous pollutants (Statheropoulos and Goldammer, 2007; Goldammer et al., 2009). The Frio Fire in the Pinal Mountains near in Arizona, which burned between August and October 2011 and assumedly affected an area treated with Agent Orange in 1965, fuelled public concerns about the consequences of smoke pollution containing dioxins on human health.44

Vegetation fires have the potential to release and transport toxic industrial and agricultural substances that have been previously deposited in ecosystems (Genualdi, 2008).45 In the case of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) these persistent organic pollutants can land in regions where the compounds are now banned – or even in the Arctic, where they were never applied. One of the studies uses satellite imaging of smoke plumes and modeling of air mass trajectories to track the source of pollutants emitted by Siberian wildland fires in 2003 and transported to the Pacific Northwest of the U.S., including dieldrin and alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-HCH) (Genualdi, 2008).

Recent research reveals that as a consequence of climate change, mercury deposits previously protected in cold northern forests and wetlands will increasingly become exposed to burning. Mercury is readily released into the atmosphere with fire smoke. Turetsky et al. (2006) quantified organic soil mercury stocks and burned areas across western boreal Canada. It was assumed, that based on ongoing and projected increases in boreal wildfire activity due to climate change, atmospheric mercury emissions will increase and contribute to the anthropogenic alteration of the global mercury cycle and to the exacerbation of mercury toxicity in northern food chains.

Fires Burning on Radioactively Contaminated Terrain

In some countries forests and other lands are contaminated by a variety of hazardous chemical and radioactive pollutants. Wildfires occurring in such contaminated terrain may result in hazardous secondary air pollution. The territories most affected by radioactive pollution are those contaminated with radionuclides released during the failure of the Reactor Number Four of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986. Among the total 6 million ha of radioactively contaminated terrain in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, the most polluted forest area covers over 2 million ha in the Gomel and Mogilev regions of Belarus, the Kiev region of Ukraine, and the Bryansk region of the Russian Federation. The main contaminant is reported as caesium-137 (137Cs) but in the core zones of contamination strontium-90 (90Sr) and plutonium-239 (239Pu) were also found in high concentrations. Under average dry conditions the contaminated surface fuels – the grass layer and the surface layer of peatlands – are consumed by fire. Most critical is the situation in peat layers, where radionuclides are deposited. The long-range transport of radionuclides lifted in the smoke plumes of wildfires and their fallout on large areas were investigated in detail in 1992 (c.f. review by Goldammer et al., 2009b). A recent study presented at the conference “Twenty-Five Years after Chernobyl Accident: Safety for the Future” (Kiev, Ukraine, 20-22 April 2011) concluded that radioactive fallout from a large forest fire occurring in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone could affect the food chain and thus be considered threat to human health and security (Hohl et al., 2012; see also chapter 18 of this White Paper).

Wildfires Collateral Damages during Armed Conflicts

44 EPA Study finds Agent Orange Dioxins in Pinal Mountains. Hazardous? You decide”, published on 15 October 2011 by http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-mesa/epa-study-finds-agent-orange-dioxins-pinal-mountains- hazardous-you-decide and extracts in the GFMC repository http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/media/2011/10/news_20111015_us2.htm 45 See also summary report “Forest fires could spread pollutants”, released by www.usnews.com on 3 December 2009, available at GFMC repository: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2009/12/news_20091204_us2.htm. 107

Fires occurring during or after armed conflicts or during political unrest constitute a major humanitarian and security issue. The history of fire use as a weapon during wars is as long as the history of armed conflicts of humankind (Pyne, 1995). In World War I the Turkish Army burned extended areas in the Rhodopi mountains of Bulgaria to clear the vegetation cover and the hideouts of the Bulgarian resistance fighters (Müller, 1929); in 1922 Greece suffered large wildfires due to similar reasons (Xanthopoulos, 2010). Most prominent examples of fire use in the 20th Century were the attempts by conflicting parties during World War II to ignite the enemy’s hinterland forests in order to distract its military operations. More than 9,000 balloon-carried incendiary devices were launched by the Imperial Japanese Army in 1944 and 1945 (operation Fusen Bakudan) to be carried by the high-altitude jet stream to North America, with several hundreds reaching U.S. airspace and soil (Webber, 1975). The Allied Forces on the other hand sent more than 53,000 balloon-carried incendiary devices to ignite forests in Germany at the late stage of the war (Peebles, 1991). In Greece German military forces ignited forests in Central Greece (Pertuli, Thessaly) to drive out members of the resistance movement (Xanthopoulos, 2010). The war in Viet Nam in the 1960s did not only involve large-scale chemical spraying to defoliate forests to destroy the cover of the Viet Cong (“Operation Ranch Hand“), but the Military Assistance Command-Vietnam (MACV) also ordered "Operation Pink Rose“, which attempted (in vain) to burn herbicide-treated forests and the hideouts of the enemy forces (Shapley, 1972; Westing, 1975; Lewis, 2005).46

Most recent occurrences of wildfire during armed conflicts cannot clearly be assigned to intentional tactical or strategic intentions. Most of the fires highlighted in the following are rather collateral damages during conflicts, or fires that were otherwise started at times of armed conflict. Warring parties often used wildfires as an opportunity and reason for mutual accusations. The most recent conflict-related wildfires occurred mainly in the South Caucasus, Near East and the Central Asian Hindu Kush regions.

South Caucasus: The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (2006): During the period of June to September 2006, extended wildfires affected territories situated close to the Line of Contact (LoC) in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Countries involved in the unresolved conflict around Nagorno- Karabakh accused each other of having ignited the fires intentionally. The fires affected large areas of abandoned lands around the LoC as well as adjoining agricultural and forest lands. Impediments to controlling the fires included the threat of landmines and unexploded ordnance, as well as ongoing tensions between armed forces along the LoC. Concerns over the fires in the affected territories resulted in the UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/285 “The Situation in the Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan” (15 September 2006).47 A joint mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), assessed the short- and long-term impacts of the fires on the environment. In his report to the UNGA the OSCE Chairman-in-Office recommended a number of short- to long-term measures aimed at improving fire management capability in the countries concerned and to contribute to peace building in the region (UN General Assembly, 2007).48 Between 2007 and 2012 the recommendations were implemented by the GFMC with funding from the Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative 49 and the Secretariat of the Euro-Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) of the Council of Europe.50

Afghanistan / Pakistan (2006): In 2006 the armed conflict in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan escalated. Afghanistan-based NATO forces entered Pakistan's airspace from the

46 See a review of the emerging field of warfare ecology by Machlis et al. (2011). 47 UNGA Resolution A/RES/60/285 “The Situation in the Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan”: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/UNGA%20Resolution%207%20September.pdf 48 61st UN General Assembly Session, Agenda item 17 „The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan“, Letter dated 20 December 2006 from the Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/N0720860-OSCE-UNGA- ENG.pdf 49 The Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative transforms environment and security risks into regional cooperation. ENVSEC comprises the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as associate partners. 50 The ENVSEC project „Enhancing National Capacity on Fire Management and Wildfire Disaster Risk Reduction in the South Caucasus” is operational since 2008 and includes Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, as well as a regional component on cooperative capacity building in fire management. 108

neighboring Nooristan province. The air raids on two border villages Daroshot and Azo (Arandu) involved dropping of bombs, which ignited wildfires in the surrounding forests.51

Israel-Lebanon (2006): During the armed conflict shelling, air raids and rocket attacks started numerous fires on the territories of Israel and Lebanon at a time of drought and extreme wildfire risk (Achiron-Frumkin and Frumkin, 2006). In Israel 800 forest fires were induced by rockets (400 of which required response) affecting 1,200 ha of forests (mainly coniferous). In addition about 6,600 ha of nature reserves, national parks and landscapes proposed as nature reserves, as well as ca. 7,000 ha pasture lands were burned. In Lebanon the total area of burned forests was 712 ha and that of burned productive trees was 308 ha.52 The use of white phosphorous as marker bombs or smoke screens in the Gaza War of 2008-2009 carried a high risk of igniting structural and wildland fires.53

Georgia (2008): During the armed conflict in Georgia in August 2008 a number of forest fires occurred as a consequence of military activities and caused collateral damages in several sites in the country. According to reports by government authorities and non-government organizations the fires burned between 13 August and the end of August 2008. Starting on 13 August 2008 two forest fires in the Ateni Gorge (Ateni and Ormotsi compartments of the Inner Kartli Regional Forest District) affected around 60 ha of forests. Fires affected approximately 950 ha in the Borjomi Gorge in Samtskhe- Javakheti Region, of which approximately 150 ha of the Borjomi area burned in the buffer zone of the Nedzvi Nature Sanctuary. Several fires also affected two national parks and one nature reserve. Three fires burned within the Borjomi-Kharaguali National Park. A joint mission of OSCE and UNEP to assess the environmental impacts of the conflict in Georgia confirmed the damages caused by fires in Borjomi Gorge and noted that additional areas had burned along the main corridors of combat activities (roads between South Ossetia and Gori Region).54 Starting in 2009 the ENVSEC programme included Georgia in the above-mentioned regional fire management project.

Asymmetric Conflicts: The Forest Fire Jihad

In November 2008 a website carried the first known posting calling for Forest Jihad. According to a U.S. intelligence report published in January 2009 the statement, in Arabic, said that “summer has begun so do not forget the Forest Jihad.” The writer called on all Muslims in the United States, Europe, Russia and Australia to “start forest fires”.55 The posting quoted an imprisoned Al Qaida member:

- “Jihad is an art just like poetry, music, and the fine arts. There are people that draw and there are others that are jihadists. They both act upon inspiration”. - “The idea of forest fires is attributed to him, may God set him free, as is in this short clip”. - The posting said that setting forest fires was legal under extremist Islamic law as part of “an eye for an eye” and can produce “amazing results”. - The writer stated that it was permissible to burn trees in carrying out jihad. “Scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands,” the writer said. - The writer stated that “targeted forests” are in the nations that “are at war with Muslims,” including the United States, Europe, Russia, and Australia. - “Smoke caused by the fires will create pollution and military forces could be tied up fighting fires”. The report noted that U.S. military forces in Iraq or Afghanistan “could even be recalled” as occurred following hurricane Katrina, which, in fact did not occur. - The report urges terrorists to use sulphuric acid to start a forest fire, as well as gasoline.

51 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2006/10/news_20061019_pak.htm 52 Report of Association for Forests, Development and Conservation (AFDC) is archived in the GFMC repository. 53 „Did Israel use a banned weapon?”, published on 22 January 2009 by CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/eveningnews/main4748346.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo;videoMetaIn fo 54 Report of the Joint OSCE / UNEP Environmental Assessment mission to Georgia (29 September to 3 October 2008): http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/OSCE-UNEP-GFMC-Env-Assessment-Georgia- Oct-2008-OSCE-34577_en.pdf 55 “U.S. intelligence alerted to threat of 'Forest Fire Jihad'”, published on 15 January 2008 by www.worldtribune.com (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/me_terror_01_15.asp, and http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2008/01/news_20080117_us2.htm) 109

While Australian authorities have revealed no evidence linking any recent wildfires to extremists, terrorism experts say “the large death toll, the huge swath of destruction and the massive financial blow to the country are proving to Islamic terrorists that arson can be a highly effective – and simple – tool of holy war”.56

In December 2010 Israel's police, fire brigades and press intentionally covered up an Arab arson offensive that took place while fires raged on Carmel Mountain on the first week of December 2010, an Israeli media report claimed.57 Police and the Fire Commission decided not to spread the information about the arson "so as not to wake into action more potential terrorists". The press report listed the locations of about 25 arson attacks that the fire brigades fought in the early days of the month. In November 2010 eighteen acts of arson were recorded in the Forest of Peace, the press report noted.

The tensions are reflected by recent events that are not yet finally evaluated. In February 2011 the leader of a major Muslim movement in Israel was arrested for allegedly damaging and setting fire to a eucalypt forest in Southern Israel.58 The attack was allegedly in protest of a Jewish National Fund project in the area. The Jewish National Fund is working to plant forest on parts of the Negev, a plan opposed by some Bedouin residents of the region. Residents of the town of El-Araqib in particular had condemned the project out of concern that it will use land that they hope to use in the future to house Arabs “returning” to Israel from the rest of the Arab world.

In May 2012 Al Qaida called upon its followers to unleash massive forest fires upon the United States and published graphic instructions for the creation and ignition of “ember bombs”. Detailed in the memorably titled, “It is of your Freedom to Ignite a Firebomb” the call targeted Montana because of its rapid population growth in the wooded areas.59

Later in 2012 the Russian Secret Service FSB claimed to possess information that terrorism tactics of Al Qaida included setting fire to European forests, an allegiation which could not be proved.60

The U.S. Department for Homeland Security (DHS, 2012) released an internal note (unclassified but for official use only) “Terrorist Interest in Using Fire as a Weapon” aimed at “providing awareness of terrorist interest in the tactic of intentionally setting fires to cause casualties, economic damage, and resource depletion”.61

56 „Australian wildfires could fuel 'Forest Jihad' terrorists, experts say”, published on 09 February 2009 by http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490306,00.html 57 “Cover up of Arab arson offensive exposed”, published on 15 December 2010 by http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/news.aspx/141167 58 “Islamist leader arrested for forest fire arson”, published on 22 February 2011 by http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142464 59 „Unleash Hell: New Al Qaeda magazine describes in detail how to start huge forest fires across the U.S. with instructions on how to make 'ember bombs'“, published on 3 May 2012 by http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article- 2138758/Unleash-Hell-New-Al-Qaeda-magazine-describes-start-huge-forest-fires-U-S-instructions-make-ember- bombs.html 60 „Forest Jihad: Al-Qaida Turns to Eco-Terrorism says Russian Security Chief”, published on 3 October 2012 by http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/390777/20121003/russia-terrorists-forest-jihad-alexander-bortnikov-al.htm 61 For more information on the concept of „pyro terrorism“ see Baird (2006) and Deshpande (2009) 110

Civil Unrest and Wildfires

Wildfire outbreaks have also occasionally been attributed to domestic civil unrest in some countries. Kailidis (1992) intended to prove that wildfires in Greece were started purposely during times of elections and political crises between the 1920s and 1980s. Xanthopoulos (2010) rejected this direct link of high-fire occurrence years with political unrest and attributed the underlying causes to poor performance of government agencies. In this regard he also rejected the hypotheses developed by Christodoulakis and Skouras (2009), who developed theories suggesting that around elections, wildfires and tax evasion increase significantly in Greece, with important economic implications. However, Xanthopoulos (2010) confirmed the use of fire during the civil war between the nationalistic and communist movements.

Political motivations and accusations for arson can hardly be proven, for example blaming the ETA in Spain or the Mafia in Italy for political arson (Xanthopoulos, 2010). However, there is occasional evidence indicating such motivations such as the series of arson fires in and around Athens (Greece) in 1981. In August 1981 the right-wing movement Galazios Toxotis (“Blue Archer”) was accused having lit fires in the residential area Nova Politeia of Athens – home to many political leaders, as well as trying to blackmail the government into releasing political prisoners (members of the former military junta).62

A case of collateral damages of civil protest involving wildfires has been noted during demonstrations in Israel in May 2010 when brush fires started by tear gas canisters were fanned by the wind and engulfed the land in a massive brushfire.63 In June 2011 Jewish settlers were accused of setting fire to fields belonging to Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank village of Burin.64

It is alleged that in December 2011 former Turkish Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz officially admitted that Turkish secret agents intentionally started forest fires in Greece in the 1990s as part of state- sponsored sabotage. This followed earlier claims that the blazes were a retaliation for Greece’s alleged hosting of training camps for Kurdish rebels of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and urban underground leftist group Devrimci Sol and even a retaliation for forest fires in Turkey’s tourism areas during the 1990s allegedly set by Greek secret service agents.65

Wildfires and other Remnants of Armed Conflicts: Land Mines and Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)

The countries in the region most affected by land mines are Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Armenia. The origin of the land mines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia is from the civil war from the last decade of 20th century. It is estimated that about 300,000 ha are contaminated by land mines and UXO (mostly along to the line of conflict during the civil war). According to a report from Bosnia and Herzegovina about 127,000 ha of forests, or 10% of the total forest lands, are contaminated by UXO and land mines (Pešković, 2008). Croatia reports 95,000 ha of mined forests and other lands with a total of ca. 100,000 land mines left (Jungwirth, 2009). This is a significant problem and challenge for forest fire management since wildfires burning on mined lands cannot be fought on the ground using conventional equipment. Wildfires triggering explosions of land mines have caused casualties in several cases and resulted also in reluctance to attack wildfires, or in orders for firefighters to stay out of the “red zones”. In Vietnam UXO stemming from the war in the 1960s and 1970s continue to trigger wildfires and posing threats to firefighters more than 35 years after the termination of the armed conflict.66

62 „Blauer Bogenschütze. Der Großbrand, der Athen bedrohte, ist anscheinend das Werk von Rechtsextremisten, die ihre Idole aus dem Gefängnis pressen und das Volk kurz vor den Wahlen in Unruhe versetzen wollen“, published on 10 August 1981 by http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14335960.html 63 „An Nabi Saleh demonstrates against violence in the midst of extensive brushfires”, published on 16 May 2010 by www.palsolidarity.org and http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2010/05/news_20100516_ps.htm 64 „Settler arson attack in the village of Burin”, published on 30 June 2011 by http://palsolidarity.org/2011/06/19146/ 65 At the time of finalizing this chapter the debate on false quotations and accusations are ongoing, see GFMC Media repository of December 2011 (http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2011/12/news_december11.htm), notably see: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2011/12/news_20111228_gr.htm. 66 „Danang: Nearly 100ha of pine forest burnt down”, published on 3 May 2012 by http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/society/21890/danang--nearly-100ha-of-pine-forest-burnt-down.html and http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2012/05/news_20120503_vn2.htm 111

Similar reports from the Line of Contact (LoC) between India-Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir reveal that landmines are the main hindrance in controlling forest fires. There are reports of incidences in July and December 2009 and May 2011 of land mines laid along the LoC exploding during wildfire.67 In Israel, wildfires in minefields on the Golan Heights threatened a UN peacekeeping battalion in August 2009.68 In Turkey about one million land mines have been laid between the 1950s and the early 1990s. In the border region between Syria and the Turkish province Sanliurfa about 14,000 ha of productive agricultural land have been mined as a strip along the border. These areas with land mines pose a great danger in fire suppression (Bilgili, 2009).

Ironically land mines may also protect forests from destruction by non-sustainable or illegal use. The Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) assessed the wildfire threats inside and around Quadisha Valley, Lebanon, which has been UNESCO World Heritage listed since 1998. The Joubbeh-Bcharri community forest at the edge of Quadisha Valley contributes to the few large forest tracts in Lebanon which have not yet been subjected to illegal cutting, occupation by constructions or other degradation. The reason for this lies in the contamination of the forest by land mines, which had been laid by Syrian and Lebanese troops during the civil war (1975-1990). These mine fields have not yet been cleared, thus people are not entering the forest. Grazing by goats is common around the edge of the forest complex and contributes to reduced fuel loads and thus decreased risk of wildfire spreading into the forest. The technical report to UNESCO concludes that land mines and goats so far have protected the forest from degradation (Global Fire Monitoring Center, 2010).

Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) is found on several hundred thousand hectares of forests and other lands throughout Western, Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Remnants of World War I battles along the frontlines of 1917 in the South of today’s Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have repeatedly created problems, e.g. during the fire season of 2007 when more than 70 incidents of explosions of ammunition triggered by forest fires were noted (Goldammer and Nikolov, 2007). In Germany, the battlegrounds of the final phase of World War II in Brandenburg State around Berlin are still highly contaminated by approximately one hundred thousand tons of unexploded artillery, grenades and bombs. In addition, former and active military exercise areas and shooting ranges dating from the early 1900s to post-World War II, pose a high risk to civilian populations, especially firefighters (Goldammer, 2010; Goldammer et al., 2009). A recent estimate reveals that ca. 250,000 ha of former and active military training and shooting ranges in Germany are contaminated by UXO.69

Besides the above-mentioned land mine contamination in the Balkans and the South Caucasus the combat grounds in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh territory represent one of the major UXO- polluted terrains worldwide. In the Near East the aftermath of the Israel-Lebanon War of 2006 revealed numerous problems associated with unexploded cluster bombs. The National Demining Office of Lebanon reported 22 fatalities and 166 injuries due to post-conflict explosions of cluster bombs; two incidents occurred during wildfire suppression.

Similar risks are found in other continents. For example in Australia, where large tracts of lands are contaminated by World War II explosives, nearly 40,000 blocks of land across Brisbane and Ipswich on which UXO had reportedly exploded during bushfires.70

67 „Landmines explode, hamper efforts to put out spreading LoC forest fires”, published on 9 July 2009 by www.kashmirlive.com and http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2009/07/news_20090710_in.htm; “Bushfire sets off 6 landmines in Poonch“, published on 13 December 2009 by Rising Kashmir: http://www.risingkashmir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19095&Itemid=1; „Forest fire damages LoC minefield, explosions trigger panic”, published on 17 May 2011 by http://in.news.yahoo.com/forest- fire-damages-loc-minefield-explosions-trigger-panic-152300779.html and http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/media/2011/05/news_20110517_in.htm 68 „Feueralarm: Grasbrände in der Zone“, published on 3 August 2009 by the Austrian Army http://www.bundesheer.at/ausle/undof/artikel.php?id=2893 69 This assessment of January 2011 has been extracted from the databank „Nature Conservation and Military“, David Foundation, Germany (unpublished data on file at GFMC). See also Goldammer et al. (2012). 70 „Buried bomb risk worsened by bushfires: councilor“, published on 1 October 2009 by www.brisbanetimes.com.au and http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2009/10/news_20090910_au3.htm 112

Threats arising from Wildfires Affecting Military Assets

Wildfires have the potential to affect other military assets, including ammunition depots, nuclear and conventional research and storage facilities, and active military shooting and exercise ranges. Forest fires have entered ammunition storage facilities in the territories of the former Soviet Union in recent years. In 2008 artillery shells and other ammunition at a storage facility in Ukraine exploded when a forest fire swept into the depot.71 Details of the causes of other reported incidents remain unclear; a fire and subsequent explosions at a munitions depot in southern Ukraine in 2004 killed five people; a fire at a Soviet-era military base in Kagan, Uzbekistan spread to an ammunitions depot in July 2008, also igniting a series of explosions that killed three people and injured 21 others; and a fire that burnt an arsenal near Ulyanovsk (720 kilometers east of Moscow) in November 2009.72 The latest incident of this kind resulted in a large ammunition depot fire in Russia, which was attributed by some to be caused by a wildfire and which burned in May 2011 nearby the village of Urman (Bashkortostan).73

During the fire and smoke pollution episode in Western Russia in July/August 2010 several military depots and nuclear facilities were threatened by fire. In the first week of August wildfires overran a weapons storage facility near Moscow (the Central Air and Technical Naval Base 2512), with an estimated loss of 200 airplanes and half of the buildings destroyed. At the same time the Russian military garrison Naro-Fominsk near Moscow moved all its artillery ammunition and rockets to a safer location as wildfires advanced in the region. In the same week wildfires threatened a factory in Kolomna that produces guided missiles, the Novovoronez nuclear power station near Voronez and the Tryokhgorny nuclear closed city in the Urals (Soviet code name: Zlatoust-36) where nuclear warheads are assembled and dismantled.74 A critical situation developed in the closed „nuclear city“ of Sarov (Arzamas-16) as wildfires advanced towards nuclear arms-producing facilities.75

Similar incidences have affected other continents – for example in the U.S.A, where the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory, located 70 miles north of Albuquerque (New Mexico) and employing 7,000 people – was threatened by wildfires in May 2000. The fires burned within 300 yards of a plutonium storage facility and forced the evacuation of more than 20,000 people from the main and an adjoining the facility.76 A similar situation arose during the Las Conchas Fire in June / July 2011. This fire once again threatened the Los Alamos nuclear facility and spread fears of radioactive contamination (O’Brien and Goldammer, 2011).

In South Europe the most recent severe accident on a military site was caused by a wildfire in Cyprus, which occurred on an ammunition storage site and became the most disastrous recorded event in that region. On 11 July 2011 a brush fire triggered the explosion of the Iranian explosives that had been confiscated in 2009 and stored at the munitions dump of Evangelos Florakis Naval Base in Zygi. Two containers caught fire and a series of explosions followed. The blast killed six base personnel and six fire fighters who were battling the bush fire that preceded the explosion. More than 60 people were injured. Severe damage to the island’s biggest power station – Vasiliko, which supplied about 60% of the island's electricity – resulted in severe power supply shortages (O’Brien and Goldammer, 2011).

Military Training and Wildfires

Military activities on training and shooting ranges are common in Europe. In 2009 and 2010 extensive fires burned near the suburbs of Marseille (France) as a consequence of exercise shelling by the Foreign Legion. In July 2009 more than 300 people were evacuated from their homes when fires

71 „Blaze sweeps Ukraine military base”, published on 29 August 2008 by http://english.aljazeera.net and http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2008/08/news_20080830_ukn.htm 72 „Blasts rock Russian ammunition depot, 2 killed“, published on 15 November 2009 by Associated Press and http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hw4_DV-6Y-iKHHHgsUKdvh92XIRAD9BUSIVG0 73 „Unknown cause for Russian arms depot fire”, published on 27 May 2011 by Euronews, see http://www.euronews.net/2011/05/27/unknown-cause-for-russian-arms-depot-fire 74 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GFMCnew/2010/08/06/20100806_ru.htm 75 For a detailed situation description and a map of Sarov and surroundings, with active fires, depicted by WorldView-2 satellite sensor (2-m resolution), on 6 August 2010, see: http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/GFMCnew/2010/08/07/20100807_ru.htm. 76 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2003/news_05122000_1.htm 113

caused by shelling became uncontrolled.77 Similar experiences have been shared by countries in other continents. In the U.S.A. the “Machine Gun Fire” of September 2010 burned through the training range of Camp Williams, Utah. It was caused by automatic weapons training and affected the artillery impact area with UXO contamination, consuming 4,326 acres and three houses and forcing the evacuation of 1,652 houses and nearly 5,000 people.78 In the extremely dry spring months of 2011 extensive fires caused by military shooting exercises in the training grounds of Fort Lee, White Sands Missile Range, Fort Bliss and Camp Pendleton were recorded.

The presence of UXO constitutes a considerable threat to land management authorities, ground firefighters and aerial fire suppression. Within this broad category of UXO, the threat of residual exercise ammunition is less than the risk of residual combat ammunition. In Germany fire services are not allowed to fight wildfires on demarcated terrain contaminated by UXO (“red zones”). Thus, as wildfires cannot be attacked swiftly and with conventional means there is high threat of fires becoming out of control and spreading to adjacent terrain.

Opportunities and Challenges of maintaining Military Training Ranges of high Conservation Value

In Europe active and former military training areas and shooting ranges have been shaped by wildfires in such a way that open land ecosystems of high biodiversity value have been created or maintained by recurrent fires. The Atlantic and continental Calluna vulgaris heathlands of Germany are a classic example of sub-climax ecosystems that historically had been maintained by intensive cultivation (grazing, mowing, biomass export) and intentionally or accidentally lit fires on military training grounds. In the wake of demilitarization at the end of the Cold War and the unification of Germany the 1990s and into the first decade of the 21st Century, the use of former military ranges was largely abandoned, and subsidized maintenance of open land habitats has reached critical limitations due to lack of appropriate policies and funding prioritization (Goldammer et al., 2009). The recent introduction of prescribed fire in Germany to maintain open heathland habitats is based on traditional burning practices and coincides with new ecological insights of applied fire research that are receiving increased acceptance from nature conservation groups and the public. The above mentioned White Paper on Use of Prescribed Fire in Land Management, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia (Goldammer, 2010a) is indeed calling for a widespread application of prescribed fire to maintain the conservation value of former military training sites.

The presence of UXO, however, is a limiting factor for the application of prescribed fire on approximately 250,000 ha of high conservation value terrain (Fig. 1). A pilot project is currently underway in the Heidehof-Golmberg Nature Reserve in the State of Brandenburg, Germany, to test safe application methods of using armored vehicles (demilitarized tanks) for prescribed fire ignition and control. Monitoring and control of the fire operations by an unmanned aerial system (helicopter drone with real-time video downlink to the control center) allows navigation and safe and efficient ignition and control of the armored vehicles (Goldammer et al., 2012).

77 “'Imbeciles': Hundreds evacuated from their homes as bushfire caused by French military threatens Marseille”, published on 23 July 2009 by www.dailymail.co.uk and http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/media/2009/07/news_20090723_fr.htm 78 “Utah National Guard admits fault in Machine Gun, Camp Williams Fire“, published on 20 September 2010: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2010/09/news_20100920_us5.htm and http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/media/2010/09/news_20100920_us6.htm and http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/media/2010/09/news_20100921_us.htm 114

Figure 1. Germany has about 700,000 ha active or former military exercise and shooting ranges with high conservation value. About 250,000 ha of these lands are contaminated with Unexploded Ordnance (UXO). Source of map and contamination assessment: Naturstiftung David, Germany (Goldammer et al., 2012). Legend: green – active military areas; ochre – abandoned military areas.

Overall Global Wildland Fire Fatalities

Reliable global statistics on wildland fire fatalities (deaths and injuries) are not available. A major share of wildfire fatalities are occurring in developing countries and are not entering the electronic media or insurance statistics, and thus are not available for international evaluation. Injuries caused by indirect effects of fire are common but not systematically evaluated, e.g. short- to long-term effects of fire smoke pollution on human health, including premature mortality. Fire and smoke episodes in Southeast Asia and the Amazon lowlands caused by conversion burnings since the 1980s have sparked numerous media reports on such massive near-ground smoke pollution and the resulting threats and observations of people adversely affected by smoke inhalation, but only very few scientific investigations have been conducted (for details cf. chapter 18 of this volume). 115

Since 2008 annual global wildland fire fatalities reports are published by GFMC.79 The reports reveal that 345, 374, 279 and 130 people were killed directly by wildfires in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively. The 2010 report does not include fatalities that could be possibly attributed to the consequences of the extreme heat wave and extended fire smoke pollution in Western Russia (cf. final remarks in chapter 18 of this volume).

The reports also include persons injured and – starting in 2011 – the extent of structural damages caused by wildfires and evacuations due to wildfire threat.80 As stated by GFMC, the numbers of fatalities and damages include only those reported in the media and GFMC correspondents. Thus, due to the lack of a comprehensive national / international reporting system the statistical dataset is likely to be incomplete, especially considering the numerous unreported fatalities in remote regions of the developing world.

Addressing Politics and Policies

The chapters of this volume – the White Paper – have reflected on the natural and human-influenced history of vegetation fires globally. The individual chapters address a complexity of situations in which fire regimes are changing. Thus, conclusions point various directions, depending on the specific nature of local and regional environmental and socio-economic changes. In the final chapter some considerations about options of how to cope with changing fire regimes and fire management in future will be given. In the context of the questions addressed in this chapter two examples are selected to highlight the need for action: Wildfires as means or consequences of armed conflicts or strained political relations, and the prevention of dangerous wildfires on contaminated terrain.

Opportunities: Confidence Building for Human Security and Peace

Since wildfires and vegetation fire smoke can easily spread over boundaries, thus making fire management become an additional source of contention to already strained relations between neighbouring countries. Hence, because of the transboundary nature of wildfires and their potential impact, co-operating on fire management across borders is in the interest of all sides involved. Thus, like water management, fire-management has great potential to be a source of co-operation and an avenue for confidence-building.

The most recent events during a state of high tension between countries, or state of war, were the above-mentioned situations around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2006 and the armed conflict in Georgia in August 2008. Mandated by the UN Security Council in 2006 and by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) was entrusted with the technical lead to develop confidence building measures between countries directly and indirectly affected. The proposed measures of building national and transboundary fire management capacity are aimed at managing and preserving natural assets and protecting populations from adverse impacts of fires. They were implemented starting in 2007 (ongoing) within the framework of the OSCE Mission and the Project “Enhancing National Capacity on Fire Management and Wildfire Disaster Risk Reduction in the South Caucasus”, which comes under the umbrella of the ENVSEC Initiative.81 Following the OSCE report to the UN General Assembly on the Nagorno-Karabakh mission in 2006, in which was stated “The Mission’s hope is that, further to its recommendations, fires might be transformed from an additional source of conflict into an opportunity for regional cooperation, confidence building and ultimately reconciliation” (UN General Assembly, 2007) the OSCE

79 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/bulletin_news.htm. Starting with the 2011 report data will be provided on structures and other economic assets burned and damaged, as well as numbers of evacuations and evacuees. 80 According to the 2011 report a total of 125 evacuations in 15 countries involved the temporary displacement of 85,723 persons. The loss of private homes destroyed by wildfires in 2011 in 15 countries amounted a total of 7193. The number of homes damaged by wildfires in three countries amounted 269. Farmers lost more than 9800 livestock in six countries, more than 700,000 ha of valuable agricultural lands were affected by wildfires and were considered destroyed. Estimated agricultural loss in South Africa was $US 7.16. Only in Texas, U.S.A., wildfires during April have caused an estimated $20.4 million in agricultural losses, destroying fences, buildings, grazing pastures and resulting in livestock deaths. 81 See section “Pressing Issues” above. 116

considers the ongoing project as one of the successful non-military confidence building measures in the region.82

In December 2010 a wildfire affected the Mount Carmel massive near Haifa, Israel, resulting in a relatively short, but intense and dangerous inferno of planted, partially exotic tree stands and natural vegetation on the slopes of the mountain. Given the scarcity of forests in Israel, the high emotional value of the fire, and the tragic loss of 42 human lives entrapped by the fire, the country received a widespread response of assistance to combat the fire, including the provision of aerial firefighting resources from as far as the U.S.A. and Russia.83 Most significant, however, was the assistance of Palestinian authorities by sending fire trucks and crews for support of fire suppression, despite fierce political tensions between the parties. On 7 December 2010 the President and the Prime Minister of Israel signed a letter of recognition, in which “The State of Israel expresses its gratitude and deep appreciation to the Special Delegation of the Palestinian Authority for the invaluable contribution and exemplary courage in battling the blaze of Mt. Carmel”.84

During the Mt. Carmel fires in December 2010 Turkey assisted with massive firefighting support, despite the tensions between the countries that had earlier arisen from the incident on a Turkish ship bound for Gaza and seized by Israeli military, which resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish citizens in May 2010.85

In July 2011 a wildfire threatening the Yad Vashem holocaust memorial in Jerusalem was controlled with the assistance of Arab staff from East Jerusalem, who significantly contributed to save the archives.86

In October 2011 rabbis from the United States of America thanked envoys from countries that helped Israel douse forest fires, “including some that now have difficult relations with the Jewish state”, including a Palestine Liberation Organization envoy. 87

Starting an international dialogue on Dangerous Fires on Contaminated Terrain

In 2009 an international seminar made history by addressing the problem of “Wildfires and Human Security: Fire Management on Terrain Contaminated by Radioactivity, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Land Mines”. The seminar was held in Kyiv and Chernobyl, Ukraine, and provided new insights into phenomena and problems arising from fires burning in radioactively contaminated terrain in the Eurasia biota. Most severe problems are in the territories of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, which were highly contaminated by the failure of Reactor 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant back in 1986. Traces of radioactivity are found in emissions from wildfires burning in Central Asia and are transported long-range and intercontinental. Wildfire incidents in the U.S.A. have threatened nuclear test facilities but so far have not resulted in severe contamination.

Reports from Germany, the Southern Caucasus countries Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Near East countries Lebanon and Israel and the Balkan countries Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and FYROM Macedonia reveal the magnitude of unexploded ammunition and land mine contamination in forested and other lands and the problems associated with remnants from armed conflicts dating back as far as World War I. Reports on fires burning in former military exercise and shooting ranges reveal that unexploded ordnance are potentially very dangerous and have repeatedly resulted in firefighter casualties.

82 OSCE Guide on Non-Military Confidence Building Measures (2012): http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/OSCE-Guide-CBM-Measures-2012-Extract-Fire.pdf 83 For a real-time log on the Mt. Carmel fires see GFMC daily updates archives at: http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/current/archive/archive.htm#ISRAEL 84 Copy of letter available at GFMC repository 85 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid 86 „Yad Vashem praises Arab staff for fighting Jerusalem Forest fire“, published on 20 July 2011 by http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/yad-vashem-praises-arab-staff-for-fighting-jerusalem-forest-fire- 1.375644 and http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2011/07/news_20110728_il.htm 87 „Rabbis thank countries that helped with forest fires” published on 25 October 2011 by http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/10/25/3089956/rabbis-thank-countries-that-helped-with-forest-fires and http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2011/10/news_20111025_il.htm 117

The seminar called on its host – the government of Ukraine – and the auspices of the seminar, the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), the Council of Europe (CoE), OSCE / ENVSEC, the UNISDR Regional Southeast Europe / Caucasus and Central Asia Wildland Fire Networks, and the UNECE / FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire to address the problems. The “Chernobyl Resolution on Wildfires and Human Security: Challenges and Priorities for Action to address Problems of Wildfires burning on Terrain Contaminated by Radioactivity, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Land Mines“ recommends to develop policies and practices related to fire management on contaminated terrain. 88

Conclusions

Without intending to repeat the historic role of fire use in the evolution and maintenance of the cultural landscapes and land-use systems of temperate-boreal Eurasia (e.g., Goudsblom, 1993; Pyne, 1997; Goldammer et al., 1997), and the subsequent changes due to the takeover of using fossil-fuel driven technologies replacing traditional cultivation systems including fire use, it seems that the cultural landscapes of the region are on the brink of an era of transition.

While the rural exodus may offer opportunities for natural revegetation – a process welcomed by those supporting the transformation of former cultivated or otherwise intensively used lands to natural vegetation or “wilderness” areas – large tracts of cultivated landscapes are transitioning to a state of high wildfire hazard and wildfire risk as a consequence of vegetation succession and buildup of combustible materials readily susceptible to ignition and spread of wildfires.

This coincides with an obviously increasing vulnerability of society to fire and fire effects – a trend that is observed in other cultural landscapes around the world. New approaches in integrated land management are needed, ranging from small-scale approaches aimed at preserving or managing habitats of endangered species to landscape-scale approaches that take into account the overarching aspects of landscape functioning, environmental protection and climatic changes.

With increasing knowledge on the adverse effects of fire smoke emissions on human health, biogeochemical cycles and direct and indirect effects on climate, it may be expected that conflicts between the need for natural and cultural fires and the need to protect an increasingly vulnerable human society will become apparent.

References

Note: Media reports quoted in footnotes and mirrored in the GFMC global wildland fire data repository can be accessed using a User ID and a Password, which will be made available on request by GFMC. Enquiries to be address to: [email protected]

Achiron-Frumkin, T, Frumkin, R. (2006) Preliminary assessment of environmental damages induced by the fighting in northern Israel-Lebanon, summer 2006. Based on preliminary reports issued by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority (INPA), the Jewish National Fund (JNF) - Forest Department, the Ministry of Environmental Defence (MOE) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) and prepared for Israel’s National Committee of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Baird, R.A. (2006) Pyro-terrorism – The threat of arson-induced forest fires as a future terrorist weapon of mass destruction. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 29, 415-428. Bilgili, E. (2009) Fire Management in Areas Contaminated by Land Mines in Turkey. Paper and data presented in: Advanced Seminar “Wildfires and Human Security: Fire Management on Terrain Contaminated by Radioactivity, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Land Mines”, Kyiv / Chornobyl, Ukraine, 6-8 October 2009. Abstract Volume (J.G. Goldammer and S. Zibtsev, eds.). http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/GFMC-CoE-OSCE-Seminar-Ukraine- Brochure-Final-06-Oct-2009.pdf Birot, Y. (ed.) (2009) Living with Wildfires: What science can tell us. A contribution to the science- policy dialogue. European Forestry Institute (EFI) Discussion Paper 15, 82 p.

88 See summary of seminar contributions and the Chernobyl Resolution published in UNECE / FAO International Forest Fire News (IFFN) No. 40 (2010), pp. 76-113. 118

Christodoulakis, N., Skouras, S. (2009). Electoral misgovernance cycles: Wildfires and tax evasion in Greece. Athens University of Economics and Business, Department of International and European Economic Studies (version of 28 April 2009), 30 pp. Clark, J.S., Cachier, H., Goldammer, J.G., Stocks, B.J. (eds.) (1997) Sediment records of biomass burning and global change. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 489 pp. Clean Air Task Force (CATF) (2009) Agricultural Fires and Arctic Climate Change: A Special CATF Report. http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Agricultural_Fires_and_Arctic_Climate_Change.pdf Clean Air Task Force / Bellona (2010) International Conference on Open Burning and the Arctic, St Petersburg, Russia, November 2010. Summary and Conclusions. International Forest Fire News No. 40, 129-132. Deshpande, N. (2009) Pyro-Terrorism: Recent cases and the potential for proliferation. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 32, 36-44. DHS (U.S. Department for Homeland Security) (2012) Terrorist Interest in Using Fire as a Weapon. Non-published unclassified / for official use only (U//FOUO) Note IA-0140-12. Department for Homeland Security, Washington. Dimitrakopoulos, A.P., Mitsopoulos, I.D. (2005) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 – Thematic report on forest fires in the Mediterranean Region. Working Paper FFM/8/E, FAO, Rome, Italy. Doherty, S.J., Warren, S.G., Grenfell, T.C., Clarke, A.D., Brandt, R.E. (2010) Light-absorbing impurities in Arctic snow. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 11647-11680. doi:10.5194/acp-10-11647-2010. Genualdi, S. (2008) Semi-volatile organic compounds as molecular markers for atmospheric and ecosystem transport. Dissertation submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Presented: 18 September 2008. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/9463/Genualdi_final_thesis_pdf.pdf?s equence=1 Global Fire Monitoring Center (2010) Forest Fire Threat in Qadisha Valley, Lebanon: Precautionary Action to Prevent Damage or Destruction of the UNESCO World Heritage Site. Report of an Initial Project, submitted to UNESCO by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), 29 December 2010. On file at GFMC and UNESCO Headquarters (Paris, France) and Regional Bureau (Beirut, Lebanon). Goldammer, J.G. (ed.) (2010a) White Paper on Use of Prescribed Fire in Land Management, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia. Results and recommendations of the Symposium on Fire Management in Cultural and Natural Landscapes, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia and members of the Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network (EFNCN), Freiburg, Germany, 25-27 January 2008. Fire Ecology Research Group/ Global Fire Monitoring Center, 28 p. http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/natcon/EFNCN- White-Paper-2010.pdf Goldammer, J.G. (2010b) Preliminary Assessment of the Fire Situation in Western Russia in 2010 by the Global Fire Monitoring Center, 15 August 2010, presented at the State Duma, Moscow, 23 September 2010. International Forest Fire News No. 40, 20-42. Goldammer, J.G. (2011) Wildland Fires and Human Security: Challenges for Fire Management in the 21st Century. In: Proceedings of the International Forest Fire Symposium Commemorating the International Year of Forests 2011, Sol Beach, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea, 7-8 June 2011, p. 36-49. Korea Forest Research Institute, Seoul, Korea, 461 p. Goldammer, J.G., Montag, S., Page, H. (1997) Nutzung des Feuers in mittel- und nordeuropäischen Landschaften. Geschichte, Methoden, Probleme, Perspektiven. Alfred Toepfer Akademie für Naturschutz, Schneverdingen, NNA-Berichte 10, Heft 5, 18-38. Goldammer, J.G., Nikolov, N.N. (2007) Ecological Damage Assessment of the Wildfires in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 2007. Joint Mission by the UNEP-OCHA Joint Environment Unit, UNEP, UNDP and GFMC. http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/FYROM-2007.pdf Goldammer, J.G., Brunn, E., Hoffmann, G., Keienburg, T., Mause, R., Page, H., Prüter, J., Remke, E., Spielmann, M. (2009) Einsatz des Kontrollierten Feuers in Naturschutz, Landschaftspflege und Forstwirtschaft – Erfahrungen und Perspektiven für Deutschland. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 73, 137-164. Goldammer, J.G., Zibtsev, S. (eds.) (2009) Advanced Seminar “Wildfires and Human Security: Fire Management on Terrain Contaminated by Radioactivity, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Land Mines”, Kyiv / Chornobyl, Ukraine, 6-8 October 2009, Abstract Volume, 41p. http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/GFMC-CoE-OSCE-Seminar-Ukraine-Brochure-Final-06- Oct-2009.pdf 119

Goldammer, J.G., Statheropoulos, M., Andreae, M.O. 2009. Impacts of Vegetation Fire Emissions on the Environment, Human Health and Security – A Global Perspective. In: Wildland Fires and Air Pollution (A. Bytnerowicz, M. Arbaugh, A. Riebau, and C. Andersen, eds.), 3-36. Elsevier B.V., Developments in Environmental Science, Vol. 8. DOI:10.1016/S1474-8177(08)00001-6. Goldammer, J.G., E. Brunn, A. Held, A. Johst, S. Kathke, F. Meyer, K. Pahl, A. Restas, and J. Schulz. 2012. Kontrolliertes Brennen zur Pflege von Zwergstrauchheiden (Calluna vulgaris) auf munitionsbelasteten Flächen: Problemstellung, bisherige Erfahrungen und geplantes Vorgehen im Pilotvorhaben im Naturschutzgebiet „Heidehof-Golmberg“ (Landkreis Teltow-Fläming). Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt Heft 127, 65-95. Goudsblom, J. (1993) Fire and Civilization. Viking, 256 pp. Hegg, D.A., Warren, S.G., Grenfell, T.C., Doherty, S.J., Clarke, A.D. (2010) Sources of light-absorbing aerosol in arctic snow and their seasonal variation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 10923-10938, 2010. doi:10.5194/acp-10-10923-2010. Heil, A., Goldammer, J.G. (2001) Smoke-haze pollution: a review of the 1997 episode in Southeast Asia. Regional Environmental Change 2 (1), 24-37. Hohl A., Niccolai, A., Oliver, C., Melnychuk, D., Zibtsev, S., Goldammer, J.G., Petrenko, M., Gulidov, V. (2012) The human health effects of radioactive smoke from a catastrophic wildfire in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone: A worst case scenario. J. Earth Bioresources and Life Quality 1, 1-34. Ioffe, G. (2005) The downsizing of Russian agriculture. Europe-Asia Studies 57 (2), 179-208. Ioffe, G.V., Nefedova, T.G., Zaslavsky, I. (2006) The end of peasantry: The disintegration of rural Russia. Pitt Series in Russian and East European. University of Pittsburg Press, 258 pp. Ioffe, G., Zayonchkovskaya, Z. (2011) People in transition: spatial shifts in population within the Moscow region. National Council for Eurasian and East European Research, University of Washington, Working Paper, 41 pp. Jungwirth, O. (2009) Mine Action Organization – The Croatian Experience. Paper and data presented in: Advanced Seminar “Wildfires and Human Security: Fire Management on Terrain Contaminated by Radioactivity, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Land Mines”, Kyiv / Chornobyl, Ukraine, 6-8 October 2009. Abstract Volume (J.G. Goldammer and S. Zibtsev, eds.). http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/GFMC-CoE-OSCE-Seminar-Ukraine-Brochure-Final-06- Oct-2009.pdf Kailidis, D. (1992) Forest fires in Greece. In: proceedings of the United Nations ECE/FAO seminar on "Forest Fire Prevention, Land Use and People", 29 October – 2 November 1991, Athens, Greece, 27-40. Ministry of Agriculture, Secretariat General for Forests and Natural Environment, Athens, Greece. 287 p. Korontzi, S., McCarty, J., Loboda, T., Kumar, S., Justice, C.O. (2006) Global distribution of agricultural fires in croplands from 3 years of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 20, GB2021. Lewis, J.G. (2005) The Forest Service and the greatest good: A centennial history. Forest History Society. Machlis, G.E., Hanson, T., Špirić, Z., McKendry, J.E. (eds.) (2011) Warfare ecology. A new synthesis for peace and security. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute / Advanced Research Workshop. Springer, 200 p. McCarty, J.L, Ellicot, E.A., Romanenkov, V., Rukhovitch, D., Koroleva P. (2012) Multi-year black carbon emissions from cropland burning in the Russian Federation. Atmospheric Environment 63, 223-238. Müller, K.M. (1929) Aufbau, Wuchs und Verjüngung südosteuropäischer Urwälder. Schaper, Hannover, 322 p. O’Brien, J.A., Goldammer, J.G. (2011) Hot and dry spring and summer 2011: Wildland Fires in the UNECE Region. An interim review of forest fires and other wildland fire events in 2011 in the UNECE region by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). Int. Forest Fire News, Global Wildland Fire Network Bulletin No. 16, 02 August 2011. http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/GFMCnew/2011/GFMC-Bulletin-02-2011.pdf OSCE (2008) Joint OSCE / UNEP Environmental Assessment Mission to Georgia (29 September – 3 October 2008). http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/OSCE-UNEP-GFMC- Env-Assessment-Georgia-Oct-2008-OSCE-34577_en.pdf Pausas, J.G., Fernández-Muñoz, S. (2011) Fire regime changes in the Western Mediterranean Basin: from fuel-limited to drought-driven fire regime. Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0060-6. Peebles, C. (1991) The Moby Dick Project: Reconnaissance balloons over Russia. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. Pešković, B. (2008) Country Report Bosnia and Herzegovina 2007. International Forest Fire News No. 37 (in prep.) Pyne, S.J. (1995) World fire. Henry Holt, New York, 379 p. 120

Pyne, S.J. (1997) Vestal Fire. An environmental history, told through fire, of Europe and Europe's encounter with the World. University of Washington Press, 680 p. Sande Silva, J., Rego, F., Fernandes, P., Rigolot, E. (eds.) (2010) Towards Integrated Fire Management – Outcomes of the European project Fire Paradox. European Forest Institute Research Report 23. Sannikov, S.N., Goldammer, J.G. (1996) Fire ecology of pine forests of Northern Eurasia. In: Fire in ecosystems of boreal Eurasia (J.G. Goldammer and V.V. Furyaev, eds.), 151-167. Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, 528 pp. Schierhorn, F., Müller, D. (2011) Russlands Beitrag zur Welternährung. BMELV Forschungsreport No. 2/2011, p.18-20 (Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Germany, Research Report No. 2/2011. Shapley, D. (1972) Technology in Vietnam: Fire Storm Project fizzled out. Science 177, 239-241. Statheropoulos, M., Goldammer, J.G. (2007) Vegetation Fire Smoke: Nature, Impacts and Policies to Reduce Negative Consequences on Humans and the Environment. A Publication of the Council of Europe, Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage, prepared in the frame of the European Open Partial Agreement on the Prevention, Protection Against and Organization of Relief in Major Natural and Technological Disasters – EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement as a contribution to the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference, Sevilla, Spain, 13-17 May 2007. http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/sevilla-2007/Council-Europe.pdf Turetsky, M.R., Harden, J.W., Friedli, H.R., Flannigan, M.D., Payne, N., Crock, J., Radke, L.F. (2006) Wildfires threaten mercury stocks in northern soils. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L16403, doi:10.1029/2005GL025595. UN General Assembly (2007) Sixty-first session, Agenda item 17 „The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan“. UNGA Document A/61/696, 20 p. Uriarte, M., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., DeFries, R.S., Fernandes, K., Gutierrez-Velez, V., Baethgen, W.E., Padoch, C. (2012) Depopulation of rural landscapes exacerbates fire activity in the western Amazon. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. Vol. 109, No. 52, 21546-21550. Webber, B. (1975) Retaliation: Japanese attacks and allied countermeasures on the Pacific Coast in World War II, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Westing, A. (1975) Environmental consequences of the Second Indochina War: A case study. Ambio 4 (5-6), 216-222. Xanthopoulos, G. (ed.) 2004. Forest Fires in the Wildland-Urban Interface and Rural Areas in Europe: An integral planning and management challenge”. Volume of Proceedings of International Workshop held 15-16 May 2003, Athens, Greece, under the framework of the EU-funded project „Wildland-Urban Area Fire Risk Management“ (WARM). Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania (MAICh), 239 pp. http://www.fria.gr/WARM/warmProceedings.htm Xanthopoulos, G. (2008) Forest Fires in Greece 2007. Int. Forest Fires News No. 37, 2-17. Xanthopoulos, G. (2010) Wildland fires, wars and unrest in Greece. An unpublished position paper on file at the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) (received 25 May 2010).

121

Part II – Global White Paper Chapter 2389

International Protocols and Agreements on Cooperation in Wildland Fire Management and Wildfire Disaster Response: Needs, Current Status, and the Way Ahead 90

Abstract

The contributions of the White Paper „Vegetation Fire and Global Change“ reveal that globally, fire regimes are altering in parallel with and under the influence of socio-economic developments, land- use change and climate change. Increasing vulnerability of society to the direct and secondary effects of wildland fires, as well as the trans-boundary nature and consequences of wildland fires are prompting countries and international organizations to define their common interests in enhancing sustainable and integrated fire management capacity. The requirement for systematic and efficient sharing of scientific and technical expertise, solutions and resources, including transboundary cooperation, means that the transition from informal information exchange and networking to a more systematic and formalized cooperation is more necessary than ever. Several international (global) and regional conventions are examples of international legal agreements that provide rationale and a catalogue of environmental protection obligations for signatory countries. However, none of these legally binding conventions or any informal or voluntary international instruments explicitly address wildland fires as either a driver of environmental degradation, or the need for integrating natural and prescribed management fires in those ecosystems and land-use systems that require fire for maintaining their function, sustainability and productivity. Currently there are also no protocols in place that provide internationally accepted standard methods and procedures for countries that provide and receive assistance in wildland fire emergencies that would ensure inter-operability, efficiency and safety of cooperating parties. The Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN) is a voluntary network which evolved in the late 1990s as an initiative of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire. The GWFN operates through the GFMC as a “Thematic Platform” under the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), and promotes international cooperation in wildland fire management – notably through capacity building in wildfire prevention, preparedness and suppression, and the development of standardized procedures for use in international wildfire incident response.

Keywords: Fire management, international cooperation, transboundary fire effects, international legal agreements, voluntary agreements

Introduction

The contributions of this White Paper „Vegetation Fire and Global Change“ reveal that, globally, fire regimes are altering in parallel with and under the influence of socio-economic developments, land- use change and climate change. Increasing vulnerability of society to the direct and secondary effects of wildland fires, as well as the trans-boundary nature and consequences of wildland fires are prompting countries and international organizations to define their common interests in enhancing sustainable and integrated fire management capacity. The requirement for systematic and efficient sharing of scientific and technical expertise, solutions and resources, including transboundary cooperation, means that the transition from informal information exchange and networking to a more systematic and formalized cooperation is more necessary than ever.

Several international (global) conventions, such as the three “Rio Conventions” (CBD, CCD and FCCC) and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands are examples of international legal agreements that provide rationale and a catalogue of environmental protection obligations for signatory countries. However, none of these or any other legally binding conventions or informal or voluntary international instruments, such as the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations

89 Goldammer, J.G. 2013. International protocols and agreements on cooperation in wildland fire management and wildfire disaster response: Needs, current status, and the way ahead. Chapter 23 in: Vegetation Fires and Global Change. Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations (J.G. Goldammer, ed.), 313-341. A publication of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). Kessel Publishing House, Remagen-Oberwinter, 398 p. (ISBN 978-3-941300-78-1). 90 Johann Georg Goldammer, Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, c/o Freiburg University / United Nations University (UNU), Freiburg, Germany. Address for correspondence: [email protected] 122

and Communities to Disasters, are explicitly addressing wildland fires as a driver of environmental degradation. Nor do they address the need for integrating natural and prescribed management fires in those ecosystems and land-use systems that require fire for maintaining their function, sustainability and productivity. There are also no protocols in place that provide internationally accepted standard methods and procedures for countries that provide and receive assistance in wildland fire emergencies that would ensure inter-operability, efficiency and safety of cooperating parties.

In preparation for and following the International Wildland Fire Summit of 200391 the international wildland fire community has taken steps to develop preliminary concepts, templates and guidelines with widely agreed-upon principles and best practices in fire management and incident command. Detailed operational standards are now needed to facilitate the exchange of fire fighting resources, including aviation, management personnel, and equipment. The UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) and the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) Guidelines92 and the principles laid down in the “Rosersberg Initiative – Improving the international environmental emergency response system” may serve as examples for developing interoperable standards, protocols, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and rules of engagement.

At the level of multilateral bodies, such as the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Council of Europe (European Open Partial Agreement on the Prevention, Protection Against and Organization of Relief in Major Natural and Technological Disasters – EUR-OPA), the European Union (EU), or the Southern African Development Community (SADC), recent developments have revealed an interest of countries to enhance the capabilities of regional, transboundary cooperation in fire management. Experience gained in bilateral (reciprocal) agreements include common usage of the Incident Command System (ICS) - as practiced under agreements between North American countries (U.S.A., Canada and Mexico) and between the U.S.A. and Canada on the one side, and Australia and New Zealand on the other side. These experiences may serve as examples for developing other regional agreements or protocols.93

The Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN)94 is a voluntary network which evolved in the late 1990s as an initiative of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC)95 and the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire96. The GWFN operates through the GFMC as a “Thematic Platform” under the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), and promotes international cooperation in wildland fire management – notably through capacity building in wildfire prevention, preparedness and suppression, and the development of standardized procedures for use in international wildfire incident response. Lead institutions serve as coordinators of Regional Wildland Fire Networks and work with representatives of international organizations mandated or otherwise active in the wildland fire arena. These lead institutions are represented by the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group (WFAG), which provides advisory services to the UN system.

The application of fire management guidelines developed under the auspices of international organizations such as the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, and with major inputs of the members of the regional networks, provide a voluntary basis of common understanding of best practices and solutions in fire management.

In the long-term the GWFN is also aiming at developing an International Wildland Fire Accord (voluntary or binding under international law), which would be based on the rationale that there is a common international interest in protection of global vegetation cover against degradation or destruction and that common endeavors in fire management will contribute to disaster risk reduction. For example, reduction of the risks associated with direct fire damages to human assets and ecosystems, fire-generated smoke pollution affecting human health and security, release of greenhouse gases, secondary disasters such as landslides, erosion, floods and threats to biodiversity.

91 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/summit-2003/introduction.htm 92 http://www.reliefweb.int/undac/documents/insarag/guidelines/topics.html and http://www.usar.nl/upload/docs/insarag_guidelines_july_2006.pdf 93 See special issue of UNECE/FAO International Forest Fire News (IFFN) No. 29, with examples of agreements and Annual Operating Plans: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_29/content29.htm 94 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/globalNet.html 95 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/ 96 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/intro/team.html, see section 2.6 of this chapter 123

In the following sections examples are given of achievements and ongoing activities which reflect some progress in the dialogue to enhance international cooperation in wildland fire management.97

Progress in regional cooperation in fire management

Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)

As a consequence of extended fire and smoke episodes since the early 1980s and especially in the 1990s ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) commenced negotiations for a ASEAN agreement addressing regional air pollution resulting from land-use fires and wildfires. In June 2002 the Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution was adopted and came into force on 25 November 2003, with nine states currently participating (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam).

This Agreement marks a world-first, as the first regional arrangement binding a group of contiguous states aimed at tackling transboundary haze pollution resulting from land and forest fires.98 The Agreement requires the Parties to:

- cooperate in the development and implementation of measures to prevent, monitor, and mitigate transboundary haze pollution by controlling sources of land and/or forest fires, developing monitoring, assessment and early warning systems, exchanging information and technology, and allowing the provision of mutual assistance; - respond promptly to a request for relevant information sought by a State or States that are or may be affected by such transboundary haze pollution, with a view to minimizing the consequence of the transboundary haze pollution; and - take legal, administrative and/or other measures to implement their obligations under the Agreement.

The Agreement establishes an ASEAN Coordination Centre for Transboundary Haze Pollution Control to facilitate cooperation and coordination in managing the impact of land and forest fires – in particular haze pollution arising from such fires. Pending the establishment of the Coordination Centre, ASEAN Secretariat and ASEAN Specialized Meteorological Centre (ASMC) are co-performing its interim functions. Despite the fact that Indonesia is by far the largest source of the fires and haze the ratification of the ASEAN Agreements is still outstanding (Khee-Jin Tan, 2005; Nguitragool, 2011). In 2012 Indonesia indicated its willingness to move toward ratification.99

European Union (EU)

In the 1980s and 1990s there was some exchange of firefighting expertise within the EU but little formal cooperation. The European Union Civil Protection Mechanism was established in 2001 and further strengthened in 2007. It provided a new capacity for coordination for Europe and now plays a central role in the EU forest fire risk prevention and forest firefighting coordination at EU level. There are currently 32 countries participating in the Mechanism („Participating States”): The 27 Member States of the European Union (EU) together with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Mechanism, which is managed by the European Commission, has tools to cope with wildfires in three phases of the disaster management cycle. The main responsibilities and the tools allocated to the European Commission are outlined as follows.100

97 Note: Materials of this paper have been presented at the 5th International Wildland Fire Conference, South Africa, 9-13 May 2011 (http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/southafrica-2011.html). 98 See ASEAN website „Haze Online“: http://haze.asean.org/hazeagreement/, and the full text of the agreement at: http://haze.asean.org/docs/1128506236/ASEANAgreementonTransboundaryHazePollution.pdf/view 99 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2011/01/news_20110122_id.htm 100 Note: Parts of this general description of the EU Mechanisms has been taken from the introduction to the report „Study on wild fire fighting resources sharing models“, prepared by GHK Consultants to DG ECHO, European Commission (October 2010), in which the author participated. See executive summary at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/prote/pdfdocs/future/Wildfire_Exec_Summary.pdf 124

Monitoring and prevention: The core operating body of the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism is the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC). The MIC’s three major roles are:

- to provide a coordination platform for exchanging requests for assistance and offers of resources among Participating States; - to be an agent for information exchange and dissemination regarding natural and man-made disasters worldwide and the regarding Mechanism interventions; - to act as a coordinator in identifying gaps and developing solutions on the basis of the information it receives, facilitating the pooling of common resources where possible and supplying expert teams to the disaster location to tackle the problems more effectively.

The Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS) facilitates coordination between the MIC and national authorities. The main tasks of CECIS include hosting a secure and reliable database on potentially available assets for assistance; handling requests for assistance on the basis of this data; facilitating the exchange of information and documenting all action and message traffic.

The MIC receives fire risk assessment information from the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS). This web-based platform, which consists of a scientific and technical infrastructure, was developed jointly by the European Commission Joint Research Centre and Directorate General Environment (European Commission).

Preparedness: The EU Civil Protection Mechanism intermediates information dissemination activities and exchange of best practice knowledge between Participating States. It also provides training programmes and exercises to intervention teams and organizes informative activities, seminars, conferences and pilot projects on the main aspects of interventions. During a test phase this Mechanism provided access to the assets in the European Union Forest Fire Tactical Reserve (EUFFTR) – a pilot project designed to enhance cooperation between Member States for combating forest fires during high risk seasons. The project, to which two Canadair CL-215 aircraft were allocated during the summers of 2009 and 2010, was activated in the cases where Member States were not in a position to provide assistance to a requesting country due to their aerial resources being needed in their own territory or because they could not reach the fire site quickly enough. The Mechanism develops implementing rules for module development and administers the CECIS module database.

Response: Through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the European Commission is able to:

- Mobilize small teams of experts to the site of an emergency; - Provide and distribute information during an emergency/intervention; - Play a facilitating role in the coordination of assistance requests and offers from Participating States; - Coordinate with other actors at the international level and with other EU services; and - Provide co-financing for the transport of assistance to the affected areas, on the request of the offering Participating States.

The EU Civil Protection Mechanism is well-accepted and is being increasingly used by Participating States. Twenty-eight requests for assistance were received by the MIC in 2009-2010 from within the EU and 18 requests from non-EU states. For comparison: In 2002 only three requests had been received. The Mechanism coordinates and facilitates voluntary efforts, with each Participating State free to decide its contribution on case-by-case basis.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

In October 2010 the first “International Conference on Forest Fires: Management and International Cooperation in Preventing Forest Fires in APEC Region” was convened at the initiative of the Russian Federation. The aim of this conference was to strengthen cooperation between the emergency services of the APEC member economies in order to emphasize the readiness of the region to reduce 125

the risks of disasters.101 Following a deep and comprehensive analysis of the problem of forest fires in the APEC region and other regions, the conference identified the urgent necessity for joint efforts, mutual help and cross-border cooperation in forest fire risk reduction. The conference released the “Khabarovsk Recommendations on Management and International Cooperation in Preventing Forest Fires in the APEC Region”. The following priority directions of international cooperation under APEC were among those proposed:

- Development of an international mechanism to monitor and enhance responsibility of APEC member economies to ensure forest fire protection on their territories and coordinate action under APEC using existing institutions of international cooperation, such as UNISDR Global Wildland Fire Network, ASEAN, UNECE and others. - Promotion of economic cooperation in projects that aim to reduce the degree of fire risk and restoration of forests on lands degraded by fire and non-sustainable forest management; - Development of bilateral agreements on cooperation in fire management, particularly between APEC economies sharing common borders, and a voluntary regional agreement on cooperation in fire management, aiming at harmonizing cooperation with neighboring regional entities such as the UNECE and ASEAN, particularly in the light of overlapping membership of some economies. - Development of long-term fire management strategies in each economy that allow for mitigation of the consequences of climate change. - Improvement of strategic and operational early warning mechanisms in the APEC region as a regional activity to be coordinated with the Global Wildland Fire Early Warning system. - Conduct regular consultations to exchange knowledge and best practice. th - Reconvene and contribute to the 5 International Wildland Fire Conference scheduled for 2011 (South Africa), and the following conference scheduled for 2015 (South Korea).

A priority follow-up activity has already included a joint fire management study course offered to APEC countries in 2011, hosted by the Russian Federation.102

Southern African Development Community (SADC)

In the last two decades, vegetation fires have become a major concern in the region of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) with regard to the negative impacts they have on the welfare of the environment and humans.103 Uncontrolled wildfires cause forest and vegetation degradation as well as biodiversity loss. This can result in immediate and long-term impacts on the livelihoods of local communities and upstream impacts on national and regional economies. Fires in the tropical environment are a major contributor to tropical forest degradation and over time frequent fires lead to savannization in these areas. However, fires are also needed to maintain healthy ecosystems and biodiversity of natural savannah and grassland vegetation types - many being adapted to regular fire occurrence. Prescribed or controlled burning is used to meet objectives often essential to sustaining livelihoods. Fire is also used for conservation reasons, removal of old growth, suppression of bush encroachment and stimulation of the growth of grazing grass as well as the removal of fuel with the aim of pre-empting dangerous wildfires at the peak of the fire season.

The SADC region of 14 Member States is home to 238 million people, of which approximately 75% are rurally based. The perceived rise in the number of wildfires negatively affects these rural communities which are often situated near the forests that provide them with their basic needs. The on-going process of climate change has the potential to exacerbate this situation by altering the frequency, intensity, severity and seasonality of fires in the SADC region.

A SADC regional fire management programme was proposed in 2010. It provides a framework for cooperation on fire management issues across national boundaries. Fire management is a technical, socio-cultural and political challenge that requires an effective network of willing partners that include

101 http://lesscentr.ru/en/en/index0.htm and GFMC repository: http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/CentralAsia/APEC-Fire-Conference-2010-Recommendations-ENG.pdf 102 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/intro/APEC-EMERCOM-Wildfire-Management-Study-Course-2011-Agenda.pdf 103 The information provided in the chapter are taken from the SADC Regional Fire Management Programme Document, draft proposal (June 2010). Web source: http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/Africa/SADC%20Regional%20Fire%20Management%20Programme%20Document- Final-6.pdf 126

governments, the private sector, local communities and international partners to find the appropriate balance between developing and conserving natural resources and managing unwanted fires while at the same time promoting the safe and beneficial use of fire. The programme intends to foster cooperation and collaboration in fire management on a regional basis to move towards integrated environmental policies and fire management practices. The programme pursues a multiple stakeholder approach working closely with regional and international organizations to support five areas of fire management. These are; legal and regulatory aspects of fires; community based fire management; institutional strengthening and establishment of a fire management coordination centre; generation and dissemination of relevant fire information for detection and early warning and; associated capacity building in the respective areas.

The envisaged programme is based on the SADC Protocol on Forestry of 2002, which forms the policy framework for sustainable forest management in the SADC member states. Its objectives include the goal to achieve effective protection of the environment and to safeguard the interests of both the present and future generations.

The SADC Forestry Strategy of 2010 is based on the vision to develop and maintain a forest sector that contributes to rural development, poverty reduction and industrial progress, meanwhile continuing to retain vital ecosystem services such as water supply, climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection. The Strategy thereby provides motivation for countries to cooperate for the protection, management, and sustainable use of their forests. The primary purpose of the strategy is to provide a framework for both regional cooperation and international engagement on forest issues by paying special attention to issues that transcend national boundaries The Strategy’s mission is to facilitate cooperation among member states to ‘promote the active protection, management and sustainable use of forest resources through sound policy guidance and the application of requisite skills and the best available technology, in order to enjoy the multiple benefits of forests in perpetuity’.

There is increased willingness by SADC member states to cooperate on fire management on a regional and international basis. There is also recognition that a regional framework based on cross border cooperation is required to address issues of national, regional and transboundary fire management. Member states have expressed the need for a regional agency or centre to foster and coordinate such cooperation and information exchange in fire management. Establishing an agency responsible for collecting and analyzing fire related data and formulating standardized rules, guidelines and procedures will ensure coordinated dissemination of relevant information and guide policy development. Furthermore it would spearhead the promotion of integration of Community- Based Fire Management (CBFiM) into national policies and fire management strategies.

The expected activities and outcomes of the SADC Regional Fire Management Programme include the establishment of a Regional Fire Management Coordination Center. This center will also facilitate and coordinate international and regional cooperation in fire management by providing a mechanism through which one country may request and receive wildfire suppression resources from another country. This mechanism should also encourage cooperation and exchange on other fire management activities such as training and lessons learnt. A SADC fire management programme will allow the development of a SADC Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which will prescribe the conditions of cross border cooperation to combat transboundary fires and include operational guidelines for the regional coordination centre.

The programme intends to foster regional level interaction by developing guiding policy frameworks and procedures for several aspects of fire management. During the Consultative Workshop on the Development of a SADC Regional Fire Management Programme (January 2010, Maputo) participants from all SADC member states compiled capacity development measures that must be carried out by all SADC member states to ensure success of a regional fire management program. The project includes the following components:

- Establishment of a Regional Fire Management Coordination Center. Objective: To promote the establishment of a regional fire management coordination centre for improved stakeholder cooperation and collaboration - Reform and Harmonize Policies and Procedures. Objective: To secure essential policy harmonization at national and regional level to provide the basis for controlling harmful fires and promoting the safe use of beneficial fires within SADC - Community-based fire management. Objective: To promote integration of CBFiM into Member States‘ fire and natural resources management systems/programmes 127

- Fire information. Objective: To improve production, access, dissemination and application of fire information within the region - Capacity development. Objective: To increase awareness of and proficiency in balanced and integrated fire management and its elements

Between 2010 and 2013 the Trilateral Cooperation Fund (TRI-CO Fund) project between South Africa, Tanzania and Germany (Trilateral Cooperation Fund – TRI-CO Fund) “Tanzania - South Africa Fire Management Coordination Project” was implemented to demonstrate the utility of coordination and exchange of techniques, resources, science and capacity building in fire management amongst contributing parties and SADC member states. The GIZ project “Transfrontier Conservation and Use of Natural Resources in the SADC Region” (2013-2015) is also addressing the cooperation of border- crossing processes in conservation, including transboundary fire management.

