Sharing Multiple Perspectives on Burning: Towards a Participatory and Intercultural Fire Management Policy in Venezuela, Brazil, and Guyana
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First I'd like to commend the authors for pursuing such a unique and important research project. There is very little literature on Indigenous fire stewardship, and even less on contemporary Indigenous fire stewardship in South America, so this paper makes a very important contribution.
There are a few ways I would recommend improving the manuscript. Revisions are needed for both the methods and discussion section. I've also included minor grammar suggestions below.
Introduction - For someone who is not from the region, I found I wanted more information on how fire management worked there - that doesn't show up in detail until the discussion.
Line 109 - insert comma behind "For the first activity" so it will read "For the first activity, participants...."
More information is needed in the methods section, so someone like myself has a more detailed understanding of how you achieved your results. Right now, much more is needed on how you decided who to invite and what to cover at the workshop, as well as how you analyzed the data (this is briefly mentioned in lines 130-133 of the results section).
The results section is very good and detailed.
Line 185-186 - Missing word. I think you mean to hunt/catch tortoises?
Line 193 - I'm not sure what "The Pemon people barely practice cattle ranching" means? Perhaps replace with "Very few of the Pemon people practice cattle ranching"
Line 202 - I think 'choice' is a typo, should be chose?
Line 218 - How do the restriction occur? Through charges or fines?
Line 252 - Change to "taking into account the loss of traditional fire knowledge"
Line 256 - Change to 'higher' instead of 'high'
Line 334 - I would insert parentheses around 'in a prejudice way' and also change 'prejudice' to 'prejudiced'.
Line 334 - insert comma after "quemones"
Line 349 - Consider inserting 'Indigenous-controlled' prescribed burning practices
Line 351 - Should be Indigenous peoples
Line 401 - I think the semi-colon should be moved behind TV, so it reads "they are looking for cartoons there and in the TV; that's not study"
Line 472 - 'Don't want to work' in a western sense?
Figure 6 - Under 2) Common Objectives, should read "Indigenous peoples"
Line 602 - I'm not sure what 'reveal the value of traditional knowledge' actually means in practice?
Line 608 - Insert comma after tensions
Discussion section - For myself, the current text in the discussion section belongs in other parts of the paper. Lines 618-697 should be moved much earlier in the paper (either to the intro section or a new background section), so that those like myself who are unfamiliar with the region gain a better understanding of the fire management situation. Lines 698-772 are all new results, and belong in the results section. The discussion needs to relate the findings of the new framework to existing literature (are the findings new? unique? similar to what others are seeing?)
Line 615 - Delete the word 'key'
Lines 618 and 619 - Should be 'peoples' on both lines
Line 647 - Capitalize 'Parks' to keep the same as rest of manuscript
Line 649 - Insert 'the' so it reads '"fire suppression at the national level"
Line 711 - Consider inserting the word 'inherent' before "right to decide"
Line 715 -722 - This paragraph is about power, but it is not explicitly addressed.
Line 756 -761 - Fantastic point.
Conclusion - The text currently in the conclusion is more like the discussion of the findings.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments-Fire-506030
Point1:Introduction - For someone who is not from the region, I found I wanted more information on how fire management worked there - that doesn't show up in detail until the discussion.
Response 1: Thank you for your recommendation.A new framework section (1.1. lines 90-219) with more information about environmental and historical background of fire management in the Central Guiana Shield region was included in the Introduction.
Point 2:Line 109 - insert comma behind "For the first activity" so it will read "For the first activity, participants...."
Response 2:Ok, it was done. Thank you.
Point 3:More information is needed in the methods section, so someone like myself has a more detailed understanding of how you achieved your results. Right now, much more is needed on how you decided who to invite and what to cover at the workshop, as well as how you analyzed the data (this is briefly mentioned in lines 130-133 of the results section).
