Towards Integrated Fire Management: Strengthening Forest Fire Legislation and Policies in the Andean Community of Nations

Abstract

This study analyzes forest fire legislation and policies in the Andean Community of Nations (ACN)—Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia—focusing on prevention and control. Using a comparative law approach, similarities, differences, and implementation challenges were identified. Ecuador and Peru have more comprehensive legal structures, while Colombia’s is simpler, and Bolivia falls in between. To address these gaps, this study proposes an Andean Directive for Integrated Fire Management (ADIFM) to harmonize policies and incorporate fire ecology, ancestral knowledge, education, monitoring technologies, and post-fire restoration. This regulatory framework, tailored to Andean ecological and sociocultural conditions, would optimize fire management and strengthen ecosystem resilience. Additionally, harmonizing sanctions and regulations at the regional level would ensure more coherent and effective governance. The ADIFM would provide strategic guidance for policymakers, fostering sustainable fire management and environmental restoration across Andean ecosystems.

1. Introduction

The Andean Community of Nations (ACN) is composed of the South American countries that share the Andean Mountain range: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. Venezuela was a member of the bloc until its official withdrawal in 2013, following a series of government decisions linked to changes in its economic and trade policies during the Chávez administration [1]. Founded in 1969 through the Cartagena Agreement, the ACN introduced significant reforms to the regional integration process, particularly by strengthening its institutional framework. These reforms have provided the organization with more robust mechanisms for consolidating the free trade zone and progressively implementing a customs union [2]. Since its inception, the ACN has developed initiatives in key strategic areas, including trade, infrastructure, environmental protection, and social cooperation, aiming to promote sustainable and integrated development across the region [3]. Among the main objectives of the Andean Community of Nations (ACN) are the promotion of green jobs, the implementation of forest management policies, and the strengthening of resilience to natural disasters [4]. Additionally, as the region’s primary policy-making body, the ACN is tasked with overseeing trade policies and fostering regional cooperation [5]. However, the significant heterogeneity in forest fire management laws and public policies across member countries undermines the effectiveness of the ACN’s regional initiatives. These policies often fail to account for the distinct cultural, environmental, and socioeconomic contexts of each nation [6]. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of national legislation is essential to develop laws and public policies that are both relevant and effective and that align with the specific realities of each ACN member state. This approach should explicitly incorporate cultural and intercultural fire management practices, as illustrated by some cases from North and South America [7,8].

The ACN is composed of a diversity of cultures [9,10] and, due to its physiographic conditions, influences the climate, geography, and biodiversity of the region, creating a variety of unique and diverse ecosystems [11]. This biogeographic zone is considered a hotspot of diversity [12], structured by native and endemic species of high scientific and cultural value [13]. In addition, it is an important economic area due to its ecosystem ecological services and agricultural activity [14]. Among the main ecological functions provided by this region are carbon sequestration in the vegetation and soil [15] and the control and maintenance of water flows during dry periods, making it of singular hydrological importance in the tropics [16]. However, the countries of the ACN face important challenges, especially in relation to forest fires, which are recurrent and constitute one of the main causes of destruction of Andean forests [17,18].

Forest fires represent a severe threat to ecosystems, biodiversity, human health, the economy, and overall social well-being [19]. According to Benali [20], human activity is the primary cause of most fires. Recent research indicates that global warming and increased human ignition could intensify [21] the frequency of these fires worldwide [22,23]. Therefore, predicting future fire activity globally presents a challenge due to uncertainties about land cover and the interactions between fires, the climate, and legal regulations [24]. In this context, the Andean countries of South America, such as Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, also face the impacts of forest fires. These fires are predominantly anthropogenic in this region [25]. The recurrence of these fires is also attributed to the region’s rich cultural and ecological diversity, which harbors a wide variety of ethnicities, mainly mestizo, followed by Amerindian, white, and black [6,25]. This cultural diversity increases the complexity of forest fires, which are influenced by the variability in climatic zones and the diversity of fuels in the Andean geography, directly affecting the region’s biodiversity. However, despite this diversity, the lack of comprehensive research on forest fires in the region hinders a deep understanding of the problem, especially in understudied and vulnerable ecosystems, such as tropical forests and high-mountain ecosystems [14].

Despite its significance for the scientific community, research on forest fires in this region remains limited. Notable exceptions include studies conducted in Colombia [26], Ecuador [27], Peru [28], and Bolivia [29], which examine fire ecology and its effect, often employing remote sensing techniques for analysis. Additionally, the region has produced several studies focused on fire prevention [30] and the enhancement of emergency response plans [31]. However, research addressing legal frameworks related to fire management is still scarce [24]. Furthermore, few investigations explore fire severity assessment, the taxonomic and functional diversity of tropical forests [32], or the ancestral use of fire, such as the traditional practices of the Quechua people in the Peruvian Andes [33]. According to Heydari et al. [15], there are three types of fires according to their severity, which is classified as high, moderate, or low. According to recent research, low-severity fires are part of the natural dynamics of most ecosystems on Earth [34]. Many plant communities are adapted to low-severity forest fires, as they have developed fire-induced germination mechanisms [35], where changes in soil properties are usually ephemeral [36]. The main changes that occur in the soil due to low-severity forest fires are decreases in microbial respiration and enzymatic activity [37], as well as increases in the soil pH and soil organic matter (SOM) concentration. According to Chandra and Bhardwaj [38], low-severity fires cause SOM combustion but allow an increase in nutrient availability, which favors plant community growth after the fire. Likewise, Sulwiński et al. [39] found that in moderately burned areas (low severity) relatively high phosphate contents are recorded. On the contrary, high-severity fires cause complete SOM loss and the volatilization of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium and require high temperatures for nutrient combustion [40]. Furthermore, they can also alter the stability of soil aggregates [41], which can lead, depending on climatic conditions, to changes in topography, vegetation, soil type, and texture, resulting in erosion and runoff after forest fires [42].

A key aspect of environmental law studies is the study of the science of fire ecology [43], which seeks to understand the diverse effects of fire on organisms and ecosystems [44]. Archaeological studies have shown that fire has been a natural and active part of Earth’s system for millions of years [45]. Recent fire ecological research [46] has led to a paradigm shift: fire is no longer seen as a destructive, irreversible force but as an essential ecological process that shapes most terrestrial ecosystems [47]. Fire ecologists now view fire as a dynamic ecological force with profound evolutionary consequences, largely influenced by human activity [48]. Some ecosystems are fire-adapted, where fire plays a functional role, while others are fire-sensitive, where forest fires can pose significant ecological risks [49]. Studies by Paveglio and Edgeley [50] have shown that fire-adapted ecosystems support species that depend on fire for their life cycles. Additionally, certain plant species, known as pyrophytic plants, require fire for germination, growth, and regeneration [51].

Another key aspect of environmental law is the inclusion of traditional knowledge about the use of fire by the Indigenous and mestizo peoples of the Americas [52]. Numerous studies highlight that Indigenous fire management benefits both people and ecosystems [53]. In Ecuador, for example, the Saraguro Indigenous community practices traditional burning in the southern herbaceous páramo ecosystem [25], promoting pyrophytic species and maintaining pyrodiversity [54]. Similar practices are found throughout Latin America, including among the Xavante in Brazil, the Tarahumara in Mexico, and the Pemón in Venezuela, who use fire for ecological, agricultural, and cultural purposes [45,55]. At the same time, recent studies from Andean countries demonstrate that fire is widely used by rural communities not only for its cultural significance but also because it represents a fast, low-cost, and practical method for clearing agricultural residues and preparing land for cultivation [56]. These utilitarian uses reflect structural conditions such as limited access to mechanized technology, economic constraints, and the lack of alternative land management tools. This dual reality—ancestral knowledge and pragmatic adaptation—highlights the complexity of fire use in the Andean context and underscores the need for an Integrated Fire Management (IFM) approach that recognizes cultural values while addressing socioeconomic and environmental challenges.

Socioeconomic and political factors contribute to forest fires in this region [57]. Cultural (ancestral) burning practices and agricultural burning often lead to high-severity fires due to improper techniques [24,25,52]. Institutional and policy responses to forest fires in Andean countries have varied over time. Some countries have implemented strong laws and policies for prevention, control, and mitigation, while others face challenges such as limited resources, weak institutions, social conflicts, and economic pressures [56]. Understanding legislative and policy trends related to forest fire management in the region is crucial for effectively addressing the issue. This knowledge helps identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges in institutional responses and allows for the development of recommendations to improve fire management [57].

This study addresses the need for improved forest fire management through a comparative analysis of legislative trends and public policies for fire mitigation in Andean countries. To this end, relevant laws, regulations, and policies were examined to identify common patterns, significant differences, and areas for improvement in forest fire management across the region. Data were collected using primary and secondary sources, including legislative documents, government reports, and academic studies. The data were analyzed using comparative approach and policy evaluation methodologies, which made it possible to identify trends, best practices, and opportunities to strengthen forest fire management in Andean countries. This analysis supports the proposal of a regional agenda that integrates fire management from an intercultural perspective, adapted to the social, environmental, and cultural specificities of Latin America [58]. The findings of this study provide key information for the development of strategies and recommendations aimed at decisionmakers, policymakers, environmental managers, researchers, assembly members, and legislators of the Andean Community, as well as other stakeholders involved in fire management in the region. Furthermore, this study contributes to the existing knowledge on forest fire management at both the regional and global levels, offering updated, evidence-based information on a critical and high-priority topic within the environmental and development agenda of the Andean region.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study covers the four member countries of the Andean Community of Nations (ACN): Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia (Figure 1). These countries are traversed by the Andes Mountains, a transnational mountain range that significantly influences their climatic, geographic, and ecological conditions.

The ACN, as the primary policy-making body of the Andean Community, is tasked with overseeing trade policies and promoting regional cooperation [5]. Although the ACN does not have a dedicated, binding law for wildfire management, it has taken steps to foster cooperation among its member states on this issue through resolutions and strategic initiatives. For example, the Andean Parliament has issued resolutions urging member countries to strengthen wildfire prevention and control measures and to promote sustainable forest management [59]. Furthermore, the Andean Community of Nations (ACN) has promoted the exchange of information and best practices in fire management, aiming to harmonize national policies and strengthen regional cooperation [60]. These efforts underscore the ACN’s commitment to safeguarding Andean ecosystems and mitigating the detrimental effects of forest fires. However, further research is required to analyze the specific regulations and public policies implemented by each member country. Identifying similarities, differences, and potential gaps in wildfire management strategies would provide critical insights for refining and enhancing the ACN’s role in fostering coordinated and effective fire governance across the region.

2.2. Legal Context Assessment of Forest Fires in the Region

Due to the variability in regulations related to forest fires in the region, a comparative law study was conducted [61]. This approach allowed for the analysis and comparison of differences and similarities in regulations, ordinances, and policies, with the aim of proposing harmonized recommendations for the region. The methodology followed is illustrated in Figure 2, which outlines the phases of this study, including a comprehensive review of the current legislation in each country. All regulatory levels were considered, from National Constitutions to Municipal Ordinances, ensuring an integrated analysis of the legal framework.

For data collection, international databases and country-specific sources were used:

• SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were used to identify previous studies and comparative analyses in all countries.
• For Colombia, the FAOLEX Database [62] was consulted, providing access to environmental and natural resource regulations. In addition, information was taken from the Official Gazette, which is the means of publishing laws for the knowledge of the state.
• For Ecuador, Vlex [63], a platform specialized in legislation, was used. Information was also taken from the Official Registry [64], the body of the Republic of Ecuador responsible for publishing laws.
• For Peru, a systematic search was conducted using Google Scholar and the FAOLEX Database [62], following search methodologies used in recent studies [65]. Information published in the official government newspaper El Peruano [66] was also reviewed.
• For Bolivia, a search was conducted using Google Scholar and the FAO’s FAOLEX Database. Information was also retrieved from the websites of the Organization of American States [67], the Agro-environmental Tribunal [68], and the Official Gazette of the Plurinational State of Bolivia [69].

This methodological approach enabled a detailed comparison of forest fire management policies, identifying legal gaps and harmonization opportunities in the Andean region.

2.3. Analysis of Public Policies for Forest Fire Management in the Region

In parallel with the legal analysis, a study was conducted on public policies related to the prevention and management of forest fires, as has been conducted in other regions of the world [70]. This analysis focused on understanding the implementation, effectiveness, and coherence of existing policies and identifying best practices and areas for improvement. To this end, official documents such as national and regional fire management plans, prevention strategies, action protocols, and allocated budgets were collected and analyzed. In addition, reports from government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and international agencies related to forest fire management were examined; finally, specialized databases such as the Public Policy Database of ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) were used to access relevant information (Figure 3). This public policy analysis and the legal analysis allowed for a comprehensive view of forest fire management in the Andean region, identifying both the strengths and weaknesses of the regulatory framework and existing policies [65]. This facilitated the formulation of recommendations to strengthen fire prevention and management, promoting policy harmonization and regional cooperation.

The regulatory and public policy frameworks of the countries under study were systematized by categorizing each component according to the following analytical criteria: prevention, the Indigenous use of fire, institutional coordination, criminal and administrative sanctions, community participation, post-fire restoration, fire response, education and awareness, risk management, and specific financing. Each criterion was assigned a qualitative score (1 = low, 3 = moderate, 5 = high) based on its degree of development, implementation, or coverage within the respective national legal context. This evaluative scale was based on methodological studies of comparative law [71]. Based on these data, radar charts were generated to visually and synthetically compare multiple variables, an approach commonly used in legal and public policy research [71,72].