Latin America

Mesoamerica

Several developments during the last decade indicate the political willingness of nations in Mesoamerica to share information and resources in fire management. An important regional initiative has been launched by the First Central Mesoamerican Meeting on Forest Fire Protection (Primera Reunión Mesoamericana de Cooperación en Materia de Protección contra Incendios Forestales) held in Guatemala City in 2002. This regional meeting was organized within the framework of the project “Prevención y Combate de Incendios Forestales en Mesoamerica” of the "Programa Mesoamericano de Cooperación 2001-2002", launched at the 4th Tuxtla regional dialogue. Delegates of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, México, Nicaragua and Panamá formally agreed to launch a programme of cooperation which includes the sharing of information and resources in fire management as well as in capacity building. 104

A number of follow-up conferences and workshops have consolidated these dialogues and strategic visions for cooperation in fire management. The Mesoamerica Meeting was followed by a meeting in Honduras (Taller para el Desarrollo de un Plan Estratégico Regional para el Manejo del Gorgojo del Pino y los Incendios Forestales en Centroamérica, 26-30 August 2002) in which the representatives from Central America developed a strategic plan for fire and bark beetle management in Central America. The momentum created by the Mesoamerican Meeting and the Honduras Strategy is currently maintained and coordinated by the Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarollo (CCAD). A Technical Commission on Forest Fires and Pests has been established under the CCAB/AP. In 2004 the Technical Commission requested the Consejo Centroamericano de Bosques y Áreas Protegidas (CCAB/AP) to officially create the Regional Central America and Mexico Forest Fire and Pest Network (Red Regional de Centro América y México de Incendios y Plagas Forestales) operating under the CCAD. The recommendations of the network were presented at the Pan- American Wildland Fire Conference on 23 October 2004, San José, Costa Rica.105 The Central American Strategy on Fire Management 2005-2015 (Estrategia Centroamericana para el Manejo del Fuego) was published in 2005106 and implemented in a number of regional activities in the following years.107

104 In June 2003 consultations were held with the Government of Guatemala concerning cooperation between the Mesoamerican Cooperation Regarding Protection against Forest Fires and the GFMC. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the Mesoamerican Permanent Technical Group on Forest Fires (Grupo Técnico Mesoamericano Permanente sobre Incendios Forestales), represented by the President of the Coordinating Council of the Sistema Nacional de Prevención y Control de Incendios Forestales (SIPECIF), Guatemala, and Executive Coordinator of the Presidency of Guatemala, and the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), operating under the auspices of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), concerning Cooperation in the Global Wildland Fire Network through active participation of the Regional Mesoamerica Wildland Fire Network. 105 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/Panamerica/Panamerican-Conference.htm 106 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/MesoAmerica/CCAD-FINAL-Estrategia-Manejo-Fuego-con- logos.pdf 107 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/MesoAmerica/MesoAmerica.html 128

South America

In 2004 the Regional South America Wildland Fire Network was founded in Curitiba, Brazil.108 In 2005 the South America Subregional Technical Workshop, sponsored by the FAO Latin American and Caribbean Forestry Commission (COFLAC) developed the first draft of the South American Strategy on Fire Management 2006-2010 (Estrategia de Cooperación de América del Sur para el Manejo del Fuego). In the frame of this Strategy it was decided to establish the Fire Management Working Group of South America. The network is co-chaired by PREVFOGO / IBAMA (Brasilia, Brazil), the Federal University of Paraná (Curitiba, Brazil) and the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF), Chile.

Together with the representatives from Central America and the Caribbean the “Regional Strategy on Cooperation in Wildland Fire Management in Latin America and the Caribbean” was finalized in a regional meeting in Santiago de Chile in 2005 and presented and at the 24th COFLAC Session in 2006. In 2007 IBAMA and COFLAC signed an MoU on technical cooperation and development of the South American Strategy on Fire Management (Memorando De Entendimiento Para la Cooperacion Tecnica y el Desarrollo de la Estrategia de Cooperación de América del Sur Para el Manejo del Fuego) and agreed on an operational bi-annual plan for the Secretariat of the network (Plan Operativo Bianual de la Secretaria Ejecutiva del Grupo de Trabajo de América del Sur de Manejo del Fuego). Effective inter-governmental cooperation in fire management has been proven during mutual assistance in wildfire emergencies in 2012 by the cooperation between the authorities of Argentina, Brazil and Chile. Progress can also be noted in development and use of common regional assets in wildland fire early warning and satellite monitoring, led by Brasil109 and Red Latinoamericana de Teledetección e Incendios Forestales (RedLaTIF).110

UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

Within the last decade the region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) has experienced a number of wildfire episodes that have resulted in severe environmental damages, high economic losses and considerable humanitarian problems.111 Reasons and underlying causes of changing fire regimes have been elaborated in detail in Chapter 22 of this White Paper. There is a high interest of governments, national agencies, international organizations and civil society in the UNECE region to address the increasing threats and imminent problems by fire management solutions that could be developed collectively, thus economically, allowing inter-operability in fire management between nations and regions.

At the time of publishing this White Paper the preparation of the “UNECE / FAO Forum on Cross- boundary Fire Management” in November 2013 at the United Nations in Geneva is underway. The Forum will be organized by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and the Secretariat of the UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section, and co-sponsored by the Secretariat of the Euro- Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA), Council of Europe.

The conference will elaborate on recommendations to UNECE and CoE member states to take advantage of recent insights and solutions of contemporary and expected future wildfire problems. The central focus of the conference will be to address the situation in countries in which progress of enhancing fire management capabilities is limited, for example as a consequence of political and administrative transition, difficult economic conditions, or countries experiencing extraordinary fire situations, and hence would benefit from the experience of their neighbor countries.

The outcome of the conference will build on existing and already proposed initiatives, such as

- New approaches in integrated vegetation management regarding renewable energy concepts and carbon storage. Some of these initiatives fall within the context of the UNFCCC endeavor

108 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/course/meeting/meet2003_14.htm 109 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/current/archive/br/2001/10/br_10082001.htm 110 http://www.redlatif.org/ 111 This section refers to the planning document for the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management, to be organized by the UNECE/FAO Teams of Specialists on Forest Fire through its Coordinator – the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), Germany, and supported by the Council of Europe. For details and updates: see website of the UNECE/FAO Teams of Specialists on Forest Fire: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/intro/team.html 129

to reduce deforestation and forest degradation by identifying opportunities to incorporate wildfire hazard reduction and fire management; - Wider application of prescribed fire in nature conservation, forestry and landscape management, with encouraging progress of countries cooperating under the “Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network”112 and similar initiatives; - Exploitation of the results of successful international fire research projects with the aim to develop adequate public policies affecting fire management, e.g. the most recently accomplished multinational “Fire Paradox”113 project, or the ongoing development of the multinational Alpine Forest Fire Warning System (ALPF FIRS)114; - Introduction and further development of competency-based fire management training standards offering qualifications to fire fighters, foresters and land managers, e.g. the “EuroFire Competency Standards”;”115 - Strengthening dedicated networks of wildland fire specialists, agencies and other representatives from civil society, e.g. the six Regional Wildland Fire Networks of the Global Wildland Fire Network that are covering the UNECE region; - Application and further strengthening of existing as well as development of new bilateral agreements on reciprocal transboundary assistance in wildfire emergencies across the ECE region; - Endeavor to enhance governance of UNECE member states in order to provide and receive assistance in wildfire (and other environmental) emergency situations by setting up standards, protocols and agreements. This should happen in cooperation with procedures evolving under the lead of the UNEP/OCHA Joint Environment Unit and the UN Advisory Group on Environmental Emergencies, e.g., the proposed creation of an Environmental Emergencies Center (EEC); - Follow up of the recommendations of regional groups, projects, programmes and earlier regional conferences aimed at enhancing international cooperation in fire management in the UNECE region and adjoining regions. Examples of such recommendations include - the development of a “Regional Strategy for Cooperation in Fire Management in Southeast Europe” proposed in 2006;116 - the outcomes of expert meetings such as the workshop “Assessment of Forest Fire Risks and Innovative Strategies for Fire Prevention” – an activity of the Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) of 2010;117 - the European Commission study entitled “Study on wild firefighting resources sharing models”;118 - the recommendations from projects supported by the Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative addressing wildland fire, human security and peace in the EECCA region;119 and - the outcomes of the International Conference on Cross-Boundary Fire Management (Irkutsk, Russia, 2010)120 and the APEC Conference on Forest Fire Management and International Cooperation in Fire Emergencies of the Asia Pacific (Khabarovsk, Russia, 2010).121

The outcomes of the Forum shall be regarded as complementary to existing agreements and mechanisms. The conference will further the objectives of the international forest and climate regimes and shall contribute to the evolving of an “international wildland fire regime” as envisaged by the UNISDR Global Wildland Fire Network.

A large number of countries of the UNECE region are members of the Council of Europe, member states of the European Union and signatory states of the MCPFE, and are all concerned about the impact of climate change on forests and forest destruction by fire. There is also a collective demand for robust forest policies. However, wildland fires are not only impacting on the protection and function of forest ecosystems. Fire use and wildfire occurrence in the cultural landscapes of the region are

112 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/natcon/natcon.htm 113 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/other/intr.html 114 http://www.alpffirs.eu/ 115 http://www.euro-fire.eu/ 116 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/Strategy-WFM-RSEEWFN-2-02-05-2006.pdf 117 http://www.foresteurope.org/documentos/FOREST_EUROPE_Forest_Fires_Report.pdf 118 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/prote/perspectives_en.htm 119 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/SEEurope_1.html 120 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/CentralAsia/CentralAsia_6.html 121 http://lesscentr.ru/en/en/index0.htm 130

shaped by agriculture, pastoralism and forestry and have considerable impacts, both positive and negative, on landscape patterns, land productivity, biodiversity and the atmosphere – with considerable implications for air quality, human health and security, and climate change.

The UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution122, the European Landscape Convention123 and the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention)124 are examples of conventions that address the pressing regional issues and relevant to – although not yet explicitly referring to – a potential regional “wildland fire regime”.

Thus, the overall aim of the Forum will be a first step towards the development of an agreement on international cooperation to enhance fire management dialogue and capacity in the UNECE region. The political consultation and technical planning process in preparation of the Forum refers to the outcomes and the follow-up of the 4th and 5th International Wildland Fire Conferences (see section 3.4. and Annexes I and II).

Bilateral reciprocal agreements with multilateral character: Examples

Looking back a decade, the United States wildland fire season of 2000 at that time was the worst fire season in more than 50 years. Almost 100,000 fires burned more than 2.8 million hectares of forest and range lands. This was approximately twice the U.S. ten-year average. The season was long and difficult and firefighters faced dangerous burning conditions throughout the western U.S.A.

Faced with this unprecedented situation, and with a forecast for continuing hot and dry weather patterns, fire managers realized they would need to reach beyond U.S. borders for assistance. During the remainder of the 2000 fire season, the U.S. received assistance from more than 1200 Canadian firefighters, 96 fire specialists from Australia and New Zealand and 20 Mexican firefighters. These additional resources performed important roles in the U.S. firefighting efforts. Some international fire fighters provided much needed support to fire crews on the fireline while others performed as middle managers on incident management teams. International agreements with Canada and Mexico were in place prior to the 2000 fire season but none existed with Australia and New Zealand.

Throughout 2001 and up to August of 2002 fire managers, risk managers and solicitors from the U.S., Australia and New Zealand proposed and reviewed options to solve the liability concerns raised after the 2000 fire season. One alternative that was explored was the purchase of sufficient liability insurance to meet risk managers requirements. However, the cost was prohibitive and the policies would have become unwieldy and complex. The best possible solution was to change U.S. law that would give any international firefighter brought to the U.S. under the “Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act,” tort liability coverage equivalent to that provided to U.S. Government fire fighters. In early August the bill was passed and signed by the President of the U.S. The language in the bill provided the assurance required by Australian and New Zealand with the result that U.S. fire managers were once again allowed to request assistance from these countries. Signatures of the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior were quickly inked on the official Arrangement papers and posted overnight to Australia and New Zealand. The Australian States of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, Western Australia, and South Australia and New Zealand signed these documents and within a week of the passage of legislation, 50 Australian and New Zealand fires specialists were again on U.S. fire lines filling critical mid-level management fire positions in operations and aviation.

Through mobilizations of firefighters and numerous exchange activities, these arrangements have repeatedly proven the value of having effective, flexible, cooperative and formal relationships. These Arrangements are not static but must be periodically reviewed, adjusted, and re-approved by the signatories. The U.S. will continue to work with its partners in Australia and New Zealand to improve and expand on these valuable relationships in order to cooperatively address the common global challenges of wildland fire management.125

122 http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/ 123 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Landscape/default_en.asp 124 http://www.plantaeuropa.org/pe-wider_context-Bern.htm 125 For details see USDA Forest Service (2003). 131

Progress in developing guidelines, protocols and standards for increasing efficiency and effectiveness of transnational cooperation

In addition to bi- and multilateral agreements the international community has, in recent years, developed a number of proposals, templates and models for improving governance, efficiency and effectiveness of international cooperation in wildfire disaster risk reduction, management and response. The “tools” include common international wildland fire terminology, methods for wildland fire risk identification at national, regional, and global levels and non-binding guidelines for fire management and smoke management - including dedicated eco-zonal fire management guidelines. The use of a standardized, commonly accepted wildland fire incident management system for international cooperation in a disaster situation has been proposed. The Global Wildland Fire Network has also developed a template for international cooperative agreements for countries interested in entering formal relationships on reciprocal assistance with others facing similar issues. Training in fire disaster management through development of internationally compatible standards and competency, as well as certification of international fire responders, are important elements of improving international cooperation in wildland fire management. In the following some key activities are described.

International Wildland Fire Terminology

The fundamental prerequisite for international cooperation in fire management is a commonly agreed upon terminology – a language that is understood by all partners intending to develop cooperation in fire management. In a number of countries very useful terminologies have been developed. This includes English-speaking countries in which fire terminologies are becoming increasingly compatible at an international level. However, terminologies show some differences in the use and meaning of terms. In some countries specific terms have been developed that are unknown elsewhere. As the English language is becoming the major language used for international cooperation in fire management it has proven useful to develop a basic English glossary with English explanations of the terms, which would then be translated directly. The “Global Wildland Fire Management Terminology”, first published by FAO (1986) was updated by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) on behalf of FAO in 1999. The glossary has not been printed as it is considered a dynamic document, open for ongoing changes considered necessary. The glossary is available as an interactive search engine on the web.126 In the 1999 version, the only non-English language updated was German. The FAO also added French and Spanish in the FAO web-based terminology.127 In 2010 the GFMC published the Russian and Mongolian version (together with English and German).128 In 2013-2014 Chinese and Korean will be added.

International Statistical Wildland Fire Data Collection

Internationally agreed methodologies and procedures for establishing fire databases and formatting national fire reports are not in place. Such databases and national fire reports (assessments) are important decision support tools at national, regional and international levels and for targeted cooperation in fire management.

The FAO “Global Forest Fire Assessment 1990-2000” (a special report of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 [FRA-2000])129 and reports from 12 Regional Wildland Fire Networks were summarized and evaluated in the “Fire Management Global Assessment 2006”130. This exercise revealed the lack of compatible and up-to-date statistical data sets at the global scale. The concept proposed in the “Global Wildland Fire Assessment 2004” – an initiative of the GFMC – was used for a number of national reports submitted to the Regional Wildland Fire Networks.131 However, the assessment covered only a small number of countries.

126 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/literature/glossary.htm 127 http://www.fao.org/forestry/firemanagement/13530/en/ 128 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/literature/glossary.htm 129 Global Forest Fire Assessment 1990-2000: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad653e/ad653e00.htm 130 Fire Management Global Assessment 2006: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0969e/a0969e00.htm 131 Global Wildland Fire Assessment 2004: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/inventory/assessment.htm 132

The effective flow of information from national and regional levels to a central repository for receiving, processing and disseminating fire data must be ensured. This central organization should also feed fire information back to countries and other users that are connected through a network of national fire management agencies. The validity of an earlier recommendation by the UNECE/FAO/ILO in 1996 advising the establishment of a Task Force to produce a proposal for harmonized and coordinated data collection and reporting systems that will meet the demands of various user communities is therefore underscored and considered priority.132

The next step to overcoming uncertainties and inconsistencies of fire inventories is the development of a global satellite-based vegetation fire inventory. The Global Observations of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics (GOFC/GOLD) project, an element of the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS), sponsored by the Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS), provides a forum for international information exchange, observation and data coordination (including calibration and validation of sensors and algorithms) and a framework for establishing the necessary long-term monitoring systems. The GOFC/GOLD Fire Mapping and Monitoring Theme aims to refine and articulate common observation requirements and make the best possible use of fire products from the available satellite observation systems – for fire management, policy decision-making and global change research.133

Template for International Wildland Fire Management Cooperation

The International Wildland Fire Summit of 8 October 2003134 provided an important forum for discussions of how to manage the future of international wildland fire management and share solutions to global problems. One of the outcomes of the Summit was a paper that offered a template and other information on cooperation in wildland fire management to countries interested in entering formal relationships and agreements with others facing similar issues.135 The paper is intended to enhance current international coordination and cooperation by providing information on the following: - A template outlining areas to consider when developing international cooperative agreements; - Listing of the types of cooperation and assistance that may occur between countries; - The responsibilities of countries sending assistance and of those receiving assistance; - Websites containing information and examples of existing cooperative agreements and arrangements.

The role of the International Wildland Fire Conferences

With the first International Wildland Fire Conference, hosted by the North American Fire Management Working Group (FMWG) in the United States (Boston, Massachusetts) in 1989, a forum was initiated which aimed to share knowledge and expertise in wildland fire management, research and operational techniques in North America. The second conference was held in Canada (Vancouver) in 1996 and saw already increased international interest and participation. The third conference, held in Australia (Sydney) in 2003, became the first truly global conference of its type, as it included the inaugural “International Wildland Fire Summit“. Since the time planning the Sydney conference and summit the “International Liaison Committee” (ILC) of the conference series has consciously involved international experts and leading organizations. This is in large part thanks to the support offered by the U.S. Forest Service and the fact that they operate under the FMWG. The outcomes of the 2003 International Wildland Fire Summit and the following conferences in Spain (Sevilla) in 2007 and South Africa (Sun City / Pilanesberg National Park) in 2011 reveal that the IWFC have become the premier international forum on wildland fire policy, management, and transfer of science and technology applications.

The outcomes of the International Wildland Fire Summit included a Summit Communiqué and five strategic papers released by the Summit participants:136

132 Initial proposal for a global fire dataset by the ECE/FAO International Conference “Forest, Fire, and Global Change”: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/org/ecefao/ece_3.htm#Appendix%20I 133 GOFC/GOLD Fire Implementation Team: http://gofc-fire.umd.edu/; see also section 6 of this paper. 134 See section 3.4 of this chapter 135 Published in International Forest Fire News (IFFN) No. 29, p. 10-14: http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_29/content29.htm 136 The outcomes of the International Wildland Fire Summit are published in the special issue of UNECE/FAO International Forest Fire News No. 29 (2003): http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_29/content29.htm. The Summit website at http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/summit-2003/introduction.htm provides a full set of documentation of the Summit, its precursor events and the follow up. 133

• Guiding Principles for Wildland Fire Management: Guiding principles are suggested for consideration by international collaboration on fire management projects. • International Wildland Fire Management Agreements Template: The paper identified issues and provided a template to encourage countries to cooperate in dealing with wildland fire. • Incident Command System (ICS): A globally implemented ICS will improve firefighter safety, efficiency and effectiveness in management response. • A Strategy for Future Development of International Cooperation in Wildland Fire Management: The Summit participants recommended a series of strategies that will build on the work of many groups, conferences and regional summits and produce a series of actions building towards enhanced international cooperation in wildland fire management. • Community-Based Fire Management: The paper addressed the role of local communities to become involved in fire management, and examples of and suggestions for implementation.

The conclusions of the 4th and the 5th International Wildland Fire Conferences identified priority issues concerning wildland fires globally and recommended to systematically strengthen fire management at national, regional (multinational) and global levels. The calls for enhancing international cooperation in fire management are reflected by the outcomes of the regional sessions and the conference statements. 137 The 6th International Wildland Fire Conference will be held in the Republic of Korea in 2015 and evaluate the achievements of the previous conferences.138

Internationally Compatible Training, Standards and Competency; Certification of International Fire Responders

Capacity building of human resources is a key prerequisite for efficient planning and implementation of sustainable fire management. Many countries that are in need of developing or reviewing fire policies or upgrading existing fire management methods and / or technologies do not have the necessary resources or expertise in capacity building in fire management. International cooperation in fire management is critical to do so. Priority for international cooperation should focus on capacity building targeted at those groups responsible for developing fire policies, fire management planning and the subsequent implementation. Multi-stakeholder, inter-sectoral and inter-agency approaches will be a key consideration. It is also important to look beyond the responsible government agency to non- government organizations and the private sector to develop these capacities. Capacity building of instructors (training for trainers) is also a key prerequisite for the success of building capacities at local to national levels. Several fire management handbooks are available that are tailored for use in countries that need to build fire management capacity. They strive to guide the application of advanced knowledge in fire ecology and fire management, including participatory approaches to fire management (Community-Based Fire Management).139

Advanced international training courses for fire management specialists working in high-level positions in their country’s public or private sector will support the development of a culture of trans-national cooperation. Experience has been gained by several UN interagency training courses conducted by the United Nation University (UNU) and GFMC in Africa and in the South Caucasus countries. Progress has also been made in developing unified approaches for capacity building in fire management in Latin America through the joint efforts of the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. AID and its Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). The most recent example is the joint firefighter mobilization exercise in 2010 in Ecuador, which for the first time has been held at pan-Latin American level (Quarto Ejercicio Nacional y Primer Latinoamericano de Movilisación para Brigadas de Control de Incendios Forestales).140

All of this progress has been made while keeping the vision in mind to establish a decentralized worldwide network of training institutions in which donor organizations can collaborate. The development of training materials for international use is desirable.

137 See documentations of the conferences on http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/sevilla-2007.html and http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/southafrica-2011.html 138 http://www.wildfire2015.kr/ 139 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/Manag/CBFiM.htm and FAO (2011) 140 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/MesoAmerica/MesoAmerica_6.html 134

The “Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction” (PEDRR) is currently developing training materials on “Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction for Sustainable Development”, in which a module “Integrated Fire Management” has been included.141

In the case of fire suppression, the first steps have been taken to develop competency standards that will ensure the smooth cooperation between firefighting units of different nations, i.e. their interoperability in international missions. The EuroFire project is an initiative that has been financed by the EU Leonardo da Vinci programme and implemented jointly by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and partners between 2006 and 2008. 142 EuroFire reviewed competency-based wildfire training systems to identify best practice examples from Europe and around the world. This research was the basis for the production of competency-based basic training materials specifically for use in European countries. The key target end-user groups for the EuroFire project included: firefighters; the rural and land-based sector; sectoral organizations and; education and training institutions.143 Meanwhile, EuroFire competency standards and training materials have been translated to Armenian, Azerbaijanian, French, Georgian, German and Russian, and tested in Europe and neighboring countries in East Europe / Caucasus in the frame of the Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative.

In future competency-based standards could serve for certification of firefighters to be deployed on international fire response missions. In 2011 The "International Fire Aviation Working Group" (IFAWG) started to draft a set of voluntary guidelines for improving the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of international aerial firefighting missions (cf. section 7 of this paper).

Fire Management Guidelines

Fire Management Guidelines are needed for the various user levels – ranging from practical guidelines for local fire managers to guidelines for land-use planning and policy development. Guidelines must consider the specific natural (ecological) conditions of vegetation fire, as well as the social, cultural, economic and political environment. Valuable examples of such guidelines already exist for local to global use. However, in many countries these guidelines are not known or not applied, are in need of adaptation for the specific conditions or simply need to be translated. Fire management guidelines for international use that have been developed by international organizations since the 1990s and are available on the Internet:144

- International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) Guidelines on Fire Management in Tropical Forests (1997) - The WHO/UNEP/WMO Health Guidelines for Vegetation Fire Events (1999) - The FAO Guidelines on Fire Management in Temperate and Boreal Forests (2002) 145 - The UN Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines (2006) , with its implementation group, the Fire Management Actions Alliance (2007)146 - FAO Legislative Study “Forest fires and the law. A guide for national drafters based on the Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines” (Morgera and Cirelli, 2009).

While guidelines have been developed primarily to assist countries in developing sound, sustainable fire management capacities – including fire management policies and implementation strategies – they also provide guidance on standard approaches or standards in fire management that have been proven internationally and which will facilitate international cooperation in fire management.

141 www.pedrr.net 142 EuroFire partners included the International Association of Fire and Rescue Services (CTIF) and Rural Development Initiatives Ltd. 143 EuroFire project website with competency standards and training materials for download: http://www.eurofire.eu/ 144 Overview / portal: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/literature/Fire-Management.htm 145 http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/j9255e/j9255e00.htm 146 http://www.fao.org/forestry/firealliance/en/ 135

International Systems to be shared: Global Wildland Fire Monitoring and Early Warning

There are a number of fire management support tools that are based on international Earth Observation Systems (EOS). These systems include spaceborne sensors for fire detection and monitoring, and terrestrial networks of Hydrometeorological Services for recording and forecasting of fire weather (cf. Chapters 20 and 21 of this White Paper; Ahern et al., 2001).

The Fire Mapping and Monitoring Theme of the Global Observations of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics (GOFC/GOLD) project (cf. section 3.2.) and GFMC are closely interacting with the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), UNOSAT (Operational Satellite Applications Programme of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research – UNITAR), the International Charter “Space and Major Disasters”, and the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) with its Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS).

A number of public providers of near-real time satellite-based observations of active fires and burned area allow free access to public domain data and free open source software (Alexandris, 2011), such as the Rapid Response system - part of NASA’s Land Atmosphere Near Real-time Capability for EOS (LANCE). Rapid Response provides daily MODIS images in near real time.147 Monthly MODIS Burned Area images have been available in the Web Fire Mapper since 2010.148 The Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS) – a part of LANCE since 2011 – integrates remote sensing and GIS technologies to deliver global MODIS fire locations and burned area information to natural resource managers and other stakeholders around the World.149 The operational transition of the FIRMS system to FAO in 2011 is now complete. Operational users are advised to use the services of the Global Fire Information Management System (GFIMS) hosted by the FAO.150

Monitoring and modeling global emissions from vegetation fires is a component of Monitoring Atmospheric Composition and Climate (MACC), which is the current pre-operational atmospheric service of the European Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme. Its D- FIRE sub-project provides estimations of global emissions from biomass burning to the other MACC services and to the general public. The emissions are calculated in real time and retrospectively from satellite-based observations of open fires (Kaiser et al., 2011).151

In 2005 a global multi-hazard early warning system was proposed in the Hyogo Framework for Action. Subsequently a concept for the development for a Global Early Warning System for Wildland Fires was endorsed by the United Nations and presented at the Third International Conference on Early Warning (EWC-III) in March 2006.152 The Global Early Warning System for Wildland Fires is an activity of GOFC-GOLD implemented by the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC)153and is linked to the Group on Earth Observations (GEO)154. Its central aims are to develop:

- Early warning of fire danger on a global basis that will provide international agencies, governments and local communities with an opportunity to mitigate fire damage by assessing threat, likelihood and possibility of extreme behavior. This should enable implementation of appropriate fire prevention, detection, preparedness, and response plans before wildfires arise. - A robust global operational early warning framework with an applied system that will provide the foundation upon which to build resource-sharing agreements between nations during times of extreme fire danger. - Local expertise and capacity building in fire management for system sustainability through technology transfer and training.

147 http://lance.nasa.gov/imagery/rapid-response/ 148 http://firefly.geog.umd.edu/firemap/ and http://maps.geog.umd.edu/firms/burnedarea.htm 149 http://maps.geog.umd.edu/firms/ 150 http://www.fao.org/nr/gfims/en/ 151 http://www.gmes-atmosphere.eu/about/project_structure/input_data/d_fire/ 152 Website of the Global Early Warning System for Wildland Fires: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/fwf/EWS.htm 153 See chapter 21 of this White Paper 154 GEO Task DI-09-03B “Implementation of a Fire Warning System at Global Level” http://www.earthobservations.org/geoss_imp.php 136

International Wildfire Incident Management System: A Proposal

As a result of severe fires over a number of years, national leaders have demanded a more coordinated approach to the management of wildfires, including receiving or sending firefighting assistance to other countries. However, the ability to effectively cooperate is still limited by organizational and communication barriers. In the USA, State and Federal legislators that are concerned at the lack of uniform emergency management protocols have directed federal, state, and local government to develop common incident management systems. The purpose is to provide a framework that enables wildland fire protection agencies to effectively facilitate clear response authority, acquire and mobilize resources, coordinate interagency actions and provide effective management during incident response. A fundamental element of incident management was the creation of the “Incident Command System” (ICS), which provides consistent terminology and established organizational structures to enable effective, efficient incident management. Australia and New Zealand, faced with similar emergency response issues, have evaluated incident management systems around the world and elected to adopt the ICS and modify it to meet their specific needs.

The complexity of incident management, coupled with the growing need for multi-agency and multi- functional involvement at incidents has increased the need for standard inter-agency incident management systems within countries and states as well as internationally. Many countries have chosen to adopt similar or common systems of addressing emergencies. In addition a number have developed firefighting agreements based on a common system designed to enable interoperability when lending support to other countries. In the past this has usually been to support adjoining States or Countries within the same geographical region. Since 2000 we have seen examples of this being broadened by the provision of support occurring from different hemispheres. In 2000 and 2002, Australia and New Zealand sent critically needed incident managers to the USA. Similarly, early in 2003 the USA reciprocated by sending fire specialists to Australia. Canada and the USA frequently exchange firefighting forces, especially along their borders and New Zealand sent firefighting forces to Australia in 2002 and 2003.155 ICS was also used commonly by all firefighting forces during the wildland fire emergency in Ethiopia in 2000.156

The Incident Command System may need to be adapted to suit a particular country’s existing political, administrative or cultural systems, customs and values. Where the primary purpose is to enhance emergency management within a country, such adaptations are not only beneficial, but may be essential to have the ICS system adopted. If the purpose of adopting ICS is to enhance cooperation between countries, through the sharing of resources such as fire management teams, it is highly recommended that the sending country and the receiving country both use the same emergency management system.

One of the strategic papers produced by the International Wildland Fire Summit in 2003 suggests that the ICS is the most suitable tool available to fill this role on the international scene (see section 3.4 of this chapter). Given that ICS is a proven model in many countries and given that training materials for ICS are freely available, there is considerable benefit to be gained by a country adopting this system over any other.

It is hereby proposed that there be broad-scale introduction of a single International Wildfire Incident Management System (IWFMS) based on the incident management components discussed previously, including the principles of the ICS. This system would not necessarily require that specific components, such as ICS, be used as the incident management system of the country receiving or providing firefighting assistance. However, IWFMS components would need to be previously agreed upon, ideally in a formal arrangement, and utilized by all countries at the time of cooperation in wildfire emergencies.

IWFMS should also be considered as a candidate to be introduced in the UN-driven process to strengthen the international potential to respond to environmental emergencies. The UNEP and OCHA have established the Advisory Group on Environmental Emergencies (AGEE) as their most important cooperation and support mechanism for the response to environmental disasters. The AGEE is an

155 See: International Arrangements on the Sharing of Wildland Fire Suppression Resources between the United States of America and Australia and New Zealand: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_29/USA-Australia-NZ- Int-Arrangements.pdf 156 See: The Ethiopia Fire Emergency between February and April 2000: http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/iffn/country/et/et_1.htm 137

international forum that brings together environmental experts from around the world to share information, expertise and lessons learned in order to improve response to environmental emergencies worldwide – particularly in developing countries. In 2007 AGEE founded the “Rosersberg Initiative”, which aims at strengthening the global regime that governs environmental emergency response and preparedness157 and initiated the establishment of the online Environmental Emergencies Center (EEC) in 2012.158

In this context the application of the principles of developing High Reliability Organizations (HRO) may be of interest (Weick et al., 1999). A cooperation project between the U.S.A. and France reveals the utility of mutual exchanges of expertise and “lessons learned” by HRO may contribute improving incident management (Vidal et al., 2011).

The international firefighting assistance offered during the wildfire emergencies in Greece (2007), the Russian Federation (2010) and Israel (2010) reveal the need for introducing a unified incident management system – especially for the international deployment of aerial firefighting assets. Following the International Wildland Fire Summit (2003) an interest group was formed at the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference and returned recommendations for concerted international action.159 In a series of International Aerial Firefighting Conferences (2008-2010) this idea became further consolidated.160 In 2010 the International Fire Aviation Working Group (IFAWG) was founded and officially launched at the meeting of the UNISDR Global Wildland Fire Network / Wildland Fire Advisory Group at GFMC.161 162 The terms of reference have been laid down in the IFAWG Charter:

The "International Fire Aviation Working Group" (IFAWG) is working under the framework of the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group (WFAG) / UNISDR Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN) as an advisory committee with the following principal objectives:

- Sharing of relevant information, especially information that will support the promotion and improvement of safety in the sector; - Providing a conduit or facilitation mechanism for the sharing of resources between jurisdictions; - Identification of opportunities for international harmonization of operating practices and establishment of consistent standards; and recommend or initiate suitable harmonization action, including the development of voluntary guidelines; - Providing advice and guidance to individual states and the United Nations regarding fire aviation through the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group / Global Wildland Fire Network.

Sharing of resources in fire emergency situations that exceed the capacities of the fire-affected country are addressed by the study “Wildfire fighting resources sharing models” commissioned by the European Commission.163

Conclusions

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and its Wildland Fire Advisory Group are working to strengthen the efforts of United Nations agencies, other international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and a large number of national agencies responsible for fire managements with the aim to reduce the negative impacts of wildland fires and to promote a safe and ecologically benign model of fire use in ecosystem management. Similarly, the Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN), the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and the FAO are working systematically to increase the intra- and inter- regional cooperation in wildland fire management

157 http://ochaonline.un.org/ToolsServices/EmergencyRelief/EnvironmentalEmergenciesandtheJEU/RosersbergInitiat ive/tabid/2647/language/en-US/Default.aspx 158 http://www.eecentre.org/ 159 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/sevilla-2007/groups/Session-Aviation-Communique.pdf 160 See website of the last AFF Conference in Spain (December 2010), which includes the reports of all AFF conferences between 2008 and 2010: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/course/meeting/2010/meet2010_19.htm 161 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/Joint-WFAG-FAWG-ILC-FMAA-Meeting-June-2010-Agenda- final.pdf 162 IFAWG website: http://www.ifawg.org/ 163 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/prote/pdfdocs/future/Wildfire_Exec_Summary.pdf 138

around the world. The outcomes of the International Wildland Fire Summit of 2003 and the 4th and 5th International Wildland Fire Conferences in 2007 and 2011 reveal that the majority of countries worldwide are ready to establish and strengthen regional and international dialogues on cooperation and exchange of information, research and wildland fire management, including through formalized agreements.164 165

References

Note: Numerous references have been provided as footnotes or embedded in the text of this paper in order to facilitate online reading. Further search for documents on international cooperation in wildland fire management is facilitated by the search engine on the GFMC homepage (http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/). For searching documents only a relevant term (without adding “fire” etc.) needs to be entered.

Other references cited in the text:

Ahern, F., Goldammer, J.G., Justice, C.O. (eds.) (2001) Global and regional vegetation fire monitoring from space: Planning a coordinated international effort. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands. Alexandris, N. (2011) Public Domain Data and Free Open Source Software. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree Doctor rer. nat. of the Faculty of Forest and Environmental Sciences, Albert Ludwig University Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, 274 pp. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2011) Community-based fire management: A review. FAO Forestry Paper 166, 81 pp. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2495e/i2495e.pdf Goldammer, J.G. (2006) Fire Management. Review of International Cooperation. FAO Fire Management Working Paper FM18, 45 p. http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/J9406E/J9406E00.htm Goldammer, J.G., de Ronde, C. (eds.) (2004) Wildland Fire Management Handbook for Sub-Sahara Africa. Global Fire Monitoring Center and Oneworldbooks, Freiburg – Cape Town, 432 p. (ISBN 1- 919833-65-X). Heikkilä, T.V., Grönqvist, R., Jurvélius, M. (2007) Wildland Fire Management: Handbook for Trainers. Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Development http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/literature/Fire- Management-Handbook-2007.pdf. Kaiser, J. W., Heil, A., Andreae, M. O., Benedetti, A., Chubarova, N., Jones, L., Morcrette, J.-J., Razinger, M., Schultz, M. G., Suttie, M., van der Werf, G. R. (2011) Biomass burning emissions estimated with a global fire assimilation system based on observed fire radiative power. Biogeosciences Discuss. 8, 7339-7398. doi:10.5194/bgd-8-7339-2011 Khee-Jin Tan, A. (2005) The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution: Prospects for Compliance and Effectiveness in Post-Suharto Indonesia. New York University Environmental Law Journal 13, 647-722. Morgera, E., Cirelli, M.T. (2009) Forest fires and the law. A guide for national drafters based on the Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines. FAO Legislative Study 99, FAO, Rome, 161 p. Nguitragool, P. (2011) Environmental cooperation in Southeast Asia: ASEAN’s regime for transboundary haze pollution. Routledge, Abingdon and New York, 191 p. USDA Forest Service. (2003) International Arrangements on the Sharing of Wildland Fire Suppression Resources between the United States of America and Australia and New Zealand. International Forest Fire News No. 29, 59-61. http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_29/USA-Australia-NZ-Int- Arrangements.pdf Vidal, R., Harbour, T., Jorda, L. (2011) How lessons learned by High Reliability Organizations can improve incident management. Paper presented at the 5th International Wildland Fire Conference, Sun City, South Africa, 5-11 May 2011, 11 p. Available on the website of SDIS 13 (Bouches du Rhone, France): http://www.sdis13.fr/var/sdis13/storage/original/application/a96185f8833a0b900f910b5132cd3841 Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D. (1999) Organizing for high reliability. Research in Organizational Behaviour 21, 81-123.