Response 3: The methods section was complemented with more information describing, in a more detailed manner, the methodology employed (Systems Framework), data compilation and analysis during the workshop (see lines 242-320). We also provided the reasons, supported by bibliography review, and the strategy of how SF was implemented during the workshop. In Methods and material’s (lines 230-241) and in the Results’ (lines 346-352) Sections we explained why we decided who to invite and the themes included in the workshop.
Point 4:Line 185-186 - Missing word. I think you mean to hunt/catch tortoises?
Response 4:Yes, thank you. I deleted some words of the sentence involuntarily. The sentence was completed.
Point 5:Line 193 - I'm not sure what "The Pemón people barely practice cattle ranching" means? Perhaps replace with "Very few of the Pemón people practice cattle ranching".
Response 5:Yes, thank you. I replaced the sentence using your suggestion.
Point 6:Line 202 - I think 'choice' is a typo, should be chose?
Response 6:Yes, thank you. I fixed it.
Point 7:Line 218 - How do the restriction occur? Through charges or fines?
Response 7:According to the law, charges should be applied in thethree countries. However, this never occurs. The restriction isimplemented applying other penalties like forbidding to build newhouses, refusing cooperation or not providing services when needed, or justclaiming Indigenous behavior and considering them as a problem in thepublic opinion for the conservation programs in the region.
Point 8:Line 252 - Change to "taking into account the loss of traditional fire knowledge"
Response 8:Yes, thank you. I changed it.
Point 9:Line 256 - Change to 'higher' instead of 'high'
Response 9:Yes, thank you. I changed it.
Point 10:Line 334 - I would insert parentheses around 'in a prejudice way' and also change 'prejudice' to 'prejudiced'.
Response 10:Yes, thank you. I inserted the parenthesis and I changed the word.
Point 11;Line 334 - insert comma after "quemones"
Response 11:Yes, thank you. I inserted it.
Point 12:Line 349 - Consider inserting 'Indigenous-controlled' prescribed burning practices
Response 12:Yes, thank you. I inserted it.
Point 13:Line 351 - Should be Indigenous peoples
Response 13:Yes, thank you. I changed it.
Point 14:Line 401 - I think the semi-colon should be moved behind TV, so it reads "they are looking for cartoons there and in the TV; that's not study"
Response 14:Yes, thank you. I changed it.
Point 15:Line 472 - 'Don't want to work' in a western sense?
Response 15:Yes, in this sense. Thank you. I added “in a western sense” to make it clearer.
Point 16:Figure 6 - Under 2) Common Objectives, should read "Indigenous peoples"
Response 16:Yes, it should. We changed it.
Point 17:Line 602 - I'm not sure what 'reveal the value of traditional knowledge' actually means in practice?
Response 17:The preceding sentence (now in lines 820-823) explain how Indigenous fire traditional practices reduce and control the amount of flammable material to prevent wildfire occurrence. The Indigenous knowledge of how, when and where to make the burns has an important value to establish a base line for an integrated fire management, reproducing indigenous practices and integrating them with academic and fire-fighters in collaborative prescribed fires practices.
Point 18:Line 608 - Insert comma after tensions
Response 18:Ok, I inserted it. Thank you.
Point 19:Discussion section - For myself, the current text in the discussion section belongs in other parts of the paper. Lines 618-697 should be moved much earlier in the paper (either to the intro section or a new background section), so that those like myself who are unfamiliar with the region gain a better understanding of the fire management situation. Lines 698-772 are all new results, and belong in the results section. The discussion needs to relate the findings of the newframework to existing literature (are the findings new? unique? similar to what others are seeing?)
Response 19:Thank you for your observation. We followed your suggestion and we moved the paragraphs of Lines 618-697 to be part of a new framework seccion (1.1. lines 90-219) with more information about environmental and historical background of fire management in the Central Guiana Shield region.We think it is much clearer now, specially, as you mentioned, to unfamiliar readers about fire manangement situation in the region.
