Fire Management in Mexico (IFFN 27, 2002 July)

Fire Management in Mexico

(IFFN No. 27 – July 2002, p. 17-21)

Fire environment, fire regimes and ecological role of fire

Mexico has a total area of 1,967,183 km2 and a forest area of 141.7 million hectares, of which 56.8 million hectares are temperate forests and tropical forests and 58.4 million hectares are zones with arid and semiarid vegetation.

The forest fire season normally occurs between January and July. March and April are the major fire months because they coincide with the dry season. Human activities cause 97 percent of the wildfires, with agricultural and cattle activities causing 54 percent of the fires. In tropical zones, the main cause of fires is the practice of slash and burn agricultural practices. Burns to improve grass conditions for cattle are the main cause of intemperate forests. Ninety-five percent of the fires burn on the surface, affecting mainly herbs, shrubs, and grasses.

The average number of wildfires for the 1990-1999 period was 7,767. These fires affected a total surface area of 251,697 hectares (a national average of 32 hectares per fire).

Fire regimes can be described in terms of how severe they burn and how much they change the vegetation that burned. Fire regimes can be classified in the following terms:

  1. Understory fire (applies to forests and woodlands)–fires are generally non-lethal to the dominant vegetation and do not substantially change the structure of the dominant vegetation. Examples include pine communities and pine-oak communities.
  2. Stand-replacement fire (applies to forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands)–fires kill aboveground parts of the dominant vegetation, changing the aboveground structure substantially. Approximately 80percent or more of the aboveground dominant vegetation is either consumed ordies as a result of fires.
  3. Mixed-severity fire (applies to forests and woodlands)– the severity of fire either causes selective mortality in the dominant vegetation, depending on different tree species’ susceptibility to fire, varies between understory and stand replacement.
  4. Non-fire regime–little or no occurrence of a natural fire. Examples include montane rainforest and tropical rainforest.

A forest fire is considered to be any fire which affects forest vegetation by natural or human causes, and occurs and spreads in an uncontrolled manner.

Narrative summary of major wildfire impacts on people, property, and natural resources that occurred historically

  • The average number of fatalities due to wildfires is 2 persons per year.
  • Forest fires mainly cause mortality to natural regeneration in temperate forest zones, causing economic loss from the affected trees.
  • In tropical areas wildfires enhance the growth and spread of a fern (Pteridiumsp.) that contributes to rapidly spreading and difficult to control wildfires (Fig.1). In tropical forests, wildfires affect biodiversity, wildlife, and the ecology in general. However, people also deforest tropical areas as they look for agricultural alternatives.

Narrative summary of major wildfire impacts on people, property and natural resources during 1990s

  • During the 1990s, Mexico had a drought of seven consecutive years(1994-2000). In 1998, “El Niño” caused one of the most severe droughts, creating the most difficult wildfire season in Mexico’s history. Mexico had14,445 wildfires affecting 849,632 hectares–the largest area ever burned in Mexico in a single season.
  • Because of the large fires that occurred in 1998, 72 people died during fire control activities.
  • In order to control the widespread wildfires, it was necessary to gain support from the military, (SEDENA), State Governments, many federal agencies, and volunteers. Mexico also received valuable support from the United StatesGovernment in terms of equipment, technical support, and financial resources.
  • In 1998,18helicopters of different types and an air tanker were used; and17,000firefighters were transported. The helicopters dropped 15.1million liters of water and foam on the fires.
  • Due to the large area burned by wildfires in 1998, actions were taken for reforestation, soil and water conservation, and natural regeneration. Eighty-five areas were selected in 21 States to restore 188,288 hectares through reforestation.

Figure 1. A forest fire in Lagunas de Montebello National Park in 1998 resulted in the widespread establishment of bracken fern.

 Fire management organization used in Mexico

Fire prevention and control are a Federal responsibility and take place through the Secretary of Environment, Natural Resources, andFisheries (SEMARNAP). SEMARNAP has 32 state delegations distributed throughout the country with personnel, crews, equipment, and infrastructures.

SEMARNAP has about 2000 firefighters, more than 200 vehicles, about 800 radios, and the tools and equipment necessary for fire control. Thirteen Type II helicopters are rented each year on the average. To control forest fires SEMARNAP receives support from the military, other federal agencies, state governments, and volunteers.

National programs of wildfire prevention, detection, and control are prepared each year. These programs establish different actions, with emphasis on risk areas and critical zones.

Fire prevention programs are designed to inform people about being careful with fire. Television, radio, posters, booklets, flyers, and press conferences are used to communicate fire prevention messages to the public.

Firebreaks and prescribed burns are used to help limit the spread of fire and reduce the fuel hazard.

Watchtowers, ground detection, commercial aircraft reports about forest fires, aerial detection, and satellite detection are all valuable resources used in the detection of fires.

Canada provides support with maps about fire danger indexes based on the assessment of vegetation, temperature, humidity, etc. The danger rating system permits the prediction of fire risk and fire behavior.

Wildfire Database

Table 1. Number of fires and area burned, 1990-1999

The database is managed by computer and paper records. Average annual fire size: 32 ha per fire.

Use of prescribed fire to achieve resource managementobjectives

The use of prescribed burns and control lines (firebreaks) were intensified in the 1990s, mainly through training courses, to reduce the presence of risky fires. More than 59,000 hectares of prescribed burns and10,500 kilometers of control lines were completed annually on the average. These practices have been carried out in forests where people burn grasses for cattle and in places where there are large accumulations of fuels

Public policies affecting wildfire impacts

Because the major wildfire causes are agricultural and cattle activities, SEMARNAP and SAGAR (Secretary of Agriculture, Cattle, andRural Development) published a “Fire Standard”, which recognizes that people are using fire in agricultural and cattle practices; and provides norms for its proper use (Fig.2). One of the most important issues in this standard statesthat farmers must build control lines when they use fire for their activities.

Another important policy is the promotion of programmes of economic incentives and agricultural alternatives to motivate people to avoid the use of fire as a tool. These actions are accomplished with the execution ofthe programme named “Productive re-conversion”.

Also, television and radio spots are used to induce people to avoid the use of fire and to report detected wildfires to the toll free telephone lines.

Sustainable land use practices used in Mexico to reduce wildfire hazards and wildfire risks. Commercial exploitation of natural forests in Mexico is carried out with a “Management Programme”. This programme contains the necessary information and issues to practice sustainable forest management. Usually these forests have a low occurrence of forest fires because the owners get economic income from forests.

 Figure 2. In1998, many agricultural fires were free-burning, often escaping into adjacent forests.

In forests with cattle activities the “vezade invierno” programme is implemented. Viciavillosa is a leguminous plant used to feed the cattle and reduces the need to use fire within these zones.

In tropical forests, different alternatives with economic support from government take place (the “Agricultural Sedentarisation” and“ Enhancing plantations on second growth tropical forests” are two examples).

In another tropical zone, different practices are used like perennial cultivation and agro-forestry systems to keep land in constant production and diminish the need to practice slash and burn agriculture.

In 1999 the Federal Government executed the programme named “Temporary Employment Programme”. This programme basically consists in making new job opportunities by building control lines in low-income non-productive forest zones. This programme has diminished the presence of wildfires in the zones where it has been implemented.

Community involvement in fire management activities

Since the extraordinary presence of fires in 1998, people have been made aware of the risks that wildfires represent and the damage they do to wildlife, vegetation, and the environment (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. SEMARNAP officers conducting a public fire prevention meeting with people from Zinacantan (Los Altos de Chiapas) in 1998. Note the hazy atmosphere from nearby fires.

Today nine different federal agencies, state governments, and municipalities work together with SEMARNAP on wildfire prevention and control.

Common people and land proprietors have an important role to play in the protection of Mexico’s forests from wildfire. The media also has an important educational role to play in transferring information to various audiences.

During the fire season, a widespread awareness programme is implemented using television, radio, and printed material. People report detected wildfires to the Wildfire Prevention and Control National Center.

Note: This paper is the official contribution to the FAO Global Forest Fire Assessment 1990-2000.

See: http://www.fao.org:80/forestry/fo/fra/docs/Wp55_eng.pdf

IFFN/GFMC contributionsubmitted by:

Oscar Cedeño
Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recurso Naturales (SEMARNAT)
Mexico City, Mexico

e-mail:      inforest@servidor.unam.mx

IFFN No. 27
Country Notes

/by

Forest Fire situation in the state Chipias (IFFN 27, 2002 July)

Forest Fire Situation in the State of Chiapas, Mexico

(IFFN No. 27 – July 2002, p. 21-33)

Fire Environment, fire regimes, and ecological role of fire in Chiapas[1]

A “forest fire” is defined by the State law for fire prevention, fighting and control in the State of Chiapas (Poe, 1999), as: “Aharmful event caused intentionally or fortuitously by fire, which occurs in areas covered by vegetation, trees, grasslands, scrubs, brushwoods and, in general, in every different plant association”.

Chiapas is a southeastern Mexican state with a land area of 75,634 km2 (four percent of the national territory, the 8thbiggest state in Mexico (Inegi 1997) (Fig. 1). Sixty-eight percent of the State is forested. Sixty-four percent of the forested area is covered by woods (22percent) or jungle (42 percent) (Sarh 1994). Chiapas is divided into 111administrative units. During the period 1993-1999, 75 (68 percent) of them suffered from at least one forest fire (>0.5 ha), and 20 of them (18 percent)suffered from “large forest fires” ³500 ha. About 4.1 million hectares of forested land are subjected to forest fires (83 percent)[2].

Forest fire regimes common to Chiapas can be summarized as follows:

  • Understory fire (applies to forests and woodlands)–fires are generally non-lethal to the dominant vegetation and do not substantially change the structure of the dominant vegetation. This situation would be the case forpine communities (and its mixed communities: pine-oak; pine-oak-liquid ambar) and oak communities. Fire does not always benefit genus Pinus, especially its most mesophyll species (in Chiapas’ case: Pinusayacahuite and P. pseudostrobus). Fire can be harmful to the establishment and the permanence of many pinewoods that, even if they are not destroyed, are prone to have regeneration difficulties (Miranda 1952, Rzedowski and McVaugh 1966 [in Rzedowski 1978]). Oaks are not pyric communities, especially in Chiapas, where they usually inhabit very humid places. This fire regime does not kill them, but it affects the quality of its habitat. Although it is not as frequent, when drought is a factor, there can be understory fires in wetter communities such as tropical deciduous forests, evergreen seasonal forests, montane rain forest, lower-montane rain forests, evergreen cloud forests, or even tropical rain forests (as in Breedlove, 1981). Repeated low-intensity fires in tropical communities, combined with low-intensity logging, increase future fire risk and drives to the savannization of the affected communities (Goldammer 1999, Cochrane 1999)
  • Stand replacement fire (applies to forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands)–fires kill aboveground parts of the dominant vegetation, changing the aboveground structure substantially. Approximately 80percent or more of the aboveground dominant vegetation is either consumed ordies as a result of fires: This fire regime is not frequent in tree communities in the State, but when it occurs it usually has catastrophic connotations. Stand replacement fires are associated with severe drought conditions (which might be caused by global climatic phenomena like El Niño). Under these conditions, not only flammable forest types can burn (pines or its mixed communities), but even potentially non-flammable types like Abiescommunities, tropical rain forests, and evergreen cloud forests. This was the case with the 1998 forest fires. Stand replacement fires in tropical communities represent future fire-hazard (if there is no land use change) during the following decades, as unburned fuels remain there and dry out. Secondary succession can be initiated by opportunistic very flammable species, like ferns, that greatly increase fire-hazard.

  
Figure 1.Geographiclocation and administrative division of Chiapas, a southern Mexican state.

  • Mixed-severity fire (applies to forests and woodlands)– the severity of fire either causes selective mortality in dominant vegetation, depending on different tree species’ susceptibility to fire, or varies between understory and stand replacement: This regime can be typical forpine communities and their mixed variations (pine-oak; pine-oak-liquidambar).The result is a patchwork effect that rapidly turns green, but the habitat’squality is diminished. Moreover, those opened gaps are frequently occupied by very flammable, opportunistic species like ferns, so fire-hazard is increased during the decades after fire (Fig. 2).
  • Non-fire regime–little or no occurrence of natural fire: High humidity levels are responsible for this non-fire regime, under normal climatic conditions. In Chiapas, this generally would be the case for Abiescommunities, rain forests, and evergreen cloud forests.

Forest fires regimes in Chiapas have an important human component that can be summarized as the combination of different causes: structural and immediate causes (Vélez 1990):

1.       Structural causes(permanent social and ecological conditions that cause the fire problem,

–     Climaticand topographic characteristics: Chiapas, as other tropical states in Mexico, has a natural seasonal variation in rainfall, which is divided into a rainy season (May to October) and a dry season (November till April). Dry seasons also are characterized by the highest temperatures. Forest fires in Chiapas follow, more or less, this rainy scheme and they are concentrated in a part of the dry period (from January to May, or June, when there are special conditions of drought, affected by global climatic phenomena like ENSO). So it seems there’s a tendency to extend the fire season to the first months of the rainy season, either because rain comes later, or because accumulated drought stress requires some time to recover. There are no recorded forest fires outside of these months. This implies a concentration of resources(human and material) in a specific part of the year. On the other hand, the complex topography of the state makes it difficult to attack fire, and steep topography makes fires spread faster (Deeming et al. 1977, Rothermel 1984).


Figure 2. Widespread establishment of bracken fern after a fire,
in Lagunas de Montebello NationalPark.

–    Fire is habitually used as a traditional tool. Fire and agricultural/farming activities have always been very common in this region.[3]

–    A socio-economic framework that does not help conservation measures. Sixty percent of the population are rural inhabitants (INEGI 1997). There is high demographic pressure and the cattle sector is evolving.

–    Existence of natural resources potentially transformable into agricultural fields. This creates migration of farmers from high demographic pressure regions to lower demographic pressure regions; as well as migration from neighboring states with a lower amount of potential lands for agricultural.

–     Inefficientfire and land use change legal measures. (See section on Public Policies Affecting Wildfire Impacts).

Among the structural causes, El Niño must be taken into account as one of the major causes for the depletion of Chiapas’ forests. Figure 3 shows the arboreal burned surface affected from 1984 until 1999, versus the variation of the SOI index. The SOI is a measure of the disturbance produced by the climatic phenomenon El Niño, and in Chiapas, negative peaks of the SOI indicate severe affectations and hence, severe drought. This figure shows the strong relationship between severe El Niño and arboreal burned surfaces, which indicate the need for developing special campaigns for these years.

2.   Immediate causes: they refer to human activities that provoke forest fires, in a direct or indirect way (Velez, 1990).

–   52 percent of the fires are due to negligence(agriculture or farming activities), while 29 percent are related to arson. Over17 percent of the fires are from unknown causes.