164 See Annexes I and II 165 The 6th International Wildland Fire Conference “Fire of the Past, Fire in Future” will be hosted by the Republic of Korea in 2015 (http://www.wildfire2015.kr/) 139

Annex I

At the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference (Sevilla, Spain, May 2007) the representatives of the Regional Wildland Fire Networks and the participants of the joint regional sessions agreed on the need to develop synergies through coordinated and collective action to address the most pressing problems related to fire management globally.166 Furthermore, the conference participants recommended that:

- The international wildland fire community pursue the development of a global-scale international resource sharing strategy to assist countries with fire management planning activities (including prescribed fire for ecological purposes and fuels management), and active support during periods of wildland fire; - The FAO promote the global adoption of Incident Command System (ICS) including the publishing of an annual list of countries which have implemented ICS; - Regional strategies for fire management be developed and designed to the specific needs of regions; - An international framework for fire management standards be developed and regional wildland fire training be supported, especially to meet the needs for capacity building in developing countries; - Scientific research programmes addressing the consequences of changes of climate, land use and land cover, and socio-economic changes on fire regimes, environment and society must be supported at all levels; - The Strategy to Enhance International Cooperation in Wildland Fire Management and the implementation of the Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines be encouraged and endorsed; - Agencies and groups be encouraged to participate in the Fire Management Actions Alliance in support of their adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines; - The UNISDR Global Wildland Fire Network, the Regional Wildland Fire Networks and the Secretariat of the global network, the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), be supported by national agencies and international donors aimed at fostering international cooperation in fire management, including collecting and disseminating fire information, arranging and enhancing international policy dialogue, and supporting projects; - A series of Regional Consultations tentatively addressing “Global Change and Wildland Fire: Regional Solutions for Fire Management” – be held globally, within the next 1-2 years, to progress the global issues that are impacting people, resources and livelihoods; - The 2nd International Wildland Fire Summit – tentatively addressing “Global Change and Wildland Fire: Fire Management Solutions for Mitigation and Adaptation” – be held within the next 2 to 4 years under the auspices of the United Nations and partners.

166 The results of the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference are documented at: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/sevilla-2007.html and in IFFN No. 36 at: http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_36/content36.htm 140

Annex II

Four years after the Sevilla Conference the 5th International Wildland Fire was held in 2011, hosted by South Africa. The conference was held under the auspices of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in conjunction with the Third Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Geneva. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, conveyed an opening statement to the 500 delegates from 61 countries. He welcomed the efforts of fire specialists from around the world to develop a spirit of global cooperation in addressing the role of fire in the global environment and its impacts on society. The conference participants elaborated on both the need for the wise use of fire in sustainable management of natural and cultural ecosystems, and on the adverse effects of wildfires at local to global scales. They expressed strong concern at the escalation of wildfires across the globe - many unprecedented in the modern era regarding their severe impact on communities, the environment and the world economy. The conference participants acknowledged the benefits derived through collaboration in sharing information and researching new ways to tackle emerging issues. The conference participants, including the representatives of Regional Wildland Fire Networks and international thematic networks concluded that efforts be strengthened in capacity building in wildland fire science and management, and that this can be fostered by international cooperation and sharing of expertise and resources. The post-conference website includes all regional session reports as well as the global conference report.167

167 The results of the 5th International Wildland Fire Conference are documented at: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/southafrica-2011.html 141

Part III – White Paper on Use of Prescribed Fire in Land Management, Nature Conservation and Forestry

White Paper on Use of Prescribed Fire in Land Management, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia

Edited and published on behalf of the participants of the Symposium on Fire Management in Cultural and Natural Landscapes, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia and members of the Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network (EFNCN) 168 by the Global Fire Monitoring Center / Fire Ecology Research Group, Freiburg, Germany

In the landscapes of temperate-boreal Europe – the western part of the Euro-Siberian region of the Holarctic Floral Kingdom169 – the prevailing fire regimes are shaped by human-ignited fires. Direct fire application in land-use systems and human-caused wildfires – ignited accidentally, by negligence or otherwise deliberately set – have influenced cultural and natural landscape since the beginning of land cultivation. Only in Northern Europe and the adjoining Western and Central Asian region natural fires constitute a significant factor, which is influencing the natural composition and dynamics of ecosystems. Thus, the targeted use of fire in ecosystem management in Europe is predominantly in those vegetation types that either have been shaped by human-ignited fires over historic time scales or where the application of prescribed fire reduces the vulnerability to and damages of uncontrolled fires. Fire is also used as a tool to substitute abandoned cultivation practices and for the control of wildfires.

In the following broad classification of fire regimes and burning practices a number of examples of fire use in ecosystem management are provided which reflect a highly diverse range of applications.

1. Natural Fire Regimes

The integration of naturally ignited fires (by lightning) in vegetation management aims at maintaining the natural dynamics of fire-dependent or at least fire-adapted or fire-tolerant ecosystems. In North America, a continent hosting a broad range of fire-adapted ecosystems, the use or “integration” of natural fire under controlled conditions in the overall management of the ecosystems dates back to the 1960s and was referred to as “Let Burn”, “Prescribed Natural Fire”, and more recently “Wildland Fire Use” (van Wagtendonk, 2007). In the greater European / Eurasian space the use or the management of naturally ignited wildland fire to accomplish resource management objectives is not yet developed. In Western Europe (including the Euro-Mediterranean region and the Nordic countries) the functional role of natural fire had limited impact on the evolution of ecosystem properties and thus to their future maintenance – despite the presence of remarkable adaptations to fire, e.g. in some Mediterranean ecosystems (Naveh, 1975). Thus, there is a limited acceptance of allowing a naturally ignited fire to burn – even if the wildfire would burn within the “prescriptions” set by the ecosystem management plan.

168 Note: A printed version of the White Paper is also available online: http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/programmes/natcon/EFNCN-White-Paper-2010.pdf 169 This White Paper follows the definition of “landscape” in accordance with the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000): “Landscape means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of action and interaction of natural and / or human factors”. The geographic region is the Euro-Siberian region of the Holarctic Floral Kingdom. 142

However, in the Western and Central Asian region there are large tracts of forest ecosystems that have been shaped by natural fire, e.g. the pine (Pinus spp.) and larch (Larix spp.) forests that constitute the “light taiga” in Siberia and adjacent regions. In this rather extended biome there is a strong need to introduce the concept of allowing natural fires to burn, mainly in order to maintain open, fire-resilient stand structures and to reduce the risk of stand-replacement fires. Starting with the first East-West international conference “Fire in Ecosystems of Boreal Eurasia” (Goldammer and Furyaev, 1996) and the Fire Research Campaign Asia-North (FIRESCAN) (FIRESCAN Science Team, 1996) a dialogue with the forestry authorities of Russia (and the predecessor administration in the former Soviet Union, the State Forest Committee) has been initiated to replace the fire exclusion policy in the protected zone of Russia by an integrated fire management approach, which would include the use of natural fire and prescribed burning. While this approach has not yet been introduced in practice, there is a progress in the scientific and the policy acceptance of the concept. Given the magnitude and importance of wildfires in Central Eurasia there is need to prioritize the implementation of such a concept in the region, particularly in the Russian Federation.

Dendrochronological analyses provide historic evidence of recurrence of natural surface fires in the “light taiga” of Siberia and thus the influence of fire in shaping the composition and dynamics of pine (Pinus spp.) and larch (Larix spp.) forest ecosystems. Photos: GFMC.

2. Cultural Fire Regimes

Pollen and charcoal records in Western Europe reveal the advent of slash-and-burn agriculture in the late Neolithic between 4300 and 2300 BC. (Rösch et al., 2004). Since then the historic use of fire has been manifested in the development and shaping of a variety of land-use systems in the region (Goldammer et al., 1997a,b; Pyne, 1997). Mechanical treatment, intensive utilization of biomass for domestic purposes, the impact of domestic livestock grazing and the application of fire modified formerly forested lands to open lands and shaped distinct landscape mosaics. These open land ecosystems provided habitat requirements for a flora and fauna that otherwise is not occurring in forest ecosystems. Modern agricultural practices and the reduction of fire use due to legal restrictions or prohibitions in most European countries on the one side, and the rural exodus associated with the abandonment of traditional land management practices, including fire use, on the other side are dramatically altering these ecosystems. The rural depopulation and the rapid increase of fallow is resulting in a loss of open land ecosystems and habitats and is even resulting in an alteration of whole landscape patterns. At the same time the increasing availability of phytomass – a consequence of the decrease of its use – has resulted in an increase of fuel loads at landscape level and thus in increasing wildfire hazard.

There are a number of reasons and approaches in Europe to maintain or to restore the traditional use of fire in some ecosystems or land-use systems.

143

2.1 Restoration of traditional practices of swidden agriculture

There are a few cases in Europe where a reconstruction or restoration of abandoned slash-and-burn agriculture practices is demonstrated. These attempts have primarily a “museum” character and are serving educational purposes with a touch of landscape pattern restoration. Until the middle of the 20th Century slash-and-burn agriculture with a spatio-temporal land-use pattern similar to the “shifting cultivation” system was widely practiced in Europe and has left landscape features that are still visible today, e.g. the still visible small-sized burning plots with their distinct successional patterns (Goldammer et al., 1997). There are two regions where this kind of fire treatment is practiced for demonstration purpose:

- Koli National Park in Finland is the only national park in the world that has a fire symbol in its logo. In Koli the traditional slash-and-burn practice is demonstrated regularly and reveals the importance of this traditional land use on the composition of Finland’s boreal coniferous forest that has been shaped by this cultivation over centuries (Lovén and Äänismaa, 2004). - Historic slash-and-burn practice in the Black Forest of Germany: There are two sites near Freiburg (Yach, Vorderlehengericht) where the procedure of rotational cutting and use of coppice trees, the burning of residuals, followed by seeding and harvest of wheat, with subsequent fallow and forest regrowth period, are demonstrated (Lutz, 2008).

There is also a scientific interest to reconstruct earlier slash-and-burn practices, e.g. those that evolved in the late Neolithic. The most recent experiment to reconstruct Neolithic fire cultivation was conducted in 1999 in Forchtenberg, Germany (Rösch et al., 2002).

Swidden agriculture in the Black Forest, Germany, around the late 19th Century. Source: Historic copperplate print, archive of GFMC.

144

Demonstration traditional slash-and-burn practice in Koli National Park, Finland. Photo: Koli National Park.

Demonstration of traditional fire cultivation practices in the Black Forest, Germany (Vorderlehengericht, June 2007). Photo: GFMC.

145

2.2 Maintenance of grazing lands

The use of fire in maintaining openness and species composition on grazing lands is the most common practice that has survived its early application throughout Eurasia. Pastures that are threatened by succession are traditionally burned in a region stretching from the Western Mediterranean via the Balkans to East Europe. Although banned by law in most countries, the burnings are still practiced in many places. Together with burning of agricultural residuals (c.f. section 2.4) pasture burnings are a major cause of wildfires that are also affecting forests and even the wildland-residential interface. The illegality of burning is often resulting in “hit-and-run” practices, i.e. pastoralists setting fires and disappear from the site in order not to be sued. This is often resulting in uncontrolled fires with a high likelihood of developing and spread of devastating wildfires to adjoining terrain. While many countries did not yet attempt to introduce a solution to this problem, Spain has made significant progress by developing a government-supported permit and support system for the use of prescribed fire for grazing improvement and fire social prevention (Velez, 2007). Similarly, prescribed burning for rangeland improvement is practiced by several French prescribed burning teams, including the Department Pyrénées-Orientales (Faerber, 2009). For a European survey on prescribed burning practices, including grazing land management, see Lázaro (2009).

Prescribed burning of a Cysisus purgans heath in the Pyrénées-Orientales (Sournia, February 2008). Photo: J. Faerber.

2.3 Nature conservation and biodiversity management

The major focus and activities in the use of prescribed fire in Western Europe is for the conservation and restoration of the biodiversity heritage of former cultivated lands or lands otherwise affected by human-ignited fires (habitat and biodiversity management). The range of application is rather wide, as reflected by the activities conducted in the frame of the Eurasian Network for Fire in Nature Conservation (ENFNC).170 The following examples represent the main target systems for the application of prescribed fire:

170 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/natcon/natcon.htm. See also the special issue of UNECE/FAO International Forest Fire News at http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/iffn_30/content30.htm 146

- Heathlands: The composition and extent of Atlantic and continental heathlands (mainly dominated by Calluna vulgaris) has been shaped by grazing, cutting of heath, sod and turf layers and by burning throughout centuries. Burning is conducted in the United Kingdom (Davies et al., 2008; Scotland Government, 2008), to a lesser extent in Southern European countries such as Portugal and Italy (Ascoli et al., 2009), and predominantly in Central and Northern Europe, e.g. in Denmark (Jensen, 2004), the Netherlands (Vogels, 2009; Bobbink et al., 2009), Norway (Kvamme and Kaland, 2009) and Germany (e.g., Brunn, 2009; Mause, 2009; Goldammer et al., 2009). Endangered target species for habitat conservation burning include e.g. the Black Grouse (Tetrao tetrix) or game species such as Red Grouse (Lagopus scoticus).

- Wetlands: Maintenance of peat bogs, open fen mires, e.g. in Poland and Belarus, is practiced to maintain the habitat requirements of endangered plant and animal species, e.g. birds such as the Aquatic Warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola) or the Spotted Eagle (Aquila clanga) (Tanneberger et al., 2009). Moorlands in Germany that are threatened by succession are treated with prescribed fire in addition to other means such as waterlogging, tree cutting, mowing and mulching (Niemeyer, 2004).

- Grasslands: Similarly to the wetlands, xerothermic grasslands or Molinia meadows are hosting birdlife or plant species threatened by extinction, e.g. orchids, steppe grasslands plants or calcareous grasslands plants. Prescribed burning the Münsingen range in Southern Germany, a former military exercise and shooting range in which fires caused by the military had created and maintained openness for a century, is used for preserving the open habitats for endangered birds such as the Northern Wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe) and the Woodlark (Lullula arborea).

- Forests: The use of prescribed fire in the restoration and maintenance of habitats of species dwelling in forests is pioneered by management in Finland and Sweden. Traditionally fire has been used in the boreal forests of the Nordic countries in order to improve growth and productivity of tree stands by removing the temperature-isolating raw humus layers or to facilitate natural forest regeneration (Viro, 1974; Mälkönen and Levula, 1996). Since the 1990s there are first experiments and currently extended application underway to use fire for creating forest stands under the pre-industrial conditions, i.e. more open stand structures, and to create habitats of endangered insect species (e.g. Stephanopachys linearis and S. substriatus; Aradus spp.) and wood-decaying fungi as well as habitats for vascular plants (Rydkvist, 2009).

Danish postcard showing a fire set in Randbøl Hede – today Randbøl Hede Nature Reserve – in the early 20th Century. Source: GFMC archive. 147

Modern farmers learning the ancient farming technique of heathland burning in Norway in 2005. Source: Kvamme and Kaland (2009), photo by Aslaug Aalen.

Structurally rich heath-juniper ecosystems with individual pine and birch trees in Lunenburg Heath Nature Park shaped by fire, grazing and mechanical treatment. Photos: R. Köpsell and J. Prüter.

Control of birch and pine succession (left) in Zschornoer Heide Nature Reserve (Brandenburg State, Germany) is controlled by prescribed fire (middle and right: prescribed burning in 2002). Photos: GFMC.

Post-fire views of prescribed burns in Zschornoer Heide Nature Reserve immediately after the burn (left) and two years after the fire. Photos: GFMC / E. Brunn. 3. Substitutional Fire Use 148

The use of fire as a tool to substitute or replace another form of vegetation treatment is referred to as substitutional fire use. In Central Europe there are abundant open vegetation types that were shaped by agriculture, grazing or other land use (e.g., extraction of biomass for harvesting domestic fuels, stable litter, thatching material, etc.). Some of these open land habitats have a high biodiversity or landscape conservation value. In the late 20th Century many sites threatened by succession have been maintained by mechanical (mowing, mulching, etc.) or prescribed grazing measures that were financed by public subsidies. However, increasing costs and financial constraints of public budgets on the one side, and a rapid increase of fallow on the other side during the last three decades, have prompted scientists and conservationists to replace costly mechanical and grazing measures by prescribed fire.

3.1 Fallow management on small-scale and extreme habitats

The problem of increasing fallow is not only restricted to former grazing lands. The abandonment of traditional land use is also affecting sites that have been utilized for hay production by mowing. In regions where the open grasslands have a high value for landscape aesthetics and tourism, major public subsidies have been used in the past to keep these lands open by mechanical means. However, besides the limitations due to increasing costs there are also limitations to use machinery on small-sized private property plots, on open lands on steep slopes or on sites intermixed with trees, e.g., high-conservation value xerothermic grasslands with interspersed trees. Long-term investigations in using fire to maintain openness on small-scale fallow plots in Southwest Germany were initiated and monitored since the mid-1970s (Schreiber, 2004).

Another example of using fire as a substitutional tool is practiced in the viticulture region of Southwest Germany. Traditionally the xerothermic slopes between vineyard terraces in Southwest Germany (Kaiserstuhl) were mowed by the landowners and the hay used to feed cattle. The mowing of the grass strata on the slopes was very labor intensive and could not be mechanized. Thus, with the socio-economic changes in the viticulture sector beginning in the 1950s the winegrowers abandoned the treatment of slope vegetation, which very rapidly responded by bush encroachment and succession towards tree stands – a development detrimental to the microclimate for wine growing and also not well perceived for landscape-aesthetic reasons by the local populations. Excessive use of fire to maintain openness during the 1960s did not observe the rules necessary to protect vulnerable flora and fauna, especially when burning was conducted large scale and at progressed development stages in springtime. A complete fire ban imposed by law in the 1970s resulted in progressing succession as a consequence of neglected maintenance of the xerothermic sites. Since the late 1990s a scientific research project elaborated a framework of a prescribed fire regime (Page and Goldammer, 2004) which is now replacing mechanical treatment and is practiced by ecologically sound small-sized burnings during the winter period in two counties of Southwest Germany (Rietze, 2008; Goldammer et al., 2009). 149

Prescribed fire is used to maintain openness of fallow slopes in the Kaiserstuhl viticulture region. Fire is now replacing traditional mowing (Southwest Germany). Photos: GFMC.

The targeted application of small-sized fires for creating mosaic- or edge-rich habitat structures is common in the management endangered bird species, e.g. Black Grouse (Tetrao tetrix) (cf. 2.2.3), capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and Hazel Grouse (Tetrastes bonasia). While capercaillie habitat management by fire has been proven successful in Scottish pine-heath forests (Bruce and Servant, 2004), similar approaches elsewhere in Europe were less successful. For instance, capercaillie populations increased in some sites of the Black Forest (Germany) that were disturbed by hurricane “Lothar” in 1999. Wind throws and wind falls, partially salvage-logged but with snags remaining, resulted in the formation of edge-rich habitat structures preferred by capercaillie. The populations began to disappear with the onset of regeneration of spruce (Picea abies) and the development of succession towards dense forest. Small-scale, mosaic-rich prescribed burning application was intended to

• control abundant regeneration of spruce (Picea abies) to maintain general openness • create vegetation-free areas (mineral soil exposed) for food search / scratching • maintain refuge areas (small groups of young stands and thickets) • foster berry/shrub cover, particularly black berry (Vaccinium myrtillus), as a key source of nutrition • foster softwoods • foster structural diversity through a detention of the development of closed high forests in parts of the stands • maintain tree stumps and snags as sitting places • maintain appropriate trees as sleeping and singing places

However, in the long run these burnings could not be implemented on a regular basis because of the prevailing moist conditions on altitudes of around 1000 m a.s.l. of the Black Forest.

150

3.2 Landscape management

The Middle Rhine Valley (Germany) represents a typical example of the widespread conflict between a high nature conservation value of the cultural landscape on the one hand and the abandonment of traditional land use on the other hand. The Valley constitutes one of the largest coherent xerothermic areas of Germany with habitats and vegetation types that are classified as endangered at European level. The necessity for the development of management concepts to protect this landscape was emphasized by the inscription of the Upper Middle Rhine Valley in the UNESCO World Heritage List as a protected cultural landscape in 2002 (Bonn, 2004). In order to prevent further loss of the characteristic open habitats as a consequence of dramatic reduction of vine cultivation and other land use, a research and development project investigated the more or less uncontrolled (“semi-wild”), extensive grazing by horses and goats on the steep slopes, clearing the shrub-dominated shallow slopes with tank-tracks, and prescribed burning (Bonn et al., 2009). Prescribed burning was applied successfully during the experimental phase of the project, especially in the grass stage and earlier succession dominated by Rubus spp., but turned out to be limited as a tool for restoring overgrown xerothermic habitats on sites in progressed development stages dominated by Prunus mahaleb and Cornus sanguinea (Driessen et al., 2006).

The Middle Rhine cultural landscape with small-scale viticulture terraces is rapidly changing under fallow and succession. Combined grazing, mechanical and fire treatments are possible solutions for maintaining the aesthetic impressions of this unique cultural asset. Photos: S. Bonn and S. Bonn / GFMC Archive.

There are areas where the objectives of both nature conservation and landscape management are matching and prescribed fire is used for biodiversity management and maintenance of landscape aesthetics, mainly for recreational purpose. Nature conservation sites and nature parks (national parks) hosting Calluna heathlands are the most prominent examples of this dual use of fire, especially in Central Europe where these protected areas are important spots for national and regional tourism. The aesthetic impression of the old cultural landscape dominated by the colorful flowering of heath is a high attraction for visitors. A prominent example of such an area is the Lunenburg heath (Germany) with the Lunenburg Heath Nature Park (area: 1,130 square kilometres) and at its center the Lunenburg Heath Nature Reserve. As mentioned above, the composition and extent of Atlantic and continental heathlands (mainly dominated by Calluna vulgaris) historically has been shaped by grazing, cutting of heath, sod and turf layers and by burning throughout centuries. The use of fire for regeneration of over-aged heath, however, played a role as one of many disturbance agents and has now been restored successfully in Lunenburg heath (Keienburg and Prüter, 2006).

151

4. Waste Disposal

The use of fire in biomass waste disposal merits to be regarded at separately. While all burning objectives mentioned previously are targeting for a removal or suppression of unwanted, competitive dead or live vegetation elements – either by combustion or by the impact of heat – the removal of unused dead biomass by burning in agriculture (e.g., stubble burning after harvest) and forestry (slash / harvest residual burning after timber harvest, notably on clearcuts) aims at facilitating the growing of the next crops or the regeneration or reforestation of forest stands.

Burning of stubble fields and other agricultural crop residuals in Europe has a long tradition, similar to other regions and continents, but is now largely banned by law since these burnings are a major source of wildfires and air pollution. In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, however, agricultural burning – despite its legal ban – is very widespread and constitutes one of the major areas worldwide that are burned annually (Korontzi et al., 2006).

Burning of forest slash – the unused materials left on site after timber harvest – is still practiced in Europe, although to a decreasing extent. In the Nordic countries the main aim is site preparation for regeneration, i.e. to improve accessibility of the site for planting, including the use of machinery. Two techniques are practiced: burning on piles and broadcast burning over a larger area, usually on clearcuts with or without seed trees (particularly in the Nordic countries). At the same time slash burning is also serving to improve site conditions by reducing the raw humus layers and, as a silvicultural tool, to facilitate the germination of natural regeneration. In Russia the use of broadcast slash burning is now practiced to decrease fire hazard on logged sites and promote natural regeneration (Valendik et al., 2000, 2001). Also prescribed burning was used to restore forests killed at large scale by insects (Valendik et al., 2006). In the Mediterranean countries, burning on piles is used for eliminating tree branches and other residues after tree clearing and thinning on fuel breaks.

The recent move towards more intensive use of renewable energy is calling for the use of forest slash for bioenergy production. At medium- to long-term perspective this may result in a reduction of open forest residual burning.

5. Wildfire Hazard Reduction Burning

In Europe the concept of using prescribed fire as a management tool to reduce the combustible materials on the surface inside of forest stands, and thus the energy potential and the risk of high- intensity and -severity wildfires, has a relatively short history. It was only after the pioneering work of U.S. scientists in the 1970s and the official recognition of the use of “fire by prescription” by the U.S. Forest Service in 1976 when Europeans formulated the first ideas to consider prescribed burning as a tool for wildfire hazard reduction and presented the first research. The Fire Ecology Symposia held at Freiburg University in 1977 and 1983 (Forstzoologisches Institut, 1978; Goldammer 1978, 1983) and a dedicated workshop in Avignon in 1988 (INRA, 1988) brought together a community that intended to investigate prescribed fire as a forest and fire management tool. First practical applications and increasingly sophisticated approaches in fundamental prescribed fire research were conducted in Southern and Central Europe starting in the late 1970s (e.g., Goldammer, 1979; Delabraze and Valette, 1983; Rego et al., 1983; Trabaud, 1983; Vega et al., 1983). The use of fire to reduce wildfire hazard in open lands, including brush lands, namely for the creation and maintenance of fuelbreaks, then entered practice in the Southern European countries Spain, France and Portugal (Valette et al., 1993). In the Mediterranean part of France, prescribed burning for hazard reduction has continuously been developed and consolidated along years (Rigolot, 2000; Lambert, 2008). Prescribed burning for fuel reduction inside forests was practiced first in Portugal in the 1980s (Rego et al., 1983; Fernandes and Botelho, 2004). Subsequently, in this country, its application became dormant until its recent revival in the frame of the EU Fire Paradox project.

None of the forest ecosystems in Southern and Central Europe, including the natural pine forests, are natural fire ecosystems. Thus, the introduction of prescribed fire for wildfire hazard reduction can be considered as an innovative tool, applicable only in forests with target species resilient or tolerant to low-severity surface fires, such as Pinus spp. or Quercus spp.. In some cases prescribed fire can be regarded as a substitution tool for replacing historic fuel reduction methods, e.g. the intensive use of biomass for domestic use, or silvopastoral forest use.

152

In the overall context of landscape ecology the use of prescribed fire on open (non-forest) lands may serve several objectives. On the one hand well-maintained open landscape fragments – either a heritage of the cultural history or strategically planned to reduce “fuel bridges” between fire-vulnerable forests or other ecosystem – allow better access, ease the control of wildfires and enhance safety for firefighting operations. On the other hand the open lands may serve as pasture or for conservation purposes.

Use of prescribed broadcast burning in a coniferous forest clearcut in Siberia (“dark taiga” – with main species Abies sibirica, Picea obovata, Pinus sibirica, Betula pendula, Populus tremula) east of Yenisey river (Yenisey Ridge), Bolshaya Murta leskhoz, in June 1997, for slash removal and stimulation of forest regeneration. Photo: Y. Kisilyakhov.

Prescribed burning inside of standing coniferous forests for wildfire hazard reduction is not yet practiced systematically in the region, although demonstrated occasionally such as here in a pine stand (Pinus sylvestris) in Southwest Germany in 2008. Its future application in the Western part of the Euro-Siberian region is probably less likely, whereas its application is strongly recommended in natural coniferous forests of the Central Asian region. Photos: GFMC. 153

The main objective of prescribed fire application in the Stormyran-Lommyran nature reserve (Sweden) is to restore open stand structures and provide habitats for fire-dependent and fire-adapted species, e.g. the insect species Stephanopachys linearis and S. substriatus, Aradus spp.. Photo: T. Rydkvist.

Joint training of professionals and local villagers in the use of prescribed fire for wildfire hazard reduction in native mountain pine forests (Pinus sylvestris) in northern Mongolia. The hand-over of prescribed fire by scientists to the practitioners is a high priority issue aimed at reducing destructive wildfires. Photos: GFMC. 154

6. Limitations for Prescribed Burning: Contaminated Terrains

In some Eurasian countries high-value nature conservation sites are located on former military training areas or shooting ranges. In Germany many of these areas have been used by the military since more than 100 years, others were newly created and especially used during the Cold War. The total extent of sites in Germany contaminated by Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) is close to ca. 700,000 ha on active and former military training and combat theater sites, i.e. 2% of Germany’s land cover. Many of these military exercise areas were located on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic, used by the Soviet Army and the Warsaw Pact allies. The disturbances caused by military activities (e.g., mechanical impacts of direct shooting, fires started by shooting, mechanical impacts by tanks and other vehicles) have resulted in the creation and maintenance of valuable open ecosystems. With the closing of the exercise areas many vegetation types, notably the Calluna vulgaris heathlands, are becoming subjected to succession and development towards forests – a trend that is rather undesirable from the point of view of landscape and biodiversity conservation.

On these former military sites there are some obstacles for using prescribed fire as they are densely contaminated with UXO, which may explode during prescribed burning operations and also during wildfires. A new approach in the use of prescribed fire to maintain openness of UXO-contaminated terrain has been launched in 2009 in Brandenburg State in the nature conservation site „Heidehof- Golmberg“ in Teltow-Flaeming County, South of Berlin. This site is classified according to the “Fauna- Flora-Habitat Directive“ (FFH) of the European Commission and belong to an overall area of ca. 70,000 ha of FFH lands in Brandenburg State that are endangered by succession and loss of open habitats. The new approach is going to use armored vehicles (former combat tanks converted to fire extinguishing vehicles) to secure personnel during ignition, control of the prescribed fire and mop-up). In future it is envisaged to use aerial incendiary ignition systems to start the prescribed fires from safe distance and over large areas simultaneously, and use Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) to monitor progress and safety (Goldammer, 2009; Goldammer et al., 2009). This first project of its kind reveals that prescribed burning operations under such circumstances are rather complex and costly.

Similarly there are problems on lands contaminated with UXO and land mines inherited from recent conflicts, e.g. the extended areas covered by land mines on the Balkans, notably in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, totaling ca. 300,000 ha. Not all of these territories may be candidates for prescribed burning. In the context of wildfire prevention and control, however, the connectedness between contamination by explosives, must be kept in mind.

The use of prescribed fire in the maintenance of open habitats on former military exercise areas or shooting ranges requires special safety precautions as unexploded ordnance may detonate during the burning. Photo: GFMC.

This refers also particularly to the terrains contaminated by radioactivity, notably in the impact zone of the fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant failure in 1986. Territories most affected and contaminated by long-resident radionuclides of 238Pu, 239+240Pu, 137Cs and 90Sr are posing a potential 155

threat to human health and security if lifted, redistributed and newly deposited after lifted by an extremely intense wildfire and dispersed by smoke. In the most affected territories of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia the application of low-intensity prescribed fire for wildfire reduction and biodiversity conservation may be feasible but is not yet acceptable under the current psycho-social settings (Goldammer and Zibtsev, 2009).

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

In evaluating the presentations discussed during the symposium171 the participants concluded that recent research and the revival of prescribed burning practices in some regions of Europe have revealed the role and importance of fire in the maintenance and restoration of biodiversity in the cultural and natural landscapes of Europe.

The current trend of rural exodus and abandonment of land cultivation in some regions of Europe and the loss of traditional land use is leading to an alarmingly increasing rate of loss of open land habitats with its inherent biodiversity.

The maintenance and in many cases also the restoration of open land habitats by grazing, mechanical treatment and fire use is imperative if threatened biodiversity and landscape features are to be preserved.

Prescribed fire may be used in those ecosystems which historically were shaped by cultural fire, or in which prescribed fire may substitute other historic land-use techniques.

A sound understanding of the “pros and cons” of prescribed fire application is necessary as well as the consideration of side effects of fire use. Large areas threatened by land abandonment are embedded in industrialized regions in which society is becoming increasingly unreceptive to smoke emissions. Legal restrictions for open burning must be understood in the context of clean-air rules and overall goal of reducing gaseous and particle emissions that are threatening human health. This perception is reinforced by hysteria of some who consider prescribed fire emissions to increase the anthropogenic “greenhouse effect” and thus global warming.

On the other side it is noted that nature conservation agencies, non-government actors and the general public meanwhile turn out to have a rather sound understanding of the natural role of fire in various ecosystems. Thus the general perception of the “nature of fire” nowadays is better as compared to the situation two to three decades ago.

Based on the facts and recent trends presented in the Symposium on “Fire Management in Cultural and Natural Landscapes, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia” the following recommendations are given:

Prescribed Fire Research

The symposium revealed that there is a need in:

- Continued support for prescribed burning research - Clear analysis of the pros and cons of prescribed burning in a European context, e.g., via meta-analysis and expert knowledge regarding, environmental, economic and societal issues - Studies of additional, not yet identified areas / ecosystems that require prescribed fire treatment - Identification of possible vulnerabilities of systems subjected to prescribed fire - Setting up a European group of scientists, managers and policy makers who are involved in management of temperate grazing systems and have adopted (or not yet) fire as an additional management tool. Besides the Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network supporting groups/ organizations could include the European Heathland Network, the Husbandry Animal Group, the European Grassland Group, Aquatic Warbler Conservation Team, the UK Heather Trust and Moorland Forum

171 See symposium report available at: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/natcon/EFNCN-meetings-1- 2008.html 156

- Special emphasis on the use of fire in open fen mire habitats, e.g. in Eastern Germany, Belarus, and Poland

Prescribed Fire Management and Capacity Building

Since prescribed fire in ecosystem management is not yet largely applied, despite its recent revival, tools and systems must be developed to develop and support fire management capability. Action is needed to:

- Adjust the Canadian Fire Behavior Prediction System to European conditions with fuel types from every country - Develop expert systems to assist burners to understand whether they should burn and to guide them to burn safely - Enhance closer cooperation on the issue of prescribed burning for nature conservancy and landscape management between Temperate-Boreal Eurasia and the Mediterranean Region - Develop prescribed specific regional fire guidelines which consider the biophysical and social settings, for the use of agencies, land owners and other stakeholders involved - Limit bureaucracy and develop easier rules for permitting the application of traditional burning as well as advanced prescribed burning practices - Develop specific prescribed burning training systems - Develop a scheme for the certification of Burn Boss and Ignition Specialist on a European level and with national modifications - Assist in capacity building of fire specialists in countries in transition - Establishment of regional Training / Education Centers for Fire Management for the Balkans and for East European and adjoining Central Asian / Far East countries

Modified Fire Polices

The legislative framework in most European and neighboring Eurasian countries does not provide regulations for the use of prescribed fire. In contrary, in general the use of fire is banned by law – although law enforcement in some countries is nil. Besides national legal instruments a regional European framework directive would be needed to create an enabling environment for the sound use of prescribed fire in nature conservation, landscape management and forestry. Thus it is needed to:

- Emphasize at national level on the importance of prescribed burning and the consequences of not burning - Using model projects (examples of “good practices”) to demonstrate to local to national authorities in the need of the application of prescribed fire in combination with other complementing means of vegetation treatment - Create an appendix with list of reference books / publications explaining core methods and showing the examples of “good practices” (aimed at informing influencing decision / policy makers) 172 - Cooperate with the EU Fire Paradox project and its follow-up arrangement to support the development of a European Fire Framework Directive, which would create an enabling policy supporting the use of fire173

172 http://www.fireparadox.org/ 173 see Agudo and Montiel (2009) 157

Public Relations and Education

Most important is to inform society on the dual role of fire on ecosystems, to allow the general public to understand the use of prescribed fire in some land-use system vs. the need to prevent and combat fires in others. Collectively we need to:

- Show the policy makers that there is a strong alliance and cooperation in promoting the use of fire at European level - Show the public and policy makers that the severity and impacts of wildfires are increasing as a consequence of land-use change (increase of wildfire hazard resulting from rural exodus, land abandonment and fallow) - Prove that prescribed burning is cost-efficient to restore and regenerate important and threatened habitats - Prove that prescribed burning will contribute to stabilizing some forest ecosystems by making them less vulnerable to destructive wildfires, thus reduce the threat of land degradation and a decrease of net carbon emission to the atmosphere

General Remarks on Fire and livelihood of some Rural Populations

There are also some very pragmatic aspects for fire use that are crucial for livelihoods of people all over Eurasia. For instance, in the coastal heathlands of Norway it is important to maintain the traditional vegetation mosaic between heath-dominated and grass-dominated vegetation. The grassland represents the main fodder for the animals during the summer season, while evergreen heath species provide the main fodder during the winter. Heath burning is an important tool to maintain the mosaic, which does not only shape the highest possible biological diversity within the heath ecosystem but also the highest fodder value over the year. Similarly, many shepherds and their families throughout Southern and Southeastern Europe and the Balkans are dependent for their livelihood on the productivity of grazing lands regularly maintained by fire.

