RSPB Wildfire Policy: “Don’t Look Abroad”

Andrew Gilruth
2 hours ago
3 min read

It takes a special kind of confidence to tell the UK government that the lessons other nations have learned about wildfire risk don’t apply here. Yet a Freedom of Information request had revealed that is exactly what the RSPB did.

Apparently, we should disregard decades of international fire science because, as the RSPB puts it, the UK’s climate and landscapes are too different from those in places like Australia, North America, or the Mediterranean. In short, they suggest we have little to learn from nations that have already paid a heavy price for underestimating wildfire.

That position is not only unsupported by the evidence, it is also potentially risky as UK fire weather becomes more extreme.

Fire science doesn’t stop at the Channel

The physics of combustion, fuel moisture, ignition potential and fire behaviour are universal. Wildfire dynamics follow physical principles, not political geography.

Belcher et al. (2021), the UK’s expert-led evidence report commissioned by the Climate Change Committee (CCRA3), is explicit that UK wildfires are driven by the same fuel-weather-topography interactions seen worldwide. They recommend learning from international practice as UK fire danger increases.

Natural England’s own case study report NECR484 draws heavily on international literature and notes that “the fundamentals of fire behaviour and mitigation are transferable”.

Even Natural England’s NEER155 (the evidence review that RSPB cite in support of restrictions on burning) draws on North American and Scandinavian peatland studies.

When RSPB argues that Defra should not look abroad, that advice cuts against the very evidence base that informs current wildfire policy.

The evidence is already being applied internationally

Countries with temperate peatlands and moorlands such as Ireland, Norway, Canada and the US Pacific Northwest, face similar challenges to the UK: peat, dwarf-shrub heaths and a drying climate.

Ireland - their peatland programme now integrates wildfire risk assessment into restoration planning, drawing directly from US and Canadian prescribed fire data.
Norway - managers use mosaic burning and fuel-break maintenance to protect peatlands and grazing areas, backed by international research collaborations (Daniau et al 2022).
Canada - studies (Turetsky et al 2015) show that maintaining wet peat conditions reduces severity of burns but not risk - a distinction too often lost in the UK debate.

None of these nations have decided their ecosystems are too unique to benefit from shared learning.

RSPB reserves are not immune to wildfire

Several of its peatland reserves have experienced serious wildfires in recent years:

RSPB Dove Stone 2018: wildfire burned into active peatland restoration.
RSPB Scotland Flow Country 2019: a major wildfire spread rapidly through restored peatland despite high water tables.
RSPB Abernethy: repeated wildfire incidents associated with unmanaged fuel accumulation.

These incidents underscore the very point international studies make: fuel structure and management, not just hydrology, are critical elements of wildfire behaviour.

Capacity and expertise

The RSPB is a major conservation organisation, yet it has no dedicated wildfire science team and no operational fire management framework.

By contrast, many upland estates collaborate routinely with Fire and Rescue Services, wildfire tactical advisors and academic specialists to manage fuel, maintain firebreaks and undertake safe controlled burning.

This mirrors international best practice: proactive fuel management is central to wildfire mitigation.

The science RSPB overlooks

Key literature shows that fuel load and structure matter:

Davies et al. (2016) prescribed burning can reduce fuel continuity and wildfire intensity under certain conditions.
Santana et al. (2011) fuel structure is a stronger determinant of fire behaviour than vegetation type.
Barker & Williamson (2019) principles from global fire case studies apply directly to UK conditions.
Belcher et al. (2021) warns against assuming UK systems are “immune to trajectories observed in comparable temperate biomes”.

This body of evidence is material and should be taken into account.

A balanced way forward

The UK uplands are experiencing warmer, drier summers, increased vegetation growth and more ignitions. Treating UK conditions as uniquely exempt from global lessons risks leaving landscapes unprepared.

A more constructive approach would be to:

Integrate international fire science into UK restoration and peatland management.
Work closely with Fire and Rescue Services and land managers experienced in wildfire suppression and prevention.
Recognise that fuel management, including controlled burning, can complement restoration.
Build cross-sector wildfire expertise.

Conclusion

At a time when wildfire risk in Britain is rising, it is important that policy advice reflects the full international evidence base. Wildfire does not distinguish between landowners, conservation bodies or public authorities.

We should draw on all relevant science, including global experience, so that the UK can avoid repeating the mistakes seen elsewhere.

📧 Stay Updated on All Moorland Issues: Sign Up for Our Free Newsletter.