Natural England Can’t Have It Both Ways on Wildfire

Earlier this month, Natural England’s lawyers wrote to a stakeholder making one thing crystal clear:

“Our role is not to advise Government, other public bodies, those managing land or anyone else on health and safety or fire safety.”

Yet just three weeks later, Natural England’s Chief Scientist has published a blog on the official GOV.UK platform, claiming that the agency’s “evidence-based view” is that restoring habitats will reduce the risk and severity of future wildfires. The post goes further, applauding recent Government legislation and presenting ecological restoration as “our best tool” for wildfire prevention.

So which is it?

• Off the record (in a legal letter): Natural England says wildfire risk advice is outside its remit.

• On the record (in a public blog): Natural England gives exactly that advice. It links government policy, wildfire risk and Natural England’s preferred land management approach.

This double standard matters. Land managers on the ground are expected to navigate wildfire risk daily. Fire and Rescue Services are under huge strain. Yet the government’s own statutory nature adviser appears to want the last word on wildfire risk - until asked to account for it formally.

The Moorland Association believes clarity is vital:

• If Natural England wants to influence wildfire policy, it should own that role transparently rather than deny it in writing.

• If its remit truly stops at ecology, then it should stick to ecology and leave fire risk management advice to those with the expertise and statutory responsibility.

Wildfire is too serious a threat to be mired in mixed messages. Ministers and officials need clear, joined-up guidance, not selective advice that shifts depending on the audience.

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