The International Context

In 2007 the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference was held in Sevilla, Spain. Participants from 88 countries, representing government organizations and civil society from all regions of the world, the United Nations and other international organizations, recommended in particular174:

- Regional strategies for fire management be developed and designed to the specific needs of regions; - An international framework for fire management standards be developed and regional wildland fire training be supported, especially to meet the needs for capacity building in developing countries;

This White Paper – a call of the Eurasian Fire in Nature Conservation Network (EFNCN) through the conclusions of the Freiburg Symposium on “Fire Management in Cultural and Natural Landscapes, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia” – is in line with these recommendations and also the outcomes of the “Fire Paradox” project (Sande Silva et al., 2010).

174 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/sevilla-2007/Conference-Statement-en.pdf 158

8. References

Agudo, J., and C. Montiel. 2009. Basis to start the process for a proposal of a new legislation at EU level. Deliverable D7.1-1-3 of the Integrated Project “Fire Paradox”, Project nº FP6-08505. European Commission, 66 p Ascoli, D., R. Beghin, R. Ceccato, A. Gorlier, G. Lombardi, M. Lonati, R. Marzano, G. Bovio, and A. Cavallero. 2009. Developing an Adaptive Management approach to prescribed burning: a long- term heathland conservation experiment in north-west Italy. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18, 727-735. Bobbink, R., M. Weijters, M. Nijssen, J. Vogels, R. Haveman, and L. Kuiters. 2009. Branden als EGM- maatregel. Ede: Directie Kennis, Ministerie LNV (Rapport / DK 2009/dk117-O) Bonn, S. 2004. Research and development project “Sustainable development of xerothermic slopes of the Middle Rhine Valley, Germany”. Int. Forest Fire News No. 30, 59-62. Bonn, S., J. Albrech, K. Bylebyl, N. Driessen, P. Poschlod, U. Sander, and M. Veith. 2009. Offenlandmanagement mit Panzerketten. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 73, 189-205. Bruce, M., and G. Servant. 2004. Prescribed Fire in a Scottish Pinewood: A Summary of Recent Research at Glen Tanar Estate, Aberdeenshire. Int. Forest Fire News No. 30, 84-93. Brunn, E. 2009. Feuermanagement auf Truppenübungsplätzen in Brandenburg. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 73, 165-178. Davies, M.G., A. Gray, A. Hamilton, and C.J. Legg. 2008. The future of fire management in the British uplands. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4 (3), 127-147. Delabraze, P., and J.Ch. Valette. 1983. The fire, a tool for clearing the French Mediterranean forest associations. In: DFG-Symposion Feuerökologie. Symposionsbeiträge (J.G. Goldammer, ed.), 27-38. Freiburger Waldschutz-Abh. 4, Institute of Forest Zoology, Freiburg University, 301 p. Driessen, N., J. Albrech, S. Bonn, K. Bylebyl, P. Poschlod, U. Sander, P. Sound, and M. Veith. 2006. Nachhaltige Entwicklung xerothermer Hanglagen am Beispiel des Mittelrheintals (Sustainable development of xerothermic hillsides in the Middle Rhine valley). Natur und Landschaft 81, 130- 137. Faerber, J. 2009. Prescribed range burning in the Pyrenees: From a traditional practice to a modern management tool. Int. Forest Fire News No. 38, 12-22. FAO-GFMC. 1999. Wildland Fire Management Terminology. Update of the FAO Wildland Fire Management Terminology of 1986 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Forestry Paper 70, 257 p.), published online at GFMC: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/literature/glossary.htm Fernandes, P., and H. Botelho. 2004. Analysis of the prescribed burning practice in the pine forest of northwestern Portugal. Journal of Environmental Management 70, 15-26. FIRESCAN Science Team. 1996. Fire in ecosystems of boreal Eurasia: The Bor Forest Island Fire Experiment, Fire Research Campaign Asia-North (FIRESCAN). In: Biomass burning and global change. Vol.II (J.S.Levine, ed.), 848-873. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Forstzoologisches Institut. 1978. VW-Symposium Feuerökologie. Symposionsbeiträge. Freiburger Waldschutz-Abh. 1 (1), 1-159. Institute for Forest Zoology, Freiburg University, Freiburg, Germany. GFMC Team. 2009. The LIFE Rohrhardsberg project: The use of Prescribed Fire in Maintaining Endangered Habitats and Landscape Feature in the Foothills of the Black Forest. Int. Forest Fire News No. 38, 84-87. Goldammer, J.G. 1978. Feuerökologie und Feuer-Management. Freiburger Waldschutz Abh. 1 (2), 1- 50. Institute for Forest Zoology, Freiburg University, Freiburg, Germany. Goldammer, J.G. 1979. Der Einsatz von kontrolliertem Feuer im Forstschutz. Allg. Forst- u. J. Ztg. 150, 41-44. Goldammer, J.G. (ed.). 1983. DFG-Symposion Feuerökologie. Symposionsbeiträge. Freiburger Waldschutz-Abh. 4, 301 p. Goldammer, J.G. 2009. The use of Prescribed Fire on Nature Conservation Areas in Germany contaminated by Unexploded Ordnance (UXO). In: Advanced Seminar “Wildfires and Human Security: Fire Management on Terrain Contaminated by Radioactivity, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Land Mines”, Kyiv / Chornobyl, Ukraine, 6-8 October 2009, Abstract Volume (J.G. Goldammer, ed.), 21-22. – http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/GFMC- CoE-OSCE-Seminar-Ukraine-Brochure-Final-06-Oct-2009.pdf Goldammer, J.G., and V.V. Furyaev (eds.). 1996. Fire in ecosystems of boreal Eurasia. Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, 528 pp. Goldammer, J.G., S. Montag, and H. Page. 1997a. Nutzung des Feuers in mittel- und nordeuropäischen Landschaften. Geschichte, Methoden, Probleme, Perspektiven. Alfred Toepfer Akademie für Naturschutz, Schneverdingen, NNA-Berichte 10, Heft 5, 18-38. 159

Goldammer, J.G., J. Prüter, and H. Page. 1997b. Feuereinsatz im Naturschutz in Mitteleuropa. Ein Positionspapier. Alfred Toepfer Akademie für Naturschutz, Schneverdingen, NNA-Berichte 10, Heft 5, 2-17. Goldammer, J.G., E. Brunn, G. Hoffmann, T. Keienburg, R. Mause, H. Page, J. Prüter, E. Remke, and M. Spielmann. 2009. Einsatz des Kontrollierten Feuers in Naturschutz, Landschaftspflege und Forstwirtschaft – Erfahrungen und Perspektiven für Deutschland. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 73, 137-164. Goldammer, J.G., and S. Zibtsev (eds.) 2009. Advanced Seminar “Wildfires and Human Security: Fire Management on Terrain Contaminated by Radioactivity, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Land Mines”, Kyiv / Chornobyl, Ukraine, 6-8 October 2009, Abstract Volume, 41p. http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/GFMC-CoE-OSCE-Seminar-Ukraine- Brochure-Final-06-Oct-2009.pdf INRA. 1988. Proceedings, International Prescribed Burning Workshop, Avignon, 14-18 March 1988. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Station de Sylviculture Méditerranéenne. Jensen, H.S. 2004. Restoration of dune habitats along the Danish west coast. Int. Forest Fire News No. 30, 14-15. Keienburg, T., and J. Prüter. 2006. Naturschutzgebiet Lüneburger Heide – Erhaltung und Entwicklung einer alten Kulturlandschaft. Mitteilungen aus der NNA 17 (1), 68 p. Korontzi, S., J. McCarty, T. Loboda, S. Kumar, and C. Justice. 2006. Global distribution of agricultural fires in croplands from 3 years of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 20, GB2021, doi: 10.1029/2005GB002529. Kvamme, M., and P.E. Kaland. 2009. Prescribed burning of coastal heathlands in Western Norway: History and present day experiences. Int. Forest Fire News No. 38, 35-50. Lambert, B. 2008. Bilan et perspectives du réseau brûlage dirigé. Réseau des équipes de brûlage dirigé, SUAMME, Conservatoire de la Forêt Méditerranéenne. 32p.+CDRom. Lázaro, A. 2009. Collection and mapping of prescribed burning practices in Europe: A first approach. Int. Forest Fire News No. 38, 110-119. Lovén, L., and P. Äänismaa. 2004. Planning of the Sustainable Slash-and-Burn Cultivation Programme in Koli National Park, Finland. Int. Forest Fire News No. 30, 16-21. Lutz, P. 2008. Traditional slash-and-burn agriculture in the Black Forest: Reconstruction of burning and agricultural techniques. Paper presented at the Symposium on Fire Management in Cultural and Natural Landscapes, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia, Freiburg, Germany, 25-27 January 2008. http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/programmes/natcon/ppt/23-EFNCN-2008-1-Germany-Swidden-Lutz.pdf Mälkönen, E., and T. Levula. 1996. Impacts of Prescribed Burning on Soil Fertility and Regeneration of Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). In: Fire in ecosystems of boreal Eurasia (J.G. Goldammer and V.V. Furyaev, eds.), 453-464. Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, 528 pp. Mause, R. 2009. The Use of Prescribed Fire for Maintaining open Calluna Heathlands in North Rhine- Westphalia, Germany. Int. Forest Fire News No. 38, 75-80. Montiel, C., P. Costa, and M. Galán. 2010. Overview of suppression fire policies and practices in Europe. In: Towards Integrated Fire Management – Outcomes of the European Project Fire Paradox (J. Sande Silva, F. Rego, P. Fernandes, and E. Rigolot, eds. European Forest Institute Research Report 23. Naveh, Z. 1975. The Evolutionary significance of fire in the Mediterranean Region. Vegetatio 29, 199- 208. Niemeyer, F. 2004. Prescribed Burning of Moorlands in the Diepholzer Moorniederung, Lower Saxony State, Germany. Int. Forest Fire News No. 30, 43-44. Page, H., and J.G. Goldammer. 2004. Prescribed Burning in Landscape Management and Nature Conservation: The First Long-Term Pilot Project in Germany in the Kaiserstuhl Viticulture Area, Baden-Württemberg, Germany Int. Forest Fire News No. 30, 49-58. Pyne, S.J. 1997. Vestal Fire. An environmental history, told through fire, of Europe and Europe's encounter with the World. University of Washington Press, 680 p. Rego, F.G., J.M. da Silva, and M.T. Cabral. 1983. The use of prescribed burning in the Northwest of Portugal. In: DFG-Symposion Feuerökologie. Symposionsbeiträge (J.G. Goldammer, ed.), 88- 104. Freiburger Waldschutz-Abh. 4, Institute of Forest Zoology, Freiburg University, 301 p. Rietze, J. 2008. Ecological monitoring of the management of slope-vegetation by prescribed burning in the Kaiserstuhl-Region, Germany. Int. Forest Fire News No. 38, 63-66. Rigolot, E., 2000. Le brûlage dirigé en France: outil de gestion et recherches associées. In: Vega, J.A., Vélez, R. (Eds.), Actas de la Reunión sobre Quemas Prescritas, Cuadernos de la Sociedade Española de Ciencias Forestales 9, 165-178. 160

Rösch, M., O. Ehrmann, L. Herrmann, E. Schulz. A. Bogenrieder, J.G. Goldammer, M. Hall, H. Page, and W. Schier. 2002. An experimental approach to Neolithic shifting cultivation. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11, 143-154. Rösch, M., O. Ehrmann, L. Herrmann, E. Schulz, A. Bogenrieder, J.G. Goldammer, H. Page, M. Hall, and W. Schier. 2004. Slash-and-burn experiments to reconstruct late Neolithic shifting cultivation. Int. Forest Fire News No. 30, 70-74. Rydkvist, T. 2009. Prescribed fire as a restoration tool and its past, present and future use in the County of Västernorrland, Sweden. Int. Forest Fire News No. 38, 63-66. Sande Silva, J., F. Rego, P. Fernandes, and E. Rigolot (eds.). 2010. Towards Integrated Fire Management – Outcomes of the European Project Fire Paradox. European Forest Institute Research Report 23. Schreiber, K.-F. 2004. Germany: Use of Prescribed Fire in Maintaining Open Cultural Landscapes in Baden-Württemberg State. Int. Forest Fire News No. 30, 45-48. Scotland Government. 2008. The Muirburn Code. Guidance on safe burning of heather (principal legislation constraints that apply for the wise use of fire in moorland management of Scotland). ISBN 978-0-7559-1004-5. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/08154231/0 Tanneberger, F., J. Krogulec, and A. Kozulin. 2009. Feuermanagement im Niedermoor - Beispiele aus Polen und Weißrussland. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 73, 179-188. Valendik, E.N., V.N. Vekshin, S.V. Verkhovets, A.I. Zabelin, G.A. Ivanova, and Ye.K. Kisilyakhov. 2000. Prescribed burning of logged sites in dark coniferous forests. Siberian Branch Russ. Acad. Sci. Publishing, Novosibirsk. 209 pp . Valendik, E.N., V.N. Vekshin, G.A. Ivanova, Ye. K. Kisilyakhov, V.D. Perevoznikova, A.V. Brukhanov, V.A. Bychkov, and S.V. Verkhovets. 2001. Prescribed burning of logged mountain forest sites. Siberian Brunch Russ. Acad. Sci. Publishing, Novosibirsk, 172 pp. . Valendik, E.N., J.C. Brissette, Ye.K. Kisilyakhov, R.J. Lasko, S.V. Verkhovets, S.T. Eubanks, I.V. Kosov, and A.Yu. Lantukh. 2006. An experimental burn to restore a moth killed boreal conifer forest, Krasnoyarsk Region, Russia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11 (4), 883-896. Valette, J.Ch., E. Rigolot, and M. Etienne. 1993. Intégration des techniques de débroussaillement dans l'aménagement de défense de la forêt contre les incendies. Forêt Méditerranéenne XIV(2), 141-154. van Wagtendonk, J.W. 2007. History and evolution of wildland fire use. Fire Ecology Special Issue Vol. 3 (2), 3-17. Vega, J.A., S. Bará, and C. Gil. 1983. Prescribed burning in pine stands for fire prevention in the Northwest of Spain: Some results and effects. In: DFG-Symposion Feuerökologie. Symposionsbeiträge (J.G. Goldammer, ed.), 49-74. Freiburger Waldschutz-Abh. 4, Institute of Forest Zoology, Freiburg University, 301 p. Vélez Muñoz, R. 2007. Experiences in Spain of Community Based Fire Management. Paper presented at the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference, Sevilla, Spain 13-17 May 2007. http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/sevilla- 2007/contributions/doc/cd/SESIONES_TEMATICAS/ST2/Velez_SPAIN_DGB_ExpeEnglish.pdf Viro, P.J. 1974. Effects of forest fire on soil. In: Fire and ecosystems (T.T. Kozlowski and C.E. Ahlgren, eds.), 7-45. Academic Press, New York. Vogels, J. 2009. Fire as a restoration tool in the Netherlands – first results from Dutch dune areas indicate potential pitfalls and possibilities. Int. Forest Fire News No. 38, 23-35.

161

Global Fire Monitoring UNECE / FAO Team of Specialists Center (GFMC) on Forest Fire

UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management Geneva, 28-29 November 2013

Report 5 – Submitted by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GMFC)

Post-Forum Evaluation of the Preparatory Enquiry / Questionnaire

Introduction

In preparation of the UNECE / FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management a questionnaire was developed by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and distributed to the UNECE Member States.

The aim of the questionnaire is to provide background information / data for the discussions at the Forum. Members of the UNECE/FAO team of Specialists on Forest Fire, and other voluntary contributors from UNECE Member States, and authorities of the Member States have been asked to fill the form before the Forum.

It turned out, however, that UNECE Member States suggested to provide more time for collecting the information needed for the enquiry. Thus, the evaluation of the questionnaire had been postponed to the time immediately before, and particularly following up the Forum in 2014.

The questionnaire may be obtained from GFMC upon request. The size of the questionnaire is 37 pages (in English and Russian).

Introduction to the Analysis

In the lead-up to the UNECE / FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management held in Geneva, November 2013, a preparatory questionnaire was circulated to all UNECE member states by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire with the aim of collating background information and data on the scale of wildfire problems as well as the challenges, approaches and attitudes to holistic wildland fire management in the UNECE region. The questionnaire was made available in Russian language where appropriate, but other UN languages of the region were deemed unnecessary because it was known that the nominated national expert from these countries (France and Spain) were more than adequately equipped with the English language.

Circulation of the questionnaire prior to the Forum helped prepare the participants for the range of topics that would be discussed in Geneva and encouraged them to delve into aspects of wildland fire management normally outside of their immediate domain to bring a broader perspective of domestic fire management to the UNECE/FAO table.

While filling the questionnaire must have been a challenging task requiring substantial research and effort in explaining the intricacies of domestic wildland fire management, the depth of the responses received has provided insight which has been very much appreciated.

The analysis of the questionnaire has been assisted by considerable background understanding of the wildland fire issues facing the region provided by the GFMC. Considering this, responses to the 162

questionnaire were received with an open mind to ensure they were not moulded to pre-existing interpretations. The author trusts that an accurate portrayal of the real situation is presented and would welcome any corrections or further detail that can be provided in the course of future discussions. It is hoped that the analysis and presentation of the responses to the questionnaire assists in developing a deeper understanding of the nature and management of wildland fire at the regional, and in some ways, the global scale.

Executive Summary

Section I – Fire-prone lands, wildfire occurrence and wildfire damages Wildfires were reported to occur in all responding countries, although for the most part only data relating to forests was available. Notably, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia reported the highest proportion of forested land affected annually by wildfire, at around 1%.

Section II – National coordinated or coherent fire management policies or strategies The majority of respondents, conspicuously those representing post-soviet and post-socialist countries, report that fire management policies in their countries are concentrated at the national level and enacted across the nation through local branches of these national agencies. In contrast, fire management policies in Spain, Canada, Switzerland and Germany are the responsibility of provincial government authorities. In most of these cases, particularly in Canada, adequate cooperative measures are in place to harmonise practices that otherwise may cause conflict or inefficiencies.

Section III – Institutional and Sectoral responsibilities in fire management A common theme running through the detailed responses on this topic is that the concerned agencies and sectors undertake wildland fire management activities in some degree of isolation from one another. In particular, preventative action is disconnected from suppression responsibility. The highest degree of inter-sectoral coordination exists in relation to suppression activities. A number of respondents report that an annual inter-agency meeting is conducted to assist with this. The Agriculture sector is strikingly absent in almost all discussions of agency and sector responsibility.

Section IV – Use of prescribed fire Prescribed burning related to hazard reduction is common in Canada and becoming more widespread in Spain, Germany, Belarus and the Russian Federation. In Germany, in particular, ecological considerations are considered central to prescribed burning activity. Other controlled fire is used in a number of other countries for various purposes, including clearing of roadsides, logging slash and crop residue and rubbish burning. Agricultural burning is very common in the responding countries despite being almost universally banned. The legal and financial factors that compel farmers to undertake burning in contravention to such bans should be examined if these fires are considered a problem.

Section V – Abandoned agriculture and pasture lands Abandonment of agricultural lands and associated demographic trends such as population decline and ‘aging’ rural communities are commonly described phenomena in the Eurasian responses to the questionnaire. In western European countries this has occurred gradually over the past several decades as the agricultural industry has been transformed by machinery and technology. In some of these cases there is concerted effort to stem the trend by recognising the range of values, including ecological, held by cultural landscapes. In the eastern European and Eurasian examples, abandonment has occurred in a dramatic fashion since the collapse of socialist unions, resulting in uncontrolled abandonment and depopulation in rural areas. The heightened threat due to the combination of increasing fuel loads and fuel connectivity as well as the compromised capacity to deal with wildfire when it happens is keenly felt across the region.

Section VI – Fire emissions and human health and security Smoke emissions from wildland fire is widely recognised as a great potential threat to human health and security, particularly in Greece, Ukraine and the Russian Federation following damaging smoke and haze events in recent years. Despite this, no specific actions beyond ‘possible emergency response and evacuations’ are widespread. The exception to this generalisation can be found in the Russian response to the 2010 wildfires. In this case, improved plume forecasting methods and tailored emergency civil protection measures have been focussed upon as a result. 163

Section VII – Fire emissions and environmental impact Consideration of the environmental impact of wildland fire emissions takes the primary form of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) monitoring programmes undertaken in Switzerland, Germany, Canada and Georgia and secondarily the estimation of Black Carbon (BC) emissions’ estimates from Canada, Ukraine and the Russian Federation. In other cases, emissions from trash burning are the most similar target for air quality monitoring and legislation.

Section VIII – Economic impact of wildfires In a reflection of the response to Section I of this questionnaire, the measured economic impact of wildfires reported by the correspondents is dominated by estimates of timber losses based on the volume of timber lost to fires. Occasional estimates of agricultural losses and the destruction of houses are included and in the Greek example, an attempt to quantify the overall economic impact of the devastating 2007 fires is made. An observable trend of quantifying only particularly dramatic events is present, which may have the effect of overlooking more regular, but less dramatic wildfire losses.

Section IX – Human casualties Firefighter casualties largely outweigh civilian casualties in all reports with the exception of Greece, where heavy civilian losses during the 2007 wildfires tip the balance dramatically the other way. The data is too sparse to draw any causal relationships, but the relatively high regard for civilian well-being over that of firefighters may be a contributing factor. The elephant in the room in this case is the issue of including smoke inhalation casualties in the overall toll of wildland fires. The most telling example of this conundrum is evident in the Russian response, where tens of thousands of extra-ordinary deaths recorded during the 2010 smoke and heat episodes are not considered wildfire casualties due to lack of clear evidence indicating the relative impacts of heat and smoke.

Section X – Specific contamination issues – radiation, UXO and other Apart from the common concern of uncontrolled rubbish landfills, the presence of Unexploded Ordnance (UXO), land mines and radiation contamination is becoming widely recognised as compounding the threat posed by wildland fire. Contamination resulting from accidents (Ukraine), conflict (east Mediterranean region) and military training (Germany) hinders preventative fuel management and endangers firefighters and the wider population when fire occurs. Sadly, casualties still occur where civilians and firefighters venture into these areas. On the other hand, improving the mapping of contamination and gaining a better understanding of how to manage this land for ecological, fire prevention and safety gains are current initiatives in the responding countries.

Section XI – Transboundary / cross-border fires Wildfires crossing international borders are widely recognised and observed throughout the UNECE region. Beyond this, smoke impacts from major events such as the 2010 Russia fires have also been mentioned.

Section XII – Bilateral of regional agreements – information, SOPs, resource-sharing Wildfire-specific cooperative arrangements between local fire authorities either side of international borders are common and frequently enacted. Beyond this, ad hoc international assistance occurs quite often when a country calls upon others to assist with extraordinary situations. Long-standing, sub-regional agreements teaming historic allies exist in the Balkan region and the former Soviet Union, and the European Union is in the process of forming such an allegiance presently. Long- standing relationships with distant partners are favoured by some member states to take advantage of disparate fire seasons and common experience and language.

Use of the Incident Command System (ICS) contributes to the foundation of some effective international agreements. Recognition of this advantage has spurred other countries to encourage its development and dissemination domestically.

Section XIII – Specialised training and personnel Firefighters dedicated primarily to dealing with wildland fires exist in only a small number of responding countries. In most cases emergency responders are given a degree of specialised wildland fire training to complement their primary roles as civil protectors, urban firefighters or military. A small number of countries report that the personnel expected to suppress vegetation fires are basically untrained and lacking in the skills and special equipment required.

The active participation of women is forbidden in some responding countries, limited to support roles in others and enthusiastically welcomed in a third group. 164

International sharing of training and expertise is occurring amongst some partners in the region, and enthusiasm for a more formal, regional programme of this kind is high.

Section XIV – Volunteer firefighters Volunteer firefighting organisations exist in most responding countries, but the regulation, training, compatibility with professional brigades and the nature of legal and financial protection vary widely.

Section XV – Participation of civil society Civil society is most commonly ‘involved’ in wildland fire management purely as an audience to which warnings about accidental fire ignition are played. However, a small number of respondents describe a situation in their country where civilians are expected to play an active role in protecting themselves and their communities from the threat of wildfire. Chief among these is clearly Canada, which provides information and advice to individuals and rural communities.

Section XVI – Use of advanced data and information systems with a focus on fire management All countries calculate daily fire danger based on hydro-meteorological inputs during the declared fire season. Most also make mid- and long-term forecasts of the likely severity of future seasons using advanced satellite data and climate models.

Section XVII – Fire research with application in management Most correspondents report that research into wildland fire and its management is being undertaken at the national level, led by either the forest industry or university faculties focussing on fire, forests, the atmosphere and natural disaster management. In some instances fundamental fire behaviour and ecology are emphasised and in others, ‘human’ factors such as settlement patterns, human use of fire and the response of society to emergencies are added to enhance the relevance of fire science to society.

Section I – Fire-prone lands, wildfire occurrence and wildfire damages

In reporting the prevalence of wildland fire, all countries report that such fires occur and cause damages in their territory. The figure most commonly mentioned is the area of forested land annually affected by fire, which in most cases ranges from 0.1% to 0.5% of all forested lands in the country. The highest proportional figure mentioned is that of FYR Macedonia, which reports around 1% of forested lands impacted by fire each year.

Outside of forests, few countries report that fires occur on other categories of land, and of these even fewer report the actual area affected. Albania, Croatia and Greece report substantial areas of agricultural land affected by fire each year and Belarus and Croatia report that areas of peatland and shrubland are burned every year.

The results reported by correspondents indicate that wildland fire is a universal problem. However, it would be reasonable to suggest that the countries indicated have self-selected by the fact that their representatives have taken the trouble to respond to the questionnaire. It cannot be assumed that all countries in the UNECE region experience the same level of damages or threat from wildland fire as those that responded to the questionnaire.

Despite this limitation, an important insight that can be gained from the responses to the questionnaire is that wildland fires occurring outside forests are not adequately recorded or considered by the relevant authorities. The fact that the area of non-forested lands impacted by fire is not available indicates that wildland fire is widely considered to be only a ‘forest’ problem and not a ‘landscape’ problem. Examples in Table 1 from Belarus, Croatia, Greece and Ukraine are illustrative of this assessment.

The fallacy of this approach to wildland fire is highlighted by the fact that, in some cases, both the gross area and ‘proportion by type’ of some non-forest affected by fire exceeds the values of ‘forest’ that has been affected by fire. From these figures it seems logical that the matter of wildland fire should not simply be identified as a threat to forests. Comprehensive reporting of wildland fire incidence and damages is an important first step in this direction.

This theme of the non-forest extent of wildland fire receiving poor recognition is supported by the responses received for Sections II, III, V and VIII of the questionnaire. 165

Table 1. The area of various land cover types was reported for the responding countries. In most cases the average is reported for the years 2000–2011, although in some cases a longer or shorter time span was reported. Where the total area of each land cover type was available the burned area has been presented as a percentage of this total. The numerous gaps indicate that burned area for these areas was not reported because it did not occur, was not recorded, or the country representative was not able to access the information.

Burned Area (annual average (ha / % of that land-use type)) Country Forest Agriculture Orchard Shrubland Peatland/ Protected and Pasture (Olive/Fruit) Wetland area Albania 2700ha / 2000ha / 200ha 0.2% 0.4% Armenia 195ha / 27ha <0.1% Belarus 905ha / 1671ha <0.1% Canada 2.2mil ha / 0.5% Croatia 6600ha / 22900ha 7856ha 0.2% Georgia 310ha / <0.1% Germany 481ha / <0.1% Greece 12416ha / 17899ha / 16257ha / 912ha / 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.9% Kazakhstan 41802ha / 0.1% Lithuania 290ha / <0.1% Macedonia 10344ha / 1% Poland 996ha / <0.1% Russia 2mil ha / 0.2% Serbia 2828ha / 0.1% Spain 113847ha / 0.4% Switzerland 16ha / <0.1% Turkey Ukraine 4000ha / 132545ha / 2000ha <0.1% 0.3%

Section II – National coordinated or coherent fire management policies or strategies

The nature of wildland fire dictates that its direct management – from prevention, through preparedness, to suppression – must be undertaken at the very local level. Land must be managed for prevention by individual foresters and farmers, and firefighters must be ready to respond quickly to fires that are nearby. However, this local organisation must be part of a broader, landscape-scale strategy to reduce the damaging potential of fire in the environment. This must be expressed in the land management and emergency response policies that oblige various agencies and sectors to manage aspects of wildland fire.

Examples of these policies include the extent and limitations of the duties of various agencies to manage the landscape for prevention of wildland fire (i.e. Forestry, Agriculture etc.), including fuel 166

management, preventing intentional and accidental ignitions and managing public access. At the other end, these policies should also prescribe responsibility for various aspects of wildfire response. For example, which agency is responsible for initial response (this may vary with land ownership) and how do other agencies (i.e. Metropolitan Fire Service, Emergency Service and Military) become involved and cooperate effectively?

In most of the examples provided in the responses to the questionnaire, the bulk of fire-related policy exists at the national level and is implemented by local branches of national bodies (emergency services, forest service etc.) according to national standards. Most countries falling into this category appear to have inherited this centralised system from their Soviet and Socialist forebears.

On the other hand, a small number of countries require a lower jurisdictional level of government to determine policies within their own borders within the bounds of broad-sweeping national laws. The best examples of this are Canada and Spain, where the Provinces and Comunidads are highly autonomous in many ways, including their land management and emergency service organisation. As a result of this the forest management, land management and most emergency service agencies are based at the Province / Comunidad level.

A rudimentary grouping of responding countries’ approach to wildland fire policy is presented in Table 2. While there are perceived advantages and disadvantages of each system, those specifically apparent in the responses to the questionnaire can be summarised as such:

Centralised policy theoretically allows quick implementation across the entire country of new or changing policies and provides nation-wide uniformity in the operations of that particular agency. This is particularly effective where the country and its institutions are small (e.g. FYR Macedonia) but less- so when these standards need to be set throughout massive organisations such as the Russian Aerial Forest Protection Service (Avialesookhrana). Centralised policy also limits confusion between bordering Provinces and Oblasts when they are required to cooperate in border-crossing fires or assist in large emergencies in another part of the country.

Countries depending on dispersed fire management policies claim the advantage that localised governance allows each jurisdiction to better cope with the specific wildland fire conditions they are likely to experience. Under such a system, effective cooperation at the national level requires much more intensive organisation between the equivalent agencies of the different Provinces. The example from Spain is particularly illustrative, in that the training for firefighters and even the emergency management systems vary from one Comunidad to the next. However, according to the expert response, this challenge has been met by effective communication and collaboration between Comunidad governments and fire management agencies as well as a number of national agencies.

Where Spain, Germany and Switzerland have systems in place to make up for the potential shortcomings of dispersed fire management policy, Canada has taken this same idea several steps further by establishing a national body with the express purpose of facilitating exchange of firefighting resources between the fire suppression agencies of the Provinces and Territories. The Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFCC) has been operating since 1982 to provide this service nationwide.

Beyond this, in recent years Canada has begun to implement fire management activities according to the Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy, which is the nearest thing to a National Fire Management Plan reported by any of the responding countries. This Strategy encompasses all stages of the fire management process across sectors and jurisdictions, including research, land management, fire prevention, community engagement and resilience and fire suppression. In establishing such a clear set of national-level outcomes, the Provincial governments of Canada and their fire management agencies are able to plan their activities in a harmonious way.

167

Table 2. Based on the responses to the questionnaire, the approach to Wildland Fire Policies adopted in various UNECE countries can be broadly grouped into two categories.

Generalised approach to Wildland Fire Policy Country Wildland Fire Policies exist primarily at the National level Albania, Armenia, with implementation by local branches of national bodies Belarus, Georgia, Greece, FYR Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Serbia, Ukraine Wildland Fire Policies exist primarily at the Canada Province/Canton/Comunidad level with inter- Spain governmental cooperation facilitated by provincial and Switzerland national bodies and over-arching laws Germany

Section III – Institutional and Sectoral responsibilities in fire management

The questions posed in Section III of the questionnaire were aimed at evaluating the Sectoral approach to wildland fire management in the UNECE region. The nature of wildland fire and the measures required to manage it mean that multiple government and private sectors must be involved in at least some stage of the process. For example, Prevention of wildland fire should be coordinated at least with the Forestry, Agriculture and Conservation Sectors. Preparedness and Response should include these land management agencies plus all emergency responders as well as the general public and property owners and managers. Beyond this, Sectoral interests will be held by agencies and organisations working in Health, Insurance, Town planning and Climate change.

The most usual approach described in the responses to the questionnaire portray a situation where sectoral interests manage ‘their’ aspect of wildland fire separately aside from attempts to coordinate the emergency response to wildfire situations.

A typical example of this would be that the Forestry agency manages preventative actions in their forests such as cutting fuel breaks and conducting controlled hazard reduction burns and is responsible for detection of and first response to fires in the forests they manage. Prevention duties in non-forested lands are the responsibility of the agency or person directly managing that land – be it the National Parks’ agency, a private company or an individual farmer.

Suppression duties largely fall to some kind of Emergency Services’ agency which must coordinate the response to the fire including escalating the response to include other agencies in the case of large fires. The number of responding agencies included may raise to six, with various Emergency Agencies, the Military and Police all receiving mention at some point.

This general approach is exemplified by Georgia, Germany, Greece, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Serbia, Poland and Ukraine. These countries, among others, also subscribe to another common approach to coordinating the inter-sectoral response to wildland fire. In these cases an annual meeting designed to organise emergency response procedures and responsibilities is conducted at the local level to ensure that matters such as communications and incident management do not become dysfunctional during emergency situations.

Toward the borders of this general theme a number of examples exist in which the allocation of responsibility is particularly weighted toward a certain sector or agency. For example, the Forest Services of Greece and Armenia do not play any role in fire suppression, as that is considered the exclusive realm of Emergency and Fire Services. On the other hand, the Forest Service of Turkey is allocated the entire responsibility for fire on its lands – from prevention to suppression and recovery. A notable absence from any country’s description of its fire management approach is the Agricultural sector. It is widely understood, and supported by the responses to Section I of the questionnaire, that intentional and accidental fires in agricultural landscapes are very common and often spread to other areas. It therefore counters logic for the Agricultural sector to remain unrepresented in the management of fire in the environment. 168

Section IV – Use of prescribed fire

Controlled vegetation fire is used to serve a wide variety of purposes where the reduction of the vegetative mass on an area is desirable to help achieve overall land management goals. In forests, prescribed burning may be carried out to reduce future fire hazard. In pastures it may be used to dispose of dead grass to allow new growth. In cropland it may be used to exterminate pests and next to roads fire may be used to improve visibility for drivers.