In terms of the affected area:

  • Pine-oak communities represent 74 percent of the fires, and 61 percent of the total area burned in the state. Fifty-four percent of the total area affecting pine-oak communities was due to surface fires, forty-two percent was affected by crown fires, and the rest were ground fires. Most common pines in the State are (Miranda 1975): Pinusoocarpa, P. pseudostrobus, P.montezumae, P. teocote, and P.tenuifolia (these live between 750-3000 meters and are the ones to suffer more frequent fires). P.hartwegii and P. rudis occur between 2800-4000 meters and don’t frequently suffer from fires due to the cold, wet conditions.
  • Tropical rain forest and montane rain forest represented 7 percent of the incidences, and 18 percent of the total burned area in the State. Fifty-five percent of it’s total burned area was due to fires that affected crowns. Twenty-seven percent of its total burned area was due to ground fires and 17percent was related to surface fires.
  • Evergreen cloud forests represented 0.3 percent of the fires; and less than 1 percent of the total burned area in the State. Ninety-nine percent of the total area burned in the cloud forest was due to surface fires.

In general terms, forest fires in Chiapas are mainly surface fires (80 percent of the fires and 51 percent of the total burned area)(Román et al. 2000). High-intensity crown fires that severely affect the forests occur mainly in years of extreme drought, affected by the global phenomenon El Niño. This was the case of 1997-1998, or 1986-1987.

Figure 3. Variation of the arboreal burned area versus the oscillations of SOI from 1984 to 1999. In 1987, 72.255 ha were affected and 45.771ha in 1998. Medium point of the x-axis separations represent the years, starting in 1984. SOI: Southern Oscillation Index (Tahiti-Darwin) for the dry season. (November to April).
SOI Resource: NOAA web, 2000 Note that the period analyzed in this graphic is longer than the one used for the statistics.

Narrative summary of major wildfire impacts on people, property, and natural resources during the 1990s

Forest fires in Chiapas do represent a problem in the state (Valera 1994). In 1987, Chiapas was considered, together with Madagascar, one of the hottest points in the world (State Government 1992, in Villafuerte et al. 1997). If we use standardized indexes that represent fire frequency and area affected by fires in Chiapas[4], compared with those indexes for the whole Republic, well see that fire frequency in Chiapas(Fig.4) used to have much higher levels during the 1980’s. But during this last decade, it has decreased until it is lower than the national level. However, the area index has always been much higher in Chiapas than in the rest of Mexico. It was 20 times higher in 1986 and 8 times higher in 1998 (Fig.5). Mean burned area in Chiapas is more than 10 times the national level.

During 1993-1999, there were 1362 forest fires in Chiapas, affecting an area of 327,534 ha (SEMARNAP 1999)[5]. This represents 6 percent of Chiapas’ forested land. Twenty-six percent of that area included trees with different severities of burning. Forty-six percent of the area affected herbaceous layers. The mean area of each fire during these7 years was 210 ha.

The importance of forest fires in this southern State refers to the value of its vegetation. Mexico ranks third in the world in terms of megadiversity (Mittermeier 1988. Toledo and Eccardi 1989, Mittermeier and Mittermeier 1992, in Challenger,1998) [6]. Among the States, Chiapas has, together with Oaxaca, the most diverse flora of the Republic (Miranda 1975). It presents 8,248 flora species, 80 percent of the tropical tree species, 33 percent of the reptiles (with important endemisms), 33percent of the amphibians, and 80 percent of the known butterflies in the Mexican tropical rain forests (State Government 1992).

Although forest fires mostly affect non-arboreal layers(74 percent of the total burned area during 1993-1999), 79,011 ha of arboreal communities were affected by several classes of intensity. Fifty-eight percent of the total arboreal layer affected by fires during these 7 years was due to 1998’s forest fires (Román et al. 2000):

  • Surface fires were responsible for 50 percent of the arboreal layer affected. This type of fire (that reaches the lower part of the crown at some points) doesn’t necessarily kill the tree. But the trees can be weakened and become more vulnerable to pests. For example, Dendroctonus frontalis pests, in the National Park of Las Lagunas de Montebello, were enhanced by forest fires that happened there in 1997 and 1998. On the other hand, surface fires can severely affect trees that have not evolved in a fire environment (evergreen cloud forests, or tropical rain forests in their several categories).
  • The other 50 percent of the fires affecting the arboreal layer were crown fires, which were especially important in the years 1997 and 1998. In 1998, the drought conditions were severe due to El Nino. During this period, crown fires affected pine-oak communities, as well as potentially non-flammable communities like tropical rain forest, montane or lower montane rain forest, and evergreen cloud forests (as in Breedlove, 1981). Taking into account the State area occupied by these communities, pine-oak burned the most (3 percent of the State pine-oak communities, or 176,548 ha); tropical rain forest and montane/lower montane rain forest occupied the second position (1.5 percent of the State area, or 53,005 ha); and the evergreen cloud forests represented the smallest area affected (0.05% of the State area affected, or 2384 ha). Of special interest are two tropical rain forest areas that burned in the 1998 fires: Los Chimalapas and The Biosphere Reserve of El Ocote (corridor of Chimalapas, Ishiki, pers.communication, 1999).

Figure 4. Fire frequency index for the State of Chiapas and the Republic of Mexico, 1983-1999.

Figure 5. Burned area index for the State of Chiapas and the Republic of Mexico,1984-1999.

Chimalapas fires case example (García 1999, Figures 6 and 7): La Selva de los Chimalapas is 600,000 hectares located in the Tehuantepec isthmus. Part of its area is placed in Oaxaca and part in Chiapas. Its northern edge is bounded by Uxpanapa and Veracruz and its western boundary contacts the transisthmic road (carretera transístmica). In 1996, almost 80 percent of its area was in excellent conservation condition, consisting of 9 natural ecosystems (Breedlove 1981) (tropical rain forests, montane rain forests, evergreen seasonal forests, evergreen cloud forests, temperate forests (pine-oak), and even Abiesformations (oyameles). This biological diversity has given Chimalapas an exceptional ecological value. Moreover, this tropical formation, together with la Selva Lacandona and La Selva del Ocote, represent the northern location of this type of tropical community, which makes them even more valuable. These areas are found in the confluence of different biogeographical regions, which increases the number of endemisms.

Chimalapas, as is true of the rest of the tropical rain forests in Chiapas, suffers from several pressures: 1) agrarian conflicts and cattle invasion, 2) increase of the cattle area, 3) State legal border conflicts, 4) increase of narco-traffic settlements, and 5) new population settlements (high immigration rates and demographic pressure concentrated at some points). These pressures at areas of higher fire risk (associated with the higher flammability of temperate forest fuels) are the reason for several smaller forest fires at the eastern side.

Fires in Chimalapas started between the 4th and 6th of May in 1998 and burned for 45 days. These fires were characterized by surface, crown, and ground types of fires (SEMARNAP 1999). During the first 3 days there were 17 fire fronts in a horizontal line of 100 km, almost at the same latitude, affecting the heart of the tropical rain forest and the evergreen cloud forests. This is a very inaccessible location, where there are no villages, nor agrarian or cattle activities. The extreme drought associated with the El Niño event of 1997-1998 helped establish the conditions for these fires to spread. On the 7th of June when rain started, there had been 68 forest fires in the area; 17 of them in the heart of the jungle. Only 9 of the fires could be fought. The rest were inaccessible due to topographic reasons and were obscured by smoke. Four hundred farmers helped fight the fires initially, and the number grew to 1000 civil persons later. National and international help also assisted with the firefighting. Finally, the burned area was considered to be more than 100,000 ha, although SEMARNAP reports refer to 25,000 ha.