2.4. Collection of Primary Information on Laws and Public Policies in the Andean Community of Nations

To complement the comparative analysis of laws and public policies, a survey was conducted using the Google Forms platform (https://forms.google.com; Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA), a methodology used in recent research [73]. The instrument included a total of 27 questions, both open-ended and closed-ended, and was aimed at people between 25 and 60 years of age. The sample consisted of public officials, representatives of risk management institutions, firefighters, researchers, and agricultural producers. A total of 49 people participated in the survey, providing key information from various institutional and territorial perspectives.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. A Comparative Analysis of Forest Fire Laws in the Andean Region

Forest fire management in the Andean region poses a complex challenge shaped by a convergence of interrelated factors. The countries in this region encompass diverse geographical zones—including the Pacific coast, the Andean highlands, and the Amazon basin—each characterized by distinct climatic conditions, ecosystem types, fuel load variability, and culturally rooted fire practices among multiple ethnic groups [27]. These differences significantly influence fire behavior and dynamics. The complexity is further amplified by the heterogeneity of legal and institutional frameworks across the member states of the Andean Community, as detailed in Table S1 of the Supplementary Materials. Consequently, any initiative aimed at harmonizing legislation and public policy for fire management in this region must account for this ecological, cultural, and regulatory diversity.

While each country exhibits unique legal characteristics, both commonalities and differences can be identified—a trend also observed in other regions worldwide [74]. Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia share a legal tradition rooted in their Political Constitutions and influenced by Roman–Germanic law, which has shaped their environmental and fire management regulations [75]. In Ecuador and Bolivia, this framework has also been influenced by international technical cooperation, particularly through the “Amazonía sin Fuego” program (PASF), supported by the United States Forest Service (USFS). Initially, the PASF promoted a fire-suppression-focused model, which contributed, in part, to the marginalization of traditional and intercultural fire management practices. Over time, however, both the USFS and PASF have broadened their approach, recognizing the value of ancestral knowledge. Notable examples include collaborative efforts between the Western Apache Tribal Nations and the USFS [76], as well as the PASF-supported study on Indigenous fire use by the Saraguro people in Ecuador [25], both representing key steps toward intercultural fire management in the region. Jurisdictional differences persist, however. For instance, Ecuador’s Constitution explicitly mandates, in Article 264, Paragraph 13, that Municipal Governments are responsible for fire prevention, protection, relief, and suppression services. By contrast, the Constitutions of Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia address natural resource management more broadly, without assigning specific responsibilities to local authorities (Table S1). These differences present challenges for integrating coordinated strategies within the framework of the Andean Community of Nations (ACN). To ensure more effective wildfire management, an integrated legal framework that also respects the cultural, social, economic, and ecological particularities of each country would be highly beneficial. A coordinated approach would strengthen cross-border cooperation, optimize resources, and improve wildfire response capacity, given that fires do not recognize political boundaries and affect the entire region [77]. Thus, while the Andean region shares a common legal foundation, differences in the specific regulation of wildfires may hinder the implementation of coordinated strategies. The consolidation of a more cohesive legal framework, adapted to the realities of each country, is key to advancing towards more efficient and sustainable fire management in Andean ecosystems. Likewise, in the Andean region, similarities are observed in the implementation of Penal Codes, which establish sanctions for intentionally caused forest fires, with custodial sentences in all the countries analyzed, although with significant differences in their severity. In this context, Colombia presents the strictest sanctioning framework, with penalties ranging from 5 to 12 years of imprisonment, in addition to a corresponding fine [78]. In Ecuador, the sentence varies from 1 to 3 years of imprisonment [79], while in Peru the sanction is 4 to 6 years of deprivation of liberty, accompanied by community service of between 40 and 80 days [80]. For its part, Bolivia does not have a specific classification for forest fires, but cases are framed within crimes of damage to public domain property, with penalties ranging from 1 to 6 years of imprisonment [81]. These differences reflect variations in the priorities and regulatory approaches of each country regarding the protection of their natural resources. As Uribe-Uran [82] points out, the application of environmental criminal law in Latin America varies significantly between countries, which corresponds to differences in legal culture, institutional capacity, and effectiveness in the implementation of regulations. This analysis highlights the need for a deeper comparative study that allows us to understand the complexities and challenges of environmental legislation in the Andean region and evaluate opportunities for greater harmonization in the protection of ecosystems.

A key distinction between the legal frameworks of these countries lies in their normative structure regarding forest fires. In Colombia, existing legislation is relatively limited and primarily focused on criminal provisions. However, the Colombian Congress is currently reviewing Bill No. 557 of 2025, promoted with the support of the National Unit for Disaster Risk Management (UNGRD). This legislative initiative aims to establish a comprehensive approach to fire management, seeking to move beyond the predominantly reactive model that has characterized the country’s response to forest fires. In contrast, Ecuador and Peru share a more complex legal structure, including codes, laws, regulations, and ordinances, suggesting a more detailed and diversified approach to the regulation of these events. Bolivia, on the other hand, occupies an intermediate position, with legislation encompassing codes and laws, thus differentiating itself from both the Colombian simplicity and the Ecuadorian and Peruvian complexity. This variability in legal structures is not exclusive to the Andean region. Studies such as those by Montiel-Molina et al. [65] have demonstrated that significant differences in forest fire legislation are also observed in Europe. However, in response to this heterogeneity, the European Union, as indicated by San-Miguel-Ayanz et al. [83], has driven a joint regulatory process since the 1980s. This effort has resulted in the development of voluntary regulations to support the development of unified forest fire information systems in member countries. In this context, an opportunity is identified to strengthen forest fire management in the ACN. The implementation of laws or ordinances that establish a unified information system, incorporating tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GISs), has the potential to improve the coordination and effectiveness of fire prevention and response strategies in the region. However, it is essential to avoid reductionist interpretations of fire dynamics based solely on remotely sensed heat detections. In many Latin American contexts, such approaches have led to the overregulation or misinterpretation of traditional fire practices. As Ponce Calderón et al. [84] emphasize, it is crucial to integrate GIS-based data with local knowledge, field observations, and historical and cultural insights to govern what they conceptualize as “pyrobiocultural landscapes”. This perspective supports a more comprehensive, context-sensitive, and intercultural understanding of fire governance.

