Towards an integrated rural fire management framework in Portugal

3. Reinforcing the regulatory framework

3.1. Regulations for wildfire prevention have considerably improved since 2017

Successful wildfire prevention relies on a mix of structural interventions and organisational measures. Structural measures entail fuel and ecosystem management, which reduce wildfire risk and severity by controlling the quantity and characteristics of combustible materials across the landscape. These include buffer zones, fuel breaks (i.e. strips of non-flammable land near settlements or across the landscape), prescribed fires, and the active use of fire for the disposal of forestry and agricultural residues and for pasture renewal (i.e. waste and extensive burns) (Presidency of the Council of Ministers, 2017[25]) (Ministry of Agriculture, 2014[26]). In contrast, organisational measures include land-use rules and building codes or standards. Land-use planning can limit new development in fire-prone areas. Building regulations govern the construction of assets such as houses and infrastructure to enhance fire resilience (OECD, 2023[5]).

Following the 2017 fires, evaluations found that regulations for implementing both structural and organisational risk reduction measures were ineffective. Although buffer zone regulations were already used in Portugal well before 2017, roadside fuel breaks were under-dimensioned and often poorly maintained (Independent Technical Commission, 2018[7]). Additionally, compliance with buffer zone regulations around individual structures and population centres was almost inexistent. In addition, fuel breaks were often conceived in silo instead of as part of a comprehensive landscape-scale fuel management plan, reducing their efficiency (Independent Technical Commission, 2018[8]). Waste or extensive burns were also used previously, but gaps in enforcement and timing restrictions for agricultural burns were at the source of fire ignitions, including the 2017 fires (Independent Technical Commission, 2018[8]). Similarly, landscape-level prescribed fires were already permitted prior to 2017, but their adoption was low especially in areas characterised by high wildfire hazard levels. Building regulations focused on construction materials and equipment used inside of buildings for fires originating with the building’s walls.

Regulations have been strengthened since 2017. Criteria to impose buffer zone regulations around buildings have been strengthened to clarify priority areas (e.g. within a range of 50 metres around isolated structures and within 100 metres from human settlements including ten or more houses). Penalties for non-compliance have doubled since 2018. Prescribed fires are not allowed in zones characterised by a “very high” or “maximum” hazard level according to the fire danger map or when weather conditions are conducive to fire (Presidency of the Council of Ministers, 2021[27]). Finally, while pre-2017 construction standards focused on internal fire resistance, recent code revisions aim to better protect exterior walls from wildfires and extreme heat. However, these requirements currently apply only to new buildings.

To promote regulatory compliance, Portugal has invested in public awareness campaigns. The Portugal Chama campaign targets both public and private stakeholders, raising awareness on fire prevention measures that can be undertaken at the local level to reduce wildfire risk (OECD, 2023[5]). These include, for example, vegetation clearance around properties, moving firewood stacks away from buildings, installing non-flammable flooring strips around homes to create buffer zones, and requesting permits for controlled and waste burns. The campaign also informs the public about the applicable fines for non-compliance to deter risky behaviours. In addition, the “Safe Village, Safe People” programme, also launched after the 2017 wildfires, seeks to reduce wildfire risk through behavioural change and public education. It combines prevention measures (e.g. fuel management, emergency shelters, evacuation routes) with self-protection measures (e.g. awareness raising, evacuation training) (ANEPC, 2026[28]).

New digital tools facilitate the implementation of preventive regulations. A digital platform has been created to allow private stakeholders to request municipal authorisation for waste and extensive burns, supported by funding and technical assistance. For extensive burns, the national forest office (ICNF) ensures they are conducted under the supervision of experts. The platform serves as a valuable tool to identify potential ignition sources and anticipate fire spread. Similarly, the platform SOS Ambiente e Território enables citizens to report violations of environmental and land-use regulations. An arsonist programme was launched to better understand the drivers of arson, which still accounts for an estimated 40% of ignitions (AGIF, 2025[10]), and to develop strategies to reduce recidivism.

