Bridging the fire gap: integrating IFM and CBFiM for equitable wildfire management in South Africa

By Savage Breytenbach, general manager, Free State Umbrella Fire Protection Association

At the Wildland Urban Interface Conference held in Kansas City in March this year, Kate Dargan, policy adviser to the Moore Foundation and Bob Roper, CEO of the Western Fire Chiefs Association, presented a thought-provoking session titled, ‘The Future of Wildfires’. Their data-driven insights offered not only a sobering look at the escalating intensity of wildfires worldwide but also a way forward through technologybased solutions.

Notably, the presentation proposed two important shifts in how we understand success and purpose in fire management to support the implementation of solutions.

First, we need to move beyond using “area burned” as the primary measure of effectiveness. Instead, we should assess impacts ie on lives, ecosystems and livelihoods. Second, any fire strategy must be driven by well-defined, practical objectives that hold fire adapted or fire resilient communities as the outcome.

These observations resonate strongly with the challenges and opportunities currently shaping wildfire management in South Africa. Fire is, and always has been, a natural force in the landscape. Trying to eliminate it entirely can be ecologically harmful and socially disruptive. Instead, it is generally accepted that fire should be managed, not avoided. This involves retaining and applying good fire eg ecological or prescribed burns, while reducing the occurrence and impact of bad fire (destructive, unplanned wildfire).

However, this approach is not yet widely supported or understood by the general populace. This highlights a critical disparity: while ecological and disaster risk experts advocate for the use of fire as a necessary tool, much of the public continues to view all fire as inherently destructive. Bridging this gap between best practice and public perception is essential if South Africa is to realise the full benefits of its fire management policy.

South Africa’s policy approach embraces this idea through the adoption of integrated fire management (IFM). However, the implementation of IFM on the ground often intersects with community-based fire management (CBFiM), a concept that emphasises local leadership and traditional practices.

Understanding how these two approaches complement each other and where current governance structures fall short, is essential if we are to move toward more equitable and effective wildfire resilience.

Defining IFM and CBFiM: integrated vs. communitycentred approaches

One of the most fundamental distinctions between IFM and CBFiM lies in the source of their decision-making frameworks. Integrated fire management is data-driven, guided by formal risk assessments, satellite monitoring, fuelload mapping and institutional forecasts. It relies on metrics, models and national policy instruments to inform where and when fire should be used or suppressed.

In contrast, Community-Based Fire Management is primarily perception-driven. It is shaped by local understanding of fire, cultural norms, land-use history, and community priorities. What constitutes 'good' or 'bad' fire in a CBFiM context often depends on direct lived experience, rather than on remote sensing or scientific analysis.

While this can be a strength in fostering local ownership and relevance, it also creates potential misalignments, especially where local perceptions diverge significantly from ecological or risk-based assessments. A key challenge, therefore, is building mutual understanding between datainformed governance and community-grounded realities.

Integrated Fire Management (IFM) refers to a coordinated approach that encompasses all elements of the fire management cycle: prevention, early warning, suppression, ecological fire use and recovery. It is typically driven by government or multi-stakeholder institutions and is intended to work across landscapes and jurisdictions. IFM is supported by scientific analysis, formal planning and regulatory oversight.

Community-based fire management (CBFiM), meanwhile, empowers local communities to shape how fire is used and controlled in their environment. It is built on participatory planning, traditional knowledge and the capacity of local groups to act. CBFiM is especially relevant in areas with limited formal fire services and where cultural or economic reliance on fire or the exclusion thereof is strong.

Strengths and weaknesses of each approach

An additional consideration in evaluating CBFiM is the influence of internal community dynamics. In some cases, pre-existing stresses or unresolved conflicts within a community can undermine fire management initiatives. Instead of serving as a unifying platform, CBFiM efforts may become flashpoints for tension, stalling progress or escalating disputes. This risk highlights the need for careful facilitation, social cohesion and transparent processes when implementing CBFiM at the local level.

