Wildfire: We must not get caught NAP-ing!

By Henrietta Appleton, Policy Officer England

The extreme wildfire events around Europe and the latest State of the UK Climate report from the Met Office are a stark reminder of the effects of climate change. For many years the risk of wildfire in England was rare; now, due to climate change, it is increasing year by year. Wildfire has been considered a climate risk since 2012 and therefore addressed in the national adaptation programme.

Both the Climate Change Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Programme (NAP) are a requirement of the Climate Change Act 2008 and must be produced every five years. The third Climate Change Risk Assessment was produced last year and the consequent third NAP (NAP3) was produced in late July.

At one level it is heartening to see that wildfire was given cross-sectoral significance in the natural environment (in the last NAP from 2018, it was referenced only eight times mostly in relation to forestry; this time it was referenced 64 times!) and that there were specific actions on Defra, its agencies and protected landscape partnerships (national parks and AONBs) relating to its risk and mitigation. The requirement to produce up-to-date wildfire management plans for 20,000 hectares of habitat by 2025 will be a great step forward, as is the support to the Home Office in scoping out a wildfire strategy and action plan by mid-2024.

However, the urgency identified at the GWCT’s wildfire workshop in January 2023 seems to be lacking despite being chaired by Lord Deben and attended by the Climate Change Committee, Defra, Natural England, NatureScot, Natural Resources Wales, the Cabinet Office, Scottish and Welsh Governments, the UK Health Security Agency, fire and rescue services, and scientists involved in wildfire research. The need for urgency was reflected in the Climate Change Committee’s Progress Report to parliament in late March.

A classic case in point is the call for more research. Defra, Natural England and the Environment Agency are to commission research and development into, for example, wildfire risk reduction measures and the cause and motives of wildfire ignitions, and Defra is to run a wildfire risk programme between 2023 and 2027 so that land management is adapted for this risk.

It is doubtful that the information gathered would conclude anything different from the actions that we know are needed now, and delay could have potentially devastating consequences to our semi-natural habitats. We know wildfire risk will be different in different habitats and locations (including the rural-urban interface, which presents its own unique challenges in terms of fuel sources and risks) but there is a widely used diagram that outlines the main factors affecting both fire behaviour and impacts and identifies the main mitigation actions. Why ‘reinvent the wheel’? The lessons learnt in other fire-prone countries are relevant here – not the specifics but the basics of fuel availability, weather, topography and ignition sources.

The specifics should be covered by local wildfire management plans such as the one being developed for the Peak District National Park Derwent Area, which commenced with a detailed wildfire risk assessment. The risk assessment combined local knowledge and habitat maps with expert fire behaviour analysis to identify areas where fires are most likely to start, those most vulnerable to wildfire, how fires are likely to behave and capacity to fight them. From this, mitigation management plans can be made to break the continuity of fuel load (vegetation) such as by cutting, grazing or prescribed burning. The Peak District assessment found that fine fuels (fuels with high surface-area-to-volume such as heather, grass and bilberry, which when dry ignite easily) are found in huge quantities in a continuous arrangement across the Derwent area. This creates an area of high wildfire risk where the combination of rate of fire spread, flame length and fire intensity are predicted to be beyond the capacity of the fire and rescue services to control. This is exactly what was witnessed at Winter Hill in 2018.

So, we know the factors affecting wildfire outcomes (including ignition sources) and the necessary risk reduction measures; we have examples of local wildfire risk assessments and management plans to use as blueprints. Why do we need more research into these aspects and a risk programme? Perhaps to unblock the apparent apathy to action?

NAP3 requires the national parks and AONBs to reduce the impact of climate hazards such as wildfire on habitats and species. I urge them to heed the need for effective wildfire planning and to follow the Climate Change Committee’s advice and act NOW to manage fuel loads to minimise the risk of wildfires beyond the capacity of fire fighters to control.