Power and planning: a critical discourse analysis of tribal and non-tribal Oregon wildfire protection plans

Background

Since the late 1800s, the US government has largely removed Indigenous fire stewardship practices from the landscape by implementing a top-down fire suppression system that criminalized traditional fire practices and denaturalized the role of fire in forested environments. A century of routine fire suppression produced dense, homogenous forests capable of sustaining high-intensity wildfire that exceeds the suppression capabilities of land management organizations in many regions, spurring federal leaders to modify management approaches. As part of this change, numerous federal policies and plans have advocated for further involvement of Native American tribes and incorporation of Indigenous knowledge within management decisions. These initiatives represent opportunities to simultaneously expand tribal burning rights and reduce wildfire risk, but imbalanced power dynamics stemming from the historic and ongoing colonization of tribal nations continue to limit successful collaboration. The nature of these power imbalances is multifaceted, and this paper interrogates the ideological forces that uphold the settler-colonial relationship. We conduct a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to analyze the discourses and frames used by tribal and non-tribal wildfire protection plans (WPPs), noting how different narratives are used to reinforce or contest common perceptions of wildfire and, more broadly, the legitimacy of a fire management system built on wildfire suppression and anti-Indigenous ideologies.

Results

Our analysis reveals notable differences in how tribal and non-tribal plans (1) contextualize wildfire risk, (2) characterize wildfire itself, and (3) encourage wildfire risk reduction strategies. Non-tribal plans deployed relatively ahistorical, depoliticized narratives, whereas tribal plans used narratives that contested the legitimacy of settler authority and emphasized the sociopolitical dimensions of wildfire risk.

Conclusions

We argue that wildfire planning is a site of discursive contention, where tribal and non-tribal plans compete to shape perceptions of wildfire history, contemporary risks, and more broadly, the legitimacy of the settler-colonial fire management system as a whole. Furthermore, we explain how the sampled plans converge with or diverge from dominant historic discourses that have substantially influenced environmental action and policy. We conclude by arguing that collaborative agreements involving tribes may present opportunities to reframe fire narratives and transfer authority to tribes seeking to exercise their sovereignty.