RSPB Changes Wildfire Poster Title - Now Publish the Evidence
Quick summary
The MA challenged an RSPB poster title claiming that prescribed, or controlled, burning increases wildfire severity.
The RSPB has confirmed a revised title comparing grouse moors with other upland moorland, without the original cause-and-effect claim.
The MA will examine the conference evidence, report back to members and pursue any unanswered questions.
Fires on RSPB reserves also demand clear answers about lessons learned and changes to management.
The Moorland Association challenged a claim that prescribed burning increases wildfire severity. The RSPB has since confirmed a revised conference poster title that no longer makes that cause-and-effect claim.
We welcome the change. But changing a title does not answer the questions about the evidence behind it.
Claims about prescribed burning can influence the rules under which our members manage their moors. Protecting people, wildlife and peatlands from wildfire requires proper scrutiny of every management approach, including those practised on the RSPB’s own reserves.
Why the wildfire conference matters
Wildfire2026 is the UK Wildfire Conference, taking place at Headingley Stadium in Leeds on 10-11 November. Hosted by the England and Wales Wildfire Forum (EWWF), it brings together fire and rescue services, researchers, land managers, conservation organisations and policymakers to discuss wildfire prevention, preparedness and response.
Alongside talks and discussions, researchers display posters summarising their studies. These provide an opportunity to examine evidence that may subsequently influence policy and land-management decisions.
What we challenged
The RSPB poster was originally advertised under the title:
“Prescribed burning increases wildfire severity in UK upland moorland.”
On 26 October, we wrote to RSPB Chief Executive Beccy Speight asking for the evidence and methods behind the claim. We also asked whether the research had been published or independently peer reviewed.
We also asked how the analysis accounted for other factors that could affect wildfire severity, including vegetation, fuel loads, peat condition, weather and management history.
Crucially, we asked whether the title would be revised if the evidence showed an association rather than establishing that prescribed burning caused greater wildfire severity.
The RSPB’s response
Replying on 29 October, RSPB Chief Operating Officer James Robinson confirmed that Mike Shewring’s poster would instead be titled:
“A comparison of wildfire severity on grouse-moor and non-grouse-moor upland moorland.”
He confirmed that the conference organisers had been advised of the changes. The revised title now appears on the conference website. The RSPB said it had revised the title as its research developed.
A comparison is not proof of a cause
The original title asserted that prescribed burning makes wildfires more severe. The revised title describes a comparison.
Even if wildfire severity differs between grouse moors and other moorland, that comparison alone cannot establish which factors caused the difference. Nor does a category called “non-grouse-moor” necessarily describe RSPB reserves or a single alternative management approach.
Before using research to justify further restrictions, ministers and regulators must examine its findings and limitations. They must also ask whether the changes would better protect people, wildlife and peatlands from wildfire.
The title change does not settle the underlying science. It does remove an unqualified claim from the way the research is advertised.
Policy must follow the evidence
In its letter of 29 October, the RSPB described the research as well advanced but not yet published. It declined to provide the requested detail before the conference, stating that it would be included in conference material and papers submitted for publication.
Presenting research before journal publication is normal. The issue is whether the strength of a claim matches what the evidence can establish.
The RSPB’s long-standing campaign to end burning on peatland must not predetermine its assessment of wildfire risk. Prescribed burning and the alternatives should face the same rigorous scrutiny. The MA will apply that standard to evidence that challenges existing moorland practice, too.
What have wildfires on RSPB reserves taught us?
Major wildfires affected RSPB-managed Dove Stone, Abernethy and Minsmere this summer. At Dove Stone, the RSPB estimates that two fires destroyed between 800 and 1,000 hectares of habitat.
Earlier fires affected RSPB-managed land at Forsinard Flows in the Flow Country in 2019 and Corrimony in 2023. These are different landscapes, not a like-for-like comparison of management performance. They nevertheless raise a common question: what has been learned, and what has changed as a result?
Published research involving RSPB scientists has examined the Forsinard fire. The RSPB has also shared early observations suggesting that some restored areas at Dove Stone suffered less severe damage. The assessment should also explain what happened in the areas that suffered the worst damage.
The MA calls on the RSPB to set out clear public answers to three questions:
What explains the extent and severity of these wildfires? What roles did vegetation and fuel loads, weather, ground conditions, access and firefighting play? Which precautions helped, and where were their limits?
What lessons from earlier wildfires were applied before this summer? Which findings were relevant to other reserves, how were they shared, and what action followed?
What will change before the 2027 wildfire season? What further measures are justified, when will they be implemented, and how will their effectiveness be checked?
A wildfire does not, by itself, prove that a reserve was badly managed. But the RSPB’s own management should face scrutiny just as rigorous as that applied to anyone else’s land.
The scrutiny continues
The MA will examine the conference material before drawing conclusions about the research. We will report back to members on the answers provided and the questions that remain. Where information is missing, we will press for it and ask when it will be available.
The same evidential standard must apply on both sides of a reserve boundary.
