The issue with the raging flames in Etosha National Park from 22 to 29 September, which posed a serious threat to biodiversity, wildlife and the livelihoods of communities in the affected area, burned about 1.1 million hectares of land, with roughly 775 000 hectares or about 34%, inside the park.
This raises a difficult question of whether the government has an emergency response plan (ERP).
Fire is both a friend and a foe.
We often portray fires around our national parks with pictures of roaring blazes and firefighters.
These stories convey loss, destruction and threats to vegetation, property, wildlife and human life, emphasising the goal of suppressing fires at all costs. Conversely, fires are also natural and vital components of these ecosystems. Fire will continue to shape our environments and impact human life.
Only 10-15% of forest fires occur naturally. The rest are caused by human activities, including unattended campfires, cigarette stubs, deliberate arson and accidental fires. However, during the typical fire season, from roughly May to October, vegetation becomes more flammable and the soil dries out, increasing the chance of fires, which can quickly burn thousands of acres unless safety guidelines are fully followed.
Our national parks are vital for tourism, boosting local economies and promoting responsible enjoyment of heritage.
Yet, they face threats from uncontrolled fires annually.
Natural fires can support species’ survival – but if they happen at wrong times or too often, species risk extinction, as some areas are repeatedly burnt outside natural cycles. An emergency response plan is essential for structured handling of emergencies by identifying threats, defining roles, establishing communication protocols and detailing evacuation procedures, minimising chaos and enabling swift, coordinated responses to unexpected events.
Conflicts vs collaboration
Most protected areas in Africa’s savanna are near indigenous communities and farms, with land management often shared by conservation and local authorities.
Conflicts can occur if fire management approaches differ.
Local authorities may see early dry season burning as necessary for pasture, crops and preventing wildfires, but conservation aims may not support this practice.
When fire policies ignored local resources and beliefs, large-scale illegal burning occurred in retaliation. Kamau and Medley (2014) cited protests against the Kenya Wildlife Service for burning, while Laris and Wardell (2006) noted West African communities setting fires covertly as protest against punishment for traditional burning.
Managers of national parks and local community representatives must collaborate to design fire regimes balancing conservation goals and traditional practices, avoiding alienation of indigenous communities.
This may lead to increased early dry season fires, satisfying local communities and reducing greenhouse gases.
However, in cases where local communities live inside or on the edge of the parks or are allowed to collect resources, such as thatched grass, bamboos, reeds and medicinal plants from the national parks, fires may need to be postponed until the late dry season.
This delay allows access to thatched grass and other subsistence resources that must be collected before burning. Therefore, significant progress has been made in fostering connections between local communities and park managers through the development of community-based fire management and integrated fire management concepts.
A similar mitigation mechanism can be tailor-made for charcoal producers by establishing contacts and regular inspection of firebreaks as well as ensuring the removal of smaller, highly flammable materials like twigs, dry grass and underbrush that reduces the fuel available for wildfire to ignite and spread.
Procedures
Prescribed burning of vegetation is an important management tool.
Low-intensity fires in the early dry season are more easily controlled than high-intensity fires in the late dry season. Therefore, park managers often prefer to apply prescribed fire in the early dry season to promote the safety of people, wildlife and infrastructure.
Fires may also be entirely excluded from areas with high human population or infrastructure density by establishing firebreaks before the onset of fire season.
To enhance tourist experiences, park managers may use fire to improve visibility for game viewing or to minimise large, unattractive burnt areas by applying low intensity burns in the early dry season.
Likewise, managers may use fires to create conditions for effective policing, such as burning areas with high poaching incidence or where there are security concerns to improve visibility and accessibility.
Wildfire can be mitigated by reducing available vegetative fuel through firebreaks around land and wetland burns, which prevent the spread of fire, with a minimum width of six meters.
This can be created and maintained adequately through various methods, such as burning under controlled conditions, mowing, tilling, using access roads throughout the parks and organising rigid fire patrols.
In summary, fire has an essential ecological role to play.
But what were the reasons for the ERP failing? It is, therefore, pivotal that the management of national parks must, without delay, review its implementation, with targeted resources allocated, for compliance.
Against this backdrop, an informed public is essential for constructive and successful fire management. This requires a broader, balanced portrayal of fire and fire mitigation in the media, demonstrating the importance of fire for ecosystem health and opportunities for risk reduction and proactive fire management to safeguard national parks, wildlife, communities and their possessions.
*Maj. Gen. (RTD) J. B Tjivikua is a criminal intelligence analyst.