Every time a large forest fire breaks out, the same question is asked: How is it possible that we have not been able to avoid it? Images of skies tinged with red, mass evacuations, and entire neighbourhoods reduced to ashes have become normalised in the news. In California, Australia, Canada, or the Mediterranean, fire is no longer perceived as an exceptional phenomenon, but rather as a new constant. But to accept it as fate is a mistake. The tools to drastically reduce the impact of large fires exist. What is lacking is coordination.

Forest fires are not just a natural problem. They are the result of a complex combination of factors: climate change, land management, disorderly urban growth, vulnerable infrastructures, and fragmented response systems. Millions of people today live in the urban-forest interface, areas where homes coexist with highly flammable vegetation. When the fire arrives, the human, economic, and environmental costs are enormous, even for those who do not directly lose their home.
Paradoxically, we have never had so much technology to face this challenge. Satellites capable of detecting ignitions within minutes, ground sensors that monitor risk conditions, artificial intelligence models that project the evolution of fire in real time, drones that map hazardous vegetation, and smart electrical grids that can disconnect before a spark causes a catastrophe. All of this already exists.
These technologies cannot—nor should they—eliminate fire completely. Fire is part of many ecosystems and is essential for their regeneration. But they can prevent a localised fire from turning into a large-scale disaster. They can reduce evacuations, save homes, protect critical infrastructures, and, above all, save lives.
The main problem is not technical, but institutional. The fire prevention and response system is deeply fragmented. Local, regional, and state governments, fire brigades with different competencies, forest management agencies, electric companies, insurers, research centres, technology companies, and local communities are involved. Each party has its own budgets, regulations, data systems, and purchasing processes. The result is an ecosystem in which innovating is difficult, and scaling solutions is even more complicated.
Many promising technological initiatives remain in pilot tests. Public agencies often cannot take the risk of purchasing new technology that is not yet fully validated. Innovative companies do not know which door to call. Foundations fund experiments, but not their large-scale implementation. And the communities with fewer resources are the ones that suffer the most from this lack of coordination, becoming even more exposed.
Other areas of public policy demonstrate that this can be done better. In national security, energy, or aviation, the United States has created agencies that act as a bridge between the public sector, research, and the market. These organisations do not invent technology, but rather identify promising solutions, help to test them, establish common standards, and facilitate their rapid delivery to end users.
What is lacking in the field of forest fires is a similar structure: a coordinating entity with a clear mandate to connect innovators, administrations, emergency services, utility companies, and communities. A neutral party that can detect emerging technologies, promote interoperability, help overcome bureaucratic obstacles, and direct investments towards prevention and mitigation, not just towards extinction when the fire is already out of control.
This does not mean replacing essential policies such as forest management, controlled burns, building codes, or urban planning. On the contrary, technology can make all these measures more efficient and fairer. It can provide better data to firefighters, more accurate alerts to the population, and a faster recovery after the disaster.
Some governments have already started to move in that direction. There are states that have created specific offices for fire innovation or centres of excellence for new aerial combat techniques. But without a coordinated vision at the national or supranational level, progress remains uneven and insufficient in the face of the magnitude of the challenge.
Large fires are not inevitable. They are, to a large extent, a reflection of collective decisions and systems that have not evolved at the pace of risk. If we have been able to transform air safety, hurricane prediction, or earthquake preparedness through investment and coordination, we can also do the same with forest fires. The technology is already there. Now political will and the capacity to organise it are needed.
_____
Aquest apunt en català / Esta entrada en español / Post en français

