Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership (KFCP) Design ...

The 2006 fire episode underlines that most of these initiatives have had limited impact. Key reasons
are:
That the scope and nature of fires during El Nino years is different. The exponential spread of
fires, the remoteness and excessive availability of fuel makes approaches tested on mineral
soils difficult to apply. Furthermore early warning is based on hotspots and fire danger rating,
both allow for limited response time; and
Most fire initiatives assume that communities and stakeholders have an interest in controlling
fire and are willing to invest in fire management. More recent reviews of fire management
activities and trends in land use suggest that some gain from fire. For example:
— increased access and removal of the vegetation allows for the poor to harvest non
forest timber products and fell logs; and
— for land owners it enables them to clear large tracts of land.
Thus, a fire management strategy and most likely a peat restoration strategy should be based
on an understanding of why people use fire and what are the (economic and social) gains of
fire use;
Fire suppressions put a significant burden on communities. In so far this input has been
voluntary but it costs some up to 3-5 months of labour. This makes it a heavy burden with
limited returns for those who implement it. The social dynamics of fire frighting are not
understood but most likely the least empowered are the most involved: and
For a proper analysis of the impact of fire management policies, circumstances have to be
taken into account. As is explained above, fire use is strongly related to the ENSO thus
explaining the reduced incidence of fires during 2007/08 when fire use was criminalised by
Governoral directive. The ban reduced the use of fire but most of these fires were linked to
the need for clearing of agricultural land. This seems to have led however, to a significant
decrease in income, and the ban also impacted on local food production. This led to protests
and political pressure to change the restricted use of fire. It is crucial that a fire risk
management strategy assumes fire use as an integral part of livelihood strategies and is used
to increase access or enhance quality of livelihood assets (land).
A REDD based fire management strategy should acknowledge the importance of fire as source of
emissions and the economic importance it has. It has to go beyond suppression and focus on
improving land use planning, water management and aim to reduce incentives for land encroachment.
Towards an incentive based strategy
A key element of a fire management strategy has to be on El Nino events while reducing the long
term trend of environmental degradation. Restored peatland ecosystems are rarely exposed to fire risk
however restoring of peatlands even within a REDD scheme will take at least 15-20 years before fire
risks are significantly reduced. The recent experiences with improved water management underline
that blocking channels only, is unlikely to be sufficient. At least for the coming 5-10 years, fire risk
management will have to be the priority for the KFCP. A minimum of 2-3 major fire events are to be
expected during that period.
An effective fire management strategy should entail:
A very good understanding of the following: a baseline socio-economic data of the KFCP
area; baseline environmental data, including hydrological information and peat dome
characteristics of the KFCP area; and REL greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands and the
KFCP area as a whole, under current practices: and
Work based on the assumption that fire remains a critical tool for smallholders as alternatives
are more expensive or impractical. Nevertheless during El Nino (dry period) fire use should
be banned to reduce incentives as then fire is causing most of the damage. El Nino can be
predicted and a strong commitment by political decision makers to law enforcement has
proven to increase opportunity costs of fire use.
7-4 KALIMANTAN FORESTS AND CLIMATE PARTNERSHIP (KFCP) DESIGN DOCUMENT