The BetaKit Guide: Wildfire
For millennia, Indigenous Peoples around the world have understood fire as a force to be guided, and not an enemy.
To many Indigenous communities, fire is an ancient tool that shapes ecosystems, strengthens biodiversity, and—when used with care—prevents disaster before it begins.
“The challenge is when knowledge has been lost.”
Michael Martineau, Treaty Six First Nations
Low-intensity, controlled burns have been used for millennia to clear underbrush, manage invasive species, and curb the risk of catastrophic wildfires. But laws enacted by Western colonial governments, such as Canada’s Indian Act of 1876 and provincial fire laws, suppressed and even criminalized traditional practices like cultural burns, forests grew dense, fuel accumulated, and wildfires became more extreme.
But Indigenous fire stewardship has reclaimed its rightful place in modern land management, and new technology is blending traditional knowledge with modern tools.
Programs like the Indigenous Fire Stewardship Initiative and the First Nations Emergency Services Society in British Columbia are bringing cultural burning back to fight fire with fire.
Calgary-based Wildfire Robotics is testing its robotic long-distance containment lines in partnership with FNESS, alongside prescribed burns.
BurnBot, based in San Francisco, has built a remote-controlled machine for small, precise fires that reduce wildfire fuel loads. Its propane torches and contained airflow system allow for safer burns, even in difficult conditions.
And researchers at the University of Southern California are using AI to map controlled burns, and predict fire behaviour, smoke spread, and environmental responses, without replacing the wisdom that has sustained ecosystems for generations.
Michael Martineau is Emergency Management Lead for the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations, a non-profit political advocacy organization.
In conversation with BetaKit, he shared insights on cultural burning practices and how tech innovators can respectfully collaborate with Indigenous communities to help preserve and harness this valuable knowledge.
Can traditional knowledge be a valuable tool in our current battle against wildfires?
I believe so. The more knowledge we have at our disposal, the safer we can make communities. I don’t necessarily think there’s some ancient piece of wisdom that will solve all our problems—these are modern problems because we let things get out of hand. But there are likely techniques and ways of doing things from older forms of knowledge that can help revitalize our ecosystems to a healthier state with less extreme impacts on communities.
You make an interesting distinction between controlled burns and cultural burns—can you explain that?
A colleague of mine put it very simply: a controlled burn is fuel management; a cultural burn is ecological revitalization.
For decades, wildfire agencies have been almost too good at their job. When they put out a fire, they put it out entirely. This has led to decades of fuel buildup everywhere. We had a zero-tolerance policy toward fire, and now we’re seeing huge repercussions.
Cultural burns are not only about fuel management, they’re also about revitalizing the land to the point where it is cyclical. If there was no fire that year in a specific area, then we would put fire there so that we don’t get to the point of these devastating wildfires.
How many of your member nations are currently engaging in controlled burns?
I would say around half of our nations—probably six to eight—are regularly using burns. I’m trying to codify it and work with them to differentiate what makes a burn “cultural” rather than just controlled.
Are governments becoming more open to the idea of controlled or cultural burns?
Yes, that’s an area where the willingness from the government side is a huge step forward. They’re very interested in any project where we can incorporate a traditional aspect or traditional Indigenous knowledge.
The challenge is when knowledge has been lost. That’s where I’m trying to fill in the blanks by connecting specific practices to communities and their historical approaches.
Have some nations lost more cultural knowledge than others?
Many residential schools and day schools impacted our territories, and a lot of knowledge was lost during the Sixties Scoop and subsequent decades. But many communities still have an almost unbroken line of knowledge transfer, and every one of our communities is taking steps to revitalize those teachings.
What else is being done to better understand Indigenous knowledge regarding fire management?
We’re in the early stages of working with the University of Alberta to map where we would have had traditional burns, so we can start building cultural burn schedules. An aspect that I want to incorporate is working with Elders to gather their knowledge, asking them about the fires they saw when they were young or what their grandparents told them. Our organization has an Elders’ table, and I’ve discussed working more closely with them to gather that information.
What technologies are currently being used for wildfire management in Treaty 6?
GIS is the main one. We’re limited by what’s affordable, and GIS is adaptable for many different programs. We often piggyback off economic development data and use that to identify higher-risk areas as we develop plans. That helps us apply for FireSmart grants and funding to do actual work.
I would love for us to utilize more technologies, but we face a choice: we could spend all our time chasing new technologies, or we could use a map repurposed from another department, apply for funding to rent equipment, and make fire breaks that we know will work immediately for our communities.
Are there concerns about the tech sector attempting to digitize traditional Indigenous practices?
There’s always hesitancy when it comes to modernizing any cultural practices. Even with smudging: I’ve had some people point out that you shouldn’t even use a lighter, because a lighter is not the way that it should be done. So it will be interesting to see how these wildfire technologies progress and how that is met as things move forward.
Data ownership seems to be a major concern. Can you talk about that?
Data sovereignty is very important to every nation. When mapping companies or drone companies make presentations, the first question is always, “Who owns this data of our lands and communities? Is it us or is it you?”
Some vendors say, “you own it and just rent the software from us,” while others claim, “it’s our data—–we’ve done the work and mapping.”
We see this even with government programs. Something as simple as an online library for emergency programs is owned by the government. Nations have to request their own information from the government. If they don’t maintain their own copies and a new person comes into the role, they need to ask permission for access to their own information.
How should technology developers approach working with Indigenous communities?
One key aspect for any technology moving forward is, what are you leaving behind for the community? Have you taught skills? Have you left individuals who can replicate that work? Have you created employment opportunities?
Otherwise, it seems very extractive. All my member nations are focused on limiting knowledge extraction and resource extraction from their communities. The colonial viewpoint has been about taking and never leaving anything behind, and that’s been the historical experience for many First Nations.
Feature image courtesy of Unsplash.