Brazil – Emergency Fire Prevention and Control Project F: Sustainability and Risks

Emergency Fire Prevention and Control Project

F: Sustainability and Risks

1. Sustainability

  1. Financial: Investment costs in fire prevention activities are low in comparison to the high potential losses from wildfires. As a result, agencies at all levels of government would be likely to continue to support these efforts in the longer term to minimize costs associated with fires.

  2. Political/Institutional: The emergency response task forces and mechanisms implemented under this project would be adaptable to other types of emergencies as well. Thus, federal and state agencies would be likely to maintain the emergency response infrastructure to better coordinate future fire and non-fire efforts.

2. Critical Risks (reflecting assumptions in the fourth column of Annex 1):



Risk Rating

Risk Minimization Measure

Lack of institutional ownership/ participation by states and municipalities, NGO’s and private sector


Transparency in project design and implementation and early integration and consultation and transfer of some resources to states and municipalities, NGO’s and the private sector would enhance project ownership and encourage consistent participation. Local communities and dwellers (landowners, farmers, miners, etc.) fail to cooperate and partake in the training and prevention activities.


Early involvement and consultation with potentially affected communities. . Clear definition of training and educational programs and of the potential benefits derived from their participation. . The early establishment of local brigades would develop a communal sense to care for their resources. Large fires overwhelm the capacity of institutions to adequately respond


Minimize the likelihood that large fires would occur. Develop contingency plans including large scale participation of the private sector and armed forces to address priority areas. COverall conflict and competition over the allocation of resources among executing agencies.


Timely transparent dissemination of criteria determining allocation of information regardingequipment and financial resources.procurement and distribution. Clear guidelines that illustrate the allocation of resources in function of emergency demand and risk prone determined areas. Lack of operational procedures in how to deal with emergency situations. .


DevelopmentElaboration and dissemination of emergency operational procedures to stakeholders, task-force leaders, states and municipalities.

Overall Risk Rating



Risk Rating – H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), N (Negligible or Low Risk)


3. Possible Controversial Aspects:

In the event of multiple, large-scale fires, difficult decisions may have to be made regarding the areas that would receive priority. . As a result, there is potential for conflict among states and municipalities demanding limited resources. . In addition, domestic and international concern for indigenous groups living in the Deforestation Arc may increase as a result of the prioritization activities in multiple fire situations. . The project is designed to mitigate these controversies by basing deployment decisions on the objective criteria and risk assessment activities outlined in Component 1. . The technical criteria for each decision should be fully transparent.

The potential for controversy may also exist between public support in urban areas for the suppression of traditional agricultural practices in the region. Public information and education campaigns included in Component 23 are designed to minimize such conflicts.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email