Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
value of scientific analysis and greatly complicate solutions (Goldstein
2007
). This
is specially problematic in the Mediterranean Basin where similar landscapes
are managed by different agencies from different countries with very different
socio-economic frameworks (e.g. North Africa vs. southern Europe).
There are marked differences between MTC regions in the politics of fire
management with potential ramifications for solutions. In the USA fire manage-
ment has become increasingly centralized in the federal government, initially as
a cost savings effort to make fire management more efficient. One downside of
this approach is that there has been for many decades an attempt to apply one
model of fire management to most ecosystems. In particular the prescribed
understory burning of conifer forests has been very successful on some landscapes
but the long-standing effort to apply it to California shrubland ecosystems has
been largely unsuccessful and has delayed consideration of other approaches.
In contrast, Australian fire is managed, even on federal or Crown lands, by each
state. One consequence is there is seemingly greater acceptance of diverse man-
agement approaches, and probably a greater capacity or potential capacity to
tailor solutions to suit local environments and context.
In California one resolution would be greater regional and state planning in the
location of urban developments, and less community control over planning decisions,
which seems to be the root of other environmental problems as well (e.g. Pincetl
1999
). In this region there is also a serious concern about the financial responsibilities
for fires that cross local, state and federal jurisdictions. Too often the federal govern-
ment pays the bulk of the expenses associated with protecting private property from
wildfires. The existing framework insulates non-federal entities from the cost of
protecting private property in urban environments (GAO
2009
). Proposals that the
federal government seek ways to recoup costs of fire suppression from communities
(OIG
2006
) have the potential of effecting greater responsibility in regional planning
decisions. Such a financial burden in the future could contribute to better planning
decisions as they pertain to placement of future developments.
In Australia steps are being taken in this direction. Planning approval for new
developments on public and private land in New South Wales require approval by
the Rural Fire Service - the government department responsible for co-ordination
of fire prevention and suppression in the state. Developments are assessed on the
basis of appropriate setbacks from vegetation, using physical criteria for heat
impacts on structures that take into account worse case scenarios of weather and
fuel, along with topographic factors specific to each site (NSWRFS
2006
).
Postfire Management
Burn Severity Assessment
Fires in MTV often are high-intensity crown fires and may have severe impacts.
Sorting out the factors of fire intensity, fire severity and ecosystem responses
