Project no. Fp6-018505 Project Acronym fire paradox

1Introduction

In Europe, as in numerous parts of the world, humans have been using fire for many thousands of years to regulate natural ecosystems and land-use systems. However, it is also well known that its misuse or its complete exclusion may result in catastrophic wildfires. The consequences of wildfires are even more dramatic at the urban/forest interface, endangering not only forest ecosystems but also human lives and their goods. In Mediterranean countries, forest fires are the most important damaging factor, consuming 300 000 to 500 000 ha of forests and woodlands every year (EC, 2006).

During a severe fire season (forests exposed to very hot and dry climatic conditions), regular fire fighting means are unable to control the situation. The year 2003 was a good example, when very well equipped European Regions, such as South Eastern France or Portugal, were facing extraordinary difficult situations, even when thousands of fire fighters and extensive use of ground and aerial means were available. In the year 2006, the region of Galicia in Spain had severe problems with wildfires, and Greece in 2007 has experienced what was one of the worst fire seasons in many decades.

Due to all these happenings, 31 partners including Universities, Research Centres, Fire Management Agencies, International Networks, SMEs and Non-Governmental Organizations from 13 countries (Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Italy, Morocco, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia and the United Kingdom) have joined together to develop from 2006-2010 the Integrated Project “FIRE PARADOX”- An innovative Approach of the Integrated Wildland Fire Management Regulating the Wildfire Problem by the Wise Use of Fire: Solving the FIRE PARADOX”.

The present deliverable is concerned specifically with fire detection. In order to minimize the damages associated to wildfire is crucial to have, primarily, a good prevention. When fire prevention fails, fire-fighting steps must be initiated, but this can only happen following detection. A quick detection is a crucial aspect of fire fighting, as it allows to intervene when the fire is still beginning, preventing it from becoming a large, uncontrollable fire. Fire detection is based in a series of activities with the following objectives: discovery, localization and report to the communication centre (Ruiz, 2000).

This deliverable, incorporated in Module 7 (Policies and practices assessment), is focused on the review of the existing wildfire detection systems in Europe and Morocco. This analyse is the first step to develop proposals to improve the efficiency of wildfire timely intervention systems in European countries to be delivered on February 2010.

This report has the specific objectives to present the fire detection systems used in the European and North African countries, what kind of technologies are being used as detection systems, and what are the human resources working on detection and what is their training or background. However, the contents of training programmes are not dealt with here.

In the final deliverable (due in February 2010), proposals for the enhancement of European detection systems will be presented, based on a detailed analysis of geographical coverture, financial support, detection efficiency and other relevant topics.

2Official fire detection systems

One of the earliest activities in forest fire control was the organization of patrols through forested areas to discover any fires that might have occurred since the last patrol. Patrolmen travelled the forest on foot, by canoe, or horseback and were usually equipped to suppress small fires that they might find (Chandler et al. 1983). Those patrolmen generally followed the established trails and favoured high ground where the altitude gave them the advantage to detect easily columns of smoke rising from the forest.

According to the same author, the experience and the knowledge of these rangers and patrolmen of the best high places to detect fires, allowed the appearance of the first lookout towers and cabins, from which the ranger or observer could survey the surrounding forest without having to move about.

Aerial detection appeared after World War I. Aircraft were recognized to have a high potential as fire detection platforms. In the USA, the first use of aircraft in forestry was in the 1920’s for fire detection and other forms of forest observation.

Up to our days, there exists a complementarity between lookouts, aerial and mobile detection methods. All of them use as an instrument the human eye.

Since the 80’s, electronic instruments and new technologies have been designed and used, if not to eliminate the need for the human eye, to extend its capability of detecting incipient fires (Artsybashev, 1984; Chandler et al. 1983).

It should be stressed, however, that in forested areas having a high human population, a good proportion of fires are detected by the public, in spite of the existence of organised detection systems (Chandler et al. 1983; FAO, 2001).

Buck, in 1938, and Davis, in 1959, divided the elapsed time from the origin of a fire to first arrival of control forces into the following parts:

1. 
   Discovery – time from origin to when fire is first seen;
   
2. 
   Report – time from first discovery to receipt of report by control organization;
   
3. 
   Getaway – time from receipt of fire report to dispatch of control forces;
   
4. 
   Travel – time to get to the fire.
   

The first is strictly a function of detection: nothing can be done until a fire is seen. The second is also a direct responsibility of the detector but dependent on communication facilities and subject to administrative facilitation. The last two points are beyond the scope of the present deliverable.

The best way of reducing fire fighting costs and fire losses is, therefore, early detection and rapid extinguishment (Chandler et al. 1983). The fire detection systems can be divided in three major groups:

• 
  Terrestrial detection systems – It includes fixed ground surveillance (lookout towers) and mobile ground surveillance (mobile brigades);
  
• 
  Aerial detection – helicopters, airplanes;
  
• 
  New technologies for fire detection – Infrared and video cameras, satellites with remote sensing, laser detection and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s).
  

At this point we will explore, which are the more common detection systems and both their advantages and disadvantages. To synthesize the last two points, several authors were the bibliographic source, namely, Chandler et al. (1983), Vélez et al. (2000), Cotec et al. (2005), Pérez et al. (2007), Correa et al. (2007), Gonzalo, et al. (2007) and Victoria (2007).