Vegetation Management Planning in
Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems: A Summary
and Synthesis1
Cecile Rosenthal2
The six papers on vegetation management planning raise important and
controversial issues for all levels of
government. These issues fall into four
categories:
1.
Absence of basic policy direction.
2.
Impact of private property rights.
3.
Need to consider fire in private
land use planning.
4.
Lack of informed participants.
ABSENCE OF BASIC POLICY DIRECTION
Only the National Park Service (whose
policy to preserve natural systems is set
by legislation) is relatively free from
controversy over land use allocations. In
other agencies, however, decisions on
allocations must be made before planning
can begin for vegetation management. It
is essential that planners and the public
resolve basic questions such as
is not possible to benefit from conflicting
uses that require different management
techniques. Eventually choices must be
made, such as
1.
Should a fire be allowed to burn or
should it be put out?
2.
Should the fuel be allowed to build
up, or should it be reduced by
prescribed fire or other techniques?
Not all uses will thrive on the same
decision.
It is my belief that these basic land
use decisions have not been made for most
Mediterranean shrublands. Shrublands have
been neglected because of a perceived lack
of economic value. Planners and the public
need to look at the economic benefits from
shrublands (such as water, recreation,
wildlife and erosion control) and the costs
of mismanagement (such as fire losses,
floods, sedimentation, and slope
instability). Planners must provide the
public and the decision makers with a
discussion of the options, the costs, and
the benefits of various management directions within Mediterranean shrublands.
These management options have been
considered in the allocation of timberlands and grasslands, and the shrublands
must now get similar attention if disasters
of fire, flood and erosion are to be
avoided.
IMPACT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
1. Should some shrublands be managed
for direct commodity production
such as energy, fuelwood, increased
water supply and grazing?
2. Should some shrublands be managed
for indirect (and hard to quantify)
commodities such as recreation,
watershed, wilderness, wildlife and
aesthetics?
3. Are some shrublands suitable for
permanent conversion to, and management as, other vegetation types that
can be economically maintained
without environmentally adverse
consequences?
Although it is possible to get several
benefits from land under multiple use, it
1
Presented at the Symposium on Dynamics
and Management of Mediterranean-type Ecosystems, June 22-26, 1981, San Diego, Calif.
2
Member, State Board of Forestry
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1982.
There are obvious conflicts between
urbanization adjacent to public lands--a
widespread problem which Gill's paper
pointed out on the basis of the Australian
experience. Urbanization is especially
difficult when fire is a threat or a major
management tool. Problems of liability
were not mentioned in the papers, but
concern over legal action is a constraint
on management that cannot be ignored.
The use of fire can be controversial between adjacent private landowners if one
objects to the use of fire, while another
favors it as a management tool. Urban
growth in rangeland aggravates this problem with neighbors not wanting the smoke
nuisance or the escape risk. The paper by
Newell reviewed California's approach to
using prescribed fire and discussed the
emotional and practical problems of using
prescribed fire when a landowner must
allow agency access and get state approval.
Under the California approach, an
uncooperative landowner, who refuses to
participate, but who owns a key piece of
land, can thwart the public purposes of
fuel reduction in the state's program.
557
The California program will test the
feasibility of fuel management on private
property where permission of the owner
must be obtained. Furthermore, if fuel
buildup cannot be controlled on private
land, the public cost for fire suppression
will continue to rise, damages to both
public and private lands will continue.
The Oberbauer and Evans paper based
on the experience of San Diego County
implies that our private land use
regulatory system may not be capable of
preventing ecosystem degradation on
private lands. If true, and I believe it
is, then the entire preservation burden
falls on the public land manager who is
also under pressure to produce more
commodities.
NEED TO CONSIDER FIRE IN PRIVATE LAND USE
PLANNING
Public expenditures required to support
building in and adjacent to shrublands
include
1.
Fire prevention, management and
suppression.
2.
Flood and debris control.
3.
Assistance to those rebuilding
after fire, flood, or mudslide.
These costs are increasing because of
fuel buildup and the resultant larger
fires that escape containment; growing
intensity of development in and near
shrublands that often preclude use of
backfires and fuel reduction; and general
558
inflation. The public costs must be
evaluated and balanced against the benefits to and the rights of shrubland
landowners. As a minimum, planning on
private land must consider fire safety in
terms of building materials, location of
development, access, water availability,
fire protection services, density, buffer
zones, and fuel management. It is a
challenge that planners and decision
makers must meet unless we are to accept
increasing fire damage in Mediterranean
climates.
LACK OF INFORMED PARTICIPANTS
Good planning depends on an informed
public and enlightened decision makers.
Since Mediterranean shrublands involve
fire, and fire involves risk, society must
be knowledgeable in order to make the
proper choices. In the absence of decisions, fuel continues to build up. Delay
is often an inadvertent decision for a big
fire. The "inform and involve" effort
advocated in the paper by Daniels and
Mutch can help, but all agencies involved
in Mediterranean ecosystem management
must be more effective in explaining to
the public what options and risks exist.
These papers show the commitment of
public agencies to plan and manage vegetation in Mediterranean ecosystems. The
papers also suggest that social and
political systems are lagging behind
ecological knowledge and managerial skills.
The true challenge will be implementing
management plans in the real world of
property rights, pressure groups and the
political process.