We also moved the paragraphs of Lines 698-772 to Results section. We prepared a new discussion (from line 870) analizing and relating our results with existing literature.
Point 20:Line 615 - Delete the word 'key'
Response 20: Ok, I deleted it. Thank you.
Point 21:Lines 618 and 619 - Should be 'peoples' on both lines
Response 21:Ok, I inserted them. Thank you.
Point 22: Line 647 - Capitalize 'Parks' to keep the same as rest of manuscript
Response 22:Ok. I did it. Thank you.
Point 23:Line 649 - Insert 'the' so it reads '"fire suppression at the national level"
Response 23: Ok. I did it. Thank you.
Point 24: Line 711 - Consider inserting the word 'inherent' before "right to decide"
Response 24:Ok. I did it. Thank you.
Point 25:Line 715 -722 - This paragraph is about power, but it is not explicitly addressed.
Response 25:Yes. We moved this paragraph to discussion (lines 1037 -1042) in order to discuss more explicitly (lines 1042 -1046) the actual imbalanced power that occur between Indigenous and governmental institutions and academics in territories inhabited by Indigenous peoples and the challenges that represent it for the implementation of a new intercultural fire management approach central Guiana's region.
Point 26:Line 756 -761 - Fantastic point.
Response 26:Yes, thank you! We agree with you. It is fascinating how proud the Pemón are of their knowledge.
Point 27: Conclusion - The text currently in the conclusion is more like the discussion of the findings.
Response 27:Yes. We took in account your recommendation and moved most of the text in conclusion into discussion. We replaced it with several reflections and learnings acquired from the workshop.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
BRIEF SUMMARY
This manuscript focused on major themes emerging from a workshop between Indigenous, academic, and governmental/institutional practitioners about the role of fire and future fire management in Venezuela, Brazil and Guyana. The authors identify commonalities and differences among these groups and discuss how the bringing together of multiple perspectives during the workshop offered a unique platform for participatory learning and planning.
BROAD COMMENTS
This manuscript provides a very detailed focus on the main themes that emerged through a workshop with different groups discussing the historical and future role of fire and participants in fire management. These findings are interesting and are a valuable research contribution of the case study in question. While these themes are well-documented with evidence and soundly discussed, there is a lack of focus on the two goals posed in the Introduction (Lines 82-85) on the value of the process of the workshop itself. It remains unclear whether the workshop accomplished these and what the main lessons learned are, as they relate to the “data” analyzed. These goals are only briefly discussed in the Conclusions section, but not discussed in the context of the results and/or how the results were analyzed. Perhaps the authors could reframe the manuscript to focus on elucidating key themes that emerged from a participatory process, rather than on the value of the process itself – this would more appropriately match the results and discussion provided.
This is a potentially important contribution in an underrepresented topic and I hope to see the revised version of the manuscript in the future.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Abstract
Line 25-29: Does the “Participatory and Intercultural Fire Management Network” encompass the “common declaration and next steps”, or does it have a separate function? Please clarify this in the abstract.
1. Introduction
Overall the introduction is well-written. It may be useful to include more context about the case study of interest here – possibly the current approach to fire management, describing the different groups and how they interact or what their current role is in fire management. Some of this information is in the results and discussion but would be more appropriate here. Also, a couple of the comments on the introduction with regards to word choice should be considered throughout the manuscript (e.g., integration, stakeholders, etc.).
Line 38: “as well as to control wildfire spread”?
Line 39: start new sentence with “Representing” (or “These practices represent…”)
Line 41: Perhaps it would be beneficial here to highlight that there is “growing scientific evidence” as recognized by the academic and organizational/governmental communities – Indigenous communities have long understood that their practices are achieving multiple values such as the protection of biological and cultural diversity.
Line 45: What constitutes a “traditional” community? And how are they distinct from Indigenous communities? It may be worth clarifying this, particularly since “traditional” is used in the abstract to describe Indigenous practices.