The regulatory framework has been further enhanced through targeted inspections, enforcement and improved monitoring. Each year, high-risk parishes – subdivisions of a municipality – are identified using data on ignitions, unburned area, and the national hazard map to guide fuel management inspections by the National Republican Guard (GNR) and municipalities. Advanced tools, including satellite imagery and digital mapping are increasingly employed to detect insufficient vegetation management and unauthorised burns, improving enforcement accuracy. Surveillance has been reinforced through more frequent patrols, while the waste and burn registration platform enables near real-time monitoring and targeted interventions. With technical and logistical support from ICNF, the GNR and the Judiciary Police have expanded their workforce of trained fire investigators to identify ignition sources and track behaviours such arson or accidental burns, informing enforcement strategies. IRFMS entities responsible for fuel breaks and regulatory oversight – ICNF, GNR, and subnational authorities – collect and report compliance data annually, enhancing the effectiveness and accountability of wildfire risk reduction measures.

3.2. Compliance remains low due to structural barriers

Although regulatory changes since 2017 have supported wildfire prevention, significant compliance challenges remain. Voluntary compliance with buffer zone regulations, measured as the share of regularised situations after one inspection, rose from 49% in 2019 to 60% in 2024 (AGIF, 2025[10]). However, the severe fires of September 2024 highlighted that arson remains a major issue. Fuel management efforts also fell short in 2024, with only 75,559 hectares treated, i.e. 7% below the annual target set by entities and 60% below the NAP targets (AGIF, 2020[1]), marking a decline from 2023. (AGIF, 2025[10]) (Figure 3). Yet, data from local authorities and private actors remain scattered across unconnected databases, limiting a comprehensive assessment of implementation progress (AGIF, 2025[10]). For this reason, reported figures should be interpreted with caution, as they may underestimate the actual scale of fuel management activities carried out by numerous private actors (e.g. building owners) and local authorities and not systematically captured in monitoring. Some agencies also note that national fuel management targets may need revision to better reflect local conditions and the experience of implementing entities.

Several structural and operational constraints further hinder effective implementation of fuel management measures. Enforcing fuel management regulations on private lands is also particularly challenging in a country where only 46% of forest areas are currently covered by a land registry and more than 20% of the forest lands has no or an unknown owner (Portuguese Environment Agency, 2020[29]). Regarding waste and extensive burns, the absence of a mechanism for the collection, valorisation, and management of forestry and agricultural residues contributes to the continued use of open burning, which accounted for 41% of the fire ignitions in 2024 (AGIF, 2025[10]). Another concern is the potentially limited ability of rural landowners to comply with existing requirements to conduct such fires and digital procedures to register them, especially given the ageing demographic of Portugal’s rural population (AGIF, 2023[30]). In addition, the limited availability of contractors to develop and maintain buffer zones hinders implementation – particularly in the designated priority areas, where fuel management machinery must meet strict safety standards. These additional requirements increase costs for contractors, who may opt to operate in less restrictive areas (Regional Committee for integrated rural fire management, 2023[31]).

Figure 3. Cumulative area of fuel management reported as treated compared to NAP objectives

Million ha

Source: (AGIF, 2025[10]).

Overall, existing regulations for fire management are widely perceived as top-down, which has weakened local buy-in and hindered implementation. To develop regional and sub-regional action programmes for integrated rural fire management and adapt land use and fuel management activities, regional and sub-regional committees met on average 38 and 24 times respectively between 2021 and 2022 (AGIF, 2025[32]). The high frequency of meetings reflects the challenges faced at the local level when trying to define the secondary fuel networks. The aforementioned delays in the rollout of municipal execution plans, of which only 15% have been completed (AGIF, 2025[10]) render inspection or enforcement activities difficult. In Spain, the wildfire prevention teams (EPRIF) work directly with rural populations in high-risk areas (Box 2). California has also set up a whole-of-society approach to wildfire management in which local authorities are key decision-makers (Box 2).

Yet, although subnational authorities have some flexibility to adapt fire prevention regulations, they have not taken advantage of it. This hesitation is partly rooted in concerns over legal liability. Following the 2017 wildfires, several stakeholders, including private-sector actors, members of fire service or local authorities were taken to court on charges of negligent homicide and bodily harm. Although the defendants were ultimately acquitted – on the grounds that the extreme and irregular meteorological conditions had made firefighting efforts exceptionally difficult - the case has had a chilling effect. Elected officials remain cautious about using the flexibility provided under Decree-Law 82/2021 to adapt fire prevention regulations to reflect their own risk assessment. Instead, they have called for clearer and more prescriptive guidance on when and how to implement such adaptations (Tedim et al., 2023[33]). Specifically, they were awaiting the development of a technical regulation by the national forest office (ICNF), which establishes technical standards for fuel management. This regulation was published in April 2025 (Decree 4223/2025) with no data to evaluate whether this will address existing concerns yet.