Ecuador and Peru possess robust legal frameworks for forest fires, including laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations. Bolivia and Colombia present simpler legal structures, lacking ordinances, codes, and regulations. In Ecuador, the Forestry Law [85] (Arts. 57–60, 79) assigns the Ministry of Environment the prevention and control of forest fires, through educational campaigns and requiring preventive measures from forest owners, in addition to covering fires with agricultural insurance and criminally sanctioning offenders. In Peru, the Forestry and Wildlife Law [86] (Art. 24) addresses prevention and control through the National Forestry and Wildlife Plan [87], adapted to diverse realities. In contrast, Colombia, with a legal structure based solely on laws, promotes studies and prevention and control systems (Law 2111 of 2021, Art. 8, lit. n.) [88] and defines fire response (Law 37 of 1989, Arts. 4, 35) [89]. Bolivia, for its part, sanctions fires in protected areas (Forestry Law, Additional Provision to Art. 206 of the Penal Code) [90] but promotes Integrated Fire Management (Environment Law, Law of Rational Use and Management of Burning) [91,92]. Given these differences in the content of the laws, it is suggested that the region should not only unify fire control and prevention but also adopt a more integrative approach, such as Integrated Fire Management. This is especially relevant considering that fire exclusion policies in Latin America have historically reflected regulatory processes influenced by colonial and Eurocentric imaginaries, often criminalizing traditional fire practices rather than recognizing their socio-ecological roles [93]. The unification of laws between countries, although challenging, has been the subject of study and analysis. In the European context, harmonization as a political objective at the European level and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive represent a significant effort to harmonize legislation on the management of natural resources among member states [94]. Following the approach proposed by Montiel-Molina [65], we propose a Joint Andean Regional Policy Agenda for fire management, conceived as a flexible and intercultural framework. This agenda should be based on the right of Indigenous peoples to self-reflection [95] and avoid injustices derived from the modern project and the imposition of Eurocentric imaginaries [96]. It emphasizes key components such as intercultural and participatory fire management [25,52], fire ecology, education and training, technology and monitoring, restoration and prevention, and regulatory integration. Its objective is to strengthen regional cooperation while respecting Andean sociocultural and ecological diversity.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, Ecuador and Peru have developed complementary regulations, including codes, regulations, and ordinances, to strengthen wildfire management. At the legal level, Ecuador has the Organic Environmental Code [97], which establishes key provisions. Specifically, Articles 26, numeral 4; 27, numeral 4; 98, numeral 7; 157; and 273 state that the Decentralized Autonomous Governments (GADs), at both provincial and municipal levels, are responsible for formulating plans, programs, and projects for wildfire prevention and control. In contrast, Peru and the other member countries of the Andean Community of Nations (ACN) do not have an equivalent code within their legal framework. However, both Ecuador and Peru have developed specific regulations on this issue. In Ecuador, the Regulation on Prevention, Mitigation, and Fire Protection [98] (Art. 329) establishes the obligation of individuals, legal entities, and public and private institutions to implement preventive measures in forested properties, vacant lands, and densely wooded areas.

Meanwhile, Peru has a more extensive regulatory framework in this area. Notable examples include the Regulation for the Management of Forest Plantations and Agroforestry Systems [99] (Art. 14, lit. c; Art. 107.3, lit. a), which emphasizes wildfire prevention, and the Regulation for the Management of Forests and Wildlife in Native and Peasant Communities [100] (Art. 17, lit. 3; Art. 137.3, lit. a), which classifies the intentional setting of wildfires by peasant and native communities as a very serious offense. At a global level, regions such as Southeast Asia have implemented specific regulations for wildfire prevention and management [101]. However, within the Andean region, only Ecuador and Peru have established regulations at this level, highlighting a clear disparity among ACN member countries. This legal framework is complemented by local ordinances, which exist exclusively in Ecuador and Peru. In Ecuador, beyond addressing wildfire prevention and control, these ordinances also regulate the creation, functions, and integration of the Cantonal Committee for Integrated Wildfire Management. In Peru, although the ordinances primarily focus on prevention and control, their regulatory framework is more detailed compared to other ACN member countries (Table S1).

3.2. Comparative Analysis of Public Policies as Precedents for Fire Management in the Andean Region

The comparative analysis of public policies for forest fire management across the Andean region highlights several similarities and differences among the countries (Table S2). Most countries have developed national plans or programs to prevent, control, and mitigate wildfires, as seen in the US and Europe [102]. Globally, these policies are typically led by government agencies, such as forest services or environment ministries, which oversee fire management [103]. In ACN countries, fire prevention and control are central pillars of public policy [104,105]. However, some nations go further by incorporating additional objectives, such as restoring affected areas and fostering inter-institutional coordination to enhance fire management effectiveness. Although the instruments and mechanisms for implementing these policies vary across countries, common strategies can be identified, such as prevention and control systems, environmental education, brigade training, and satellite monitoring. None of these policies explicitly address Integrated Fire Management (IFM) as a public policy. An initial step in this direction has been taken with the development of the Amazonía sin Fuego program (PASF) [106], which serves as an initial initiative for Integrated Fire Management in the region. This contrasts with the Andean Environmental Charter [107] which mentions Integrated Fire Management but does not specify concrete action mechanisms for its implementation. Furthermore, although the participation of local communities is common, some countries have more successfully integrated it into fire management, recognizing their traditional knowledge and crucial role in prevention [108].

The differences are most evident in forest fire response capacity, and this is also true in many regions of the world [109]. Resources allocated to fire suppression, personnel training, and infrastructure vary considerably. In this context, Colombia stands out in the ACN for its greater forest fire response capacity due to a combination of strategic, operational, and infrastructure factors. Unlike Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, Colombia has implemented a more structured approach, with the support of the National Unit for Disaster Risk Management (UNGRD), which has identified the need to strengthen its aerial capacity through the acquisition of specialized helicopters and the development of technical fire management strategies that consist of applying prescribed burns based on intercultural dialogues between the UNGRD and community leaders. Furthermore, the mobilization of state and private resources has enabled a faster and more effective response to fires in several regions of the country. In contrast, Ecuador relies heavily on local fire departments and community participation, while Peru faces operational and meteorological challenges that limit its response. Bolivia, despite declaring a national emergency and receiving international aid, suffered the greatest devastation, highlighting deficiencies in its initial response capacity. However, despite Colombia’s relative advantage, no country in the region has a comprehensive public fire management policy, as is the case in other countries [110], which limits the effectiveness of long-term strategies and underscores the need for a more preventive and regionally coordinated approach. This disparity reflects differences in the understanding of the ecological role of fire and the capacity to implement complex strategies. Regional cooperation, although recognized as essential, also presents challenges. Effective coordination and information sharing are crucial, especially in border areas and in the management of large fires. Therefore, public policies on forest fires in Andean countries share common objectives but differ in their implementation and effectiveness. Adapting policies to local contexts and investing in response capacities are crucial to addressing this complex challenge.

3.3. Comparative Evaluation of Legal Frameworks and Public Policies on Forest Fires in the Andean Community

As shown in Figure 4a, Colombia’s legal framework on wildfires demonstrates significant progress in prevention (4/5), institutional coordination (4/5), and sanctions (5/5), reflecting a legal approach that is both preventive and punitive. Risk management and fire response show moderate development (3/5). However, areas such as education and awareness (2/5), Indigenous fire use (2/5), and community participation (2/5) are poorly integrated. Post-fire restoration (1/5) and dedicated funding (1/5) are particularly weak. This situation reflects a common trend, where laws prioritize fire suppression without adequately considering traditional cultural practices [52].

In Ecuador (Figure 4b), prevention, institutional coordination, community participation, fire response, and education and training, as well as risk management, receive higher scores (4/5). Nonetheless, Indigenous fire use (3/5), post-fire restoration (3/5), and specific funding (2/5) represent the main limitations in the country. However, there is a legal vacuum regarding the recognition of traditional fire use, which hinders the implementation of sustainable ancestral practices [25]. In Peru, penalties are the most developed aspect (5/5), followed by prevention, institutional coordination, community participation, education and training, and risk management (4/5 each). The Indigenous use of fire (3/5) and fire response (3/5) show moderate development, while specific funding and post-fire restoration remain low (2/5). The lack of integration of traditional knowledge into the Peruvian legal framework limits the effectiveness of fire management as in other South American countries [111]. In Bolivia, prevention and sanctions are prominent (4/5), but community participation, education, and the recognition of the Indigenous use of fire are low (2/5). The lack of specific financial resources (1/5) and institutional weaknesses aggravate the situation, especially in contexts of agricultural expansion that increases the risk of fires [112]. These findings are consistent with studies in other regions, where the exclusion of traditional knowledge and a lack of community participation have limited the effectiveness of fire management policies [113]. The integration of cultural practices and intercultural governance are recognized as key elements for sustainable fire management [52].

Regarding public policies, the results are presented in Figure 5. In the case of Colombia (Figure 5a), policies related to prevention, fire response, and risk management show the highest level of effectiveness (5/5). These are followed by institutional coordination, sanctions, community participation, post-fire restoration, and education and training, all with moderate effectiveness (3/5). However, Indigenous fire use and dedicated funding remain critical issues with limited presence in public policy formulation and implementation. This situation reflects a negative trend where policies prioritize fire suppression without adequately considering traditional cultural practices [52].

In Ecuador, prevention and risk management policies stand out as the most effective (5/5). Institutional coordination, sanctions, community participation, post-fire restoration, fire response, and education and training demonstrate moderate effectiveness (3/5). In contrast, the incorporation of Indigenous fire use and the allocation of specific funding show very low levels (1/5), reflecting weak attention to these components. In addition, the lack of legal recognition of traditional fire use hinders the implementation of sustainable ancestral practices [25].

In Peru, prevention and risk management also rank high in terms of policy effectiveness (5/5). Other aspects such as the Indigenous use of fire, institutional coordination, sanctions, community participation, post-fire restoration, fire response, and education and training show moderate levels (3/5). In particular, the country lacks a public policy framework that encourages the allocation of specific funding for Integrated Fire Management (IFM) projects, which is a significant gap. Recent research warns that this approach, focused exclusively on fire suppression, without considering sustained financing mechanisms or the recognition of the cultural dimensions of fire use, is often counterproductive for the adequate management of ecosystems. In this sense, the exclusion of traditional cultural practices, considered by several studies as fundamental in the sustainable management of forest fires, severely limits the effectiveness of public policies [25,52].

In Bolivia, the situation is particularly critical compared to in other Andean countries. While areas such as prevention, Indigenous fire use, institutional coordination, sanctions, community participation, fire response, education, and risk management demonstrate moderate effectiveness (3/5), policies related to post-fire restoration and, most notably, dedicated funding are virtually absent or severely underdeveloped. The lack of clear budget allocations for Integrated Fire Management (IFM) programs reflects a structural weakness that seriously undermines the sustainability of any implemented strategy [114]. This financial gap, compounded by institutional limitations, is exacerbated by agricultural expansion and widespread, unregulated burning. International studies have shown that excluding traditional knowledge and limiting community participation significantly reduces the effectiveness of fire-related public policies [113]. The integration of cultural practices and intercultural governance models is widely recognized as essential for sustainable fire management [25,52]. However, without stable financial support, even the most inclusive policies risk remaining rhetorical and failing in practical implementation.

3.4. Perceptions of Key Stakeholders Regarding Legislation and Public Policies Related to Forest Fires in the Andean Community

The data presented in

Table 1. Perceptions of key stakeholders on legal awareness and recognition of traditional fire use in the Andean Community.

Question	Colombia (%)			Ecuador (%)			Peru (%)			Bolivia (%)			Andean Community (%)
	Yes	No	I’m Not Sure	Yes	No	I’m Not Sure	Yes	No	I’m Not Sure	Yes	No	I’m Not Sure	Yes	No	I’m Not Sure
Are you currently engaged in natural resource management, agriculture, firefighting, or environmental protection?	60	40	0	73.3	26.7	0	95.2	4.8	0	50	50	0	69.6	30.4	0
Are you aware that there are specific laws in your country that penalize the unauthorized use of fire, including the illegal burning of forests, vegetation cover, and rural areas?	80	20	0	93.3	6.7	0	95.2	4.8	0	50	50	0	79.6	20.4	0
Did you know that the law includes prison sentences and financial fines for those who burn more than one hectare without a permit?	60	40	0	86.7	13.3	0	85.7	14.3	0	66.7	33.3	0	74.8	25.2	0
Do you think the current sanctions are sufficient to prevent forest fires?	40	40	20	20	66.7	13.3	28.6	52.4	19	0	66.7	33.3	22.2	56.5	21.4
Are you aware that in some rural areas of your country, fire is used for traditional agricultural and cultural purposes?	100	0	0	100	0	0	95.2	4.8	0	80	20	0	93.8	6.2	0
Do you believe that current legislation adequately recognizes or takes into account the traditional use of fire in community or rural contexts?	20	80	0	33.3	40	26.7	14.3	42.9	42.9	33.3	33.3	33.3	25.2	49.1	25.7

reveal high legal awareness among stakeholders involved in natural resource management in the Andean countries, especially in Peru (95.2%), Ecuador (93.3%), and Colombia (80%). However, in Bolivia, this awareness is significantly lower (50%), suggesting potential deficiencies in the dissemination or implementation of the current legislation. Although most respondents acknowledge the existence of legal sanctions for the unauthorized use of fire, only 22.2% in the Andean Community consider these sanctions effective in preventing forest fires. This skepticism reflects a disconnect between regulations and their practical application, a situation also observed in countries such as Brazil, where weak environmental governance has limited the effectiveness of fire policies [115]. The recognition of traditional fire use is almost unanimous in Colombia and Ecuador (100%) and high in Peru (95.2%) and Bolivia (80%). However, only 25.2% of respondents at the regional level believe that national legislation adequately reflects these ancestral practices. This lack of legal recognition can lead to conflicts between local communities and authorities, as documented in Venezuela, where “zero-fire” policies have generated tensions with Indigenous communities that use fire traditionally [52]. Furthermore, significant uncertainty regarding legislation on fire use is observed, especially in Ecuador (40%) and Bolivia (33.3%), indicating potential legal gaps or a lack of effective dissemination of existing regulations. In Ecuador, for example, a lack of legal frameworks that integrate traditional knowledge into fire management has been identified, limiting the implementation of sustainable practices [25]. Therefore, although there is a strong foundation of legal and environmental awareness in the Andean region, critical challenges persist, such as the limited enforcement of sanctions, the insufficient legal recognition of traditional practices, and a misalignment between regulatory frameworks and rural realities. These findings underscore the urgent need for more inclusive, culturally relevant, and context-specific legal reforms to promote Integrated Fire Management in the Andean Community.

In Andean countries, public perceptions reveal significant deficiencies in fire management policies (

Table 2. Perceptions of key stakeholders on public policies on forest fires in the Andean Community of Nations.

Question	Response Options	Colombia			Ecuador			Peru			Bolivia			Andean Community
		% Answered	% Not Answered	% Total	% Answered	% Not Answered	% Total	% Answered	% Not Answered	% Total	% Answered	% Not Answered	% Total	% Answered	% Not Answered	% Total
Which of the following factors do you believe hinder the enforcement of the law?	Lack of knowledge	40	60	100	60	40	100	47.6	52.4	100	66.7	33.3	100	53.6	46.4	100
	Limited monitoring	20	80	100	73.3	26.7	100	47.6	52.4	100	33.3	66.7	100	43.6	56.5	100
	Institutional weakness	40	60	100	80	20	100	67.7	32.3	100	50	50	100	59.4	40.6	100
	Local culture of fire use	60	40	100	60	40	100	42.9	57.1	100	50	50	100	53.2	46.8	100
Do you believe that environmental and municipal authorities properly enforce existing regulations on fire prevention and control?	Always	0	100	100	6.7	93.3	100	0	100	100	0	100	100	1.7	98.3	100
	Sometimes	40	60	100	33.3	66.7	100	42.9	57.1	100	50	50	100	41.6	58.5	100
	Almost never	60	40	100	60	40	100	47.6	52.4	100	16.7	83.3	100	46.1	53.9	100
	Never	0	100	100	0	100	100	9.5	90.5	100	33.3	66.7	100	10.7	89.3	100
What additional measures would you propose to strengthen forest fire prevention?	Institutional and regulatory strengthening	10	90	100	30	70	100	25	75	100	40	60	100	26.3	73.8	100
	Education, prevention culture, and community work	50	50	100	25	75	100	30	70	100	10	90	100	28.8	71.3	100
	Technology, monitoring, and early warning systems	30	70	100	25	75	100	20	80	100	10	90	100	21.3	78.8	100
	Integrated landscape management and territorial planning	10	90	100	20	80	100	25	75	100	40	60	100	23.8	76.3	100
Do you agree that exceptions or differentiated regulations should be established for cultural fire practices?	Yes	40	60	100	73.3	26.7	100	66.7	33.3	100	16.7	83.3	100	49.2	50.8	100
	No	20	80	100	0	100	100	19	81	100	66.7	33.3	100	26.4	73.6	100
	It depends on the context	40	60	100	26.7	73.3	100	14.3	85.7	100	16.7	83.3	100	24.4	75.6	100
In your experience, to what extent is local knowledge consulted or integrated into the development of forest fire policies in your country?	Frequently	20	80	100	13.3	86.7	100	4.8	95.2	100	0	100	100	9.5	90.5	100
	Occasionally	20	80	100	40	60	100	14.3	85.7	100	50	50	100	31.1	68.9	100
	Rarely	60	40	100	40	60	100	66.7	33.3	100	16.7	83.3	100	45.9	54.2	100
	Never	0	100	100	6.7	93.3	100	14.3	85.7	100	33.3	66.7	100	13.6	86.4	100
Which of the following mechanisms or strategies do you consider necessary to achieve a balance between fire prevention and respect for cultural uses of fire?	Intercultural dialogue and legal recognition of the cultural use of fire	40	60	100	30	70	100	25	75	100	10	90	100	26.3	73.8	100
	Community training and certification	25	75	100	40	60	100	25	75	100	10	90	100	25.0	75.0	100
	Zoning and participatory planning	10	90	100	15	85	100	20	80	100	10	90	100	13.8	86.3	100
	Technical-cultural education and awareness	25	75	100	15	85	100	30	70	100	70	30	100	35.0	65.0	100
Are you familiar with any of the forest fire policies currently implemented in your country?	Yes	80	20	100	73.3	26.7	100	61.9	38.1	100	16.7	83.3	100	58.0	42.0	100
	No	20	80	100	6.7	93.3	100	23.8	76.2	100	50	50	100	25.1	74.9	100
	In name only	0	100	100	20	80	100	14.3	85.7	100	33.3	66.7	100	16.9	83.1	100
Do you consider that these policies are being effectively implemented in your region?	Yes	0	100	100	13.3	86.7	100	10	90	100	0	100	100	5.8	94.2	100
	No	20	80	100	40	60	100	30	70	100	83.3	16.7	100	43.3	56.7	100
	Partially	40	60	100	40	60	100	45	55	100	16.7	83.3	100	35.4	64.6	100
	I don’t know	40	60	100	6.7	93.3	100	15	85	100	0	100	100	15.4	84.6	100
Which of the following aspects do you consider most important for improving the effectiveness of these policies?	Inter-institutional coordination	100	0	100	86.7	13.3	100	65	35	100	50	50	100	75.4	24.6	100
	Financial resources	60	40	100	80	20	100	45	55	100	50	50	100	58.8	41.3	100
	Community participation	60	40	100	66.7	33.3	100	65	35	100	83.3	16.7	100	68.8	31.3	100
	Local technical capacity	40	60	100	66.7	33.3	100	70	30	100	33.4	66.6	100	52.5	47.5	100
Should cultural uses of fire be recognized in these policies?	Yes	40	60	100	93.3	6.7	100	71.4	28.6	100	16.7	83.3	100	55.4	44.7	100
	No	20	80	100	0	100	100	4.8	95.2	100	66.7	33.3	100	22.9	77.1	100
	It depends on the context	40	60	100	6.7	93.3	100	23.8	76.2	100	16.7	83.3	100	21.8	78.2	100
On a scale from 1 to 5, how relevant do you think it is to develop a Regional Andean Agenda for Integrated Fire Management (RAAIFM) within the framework of the Andean Community for comprehensive fire management?	1 Not at all relevant	20	80	100	0	100	100	0	100	100	20	80	100	10.0	90.0	100
	2 Slightly relevant	0	100	100	6.7	93.3	100	0	100	100	0	100	100	1.7	98.3	100
	3 Moderately relevant	0	100	100	0	100	100	14.3	85.7	100	0	100	100	3.6	96.4	100
	4 Relevant	20	80	100	6.7	93.3	100	9.5	90.5	100	0	100	100	9.1	91.0	100
	Very relevant	60	40	100	86.7	13.3	100	76.2	23.8	100	80	20	100	75.7	24.3	100
Which of the following components do you consider most urgent in your context for the development of a Regional Andean Agenda for Integrated Fire Management (RAAIFM)?	Fire ecology	20	80	100	46.7	53.3	100	38.1	61.9	100	60	40	100	41.2	58.8	100
	Cultural and Indigenous use of fire	40	60	100	66.7	33.3	100	47.6	52.4	100	40	60	100	48.6	51.4	100
	Education and training	100	0	100	60	40	100	66.7	33.3	100	40	60	100	66.7	33.3	100
	Technology and monitoring	60	40	100	46.7	53.3	100	38.1	61.9	100	40	60	100	46.2	53.8	100
	Restoration and prevention	60	40	100	46.7	53.3	100	52.4	47.6	100	80	20	100	59.8	40.2	100
	Regulations and legislation	40	60	100	66.7	33.3	100	47.6	52.4	100	100	0	100	63.6	36.4	100
Do you believe that the Regional Andean Agenda for Integrated Fire Management (RAAIFM) should incorporate ancestral knowledge and recognize the role of local and Indigenous communities?	Yes	40	60	100	100	0	100	80	20	100	40	60	100	65.0	35.0	100
	No	40	60	100	0	100	100	0	100	100	60	40	100	25.0	75.0	100
	Partially	20	80	100	0	100	100	20	80	100	0	100	100	10.0	90.0	100
What level of implementation do you think this proposal would have in your country or community?	High	0	100	100	60	40	100	42.9	57.1	100	20	80	100	30.7	69.3	100
	Medium	60	40	100	40	60	100	52.4	47.6	100	60	40	100	53.1	46.9	100
	Low	40	60	100	6.7	93.3	100	4.8	95.2	100	0	100	100	12.9	87.1	100
	None	0	100	100	0	100	100	0	100	100	20	80	100	5.0	95.0	100
What elements or approaches do you think should be added or strengthened?	Community participation and multi-level governance	100	0	100	100	0	100	0	100	100	0	100	100	50.0	50.0	100
	Community participation and multi-level governance	0	100	100	100	0	100	100	0	100	0	100	100	50.0	50.0	100
	Financing and transparency	100	0	100	0	100	100	0	100	100	100	0	100	50.0	50.0	100
	Scientific research and knowledge exchange	0	100	100	100	0	100	100	0	100	0	100	100	50.0	50.0	100
	Operational strengthening and professionalization	100	0	100	0	100	100	100	0	100	100	0	100	75.0	25.0	100