Line 46: perceived as a threat by whom?
Line 50: change “fire occurrence, as it has been…” to “fire occurrence; as has been reported in recent megafire events, even the most sophisticated…”
Line 53: I would argue that it isn’t just Indigenous knowledge that has an important role to play, but Indigenous peoples and their practices. This is clear in the following sentences and I realize within your manuscript that this is not your intention, but be careful about using language that confines Indigenous peoples’ contribution only to knowledge that can complement scientific knowledge – Indigenous peoples, practices and knowledge are valid in their own right. See Bohensky and Maru (2011) Ecology & Society for discussion of difficulty with seeing knowledge “integration” as a purely technical problem. It may be worth considering whether “integration” is the right term to use for what is being accomplished in this case study.
Line 59: Perhaps it is a difference of political context, but in Canada Indigenous peoples are not considered another “stakeholder.” That term can imply that they only have a very current interest in management practices (such as a recreational park user), rather than a group with a long history of use and potentially contested rights to land ownership.
Line 65: Did this workshop or the larger project have the aim of “developing a case for integrating…”? Please clarify.
Line 77: Please be consistent about “workshop” vs “meeting”.
Line 78: Change to “historical and modern worldviews”
2. Materials and methods
The data collection methods are clear, but this section is missing (1) a theoretical framework and (2) data analysis methods. For (1), Is the framework transformative (social-justice oriented) or pragmatic (problem-oriented)? What is motivating this analysis? If problem-oriented, how was this particular problem identified and by whom? Was convening the workshop an attempt to solve this problem? For (2), were the audio/video recordings transcribed and coded? Was it an inductive or deductive process? Did community members have input into the results/themes the authors developed?
Line 92: Line spacing changes.
3. Results
It would be helpful if each of these sections provided 1-2 high-level sentences that summarize the findings for that particular section. E.g., commonalities, differences, whose opinions were considered, etc.
Line 133: Were these themes actually questions that were asked directly of participants? Or did they emerge through analysis of the raw data? This could be clarified in the methods section above.
Section 3.1
Was there any indication that these practices had changed through time? Was the role of fire always the same? Perhaps this was not part of your analysis, but it would be interesting to know the continuity of these practices.
Line 185: “use fire to ??? tortoises”? I think there is a word missing here.
Line 207-208: Did the other two Indigenous groups not indicate this was the case?
Section 3.2
Line 250: This says that the PCIV Brigades are mostly comprised of Indigenous Pemon members – were the people participating as hydroelectric company representatives also Pemon? How might these different identities even within one individual shape participants views of the role of fire? (Something to be addressed in the Discussion).
Line 285-299: This seems like background information that is more suitable for the introduction or the discussion – unless I am mistaken it is not a result that was gleaned from the study data.
Section 3.3
Line 505-511 and Figure 6: How was this process developed? Was this Figure an outcome of the deliberations of what the process should be between group members? Was the desire to “negotiate a common path” something that was imposed by the facilitators or was this also identified as a need by the participants? Some of the words are also cut out of the Figure.
Section 3.4
Line 540: Change “adscription” to “affiliation” or “identity”?
Line 575-578: This should be moved to the discussion.
Line 587: Sentence too long. Please revise.
Line 604-607: If there were discrepancies, who did they come from? What were some of the remaining concerns?
4. Discussion
In the results, the authors present four major themes that emerged from the workshop. The Discussion clearly contrasts the importance of Indigenous fire practices (theme 1) against the prevailing “zero fire” policies (theme 2) held by governmental institutions. They then describe the different concerns of fire management (theme 3) and how important the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives are for future co-management (theme 4). These lessons could be considered in more detail against the context/in the literature of changing governance frameworks – what is it that today (in contrast to the colonial perspectives of the last 500 years) that is allowing for a participatory platform to emerge?
