US-UK collaboration produces UK Community Wildfire Resilience Framework
The UK’s 2026 wildfire season brought unprecedented attention to the growing challenge of wildfire risk and resilience. Record-breaking summer temperatures and extended periods of hot, dry weather contributed to a high number of wildfires recorded in England. By the end of August, fire and rescue services had responded to more than 1,354 wildfires, placing significant strain on emergency response resources, second only to the 1,592 fires in 2022.
The severity of the season prompted the UK Government’s largest use of the emergency mobile phone alert system to warn the public of very high wildfire risk and discourage activities that could ignite fires, including barbeques, campfires, and fireworks. Wildfire is no longer an isolated or infrequent hazard in the UK, but an increasingly significant national resilience challenge requiring coordinated and proactive action to reduce wildfire risk and protect communities.
Growing up in southeast England, flooding was a familiar hazard, but wildfire was not. That changed when, at 25, I encountered wildfire for the first time while hiking the Appalachian Trail in the United States.
This experience led me to relocate to Idaho and pursue a PhD focused on community wildfire resilience and human-wildfire interactions across the western US. Through the International Association of Wildland Fire and the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, I met Victoria Amato in 2022, a community wildfire planning specialist working with SWCA Environmental Consultants. Excited to meet a fellow Brit working in the US wildfire community, we began discussing how decades of wildfire preparedness and resilience efforts in North America could help communities in the UK prepare for a future of increasing wildfire risk.
Following the 2022 UK Wildfire Conference in Belfast, a group of individuals representing wildfire mitigation and management entities from the UK and US formed a knowledge-sharing partnership focused on community resilience and property protection, spearheaded by Amato. The collaboration resulted in the 2024 UK Community Wildfire Resilience Framework for Property Protection.
Drawing on successful programs, best practices, and lessons learned from North America and other regions, the paper outlines practical actions and opportunities that can help UK decision-makers build and strengthen community resilience and reduce wildfire risk to life and property.
The framework comes at a critical time. As higher temperatures, prolonged drought, and changing climate conditions contribute to weather conditions more conducive to wildfire activity, the UK is likely to experience more frequent and damaging wildfire events. Despite this growing risk, wildfire management remains devolved. In England, there is no single agency responsible for wildfire or active national wildfire preparedness program, leaving no clear governance structure for coordinated risk reduction and mitigation efforts.
With public awareness and concern increasing following the 2026 wildfire season, there is growing momentum for a more coordinated approach to wildfire preparedness, mitigation, and community engagement. The framework draws on proven approaches from other nations, identifying successful programs and strategies that could be adapted and scaled for the UK, including Community Wildfire Protection Plans, Fire Safe Councils, and WUI building codes. It also highlights opportunities to expand and strengthen existing initiatives such as Firewise UK through a more coordinated national approach. This framework could be used as a road map in response to the UK Parliament’s wildfire management.
By promoting collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and the adaption of proven international models, the framework provides a practical roadmap for building long-term wildfire resilience in the UK. The framework aligns directly with and could help implement the recommendations of the recently published UK Parliament in its wildfire management report by establishing partnerships, governance structures, and shared learning needed to treat wildfire as a national resilience challenge. Through coordinated action across governments, industry, academia, emergency services, and land managers, the framework demonstrates how collective effort can accelerate process, strengthen preparedness, and better protect communities, property, and landscapes from wildfire risk.
First presented at the 2024 UK Wildfire Conference in Aberdeen, this framework will be featured again at Wildfire2026: UK Wildfire Conference in Leeds on 10-11th November, where it exemplifies the theme “New Perspectives – Shared Solutions” by showcasing how international collaboration and shared expertise can come together to support a more resilient future for UK communities.
Dr Meg Dolman is a Wildfire Mitigation Specialist with Idaho Power Company, Boise Idaho, and a Director on the Board of the International Association of Wildland Fire
Speakers at Wildfire 2026 – UK Wildfire Conference
Over a decade ago, the then-US Forest Service’s Deputy Director of Fire and Aviation Management, Robert Baird, warned the nation about the growing threat of “pyroterrorism,” specifically the threat of al-Qaeda setting wildfires. His warning has been echoed by experts worldwide in the 13 years since.
Firefighter with Fire Rescue Victoria and High Threat Response Educator Sam Miletta was the most recent expert to share that warning at the Australasian Fire Authorities Council Conference in September in Melbourne. There, Miletta gave a presentation on how fire is increasingly being used as a weapon in numerous regions across the globe.