The SEMARNAP fire field register indicates that the fires burned 15,600 ha in the arboreal layers, 1400 ha in the shrub layers, and 5000 ha in the herbaceous communities (Román et al. 2000). After the fires, land use changes and new population settlements of “unlanded people” have put obstacles in the way of restoration processes (Ishiki, pers. Communication, 1999).

  • The fires of 1998 created a high “environmental”concern for the Chiapas population and its authorities due to several reasons:
  • Smoke produced by the fires covered the sky for almost one month (spreading to several areas of southern USA). Visibility was reduced, the environment was very warm, and combustion particles were responsible for severe breathing diseases in the whole State.
  • Several airports had to close their facilities as visibility didn’t allow the landing of planes.
  • Newspapers and radios were constantly communicating the occurrence of new fires in the State. So the chaotic use of fire and its consequences were more apparent during that year.
  • Potentially non-flammable communities were affected by fire, so the conviction of “ecological disaster” was a constant.
  • Severe drought occurred during the end of 1997 and the first 6 months of 1998, not only in forested areas, but also in agriculture lands. Farmers were concerned about lowered production.
  • Chiapas is a State with important tourism due to its Mayan archaeological sites and its natural resources. Fires that affect national parks and other tourism attractions can produce negative consequences on that sector’s income.

Figure 6. SEMARNAP’s staff in the Chimalapas fire of98. Fire spread to the surrounding vegetation from a forested plot destinated to be transformed into agrarian land, which didn’t use correct security measures. Courtesy of SEMARNAP Tuxla, 1998

 The cause of fires is mainly associated (considering SEMARNAP’s fire field registers) with negligence arising from agrarian and farming activities. These two activities are responsible for 46 percent [7] of the fires and 66.2 percent of the total area affected by fires (Román et al. 2000). However, it is difficult to determine where negligence ends and intentional fires start. In Central America burns are sometimes done with deliberate negligence, letting fires affect much higher areas than the areas that will be cultivated. The objective is to weaken woods in order to obtain forestry cut authorizations or land use changes. This is due to the fact that legislation allows cuts to improve forest health, but restricts commercial cuts, for which several studies have to be presented, as well as paying a fee (Vélez 1986).

Figure 7.1998 forest fire in the Chimalapas jungle, a biological corridor of the Ocotejungle. 22,500 ha burned in this fire, among the three border states: Chiapas, Oaxaca and Veracruz. Courtesy of SEMARNAP Tuxla.1998

Figure 7. 1998 forest fire in the Chimalapas jungle, biological corridor of the Ocote jungle. 22,500 ha burned in this fire, among the three border states: Chiapas, Oaxaca and Veracruz. Courtesy of SEMARNAP Tuxla.1998

Public policies affecting wildfire impacts

There are several laws related to the problem of forest fires in the State. We can divide them into federal and State legislation:

Federal:

  • Forestry and hunting legislation. December of 1992, reformed in May of 1997.
  • General law of ecological equilibrium and environmental conservation. January of 1988, reformed  in December of 1996.
  • Penal code

State (there are 9 documents. Some of the most important are):

  • Law for the prevention, fighting, and control of forest fires in the State of Chiapas. February of  1999.
  • State law of ecological equilibrium and environmental protection. July of 1991. Reformed by the decree law number 26, in February of 1992.
  • Decree law number 35: Declaration of municipalities in Chiapas with high fire risk. July of 1990.
  • Cattle law for the state of Chiapas.

Main points of these laws can be summarized as follows:

Until 1999                          

  • State legislation did not forbid burning for traditional agriculture and/or cattle activities (decree law number 26)
  • State laws did regulate the use of fire, forcing the establishment of several precautionary measures, in order to prevent forest fires when fire was used for traditional activities:

Decree law number 35:

– Creation of security corridors around the area meant to burn: minimum sizes, periods of the year when these corridors must be done, etc.

– Correct location of fuels meant to be burned, as well as several measures referred to fire behaviour in the presence of steep slopes and wind.

– Obligation of notifying the intention to burn to the local authorities and neighbours.

– Number of persons that must take care of the burning process, as well as the prohibition of starting fires in neighbouring field plots at the same time.

Federal legislation did consider and restrict land use changes, without prohibiting them in those areas that fitted the requirements established by the law (Forestry and hunting law).

Federal legislation did force civil participation in fighting and extinguishing fires, with administrative and/or penal sanctions:

Forestry and hunting law (administrative sanctions):

  • To whom, having the obligation, doesn’t prevent nor fight forest fires.
  • To whom, by negligence, provokes forest fires.
  • To those owners of burned areas that don’t notify the authorities of the presence of fire.
  • To whom, without authorization, changes land uses in forested land.
  • To whom, intentionally provokes forest fires (administrative or penal sanction).

 After 1999

Severity of forest fires in 1998 lead to the publication of the State law for the prevention, fighting, and control of forest fires in Chiapas, which:

  • Forbids “slash and burn” activities in those municipalities considered at high risk in the decree law 35 (46 percent of the municipalities in Chiapas), but it does not forbid the use of fire in any areas if it is for agriculture and/or cattle activities. (There are contradictions in those measures.)
  • Includes new type of sanctions, in addition to administrative and penal sanctions:
  • Authorities can decide to eliminate state “field support”, as federal support to any producer that does not take into account the legislation referred to forest fire prevention, fighting, and control.
  • Includes several incentives (preference support, prizes, and federal financing) to those who demonstrate several measures of environmental protection, among them:
  • Having avoided fire, traditional practices of “slash and burn”, or any other environmental impact.
  • Having reduced environmental impacts (deforestation, rational water use…).
  • Having promoted the culture of “no burning”.
  • Having introduced sustainable measures in their agriculture and/or cattle activities.
  • Creates actions destined to enhance the culture of “no burning” (educational measures).
  • Increases the services related to fire prevention and fire warning.

There are in Chiapas, several laws related to the problem of forest fires, but there are few measures to control their applicability. Moreover, measures proposed in some of this legislation depend on federal financing and there is the possibility this might not occur. On the other hand, fire has always been a traditional tool in Mayan culture and it fits into their natural and social conditions. Fire is not, “per se”, the problem, but it is the negligent use of fire together with a socio-economic framework that enhances environmental impacts. It’s impossible to control the use of fire in a State where approximately 60 percent of the inhabitants are rural population (Inegi 1997). This is especially true if alternatives are not proposed or are not useful. In this sense, fire legislation is quite removed from social reality in the State of Chiapas.

Together with the legislation, there are other activities in the state established to create some environmental concern about forest fires:

 -SEMARNAP’s informational activities like speeches and courses.

-Advertising related to prevention of forest fires (wall paintings, radio messages, institutional calls, etc.).

Referring to civil participation in the State, there is a very satisfactory response to firefighting and detection activities. During 1993-1999 civil participation provided, on the average, 65 percent of the total number of firefighters. In several years (1993, 1994), civil firefighters comprised three times the number of official staff (Román et al. 2000). So, although negligence by the civil sector is mainly responsible for starting forest fires in Chiapas, it’s also the civil sector that mainly fights the fires.

 Wildfire Database

  Table 2. Wildfire statistics of Mexico, 1990-1999.

** This year includes 22,000 ha of Los Chimalapas forest fire, that should be divided into two parts, as this fire was located between Oaxaca and Chiapas.

