The Government's Inexcusable Evidence Vacuum on Wildfire Policy

The recent Parliamentary Questions on wildfire impacts have exposed something inexcusable: the Government is making sweeping land-management policy decisions without any consolidated assessment of wildfire consequences. This is not evidence-based policymaking—it is ideology masquerading as environmental protection.

The Policy-Making Scandal

When James Cartlidge MP asked for basic wildfire data—hectares burned, firefighting costs, health impacts—Defra's response was staggering: "Defra does not hold details on how many hectares of the English countryside have been burnt by wildfires in the last twelve months." When Richard Holden MP asked for carbon emission estimates from wildfires versus prescribed burns, Defra deflected with platitudes about "improving air quality" while avoiding the substance entirely.

This beggars belief. How can the Government justify restricting traditional moorland management practices on environmental grounds when it has made no assessment of whether those restrictions increase wildfire risk and therefore cause worse environmental damage? The answer is simple: it cannot.

The Core Paradox: Protecting Peat by Risking It

Defra is actively restricting controlled burning and other vegetation management tools, partly to "protect" peatlands and reduce emissions. Yet when Parliament asks for quantified assessments of wildfire carbon emissions and peat damage, the Government effectively shrugs: we don't know. How on earth have they been making policy to protect peat if the consequences of removing traditional management have not been assessed?

The brutal reality is this: catastrophic wildfires on peatland release vastly more carbon in hours than decades of careful prescribed burning. They destroy decades of restoration work. They contaminate water supplies. They devastate ground-nesting birds and other wildlife. They cost millions in firefighting and restoration. Yet the Government proceeds with policies that increase fuel loads and wildfire risk without quantifying these consequences. This is not precautionary policymaking. It is reckless negligence dressed up as environmental virtue.

The Evidence Exists—It's Being Ignored

The Government's claim not to "hold" wildfire data is particularly damning because the evidence exists across the public sector. Fire and Rescue Services document thousands of vegetation fires annually. Firefighting costs reach tens of millions of pounds in severe years. Post-fire peatland restoration has cost many millions in public funds. Health impacts from wildfire smoke are extensively documented in scientific literature. Carbon emissions from wildfires catastrophically exceed controlled burns. The data is there. What's missing is the political will to use it—because doing so would undermine the ideological preference for "rewilding" and passive management over active stewardship.

Why Moorland Managers Must Be Heard

This evidence vacuum makes one thing crystal clear: policymakers in Whitehall do not understand moorland management and are not listening to those who do. The people who manage England's uplands—farmers, gamekeepers, estate managers—possess generations of accumulated knowledge about fire behavior, vegetation dynamics, and landscape resilience. They understand that controlled fuel reduction through winter prescribed burning prevents catastrophic summer wildfires. They know that active vegetation management maintains landscape mosaics that create natural firebreaks. They recognize that grazing management reduces fuel loads and maintains biodiversity. They appreciate that year-round presence enables early wildfire detection and rapid response.

When moorland managers warn that restricting these practices will increase wildfire risk, they are speaking from direct operational experience, not theoretical modeling or ideological preference. Yet their voices are systematically excluded from policy formation, dismissed as "vested interests" by campaigners who have never fought a moorland wildfire, never restored burned peat, never watched a decade of conservation work destroyed in an afternoon.

The Uncomfortable Truth

The Government cannot demonstrate that its land-management policies improve environmental outcomes because it has not assessed the alternative scenario. It has not weighed the carbon released by catastrophic wildfires against controlled burns. It has not compared biodiversity loss from uncontrolled fires with managed landscapes. It has not evaluated water quality impacts from ash contamination versus sustainable management. It has not calculated public health costs from wildfire smoke versus prescribed burning. It has not measured economic costs of firefighting and restoration against preventative management.

This is not science. It is dogma. And the consequence is predictable: as traditional management is restricted, fuel loads increase, wildfire risk escalates, and when the inevitable conflagrations occur, the Government will claim "climate change" rather than acknowledge its own policy failures.

What Must Change

Parliament and the public deserve answers to basic questions. How many hectares burn annually? What are the costs? What are the health impacts? How do wildfire emissions compare to controlled burning? How has wildfire incidence changed as traditional management has been restricted? Until these questions are answered, no policy restricting moorland management can claim to be evidence-based.

More fundamentally, policymakers must recognize that ideology cannot replace expertise. Those who romanticize "natural" processes from offices in London need to defer to those who actually manage complex upland landscapes year-round. Moorland managers are not obstacles to conservation—they are essential stewards whose knowledge and practices have maintained these landscapes for generations. Their warnings about wildfire risk should not be dismissed; they should be the foundation of policy.

Conclusion: Listen or Watch It Burn

The Parliamentary Questions this week revealed a damning truth: Government is making major land-management decisions in an evidence vacuum, guided by ideology rather than science, ignoring those with practical expertise. This is indefensible.

Until wildfire impacts are properly assessed and moorland managers are genuinely consulted, environmental land-management policies will continue to increase the very risks they claim to mitigate. The choice is stark: listen to those who understand these landscapes, or continue flying blind until the inevitable disasters prove them right. By then, it will be too late.