His most recent publication, Fire as a Weapon – the European Experience, was published in the counter-terrorism medical journal ASPIS Medical in July 2025. It begins with profiling arsonist Wess Roley, who started the Nettleton Gulch Fire in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, before shooting and killing two responding firefighters and then taking his own life. Miletta’s paper uses Roley as an example of how fire in general can be used as a weapon, both by terrorists and other violent actors.
Despite the wildfire intro, however, Miletta goes on to describe how wildfires and bushfires are the most difficult for a terrorist group to claim credit for, unlike other forms of pyroterrorism like ambushes, hostage situations, and during times of civil unrest. State-sponsored sabotage events using fire as a weapon have seen recent increases in Europe, but known wildfire-specific incidents have remained few and far between.
“Traditionally, in the post 9/11 world, with the heavy focus on the Islamic Extremist/jihadi threat, where their intent was often to spark fear and cause harm, it was difficult to make a claim to wildfires in locations where Governments/authorities in those countries are able to downplay them due to the constant occurrence of accidental and general arson wildfires annually,” Miletta told Wildfire Today. “I think that is why we saw a heavier focus on low-cost confronting attacks such as vehicle ramming, bombings/edged weapon and firearm attacks.”
Miletta said wildfire remains a potential tool for both right-wing groups targeting infrastructure like 5G towers and left-wing environmental groups. The remaining likelihood of a threat is why local, state and federal agencies should prepare for a potential terror-driven wildfire/bushfire event, including:
Being able to withdraw and rapidly share situational awareness with other units/agencies if the wildfire is being used as an ambush tactic to draw crews in, such as the Idaho event.
Resource planning/deployment/reserve in settings where resources are intentionally overwhelmed due to multiple wildfires ignited within close geographical areas/jurisdictions.
Improved intelligence sharing between national security/law enforcement agencies and fire services. This is done in other national security settings, but Miletta suggests it be more common in larger urban locations rather than rural areas susceptible to wildfire.
An “After-Action Review” of Los Angeles County’s response to the disastrous Eaton and Palisades Fires found that numerous gaps remain in the recovery and repopulation process.
The County’s Board of Supervisors commissioned the review, and consultant agency McChrystal Group conducted it through system reviews, official interviews, and public surveys. The consultants recommended multiple systems or resources the County should implement across six focus areas, including communications, recovery, repopulation, shelter, public health, and volunteer and donations management.
Numerous survivors of the Eaton and Palisades Fires confronted a fractured and confusing recovery process in the aftermath of the disaster, according to the report. The many jurisdictional distinctions across LA County led to unclear and inconsistent information about recovery needs.
That issue was compounded by the outpouring of support from multiple different organizations and nonprofits, which made it difficult for residents to “sort through the noise.” Even at county-operated Disaster Recovery Centers, which consultants said helped consolidate services for residents, survivors had to repeatedly verify identity, residence, ownership, or eligibility depending on whether they were applying for FEMA assistance, replacement records, insurance claims, or other support programs.
“The evacuation and repopulation process was chaotic and deeply stressful … residents had to make decisions with incomplete or conflicting information … there was little on-site guidance about safety, documentation, or next steps,” according to a respondent to the public survey featured in the report by consultants. “Los Angeles County could improve this process by providing more consistent and centralized communication, clearer timelines and criteria for … reentry, and on-the-ground support teams.”
This feedback led consultants’ recommendations to largely focus on the streamlining of disaster operations before the next tragedy happens. The recommendations, sorted by cost and time to implement, included:
Near-Term (Low to Moderate Cost)
Standardize recovery governance and operating procedures.
Formalize agreements with nonprofit and community-based partners.
Improve public information systems, resident intake processes, accessibility and multilingual communications.
Strengthen grant identification and reimbursement management capabilities.
Mid-Term (Moderate Cost)
Establish dedicated recovery coordination and grants management positions.
Expand disaster case management and community navigation services.
Implement integrated recovery data and case-tracking systems.
Long-Term (Higher Cost)
Create a permanent countywide recovery and resilience capability that integrates recovery planning, climate adaptation, community resilience, and cross-sector coordination under a common governance framework.
Establish dedicated funding reserves or recurring appropriations to sustain critical recovery functions between disasters.
“Prioritizing permanent capabilities that can be scaled during major incidents would improve operational readiness, accelerate recovery outcomes, enhance service considerations, and reduce the costs associated with repeatedly standing up temporary recovery structures after each climate-related disaster,” the consultants said in the report.
Wildfires filled the headlines of 2025 from the US to South Korea to Spain and beyond, but an annual report shows that last year was actually one of the lowest fire years of this century.
At the global scale, land area burnt by wildfires in 2025 was nearly 828 million acres, which was the second-lowest on record since 2002 and around 16% below the average burned area of 2002 to 2024, according to the updated annual report published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. Last year also had the third-lowest total carbon dioxide emissions since 2002, around 12% below the 2002-2024 emissions average. And yet, wildfires killed more than 90 people and forced over 300,000 evacuations.
Researchers said the low burned area total in the midst of persistent extreme wildfires is a hallmark of our current era, especially in areas of social and economic inequality. The key points of the report included:
Emissions from Canada’s boreal forest wildfires from between 2023 and 2025 exceeded the combined emissions of the preceding 15 years
Los Angeles’ wildfires in January ranked as the fifth most costly natural disaster in world history
The United Kingdom experienced its first “megafire” exceeding 25,000 acres as wildfires throughout Europe were fueled by widespread drought and heat extremes
“A catalogue of extreme wildfires in 2025 continues to demonstrate that devastating consequences are not governed by area burned alone…Although the year’s most damaging events did not always coincide with exceptional total area burned, they produced acute societally disastrous outcomes,” the researchers said in the report. “Overall, the frequency of extreme fires in fuel-rich temperate and high-latitude systems, drought-driven fire activity in Europe, and disproportionate human impacts when extreme fires intersect with exposed communities are expected to further increase under continued warming.”
Researchers also warned that the database used in the report to establish the economic costs of major wildfires faces an “urgent finding crisis” following the cuts to USAID funding, according to the report’s lead author Matt Jones, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, UK. Scientists who rely on the database warn that the consequences of its loss would be practical, immediate, and damaging, and are asking the public for support through the signing of an open letter.
“In an era of intensifying climate extremes, cascading risks, and compounding crises, reliable data are not a luxury,” the scientists said. “They are the infrastructure for informed decision-making. Disaster risk reduction, early warning systems, anticipatory action, and climate adaptation all require credible historical baselines.”
Pilots are being pressured to fly into potentially dangerous fire scenarios or where aircraft would provide little benefit, despite worsening aerial firefighting safety risks, according to a newly released survey conducted by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
The federal agency conducted interviews with nine firefighting aircraft operators and 11 fire agency representatives from around Australia to understand the current safety risks in the field. It notes that since 2016, the ATSB has commenced 17 investigations involving aerial firefighting aircraft with incidents steadily increasing.
“Additionally, the ATSB has received anecdotal reports from aerial firefighting pilots and operators concerned about the way activities are coordinated and unsafe tasking. These reports also indicated that many do not want to report occurrences to the ATSB as it may affect their potential to win contracts with firefighting agencies,” the report notes.
The results showed that how safe the industry feels largely depends on who you ask, and both the safety and occupational risks they face.
The majority of aerial firefighting operators said they didn’t feel that agencies valued their safety and had a negative “safety culture.” This contrasted with the answers given by fire agency representatives, who claimed safety had “always been very much at the forefront” of their operations.
“Interviewees perceived a lack of understanding of aviation safety and risk management among senior fire agency personnel across states and territories,” the surveyors said. “Interviewees’ understanding of who was accountable for aerial firefighting safety varied, indicating a lack of clarity on this issue.”
A similar disparity was found in how operators and agency representatives viewed the pressure placed on pilots to fly. While every interviewee acknowledged there was some pressure to fly, they differed on where that pressure came from.
Firefighting operators largely blamed their pressure to fly on agency personnel, describing both overt pressure and implicit pressure like being asked to “take a look” at flight conditions. The responses from agency representatives said the exact opposite, claiming the agencies placed no pressure on pilots and instead blamed either more senior agency personnel or public and political pressure.
“Interviewees believed this was because aircraft, especially LATs, are a very powerful visual representation of agencies’ and governments’ response to bushfires,” the surveyors said. “Three of these interviewees specifically mentioned public or political pressure to fly relating to LATs.”
Numerous interviewees said operators would feel safer if fire agencies enhanced their management and developed a just, learning, reporting, informed and flexible safety culture. A shared desire for standardisation and formilization of policies and procedures was also present in the responses.
“This desire was expressed in relation to aircraft coordination, communication, training, pilot performance, and the identification of risk and monitoring of changing conditions,” Bureau Chief Commissioner Angus Mitchell said in a press release regarding the report.
The survey is part of an ongoing ATSB safety study into Australia’s growing aerial firefighting sector. While findings and recommendations will be saved for the final report, this survey report identified 18 key safety themes.
Around 500 aircraft provided by over 150 operators are used in aerial firefighting operations across Australia.
An Air-Crane helicopter drops muddy water on one of the fires in the East Gippsland region of Victoria, December 30, 2019. Photo by Ned Dawson for Victoria State Government.
The United States’ Natural Resources Conservation Service on Thursday issued a dire forecast for Western states, ahead of what’s expected to be a very active wildfire season.
The Service, overseen by the Department of Agriculture, said many of the states’ rivers are expected to have extremely low streamflows for the spring and summer seasons.
“Many of the rivers are likely to experience well-below median streamflows, which may rival the lowest flows on record for the region,” the Service said in the Department’s most recent Water and Climate Update. “Water shortages are anticipated in many locations, especially for entities that rely on surface streamflow water, without the benefit of having access to stored reservoir water.”
Service officials said the low streamflows will have major impacts on wildlife, recreation, city municipalities, power generation and agriculture.
Credit: USDA
The low streamflows were blamed primarily on record-low snowpack during the winter months, which also melted weeks earlier than normal. The “unprecedented” snowpack levels were the lowest in 40 years, and researchers said the only way extreme fire chances could be reduced was through a “major switch” in circulation patterns. So far, there’s nothing in season forecasts or weather models that indicate such a switch is on its way.
“Unfortunately, this year in the West and southern tier, it has been very dry and very warm,” Physical Sciences Laboratory research meteorologist Andrew Hoell recently said. “We’re talking about some historically warm conditions and at the same time below average precipitation. That sets up the land surface to be able to burn.”
Hoell was the lead author of a recent study that found the “La Niña” and “El Niño” phases of a fluctuating water temperature climate pattern called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation act as accurate predictors of wildfire severity up to a year in advance. The pattern entered its La Niña phase last fall, and was followed by the historic snow drought and early spring heat wave, which created drier and more flammable fuels.
By Josh Hyde, Eva Strand, Peter Noble and Kim Ernstrom
Land and fire managers are often tasked to plan complex fuel treatments and apply the best available science across jurisdictions to prioritize, plan, and conduct prescribed burns and other fire mitigation tactics.
Decision support systems – information systems designed to support management decision making – are a key tool for fuel treatment planning.
Historically, models and systems for fuels management have been developed independently without a great deal of coordination, leading to varying degrees of overlapping functionality.
Additionally, as Gail Wells noted in the December 2009 issue of Fire Science Digest, the onus of reviewing, selecting, and using a specific tool often falls on the fire manager.
To increase efficiency, reduce redundancies, and make the tool-selection process easier for fire managers, a solution was needed that incorporated several fuels management tools in one framework.
The Joint Fire Science Program, a collaborative initiative led by US federal agencies and researchers to sponsor and deliver science to the fire management community, initiated a study to design a system to meet these needs. The result was the Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS). Initially, a proof of concept was developed by the consulting firm Sonoma Technology in concert with Joint Fire Sciences. Later, the system was approved for use by federal agencies in the United States and was redeveloped by IBM under the stewardship of the interagency Wildland Fire Management Research and Development Applications team in 2017.
BACKGROUND
In the United States, the National Cohesive Strategy in 2014 emphasized the importance of fuel treatments to proactively address wildland fire concerns. The Wildland Fire Crisis Strategy of 2022 built on this and other approaches by outlining a vision of large-scale fuel treatments over millions of acres of land of various ownerships, supported by funding from the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act passed the prior year.
In 2022, the National Prescribed Fire Program Review by the US Department of Agriculture recommended better training and incorporation of spatial modeling for contingency planning.
Fuel-treatment strategies often require detailed and collaborative planning across multiple agencies and ownerships. The importance of detail was underscored in the spring of 2022 when escaped prescribed fires in New Mexico burned several square miles and forced a 90-day pause on USDA Forest Service prescribed fires. The pause triggered a National Prescribed Fire Program Review and among its recommendations were better training and incorporation of spatial modeling for contingency planning.