In keeping with scientific developments of the last few decades, some countries are recognising the ecological and hazard reduction (HR) values of lighting controlled fires in forests. Chief among the examples detailed in the responses to the questionnaire is Canada, where HR burning is an integral component of forest management and the Wildland Fire Management Strategy. Responses from Spain, Germany, Belarus and the Russian Federation indicate that prescribed burning in forests is receiving an increasing amount of attention as a component of responsible forest and fire management.

Beyond that, controlled fire is used for a variety of purposes in Albania, Croatia, Kazakhstan and FYR Macedonia. These purposes include the clearing of roadsides, clearing of logging slash and crop residue and domestic rubbish burning. In some instances these practices stem from traditional uses and in others, such as Germany, burning of heath ecosystems and historic vineyard landscapes is undertaken to restore historic burning regimes, imitate former disturbance regimes and maintain the ecological and cultural values of the landscape. Most prescribed burning in Germany is conducted to maintain high-conservation value ecosystems including registered FFH (Flora-Fauna-Habitat) sites.

Agricultural burning

One particularly contentious form of burning in open space is that of applying fire to agricultural fields in order to rejuvenate pasture, exterminate pests or to clear the way for future crops. Most countries impose an outright ban on such burning, not distinguishing it from arson or other criminal activity. At face value this is a comprehensible stance because many (perhaps the majority) of problematic wildland fires are ignited in the agricultural domain and most of these fires are suspected to be intentional management burns. The countries that mention a ban on agricultural burning are Croatia, Greece, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Poland, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Lithuania and Ukraine. Conditional exemptions from a general prohibition of fire use in any type of vegetated land are possible in most States (Laender) of Germany.

Despite this blanket ban, all respondents except Poland, Switzerland and Lithuania also report that these laws are routinely ignored and fire in agricultural fields is prevalent. However, convictions of perpetrators are uncommon because there is rarely proof that a specific person lit the fire and it may be difficult to establish whether the person whose land is affected is the victim or the beneficiary.

The fact that the use of fire in the agricultural realm is so attractive that farmers are willing to break the law to treat their fields indicates that these kinds of laws may be in need of review along with the other legal and financial influences on the agricultural community. From the responses to the questionnaire it is impossible to determine the motivation(s) influencing an individual’s decision to light up their fields. Possible causes may include the absence of economically viable alternatives such as ploughing crop residue into the soil or utilising the straw as an energy source, the difficulty or expense of obtaining permits to legally light fires or the perceived shortage of agricultural land prompting farmers to illegally clear other vegetation by burning.

Section V – Abandoned agriculture and pasture lands

Counter to the trend in some parts of the world which sees primary forest cleared to make way for agricultural land and development, large parts of the UNECE region are experiencing a decrease in the area of agricultural land as fields are abandoned by their former occupants. This is associated with a trend of rural communities ‘aging’ as young people turn away from the rural lifestyle for the perception of better opportunities in urban areas or abroad.

169

The impact of these trends on the nature of wildland fire in rural areas is manifested as an overall heightened threat to the remaining population, settlements and resources in these areas. The combination of factors that leads to this increased threat is that the increasing fuel load on abandoned fields results in greater connectedness of highly flammable lands and encroachment on remaining settlements. To further compound this problem, an aging, declining and dispersing population in these areas reduces the capability of these communities to prepare themselves for, or defend themselves against the threat of uncontrolled fire.

This phenomenon is widely represented in the responses given to the questionnaire. In fact only Canada, Belarus and Georgia report that agricultural abandonment and associated trends are not occurring and it is apparently unknown whether this is occurring in Croatia. All other representatives report that agricultural abandonment is widespread but none were able to confirm that the scale of the problem is known or recorded at any level.

The range of impacts associated with agricultural abandonment in the UNECE region can be seen as a story of two waves, depending on the country and the history of the specific case. In Greece, Turkey, Spain and Switzerland, abandonment has been a major cause of landscape change linked to efficiency gains in the agricultural industry over the past 60 to 70 years. On the other hand, the collapse of the communist systems in Albania, Armenia, Kazakhstan, FYR Macedonia, Serbia, Ukraine and the Russian Federation has led to a much more rapid pattern of land abandonment since 1990. The case of Germany displays characteristics of both waves due to its unique history.

It should be noted that some of the high-value conservation areas in Europe are biodiversity-rich cultural ecosystems. Abandonment of land cultivation in many ecosystem types leads to ecological succession, encroachment of trees and forest formation. This eventually results in loss of open-land habitats with their characteristic flora and fauna, including endangered (red-list) species. In such situations prescribed fire is increasingly used to restore historic fire and disturbance regimes, or to substitute other historic land-use methods of vegetation mass use or extraction (i.e. mowing and grazing).

Section VI – Fire emissions and human health and security

Wildland fire smoke is recognised in all the responding countries as the element of wildland fire that is most likely to have an adverse impact on human health. In most cases this is passively managed by allowing for an emergency situation to be declared and evacuations enforced when smoke impacts upon built-up areas. In these cases the smoke episode would be treated in the same way as any other environmental contaminant such as a chemical spill or smoke from a building or landfill fire. Air quality protection laws and punitive measures would apply accordingly if a perpetrator could be identified.

The level of concern is heightened in the countries of Greece, Ukraine and the Russian Federation due to recent damaging or potentially damaging experiences. The 2007 and 2010 experiences in Greece and Russia, respectively, highlighted the vulnerability of large cities (Athens and Moscow) to wildfire smoke episodes and their potential to severely compound the threat to human health and life posed by summer heatwave conditions. The same fires that impacted Moscow in August 2010 blanketed the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, causing great, although false, public concern that the smoke may contain radioactive pollution from the Chornobyl exclusion zone.

Only in the Russian example is this heightened concern reported to have led to a more active approach to the management of wildland fire smoke as a specific threat requiring a specific response to protect the population. Improvements to smoke plume forecasting methods and emergency civil protection procedures tailored for episodes of smoke impacting upon urban areas are being undertaken as a response.

State legislation in the Laender of Germany, however, classifies and regulates vegetation fire emissions in a preventive way by forbidding burning of any vegetation type with the direct goal of protecting human health and security.

170

Section VII – Fire emissions and environmental impact

The consideration of wildland fire smoke as an environmental or atmospheric pollutant appears to be reasonably limited in the UNECE countries responding to the questionnaire. While most countries identify trash burning as the primary target of air quality protection laws (more for health purposes than environmental), a number of countries do attempt to monitor wildfire smoke emissions as part of their contribution toward atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2). These examples only extend to Switzerland, Germany, Canada and Georgia. In the case of Germany, the state-level laws referring to emissions are reported to be in line with Germany’s commitment to the Gothenburg protocol of the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transport of Air Pollution.

The emission of Black Carbon (BC) from wildfires is also monitored in Canada with relation to its impact on the atmosphere and research is being undertaken to better understand the impact that BC emissions from wildfires and agricultural burning in Ukraine and Russia may have on ice sheets in Arctic areas.

Section VIII – Economic impact of vegetation fires

In most of the responses received, the quantified economic impact of vegetation fires is limited to the direct losses of timber in impacted forests. This is especially the case in Serbia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation and FYR Macedonia. A summary of reported economic losses is presented in Table 3.

Beyond this, partially unquantified losses are reported in other sectors – particularly the loss of agricultural crops and fruit and olive orchards in Greece and Albania and the ‘high cost’ of operational shutdowns to the oil and gas industry in Canada. The cost of rehabilitating fire-affected lands to prevent mudslides and erosion is mentioned by the representatives of Albania, Georgia and Switzerland. The loss of houses – although not the summed economic impact – is also mentioned in Canada, Greece and Kazakhstan but not in other countries.

In terms of overall economic impact, only the example of the Greece fires of 2007 has been submitted as an attempt to quantify the overall impact of fire on the economy, and it is still unclear whether this assessment includes costs such as the cost of the emergency response, loss of productivity and ongoing costs such as the impact on regional tourism. All other submissions are much less detailed that the Greek response, so it would be reasonable to say that the overall economic impact of uncontrolled wildland fires in the responding countries is largely unknown.

In a reflection of other Sections of the questionnaire, the nature of the reporting of damages provides an insight into the approach to fire management employed in the various countries. The fact that most losses are reported in reference to catastrophic events indicates that no systematic reporting and recording of wildland fire losses is in place, but rather, losses are estimated on an ad hoc basis in the case of major fire events. The result of this may be that relatively minor events go unrecorded and the ever-present nature of wildland fire risk is underestimated.

171

Table 3. The nature and quantity of economic damages resulting directly from wildland fire show that again, forest and timber losses dominate the reported figures. Losses in other sectors, such as agriculture, or losses to the economy as a result of the response and evacuation effort are rarely reported.

Country Reported Losses Albania Erosion and damages in orchards and agriculture Canada Shutdowns in the oil and gas sector are very costly. (Also, from Section I: Year 2003 – 334 homes + 45 000 evacuations, 2011 – 500 homes + 15 000 evac. Georgia Mudslides and erosion Germany 1991-2012 – 2 million € timber losses, annual average Greece Year 2007 – total estimate of 5 billion € - olive trees (4.5 million), livestock (60 000), homes (3000). Wildland-Urban Interface damages are increasing with time. Mudslides occur in some regions Kazakhstan Year 2006 – 92 houses FYR Macedonia Timber – volume value (m3 x 1700 MK denar (28€)) Russian Timber losses – annual average – 10 billion rubles, 2010 – 100 billion rubles Federation Serbia Timber losses – Year 2007 – 32 million €, Year 2012 – 113 million € Switzerland Erosion and mudslides Turkey Only few statistics available Ukraine Timber losses – Year 2011 – 300 000€, Year 2012 – 520 000 €

Section IX – Human casualties

In most of the individual country reports and as a total, the number of firefighter casualties largely outweighs the number of civilian casualties attributed to wildland fire events (Table 4). This trend is even more dramatic when the extraordinary case of Greece is considered separately.

It is difficult to draw any particular conclusions from the raw data provided. However, the lower number of civilian casualties may indicate that during wildfire events the emphasis of human protection is put on warning, evacuating and protecting civilian lives ahead of operational protection of firefighting professionals and volunteers. The example that counters the trend is Greece, which lost a large proportion of the recorded lives in the devastating 2007 fires. In relation to these fires, it is mentioned in Section XV of this questionnaire that inadequate warning of the population led to the high civilian toll. Thus the exception can be understood to confirm the rule.

It is unclear whether the reported figures include ‘secondary’ casualties resulting from impacts such as car accidents related to poor visibility or, more importantly, from smoke inhalation. It is assumed that the public health impact of smoke pollution, and therefore any estimate for the number of deaths that could be attributed to it, has not been included in the submitted reports. The figures submitted by the Russian Federation in Section VI of this questionnaire mention ‘50 000 deaths above the long-term average’ that occurred during the intense period and heat and smoke haze that impacted Moscow in August 2010. However, there is no statistical or medical evidence confirming how many of these casualties could be directly attributed to smoke pollution and how many attributed to the extraordinary heat stress. A reasonable conclusion to draw from this data is that more attention should be paid to obtain more precise data during such heat and vegetation fire smog episodes.

172

Table 4. The number of casualties attributed to wildland fire in the responding countries. In most cases the number of firefighter casualties outweighs the number of civilian casualties. Premature deaths and injuries by vegetation fire smoke pollution are not included in this table.

Fatalities Injuries Country Period Civilian Firefighter Civilian Firefighter

Albania 2003-2013 15 Armenia 2011-2012 Belarus Occasional Canada Occasional (aircraft) Croatia 2007-2012 3 12 11 Georgia Germany 1975 1 5 Greece 1977-2013 136 42 Kazakhstan 2006-2013 2 9 Lithuania 2012 2 FYR Macedonia 2012 1 3 7 5 Poland 1992 2 Russian Federation 2010-2013 19 Serbia Spain 2001-2010 17 51 12 554 Switzerland Turkey xxxx-2013 4 106 Ukraine 2007-2012 2 6 Total Casualties 164 266 32 565

Section X – Specific contamination problems – radiation, UXO and other

The presence of contaminants in vegetated lands is an emerging field of concern for the management of wildland fires of all types. The negative potential of combustion and dispersal of contaminants poses a threat to the public and the environment over a wide area and a particularly dire threat to firefighters working in these contaminated areas. A number of countries’ representatives mention uncontrolled landfills as a potential hazard if affected by fire, but these are considered within reasonable reach of control in the not-too-distant future.

Graver concern is expressed in relation to the broad-scale contamination of terrain from Unexploded Ordnance (UXO), land mines and radiation, and the reported areas affected by these contaminants is summarised in Table 5. These areas are a special concern in relation to wildland fire precisely because people have been unable to enter them to undertake management operations since the time of contamination. While this is widely recognised as having positive ecological influence, wildland fire in these regions poses quite specific threats. The concern for the population is that burning contaminants will be dispersed with the fire smoke. The concern for firefighters is that in the ‘heat’ of an emergency situation, they may intentionally or accidentally enter contaminated areas and put themselves at extreme danger.

173

Unexploded Ordnance and Land Mines

The history of the UNECE region has resulted in the contamination to this day of large areas with explosives resulting either directly from armed conflict or from military training in practice for armed conflict. As indicated in Figure 1, quite a number of countries report areas contaminated by unexploded ordnance such as mortars, grenades and other explosive projectiles. On top of this, several countries in the eastern Mediterranean region also report areas laid with landmines, particularly along current or former national borders. It is reported by the Albanian representative that injuries from landmines are common, including to firefighters in the line of duty. Although the dataset is far from complete, it seems that the more recent conflict in the Balkan region is that which continues to pose the most danger to firefighters and the public through the lethal legacy of land mines that have not been cleared.

The questionnaire responses from Germany, Greece and Serbia indicate that efforts are being made to protect firefighters by forbidding wildfire response within contaminated areas. Innovative solutions are being tested in Germany to simultaneously provide for the ecological integrity of these areas as well as the desire to control wildland fire in the areas and the necessity to protect firefighters. For example, in UXO-contaminated sites that have also been recognised for their ecological importance, the use of prescribed fire in combination with remote ignition techniques and the use of armoured, mechanised equipment and unmanned aerial monitoring systems is being actively pursued as a feasible management approach to ensure the protection of firefighters whilst returning heathlands to their ecologically-, culturally- and fire-secure state.

As well as these factors, the reporter for Serbia also refers to claims that shells containing depleted Uranium were used during the bombing of Serbian territory in the 1999, compounding the contamination of the area.

Radiation

The reported issue of radioactive contamination in the UNECE region is almost entirely confined to the area impacted by the April 1986 accident at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant in northern Ukraine, as indicated in Figure 1. Being close to the corner between Belarus and the Russian Federation, these neighbours report respective areas of 1.5 million and 1 million hectares of contaminated terrain on top of the 2.2 million hectares reported by the Ukrainian rapporteur.

The issue of fire in the region was made abundantly clear in 1992, when a large wildfire burned in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) in Ukraine. As mentioned earlier, the relatively nearby Russian fires in 2010 also sparked great public concern in Kyiv that the smoke blanketing the city may contain radionuclides from the CEZ. Thankfully there have been few major fires in the area, but the passage of time and the additional complications associated with fire management across national borders ensures that this threat will continue to grow.

174

Table 5. The area and category of lands in UNECE countries contaminated by Unexploded Ordnance (UXO), Land Mines and Radiation

Country Area Notes / Nature of contamination Albania Unreported WWII UXO, Land mines near Kosovo border | Common injuries to civil. and f-fighter | Currently mapping extent Belarus 1.5 million ha Radioactive contamination to forests and farmland Croatia 66 600 ha UXO and Land mines from civil war | Warning signs present Germany 650 000 ha UXO on former military training areas and combat theatres of WWI and WWII Greece Unreported Remnants from WWII and Civil war | Firefighting forbidden Lithuania 100 ha Unexploded Ordnance FYR Macedonia Unreported Near Greek border (Bitola) - UXO stemming from WWI | Explosions observed during fires Russian Federation 1 million ha Radioactive contamination to forests and farmland Serbia ‘large areas’ Land mines, UXO & suspected Uranium ‘dirty’ bombs | Firefighting forbidden. Ukraine 2.2 million ha Radioactive contamination to forests and farmland

Figure 1. A geographical view of the important contamination issues identified in Europe. Those countries that identified particular contamination issues with relevance to wildland fire are highlighted, giving a basic insight into the sub-regional issues

175

Section XI – Transboundary / cross-border fires

All responses to the questionnaire report that border areas hold some potential for fire to cross an international boundary. In some cases, such as the Spanish-French border of the Pyrenees, it is less common due to topography and climatic variables. On the other hand, the German and Ukrainian correspondents note that during the wildfire episode in the Russian Federation in August 2010 a long- distance smoke impact on these countries was observable.

Section XII – Bilateral or regional agreements – information, SOPs, resource-sharing

In order to deal with the border-crossing fires mentioned in Section XI of this questionnaire, all respondents report that arrangements exist between local fire response agencies either side of national borders that allows cooperation and the operational crossing of borders in fire events.

Beyond this, ad hoc lending and borrowing agreements have occurred between various countries in response to specific, one-off emergency situations. Examples of this were specifically mentioned between Albania and Italy, Turkey and Libya, and Ukraine and Greece, among others.

Sub-regional agreements

Additionally, longer-term, sub-regional agreements that assure assistance for future emergencies exist in some cases – particularly where the group of countries share a common history. For example, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which is composed of ex-soviet countries, has an established a regional agreement, and there appears to be higher-than-usual cooperation between the former-Yugoslavian Balkan states, despite the conflict that marred the period immediately after separation.

These agreements often take the form of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) or governmental agreements that specify the cases in which assistance will be provided as well as the operational, legal, financial and border-crossing arrangements that make it possible, including Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and harmonisation of training.

European Union Civil Protection Mechanism (EUCPM)

An important development in the UNECE region in recent years has been the move by the European Union to provide an international force, by multilateral agreement, which can be deployed to all manner of emergencies, including wildfire events. The wildland fire components of the Civil Protection Mechanism (CPM) are still in their infancy, but a number of responding countries refer to it as central to their international cooperative efforts.

The recent and prospective EU-member states of Albania, Croatia, Serbia, Lithuania and FYR Macedonia as well as their regional neighbour Greece all expressed a keen interest in benefiting from, and contributing to this continent-strong mechanism. The reasons for this regional enthusiasm cannot be unequivocally identified, but the combination of a sense of duty to such an important regional body as well as identification of the economic benefits to be realised through cooperation may be behind this regional move.

Cooperation with distant allies

Beyond working at the regional level, there are a number of countries in the UNECE region actively pursuing agreements and arrangements with partners further afield. Working with distant countries seems to be encouraged in situations of two types. First, where the partner organisation abroad may have particular experience that may be advantageous - for example Spain, Greece and the Russian Federation are working with the United States of America on sharing training and incident command knowledge and procedures. On the other hand, the resource-sharing arrangement that Canada has established with New Zealand takes advantage of the fact that the partner country is unlikely to experience wildfire emergencies simultaneous to Canada, so resources are more likely to be reliably available.

The case of Germany is unique in this theme. The country rarely experiences severe wildland fire events, and as such has not entered into many regional and international cooperative agreements at 176

the official level. On the other hand, the presence of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) on German soil has made the country central to a great number of agreements, negotiations and developments of international cooperation within and beyond the borders of the UNECE, including facilitating exchange of experts in times of crisis. At the government level Germany has been highly supportive of these activities and appears to be willing to enter into agreements when the circumstances indicate that it would be of benefit.

The Incident Command System

The implementation of the Incident Command System (ISC) is considered by a number of countries and organisations within and outside the UNECE region to be an essential step toward facilitating effective cooperation at the international level. While the structure and operation of the ICS is still undergoing constant improvement, it is definitely the most widely-used incident management system at the global scale and has been key, even fundamental, to some of the most effective examples of international cooperation such as those in existence between Canada, US America, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand.

Recognition of this is clear in Canada, where ICS is used at all levels and between all agencies for the express goal of eliminating conflicts and inefficiencies between responding agencies during wildfire events. Beyond that, the respondents from Spain and FYR Macedonia explain that locally-suitable versions of ICS are currently under development with the primary goal of improving cooperation at international events and with the potential for ICS to be applied domestically at some future time.

Section XIII – Specialised training and personnel

The nature of wildland fire demands that those involved in prevention and suppression activities are furnished with special skills and equipment additional to those that they require for other aspects of their job. This is particularly important in cases where wildland fire is not their professional focus, or is just a minor part of the job they are required to fulfil. In many parts of the UNECE region, the low frequency with which wildland fire exposes its talons dictates that maintaining a specialised force is not practical, and as such, urban firefighters, search and rescue professionals and the military are often those called upon to fight fire in the environment.

Domestic Wildland Fire Training

The existence of highly specialised, dedicated wildland fire forces among the responding countries is most commonly reported where their specialised skills are called upon frequently. Regardless of the particular agency responding to wildland fire, the personnel undertaking operations in Spain, Canada and Turkey are trained to deal primarily with vegetation fires, and the Aerial Forest Protection Services of Belarus (Bellesavia) and the Russian Federation (Avialesookhrana) take substantial pride in providing specialised firefighters. An exceptional example among those with a specialised force can be found in Lithuania, which does not appear to have a particularly pronounced wildland fire problem.

On the other hand, most responding countries report that the personnel that respond to wildland fire are not trained primarily for this purpose but do receive some training to adequately equip them when fire situations arise. These responders may be employed by a general Emergency Service, a Fire and Rescue Service, the Forest Service or the Military. This group of countries is made up of Armenia, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, FYR Macedonia and Serbia.

Beyond this, a number of respondents report that their primary human resources tasked with fighting forest and vegetation fires are basically untrained in techniques of extinguishing or suppressing fires in open space. For the most part, the firefighters and emergency responders in Albania, Switzerland, Ukraine and Germany are required to depend upon their adaptability and quick thinking to protect themselves and their communities in the case of forest and other vegetation fires.

177

Women on the firefront

While ‘tradition’ dictates that wildland fire management is a man’s world, there appears to be a trend toward recognition that creating a more even gender balance in all workplaces is desirable for the benefit of the organisation and its goals. Nonetheless, women are still explicitly excluded from serving in professional or volunteer fire brigades in Albania, Armenia, Belarus and Lithuania.

On the other hand, women reportedly make up a sizable proportion of some fire management organisations. Notable examples include Georgia, at 30% and Croatia, at 15%.

In countries where women are not forbidden from serving, it is noted that their participation is more commonly found in logistics and support roles rather than actively fighting fires. Usual positions apparently include fire detection, catering and provisioning roles. It is unclear from the responses whether women are well represented in incident management roles or in higher positions within fire management organisations.

Sharing of Training and Expertise

The evidence provided regarding the international sharing and harmonising of training largely mirrors the patterns described in Section XII of this analysis. Again, a number of Commonwealth of Independent States’ (CIS) countries cooperate on harmonising their training and techniques, as do the countries in the Balkan region, among which FYR Macedonia and Turkey appear to display the most enthusiasm.

Notable examples of cooperation over greater distance exist as well, with Albania describing cooperation with Italy and Turkey, Croatia working with Italy and France, and Spain actively working with the United States to share training resources and harmonise skills and equipment with countries they would like to work with.

In response to their desire to lend and receive expertise in case of fire situations with the goal of cooperatively enhancing regional fire preparedness, almost all countries were described as having a high degree of support for facilitating exchange programs involving national experts. Chief among these are countries that recognise an internal vulnerability due to a perceived lack of domestic capability. The respondents from FYR Macedonia, Lithuania and Kazakhstan all mention that such a mechanism would be advantageous in bolstering the internal wildfire capacity.

Reserved responses on this topic were received from the Spanish and Canadian reporters, which both stated that such decisions must be made at the Provincial / Comunidad level, and as such, the national reporter was not in a position to comment.

Section XIV – Volunteer firefighters

The use of volunteer firefighters is a popular method of both engaging local populations in wildland fire management and cost-effectively increasing the overall wildland fire response capability by training and equipping a dispersed and part-time force of local people to assist in fire emergencies. The approach taken to achieve this varies greatly across the UNECE region and beyond, but some aspects which are generally considered desirable include; sufficient and compatible training to be able to effectively assist the professional fire responders; sufficient and compatible equipment and communications’ to further the same goal and; reasonable financial and legal assistance and insurance to ensure that when volunteering results in time off work, an injury or, at worst, a fatality, the volunteer, their family and their employer are minimally adversely impacted.

Such a complete organisational structure is described in a number of the responses to the questionnaire, namely Croatia, Kazakhstan, FYR Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland and Germany. Where volunteer fire brigades exist, but not all these factors are catered for, the reasons for the deficit are assigned to a variety of sources, including simple lack of funding, inadequate representation at higher levels of government or even a desire to remain autonomous and self-reliant.

The responses to the questionnaire received from Armenia, Belarus, Turkey and Georgia indicate that volunteers play no organised role in wildland fire management or response. 178

Section XV – Participation of civil society

The goal of most agencies tasked with managing wildland fire is to protect public assets as well and the lives, livelihoods and assets of the communities living the areas that may be impacted by fire. Engagement with these populations can take a number of forms, including the volunteer fire brigades mentioned in Section XIV of this analysis.

Apart from this, a number of approaches were described in the responses received. The most common form of engagement with civil society is to raise public awareness of the possibility of wildfire during the fire season followed by advice to evacuate or take cover in the event of a wildfire. This approach is the limit of that used by Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Lithuania, Georgia, Germany, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Turkey. In these cases emphasis is placed on preventing accidental ignitions from, for example, campfires and cigarette butts, and extends to closures of forest recreation areas in particularly high fire danger conditions. The medium of public information is usually television and radio broadcasting and roadside signage.

As a step up from this approach, Poland, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Spain and Ukraine publish advice on websites in an attempt to reach a wider audience. In the case of Ukraine, inspection of farm machinery for adherence to fire prevention laws prescribing machine condition and the presence of a fire extinguisher has been identified as a particular path to reduce the incidence of accidental fires.

Going further, year-round initiatives exist in both FYR Macedonia and Canada that raise awareness about the steps that individuals and organisations can take to reduce the national wildfire threat. In FYR Macedonia this takes the form of the traditional approaches, with greater emphasis, including ‘Month for Protection Against Fires’ and National Day of Firefighters. Notably, an inter-sectoral approach is taken which integrates the Agriculture Sector in the fire management dialogue.

In Canada, particular emphasis is put on providing the entire population with information that will assist them to decrease their own exposure to the risk of wildfire. The ‘FireSmart’ programme encourages rural and urban-fringe residents to undertake actions on their properties such as reducing the vegetation load around buildings and buying and installing basic fire suppression devices and tools. In a compelling contrast, the lack of precisely this kind of civil participation was mentioned as a major shortfall in the Greek approach to fire management at the domestic level.

Section XVI – Use of advanced data and information systems with a focus on fire management

All countries that submitted a response to the questionnaire report that during the declared ‘fire season’, a system exists comprising of at least daily evaluation and reporting of the fire weather situation based on hydro-meteorological input data. Some of these are home-grown systems such as those used in Belarus, the Russian Federation, Poland, Switzerland and Germany. Other countries, such as Serbia and Croatia, borrow and adapt a foreign or international system to suit their conditions. A common system used is the Fire Weather Index (FWI) scale developed in Canada.

On top of these hydro-meteorological fire weather indices, a number of countries make mid-term forecasts of fire danger through use of some kind of internationally available dataset, such as the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), the European Forest Fire Information Service (EFFIS), the EU Meteorology Satellite (EUMETSAT) and the Canadian Global Early Warning System (EWS). Countries using these resources include Ukraine, Spain, FYR Macedonia, Greece and Canada.

Leading on from making mid-term fire danger assessments, this kind of information is also being used to develop forecasts for the future nature of wildland fire under conditions of changing climate. The cohort of countries that describe this kind of foresight include Spain, Switzerland, Serbia, FYR Macedonia, Ukraine, Greece, Croatia and Canada. 179

Section XVII – Fire research with application in management

The nature of research into wildland fire and its management can be broadly divided in two different ways. The first of these is by considering in which institutions the research is taking place. In the cases of Belarus, Poland, Kazakhstan and Spain, research into wildland fire is based in the forest industry. It cannot be clearly established from the responses given, but in these cases there may be a tendency to reinforce the misleading mantra that vegetation fire is predominantly a ‘forest’ issue to be dealt with. On the other hand, research in Canada, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, Croatia, Greece, FYR Macedonia, Serbia and Switzerland is integrally linked to university departments specialising in Forestry, Fire science, Natural disasters and Atmospheric science. The reporters from Albania, Armenia, Georgia and Lithuania claim that no direct research is being undertaken into wildland fire or its management.

Another way of considering the nature of wildland fire research is to look at the main topics that are being looked at. In cases where the science of fire in the environment is at a relatively early stage, research is dominated by looking at fundamental fire behaviour and fire ecology topics, as researchers and managers alike strive to understand the nature of fire in the landscapes of interest. This approach is mentioned in reference to Croatia, FYR Macedonia and Switzerland.

In contrast, in situations where this fundamental research was undertaken in previous decades, current research tends to be forging paths into more contemporary topics. For example, in Canada and Spain there is substantial focus on social change and the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). In Serbia, the nature of human behaviour in emergency events is becoming a special topic. In Turkey, the socio-economic impacts of fire are being examined and in Ukraine, Black Carbon emissions, the nature of agricultural fires and the specific threat of fires in radioactively contaminated terrain are current topics.

180

Global Fire Monitoring UNECE / FAO Team of Specialists Center (GFMC) on Forest Fire

UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management Geneva, 28-29 November 2013

Report 6 – Submitted by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GMFC)

White Paper on Fire Management Policies and International Cooperation in Fire Management in the UNECE Region

1. Introduction

The nature of wildland fire in the UNECE region is changing in ways that require all relevant stakeholders to not only better cope with the current state of affairs but also adapt and develop their approaches inherent to their systems to improve their dynamic capacity to deal with unprecedented circumstances and threats. To compound this evolving situation, management of wildland fire in UNECE member states has been found to be limited in a number of common ways that can be identified at all levels of management – from the fundamental, ground-level management of natural and cultural landscapes, to the strategic planning of internal, national systems as well as the attempts that have been made to collaborate internationally to address these problems more successfully.

This White Paper outlines these major forces of change, the challenges to be prepared, and concludes that international cooperation in the region has the potential to be a very powerful tool in increasing the capability for the wildfire threat and the role of natural and management-set fire to be better understood and regulated. The ties that can be formed through improved international cooperation can, and must, have effect at the ground level and impact on the real management of the landscape to be of any value. Drawing on, and improving upon existing examples of legally-binding and voluntary international agreements, the proposals tabled at the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management have the potential to progress this goal substantially.

2. Pillars of a Concept for a Coordinated Approach in Fire Management in the UNECE Region embedded in the Global Landscape of Legally Binding Conventions and Voluntary Initiatives

Pillar I

Eurasian and Global Natural and Cultural Landscapes in Transition

The nature of wildland fire – fire regimes – across the UNECE region and globally is evolving due to anthropogenic changes in the factors that influence the natural and cultural environments. The impact of these changes can be noted already and is expected to intensify in the coming decades.

Climate change has already been linked to the higher prevalence of extreme weather conditions associated with damaging wildland fire such as drought periods and heat waves. As a more creeping impact, the predicted movement of bioclimatic zones is predicted to trigger vast changes in the geographic distribution of plant species across the world. In some cases, the change of potential natural vegetation, and subsequent mortality of extant vegetation during the transition phase could serve to compound the threat posed by changing weather patterns. 181

In the past few decades, a variety of social, political and economic drivers have resulted in a development of the landscape and its features toward a state that is more prone to wildland fire and its negative impacts. Examples include the management of forests and agricultural lands to eliminate all types of fire and the widespread abandonment and re-vegetation of former agricultural lands as markets inadvertently suppress farming on low-productivity or isolated land. Other examples include the excessive and unnecessary burning of agricultural lands resulting in unprecedented burden of emissions affecting the environment, human health and security.

Human settlements are also developing toward a state where many tens of millions of people in the UNECE Region are living at the fuzzy interface between vegetated lands and the peri-urban environment, or in residential areas scattered across landscapes. Clear methods of dealing with fires in this environment have not yet been fully developed.

In many instances the development of these landscape-scale factors appears to have breached a threshold where the existing suppression-heavy paradigm of wildland fire management is no longer able to limit the damage caused by wildfires to an acceptable degree.

Pillar II

Harmonizing Efforts Towards Increasing Landscape Fire Resilience

There is growing recognition across the UNECE Region that the existing approaches to fire management in many countries lack the breadth and depth required to manage fire to sufficiently protect people, assets and environment and consist primarily of treating wildland fire inherent to the system as a natural disaster roughly equivalent to earthquakes or storm events. As such, the ‘preparedness’ and ‘response’ phases of this management have been increasingly fortified at the neglect of vital ‘prevention’ and ‘recovery’ phases. This is true at all depths of authority in the UNECE region – from the local and provincial management agencies charged with managing specific lands, through the strategic role played by national governments to international cooperative efforts. However, considering the continually increasing occurrence of wildfire damages, this approach remains to prove its effectiveness.

The fact that fire is a disturbance with a fundamentally different character to other natural disasters is often overlooked. Its negative impacts on people, assets and the environment need to be addressed by management actions taken outside of the times when damaging fire is likely to occur. The risk of damaging wildfire can be identified and reduced by a planned preventive approach. Beyond the moral imperative of protecting human lives, these preventative actions are not recognised widely enough for the fact that, economically-speaking, they offer huge efficiency advantages.

Another fact that needs to be better recognised is the nature of wildland fire as a landscape-scale disturbance. Considering this, all elements of the wildland fire management process must be contributed to by all the landholders and other stakeholders that have an interest in limiting potential damage. This stakeholder group is very broad and, apart from being bound by the topic of fire, largely unconnected. Management strategies and actions should be formulated with direct involvement of private and public owners of forests, agricultural and other lands, the public sectors of health, civil protection, law enforcement, agricultural policy and forest policy, as well as academia and civil society.

Again, these inadequacies have been found to ring true at all levels – local, national and international. Such shortfalls need to be countered by policies and pragmatic actions that are harmonized with all stakeholders through inter-agency and participatory approaches that are carefully designed to meet the demands of managing fire in landscapes in transition.

Pillar III

Sharing of Responsibilities and Capacities in Fire Management – National to International

To improve fire management systems at any level, the best tools and experience must be sought, including examples of cooperation, problem-identification and forward-thinking. Good examples of 182

these tools can currently be found in abundance in use at all levels, from local areas, the provincial level, at the national level and between countries. Many of these are to be found in UNECE member states, and in combination with a few international examples, there is more than enough precedent upon which to base positive and effective actions aimed at improving wildland fire management across the UNECE region.

The creation of a central body (acting as a forum, framework or mechanism) should borrow elements that have proved effective from other international agreements already in place or under negotiation, such as the Rio Conventions and the process currently underway towards forming a Legally Binding Agreement on Forests in Europe. Primarily, such a body must allow UNECE member states to access a great diversity of experience and expertise from the international community to help assess and address their internal problems. Secondarily, the establishment of such a body would facilitate coordination in limiting the negative impacts of wildland fire at the regional level.

At the present time, apart from calls for reduction (exclusion) of vegetation fires, principles for fire management are not, or only marginally, specifically addressed in any legally-binding international convention, and regional examples such as the ASEAN Transboundary Haze Agreement, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and some bilateral resource- sharing agreements approach only few elements of fire management, rather than its management as a whole. As such, a UNECE-wide or international mechanism is needed to amalgamate and service the objectives of legally binding instruments and voluntary initiatives with regard to fire management.

3. Recommendations of the UNECE Regional Forum on Cross-Boundary Fire Management

Based on the contributions to the Forum by the project coordinators and the two Working Groups, it can be recommended that the UNECE member states make all possible efforts to recognise and address the nature of wildland fire in their country and their existing capacity to deal with it. From this point it will be possible to begin to address the current shortfalls internally, and through an international mechanism. The following three proposals should be considered:

Ensuring that the UNECE Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management will initiate a sustained process in the region and globally

It is strongly recommended that the UNECE member states act to transform the nature of the UNECE Regional Forum to become a permanent institution. Such an ongoing Forum would act as a framework through which the strategic objective of “Facilitation of a nurturing and sustainable culture of knowledge exchange and continual improvement for wildfire practitioners and policymakers within the UNECE Region and, potentially, globally” could continue to be addressed over the coming years.