). The main obstacles identified are a lack of awareness, limited surveillance, and institutional weakness, problems particularly pronounced in Bolivia (66.7%) and Peru (47.6%). These factors align with findings from studies conducted in other Latin American contexts, where institutional fragility and the absence of effective preventive strategies have undermined environmental governance [115]. Furthermore, there is a widespread perception that environmental and municipal authorities are minimally involved in preventive actions. In Bolivia (83.3%) and Peru (52.4%), most respondents indicate that these institutions rarely engage actively. This lack of involvement has also been documented in several countries, where the centralization of decision-making and poor coordination across government levels have limited the effectiveness of Integrated Fire Management [116]. Faced with this scenario, there is a strong call to strengthen institutions and legal frameworks, as well as to promote education, community engagement, and the use of appropriate technologies. These measures enjoy broad support in Ecuador (100%) and Peru (90%). Likewise, the traditional use of fire is notably recognized. One hundred percent of respondents in Ecuador and Peru support the inclusion of contextual legal exceptions, which aligns with other studies advocating for intercultural and adaptive frameworks [25,52]. However, public policies still fail to ensure the effective regulation of these practices, highlighting a disconnect between legislation and local practices. Worryingly, awareness of fire management policies is low; for instance, in Peru (71.4%) and Bolivia (50%), many respondents do not even know the names of such policies. Moreover, their territorial implementation is perceived as partial or ineffective, especially in Bolivia (75%). In this context, there is regional consensus on the need to incorporate cultural fire use into laws and public policies. Therefore, any regional integration initiative must consider these perceptions, as 91.7% of respondents view the safeguarding of traditional knowledge as a priority. Ultimately, deep reforms are required, reforms grounded in an intercultural, participatory, and decentralized approach that strengthens fire governance within the Andean Community.

3.5. The Benefits and Potential Risks of Prevention-Focused Forest Fire Laws and Public Policies in the Andean Region

Fire prevention has been central to Andean Forest fire laws, but a comprehensive approach is needed, addressing suppression, control, fire ecology, and differences between fire-adapted and fire-sensitive ecosystems [117]. An effective regulatory framework must differentiate between fire severity levels, recognizing that low-intensity fires can provide ecological benefits, such as vegetation regeneration and a reduction in fuel accumulation, as supported by the scientific community [118]. Moreover, policy design should integrate traditional knowledge, both Indigenous and mestizo, regarding fire use, promoting adaptive management practices suited to the ecological and cultural conditions of each territory [119]. The combination of prevention, adaptive fire management, and controlled fire use in specific contexts will help mitigate the risks of catastrophic wildfires while maintaining ecosystem resilience and supporting local communities A balanced approach, based on an understanding of the interaction between fire ecology, sociocultural practices, and risk management, is key to developing effective, context-specific, and sustainable regulations in the Andean region [120].

Recent studies further support our proposed approach. Notably, the findings presented in Towards Fire-Smart Landscapes [121] highlight the need to move beyond rigid fire exclusion policies. The case of Venezuela—formerly part of the Andean Community—demonstrates how intercultural fire management, such as the mosaic burning practiced by the Indigenous Pemón people, effectively reduces wildfire risk and enhances ecological resilience. This integrative model, which combines scientific and traditional knowledge, provides valuable insights for the development of inclusive and sustainable fire governance in the Andean region. Consequently, it should be considered a potential asset in shaping laws and public policies within the ACN framework.

3.6. Proposal for the Creation of a Regional Andean Agenda for Integrated Fire Management (RAAIFM)

Forest fires represent a significant problem in the Andean Community (ACN). Given the diversity of existing regulations and policies, it is crucial to establish a coherent and articulated regulatory framework. The creation of a Regional Andean Agenda for Integrated Fire Management (RAAIFM) would allow for the updating and integration of current laws and policies, as illustrated in Figure 6 (the diagram should be read clockwise). The development of this regulatory framework requires a holistic approach that considers the three key components of Integrated Fire Management: the ecological component, the sociocultural component, and the technical–institutional component. This approach should be capable of addressing both contemporary demands and the intrinsic diversity of ecosystems and human societies. Likewise, the RAAIFM must be sufficiently flexible to optimize and enhance the effectiveness of the measures adopted by the competent political and administrative authorities.

The structure of the RAAIFM is detailed below.

3.6.1. Ecological Component

This component is based on the study of fire ecology, which includes the analysis of fire-adapted, fire-susceptible, and fire-independent ecosystems and the development of differentiated management strategies (Figure 6 C1). The integration of ecological principles into the ACN’s regulatory framework is crucial [42]. In particular, the RAAIFM should explicitly establish the importance of researching, recognizing, and properly managing fire-adapted ecosystems within the territories of the member countries. Scientific evidence demonstrates that many ecosystems depend on fire for their optimal ecological functioning [110]. Ignoring this reality and suppressing fire in such ecosystems is counterproductive, as confirmed by recent studies documenting the negative effects of fire suppression [117].

Furthermore, there is a strong need for comprehensive regional research to identify and characterize ecosystems that are susceptible or not adapted to fire [118]. These ecosystems, where fire has a detrimental impact, must be subject to precise ecological zoning, which should be regulated and incorporated into the RAAIFM framework. This zoning will allow for contextualized and differentiated fire management, supporting biodiversity conservation and the resilience of Andean landscapes.

An additional key aspect is the differentiation between the various levels of forest fire severity. There is a consensus in the scientific community that not all fires are harmful. For example, the study by Carrión-Paladines et al. [24] in Ecuador demonstrated that low-severity fires can be beneficial in coastal, mountainous, and Amazonian ecosystems by promoting vegetation regeneration and improving soil properties. Likewise, Yangua-Solano et al. [54] found that bryophytes and lichens exposed to low-severity fires do not experience significant adverse effects, suggesting they can be considered pyrophytic species, meaning they are adapted to fire. In addition, research has shown that low-severity fires can improve soil quality by enhancing the release of essential nutrients and stabilizing soil structure [119]. However, the RAAIFM must also rigorously address high-severity fires, which have devastating impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and soil health [120]. These extreme events cause irreversible damage and should therefore be subject to strict legal sanctions in accordance with each country’s legislation.