Box 2. International examples of stakeholder engagement for risk prevention

Spain: In 1998, the Spanish Forest Fires Service created the Integral Wildfire Prevention Teams (EPRIF). These teams work directly with the rural population in areas where traditional agricultural practices contribute to high wildfire incidence. EPRIF teams engage directly with stakeholders to understand the interests and incentives of different groups and help define specific activities based on the needs of the population and the regulation of the autonomous community. On the one hand, this approach helps build trust and acceptance of the decisions by authorities, and on the other, it helps adjust interventions based on the needs, points of view and experience of local parties. These teams have helped bridge the divide between local communities that use fire as part of their traditions or economic activity and the authorities focusing on wildfire prevention.

California (United States): The California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Taskforce coordinates wildfire and forest policies across agencies and levels of government. The Taskforce includes state, federal, and local representatives and is led by the Governor’s Office, CAL FIRE, and California’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Agencies. It hosts quarterly public meetings to review progress, funding, and programmes for fire management. Local governments are active participants in decision-making, contributing to the design, implementation, and monitoring of the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan. In addition, local feedback and data are used to adapt actions to regional needs, making it a model of integrated vertical governance.

Source: (Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico, 2024[34]) (California Wildfire and Forest Resilience, 2025[24]).

Flexibility is essential to engage stakeholders in effective fire risk management. For example, primary buffer zones are currently defined based on environmental value, land ownership regime, and hazard levels. However, research on Portugal’s fuel break network reveals significant variation in its effectiveness, particularly depending on fire severity. For instance, just 4% of the total length of the fuel break network would reduce the burned area by 30% (Aparício et al., 2022[35]). This suggests that adapting the fuel network more closely to actual risk levels could be a cost-effective strategy to help prioritise buffer zones more effectively. Such prioritisation could benefit from greater use of landscape- and nature-based approaches that address fuel continuity at broader spatial scales. This includes strategic fuel mosaics that combine different land uses and vegetation types, such as native and broadleaf vegetation, to reduce fire intensity and spread. At the same time, the effectiveness of more localised fuel treatments, such as fuel strips, has been shown to depend heavily on local conditions such as land use, slope, vegetation, and the density of nearby structures or habitats (Syphard, Brennan and Keeley, 2014[36]). In France, flexibility to plan preventive measures exists at the local level, supported by participatory approaches backed by the national government (Box 3).

Municipalities lack the capacity to fully implement wildfire management regulations. While they are legally required to intervene when landowners fail to comply with buffer zone rules, this often imposes a heavy and unsustainable financial burden on local authorities. This is exacerbated by cumbersome reimbursement procedures when owners are known. At the same time, land-use regulations restrict building permits and thereby reduce municipal revenues, creating conflicting objectives and distorted compliance incentives – especially in rural areas with limited capacity and complex land ownership. More broadly, subnational administrations have highlighted the need for greater financial, human and technical resources to meet wildfire prevention obligations effectively (Diário Imobiliário, 2025[37]).

Box 3. France’s local risk prevention plans for wildfires

France has taken a decentralised and participatory approach to wildfire risk management through its system of Natural Risk Prevention Plans (NRPPS). France requires local authorities in areas historically affected by fires to develop tailored prevention plans. Each fire risk prevention plan must include:

• A description of known wildfire risks, including a documented history of past events.

• An explanation of wildfire hazards and their probabilities, including uncertainty estimates and justifications for the assumptions used.

• An analysis of vulnerabilities and potential impacts on people, property, and essential activities.

• An assessment of factors that may worsen or mitigate the risks, such as the state and management of protective infrastructure.

• A clear rationale for the zoning decisions and the corresponding regulatory measures.

The development of these plans is highly collaborative, involving consultations between state services, municipal authorities, civil protection agencies, scientific experts, forest managers, economic actors, and civil society representatives. This inclusive process helps foster trust, ensures that local knowledge is incorporated, and supports the creation of accurate, context-specific hazard maps. These maps are then converted into risk maps, which directly inform land-use regulations and urban planning.