However, it remains unclear what criteria were used to determine whether the workshop platform met the two goals outlined in Line 81-85. From my reading, it seems clear that the workshop provided a valuable process for deliberation and sharing of perspectives, yet the focus in the results is not how the process unfolded and associated lessons but rather the content of the discussions. There are mentions of conflict and commonalities, but no discussion as to how these were overcome and whether all groups were equally satisfied with the process and outcomes. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether this process “led to concrete actions towards integrating Indigenous fire knowledge.” The Indigenous representatives seemed to demand a co-management arrangement, but to what extent was that supported by other participants? Did the process of discussion in this workshop support this perspective or undermine it? I think the authors should consider whether the aim of this manuscript is to highlight the results of the content of the workshop, and analyse it for common themes (that are then discussed in the context of historical governance) or to focus on the two goals in the beginning and focus more on the process that emerged from the workshop itself (as described in the abstract). Eg.., how did the creation of the Participatory and Intercultural Fire Management Network come about? What was it about the workshop specifically that enabled the development of co-created ideas of the future of fire management and how does this compare to other participatory processes (about fire or natural resources management) elsewhere? The conclusions really contain the important contribution of this work and should be expanded upon in the discussion.
Conclusions
Line 796: There are many other studies that highlight both similar and different elements for collaboration with Indigenous communities – see co-management literature and Ban et al (2018) Nature Ecology & Evolution for a start.
Box 1: Did this declaration come specifically out of the workshop described in the manuscript? Or how does this relate to the process within the workshop?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments-Fire-506030
Abstract
Point1: Line 25-29: Does the “Participatory and Intercultural Fire Management Network” encompass the “common declaration and next steps”, or does it have a separate function? Please clarify this in the abstract.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. “Participatory and Intercultural Fire Management Network” encompassed the “common declaration and next steps” during the workshop. We rewritten the sentence (see lines 26-30). I hope it is clearer now.
Introduction
Point 2:Overall the introduction is well-written. It may be useful to include more context about the case study of interest here – possibly the current approach to fire management, describing the different groups and how they interact or what their current role is in fire management. Some of this information is in the results and discussion but would be more appropriate here. Also, a couple of the comments on the introduction with regards to word choice should be considered throughout the manuscript (e.g., integration, stakeholders, etc.).
Response 2: Thank you for your recommendation.We moved some paragraphs of results and discussion sections to a new framework section (1.1. lines 90-221) in the Introduction. It comprises more information about environmental and historical background of fire management in the Central Guiana Shield region. We think it is much clearer now, specially to potential unfamiliar readers about fire manangement situation in the region.
Point 3:Line 38: “as well as to control wildfire spread”?
Response 3: Ok, thanks. We changed it.
Point 4:Line 39: start new sentence with “Representing” (or “These practices represent…”)
Response 4:Ok, thanks. We changed it. We used the second option.
Point 5:Line 41: Perhaps it would be beneficial here to highlight that there is “growing scientific evidence” as recognized by the academic and organizational/governmental communities – Indigenous communities have long understood that their practices are achieving multiple values such as the protection of biological and cultural diversity.
Response 5:Ok, thanks for your suggestion. We modified the text.
Point 6:Line 45: What constitutes a “traditional” community? And how are they distinct from Indigenous communities? It may be worth clarifying this, particularly since “traditional” is used in the abstract to describe Indigenous practices.
Response 6:Thanks for the question. We referred to local (non-Indigenous) communities that maintain “traditional” practices (or inherited practices and knowledge systems that they are part of cultural traditions). The Indigenous are the original settlers of a given region that maintain an early culture. The term local communities, in general, refers to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently. In Latino America, frequently local communities inherited the culture from former Indigenous communities. This makes difficult distinguish between both type of communities, because of the level of acculturation and miscegenation that Indigenous are suffering. Nevertheless, to make clearer the meaning, we added the word “non-Indigenous” between local andcommunities’ words.