IFFN/GFMC contribution submittedby:

Rosa Maria Roman Cuesta
CREAF. Unidad de Ecologia. Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona
08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona
Spain

 Fax:                          ++34-93-5811312
Tel:                           ++34-93-5813353
e-mail:                      rmroman@einstein.uab.es

References

Alemán, T. 1997. La explotación del bosque en las regiones indígenas: sus aportes y perspectivas en la regeneración de alternativas de uso sostenido de los recursos naturales. In: Los Altos de Chiapas: Agricultura y Crisis rural. Tomo 1: Los recursos naturales”. ECOSUR San Cristóbal, departamento de difución. Ed por Manuel Parra y Blanca Díaz”

Breedlove, D. 1981. Introducción a la flora de Chiapas. Academia de Ciencias de California. Departamento de Botánica. Academia de Ciencias de California. Editor, Dennis Breedlove.

Challenger, A. 1998. Utilización y Conservación de los Ecosistemas Terrestres de México. Pasado, presente y futuro. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y el Uso de la Biodiversidad, 813 p.

Cochrane et al. 1999. Positive feedbacks in the fire dynamic of closed canopy tropical forests. Science 284, 1832-1835.

Deeming, J. et al. 1977. The national fire danger rating system, 1978. Gen. Tech. Report. INT-39. USDA, FS, IFRES. Odgen, Utah, 63 p.

García,M.A. 1999. Incendios en Chimalapas: Paraincendiarios. Coordinador de la ONG Maderas del Sureste AC y del Comité Nacional para la Defensa de los Chimalapas. Ecológica. Fuegos, 1999 pp:4. http://www2.planeta.com/mader/ecotravel/mexico/ecologia/98/0798fuego3.html

Goldammer, J. 1999. Forests on fire. Science 284, 1782-1783.

Inegi. 1997. Anales de Estadística 1997. Secretaría de Hacienda del Estado.

Miranda, F. 1975. La vegetación de Chiapas. 2a Edición ordenada y dirigida por el Ejecutivo del Estado de Chiapas. México. Editorial Progreso.

NOAA web. 2000. What is El Niño? What is La Niña? www.noaa.gov

Poe. 1999 Ley para la prevención , combate y control de los incendios en el Estado de Chiapas (Cap.1, Art.4).

Poe. 1998. Law of The General Ecological Equilibrium, 1988. Reformed by the decree law published in December of 1996. Diario Oficial. Editorial Porrúa. Décimoquinta edición actualizada. México

Poe. 1997. Decree Law for the Reformation of the Forestry law. Publicado en el Periódico Oficial de la Federación, el 20 de mayo 1997.

Poe. 1992. Decree Law Nº26. Publicado en el Periódico Oficial, el 5 de febrero de 1992 (reformas a la ley del equilibrio ecológico y protección ambiente en el estado Chiapas).

Poe. 1990. Decree Law Nº 35. Publicado en el Periódico Oficial el 13 de Junio de 1990). En el que se declaran zonas de alto riesgo de incendios en Chiapas.

Rzedowski, R. 1978. Vegetación de México. Limusa, México.D.F., 172 p.

Rodríguez D., A. 1996. Los incendios forestales. Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo. Mundi-Prensa México, S.A.. 630 p.

Román, R.M. 2000. Estadística de incendios en Chiapas”.(subm.).

Rothermel, R.1983. How to predict the spread rate and intensity of forest and range fires. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper INT-115, 40 p.

Sarh. 1994. Resultados del Inventario Forestal Periódico para el Estado de Chiapas. Sistema nacional de información forestal.

http://www.semarnap.gob.mx/naturaleza/estadistica-am/informe/inicio/index.htm

SEMARNAP. 1999. Informe final de la campaña de prevención y combate de incendios forestales en el estado de Chiapas. Temporada 1998-1999. SEMARNAP Tuxla.

Statal Government. 1992. Nueva legislación ecológica del estado de Chiapas. Talleres gráficos del Estado, Tuxla Gutiérrez, Chiapas.

Valera, J. 1994. Cifras sobre la deforestación de México”. Inventario Nacional Forestal. SEMARNAP web.

Vélez, R. 1986. Incendios forestales y su relación con el medio rural. Revista de Estudios Agro-Sociales. Num. 136, (Julio-Septiembre 1986)

Vélez, R. 1990. Los incendios forestales en España. Ecología, Fuera de Serie nº 1, 213-221.

Villafuerte et al. 1997. La cuestión ganadera y la deforestación. Viejos y nuevos problemas en el trópico y en Chiapas. Universidad de ciencias y artes del estado de Chiapas & Gobierno del estado de Chiapas, 215 p.

[1]This research was supported by the EU under the INCO-DC programme (framework4) as part of the SUCRE project (ERBIC-18-Oct97-0146) [2] We have to remark that this value corresponds to the total forested area of the administrative units that had fires, but overweighted, as fires are recurrent in many places.

Fire results are based on SEMARNAP’s fire field registers.

Another consideration refers to the fact that, during these years (1993-1999), there has been an unusual succession of ENSO’s: 1991-1992; 1993; 1994; 1997-1998 (NOAA website 2000). The last one (1997-1998) had a global repercussion and also affected Chiapas’ fire dynamic, by leading to the occurrence of fires in jungle communities, so area available to fire is overweighted compared to “normal conditions”.

[3] The relationship between fire and “slash and burn” activities is often confused in Chiapas. Slash and burn activities are agricultural systems which respect the natural cycles of vegetation in order to maintain productivity and land regeneration. The problem is that these systems require low demographic pressure (< 25 inhab/km2), as well as extensive forest resources that can be left in fallow long enough to recover (Sanders and Price 1968; Wolf 1983 [in Alemán 1997]). If not enough time is allowed for fallow in the agricultural fields, then slash and burn activities are being deprived of an important feature. There are very few places in the world, as well as in Mexico, were there are still the natural and socio-economic conditions that allow the preservation of slash and burn techniques. Instead we have what is known as “milpa que camina”, which is an irreversible, unidirectional, and rapid system for transforming woods into agricultural lands, with the exploitation of a few agricultural species (Alemán 1997). [4] Fire frequency index= Number of fires/ [Forested area (ha)/10.000]

Fire area index=[Total area affected by fires (ha)/ Forested area (ha)]*100

[5] SEMARNAP official data of fires during 1993-1999 were a bit higher than the data obtained with the fire field registers. (Published data were: 1362 forest fires and 327,534 affected hectares versus 1438 forest fires and 301,759 affected hectares reported in the fire field registers). [6] There are seven Megadiverse countries in the world and they support (altogether) between 50 and 80 percent of the world’s species diversity (Mittermeier 1988, The Economist 1988 [in Challenger 1998]). [7] Negligent acts are responsible of 52 percent of the fires. Negligent acts include several causes. The main ones are agriculture and farming activities, which represent 46 percent of the total fires. The other 6 percent is due to forestry activities, mountaineering, campsites, etc

Top
IFFN No. 27
Country Notes

/by

Mexico: National Forest Fire Report (IFFN No. 17 – July 1997)

 

National Forest Fire Report

(IFFN No. 17 – July 1997, p. 9-14)

In this contribution the actions that México is carrying out to develop its Forest Fire Prevention and Control Programme and the results of the last 10 years are presented.

Biogeography of México: The Mexican Republic is located between the United States of America in the North and Guatemala and Belize in the South and Southwest, between the parallels 15° and 32° N. Three main vegetation types are distinguished:

Temperate-Cold Forest: Formed mainly by the coniferous species Pinus spp. and Abies spp. and by the broadleaved species Quercus spp. and Alnus spp. This forest region occupies an estimated area about 30 million hectares.

