Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

==== 7.4.3.3 Fire-related risk minimising instruments ====

<div id="section-7-4-3-3-fire-related-risk-minimising-instruments-block-1"></div>

There is ''robust evidence'' and ''high agreement'' that fire strategies need to be tailored to site-specific conditions in an adaptive application that is assessed and reassessed over time (Dellasala et al. 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r516|516]]</sup> ; Rocca et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r517|517]]</sup> ). Strategies for fire management include fire suppression, prescribed fire and mechanical treatments (such as thinning the canopy), and allowing wildfire with little or no active management (Rocca et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r518|518]]</sup> ). Fire suppression can degrade the effectiveness of forest fire management in the long run (Collins et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r519|519]]</sup> ).

Different forest types have different fire regimes and require different fire management policies (Dellasala et al. 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r520|520]]</sup> ). For instance, Cerrado, a fire dependent savannah, utilises a different fire management policy and fire suppression policy (Durigan and Ratter 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r521|521]]</sup> ). The choice of strategy depends on local considerations, including land ownership patterns, dynamics of local meteorology, budgets, logistics, federal and local policies, tolerance for risk and landscape contexts. In addition, there are trade-offs among the management alternatives and often no single management strategy will simultaneously optimise ES, including water quality and quantity, carbon sequestration, or run- off erosion prevention (Rocca et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r522|522]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-7-4-3-4-flood-related-risk-minimising-instruments"></div>

<span id="flood-related-risk-minimising-instruments"></span>