evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Ramats de Foc (Fire Flocks) — Targeted Grazing for Wildfire Prevention

Spain · Girona · See the Spain profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 47% 47/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Pau Costa Foundation pays Girona-province shepherds EUR140/ha in strategic zones and EUR70/ha elsewhere to graze livestock as wildfire fuel-break management; peer-reviewed 5-year study of 18 shepherds across a 42,487 ha planning area.

€140/ha/year
Payment rate — Strategic Management Areas
€70/ha/year
Payment rate — Complementary Areas
42,487 hectares
Strategic landscape planning area
64%
Forest share of planning area
~500 hectares
Area actively grazed under the scheme
18
Shepherds participating
€24,375
Diputació de Lleida grant (2021)
Ramats de Foc (Fire Flocks) — Targeted Grazing for Wildfire Prevention

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Pau Costa Foundation
Period
2016–present
Region (NUTS)
ES51
Keywords
wildfire prevention, silvopastoralism, targeted grazing, payments for ecosystem services

Context

Ramats de Foc ('Fire Flocks', also called FireFlocks) is a targeted-grazing wildfire-prevention scheme run by the Pau Costa Foundation in Girona province, Catalonia, Spain, since 2016. Shepherds move sheep and goat herds through forest understory and shrubland identified by firefighting services as strategic fuel-break zones, reducing the vegetation load that lets wildfires spread and letting firefighters operate more safely.

Activities

The public administration pays participating shepherds per hectare grazed inside the scheme, valuing fuel reduction explicitly as an ecosystem service: EUR 140/ha/year in Strategic Management Areas and EUR 70/ha/year in Complementary Areas. A companion study mapped a 42,487 ha landscape area (64% forest, much of it within the Natura 2000 network) as the strategic scope for grazing deployment, of which the Pau Costa Foundation reports about 500 hectares are actively managed by 18 shepherds.

Results

A peer-reviewed five-year study (Land, MDPI, 2022) surveyed the programme's original cohort of farmers across three Girona pilot sites and found the payments improved the financial viability of small extensive livestock farms while keeping shepherds engaged in fuel management. The project has drawn further funding, including a EUR 24,375 grant from the Diputació de Lleida (2021), a 2022 BBVA Foundation National Award, and support from the Caja de Ingenieros Foundation and the Diputació de Tarragona, and is cited in the EU LIFE 'GrazeLIFE' synthesis and Greece's 2024 Wildfire Peer Review as an evidenced model for fuel-reduction grazing.

Conclusions

The main limitation is scale: after nearly a decade, direct payments still cover roughly 500 hectares grazed by 18 shepherds, well short of the 42,487 ha planning area, and no independently measured wildfire-suppression outcome (e.g., fire spread rate in treated versus untreated zones) was found in the public record.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — Per-hectare payments of €140 (strategic) and €70 (complementary) per year; supplemented by grants such as €24,375 from Diputació de Lleida (2021).
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Running since 2016 (nearly a decade to date), evaluated at the five-year mark by a 2022 peer-reviewed study.
Staffing & skills
18 participating shepherds, Pau Costa Foundation programme coordination

Conditions for success

  • Fire-service-identified strategic fuel-break zoning
  • Per-hectare payment differentiated by strategic vs. complementary areas
  • Multi-funder support (Diputació de Lleida, BBVA Foundation, Caja de Ingenieros Foundation, Diputació de Tarragona)

Common failure modes

  • Scale has plateaued at ~500 ha vs. a 42,487 ha planning area after nearly a decade
  • No independently measured wildfire-suppression outcome (e.g., fire spread rate) published

Where it fits

Governance type
foundation-administered public payment scheme
Scale
~500 hectares actively grazed within a 42,487 ha planning area
Income level
high-income (Spain/EU)

Commonly funded by

Philanthropic / foundation funding

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful