I write this column as a viñamarino who observed the mega-fire live and direct, and as a methodologist of participatory innovation who would like to contribute so that something like this does not happen again.
Where is the underlying problem? It is in our culture of adaptation, reactive and simplifying, which awakens and mobilizes us as a society only after catastrophes, but never does so before: a culture that operates at every level and in all places. The heroism and efficiency of firefighters and brigadistas are deployed, helicopters fly with huge sacks of water, the authorities monitor what happens and take emergency measures for shelters, collection centers, blankets and food. Television channels repeat the horrific scenes of fire, smoke and families fleeing for their lives. Spontaneous popular solidarity is activated with generous donations and volunteerism. The state provides special resources for those who lost their homes and personal stories. And it’s about finding those to blame for starting each fire.
It seems that we are facing a powerful ritual of sacrifice of our culture, which is staged catastrophe after catastrophe. Their victims are often the most vulnerable families; its officiants, the political system and the media; and its reiteration, the force that convinces us that these events are things of fate and that before them we can only bow our heads and resign ourselves.
I am not trying to criticize this cultural paradigm or its ritual of affirmation here, but to keep them in mind as a background. I try something else: to propose its replacement by a different paradigm, undertaking as a society a deliberate effort to do so. Is it possible to transform a culture?, Can a culture of prevention, anticipation and innovation be built in Chile intentionally? Yes, it can, and we have done it in other fields. A quarter of a century ago, we launched such an effort in traffic safety, which discovered and executed more than 120 concrete innovations. Deaths stopped growing; Chile saved 15,000 lives, and avoided 300,000 total injuries and 50,000 serious injuries, while all transport grew; the country achieved safety indexes close to those of advanced countries; And it achieved a noticeable cultural change in drivers, who no longer attack pedestrians and cyclists but take care of them because they are more vulnerable. And it achieved this with costs 50 times lower than its benefits, according to criteria of international organizations.
How was all this achieved, and how can it be done to prevent wildfires? Applying two basic feasibility criteria. First, understanding that we are facing a “malignant” or highly complex problem ––with a large number of actors, conflicts, issues, relevant disciplines and cultures––, which cannot be simplified but must be faced in all its dimensions. Second, understanding that high complexity has only one effective way to address it, which is the “strong” and active participation of all involved. Authoritarian and technocratic paths that look at the challenge from the outside, and “weak” participation that only collects information, are not enough. It is the community at risk itself that has to take charge in each place, and for this it must have effective tools: both tools for interpreting risk and tools for preventive action.
A practical tool for interpreting risk at the local level is 30 – 30 – 30: the fire hazard is high when there is more than 30 ° C of temperature, winds of more than 30 km / hour and humidity less than 30 percent; These are conditions that meteorological services could warn in line with current technology: at all times and to each community and municipality. In addition, each community should be informed by the competent services about the fire risks posed by its surrounding streams, forests, plantations and dry grass. Along with this, each one should develop and test an immediate action plan before the first alert, and have online communication with their respective municipal monitoring office.
Is it possible to achieve something like this in a country like ours, which every summer observes anguished and defenseless how forest fires are repeated throughout a large part of its territory? Categorically yes, provided that we implement a National Program for the Participatory Prevention of Forest Fires, which addresses the problem in all its complexity and at all scales, with the intactive development of regional governments, municipalities and competent services (Firefighters, Carabineros, CONAF, ONEMI, SAG, etc.), and of each of the urban and rural communities that present risk. I make available to the Government for this task the Participatory Innovation Praxis, a specialized method for highly complex problems, which has been validated for decades in very diverse fields of action.
Follow us on
The content expressed in this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.