Source: (Cerema, 2023[38]).

Faced with limited capacity and resources, entities responsible for inspection and enforcement struggle to set clear priorities to best allocate resources. Inspection and enforcement responsibilities of all regulations described above are shared primarily between the national republic guard, the national office of forest (ICNF), and municipalities. Inspection and enforcement are prioritised based on a high-risk parishes map, which covers 32% of the mainland territory (AGIF, 2025[10]). However, the country’s heterogeneous conditions and constrained resources hamper the ability of some entities to effectively prioritise and target their efforts. Another key tool for guiding inspections is the complaint management system operated by the national republic guard, SOS Environment and Territory, which enables citizens to report violations of fuel management or land use regulations. While helpful, this tool does not account for risk severity or urgency, limiting its utility in resource prioritisation. Applying risk-based criteria, with tools such as risk-based scorecards or checklists to assess compliance and guide interventions have the potential to assess citizen complaints and guide interventions where they are most needed. For instance, in Italy, the region of Friuli Venezia Giulia uses environmental checklists to enhance inspection effectiveness (Box 4).

Inspection and enforcement activities are also hampered by insufficient coordination and data sharing. Data related to inspections and enforcement are collected independently by each responsible agency and remain fragmented, with limited interoperability and minimal feedback mechanisms across agencies. For example, municipal data on fuel management or burn authorisations are not integrated into a national platform. This lack of data integration weakens overall effectiveness of inspection and enforcement, as no formal data-sharing protocols currently exist to cover the full scope of relevant fuel management regulations and ensure coordination among the different fuel management approaches. One of the NAP’s key projects aims to fill this gap by developing an interoperable platform to strengthen coordination and data exchange for wildfire prevention.

Box 4. Environmental checklists in Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy

The Italian region Friuli Venezia Giulia introduced risk-based checklists and scorecards for inspections on wastewater treatment plants. Risk weights are assigned to classify facilities based on their risk level and clear practices were associated to the risk levels. The risk-based method was extended to other administrative processes as part of the environmental inspections reform. This includes the re-engineering of complex administrative processes by introducing digital platforms, an approach that was subsequently applied to health inspections. The digital platforms were adopted by other Italian regions. The toolkit includes risk-based business ratings, checklists and scorecards, interregional working groups, inspector training, non-conformity simulators, self-evaluation tools, relevant guidelines and manuals of good practices.

Source: (OECD, 2025[39]).

Finally, existing sanctions and penalties have shown limited effectiveness, suggesting that regulations alone are insufficient to reduce fire risk. Existing sanctions are neither gradual nor proportional. They do not account for repeated offences, offender profiles or the reasons for non-compliance, and rely mainly on financial penalties rather than tools such as warnings, notices, or public disclosure of inspection results. Sanctions are also not targeted to offenders’ profile, incentives or motivations. As a result, many landowners prefer to internalise the costs of the fine, as non-compliance is often cheaper and easier than complying with existing regulations.

3.3.  Looking ahead: further enhance regulatory effectiveness

To better align wildfire prevention policies with local realities, existing regulations could be complemented with targeted policy instruments that address persistent challenges such as fragmented land ownership, biomass waste collection, or limited technical or financial capacity. In this context, ensuring that interventions promote sustainable forest management and help conserve high-value ecosystems and their services can further support their effectiveness. Strengthening stakeholder engagement in regulatory design would help improve local ownership and implementation, for instance through institutionalised two-way communication mechanisms like multi-level coordination platforms that facilitate regular dialogue between national agencies, municipalities, and landowners.

Building institutional capacity is also essential for fostering compliance. This requires clear and accessible technical guidance, well-defined inspection goals, and sufficient staffing, training, and resources. Access to quality data and digital tools can enable risk-based decision-making, while exchanges of lessons learned and best practices between institutions can further strengthen capacity. Given limited resources, activities such as awareness-raising, inspection, and enforcement should be prioritised using risk-based criteria and tools such as compliance checklists or risk scorecards.

Finally, the sanction framework could be refined to improve deterrence and prevention. Differentiated penalties, ranging from warnings to prosecution depending on risk level and compliance history, would enhance fairness, while complementary positive incentives, including recognition or financial rewards for compliant practices, could encourage proactive wildfire risk reduction.