Written by Henrietta Appleton, GWCT Policy Officer
It is with some frustration that I read the news reports on the recent spate of wildfires across the country.
Whilst increasing awareness of the consequences of a wildfire on the landscape and the wildlife it supports (as well as carbon emissions, water quality and air quality) is important to help address some anti-social behaviour such as the use of disposable BBQs, the reality is that you will never eradicate all sources of ignition. Arson is a frequent cause and, excuse the pun, sadly such coverage can merely ‘fan the flames’ of those who take a thrill from it.
A BBC article on the record area burned by wildfires this year not only explained the increased risk to the dormant vegetation of the recent dry and sunny spell but also that climate change heralds the likelihood of these conditions occurring more frequently thereby raising the risk of wildfire. Not only will the prospect of hotter, drier weather increase the risk of wildfire, but warmer, wetter winters will increase the vegetation available as a fuel for spring and summer wildfires.
Ignition is just one of the three ‘ingredients’ for an uncontrolled wildfire, which you may recall I highlighted in my blog of 10 March, the others being oxygen and fuel. What frustrates me is the failure of many news reports to emphasise that current land management approaches of reduced grazing, cutting and controlled burning are, alongside climate change impacts, increasing the fuel available. We should be doing more management, not less. The pictures from the Howden wildfire show the amount of vegetation that existed before with the charred remains of degenerate heather, Molinia grassland and self-sown saplings evident.
It is a further frustration that some of the most influential environmental charities/NGOs and landowners of huge swathes of our most precious habitats, the RSPB, National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts, are failing to address this head-on, as it would mean accepting that their focus on suppression alone is failing the very habitats and wildlife that they claim to protect. At a Wildlife Trust moorland site in Cornwall the wildfire has resulted in “adders, common lizards, field mice and ground nesting birds, including skylarks and meadow pipits, all likely victims of the fire” and the National Trust has highlighted the threat of wildfire to the habitat that supports many endangered species like hen harriers and golden plovers.
The lack of joined-up thinking is worrying.
But they are not the only ones aiming for a complete ban. The government’s climate change and natural environment advisors, the Climate Change Committee and Natural England respectively, argue this is necessary to minimise carbon emissions in pursuit of net zero and to facilitate peatland restoration in support of that aim. As a consequence, Defra recently announced a consultation on the proposed extension to the ban on burning on deep peat and we urge members and others with upland interests to respond to this.
Yet recent research suggests that an estimated 0.8Tg carbon has been emitted from wildfires on peatlands between 2001 and 2021, equating to up to 90% of total annual UK fire-driven carbon emissions. This risk to carbon emissions is only likely to get worse, as climate change is leading to drier conditions, resulting in increasing burn depths and the release of millennial-aged carbon.
There is also an attempt to divert attention by arguing that controlled burning is a cause of wildfires. A Natural England review of wildfires did identify that land managers burns are responsible for 68% of wildfires in the uplands where a specific cause was assigned. This equates to 6.8% of all upland fires. Thus, very few wildfires were certainly caused by farming, conservation or grouse moor management. The review went on to state that interpretation of this data requires care given the small number in the sample and the bias and subjectivity in the assignment as to cause as a result of land managers rarely causing wildfires but typically remaining to fight and control them. Hardly a strong argument!
I was in the Peak District just before Easter (see one of my photos below). I understand that due to flame length, terrain and weather conditions the Fire & Rescue Services (FRS) made the decision to let some of the fires naturally burn out. This was to protect the FRS personnel as a flame length in excess of 3.5m puts these volunteers at risk. It also demonstrates that the fuel load and wildfire weather was significant enough to result in this decision.
I fear this is another situation where those ideologically opposed to grouse shooting are blinding policymakers and the general public to the real cause of these devastating wildfires.