Finally, the ecological component encompasses actions related to fire prevention and the restoration of fire-prone ecosystems. It proposes the identification, study, and integration of pyrophytic and fire-resistant species in restoration and reforestation efforts to enhance program effectiveness. The goal is to promote the use of functional species adapted to territories with variable fire regimes [34,117]. Additionally, establishing incentives for the recovery of affected areas and encouraging community participation—guided by specific protective regulations—is essential [119]. In ecosystems adapted to fire, it is also crucial to promote research programs that deepen the understanding of their adaptive dynamics.

3.6.2. Sociocultural Component

The inclusion of ancestral knowledge and traditional practices related to fire use is essential for a comprehensive, context-sensitive, and effective fire management strategy in the Andean region. Various studies have shown that Indigenous communities have developed, over generations, a profound understanding of fire ecology, employing fire as a tool for landscape management, traditional agriculture, and biodiversity conservation [95,96]. The exclusion of this knowledge has led to environmental and epistemic injustices rooted in the imposition of Eurocentric perspectives and a modernist project that often criminalizes traditional fire use by local communities [122]. In this context, the concept of pyrobiocultural sites emerges as particularly relevant. These are territories where the ecological, cultural, and social dimensions of fire converge. In such landscapes, ancestral fire management has shaped the environment, promoted ecosystem resilience, and reinforced the identities and practices of local communities [84]. A notable example is found in the Amazon, where several studies have documented the use of controlled burning to maintain species diversity, regenerate soils, and prevent high-severity wildfires [123]. Neglecting or underestimating this ancestral knowledge not only results in the loss of intangible cultural heritage but can also lead to inefficient or counterproductive fire management strategies [7]. Therefore, the RAAIFM must explicitly recognize the cultural and Indigenous use of fire and promote intercultural governance frameworks. This involves fostering horizontal dialogue and the co-creation of public policies among local communities, state authorities, and the scientific community so that traditional knowledge is legitimately integrated into fire management regulations [95].

On the other hand, strengthening fire management education and training is key to the effective implementation of this agenda. It is proposed that fire management be incorporated into environmental education, both in basic education and in technical and professional training programs. Similarly, community-based fire management training should actively involve all relevant stakeholders, with particular emphasis on the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and local communities, who often hold vital knowledge and practical experience regarding effective fire management within their specific ecosystems [121]. In this context, critical topics such as post-fire prevention, control, and ecosystem restoration should be comprehensively addressed to ensure the meaningful participation of farmers, Indigenous communities, and forest fire brigades [25].

3.6.3. Technological–Institutional Component

An essential pillar of the RAAIFM is the development of technical guidelines for Integrated Fire Management tailored to the specific conditions and needs of each Andean country. These guidelines should serve a wide range of sectors—including environmental agencies, rural communities, and emergency services—to ensure more efficient and context-sensitive fire governance. In parallel, the adoption of advanced technologies is strongly recommended. This includes the use of satellite-based remote sensing and drone surveillance for early fire detection, fire behavior modeling, and the strategic planning of controlled burns [124]. Integrating real-time environmental sensors and climate data analytics into early warning systems can significantly reduce the occurrence and spread of large-scale wildfires by improving response times and preparedness [125].

Additionally, it is imperative to strengthen the regulatory and institutional framework at the regional level. Progress must be made toward harmonizing fire-related laws across Andean countries, including the development of common criteria for sanctioning inappropriate fire use and establishing shared standards for enforcement. Special attention must also be paid to the growing threat of wildland–urban interface (WUI) fires, those that occur at the boundaries between natural ecosystems and human settlements. In these zones, the risks are amplified by the expansion of agricultural frontiers and rapid urban development. The RAAIFM should therefore promote the creation of specific legislation addressing fire management in urban and peri-urban ecosystems, where human and environmental vulnerabilities intersect most acutely. However, any initiative aimed at establishing a regional regulatory framework for fire management must start with full recognition of the legal pluralism existing in the Andean region. This implies not only considering national, departmental, provincial, and municipal legal frameworks but also valuing the own normative systems of Indigenous peoples and local communities, who have legitimate forms of organization, community agreements, and cultural mechanisms for the use and control of fire, based on their customs and territories [96,126]. Therefore, the Andean Regional Agenda for Integrated Fire Management (RAAIFM) should not be conceived as a homogeneous or centralized normative structure but as a guiding, flexible, and intercultural framework, capable of articulating the different existing institutional and normative levels and of fostering participatory governance processes in the territory [93]. This proposal is based on respect for the self-determination of people, on the dialogue of knowledge, and on the construction of agreements that recognize communities as political actors and guardians of their landscapes.

4. Conclusions

The comparative analysis of legislation and public policies on forest fires in the Andean Community of Nations (ACN) reveals profound heterogeneity in the legal, institutional, and financial frameworks of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. While all countries formally recognize the importance of forest fire prevention and control, their legal instruments differ significantly in scope, clarity, implementation capacity, and institutional articulation. Ecuador and Peru have relatively robust and comprehensive legal structures, yet they face major challenges in effective implementation, particularly due to inter-institutional fragmentation and a lack of financial mechanisms. Colombia exhibits comparatively stronger operational capacity, especially in emergency response, despite having less-developed legislation, while Bolivia occupies an intermediate position, with some recent improvements in policy formulation.

Our radar analysis highlights key asymmetries in areas such as legal coherence, institutional coordination, financial governance, and community participation. In particular, the deficient financial management for Integrated Fire Management stands out as a critical weakness that limits the effectiveness and sustainability of public policies. Stakeholder perceptions further confirm that existing policies often lack integration and are not aligned with the socio-ecological realities of fire in Andean ecosystems. Notably, ancestral and cultural uses of fire remain largely unrecognized and undervalued in the region. This underscores the urgent need to advance genuine intercultural integration in fire management policies. To address these gaps, we propose the creation of a Regional Andean Agenda for Integrated Fire Management (RAAIFM) as a mechanism to harmonize policies. This agenda is built on three interconnected components:

• Ecological: This includes the recognition of fire-adapted and fire-sensitive ecosystems, post-fire restoration, and ecological zoning.
• Sociocultural: This emphasizes the integration of ancestral knowledge about fire, community education, and intercultural dialogue.
• Technical–institutional: This focuses on intersectoral coordination, technological tools for monitoring, multisectoral financing, and legal harmonization, including urban and peri-urban fire legislation.

This framework also stresses the importance of developing decentralized and sustained financing mechanisms, strengthening multi-level governance, and promoting inclusive participation to ensure the legitimacy and effectiveness of public policies. By addressing both structural weaknesses and operational needs, the RAAIFM offers a path for the ACN to transition toward a more coherent, culturally sensitive, and ecologically grounded fire governance regime. These insights aim to support policymakers in designing contextually relevant and forward-looking strategies for the prevention, management, and restoration of ecosystems affected by fire in the Andean region.