The establishment of a permanent UNECE Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management would be the logical follow-up of the work of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists (ToS) on Forest Fire, which has been operational since the early 1980s and – by terms of reference – originally designed to address forest fire protection in the region. Such a transfer of duties and the inclusion of non-forest fires would be in line with the intent of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), which served as Leader of the ToS for over 20 years and expanded the scope of work of the ToS beyond the borders of the UNECE region by creating the Global Wildland Fire Network and the Wildland Fire Advisory Group under the umbrella of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) since the early 2000s.

The transition of the ToS to a cross-sectoral Forum would offer a stronger mandate to address fire beyond the traditional bounds of forests, which were the focus at the time the ToS was established. Such a move would necessarily involve national and international bodies responsible for the management of agriculture, landscapes, conservation, human health and security, and transboundary processes in the atmosphere affecting its function as climate engine. Consequently this Forum would be able to advise the development of informed and coordinated policies in a manner more in keeping with the current and future challenges associated with fire in the region.

183

In close cooperation with the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group the Forum could provide the UNECE regional perspective to other regions globally and serve international conventions as well as the agendas of UN agencies and programmes and other international organizations. Tapping into the expertise of fire managers and academics in the member states, it would also be able to offer such services based on secure technical and advisory inputs.

Building Resilience of Nations and Communities within the UNECE Region to Wildfire Emergencies and Disasters

- While the strategic work in further developing national and international fire management and related policies will require a sustained, multi-year programme of work, it is imperative to respond to and counteract the rapidly changing fire regimes and vulnerabilities experienced at the present time. Advantage should be taken of the rich but unevenly distributed expertise of actors in fire management. Submitted by the International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response (IWG CWPR), this proposal recommends the formation of an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) that will assist nations to improve their capacity to cope with their wildfire situation. The mechanism will provide a platform/framework from which to cascade improved knowledge, good practice, experience and training throughout the international wildfire community for the benefit of all.175

The creation of the IWSM will be a catalyst for stimulating the sharing of knowledge and experience across the region, establishing a mechanism to enable all wildfire agencies to benefit from their membership of a wildfire community dedicated to increasing international collaboration and cooperation, with the future potential to expand to other regions globally.

Adoption of Voluntary Guidelines for Fire Aviation at global level

The report submitted by the International Fire Aviation Working Group (IFAWG), recommends the adoption of voluntary guidelines for the use of aerial means in wildfire management in the UNECE region, in order to improve the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of fire aviation. Adoption of the guidelines would ideally form part of a wider agreement on international cooperation aimed at enhancing fire management capability within the region. The overall purpose of the proposal is to make a substantial pragmatic-technical contribution to building the resilience that will reduce the human and economic costs resulting from wildfires. This recommendation is complementary to the conclusions of the International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response (IWG-CWPR) and the recommended establishment of an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM). It is intended that fire aviation will be an integral component of the IWSM. Therefore, adoption of the fire aviation guidelines referred to in this proposal will be complementary to, and consistent with, the priority actions for implementing the IWSM strategic objectives.

Final Note

This White Paper aligns with the priority areas identified within the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005- 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. If the recommendations will be adopted, the main expected outcomes will be a substantial reduction in the loss of life and damage to societies, economies and the environment as a result of wildfire disasters.

175 Note: While the International Working Group on Cooperation in Wildfire Preparedness and Response (IWG- CWPR) initially had suggested to designate the recommended mechanism as “International Wildfire Support Mechanism” (IWSM), it was concluded during the follow-up of the Forum in 2014 that the proposed Mechanism should focus on and emphasize on enhancing “preparedness”. In 2014 the follow-up reports of the Forum therefore designated the proposed Mechanism as “International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM) – see Reports 7 and 8 in this volume of IFFN. 184

Global Fire Monitoring UNECE / FAO Team of Specialists Center (GFMC) on Forest Fire

UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management Geneva, 28-29 November 2013

Report 7 – Submitted by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GMFC) 11 December 2014

Follow-up of the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management

A Strategy Paper

Rationale and Introduction

The UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management was held 28-29 November 2013 at the United Nations in Geneva. The Forum was attended by 49 representatives from 22 UNECE Member States, from other regions, non-government organizations, regional and international organizations (ASEAN Secretariat, SADC Secretariat, Council of Europe, OSCE), and the United Nations (UNECE / FAO Forestry and Timber Section; FAO; UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction / UNISDR; OCHA Environmental Emergencies Section, Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit, Emergency Services Branch; Secretariat of the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution). The main objective of the Forum was to elaborate recommendations to UNECE member states and the international community to build resilience of nations and communities to wildfire emergencies and disasters by enhancing national and collective international fire management capability through exchange of expertise.

Based on the discussion of several preparatory studies and documentations, the participants of the Forum came up with a set of recommendations that are published on the website of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/intro/team.html

The recommendations addressed among other:

1. Need for the promotion of the understanding of and the response to the transboundary effects of fire 2. Need for expanding the scope and strengthening of international cooperation in fire management 3. Application of a holistic approach to wildland fire management at landscape level 4. Adoption and continued development of the International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) and the Voluntary Fire Aviation Guidelines 5. Need for the exploration of options for the transition from voluntary rules to a more formalized regulatory framework, including the “exploration of options to establish a UN Secretariat mandated with the implementation of a global fire management programme that should have a key role in facilitating the free and open global transfer of knowledge”. 6. Suggestion to seek the interest of UN Organizations to become involved.

In particular, the last point of the recommendations stated:

The UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire to jointly prepare a set of possible organizational scenarios that will ensure that the successful work it has carried out so far will 185

not be interrupted, creating a vacuum, but will rather go global with a new mandate and a different setup. Based on these scenarios, the leader of the Team will approach and seek the interest of UN organizations. The results of the consultation could be discussed at a team of specialists meeting to be organized before July 2014.

Possible Organizational Scenario

A scenario is proposed by the Drafting Team that is based on the history and connectedness of the ToS with the current global arrangement, which evolved from the late 1980s and brought together major voluntary groups, international organizations, academia and policy makers active in fire management cooperation at international level.

The Drafting Team has worked with the Leader of the ToS and developed an overview (Annex I to this document) in which the history, current state and future options of work major international initiatives (mechanisms, networks) are summarized, that are addressing wildland fire at global scale and which evolved under the umbrella of the ToS and the GFMC respectively.

This table does not intend to reflect the complete interconnected work of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), the Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN) and the actors in fire management at national, regional and international level. This work is described in depth and summarized in the White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations, entitled "Vegetation Fires and Global Change. Challenges for Concerted International Action", and particularly in the Chapter "International protocols and agreements on cooperation in wildland fire management and wildfire disaster response: Needs, current status, and the way ahead".176

The following proposal addresses the rationale, reason and recommendations of the "UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management" and thus concentrates on the last part of the recommendations by proposing four main scenarios:

1. Long-term Perspective: Development of an International Agreement on Cross-boundary Fire Management

2. Medium-term Perspective: Creation of an International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM) and introduction of the "Voluntary Guidelines for Fire Aviation”

3. Short-term Perspective (I): Future of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and the Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN)

4. Short-term Perspective (II): Follow-up arrangement of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire in the ECCAA Region

1) Long-term Perspective: Development of an International Agreement on Cross- boundary Fire Management

During the preparatory process and at the Forum it was underscored that the role of fire (wildland fire / vegetation fire) would need to be addressed more explicitly in international (global, regional) legally binding agreements. The Forum called for the "development of a voluntary regulatory institutional and policy framework aimed at building resilience of nations and communities within the UNECE region".

176 Goldammer, J.G. (ed.). 2013. Vegetation Fires and Global Change: Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations. Kessel Publishing House, Remagen-Oberwinter, 398 p. (ISBN 978-3-941300-78-1). Online version: http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/latestnews/Vegetation-Fires-Global-Change-UN-White-Paper-GFMC-2013.pdf Goldammer, J.G. 2013. International protocols and agreements on cooperation in wildland fire management and wildfire disaster response: Needs, current status, and the way ahead. Chapter 23 in: Vegetation Fires and Global Change. Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations (J.G. Goldammer, ed.), 313-341. A publication of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). Kessel Publishing House, Remagen-Oberwinter, 398 p. See also the review “UN Inter-Agency Cooperation and Coordination in Wildland Fire Management, Including Key International Organizations” (authored by GFMC, November 2012): http://www.fire.uni- freiburg.de/programmes/un/GFMC-UN-Interagency-Wildland-Fire-Cooperation-Nov-2012.pdf 186

Good examples in this regard are international agreements and initiatives addressing the transboundary nature of fire and ultimately aim at the reduction of vegetation fire smoke emissions on the environment, human health and security, e.g.:

- The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (2002), aimed at reducing regional air pollution from land-use fires and wildfires177 - The UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (1979)178, aimed at limiting and, as far as possible, gradually reducing and preventing air pollution including long-range transboundary air pollution. Its "Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone" (1999) was amended in 2012 to include national emission reduction commitments to be achieved in 2020 and beyond and includes fine particulate matter including black carbon emissions from agricultural fires. - Existing greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting methodologies and approaches with respect to vegetation fire emissions, e.g., the IPCC Guidelines of 2003179 and 2006180 and methodologies under Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)181 and Verified Carbon Standard (VCS)182.

With the currently ongoing negotiations on a Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) on Forests in Europe there may be a chance to address needs and obligations for sustainable integrated fire management based on best science and expertise. However, with it should be considered that the LBA would constitute a sectoral agreement limited to forests and forest management, whereas the recommendations of the Forum called for the application of a "holistic approach to wildland fire management at landscape level", i.e. including fire management on agricultural, pasture and other open lands, including wetlands and peatlands.

The LBA on Forests in Europe, however, may serve as an entry point for an international agreement in the form of an Annex or Protocol on Fire Management. Since the negotiations are currently in a stage to address procedural and organizational issues, and not yet substantive details, it is recommended that the secretariat (proposed under Item 2) should observe, lobby and, if requested to do so, provide technical support to the process.

2) Medium-term Perspective: Creation of an International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM) and introduction of the "Voluntary Guidelines for Fire Aviation”

The Forum proposed to establish an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) for the UNECE Region and globally, that will assist nations to improve their capacity and resilience to wildfire. The mechanism will provide a platform / framework from which to cascade improved knowledge, good practice, experience and training throughout the global wildfire community for the benefit of all. It is suggested to re-designate this proposed mechanism to "International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism" (IWPM) to better reflect the overall intent of this endeavour.

Furthermore, the Forum recommended that UNECE member states adopt in principle the Draft Fire Aviation Guidelines and support their continued development. The Forum recommended that in order to fully realize the potential benefits of consistent and standardized approaches in this field, the global wildland fire community also consider adoption of the guidelines.

These two proposed mechanisms should be installed at medium-term time scale as a voluntary process, preceding a possible future formal agreement. At the Forum itself no final conclusions could be given. Instead it was proposed to explore options to establish a UN Secretariat mandated with the implementation of a global fire management programme that should have a

177 See ASEAN website „Haze Online“: http://haze.asean.org/hazeagreement/, and the full text of the agreement at: http://haze.asean.org/docs/1128506236/ASEANAgreementonTransboundaryHazePollution.pdf/view 178 http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/ 179 IPCC (2003): Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Section 3.2 180 IPCC (2006): Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4 – Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU), Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 181 Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): A/R Methodological Tool – Estimation of non-CO2 GHG emissions resulting from burning of biomass attributable to an A/R CDM project activity (Version 04.0.0) 182 Verified Carbon Standard (VCS): Approved VCS Module VMD0013 Version 1.0 under the REDD Methodological Module (VM0007): Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning 187

key role in facilitating the free and open global transfer of knowledge. A key task of such a Secretariat would be to host and implement the proposed International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM) and the maintenance and application of the Fire Aviation Guidelines.

Since negotiations and success for a possible establishment of a Secretariat may require negotiations within the UN it was proposed in Report 2 to the Forum (Section 3.3, p.11) "that the initial creation of the mechanism must be overseen and driven by an interim host and secretariat. The secretariat will in turn need to be supported by an advisory group". The IWPM is currently hosted by the GFMC, which is serving as interim secretariat. The IWPM was introduced at the 72nd session of the UNECE Committee on Forest and the Forest Industry, with final presentation of the UNECE /FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire and the progress report on the implementation of the project "UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management" (21 November 2014, Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation). The IWPM website is accessible publicly since then (http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iwpm/).

For the time being, the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group will serve as the proposed advisory group to the IWPM and further consultations.

It is proposed that the GFMC will explore the option to convene a high level consultation of the FAO, the UN Office of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), WMO, UNEP, OCHA and other agencies and international organizations to be convened. The offer of the FAO to support the development of a formal coordination setting following the model of the Collaborative Partnerships on Forests and on Wildlife is considered a significant opportunity.

3) Short-term Perspective (I): Future of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and the Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN)

The discussions at the Forum revealed a consent that the existing international voluntary arrangements, which had evolved under the auspices of UNISDR, i.e. the Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN) and the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), have proven to be successful in initiating and maintaining the international dialogue and the cooperation in fire management within and across the regions of the world.

Much of the progress and results achieved evolved under voluntary regimes that turned out to function beyond the financial and timeframe limitations of projects and the formal and sometimes bureaucratic requirements, not to say constraints, of donor agencies and organizations. The voluntary arrangements, some organized under the GWFN, collectively are serving the function of a dedicated, thematic "think tank" on global wildland fire issues.

Thus, the establishment of a UN Secretariat entrusted with an International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM) should work closely with and / or through the Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN) and the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). It is also advised to meet Recommendations 6 and 7 of the Forum and to secure funding for the secretariat and its associated Global Wildland Fire Network, the Regional Wildland Fire Networks and the emerging Regional Fire Management Resource Centers must be secured.

The ToS Leader / head of GFMC should explore synergies and partnerships with FAO on the one side, and independent international organizations on the other side, e.g. the Green Cross International.183 Legal and financial opportunities of an expansion of the partnership with the United Nations University, to which GFMC is currently attached as an “Associated Institute”, should be explored.

4) Short-term Perspective (II): Follow-up arrangement of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire in the EECCA Region

183 http://www.gcint.org/. GCI mission in brief: “The mission of Green Cross International is to respond to the combined challenges of security, poverty and environmental degradation to ensure a sustainable and secure future”, see also GCI charter: http://www.gcint.org/sites/default/files/basic- page/file/GCI_Charter_Jan_2010_final.pdf 188

During the Forum and the preceding final business meeting of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire, it was concluded that it had been the right decision to focus the work of the ToS on enhancing the dialogue and exchange in fire science and management between the Western part of the UNECE Region and the Eastern European, Caucasus and Central Asian Region (EECCA). This cooperative work, however, needs to be continued.

Since the UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section had not been able to financially support the work of the Team of Specialists, the Council of Europe through its Euro-Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has been approached for providing the necessary basic funding for networking, brainstorming and capacity building in the EECCA region.

During the last decade the cooperative work between the Council of Europe through its Euro- Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) and the GFMC (together with the members of the ToS, mainly from the Regional Wildland Fire Networks of SE Europe / Caucasus and Eurasia) has been expanding continuously. In 2007 GFMC assumed duty as a Specialized Euro-Mediterranean Centre of the European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement and served the parties of the agreement upon request by dedicated activities. Since 2007 the Secretariat of the Euro-Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement has provided main funding for the building of the Regional Fire Monitoring Centers in Skopje and Kiev, and financed critical network activities.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) since 2006 has entrusted the GFMC and the Regional SE Europe / Caucasus Wildland Fire Network to implement a number of wildfire / fire management assessments in the region and a multi-year project for capacity building in fire management in the South Caucasus region, with inclusion of some activities at regional level, notably through the Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative. The OSCE is currently exploring its role in "Responding to environmental challenges with a view to promoting cooperation and security in the OSCE area". At the 22nd OSCE Economic and Environmental Forum (2014) and an earlier workshop on "International Response to Major Natural and Man- made Disasters: The Role of the OSCE" (2012) the OSCE member states welcomed the achievements of the work conducted by the Office of the Coordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities and the GFMC.184

It is therefore suggested that the Leader of the ToS will explore if the specific work in the EECCA region would be formally conducted under the auspice(s) of either one or both regional organizations. OSCE member states are almost identical with the UNECE member states (including participation of the United States of America and Canada), with the additional advantage of Mongolia having joined as a Participating State in 2012.

Meanwhile the OSCE Ministerial Council decided on 5 December 2014 to “Task the OSCE executive structures, in particular the OCEEA, within their available resources and mandates, to strengthen the exchange of knowledge and experience, building upon the OSCE’s good practices in disaster risk reduction gained particularly in the field of …. fire management”.185

According to the recommendations of the Forum, the results of the consultations by the ToS Leader “could be discussed at a team of specialists meeting to be organized before July 2014”. The GFMC convened the core group of the ToS for discussion of this report at the joint Meeting of the Wildland Fire Advisory Group / Global Wildland Fire Network, the Fire Aviation Working Group (FAWG) and the International Liaison Committee (ILC) for the 6th International Wildland Fire Conference (Korea 2015). The meeting was held 28-29 June 2014, at the GFMC, Freiburg, Germany. The Report II further down addressing the IWPM is the results of this consultation.

184 Overview of the cooperation between the OSCE and GFMC between 2006 and 2014: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalNetworks/SEEurope/SEEurope_8.html 185 OSCE Ministerial Council Decision 6/14 “Enhancing Disaster Risk Reduction“: http://www.osce.org/cio/130406?download=true and http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/intro/OSCE-Ministerial- Council-2014-Decision-6-Enhancing-DRR.pdf 189

Drafting Team

The Drafting Team of this Strategy Paper included members of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire representing the major sub-regions:

- Mr. Johann G. Goldammer (Leader, ToS, Germany / GFMC) (representing Central Europe) - Mr. Mark Jones (Chair of Drafting Team, UK) (representing Western Atlantic Europe) - Mr. Andrey Eritsov (Deputy Leader, ToS, Russia) (representing the Eastern UNECE region) - Mr. Nikola Nikolov (Deputy Leader, ToS, FYR Macedonia / RFMC) (representing Southeast Europe and South Caucasus) - Mr. Bill de Groot (NAFC FMWG, Canada) (representing North America) - Mr. Ertugrul Bilgili (Turkey) (representing the Eastern Mediterranean / Near East region) - Mr. Sergiy Zibtsev (Ukraine / REEFMC) (representing Eastern Europe) - Mr. Gavriil Xanthopoulos (Greece) (representing the Euro-Mediterranean region)

Stocklake (Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK) Pushkino (Russia) Skopje (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Sault Ste. Marie (Canada) Trabzon (Turkey) Kiev (Ukraine) Athens (Greece) Freiburg (Germany)

11 December 2014

190

Annex I: Overview of the history, current state and future options of work of those major international initiatives (mechanisms, networks) that are addressing wildland fire at global scale and which had been initiated by the GFMC, among others, in its function as coordinator of the UNECE/FAO ToS on Forest Fire.

Initiation of Activity Issues addressed by the Initiative Current State and Remarks Concerning Future Role (or mechanism, network) Supplementary Initiatives / Products 1989: Launch of In the first years IFFN was designed as an UNECE- The archive of IFFN includes reports from 83 countries The amount of rapidly increasing number UNECE/FAO wide newsletter aimed at establishment and from all over the world and has been a leading source of of dedicated peer-reviewed and other International Forest enhancement of the dialogue in fire management fire management information from all continents. journal and book publications and the daily Fire News (IFFN) between member states, similarly to the NAFC Forest Financial support by UNECE, followed by U.S. Bureau of updates of the on-line information Fire News (which at that time covered North America). Land Management (BLM), however, phased out in the repository of the GFMC and other websites In the 1990s IFFN became the character of a dedicated early 2000s. Printing has been stopped due to legal may allow to phase out IFFN in 2014-15 journal with global scope (covering all regions of the considerations of the UNECE administration. Publication and keep the digital archive as an open- world), addressing fire beyond the forest boundaries, continues online and is currently in delay. access historic online documentation i.e. including all vegetation fires. Target readership: source. Practitioners, managers, policy makers and scientists around the globe. 1991: Initiation of The Biomass Burning Experiment (BIBEX) "Impact of After implementation of several regional and inter- In 2013 the IGAC/iLEAPS/WMO international fire Fire on the Atmosphere and Biosphere" was initiated continental research campaigns BIBEX was followed by Interdisciplinary Biomass Burning Initiative research campaigns under the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry a high number of smaller-scale field experiments and (IBBI) was founded and will follow-up addressing global (IGAC) project of the International Geosphere- modeling studies since the early 2000s. After the ESF BIBEX. Three initializing workshops have processes related to Biosphere Programme (IGBP). LESC Exploratory Workshop “Improved Quantitative Fire been conducted in 2013 and 2014, a vegetation fires. Description with Multi-Species Inversions of Observed COST Action has been proposed (April Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Plumes” (Farnham Castle, UK, 2009), the European Fire 2014), but was declined (another proposal Coordinated efforts Dynamics (GOFC-GOLD), a panel of GTOS, through its Experiment (EUFEX): Impact of Vegetation Fires on the for a COST action will be submitted in to further develop, Fire Implementation Team (Fire IT) aims to refine and Atmosphere and Biosphere: Follow-up of the IGBP- 2015). calibrate and validate articulate the international observation requirements IGAC “Biomass Burning Experiment” (BIBEX) was Earth Observation and make the best possible use of fire products from proposed and could not be realized due to lack of technologies and existing and future satellite observing systems for funding. Through its regional networks the GOFC- products management, policy decision-making and global GOLD Fire IT will continue to exchange / change research. GOFC-GOLD Fire IT continues to be fully operational. cooperate with the Global Wildland Fire Network. 191

Initiation of Activity Issues addressed by the Initiative Current State and Remarks Concerning Future Role (or mechanism, network) Supplementary Initiatives / Products 1993: Lead of the In the 1980s the focus of ToS activities was on socio- Inspired by the UNECE Seminar on “Forest Fire and Both the Council of Europe and OSCE UNECE/FAO Team economic dimension of causes and consequences of Global Change” (Russia, 1996) the focus of outreach have indicated strong interest to continue of Specialists on fire use and wildfires, and wildfire prevention in the work in science and technology transfer was in and expand capacity building and support Forest Fire by the Eurasian part of the UNECE Region. After 1993 the Southeast Europe and the EECCA region, thus avoiding the development and implementation of Fire Ecology ToS developed an international agenda, by directing the duplication with ongoing regional programmes in North national fire management policies through Research Group scope of work on the consequences of global change America and the European Union. With the creation of GFMC and its network in the overall (Germany) and the identification of solutions in fire management the Global Wildland Fire Network the work in the Eastern context of promoting the culture of disaster through international cooperation at global level. UNECE Region was conducted initially within the risk reduction. "Regional Baltic Wildland Fire Network", later re- designated as Regional Eurasia Wildland Fire Network. Both organizations are covering UNECE Since 2006 the regional outreach work of the UNECE member and associated countries plus ToS and the Regional Eurasia Network within the Mongolia (OSCE member). Thus, OSCE EECCA region was supported by the Council of Europe, and CoE EUR-OPA could become a Secretariat of the European and Mediterranean Major candidate of taking over the organizational Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) for which GFMC is umbrella for the dedicated work in the serving as a Specialized Euro-Mediterranean Centre. region, with emphasis on South East The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and EECCA countries. The OSCE Europe (OSCE) entrusted the GFMC with tasks in will be approached formally for suggesting regional cooperation in fires management in the South a decision at the Ministerial Council Caucasus and adjoining countries. Meeting (Basel, Switzerland, December 2014) 1998: Establishment Following the extended regional fire and air pollution Based on the experience in the UNECE region the More than 15 years after its foundation the of the Global Fire crisis in SE Asia in 1997-98, the Government of GFMC successfully expanded its work to other regions GFMC continues to constitute the only Monitoring Center Germany supported the establishment of GFMC aimed in the world where no such regional advisory teams or independent global institution serving the (GFMC) at providing data, information and advisory services to centers of excellence had been present. international user community (managers, the user community (managers, administrations, administrations, governments, international governments, international organizations, academia). Other regions in which regional cooperative activities organizations, academia) through its The umbrella was provided by the UN International has been underway (North America: NAFC Fire function of facilitator and secretariat of the Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). After Management working Group; ASEAN: Agreement on Global Wildland Fire Network (GWFN) (c.f. phasing out of IDNDR the GFMC continued to operate Transboundary Haze Pollution; Mediterranean: Silva below). GFMC provides an operational under its successor arrangement, the UN International Mediterranea WG on Forest Fire; Australasia: interface and liaison between numerous Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). Australasian Fire Authorities Council - AFAC) became individuals, groups (including NGOs), partners of GFMC. institutions and agencies dealing with wildland fire research and management at national, regional and international level. Its functioning should be secured for the upcoming decade since there is no such institution and global network secretariat in place.

192

Initiation of Activity Issues addressed by the Initiative Current State and Remarks Concerning Future Role (or mechanism, network) Supplementary Initiatives / Products 2001: Establishment Based on a proposal of the World Conservation Union Inspired by the set-up and scope of work of the IATF to With the transition of the IATF to the Global of the “Working (IUCN) and GFMC the “Working Group Wildland Fire” address global disaster risk reduction, the GFMC in Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction the Group Wildland Fire” was established within the UNISDR Inter-Agency Task 2001 organized WG-4 as a coordinating group to WG-4 phased out and transited to the under UNISDR Force (IATF) in 2001 as the 4th Working Group under address wildland fires from a cross-sectoral perspective "Wildland Fire Advisory Group" (WFAG) the IATF ("WG-4"), coordinated by GFMC. (as a natural ecological force, as a land-use tool, and a (cf. below). potential disaster affecting environment, human health and human security) and at UN interagency level, with participation of major regional and international organizations and NGOs. 2001-2003: With the functioning of the WG-4 and the "Wildland Fire The first meeting of the Regional Wildland Fire Networks cf. below. Establishment of the Advisory Group" (WFAG) the process of setting up the took place at the 3rd International Wildland Fire Global Wildland Fire GWFN by establishing regional networks (where not yet Conference and the International Wildland Fire Summit Network (GWFN) existing) was intensified. in Sydney, Australia, in 2003. 2003-2013: The decade 2003-2013 saw increasing activities and 14 Regional Wildland Fire Networks covering all The GWFN shall continue to expand its Consolidation, interaction of GWFN and WFAG members. continents are functional. The networks have different membership and representation in expansion and histories of development, different modus operandi and government agencies and academic decentralization of political-administrative support by nations. Main actors institutions in the regions, coordinated by work of GWFN and are academic institutions and government agencies, GFMC serving as GWFN Secretariat, since WFAG NGOs and other civil society groups. There are a few there is no alternative body at this stage or regional collaborative administrative and scientific and in development. A stronger institutional and bodies addressing wildland fire issues at regional level financial support by the UN, international that are not cooperating under the GWFN, e.g. the NGOs and / or inter-governmental European Commission. organizations is required to meet the increasing demands for efficient international outreach and action.

WFAG, coordinated by its secretariat Between 2010 and 2014 the first three Regional Fire GFMC, continues to be the only Monitoring Centers or Regional Fire Management international / global body serving the UN Resource Centers have been established in Southeast family and international organizations as an Europe (Skopje, FYR Macedonia), Eastern Europe advisory and "coordination" group (Kiev, Ukraine) and Central Asia (second half of 2014 in addressing matters related to wildland fire. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia) 193

Initiation of Activity Issues addressed by the Initiative Current State and Remarks Concerning Future Role (or mechanism, network) Supplementary Initiatives / Products 1998-2013: Since the 1990s the GFMC has systematically See review “UN Inter-Agency Cooperation and Future activities will continue to be Cooperation with enhanced its cooperative work with UN Agencies and a Coordination in Wildland Fire Management, Including harmonized and coordinated with the other international number of international organizations. Key International Organizations” (GFMC, November agendas and projects of international organizations and 2012): http://www.fire.uni- donors and organizations. If possible, donors freiburg.de/programmes/un/GFMC-UN-Interagency- projects and programmes will be co- Wildland-Fire-Cooperation-Nov-2012.pdf financed and jointly implemented.

2013-2014: Recommendations of the Forum (essentials in summary) (I): Suggestions for follow-up measures (I) UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross-boundary - The cross-boundary effects of wildfires require jurisdictions at all levels to - These recommendations may serve as guiding principles of political Fire Management cooperate in fire management and to define collective solutions. Any and administrative arrangements at national and international levels (I) recommended measures in building resilience of nations and communities to wildfire require a holistic approach to integrated fire management and wildfire risk reduction. - This calls for appropriately addressing vegetation fire emissions in - While prime emphasis should be given to cooperation in fire international conventions such as the UNECE Convention on Long-Range management between jurisdictions sharing common borders, the long- Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and the Rio Conventions, as well as range consequences of fire emissions are calling for strengthening existing in the scope of work of regional bodies such as the Arctic Council (with and, if necessary, developing additional protocols addressing the reduction reference to transport of black carbon to the Artic). of adverse consequences of wildfire at international level. - A "voluntary" regulatory institutional and policy framework may sound - Development of a voluntary or legal regulatory institutional and policy contradicting. However, if a legal framework, e.g. an agreement annexed to framework aimed at building resilience of nations and communities within a convention, e.g., to the emerging LBA on Forests in Europe, cannot be the UNECE region. realized within a reasonable timeframe, voluntary options must be taken into account.

- In order to express more clearly the character of the proposal the - Establishment of an International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) mechanism is now tentatively designated "International Wildfire for the UNECE Region and globally, that will assist nations to improve their Preparedness Mechanism" (IWPM). A permanent host / secretariat of the capacity and resilience to wildfire; and the adoption of the Fire Aviation IWPM and the International Fire Aviation Working Group (IFAWG) needs to Guidelines and support their continued development. be identified. GFMC could serve (and is actually already doing this in the case of the Fire Aviation Guidelines) as interim Secretariat. Seek a permanent host for the Secretariat.

- Considering the increasing impacts and damages of fire on the one side, - UN Organizations and international organizations should be contacted and the required investments in building fire management capacities at and their active interest to become involved in coordinated global action be global level on the other side, the option should be explored of whether a explored. If a viable option would evolve under a protocol or annex of a strengthened mechanism should evolve from the currently existing legally binding convention, the mechanism would be anchored accordingly. voluntary framework to a more formalized framework under the auspices of and support by the United Nations taking into consideration, and supportive of, bilateral and regional frameworks. 194

2013-2014: Recommendations of the Forum (essentials in summary) (II): Suggestions for follow-up measures (II) UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross-boundary - It is proposed to explore options to establish a UN Secretariat mandated - The host organization of a secretariat would be determined by the Fire Management with the implementation of a global fire management programme that level of interest and engagement of UN agencies and programmes to be (II) should have a key role in facilitating the free and open global transfer of approached. A possible Type 2 Mechanism in the form of a Collaborative knowledge. Partnership should ensure coordinated efforts of all UN and other international stakeholders mandated or otherwise active in fire management

- Regardless of a stronger commitment of the UN system an - The Global Wildland Fire Network over the past decade has been independent body like the Global Wildland Fire Network and an promoting fire management and networking which is appropriate to independent secretariat should continue to play a role to overcome the continue and expand its role as the overarching framework at the global constraints of a UN body (bureaucracy, diplomacy, flexibility) and continue level to host a new, strengthened global mechanism of cooperation in fire serving as "Think Tank". management. This framework should ensure that voluntary initiatives and the wealth of experience of individual, national, regional and international actors be utilized and shared. - The decentralization process should continue in order to strengthen - The UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire to jointly prepare a responsibilities and efficiency of regional cooperation in fire management set of possible organizational scenarios that will ensure that the successful through the Regional Wildland Fire Networks and Regional Fire work it has carried out so far will not be interrupted, creating a vacuum, but Management Resource Centers. will rather go global with a new mandate and a different setup. Based on these scenarios the leader of the Team will approach and seek the interest - New incoming players such as the envisaged creation of a European of UN organizations. The results of the consultation could be discussed at a Forest Risk Facility (start-up project sponsored by the Government of Team of Specialists meeting to be organized before July 2014. Germany and implemented by EFI in 2013-2015)

- Statement preceding the recommendations: After 33 years of work the - Enter negotiations with the United Nations Food and Agriculture mission of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire has been Organization (FAO) to agree for cooperative and supportive action. accomplished. In this period, the work of the Team expanded to global level by the creation of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) and the Global - Concerning the continuation of the Global Wildland Fire Network and Wildland Fire Network and has been effective in advising on the the GFMC it is recommended to explore the interest of influential legally development of national and regional fire management policies, and registered international NGOs to provide auspice and membership, allowing implementing capacity building in fire management at all levels. Keeping FAO to develop a MoU for future formal cooperation after phasing out of this in mind, the work of the ToS will continue within the six Regional GMFC’s current parent body, the Max Planck Society for the Advancement Wildland Fire Networks covering the UNECE Region, and, by including of Science. other regions of the world, support the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 (and post 2015): "Building the resilience of - With regard to the follow-up of the ToS work in the EECCA region the Nations and Communities to Disasters" through the Global Wildland Fire interest of the OSCE and the Council of Europe (EUR-OPA agreement) Network, the Wildland Fire Advisory Group and the GFMC as its should be explored / negotiated to provide the political and organizational Secretariat. umbrella for the dedicated work in the region.

195

Global Fire Monitoring UNECE / FAO Team of Specialists Center (GFMC) on Forest Fire

UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management Geneva, 28-29 November 2013

Report 8 – Submitted by the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GMFC) 21 December 2014

Implementation of the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management

The International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM)

Introduction

An enabling international environment is vitally important for providing nations around the world with the knowledge and skills that are necessary to develop and implement more effective and more coordinated approaches to wildfire prevention, preparedness and response. While there is evidence of some excellent recent examples of international collaboration and cooperation on wildfire issues, the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management (United Nations, Geneva, 28-29 November 2013) and its follow-up consultations identified that the international exchange of knowledge on wildfire could be significantly improved through the creation of an International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM).

It was proposed at the Geneva Forum that the IWPM should be created as soon as possible to act as a central knowledge exchange gateway for wildfire professionals across the World.

The IWPM was formed in July 2014 and is currently hosted by the Wildland Fire Advisory Group (WFAG). The Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) currently performs the role of an interim secretariat. The IWPM now provides a platform/framework from which to cascade knowledge, good practice, experience and expertise throughout the global wildfire community for the benefit of all.

The IWPM complements and builds upon international agreements in disaster management and, in particular, it coordinates activities that align with the priority areas identified within the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, and aims to contribute to the post-2015 HFA.

196

The rationale of the IWPM

The White Paper “Vegetation Fires and Global Change” (GFMC, 2013)186 states that globally fire regimes are altering in parallel with and under the influence of socio-economic developments, land- use change and climate change. Current predictions indicate that the number and severity of wildfire incidents will increase during the next few decades in many areas of the World, which could potentially lead to an increase in wildfire disasters. In short, global society is becoming increasingly more vulnerable to wildfires. In response to this increasing vulnerability, the IWPM has been created to assist wildfire agencies around the World to develop and implement common and more sustainable solutions to wildfire prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.

Some wildfire agencies around the World have developed an excellent understanding of wildfire science which has enabled them to develop effective wildfire management systems. These agencies are generally well organised, well prepared and have a highly trained and specialised workforce. Many of these wildfire agencies have demonstrated their willingness to share their knowledge, experience, skills and lessons learned with other agencies that request assistance and/or guidance. The three Case Studies outlined in Annex I provide examples of cross-border knowledge exchanges that have already taken place and which have been extremely successful. The IWPM will utilize existing expertise and build upon the success of previous knowledge exchanges by establishing a more formal approach to voluntary international collaboration and cooperation on wildfire issues.

The mission and objectives of the IWPM

The mission of the IWPM is to support, on request, agencies and countries to build national capacity and resilience to wildfire through the exchange of best practice. The IWPM acts as an enabler to provide countries and/or authorities around the World with access to support that can assist in the enhancement of knowledge, understanding and capacity to manage wildfire prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.