WHAT IS THE IFTDSS?
The system uses a landscape planning cycle approach to fuels management to bring together tools for fuels planning and decision support, including national geospatial landscape data from the LANDFIRE program, fire behavior models from the Fire Modeling Services Framework program, and several geospatial references layers used by land management agencies to help inform decision making. For those tasked with monitoring on federal lands, the system also allows users to enter data into a Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring repository. All these are included in one convenient online system (Figure 1). Managers can model and examine results in a map, export data for planning documentation, and create stand-alone summary reports for documentation, presentations, and briefings (Figure 2).
Figure 1. The Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System framework, pulling together tools from several sources.
In the United States users may also be familiar with decisions support systems designed to support multiple land management activities, such as Vibrant Planet’s Land Tender or those intended to support wildfire such as the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS). The Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System differs from these applications in that it is purpose built for cross-boundary planning of fuel treatments and is developed by an interagency team of fire management practitioners who are experts in planning and implementation; this is reflected in the affiliations of the more than 8,000 user accounts in the system. Roughly 60 per cent of users are federal, state, and local government, with most being United States Forest Service users. The remainder are non-government users including non-profits, universities, utility companies, and others. The system may be used for public and private lands, and anyone may access the system regardless of their affiliation, at no cost; this facilitates interagency collaboration by removing any cost and agency-specific barriers.
LISTENING TO USERS
The development of the Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System is ongoing and is informed by the needs of the fuels and wildfire management community, so user feedback is key. During the operational life of the system, feedback has been solicited in several ways. In 2023, a formal survey was commissioned through University of Idaho partners who conducted hour-long interviews with 47 system users from a variety of agencies and backgrounds.
The goal was to gain a better understanding of a) how users employ the system b) what they find valuable, c) what they would like to see changed, and d) how they prefer to learn to use the system. That information provides an overall snapshot of how the fuels management community learns and uses the system and how well it supports the needs of the users in the field.
HOW THE SYSTEM IS USED
The most widely reported use of the Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System among interviewees was prescribed fire planning and treatment planning, followed by National Environment Policy Act planning, and risk assessment (Figure 3).
Other uses included drafting community wildfire protection plans, developing prescriptions, assessing potential treatment impacts, and estimating contingency resources. Some interviewees also noted the use of the system in developing materials for funding or grant proposals to support fuel projects.
Participants in different positions tend to use the system for different goals. Those who worked as fire management specialists and assistant fire management officers tended to use the system more for prescribed fire planning and National Environment Policy Act planning, while those in fire management officer positions use the system more for treatment planning and risk assessment. For those who worked in a private or consulting role, risk assessment was typically their primary goal.
Figure 2. Common parts of the system interface. – A treatment polygon overlaid on a landscape in Map Studio. – Fire behavior summary report indicating flame lengths. – User interface for comparing fire behavior outputs under various weather conditions.
PERCEIVED BENEFITS
When participants described their use of the system, the primary aspects they found valuable included the following.
Ease of use
Participants described the layout of the system as simple and navigable, especially compared to existing modeling and mapping systems, an example being the way in which tasks were laid out in a process that approximates the landscape planning cycle.
“So, the way that the steps are set up, as in, it’s pretty clear from the get go. You can get in there and say, ‘start here’. Build the landscape, then do this, then do that, so the way that it’s laid out leads you through the entire process pretty clearly.”
The most common feature interviewees found useful was the relative ease of learning and using the system. Participants felt the quantity of data readily available in one system, combined with the relative ease of generating summaries, helped make the system easier to use. This was aided by the availability of helpful information in the system.
“There is an excellent set of resources and guides, along with [the system] that are very understandable in terms of what the inputs are, what inputs are required, what they mean and working through that is very good and easy.”
Increased efficiency
Several interviewees indicated the system saved time. Time savings came from the ease of use discussed above, the availability of existing data within the system such as landscape layers, and the ability to quickly create summary reports. Instead of implementing multiple systems, participants could save time by using one.
“I don’t have to go to Landfire and figure out an extent for a fire or project and then request that information. [The system] does that for me. It saves some time and saves some confusion with that.”