Point 7:Line 46: perceived as a threat by whom?
Response 7:We added to the text: “by Protected Areas (PA) administrators, fire-fighters’ bodies and policy makers”.
Point 8:Line 50: change “fire occurrence, as it has been…” to “fire occurrence; as has been reported in recent mega fire events, even the most sophisticated…”
Response 8:Ok, thank you. I changed it.
Point 9:Line 53: I would argue that it isn’t just Indigenous knowledge that has an important role to play, but Indigenous peoples and their practices. This is clear in the following sentences and I realize within your manuscript that this is not your intention, but be careful about using language that confines Indigenous peoples’ contribution only to knowledge that can complement scientific knowledge – Indigenous peoples, practices and knowledge are valid in their own right. See Boesky and Maru (2011) Ecology & Society for discussion of difficulty with seeing knowledge “integration” as a purely technical problem. It may be worth considering whether “integration” is the right term to use for what is being accomplished in this case study.
Response 9:Thank you for your comment and thevery interesting review article suggestion for the discussion. We changed this part of the sentence to: “Traditional Indigenous knowledge and practices…”We also changed dramatically the discussion incorporating your suggested and other interesting references about the limitations and obstacles that appeared during integration process. Specifically, we debated the risks of basing the integration process only on knowledge exchange and what were the ideal terms selected by the Indigenous representatives to describe this process. We also added some reflections and learnings acquired during the workshop in Conclusion section, related to these aspects.
Point 10:Line 59: Perhaps it is a difference of political context, but in Canada Indigenous peoples are not considered another “stakeholder.” That term can imply that they only have a very current interest in management practices (such as a recreational park user), rather than a group with a long history of use and potentially contested rights to land ownership.
Response 10:In our context, the researchers include Indigenous peoples as another “stakeholder”. However, we were not happy neither to include Indigenous peoples in the term. We decided to separate both terms along the text.
Point 11:Line 65: Did this workshop or the larger project have the aim of “developing a case for integrating…”? Please clarify.
Response 11:Ok, thanks. We modified the text in order to show that “developing a case for integrating…”? refers to the general aim of the project. This workshop was just one of several workshops we have carried on during these years. The footnote at the end of the sentence provides a link to the project information so it helps the readers to have a better understanding.
Point 12:Line 77: Please be consistent about “workshop” vs “meeting”.
Response 12:Ok, thanks for the comment. After reviewing the meaning of both type of events, we concluded that workshop was the most appropriated term to describe the activity. We adopted this term along the paper.
Point 13:Line 78: Change to “historical and modern worldviews”
Response 13:Ok, thanks. I changed it.
Materials and methods
Point 14:The data collection methods are clear, but this section is missing (1) a theoretical framework and (2) data analysis methods. For (1), Is the framework transformative (social-justice oriented) or pragmatic (problem-oriented)? What is motivating this analysis? If problem-oriented, how was this particular problem identified and by whom? Was convening the workshop an attempt to solve this problem? For (2), were the audio/video recordings transcribed and coded? Was it an inductive or deductive process? Did community members have input into the results/themes the authors developed?
Response 14:Ok, thanks for these comments. We accomplished a detailed description of all the items requested in your comment about Methodology section. Please, review it (lines 221-320).
Point 15:Line 92: Line spacing changes.
Response 15:Ok, thanks. I fixed it.
Results
Point 16:It would be helpful if each of these sections provided 1-2 high-level sentences that summarize the findings for that particular section. E.g., commonalities, differences, whose opinions were considered, etc.
Response 16:We reorganized Results section. We started the Section explaining the general results relative to the workshop dynamic and we synthetized and pointed the most significant results in the rest of sub-sections. Additionally, we made an exhaustive analysis of the results in the discussion that will help to their interpretation. We think with these changes the results obtained are clearer now. Nevertheless, we considered inappropriate to extend even more the paper after the addition of the new introductory framework section and extended discussion and conclusion sections.