Tropical Forest: This forest zone is characterized by great species diversity among which the most important representatives are Cedrela, Swietenya, Achras, Brosimum, Cordia, Metopium, Dialium, and others. This forest region covers an area of 26 million hectares.

Arid Zone: The vegetation is represented by species of Opuntia, Acacias, Agaves, and others. This ecoregion occupies an estimated area about 58 million hectares.

 

6619 Byte

 

Causes of deterioration of the ecosystems: It is estimated that 600,000 hectares of forest are destroyed annually. The main cause (90%) is attributed to deforestation (forest conversion) for agricultural purposes. Forest fires barely contribute to ca. 2.2% of the total destruction (Fig.1).

Fire Causes: In México the rural communities use fire for their agricultural activities. It is considered that the main share (60%) of wildfires is caused by grassland burning and the practice of shifting cultivation in the tropical zone (Tab.1).

   

Tab.1. Causes of wildfires in México  

Fire Cause

Occurrence (%)

Agricultural Activities

60.0 %

Intentional

11.8 %

Smokers

10.1 %

Camp Fires

8.4 %

Other (illegal land occupation, power lines, lightning)

6.1 %

Forest Operations 

1.9 %

Roads and Railroads

1,0 %

Other land-use Activities

0.7 %

 

Types of Fires: It is considered that 90% of the total fires are surface fires, and only 10% are crown and ground fires. Surface fires mainly affect the herbaceous vegetation layer and the natural regeneration of the forest, and are relatively easy to control.

Organization of Fire Control: The Federal Government, through the Secretary of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (SEMARNAP), is responsible for the control of forest fires. At the administrational and operational levels the Subsecretary of Natural Resources acts through 32 Delegations in all the States of the Republic. Its authorization and action is based mainly on the Forest Law, the Law of Ecological Balance and Protection to the Environment, and on the Mexican Official Standard about the use of fire.

Resources: The resources for fire management provided by SEMARNAP are given in Table 2.

 

Tab.2. Fire management resources in México

Camps

99

Look out towers

64

Vehicles

240

Firefighter Crews

150

Firefighters

2000

Radios

715

 

Aerial Equipment: Recently SEMARNAP acquired one Bell 212 helicopter, one Bell 206, and two light fixed-wing airplanes (Cessna T-310). These are used for fire detection and the transport of firefighters. At the critical time of fires (March-May) SEMARNAP rents helicopters from private companies.

Coordination with other Agencies: A key element in the fire programme is the efficient coordination with other government agencies, such as the Secretary of the National Defense (Army), the Secretary of Marine, the Secretary of Government, the State Governments, as well as the owners of forests and volunteers. In 1996, for instance, the army supported control efforts in 287 forest fires with 13,555 soldiers and contributed substantially to reduce the risk of large fire situations.

The National Fire Programme

The National Fire Programme consists of three major elements, the prevention, the detection and combat of wildfires. 

Prevention: The prevention element comprises all those actions that are dedicated to avoiding the presence of fires in the forests and to increase the awareness of the population about the importance of forests and forest protection. The prevention programme includes the involvement of mass media (TV, radio, press, etc.), the use of flyers, the organization of conferences and other direct actions with the inhabitants of the rural areas.

The prevention programme includes the use of prescribed burning and the establishment of control/buffer lines in zones of high risk in order to diminish the probability of occurrence and spread of wildfires.

The prevention programme also includes training and the provision of equipment. In the last fire season the prevention programme carried out 21,912 prescribed burns and established 6,292 kilometres of control/buffer lines.

Detection: An early and opportune detection which leads to the fast response and rapid control of the fire assures the reduction of large fires which are economically expensive and environmentally destructive. Means of detection utilize the full terrestrial and aerial support of the organization (e.g., fire towers, airplanes), commercial airlines, and the general public. A national telephone number has been established to which the public could call to report fires without cost.

In the last fire season a total of 40,227 terrestrial patrols, 64 operating lookout towers and 136 hours of aerial detection were involved in the programme.

Fire Control: The fire control programme includes all infrastructures, equipment and operations required to suppress wildfires. The available resources are listed above. In the fire season of 1997 more than 98,000 firefighters from all agencies were involved in fire control operations.

Fire Statistics

Fire statistics at the national level for the past ten years (1987-96) are compiled in Table 3. As of 10 July 1997 (date of writing this report) a total of 5,105 fires were counted, affecting 107,237 hectares. Out of this area burned, 70% are grasslands and brushlands which usually recover in the following rainy season/vegetation period. 30% of the land area affected by fire is forested, with varying degrees of damages. Comparing the data of 1997 with 1996 it can be seen that the number of fires was reduced by 45% and the area burned by 56% (Tab.4).

The fire season normally includes the months of January to August, the most critical being March, April, and May (Fig.2 and 3).

 

Tab.3. Wildland fire statistics of México for the decade1987-96.  

Year

Number of Fires

Area burned (ha)

Area/fire (ha)

1987

9,263

287,347

31.02

1988

10,942

518,265

47.36

1989

9,946

507,471

51.02

1990

3,443

80,400

23.35

1991

8,261

269,266

31.23

1992

2,829

44,401

15.69

1993

10,251

235,020

22.93

1994

7,830

141,502

18.07

1995

7,860

309,087

39.32

1996

9,256

248,765

26.88

Total

80,241

2,641,524

32.92

Average

8,024

264,152

32.92

 

 

Tab.4. Comparison of wildland fire data for the years 1996 and1997

Year

Number of Fires

Area Burned (ha)

National Average (ha/fire)

1997

5,105

107,237

21.01

1996

9,216

244,318

26.51

Difference

-4,111

-137,081

-5.50

Percentage difference

-45%

-56%

-21%

 

  mex_1_3.gif (17766 Byte)

  Fig.2. Average distribution of fire occurrence in Méxicobetween January and August.

 

 

  mex_1_2.gif (21249 Byte)

  Fig.3. Average distribution of area burned by wildlandfires in México between January and August.

 

The ten states with highest fire occurrence contributed to 62.27% of the total area affected by fires in the 1997 season (Tab.5).

 

Tab.5. Fire statistics of the 10 States of México most affected bywildfires  

Mexican States

Number of Forest Fires

Area Burned (ha)

Indicator (ha/fire)

Chiapas

181

48,114

265.82

Oaxaca

237

10,629

44.85

Baja California

38

9,112

239.79

Guerrero

241

5,636

23.39

Michoacan

611

5,604

9.17

Sonora

23

4,713

204.91

México

1,496

4,517

3.02

Chihuahua

237

2,930

12.36

Nayarit

56

2,420

43.21

Colima

59

2,254

38.20

Subtotal

3,179

95,929

30.18

% of National Total

62.27

89.46

  Others

1,926

11,308

5.87

National Total

5,105

107,237

21.01

 

México has considerably improved the preparedness and management capabilities to cope with the problem of wildland fires during the past ten years. México has received support in special fire management training from the United States of America, Canada and Spain, and expresses appreciation for this support.

Fighting forest fires requires enormous financial budgets, but it is without doubt that the combat of fire is less expensive when it is either prevented or controlled before it becomes too large. Therefore fire prevention must receive more attention.

 

 

From:  Oscar Cedeño Sanchez
Director de Protección
Address: 
Dirección General Forestál
Progreso No.5
Col el Carmen Coyacán
C.P.04110
México, D.F.

