Natural England and Wildfire Risk: A Call for Transparency and Open Dialogue

England’s exposure to wildfire risk is increasing. Longer dry periods, hotter summers and heavier fuel loads mean that fire services, land managers and local communities are all facing conditions that would have been exceptional only a few decades ago.

In this context, public confidence depends on transparent, evidence-led decision-making from all bodies involved in shaping land management policy. A recently circulated internal Natural England email highlights the challenges of maintaining that transparency:

Click image to enlarge

The document appears to caution staff against engaging substantively with external queries about wildfire risk and land-management techniques.

While it is entirely appropriate for public bodies to coordinate communications, the memo raises reasonable questions about whether the current approach is enabling the open discussion that a fast-changing risk landscape requires.

The Importance of Open Engagement

The email advises staff not to respond to certain criticisms relating to wildfire risk, fuel load and the role of different management practices. The intention may be to ensure consistency of messaging, but the effect can be the opposite.

It may inhibit productive conversation at a time when stakeholders, from fire services to land managers to conservation bodies, are all seeking clarity on how policy decisions are informed by evidence.

In a field as complex as wildfire mitigation, competing interpretations of the science are inevitable. Addressing those differences openly strengthens, rather than weakens, public understanding. Silence can unintentionally create the impression that legitimate questions are being left unanswered.

Managing Reputation vs. Managing Risk

The memo also refers to reputational considerations around discussions of wildfire risk and rewetting. Reputation matters for any public institution, but wildfire policy is first and foremost about public safety, environmental resilience and effective risk management.

Ensuring that the evidence base behind policy decisions is openly communicated will always be the most reliable way to protect both public trust and institutional credibility.

Fuel accumulation, seasonal fire behaviour, ignition patterns and the practical experiences of fire services are all highly relevant to the national conversation. Where stakeholders raise concerns, whether about cutting, rewetting, burning or their respective limitations, addressing those points transparently helps build confidence in the policy rationale.

The Need for a Shared National Narrative on Wildfire Risk

The memo also refers to centrally drafted public messaging. Coordinated communication is important, but as wildfire risk increases, it will be more important than ever to ensure that a wide range of expertise is reflected in the public debate, including from practitioners, scientists, risk managers and those with on-the-ground experience.

A diverse evidence base is not a threat to good policy. It is the foundation of it.

Looking Forward

Nothing in the memo changes the fundamental reality. Wildfire risk in England is rising, and managing it requires openness, collaboration and mutual respect between all sectors involved. Natural England plays a vital role in this landscape, and the organisation is at its strongest when it engages confidently with external questions, even where views differ.

As wildfire seasons lengthen and fire behaviour becomes more difficult to predict, the country needs a shared understanding of the evidence, the uncertainties and the options. That can only be achieved through open dialogue.

This is not about attributing fault. It is about ensuring that policy development keeps pace with a changing hazard profile, and that all those with a role in wildfire mitigation can contribute constructively to that process.

The overriding risk is not to any institution's reputation, but to the landscapes, communities and emergency responders who bear the consequences of severe wildfire events. Ensuring a fully open conversation about that risk should be a common priority.

📧 Keep updated on this and all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.