Conversely, IFM, while comprehensive and datadriven, also presents several implementation challenges. It can become overly technocratic and detached from the on-the-ground realities faced by communities. The complexity of IFM frameworks sometimes hinders timely decision-making, particularly where multiple agencies with overlapping mandates must coordinate. Additionally, the resource demands of IFM, from satellite monitoring to institutional coordination, can render it inaccessible or ineffective in under-resourced districts.

These limitations underscore the importance of designing IFM systems that remain agile, contextaware and adequately supported at all administrative levels.

Integrated fire management (IFM)

Strengths

• Coordinates across regions and land uses• Aligns with formal disaster risk governance• Enables prescribed burning at scale• Incorporates science, technology and inter-agency support.

Weaknesses

• Can be top-down and disconnected from local realities• May overlook or undervalue traditional practices• Requires high levels of institutional capacity.

Community-based fire management (CBFiM)

Strengths

• Grounded in local context and knowledge• Encourages grassroots participation and ownership• Can be cost-effective and quickly mobilised.

Weaknesses

• Relies on volunteer energy and informal structures• Risk of exclusion or domination by specific groups• Hard to scale or sustain without external support.

Observing the challenge: FPA structure and governance tensions

South Africa’s fire protection associations (FPAs), established under the National Veld and Forest Fire Act, are meant to deliver IFM at the local level.

However, in practice, many FPAs function more like CBFiM platforms, often covering small, fragmented areas and dominated by one stakeholder group.

This has led to concerning dynamics:

• Inequity: Some FPAs are dominated by commercial interests, leaving communal farmers, municipalities or conservation bodies sidelined.

• Protectionism: Instead of facilitating cooperative planning, FPAs can become inward-looking, focusing on self-preservation over shared risk reduction.

• Capacity strain: Small FPAs often lack the institutional capacity to fulfil both IFM and CBFiM roles, especially over time.

This situation is particularly problematic in a country grappling with persistent inequality. When fire governance reinforces exclusion rather than bridging divides, it risks undermining both ecological and social resilience.

A path forward: nested governance for integrated resilience

An emerging model offers a practical response to this dilemma. The Integrated Fire Management Handbook recommends that FPAs be aligned at district municipality level, where they can be supported through disaster management centres, planning integration and dedicated coordination. Aligning FPAs with district boundaries also mirrors the existing structure of most other public institutions and agencies, enabling easier multi-stakeholder participation.

At this level, district advisory forums can be established that include broad and representative participation, reducing the risk of dominance by any one group and creating an enabling environment for inclusive decision-making. Within these district-scale FPAs, smaller management areas, formally recognised and contextually defined, can deliver CBFiM in practice.

This model also supports more adaptive planning processes, allowing local and districtlevel feedback to be integrated into formal fire management strategies. This ensures that plans remain responsive to changing risk profiles, land use dynamics and social realities over time.

This would allow for:

• Context-sensitive implementation of prescribed burning and early warning systems• Improved inclusivity and accountability• Integration of traditional knowledge with scientific planning.

In this structure, IFM and CBFiM work together, each playing to their strengths. IFM provides the strategic framework, institutional support and cross-boundary coordination. CBFiM brings in local capacity, legitimacy and rapid action.

Toward fire-adapted communities

The way forward is not to choose between IFM or CBFiM but to align them under a governance model that is scalable, inclusive and responsive. By creating a clear distinction between coordination (at district FPA level) and implementation, within recognised sub-areas, South Africa can build a wildfire management system that reflects both global best practices and local realities.

Such a system lays the foundation for true fire-adapted communities, communities that can harness the value of fire as a tool while being better protected against its threats.

Ultimately, this is not just a technical adjustment. It is a governance evolution that recognises that equity, scale and flexibility are as important to fire management as weather forecasts or firefighting equipment.

Video link