Fax: ++52-5-554-7097
Tel:  ++52-5-658-7452
e-mail: inforest@servidor.unam.mx

Top
Country Notes

 

/by

Mexico: A Brief History of Forest Fires in Mexico (IFFN No. 19 – September 1998)

 

A Brief History of Forest Fires in Mexico

(IFFN No. 19 – September 1998,p. 32-35)

Introduction

Mexico has a long and interesting history of forest fires. The conditions exist for natural fires, though human settlement has, for millennia, dominated the geography and dynamics of burning. Today, from 2,740 to >12,873 (partial figure, 1998 fire-season) registered forest fires burn between 44,401 ha to 518,265 ha per year. Only 7% of these are due to natural and unknown causes, according to official reports. Mexico’s history helps to explain much of its current condition.

Ancient Anthropogenic Fire

With human colonization, fire risk, fire danger, and fire frequency all gradually increased through millennia, altering both fire regimes and vegetation. From ancient times, for example, native Mexicans used fire on grasslands to assist hunting. Presently, we can see the consequences of these historic practices in the two extremes of Mexico’s fire gradient. One extreme is deforestation, although not always fire-related (300,000 ha annually). The other is fire exclusion, which is typical of several commercial pine forests. Natural and anthropogenic fires help to maintain various vegetation types, as in the case of several pine forests (Fig.1.)

Ancient Civilizations

Many activities of ancient Mexicans started forest fires. For example, they felled trees by cutting a strip around the trunk with a stone or copper axe, then put fuels at the base to start a fire; this eventually toppled the tree (Moncayo 1975). In Teotihuacan, wood charcoal was used to feed ovens to process building and ceramic materials (Vázquez-Yañez 1982), so sites for charcoaling were common, as they still are today in several oak regions. Both these activities increased risk, and forest fires resulted because of accidental or negligent causes. In the absence of metal tools, agriculturalists also used fire extensively to clear woody areas.

In tropical areas, the Olmecs developed an efficient slash-and-burn cultivation some 3,500 years ago, and that agricultural system was used by the Mayas as well. The steps of this system, which is still broadly used in tropical Mexico and which has as its main crop maize, are: select the land, measure and delimit the chosen site, cut the vegetation, clear a fire break, burn, fence, sow, control weeds, and harvest. The present empirical knowledge that peasant descendants of the Mayas have by which they control fire behaviour according to particular needs and site characteristics tells us about the ancient fire lore of the Mayas. Today, however, with an increase in population and a reduction in the land surface available per native owner, the efficient 30 or so year rotation of old has reduced to some three years, with adverse ecological effects and a loss of productivity (Fig.2.)

But the original spirit of the people was conservationist. They knew that wild plants and animals provided them with many goods and services essential to survival, and this was good reason to consider them as gods. So even as human population increased, society stratified, resources became scarce, and droughts and hunger occurred, the care of wildlife was a communal and official task (Aguilera 1985). The Chichimec king Nopaltzin established norms to restrict the burning of grasslands and forests, and his grandson Texcocan king Netzahualcoyotl dictated laws to protect forests (Villaseñor 1980).

The useful and feared fire, moreover, was part of the rich ancient Mexican mythology, as shown by the notion of fire as a renewal element in the Aztec ceremony of the “new fire.” This ceremony reflects a preoccupation with the fate of the sun. In the night at the end of a 52-year cycle, every fire in temples and houses was extinguished, and at the same time a group of priests lit a new fire on a hill near the city. Then the people knew that this world would end and a new cycle begin (Vázquez-Soto 1972). Another example is the god of fire Xiuhtecuhtli, also known as Huehueteotl, or old god, represented by an elder with a brazier on his head.

The Colony

After the conquest of ancient Mexico by Spain, agriculture in forest lands intensified. This fact plus such native practices as charcoaling and those practices introduced by the conquerors such as mining and cattle raising, along with the demand for fuel wood as a source of energy, greatly increased forest exploitation (Gutiérrez-Palacio 1989) and of course forest fires. The regidores de montes (a type of forest ranger) had as their responsibilities to care for the forest, including the coordination of rural communities to fight fire (Quevedo 1928). Legislation supported fire prevention and control, as with the Mesta ordinance, which established fines as penalties for those responsible for forest fires (Zuno 1973). But all these good intentions and legislation were not sufficient, and the degradation of the forests continued. An independent Mexico created a Forest Service and a forest ranger corps in 1861 (Verduzco-Gutiérrez 1959).

The 20th Century

In 1900 Miguel Angel de Quevedo successfully convinced the federal government to establish a forest protection program, over which he subsequently presided. This institution became the primary organ for modern reforestation and the control of forest fires. During the 1920s several reforms accelerated forest fire protection. The first forest law was promulgated, which included provisions for forest fires. Technical trips were conducted to the USA, technical papers on fire were published in the journal México Forestal, and the installation of towers for fire detection was begun. The era identified fire as the main destructive factor of forests, considered the prevention of fires crucial, and recognized humans as the major cause of fires. By the 1930s a special Forest Fires Office developed. It had as a strategy, supported by law, the coordination of non-federal human and material resources to fight fire and the creation of volunteer corps. But resources for fire control were scarce.

In 1961 President Adolfo López Mateos established a 5-year plan that increased dramatically the financial, human, and material resources to fight fire, primarily in Central Mexico, the critical area. Since then, with highs and lows, the magnitude and efficiency of human, financial, and material resources has increased. Presently, according to Cedeño-Sánchez (unpublished) the federal government has more than 1,800 fire fighters, 133 detection towers, 145 vehicles, while forest owners provide more than 4,000 fire fighters, 96 detection towers, and 313 vehicles, among other resources. A large proportion of the fire fighters have received training courses of middle to high level. In the 1960s the government brought five helicopters for fire detection. By the 1980s helicopters and planes participated in fire control as well. Also in the 1980s computerized systems such as BEHAVE (USA) and EXTINGE (Mexico) were adopted for fire modeling and the development of fire danger and risk maps (Rodríguez-Trejo 1996). Additionally, prescribed burns are applied on larger surfaces, with more diverse objectives.

Final Words

Historically forest fires have been an important tool for agriculture and cattle ranching in Mexico. Such practices have contributed as fire causes even to the present day, thus assisting deforestation. But it must be recognized also that the frequent surficial fires in several regions have helped maintain pine forests and have reduced the danger of crown fires. The size and efficiency of fire fighting in Mexico continues to progress. For example, during recent years the average size of forest fires has been less than 40 ha/fire. Moreover, the universities and forest research centers are focusing more on several aspects of forest fires for both operational needs and fire ecology.

Brief update: The 1998-fire season

This was the hardest fire season in Mexican history. By 3 June 1998, near to the end of the regular fire-season in the majority of the territory, 12,873 fires affected 439,945 ha. Because of El Niño, Mexico experimented the worst drought in 70 years and that complicated severely the fire season. 60 persons died fighting the forest fires, and the smoke produced in central Mexico, Southern Mexico and Central America, reached several USA states, as Texas, Georgia, Arizona and Florida. The smoke produced pollution problems to several cities as Mexico City, Villahermosa, San Cristóbal de las Casas, among others. Several evacuations were done in some periurban areas and villages. By the mentioned date, the president authorized in two occasions an increment in budget to fight the fire, and the USA offered and provided generous technical and financial help to fight the fires. 6,000 fire fighters were active, plus 139,000 elements of the Army, and thousands of volunteers also participated. 57 aircraft from Mexico, the USA and Canada were used in combat activities and the cost of this season it was 290 million Mexican pesos (US$33.3 million), without taking in account the expenses by the governments of each state.

Acknowledgments

To Dr. Stephen J. Pyne, for his valuable comments to this paper and review of the English language. To Dr. Johann G. Goldammer, for the edition and opportunity to publish this material, and to the CONACYT, who supports my Ph.D. studies.

