Forbidden fire: Does criminalising fire hinder conservation efforts in swidden landscapes of the Brazilian Amazon?

Abstract

Global environmental change has motivated multiple interventions in pursuit of sustainable outcomes within tropical forest landscapes. Fire is recognised as a key stressor facing forest conservation efforts. Large‐scale accidental fires are increasingly prevalent across the forested tropics, generating negative impacts across sectors and scales. Policy responses to mega‐fires in the Brazilian Amazon have been diverse but all are dominated by an anti‐fire narrative that highlights long‐stigmatised smallholder agricultural practices. Despite forest conservation initiatives and fire management policies, escaped fire (wildfire) remains pervasive. Forest conservation initiatives are often situated in contexts where swidden agriculture prevails, generating a need for an improved understanding of the interplay between fire management and conservation initiatives on the ground. We explore these dynamics through a case study approach in three leading forest conservation initiative types, situated across diverse contexts in the Brazilian Amazon: a Reduction of Emissions of Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) site (in Middle Solimões region), an extractive reserve (RESEX) (in Arapíuns region), and a Green Municipality Pact (GMP) (in Paragominas). Between sites, climate and colonisation histories vary, yet all demonstrate that farmers experience the burden of escaped fire, attesting to the failure of fire management policies and suggesting that fire (as currently managed) threatens forest conservation goals. Restrictive fire management policies do not replace the necessity of fire‐based agriculture and rather serve to disempower swidden farmers by making burning increasingly illicit. We show that awareness of fire‐free alternatives exists, yet experience is limited and constraints are considerable. We argue that marginalising fire use in the context of forest conservation initiatives contributes to a legacy of failed interventions and jeopardises partnerships between communities and conservation practitioners. Finally, we suggest that given the absence of imminent and viable fire‐free alternatives, particularly in sites where swidden and conservation collide, a new model of fire warrants experimentation.

El nacimiento de los “Sin fuego”: caso Parque Nacional Lagunas de Montebello, Chiapas, México

“…Los cambios culturales en la visión del fuego han contribuido a que los jóvenes consideren este elemento como solamente negativo, basado también en influencias del sistema educativo, religión y narrativas en contra del fuego, casos similares se han documentado en otras partes del mundo (Carmenta et al, 2019). De 12 jóvenes entrevistados, no hubo ninguno que realzara un Ponce-Calderón, L. P. et al Nº 25, Vol.…”

Firing up: Policy, politics and polemics under new and old burning regimes

“…Carmenta et al. () discuss transcending the taboo of fire in the Brazilian Amazon by creating spaces for social learning that enable the emergence of innovative solutions adapted to local conditions. They further argue that unless a broader agreement is reached between different rural producers, fire mitigation policies are unlikely to succeed.…”

“…The issue of limited knowledge on burning practices highlighted by Eloy et al is also tackled by Rachel Carmenta et al in their paper on smallholder farmer fire use in the Brazilian Amazon (Carmenta et al, 2019). They point out that in the tropical forest biome "the anti-fire approach has underperformed" and the anti-fire discourse targeting smallholders disregards the history, local use and cultural significance of fire to these communities.…”

“…Traditional fire users in Chiquitania are aware of increased climatic variation and the human-related factors that lead to fire accidents, and experiment with new techniques for controlled burning. Carmenta et al (2019) discuss transcending the taboo of fire in the Brazilian Amazon by creating spaces for social learning that enable the emergence of innovative solutions adapted to local conditions. They further argue that unless a broader agreement is reached between different rural producers, fire mitigation policies are unlikely to succeed.…”

Characterising policy responses to complex socio-ecological problems: 60 fire management interventions in Indonesian peatlands

“…Uncontrolled fire on peatland is exacerbated by failures of land use planning and law enforcement: fire is no longer used only for traditional agriculture but now may be used as retribution in land disputes, or where tenurial uncertainty removes incentives for careful management (Stolle et al 2003; Dennis et al 2005;Varkkey 2013). Fire remains the cheapest and most accessible method of land clearance and preparation (Ding et al 2016), and a blanket ban on its use is not likely to be effective, efficient, or equitable (Carmenta et al, 2018). In order for FMI to succeed, controls on ignition and substrate flammability must contend with the perceived benefits of peatland conversion (FAO 2006 2.…”