Part V of 6 · SSRC-INF-IIFF-v2.0 Report
What must change and open evidence
Improvement proposals, traceability and declared evidence levels.
09 · What must change
Ten decisions to move from heroic effort to a system
The following ten decisions are editorial proposals, ordered by priority and formulated to be verifiable. They do not invent budgets or commit any administration: they describe what should be auditable within the current framework (Law 17/2015) (external link, opens in a new tab) and the MITECO's strategic guidelines (external link, opens in a new tab).
- 1
Annual territorial management with multi-year funding
Schedule work in the forest twelve months a year and guarantee contracts that do not depend on the political calendar or the campaign.
- 2
Homogeneous classification of capacities
Catalog each unit by accredited and verifiable capacities, not by uniform or administrative dependency.
- 3
Technical operational command and support teams
Intervention leadership with accredited competence, supported by fire analysis, meteorology, cartography, safety, and information.
- 4
Public data on inventory, availability, and simultaneity
Publish in a reusable format what exists, what is deployed, what is available, and how many incidents are being handled simultaneously.
- 5
Communications and information interoperability
That services sharing a fire also share radio, mapping, and incident status.
- 6
Sustainable staffing, rotations, health, and work-life balance
Sizing the workforce to sustain multiple shifts and multiple episodes, with health surveillance and effective rest.
- 7
Accredited, equipped, and integrated volunteering
Defined roles, training, PPE, communications, insurance, clear command, and written agreement before the emergency.
- 8
Independent evaluation of technology and agents before purchasing at scale
Published trials, sustainment cost, and declared conditions of use before any mass acquisition.
- 9
Interface protection, evacuation, and self-protection
Accesses, water, treated strips, evacuation plans, and education for the population living near the forest.
- 10
Public audit of results, funds, and lessons learned
Independent review of each campaign, with publication of conclusions and adopted corrections.
Editorial review
Without a public audit of results, each campaign restarts without memory, and individual effort replaces the system.
V12 · Auditable visual
Roadmap 0–24 months
Message: Decisions can be ordered by verifiable deadlines without compromising budget figures that do not exist.
0–90 days
Evidence B- Publish inventory, deployment, and daily availability in reusable format.
- Written protocols for operational command and for relations with plan management.
- Commissioning of an independent audit of the campaign and the funds used.
3–12 months
Evidence B- Training and accreditation by specialty, with public register of capabilities.
- Interoperability of communications and information between services and administrations.
- Supervised technology pilots and multi-year territorial management contracts.
12–24 months
Evidence C- Selective scaling of what has passed the pilots and independent tests.
- Evaluation of territorial management results and planning correction.
- Publication of lessons learned and health and rest indicators.
What it demonstrates — and what it does not
What it demonstrates
That the proposed measures admit a sequence by deadlines, distinguishing between what depends on administrative decision and what requires prior validation.
What it does not demonstrate
It does not set budgets, it does not commit any administration and it does not anticipate which pilots will pass their evaluation.
- Source
- Law 17/2015 on the National Civil Protection System; MITECO, Strategic guidelines for forest fire management.
- Editorial date
- Web edition v2.0 · August 4, 2026
- Level of evidence
- C
Alternative text: Roadmap in three phases: 0 to 90 days transparency, protocols and audit commissioning; 3 to 12 months training, interoperability, pilots and contracts; 12 to 24 months selective scaling of validated elements and evaluation of results.
End of chapter 09
A critique that demands transparency must be subjected to the same criterion: declare its sources, its levels of evidence, and its corrections.
Continued on 10 · Evidencia abierta
10 · Open evidence
Criticism must also be auditable
This report declares the level of evidence for each relevant assertion and each visual. The objective is for anyone to be able to verify where a figure comes from, what document supports it, and what remains in the realm of proposal.
Levels of evidence A–D
- A
- Official or primary source: public statistics, ministerial technical sheet, institutional norm or note.
- B
- Technical literature or solid institutional documentation that guides practice without being primary data.
- C
- Qualitative evidence or reasoned proposal: anonymized testimony, professional criterion or recommendation.
- D
- Hypothesis or assertion pending verification: declared as such and not published as fact.
Index of the 15 visuals
| ID | Title | Evidence | Go to |
|---|---|---|---|
| V1 | Fewer incidents, more burnt area | A | #v1 |
| V2 | The four layers of risk | A | #v2 |
| V3 | From the ground to the canopy | B | #v3 |
| V4 | Continuity or mosaic | B | #v4 |
| V5 | The interface is not just a line | B | #v5 |
| V6 | Who decides what | A | #v6 |
| V7 | Specialties that are not replaced | B | #v7 |
| V8 | From pasture to plate | B | #v8 |
| V9 | Technological maturity ladder | B | #v9 |
| V10 | Beyond the three 30s | B | #v10 |
| V11 | Twelve months of prevention | B | #v11 |
| V12 | Roadmap 0–24 months | C | #v12 |
| V13 | From inventory to fire front | A | #v13 |
| V14 | The force that doesn't fit in a headline | B | #v14 |
| V15 | From emergency to emergency | A | #v15 |
Correction methodology
- All sensitive figures are linked to their source alongside the statement, not in a separate bibliography.
- Statements not supported by cited sources are reformulated as a proposal, hypothesis, or transparency question.
- Previous formulations from the original document that did not withstand verification have been removed, including commercial benefits of alternative agents and unaccredited operational uses of experimental systems.
- The term "light aircraft" is not used to designate specialized aerial means.
- Extreme fire is not attributed to a single variable, nor is UV-B radiation presented as a direct cause.
- Testimonies are treated as anonymized qualitative evidence, never as general statistics.
- Cut-off date
- August 4, 2026
- Update policy
- Review at the end of each campaign and immediate correction when an official source rectifies a cited data point.
- Edition
- Web edition v2.0 · technical report V1.0
Primary documentation downloads
- MITECO — IIFF 2025 Statistical Advance (revised), PDF (external link, opens in a new tab)
- MITECO — Strategic Guidelines for Forest Fire Management, PDF (external link, opens in a new tab)
- MITECO/Defense — Interdepartmental Agreement on the State Amphibious Fleet, PDF (external link, opens in a new tab)
- MAPA — Summary of Forest and Agricultural Land, PDF (external link, opens in a new tab)
«Extinction protects the present. Land management decides the future.»
«A reserve without time to recover ceases to be a reserve.»