References

Aguilera, C. 1985. Flora y fauna mexicana. Mitología y tradiciones. Everest Mexicana. México, D.F., 204 p.

Cedeño-Sánchez, O. Inédito. Programa de incendios forestales de la Secretaría Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre y sus estadísticas. Memoria II Congreso Forestal Mexicano. Toluca, Edo. de México, 12-16 Jul., 1993. Gob. Edo Méx/Probosque/SARH/SEDESOL/ANCF/AMPF/UACH/INIFAP, 14 p.

Gutiérrez-Palacio, A. 1989. Conservacionismo y desarrollo del recurso forestal. Texto guía forestal. Trillas. México, D.F., 41-45.

Moncayo R., F. 1975. Las culturas indígenas mexicanas y los bosques. México y sus Bosques XIV(4), 13-22.

Quevedo, M. A. de. 1928. Los incendios de nuestros bosques y la necesaria atención para prevenirlos. Revista México Forestal VI (11).

Rodríguez-Trejo, D. A. 1996. Incendios Forestales. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo/Mundiprensa. México, D.F., 630 p.

Vázquez-Soto, J. 1972. The significance of forest fires in Mexico. In Fire in the environment. Symposium proceedings. May 1-5, 1972.

Denver, Colorado. USDA, FS/Canada Forest Fire Service/Mexico Forest Fire Service/USA Forest Fire Service/NAFC, FAO, 25-28.

Vázquez-Yañez, C. 1982. Deterioro ambiental. CECSA/CNCB. México, D.F., 59 p.

Verduzco-Gutiérrez, J. 1959. La investigación forestal en México. Memoria II Convención Nacional Forestal. México, D.F., 389-396.

Villaseñor A., R. 1980. Desarrollo histórico del subsector forestal. Memoria Aspectos económicos y sociales de la actividad forestal. Pub. Esp. 18. INIF. México, D. F.

Zuno H., J. G. 1973. El pensamiento del hombre sobre el árbol. Tomo IV. Historia general de la cuestión forestal mexicana. Comisión Forestal del Estado de Jalisco. Guadalajara, Jal. pp. 45-56.

 

 

From: Dante Arturo Rodríguez-Trejo
Address:
División de Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente
Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Chapingo
Edo. de México, CP 56230
MEXICO

Presently Ph.D. student at:

School of Forest Resources and Conservation
University of Florida
226 Newins Ziegler Hall
PO Box 110410
USA – Gainesville, FL 32611-0410

e-mail: dart@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

Top
IFFN No. 19
Country Notes

 

/by

Mexico: Mexican Fires of 1998 (IFFN No. 20 – March 1999)

 

Mexican Fires of 1998

(IFFN No. 20 – March 1999,p. 61-63)

In 1998 Mexico suffered its worst fire season on record. Caught in the oscillations of an unusually heavy ENSO, the fires began early and continued late (Fig.1). Hurricanes twice slammed into the Pacific side of the southern states, encouraging fuels; then seasonal rains failed to arrive, either from the south (Pacific) or later from the north (Gulf of Mexico). Drought, temperatures, and winds reached historic proportions in many regions. Traditional burning – fundamental to Mexican agriculture and pastoralism – soon escalated out of control. Complicating factors included drug traffickers in some areas and rebellion in Chiapas.

6240 Byte

Fig. 1. Comparative burned area by years

 

While all the Mexican states experienced wildfire, the heaviest zones were along the Sierra Madre Occidental, the central Highlands, and the tropical mountains of Oaxaca and Chiapas (Fig.2). Officially, 14,302 fires covered over 583,664 ha. The area burned was roughly twice the average.

4207 Byte

Fig. 2. Map of burned area by Mexican states (1 January – 15 July 1998)

 

6962 Byte

Fig. 2. Fire causes in Mexico1998

 

An estimated 26% of the burned landscapes were forested, 32% were grasslands, and 42% brushlands. Some 97% of the fires had human origins.

Environmental damage was extensive. Apart from the often severe burns, following drought, a number of national parks and nature reserves suffered, resulting in a declaration of environmental emergency in Oaxaca and Chiapas. Grave concerns centered especially on the fires that threatened Los Chimalapas, a preserve of spectacular biodiversity in a cloud forest for which natural fire is rare. Thousands of rural Mexicans had to evacuate their homes. Subsequent heavy rains have further worsened the aftereffects, particularly in the Federal District and Chiapas.

Smoke caused a major deterioration of air quality in Mexico City and submerged many cities, from Villahermosa to Veracruz, in chronic haze.

Then the pall spiraled into the southern United States, causing a pronounced decay in air quality in Texas and Louisiana, in particular.

Recent research also implicates the smoke in a higher proportion of positive lightning in those regions (see Lyons et al [1998]).

Control costs were high. Mexico mounted a massive response, moving beyond the normal interinstitutional group headed by the Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP) and creating an emergency intersecretarial group at the federal level. An estimated 823,971 manhours of firefighting – national and state employees, army personnel, campesinos, volunteers – all supported the suppression effort. A total of 60 firefighters died. Aircraft involvement provides a useful index of this extraordinary year. For 1995-97, SEMARNAP deployed three planes and six helicopters. During the 1998 season it fielded 57 planes, 25 helicopters, three Skycranes, and a CL-415. The United States assisted with over 50 advisors, firefighting materiel, and an infrared-mapping aircraft. Expenses raced ahead of the 40 million pesos (US$4 million) budgeted to exceed 290 million pesos (US$29 million).

The response to the fires within Mexico has been immediate and widespread, a gamut of political alarm that has extended from villages to the presidency. The press offered unprecedented, daily converage. Scientists, institutes, and universities are all committing research to understand the particular consequences of these fires, and what might be done to ameliorate their damages, but also the larger question of Mexico’s fire ecology.

Accordingly, a review of the national fire protection system is underway. SEMARNAP has outlined a massive restoration program aimed primarily at timber salvage, soil stabilization, and reforestation. The Comision Nacional Para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) has reviewed the consequences of the fires relative to Mexico’s efforts at nature conservation, especially their impact on biodiversity. The United States is extending assistance through its Forest Service (Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance) and Agency for International Development for training, personnel exchanges, and advice on landscape restoration.

The relevant Mexican agencies have posted an excellent statistical summary of the season and their response on a comprehensive internet site. Consult:

http://www.semarnap.gob.mx/naturaleza/emergencias/incendios

Programme for reforestation of areas burned in 1998:
http://www.semarnap.gob.mx/ssrn/conaf/restaura.htm

Fires in Mexico 1998: An analysis of threats to biodiversity
http://www.conabio.gob.mx/incendios/incendios.pl?numero=1

References

Lyons, Walter A. et al, “Enhanced Positive Cloud-to-Ground Lightning in Thunderstorms Ingesting Smoke from Fires,” Science 282 (2 Oct 1998), pp. 77- 80.

Rodriguez Trejo, Dante Arturo. Incendios Forestales (Universidad Autonoma Chapingo and Mundi-prensi Mexico, 1996)

 

 

Dante A. Rodriguez Trejo and Stephen J. Pyne
School of Forest Resources and Conservation
University of Florida
226 Newins-Zeigler Hall
PO Box 110410
Gainesville, FL 32611-0410
USA
Email: dante@ufl.edu
Department of History
Arizona State University
PO Box 872501
Tempe, AZ 85287-2501
USA
Email: stephen.pyne@asu.edu

Top
IFFN No. 20
Country Notes

 

/by