Facilitating communication and collaboration
Communication was also among the top areas in which users found value. Interviewees often spoke positively of the visual aids produced by the system reports and their utility in communicating potential fuel treatment alternatives and the reasoning behind them. Fuels planning is often a collaborative effort in which multiple landscape values must
be discussed among experts from several fields. When discussing communication using the system, multiple participants noted the benefits of being able to visually demonstrate their plans and the reasoning behind them to convey information to planners and collaborators regardless of whether they had background in wildland fire.
“It has helped us defend our scale of treatments on the forest. By having the tool available to us, it allows us to defend why we want to do the treatments we want to do to the public and to internal, both.”
“I really think that it’s just such a better visual tool to communicate what we expect with fire behavior in both the burn unit and the adjacent fuels outside the burn unit. Hands down, it’s just simpler and everyone can understand it regardless of specialty or training or education.”
RECOMENDED CHANGES
When asked about what changes they would recommend, interviewees tended to focus on features to enhance analysis capabilities or better facilitate collaboration among individuals using the system.
More modeling features and integration
Many participants wanted more weather and contingency planning features, such as querying weather data to generate fuel moisture and weather conditions within specific percentiles. Users also recommended having more control over which weather stations data was retrieved from, often expressing these as ways to better utilize data from within a single system.
Additional features for containment and contingency planning were also recommended. Participants explained the need to calculate resources needed to contain a prescribed fire in the event of an escape, an especially pertinent need following the prescribed fire escapes in 2022.
“So [containment] is the big one that’s being promoted right now because of the prescribed fire- the lens that prescribed fire is being looked at through right now.”
Landscape editing tools
The Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System provided a way to easily edit landscape information by creating custom edit rules or using a simplified set of editing rules. These simplified rules were appreciated by users but were found to be lacking in availability. They could only be used with older landscapes and several users recommended updating and expanding these rulesets.
Suggestions included offering a wider range of thinning treatments to the rules and allowing them to project out for longer periods of time to help model fire behavior further into the future.
Collaboration
The ability to share data with other account holders, as can be done with the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) was another common suggestion. Participants suggested this would increase efficiency by reducing duplicated efforts among team members and ensuring everyone was working from the same dataset.
Figure 3. The most common uses for the system and the relative proportion of responses for each for each. Categories are not mutually exclusive.
LEARNING METHODS
Time isn’t just spent using a system but also learning to use it. Interviewees commonly described the methods they used to learn the system such as videos, the system’s online knowledge base, experiential learning, and online courses.
Videos were one of the most often cited learning methods that were used, preferred by users, and recommend for new users. Some participants found short videos focused on a specific task to be helpful, others found value in the way in which steps were laid out as part of a process.
“I’d have to say that’s probably one of the things that I like about where [the system] has put effort and time, is in the training. I could find and watch a video. I’ve become a big fan of watching a YouTube video.”
Experiential learning was another common method – logging into the system, exploring the interface, and running through various tasks. If needed, users would draw on additional learning methods such as an online knowledge base, videos, or consulting others. Some participants also noted the benefit of example tutorials to use as an overall framework into which they could substitute their own data and learn the system.
“I like watching things demonstrated, but I learned by doing and getting to really put that stuff together myself. I really like those step-by-step tutorials.”
Courses and workshops, in-person or online, were the fourth-most cited way of learning the system for participants. When it came to recommended methods for new users, courses, workshops, and instructional videos were most frequently recommended. In-person classes and workshops tended to be preferred to online ones. Some valued the dedicated interruption-free time that comes with an in-person environment, others found it an easier environment in which to ask questions. Self-led methods such as the online knowledge base and tutorials were also mentioned here, but less frequently than classes, workshops, or the use of videos.
BRINGING THE FINDINGS TOGETHER
Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System users interviewed perceived value in a system that is easy to use and enhances efficiency and communications. But more work is needed. Interviewees recommended additional capabilities in the system to help them perform their duties, allowing them to do more within a single system and better collaborate with others.
Interviewee feedback has been invaluable in better understanding the needs of the fuels management community. Because fuels management evolves over time, the system and other tools must do the same. As these needs evolve, continued dialogue with system users to involve them in development, will ensure newly developed features are addressing the users’ needs and providing the services they require for collaborative fuels management planning and actions into the future.
To summarize key interview points:
There were multiple reasons users employed the system, depending upon their roles.
The aspects interviewees valued most from the system included ease of use, efficiency, and facilitating communication.
The most recommended changes involved adding capabilities that would allow users to do more within the system, which would reduce the need to use multiple systems or models and provide more of a one-stop-shop approach.
