Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is facing scrutiny over his management of escalating wildfire threats in England's upland regions. Critics suggest that recent restrictions on controlled burning and winter grazing by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have inadvertently prepared the landscape for disaster.
The 600% surge in uncontrolled wildfire land area
Official fire statistics reveal a staggering shift in landscape stability, showing a six-fold increase in the area of land burneed by uncontrolled wildfires when comparing the 2006–2015 period to 2016–2025, as reported by the source. This spike in fire activity is directly linked to the accumulation of excess vegetation on moorlands,a trend exacerbated by Defra's decision to curtail traditional land-burning practices.
The scale of this biological buildup is quantified by a study from the Moorland Association, which found a 25 percent rise in highly flammable grass and a 74 percent increase in dead heather on the uplands. These changes follow a decade of policy shifts that reduced livestock numbers and prohibited the prescribed burns that once kept these ecosystems in check.
Scientific contradictions in the 2025 Natural England paper
While Defra has utilized a 2025 peer-reviewed paper from Natural England to justify a total ban on winter burns, the integrity of that evidence is being questioned. Freedom of Information disclosures revealed that some reviewers involved in the process admitted they had not actually read the full document. This lack of thoroughness stands in stark contrast to research from universities in York and Exeter, which suggests that managed winter burns can actually lower fuel loads.
According to scientific research from these institutions, carefully managed burns can keep soil moisture levels higher by ensuring fewer plants are drawing water from the ground. Furthermore, these studies suggest that peatlands—which serve as vital carbon stores—appear to survive wildfires more effectively when vegetation is kept short through prescribed burning rather than through total rewilding.
The RSPB's rewilding stance versus G7 climate adaptation
The debate over land management has evolved into a significant political divide between conservationists and international policy bodies. The Scottish Government, the European Union, and the G7 have all expressed support for controlled burning as a necessary measure for climate adaptation. however, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has remained a vocal opponent, prioritizing rewilding over traditional land-use practices like game shooting.
Critics argue that this opposition may be motivated by interests in protecting bird populations that thrive under game-keeping regimes rather than by pure conservation science. This tension creates a fragmented approach to land management at a time when unified ecological strategies are most needed.
Will the Environment Secretary heed the 2007 warnings?
As the UK prepares for the projected impact of a strong El Niño event next summer, several critical questions remain unanswered. It is unclear whether the Environment Secretary will coordinate more effectively with local authoirties, such as Andy Burnham’s office, to implement proactive vegetation management. Furthermore,the source notes that internal papers from as far back as 2007 warned that ending winter burns would heighten the probability of large-scale fires—a prediction that appears to be coming true.
The recent activation of the emergency mobile phone alarm system near Stourbridge in the West Midlands, a channel usualy reserved for national security, has only heightened public anxiety. The central question remains: will policymakers shift toward evidence-based management before the next summer of heat arrives, or will they continue to rely on broad rewilding policies that increase community risk?
Comments 0