Natural England: Contradictions on wildfires keep coming

When it comes to wildfires Natural England have been saying one thing and then doing something entirely different.

Until now however no one seems to have noticed.  

On one hand, their lawyers are quick to duck responsibility. In a recent letter sent to the Regional Moorland Groups from their lawyers, they made it abundantly clear: don’t look to them for advice on fire safety or wildfire risk. Not their job. Not their problem.

But then, in a public blog post just weeks later, the agency suddenly has plenty to say about wildfire. There, on an official government website, their Chief Scientist pushes the narrative that habitat restoration is the silver bullet for preventing wildfires.

They even go so far as to promote government legislation as a step in the right direction — conveniently aligned with their own ecological agenda.

This isn’t just hypocrisy — it’s manipulation.

When it suits them, they’re the experts on wildfire. When accountability comes knocking, they hide behind legalese and pretend it’s none of their business.

Meanwhile, the people actually dealing with fire risk — land managers, farmers, emergency services — are left trying to make real-time decisions under real pressure, with mixed signals from the very institutions that should be helping.

They don’t have the luxury of issuing contradictory statements from behind a desk. They’re on the ground, working with what they’re given. And what they’re being given is a mess.

Natural England can’t keep dodging responsibility while trying to influence wildfire policy from the shadows. If they want to shape fire risk strategy, they need to step up, declare that role, and take the heat that comes with it. If they’re just ecologists, then fine — stay out of fire management and stop muddying the waters.

The stakes are too high for this kind of bureaucratic game-playing. Wildfires are growing in intensity, frequency, and cost.

What we need now is clear, joined-up leadership — not a government body that changes its story depending on the audience.

You can’t have credibility both ways. Either take responsibility or get out of the way.