|
Fire Chronicle #10
|
Laura McCarthy, Forest Trust
|
Jun 19, 2002 10:48 PDT
|
FIRE CHRONICLE: Stories of the National Fire Plan
Number 10
June 19, 2002
POOR COMMUNITIES MOST THREATENED BY WILDFIRE
By Laura McCarthy
Fire management officials estimate that 10-15 million people live in
wildland-urban interface settings in the western United States.
According to Bob Doppelt, Director of the University of Oregon's Center
for Watershed and Community Health (CWCH), between 3-5 million of these
residents lack adequate resources to protect themselves from wildfire. A
new study commissioned by the CWCH assessed the impact of wildfire on
poor communities. The study concluded that wildfire had a
disproportionately greater effect on low-income households -- a
population that includes people whose income is below the federal
poverty level, as well as people whose incomes cannot cover their basic
economic needs with enough left over for wildfire protection.
All communities, whether wealthy or poor, suffer direct economic
consequences when wildfire destroys homes, However, poor people are more
likely to loose all of their assets – buildings, possessions, livestock,
and vehicles – when fire strikes. Wealthier families are more likely to
have home insurance to replace their lost possessions and usually have
financial assets, in the form of bank accounts and investments, that
fire does not affect. Poor communities usually lack high-quality fire
protection services and the residents cannot always muster the resources
to fireproof their homes.
Wildfires also have indirect economic impacts that have a greater effect
on low-income people. Wildfires often disrupt normal commercial activity
by causing homes to be evacuated and work places to close. The need for
short-term lodging or longer-term alternative housing, as well as the
temporary loss of work, can overwhelm low-income families that do not
have financial reserves. Fires can also curtail the supply of
subsistence foods, native plants, and building supplies that sustain
many traditional and indigenous communities.
The CWCH report noted that services provided by fire prevention programs
through federal and state land management agencies are not connected in
any way to the economic assistance programs of poverty alleviation
agencies and organizations. The National Fire Plan, which guides federal
and state fire management, has as one of its five stated goals “to
improve fire protection for rural communities.” If the National Fire
Plan is to achieve this goal for rich and poor communities alike, the
effect of wildfire on low-income people must be addressed. The CWCH
suggests that there are opportunities for federal land management
agencies to extend their fire protection services to poor rural
communities by building linkages with social service agencies and
organizations.
However, the CWCH found that none of the existing fire risk reduction
and post-fire assistance programs systematically addresses the needs of
poor families and communities. For example, the programs funded through
the National Fire Plan do not recognize that poor, rural communities
have less ability to reduce fire risks on their own or that low-income
household will suffer greater consequences if fire does occur. Less than
5% of the funds for the National Fire Plan have gone to support
fire-proofing and other fire prevention activities (for any
communities), and even less has gone to underwrite the costs of
fire-proofing the homes and communities of poor people. Agency research
makes clear that fire-proofing individual structures is the most
effective fire prevention strategy, and these measures would be
especially cost-effective if directed toward poor households and
communities.
Bob Doppelt is drawing attention to the need for a targeted effort to
assist poor communities in protecting themselves from fire. George
Ramirez, a community forester in Manzano, NM, is grateful for the
recognition of a problem he has long been aware of. “If we lose our
homes, we lose everything,” he said. Doppelt recommends that the first
step is to collect data that correlates high poverty areas with forests
that have a high risk of fire. The second step is to identify the
redundancy, gaps, and weak areas in fire prevention services available
to poor communities and to develop a coordinated strategy to fill the
gaps. Third, Doppelt suggests testing the strategy through pilot
projects that build the capacity of poor communities to take fire
protection measures. Finally, programs in the National Fire Plan will
need to be adapted to direct at least some funding to poor communities
that are most severely threatened by wildfire.
FOR MORE INFORMATION visit the University of Oregon Center for Watershed
and Community Health website to download a copy of the report
(cw-@uoregon.edu). Questions and comments may be directed to Bob
Doppelt at 541-346-0687 or by email: bdop-@darkwing.uoregon.edu
FIRE CHRONICLE is edited by the Forest Trust. We welcome your comments,
stories, and observations about how the national fire plan is being
implemented (just send a reply message and it will go to the list
moderator). To subscribe to FIRE CHRONICLE or to read past issues go to
http://www.topica.com/lists/firechronicles/ or send an email message to
lau-@theforesttrust.org
COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP COMMUNICATOR is an electronic bulletin that
provides information about the national Community Stewardship
Collaborative’s effort to find solutions to issues related to
large-scale watershed projects on the national forests and the national
fire plan. The bulletin is prepared by the Pinchot Institute for
Conservation and is available by contacting nra-@pinchot.org
PAST ISSUES OF FIRE CHRONICLE:
1. 2002 Fire Plan Appropriations will Benefit from 2001 Experience
2. Wildland-Urban Interface Definition a Barrier to Accountability
3. Stewardship Blocks: Innovative Tool Brings Fire Plan Benefits into
Community
4. Youth Training Needed for Fire Plan to Benefit Local Workforce
5. Grants Get National Fire Plan Money into Communities
6. Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Creates New Solution to
Gridlock
7. Permits Regulate Prescribed Burning On Private Land
8. Accountability Remains a Key Issue for National Fire Plan
9. National Partnership Advances Landscape-Scale Forest Res
|
|
 |
|