Point 17:Line 133: Were these themes actually questions that were asked directly of participants? Or did they emerge through analysis of the raw data? This could be clarified in the methods section above.
Response 17:Ok, thanks for your comment. They emerged through analysis of the data. It was clarified in the methodology section lines: 280 – 288 and 314-320. See also lines 376 – 382 in Results Section.
Section 3.1
Point 18:Was there any indication that these practices had changed through time? Was the role of fire always the same? Perhaps this was not part of your analysis, but it would be interesting to know the continuity of these practices.
Response 18:Thanks for your comment. In the concerns section (lines 599-683), there are Indigenous testimonies about the main changes to what they considered traditional fire practices in their territories. There was also a very interesting discussion, proposed by Pemón representatives, about the necessity to adapt fire practices due to the climate and vegetation changes. Unfortunately, there is not enough space in the paper to include an exhaustive discussion around this topic.
Point 19:Line 185: “use fire to ??? tortoises”? I think there is a word missing here.
Response 19:Yes, thank you. Sorry, I deleted some words of the sentence involuntarily. The sentence now is complete.
Point 20:Line 207-208: Did the other two Indigenous groups not indicate this was the case?
Response 20:Only Pemón Indigenous group expressed it during its presentation. However, we also included the Guyanese and Brazilian Indigenous groups in the sentence, because it is also an important aspect of their culture.
Section 3.2
Point 21:Line 250: This says that the PCIV Brigades are mostly comprised of Indigenous Pemón members – were the people participating as hydroelectric company representatives also Pemón? How might these different identities even within one individual shape participants views of the role of fire? (Something to be addressed in the Discussion).
Response 21:Very interesting question. Non-Indigenous directives of Hydroelectric company PCIV’s program and Indigenous members of PCIV Brigades participated both at the Parupa workshop. With respect to the PCIV Indigenous brigades, we discussed their positions and identities assumed during the workshop, in the discussion section. However, since this paper presents a general outlook of the Workshop we chose not to expand in a much-detailed way on this particular topic.
Point 22:Line 285-299: This seems like background information that is more suitable for the introduction or the discussion – unless I am mistaken it is not a result that was gleaned from the study data.
Response 22:Yes, we agree. It was moved to the background section in Introduction.
Section 3.3
Point 23:Line 505-511 and Figure 6: How was this process developed? Was this Figure an outcome of the deliberations of what the process should be between group members? Was the desire to “negotiate a common path” something that was imposed by the facilitators or was this also identified as a need by the participants? Some of the words are also cut out of the Figure.
Response 23:The figure 6 was changed to figure 3 and it was moved to the first part of the Results section. See lines 295-320 and 376-382 for the explanation about the deliberation process and Figure 3 construction. The discussion section added a more detailed analysis of the overall process of deliberation and in conclusion, we included the main reflections and lessons learned during the workshop. We also improved the visibility of the image of Figure 3.
Section 3.4
Point 24:Line 540: Change “adscription” to “affiliation” or “identity”?
Response 24:Ok, thank you. We changed it.
Point 25:Line 575-578: This should be moved to the discussion.
Response 25:Ok, thank you. We moved it.
Point 26:Line 587: Sentence too long. Please revise.
Response 26:Ok, thank you. We eliminated it (a similar explanation was in other paragraph of the same section).
Point 27:Line 604-607: If there were discrepancies, who did they come from? What were some of the remaining concerns?
Response 27: Ok, thank you. It was a mistake, we changed discrepancies to worries.
Discussion
Point 28:In the results, the authors present four major themes that emerged from the workshop. The Discussion clearly contrasts the importance of Indigenous fire practices (theme 1) against the prevailing “zero fire” policies (theme 2) held by governmental institutions. They then describe the different concerns of fire management (theme 3) and how important the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives are for future co-management (theme 4). These lessons could be considered in more detail against the context/in the literature of changing governance frameworks – what is it that today (in contrast to the colonial perspectives of the last 500 years) that is allowing for a participatory platform to emerge?