In order to achieve its mission, the IWPM has three key strategic objectives, which are to:

• Establish a sustainable global mechanism for knowledge exchange and continual global improvement in wildfire risk reduction and preparedness. • Promote the global adoption of a holistic approach to wildfire risk reduction and management. • Through exchange of expertise from countries of different regions of the world promote a culture of common understanding and cooperation in fire management, which would ultimately lead to enhanced inter-operability of agencies and countries in jointly addressing wildfire emergencies along common borders or otherwise on request of a country that may run out of resources during a wildfire emergency.

Management of the IWPM

The IWPM is hosted by the WFAG and serving as a thematic working group in complementary to the International Fire Aviation Working Group (IFAWG), which has developed and promotes the use of the International Fire Aviation Guidelines and the International Manual of Common Rules for Fire Aviation. Both groups are implementing the recommendations of the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross- boundary Fire Management.

The host’s role is to:

• Serve as supervisory and advisory board fir the implementation of the IWPM and the Fire Aviation Guidelines • Provide expert guidance to the Secretariat on matters relating to the international exchange of information and best practice on wildfire management. • Encourage involvement of the international wildfire community in the IWPM.

186 Goldammer, J.G. (ed.). 2013. Vegetation Fires and Global Change: Challenges for Concerted International Action. A White Paper directed to the United Nations and International Organizations. Kessel Publishing House, Remagen-Oberwinter, 398 p. (ISBN 978-3-941300-78-1). Online version: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/latestnews/Vegetation-Fires-Global-Change-UN-White-Paper-GFMC-2013.pdf 197

• Identify existing voluntary guidelines and other important information that could be shared internationally. • Coordinate the development of new voluntary guidelines, as deemed appropriate. • Ensure all IWPM activities and all arrangements made via the IWPM comply with recognised standards.

The Secretariat, which is currently the GFMC, has a number of key roles, including to:

• Act as a central point of contact for the IWPM through: - The creation and maintenance of a website - Provide a central repository of information about the IWPM - Engage with the international wildfire community to gain an understanding of what assistance can be provided and by whom - Coordinate the involvement of the international wildfire community in the IWPM - Signpost countries/authorities requesting assistance, information and training to appropriate providers - Maintain a record of all requests and offers of assistance • Provide non-financial support to agencies/countries requesting and providing assistance • Provide advice on existing international funding schemes that could potentially be accessed by participating agencies • Publicise and promote the IWPM • Maintain awareness of new ideas, concepts and approaches within the professional global wildfire community • Liaise closely with, take direction from and report to the WFAG

The IWPM is not a financial instrument and currently has no core financing. The IWPM acts as a facilitator and does not provide financial assistance to participating parties. All arrangements between participating parties must be negotiated and mutually agreed.

Future actions and priorities of the IWPM

The current priority of the IWPM is to encourage the international adoption and development of best practice and guidance in:

• Terminology • Training standards • Voluntary guidelines • Cross-border assistance (i.e. mutual aid agreements)

The IWPM will significantly improve international support and collaboration on wildfire issues. Those countries and organizations that participate in the IWPM will be provided with support to help them improve their capacity and confidence to prevent, prepare for, properly assess, respond to and recover from major wildfire emergencies. The IWPM will provide members of the international community with opportunities to cooperate to their mutual economic, social and environmental benefit.

ANNEX

Three Case Studies of Successful Cross-Border Collaboration in Wildfire Preparedness by Members of the International Wildland Fire Community 198

Case Study I: Exchange of fire management expertise between the Western and Eastern UNECE region

Establishment of relationships: Initiation by the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire

In 1980 the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists (ToS) on Forest Fire was founded. It included members from Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, as well as Canada and the United States of America. In 1981 the Team became active to initiate the dialogue between the Western and Eastern UNECE region by convening the seminar "Forest Fire Prevention and Control" in Poland. In this seminar it was recognized that sharing of information, knowledge and expertise in fire science and fire management between the Western and Eastern UNECE region would benefit all. The seminar resulted, among other, in the launch of the journal "UNECE/FAO International Forest Fire News" (IFFN) in 1989 under the leadership of the Fire Ecology Research Group (Germany), the predecessor institution of the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). In 1991 two wildland fire specialists from the USA and Germany were invited for a fire management study tour to the Soviet Union. In 1993 the GFMC was assigned to assume the leadership of the ToS on Forest Fire. As an outcome of the study tour of 1991 the GFMC together with the Forest Committee and the Academy of Sciences of Russia organized the first East-West Fire Conference "Fires in Ecosystems of Boreal Eurasia" and initiated the "Fire Research Campaign Asia-North" (FIRESCAN) with the core activity, the "Bor Forest Island Fire Experiment". This experiment was designed to initiate a 200-years study aimed to clarify the long- term role of a forest fire on the ecosystem and the environment. Along with this international research project a number of bilateral research projects were launched and included technology transfer such as the use of satellite data, based on the "open skies" policy, and the establishment of internet-based near-real time exchange of data and information.

Transition from first cooperative scientific to a policy dialogue

In 1996 the next steps of exchange were taken by initiating a policy dialogue. In 1996 the UNECE/FAO Seminar "Forest, Fire, and Global Change" was held in Shushenskoe, Russian Federation. For the first time in history this conference addressed the topic of consequences of climate change and socio-economic changes on fire regimes and challenged UNECE Member States to be prepared for changing fire regimes and action to be taken. A first proposal to standardize global fire statistics / fire impact assessments was made, which in turn in 1997 was endorsed by the 2nd International Wildland Fire Conference in Vancouver (Canada). Pragmatic steps followed by bringing practitioners from the Western and Eastern UNECE region together at the "First Baltic Conference on Forest Fires" (Poland 1998) and the "Baltic Exercise on Fire Information and Resources Exchange - BALTEX FIRE 2000" in Finland in 2000. Additional fora were instrumental to consolidate the East- West relationships:

• Creation of the Global Wildland Fire Network under the auspices of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2001) • 3rd International Wildland Fire Conference in Australia (2003): Meeting of the Regional Wildland Fire Networks • Regional Central Asian Forest Congress "Forest Policy: Problems and Solutions" (Kyrgyz Republic, 2004): Initiation of the wildland fire policy dialogue in Central Asia • Regional "Central Asia Fire Management Consultation and Study Tour" (Russian Federation, 2005): Reaching out to the management community • 4th International Wildland Fire Conference in Spain (2007): Second meeting of the Regional Wildland Fire Networks • First International Central Asian Wildland Fire Joint Conference and Consultation “Wildland Fires in Natural Ecosystems of the Central Asian Region: Ecology and Management Implications”, associated with the First Central Asian Forest Fire Experiment (Mongolia, 2008): Transfer of fire management practices, including the use of prescribed fire • Regional conference on Transboundary Cooperation in Fire Management (Russian Federation, 2010) • 4th International Wildland Fire Conference in South Africa (2011) • International Congress Forest Fire and Climate Change: Challenges for Fire Management in Natural and Cultural Landscapes of Eurasia (Russian Federation, 2013)

199

Focus on exchange of fire management expertise

During the decade between 2004 and 2014 a number of bilateral and international exchanges allowed participating countries to share their expertise, which had been evolved rather differently in the Western and Eastern hemispheres.

An exchange programme between the United States of America and the Russian Federation included the training of Russian firefighters in the Interagency Hotshot Crew program, smoke jumping and heli- rappelling.

With the creation of the Global Wildland Fire Network the exchange intensified within the Regional Eurasia Wildland Fire Network (initially called Regional “Baltic” Wildland Fire Network) and the Regional Southeast Europe / Caucasus Wildland Fire Network (initially called Regional “Balkan” Wildland Fire Network). Members of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire constituted the core groups of these networks, which brought together fire management specialists, decision makers and policy makers in various regional conferences and exercises, among other:

• Regional Eurasian network meeting convened in Helsinki, Finland, 10 May 2004, hosted by the Ministry for Interior, Finland, which resulted in the Helsinki Declaration on Cooperation in Wildland Fire Management in the Baltic Region • Regional Scientific and Technical Consultation “Forest Fire Management in the Balkan Region”, Ohrid, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 4-5 April 2005, with the subsequent • "Eastern European, Near East and Central Asian States Exercise on Wildland Fire Information and Resources Exchange – EASTEX FIRE 2005", in which international cooperation was exercised in managing a large-scale forest fire disaster requiring multilateral response, hosted by the Bulgarian Ministry for the Interior, National Fire and Emergency Safety Service, Haskovo, Bulgaria, 20-22 April 2005. • Regional Central Asia Fire Management Consultation and Study Tour, Irkutsk, Russian Federation, 8-9 September 2005. • Symposium on Fire Management in Cultural and Natural Landscapes, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia, in which participants from the region exchanged experience at the GFMC in Germany, January 2008, and produced subsequently the “Freiburg White Paper on the Use of Prescribed Fire in Land Management, Nature Conservation and Forestry in Temperate-Boreal Eurasia” directed to policy makers. • The “International Conference on Cross-Border Forest Fires and Cooperation in their Suppression” was hosted by the government of Russia, supported by GFMC, UNISDR and the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire, in Irkutsk, 16-18 June 2010. Government agencies of China, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, South Korea, and the USA, prepared for international cooperation in wildfire emergencies, which led to swift and coordinated international response to the fire and smoke pollution emergency in Western Russia six weeks later. • A project sponsored by the Council of Europe and implemented by the GFMC developed Guidelines aimed at capacitating local communities in self-defense of their homelands against wildfires (“Defense of Villages, Farms and Other Rural Assets against Wildfires: Guidelines for Rural Populations, Local Community and Municipality Leaders in the Balkan Region”).

More than 20 years of cooperation by exchange between the GFMC and the National Aerial Fire Center of Russia Avialesookhrana resulted in developing visions and proposals for integrated fire management of Eurasian coniferous forests, including the use of natural fire and prescribed management fire for wildfire hazard reduction, silviculture and forest regeneration. Two „International Fire Management Weeks“ were organized in 2012 and 2013 Krasnoyarsk region, Russia, under the joint umbrella of the Federal Forestry Agency of Russia and the GFMC, both cooperating partners under the framework of the UNISDR and the UNECE and presented to the 6th and 7th “Forum Forests and Humans” in Moscow 2012 and 2014.

At the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management (November 2013) and during the follow-up consultations the UNECE member states, who had actively participated in the East-West exchange, concluded that a rather long-lasting of exchange had resulted in sustainable relationships and systems in place that had benefitted from dialogue and sharing of expertise. 200

Figure 1. International transfer of wildland fire management knowledge: Building East-West relationships in fire management within the UNECE Region and at global level

1980

Fundamental Establishment of the ECE/FAO/ILO Seminars and Team of Specialists on Forest Fire global wildland conferences fire research Begin of international Regional exchange of information on contribution to the fire situation in countries, International 1988 socio-economic context of Biosphere- Launch of UNECE/FAO wildland fires, management Geosphere International Forest Fire News systems, and development Programme (IGBP / of technologies. IGAC / BIBEX)

First global newsletter Satellite fire 1991+ / journal dedicated to monitoring Initiation of cooperative East-West wildland fire wildland research “Fire Research Global Observation Campaign Asia-North” (FIRESCAN) IFFN systematically of Forest and Land collects and publishes and other regional fire research wildland fire information Cover Dynamics campaigns (STARE/TRACE-A/ (GOFC-GOLD) Fire from UNECE region and Implementation SAFARI, EXPRESSO, ZIBBEE, globally Team (Fire IT), LBA, FLAME, etc.) dedicated EO institutions and industry Global portal for 1996 wildland fire information Wildland fire UNECE / FAO Conference early warning Forest Fire and Global Change Internet-based information First global fire management policy portal allowing access to Implemented by the recommendations technical, scientific and Canadian Forest organizational information Service, GFMC and on fire management, GOFC / GOLD satellite remote sensing products, wildfire early 1998 warning, capacity building, Development of glossaries, literature…. informed fire Establishment of the management Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC) policies International National and consultations regional 5 International Wildland consultations Fire Conferences 2001 (1989-2011) Global Wildland Fire Network International Wildland Fire UNISDR / UN Interagency Summit (2003) Wildland Fire Advisory Group Decentralization UNECE/FAO Forum on & regionalization Crossboundary Fire Management (2013) Establishment of Regional Fire Monitoring Centers 2014 Capacity building and and Regional Fire International Wildfire Management interoperability Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM) Resource Centers: Enhanced regional A voluntary, non-financial instrument Implementation of IWPM responsibility in mechanism promoting the International Fire Aviation networking and international sharing of knowledge, Guidelines / International capacity building expertise and human resources in Manual of Common Rules fire management for Fire Aviation 201

Case Study II: History of North American Wildfire Cooperation

Canada/United States of America Agreement

The Canada/United States of America (U.S.) Reciprocal Forest Fire Fighting Arrangement was created in 1982 and is still in operation today. This agreement addresses the facilitation of rapid exchange of personnel and equipment between the two countries for wildland fire mutual aid. During the last three decades, huge amounts of resources have been mobilized – both ways – between the U.S. and Canada. Since 1982, at least 49 U.S. aircraft have been sent to Canada and 83 Canadian aircraft were sent to the U.S. to assist firefighting efforts. Since the mid-1980s, more than 2,000 firefighting personnel from the U.S were sent to Canada and more than 4,000 Canadian firefighters have been dispatched to the U.S. Additionally, miscellaneous fire suppression equipment has been sent across both borders during times of need.

In addition to the Canada/U.S. Reciprocal Forest Fire Fighting Arrangement, there are three international Compacts that collectively facilitate the rapid exchange of personnel and equipment between most Canadian Provinces and Territories with their respective bordering U.S. States for initial attack assistance along the common border. Also, Canada and the U.S. have started discussions on a strategic approach to a more effective sharing of wildland fire information systems, planning tools and a joint approach to the off shore requirement of resources during emergency situations.

Mexico/United States of America Agreement

Since 1983, technical exchanges between Mexico and the U.S. for the integration and training of Incident Management Teams, firefighting resources, scientists, hot shot crews, helitack training, radio communication systems, regional warehouse system, prescribed fires, and public policy projects have been facilitated by the relationships developed through the North American Forest Commission – Fire Management Working Group (NAFC-FMWG).

A Mutual Assistance “Wildfire Protection Agreement” between Mexico and the U.S. was first signed in 1999 with the purpose of providing assistance in the suppression of wildfires along the border. It is updated every year in an Annual Operating Plan. Every mile of shared border is covered under the agreement – recognizing that wildfires in one country could threaten resources across the border. The agreement calls for coordinated action between both countries to suppress wildfires on both sides of the border. The current agreement is up for renewal in 2014 and is being amended to include mutual assistance beyond the border area.

Canada/Mexico Agreement

In the mid-2000s an exchange of personnel program was created and has been active each year between the Canadian Province of Alberta and the Mexican State of Jalisco. Each year since its inception, approximately 120 Mexican Firefighters are incorporated into the Alberta system. A “Memorandum of Understanding for the Exchange of Wildland Fire Management Resources between Canadian and Mexican Participants” was signed in Mexico in February of 2014.

North America and International

The technical capacity of Mexico has evolved with the support of Canada and the U.S. which has allowed Mexico to support capacity building in Latin America, highlighting the involvement of Mexican technical experts as instructors in Guatemala (2003), Paraguay (2009), Costa Rica (2010) and Honduras (2014).

Support with complex wildfires between the NAFC-FMWG member nations has occurred through numerous exchanges of firefighters: 1987 Ontario; 1998 Chiapas and Oaxaca; 2000 U.S. assistance from Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand.

After a series of active wildland fire seasons in Canada beginning in 2003 and onward, the need for further international reciprocal agreements of assistance was identified. “An Arrangement for The Exchange of Wildland Fire Management Resources between Canadian and New Zealand 202

Participants” was signed in 2008. While preliminary arrangements have been initiated a couple of times, no resources have been mobilized through this agreement to date. Currently Canada and Australia are in the process of creating and signing a reciprocal agreement between the respective governments of the two countries.

In 2006 the Canadian Province of British Columbia and the Australian State of Victoria signed an agreement for the exchange of wildland firefighting resources. The two States have exchanged personnel for suppression and an exchange for learning opportunities on a few occasions since the signing of the agreement.

2000 United States of America Critical Fire Season Example: North American and International Resource Sharing

The wildland fire season in the U.S. during 2000 was the worst in more than 50 years. Almost 100,000 fires consumed more than 2.8 million hectares (6.9 million acres) of forest and range lands. This was approximately twice the U.S. ten-year average. The season was long and difficult and firefighters faced dangerous burning conditions throughout the western U.S.

At the height of the fire season in late August, the U.S. interagency wildland fire community, which consists of federal, state, and local resources, had mobilized more than 20,000 civilian fire fighters, approximately 4,000 soldiers and marines and thousands of other support personnel in dispatch centers, warehousing facilities, and administrative centers throughout the country.

Faced with this unprecedented situation, and with a forecast for a continuing hot and dry weather pattern, fire managers realized they would need to reach beyond U.S. borders for assistance. During the remainder of the 2000 fire season, the U.S. received assistance from more than 1200 Canadian firefighters, 96 fire specialists from Australia and New Zealand and 20 Mexican firefighters. These additional resources performed important roles in the U.S. firefighting efforts. Some international fire fighters provided much needed support to fire crews on the fire line while others performed as middle managers on incident management teams. International agreements with Canada and Mexico were in place prior to the 2000 fire season but none existed with Australia and New Zealand.

North American fire managers have had NAFC-FMWG sponsored informal study group exchanges with Australia and New Zealand for nearly 60 years (1951). These exchanges provide opportunities to share information about each other’s programs and experiences. Based on that exchange relationship and the knowledge of the Australian and New Zealand firefighting systems, when the U.S. fire situation reached a critical level in 2000, the U.S. approached Australia and New Zealand and asked for their help. Similar command structures, training, performance based qualification systems and physical requirements allow the New Zealand and Australian firefighters to easily blend into the upper level ranks of North American wildland fire organizations. The 96 fire specialists that came to the U.S. were integrated into the U.S. firefighting organization where they served in middle management positions on fires, freeing up U.S. fire managers to take on more critical tasks.

As a result, on September 9, 2001, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior signed an agreement with the Australian Prime Minister for mutual assistance in firefighting between the U.S. and three states in Australia. In 2002 New Zealand also entered into a mutual assistance agreement with the U.S. Since then, New Zealand and Australia have provided resources to the U.S. during the 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2008 fire seasons and the U.S. has supported the Australia fire season in 2003, 2007, 2009, and 2010.

203

Figure 2.1. NAFC-FMWG key objectives and fire management activities

Figure 2. NAFC-FMWG: Local to international cooperation 204

Case Study III: Exchange between Southwest and Northwest Europe – An illustration of the benefits of international exchange and the provision of specialist knowledge for wildfire

Following a severe wildfire season in the UK in 2003, Northumberland Fire and Rescue Service (NFRS) identified that it did not have the knowledge and understanding of wildfire to safely and effectively manage wildfire incidents. Initially, NFRS sought assistance from other Fire and Rescue Services in the UK. However, NFRS quickly identified that all Fire and Rescue Services in the UK were in a similar situation and that there was a need both locally and nationally to import knowledge from the international wildfire community.

As illustrated within Figure 3, NFRS began approaching wildfire organisations around the world to exchange knowledge and good practice and made contact with Wildfire Specialists working for the Catalonian Graf Bombers (CGB) in Spain. Knowledge was exchanged through a variety of means, including the organisation of exchange visits between Northumberland and CGB. The CGB specialists provided extensive advice and support which helped NFRS to develop an understanding of the wildfire environment and an understanding of the local wildfire environment within Northumberland. NFRS was then able to develop and enhance its strategies for managing prevention, preparedness and response to wildfire incidents. The CGB also provided NFRS with copies of training systems and materials that were subsequently adapted and adopted for use within Northumberland and, subsequently, more widely throughout the UK.

Having established an understanding of wildfire, NFRS began promoting a national agenda for wildfire through its work in developing National Operational Guidance for Wildfire Incidents and National Occupational Standards for Wildfire Training. NFRS was also instrumental in helping to establish important national stakeholder groups for wildfire, including the England and Wales Wildfire Forum (EWWF) and the Chief Fire Officers Association’s (CFOA) Wildfire Group.

While initial contact with the CGB enabled NFRS to make significant advances, NFRS was aware of the benefits of further developing a network of international partners with which it could continue to exchange information and expertise. Working in partnership with the CGB, NFRS organised a number of exchange visits with wildfire organizations around the World. NFRS’s involvement in these exchanges helped to establish NFRS’s position within the global Wildfire Community and helped to increase opportunities to participate in further exchanges and in a range of international collaboration projects.

From 2007 onwards, NFRS has been approached by a number of international fire and rescue services seeking to improve their training, policies and procedures for wildfire incidents. NFRS has provided support and training, and has exchanged information and experience, with Fire and Rescue Services in the Republic of Ireland and Denmark.

In a relatively short period of time, the assistance and support provided by the Catalonian Graf specialists has enabled NFRS to develop an understanding of its wildfire problems and to begin to implement significant improvements. The importation of knowledge from a few specialists has resulted in a significant cascade of knowledge to NFRS, to other agencies in the UK and to other international organizations. The CGB acted as a gatekeeper for NFRS for international knowledge on wildfire, and NFRS is now able to support other organizations by being playing a role within an informal global network of wildfire specialists.

205

Figure 3. International transfer of wildland fire management knowledge: An evolutionary and self-perpetuating process for improvement

2003 Northumberland Fire and Rescue Service (NFRS) with little knowledge of wildfire

2005 NFRS contacts wildfire specialists at the Catalonian Graf Bombers (CGB), Spain TRAINING Development and Provision of Wildfire Training in 2006 Northumberland NFRS imports specialist knowledge and understanding of wildfire from CGB

POLICY AND PROCEDURE Improvement of INTERNAL / LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS NFRS’s Wildfire Policies and NATIONAL STRATEGIC Procedures GROUPS FOR WILDFIRE NFRS assists in the formation of the England and Wales Wildfire Forum and the Chief FIRE GROUPS Fire Officers Association NFRS assisted in Wildfire Group the establishment of Local Multiagency Fire Groups NATIONAL GUIDANCE NFRS writes first National COLLABORATION NATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS Operational Guidance Manual PROJECTS for Wildfire in the UK NFRS has participated in a number of EU co- financed projects, including: TRAINING EUFOFINET, ANSFR, NFRS develops and delivers Fire Paradox and wildfire training to more than EuroFire 20 FRS in the UK. INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION NFRS develops and delivers wildfire training to land management agencies TRAINING throughout UK Officers from NFRS have received training from colleagues in numerous countries, including: USA, South POLICY SUPPORT Africa, Greece, France NFRS and CGB join the preparatory work of the 2014 UNECE/FAO Regional Forum GLOBAL WILDFIRE COMMUNITY on Cross-boundary Fire EXCHANGE VISITS Management and the follow- Officers from NFRS NFRS now actively exchanges up by the Global Fire have participated in information on a two-way basis with Monitoring Center (GFMC) wildfire exchange visits other members of the global wildfire and the Global Wildland Fire to Portugal and France community Network 206

United Nations ECE/TIM/2014/INF6

Economic and Social Council Distr.: General As of 28 October 2014

Original: English

Economic Commission for Europe Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry Seventy-second session Kazan, 18-21 November 2014 Item 5d of the provisional agenda Adoption of the agenda

Implementation of the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management

Note by the secretariat

Summary This document summarizes the activities and achievements of the final phase of work of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire, which was active since 1980 and, since 1993, worked in close cooperation with the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC). In its final phase 2008-2014 the ToS had mandates, among others, to provide guidance to UNECE member States on forest fire management and forest fire policies, including on governance in bilateral and international cooperation. In cooperation with the UNECE-FAO Forestry and Timber Section, the GFMC prepared and facilitated the "UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management" (November, 2013), and followed-up on the recommendations of the Forum (2014). The 2013 Forum elaborated a number of recommendations addressing principles and envisaged international cooperation efforts in fire management. Based on a UNECE- wide survey a, "Study on the contemporary and expected future forest fire issues in the UNECE region", was developed as well as a “White Paper on the State of Wildfires and Fire Management in Forests and other Vegetation Resources in the UNECE Region”. In addition to recommendations, which addressed national and international governance in fire management, the GFMC supported by an international advisory group, prepared and recommended the international application of "International Fire Aviation Guidelines" and the "International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism" (IWPM).

207

I. Background

1. During the recent decades, UNECE region has experienced unprecedented, large and disastrous wildfires as an accumulated consequence of socio-economic, land-use and climate changes. Some recent wildfire episodes also revealed an increasing vulnerability of society to the direct and secondary effects of fire. 2. In the Eurasian part of the UNECE region, some hazards and risks associated with wildfires have been perceived as threats only recently after the region experienced a number of large and disastrous wildfires and due to a better scientific understanding of conditions influencing wildfires. 3. Wildfires burning at the interface or even within residential, urban and industrial areas, and fires burning in terrain contaminated by radioactivity, industrial deposits and remnants of armed conflicts are perceived as new, unprecedented threats – although they have been around for some time, albeit largely unnoticed. 4. In the endeavour to enhance the protection of forests in Europe and globally it should be noted that wildland fires impact more than only forest ecosystems. Fire use and wildfire occurrence in the cultural landscapes of the region, which are shaped by agriculture, pastoralism and forestry, have positive and negative impacts on landscape patterns, land productivity, biodiversity and the atmosphere, with considerable implications for air quality, human health and security, and climate change. 5. While there have been advances in fire management in some countries, there are still barriers preventing the sharing of scientific and technical knowledge and good practice between wildfire agencies in different States. 6. These barriers have resulted in some wildfire agencies being unintentionally left in ignorance of the technical information and advancements that they could utilize to develop greater national resilience and preparedness for large wildfire incidents. 7. Given the cross-boundary consequences of wildfires, e.g. transboundary spreading of wildfire smoke pollutants, border-crossing wildfires and wildfire threats to common global assets such as biodiversity, terrestrial carbon pools, atmosphere and climate on the one side, together with the willingness of nations to share expertise and resources in fire management, UNECE member States were ready to develop voluntary principles and efficient procedures on cross-border cooperation and thus enhance economics, inter-operability and effectiveness in fire management between nations and regions. 8. Some countries already possess advanced wildfire knowledge, and have the technologies and expertise to manage wildfire risk effectively. The priority of future international cooperation should be to establish a mechanism that encourages this understanding to be shared between territories, enabling all countries to develop effective wildfire reduction strategies and providing the structure for more effective collaborative efforts during wildfire disaster situations.

II. Mandate

9. The terms of reference of the UNECE/FAO Team of Specialists on Forest Fire, led by the GFMC since 1993, were approved by the UNECE Timber Committee and the FAO European Forestry Commission in 2008 as a contribution to the Integrated Work Programme, Work Area 2 “Policy Dialogue and Advice”, and included the following main objectives for the period 2008 to 2014: 208

• To promote a continuous exchange of (new) knowledge on and practices in fire management through the organization of meetings on Fire Management issues in the UNECE region; • To provide guidance to UNECE member States on forest fire management and forest fire policies, including on bilateral / international cooperation, in close cooperation and coordination with the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group / Global Wildland Fire Network, FAO, UNISDR, the Council of Europe and other partners. The mandated activities of the ToS on Forest Fires included the development of policy recommendations for fire management in the UNECE region to be summarized in a “White Paper on the State of Wildfires and Fire Management in Forests and other Vegetation Resources in the UNECE Region”. The expected major outputs included: • Organization of a Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management. • Preparation of a resolution of the Forum on a proposed voluntary or legal protocol on cross-boundary cooperation in fire management. • Development of a White Paper on the State of Wildfires and Fire Management in Forests and other Vegetation Resources in the UNECE Region. 10. Following the recommendation of the UNECE Timber Committee and the FAO European Forestry Commission (ECE/TIM/2012/11, item 33) to "discontinue the ToS on Forest Fires, as the issue of fires is no longer addressed by the UNECE/FAO programme of work and is better addressed at the global level and through other channels”, it was decided to phase out the ToS on Forest Fire by the end of July 2014 after the accomplishments of the expected outputs. 11. The project "Safeguarding Sustainable Forest Management in the UNECE Region through International Cooperation in Fire Management" was then initiated and supported by the Government of Germany with the following expected deliverables: • A White Paper on the State of Wildfires and Fire Management in Forests and other Vegetation Resources in the UNECE Region” (summary of the analysis conducted before the Forum, and the recommendations for action as agreed upon by the Forum); • Draft Standard Operating Procedures or guidelines for international cooperation in fire management (ground, aerial); • A resolution of the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management (2013) on proposed voluntary or legal protocol on cross- boundary cooperation in fire management. 12. The UNECE contracted the Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC), Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Germany, which serves as the secretariat of the Leader of the ToS on Forest Fire, and provided a four-phased grant with the following terms of reference: • Dissemination and evaluation of a questionnaire addressing the status of fire management in the UNECE region; • Preparation of a, "Study on the contemporary and expected future forest fire issues in the UNECE region"; • Preparation of a, “White Paper on the State of Wildfires and Fire Management in Forests and other Vegetation Resources in the UNECE Region”; 209

• Preparation, facilitation and moderation, in cooperation with the UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section, of the, "UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management"; • Development of International Fire Aviation Guidelines; • Preparation of a Strategic Paper on the recommendations of the Regional Forum, including the proposed development of an International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism (IWPM); and • Identification of scenarios / options to implement the recommendations of the Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management that cover institutional arrangements within the United Nations system, international organizations and NGOs.

III. Progress of work

13. A Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management was held on 28-29 November 2013 at the United Nations in Geneva. The Forum was attended by 49 representatives from 22 UNECE Member States, from other regions, non- government organizations, regional and international organizations (ASEAN Secretariat, SADC Secretariat, Council of Europe, OSCE), and the following United Nations organisations and secretariats: UNECE / FAO Forestry and Timber Section; FAO; UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction / UNISDR; OCHA Environmental Emergencies Section, Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit, Emergency Services Branch; Secretariat of the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. 14. The resulting recommendations from the Forum addressed, among others the:187 • Need to promote the understanding of and the response to the transboundary effects of fire; • Need to expand the scope of and strengthen of international cooperation in fire management; • Application of a holistic approach to wildland fire management at a landscape level; • Adoption and continued development of the International Wildfire Support Mechanism (IWSM) and the voluntary International Fire Aviation Guidelines; • Need to explore options for the transition from voluntary rules to a more formalized regulatory framework, including the “exploration of options for establishing a UN Secretariat mandated with the implementation of a global fire management programme that should have a key role in facilitating the free and open global transfer of knowledge”. • Suggestion to seek the interest of UN Organizations to become involved. In particular, the last point of the Forum recommendations stated: • The ToS on Forest Fire to jointly prepare a set of possible organizational scenarios that will ensure that the successful work it has carried out so far will not be interrupted, creating a vacuum, but will rather become global with a new mandate and a different setup. • Based on these scenarios, the leader of the Team will approach and seek the interest of UN organizations. The results of the consultation could be discussed at a ToS meeting to be organized before July 2014.

187 For the terminology and substantial contents of the recommendations of the Forum: See item 15. The full text of the recommendations is available on the homepage of the ToS on Forest Fire: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/intro/team.html. Note: This website will be maintained and further updated despite the phasing-out of the ToS. 210

At the joint seventy-first session of the UNECE Committee on Forests and the Forest Industry (COFFI) and the thirty-seventh session of the FAO European Forestry Commission (EFC) (“Metsä 2013”), held in Rovaniemi, Finland, in December 2013, the ToS Leader convened a side event entitled "UNECE/FAO Forum on Cross- boundary Fire Management 2013: Results", in which the outcomes of the Forum were reported and inputs solicited from attendees to define the way forward.188 15. For technical reasons it must be noted that between the initiation and preparation of the Forum and its follow-up process there is an inconsistency of wording between the originally expected and the finally achieved outputs of the Forum. This development reflects an open, participatory and dynamic process of consultations between high-level wildland fire experts from UNECE Member States and other countries. The original wording of the grant called for developing, (a) "draft SOPs or guidelines for international cooperation in fire management (ground, aerial)", and (b) a proposal for a, "voluntary or legal protocol on cross-boundary cooperation in fire management" and this provided the mandate for the work of GFMC and an international group of project advisors (Australia, France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, USA). During intensive discussions on the feasibility of developing SOPs or guidelines for international cooperation, a first proposed concept emerged and was entitled, "International Wildfire Support Mechanism" (IWSM). The IWSM was originally envisaged to develop guidelines for international inter-operability and for international cooperation in addressing wildfire emergencies on the ground. However, the consultations revealed that the international community was not yet ready for such operational standards addressing joint wildfire emergency management. The products emerging from the Forum and the follow-up process, therefore, concentrated on the finalization of the "International Fire Aviation Guidelines, incorporating the International Manual of Common Rules for Fire Aviation". The Fire Aviation Guidelines, which were developed by the associated "International Fire Aviation Working Group" (IFAWG), have a strong operational character. The "ground" dimension of international cooperation in fire management, however, has been designed to advance national capacities in fire management through the exchange of expertise between nations under the umbrella of the proposed "International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism" (IWPM). 16. In 2014 a strategy paper, "Follow-up to the UNECE/FAO Regional Forum on Cross-boundary Fire Management" was developed by the project advisory group and a core working group of the ToS on Forest Fire (participating UNECE Member States: Canada [for the Fire Management Working Group of the FAO North American Forestry Commission], Germany, Greece, fYR Macedonia, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom). The paper was based on consultations about future cooperation between the FAO, Green Cross International (GCI), the European Forest Institute (EFI) with its start-up project for the creation of a European Forest Risk Facility (feasibility study, sponsored by the Government of Germany), and the OSCE. 17. Following the final meeting with members of the ToS on Forest Fire in June 2014 at the GFMC, in conjunction with the Joint Meetings of the Global Wildland Fire Network and the UNISDR Wildland Fire Advisory Group, the “International Fire Aviation Guidelines” and the proposed concept of the "International Wildfire Preparedness Mechanism" (IWPM) were finalized and published on the preliminary

188 Note: Part of the presentation of the activities of the ToS on Forest Fire in the "Rovaniemi Action Plan for the Forest Sector in a Green Economy" includes pledges by the GFMC to support the following possible actions: (a) maintain and strengthen wildfire early warning and monitoring capacities, and promotion of integrated fire management approaches , i.e. the targeted extraction of biomass for both renewable energy provision and the reduction of wildfire hazard; and the integration of communities / private forest users in the achieving these goals at local level (Action B.3.5); (b) commission research on forest resilience in relation to the impacts of climate change on “events” such as ... fires (Action B.3.6), and (c) Organise a regional forum on forests and human health to review the situation, opportunities and challenges including the specific hazards and risks (e.g., air pollution from forest and other vegetation fires affecting human health and security) (Action D.3.1) 211

website of the IWPM. 189 Other documents that have been prepared during the Forum project are available on the IWPM website.

IV. Next steps

18. After the termination of the Forum project and the mandate of the ToS on Forest Fire (31 July 2014) the GFMC will continue to follow-up on the recommendations of the Forum during the coming years. 19. The GFMC will act as Interim Secretariat of the IWPM and will continue to expand the work of the former ToS on Forest Fire to other regions globally, such as the recently accomplished regional fire management training courses for the ASEAN region (in the frame of the Korean – ASEAN Forestry Cooperation Landmark Programme, Republic of Korea, September 2014), and for the South Caucasus and Western Balkan countries (in the frame of the OSCE and their Environment and Security (ENVSEC) Initiative, Turkey, October 2014). 20. Discussions on cooperative arrangements between the GFMC, acting as Secretariat of the IWPM and the Global Wildland Fire Network, with the FAO, the European Forest Risk Facility start-up project and with GCI are ongoing and will be continued in 2015. 21. There are very promising experiences and prospects for continuing the work of the ToS on Forest Fire in the priority region of Eastern Europe, Southeast Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia under the auspices of the OSCE and the European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) of the Council of Europe. The GFMC has provided inputs to the 22nd OSCE Economic and Environmental Forum, "Responding to Environmental Challenges with a View to Promoting Cooperation and Security in the OSCE Area" (Vienna, January 2014; Prague, September 2014) in preparation for the OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting in Basel, Switzerland, in December 2014, during which a ministerial decision of the 57 OSCE member states is expected on the future role of the OSCE in regional disaster risk reduction, which would include fire management.

189 http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iwpm/index.htm