Multiple methods are used to learn the system, often in combination with each other.
The authors wish to thank all the interview participants who generously provided their time, input, and perspective to inform the development and enhancement of the Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System for the wildland fire community.
Josh Hyde works for the University of Idaho developing and managing application support for the Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System.
Eva Strand is a Professor in the Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Fire Sciences at the University of Idaho.
Peter Noble works for the US Forest Service in Salt Lake City, Utah, as a fuels assistant fire management officer.
Kim Ernstrom recently retired from the National Park Service (Wildland Fire Management Research Development and Applications team). Ernstrom was the technical lead for training and technology transfer and assisted in developing the Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System.
The European Commission’s integrated wildfire strategy covers prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. It cites European Environment Agency’s European Climate Risk Assessment on how fire risk is spreading well beyond the Mediterranean, to Scandinavia, central Europe and the northwest. What was once a regional seasonal threat is becoming a continent-wide, year-round reality.
Wildfire damage to property and infrastructure costs Europe an estimated €2.5 billion (USD 2.9 billion) every year. The likelihood of such extreme fires is expected to more than double by the end of the century.
The action plan for the EU is long and detailed, and includes many steps on landscape management and restoration, support for prescribed burning, promotion of grazing and forestry to reduce wildfire risk, enhancement of the Copernicus European Forest Fire Information System for fuel mapping, more opportunities for research through Horizon Europe, initiatives to raise community awareness and education through its European Citizens Panel, increase coordinated response across Europe, and support post-fire recovery of communities and landscapes. The list goes on.
Two highlight actions include:
A new European firefighting hub in Cyprus, serving as a centre of excellence for training and seasonal readiness across the region. The new European firefighting hub will have a dual role: operational, to respond to wildfire emergencies; and capacity building. It is expected to host a centre of excellence, focusing on capacity building, training, exercises, and seasonal readiness, relying on the technical expertise and resources of the EU. Cyprus media is reporting that the EU has confirmed the hub will be co-financed between the EU and Cyprus. “Cyprus is responsible for the infrastructure, while we contribute through the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) in training, exchange of best practices, preparedness and so on,” the EU said.
An expanded EU firefighting fleet, known as rescEU, with 12 new “medium amphibious” firefighting planes and five helicopters. The planes will be hosted by six EU countries: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, and Greece. The 5 helicopters will be hosted by Czechia, Slovakia, and Romania. The first new helicopters will be operational in 2026 and the first new airplanes by 2028. The first helicopter has already been delivered to Romania.
The statement makes it clear that this announcement poses no new costs. “Today’s communication does not impose any costs on Member States. On the contrary, it seeks to promote more efficiency in wildfires management.”
Roxana Mînzatu, the Executive Vice-President for Social Rights and Skills, Quality Jobs and Preparedness at the European Commission, explained the need for the statement.
“Europe must be ready before the first fire starts. That means building a real culture of preparedness: equipping people with the right skills, supporting firefighters and first responders, and helping communities understand the risks they face. Today’s strategy shows that prevention, preparedness and solidarity must go hand in hand if we want to save lives and strengthen Europe’s resilience against worsening wildfire threats.”
It’s been 40 years since the United States’ western region has experienced this low of snowpack near winter’s end, setting the stage for what many fear will be an early and extreme peak wildfire season.
Much of the mountainous West is experiencing a snow drought due to drier-than-normal and warmer-than-normal winter weather, according to the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Water and Climate Center. Recent heavy precipitation in the western states did little to reduce the deficit, as large amounts of snow fell in areas that were either not experiencing drought or were already far behind their usual snowpack levels.
“Below-average snow-water equivalency remains a concern in much of the West, even in drought-free areas such as the Sierra Nevada,” the Center said in its most recent weekly report. “According to the California Department of Water Resources, the Sierra Nevada snowpack contained an average snow-water equivalency of 16 inches—up about 6 inches from earlier in the month, but less than three-quarters of normal for late February. In much of Arizona, New Mexico, and Oregon, snow-water equivalency values were less than 50 percent of normal.”
The widespread snow drought increases the likelihood for extreme wildfires in numerous ways, according to Desert Research Institute Director Tim Brown. He and other fire weather experts expect much of the West to have significantly high wildland fire potential as we near the summer months.