Response 28:Thank you very much for this comment. We reformulated the discussion section including new references (considering those recommended by you and others) and a deeper analysis of participatory platform development opportunities. We also included a section of lessons learned in the Conclusion section.
Point 29However, it remains unclear what criteria were used to determine whether the workshop platform met the two goals outlined in Line 81-85. From my reading, it seems clear that the workshop provided a valuable process for deliberation and sharing of perspectives, yet the focus in the results is not how the process unfolded and associated lessons but rather the content of the discussions. There are mentions of conflict and commonalities, but no discussion as to how these were overcome and whether all groups were equally satisfied with the process and outcomes. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether this process “led to concrete actions towards integrating Indigenous fire knowledge.” The Indigenous representatives seemed to demand a co-management arrangement, but to what extent was that supported by other participants? Did the process of discussion in this workshop support this perspective or undermine it? I think the authors should consider whether the aim of this manuscript is to highlight the results of the content of the workshop, and analyse it for common themes (that are then discussed in the context of historical governance) or to focus on the two goals in the beginning and focus more on the process that emerged from the workshop itself (as described in the abstract). Eg.., how did the creation of the Participatory and Intercultural Fire Management Network come about? What was it about the workshop specifically that enabled the development of co-created ideas of the future of fire management and how does this compare to other participatory processes (about fire or natural resources management) elsewhere? The conclusions really contain the important contribution of this work and should be expanded upon in the discussion.
Response 29: Thank you for your observations and recommendations. As it was mentioned before, we prepared a new discussion expanding the topics included in conclusion and all the topics and questions you requested to us. We analyzed and discussed the participatory process that emerged from the workshop and made explicit some lessons learned during this experience. From the many different emergent issues, we chose to expand on some of them (i.e. concerns about the Indigenous fire knowledge and practices current use and transmission, among other) since, in our opinion, they are of high priority for a new fire policy framework in the region.
Conclusions
Point 30: Line 796: There are many other studies that highlight both similar and different elements for collaboration with Indigenous communities – see co-management literature and Ban et al (2018) Nature Ecology & Evolution for a start.
Response 30: Thank you for this recommendation. The paper was very helpful for analysis and comparison with other participatory process that included Indigenous communities.
Point 31: Box 1: Did this declaration come specifically out of the workshop described in the manuscript? Or how does this relate to the process within the workshop?
Response 31: We improved the text to clarify this point. The declaration was decided and written with all the participants, during the last day of the workshop, with the purpose of making visible the agreements reached to the rest of Indigenous communities, government authorities and academics in the region and public in general (see lines 1056-1062 in the discussion section and also in the abstract lines 26-30and Response 1).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for addressing my comments in their revised manuscript, and also for their important contribution to the literature on Indigenous fire management.
I only noticed one minor thing:
Page 3 (lines 117 and 123) - These are the only spots in the manuscript where Indigenous peoples are referred to as 'Indigenous people'. I'd recommended changing to peoples to be consistent with the rest of the text.
Author Response
Point 1: Page 3 (lines 117 and 123) - These are the only spots in the manuscript where Indigenous peoples are referred to as 'Indigenous people'. I'd recommended changing to peoples to be consistent with the rest of the text.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have changed them.
Comment from the authors: We are very grateful for your insightful and constructive comments that helped us to improve the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors - thank you very much for your consideration of all of my comments. Your thoughtfulness at addressing the comments has resulted in a much improved manuscript. This revised version now clearly demonstrates the valuable collaborative journey and high quality work that will provide an important contribution to the conversation about participatory fire governance.
Author Response
Comment from the authors: We are very grateful for your insightful and constructive comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. We hope we have done justice to your generous and insightful effort.