“The snowpack can definitely drought-stress the vegetation from the reduced soil moisture,” Brown said during a water supply briefing for the National Integrated Drought Information System. “There may also be a feedback process where that drought stress also increases the atmospheric drying…that exacerbates what the fire outcome might look like.”
Listen to Brown’s presentation in the video below:
The only thing that could lessen the chance of extreme fires would be a “major switch” in circulation patterns that keeps things cool and moist, but there’s nothing in seasonal forecasts or weather models that would indicate that.
Not only does low snowpack worsen environmental conditions and increase the possibility of extreme fires, but it also limits the window to safely set prescribed burns during the spring.
“If the underlying conditions are much drier than usual, and then it’s also warm on top of that…that’s going to reduce the amount of prescribed fire activity and then that, in turn, could also increase the fire potential as we get more into the summer season,” Brown said.
Recent research backs up officials’ claims of wildfire severity being tied to low snowpack. A study out of the University of Toronto published in December found that longer snow-free durations increase the severity of extreme wildfires, with earlier snow disappearance correlating to increased wildfire ignitions and longer fire seasons, specifically in boreal forests.
“Although the consequences of climate change on snow cover have not been a major focus of wildfire research, our work highlights the importance of incorporating snow cover dynamics into future models of wildfire burn severity,” the researchers said. “Improved understanding of how snow dynamics affect burn severity will help inform resource allocation (e.g., funding, monitoring, personnel), fuel reduction, and forest management strategies to reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire and maintain forest ecosystem health and function.”
The costliest wildfire event of the year – the January fires in and around Los Angeles that directly claimed the lives of 30 people – burnt a relatively small 23,000 hectares (56,000 acres) but caused at least USD 53 billion in damages.
Wildfires burned through 390 million hectares (964 million acres) in 2025 – equivalent to 92% of the European Union’s land area.
In 2025 the total cost of damages caused by all types of natural hazards has been calculated by Munich Re at USD 224 billion, of which USD 108 billion was insured.
In a clear demonstration of the disparity between cost of damages and other measurable impacts, the year’s second most expensive disaster, Myanmar’s 7.7 magnitude earthquake in March, had damages of around USD 12 billion; however its human cost was more than 4500 lives, with thousands more injured.
The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) has published the figures to show how the global reinsurance industry’s balance sheet forms a basis for how disasters are discussed, compared, and remembered. But while these numbers make the news cycle – and draw much-needed attention to rising disaster risks – they capture only part of the story.
The UNDRR notes that beyond the insured damage to homes and businesses lies a far larger set of costs – borne by communities, ecosystems, health systems, and future development – that rarely appear on balance sheets. These invisible costs affect recovery long after the flames are extinguished, and determine whether societies emerge more resilient or more vulnerable to the next shock.
Wildfires rank among the most economically destructive hazards globally, and the costs are rising. Between 2014 and 2023, wildfires caused an estimated USD 106 billion in economic losses and USD 74 billion in insured losses globally – far exceeding losses in the previous decade, as found by the 2025 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR 2025). The United States accounts for most of these impacts, with nine of the ten most expensive wildfire events since 1970 occurring in the US, even before accounting for the January 2025 California wildfires, GAR 2025 shows.
Australia recorded one of the largest proportions of land affected by wildfires during 2025. But unlike many other fire-affected regions, Australia benefits from long-standing, high-quality loss data, allowing wildfire impacts to be assessed over decades rather than inferred from isolated events. The report notes this as “area lost” but much of the fire in Australia is in the northern savannah regions that benefit from regular, low-intensity fires.
(The following graphics show the Percentage of wildfire burn in 2025, and the Total hectares burnt. Hover over the graphic for more details.)
The UNDRR concludes that global wildfire costs appear concentrated where assets are high value and insured – which is almost certainly not where impacts are greatest.
From the perspective of insurers and reinsurers – the institutions that offer insurance to insurance companies to cover megalosses – 2025 stands out as a year of exceptional wildfire losses.
GAR 2025 calculated that total losses from those fires – including insured, uninsured and long-term indirect costs – are even higher, and likely to exceed USD 250 billion, making it among the most expensive disasters on record.
But most expensive doesn’t necessarily mean most destructive. What insured loss figures obscure is the duration and breadth of wildfire impacts.
“Even when data exists, it is often focused on direct impacts and not enough on indirect impacts. This is a major gap in how disaster risk is understood,” according to Kamal Kishore, head of UNDRR.
