Four wildfires in Spain trigger national emergency amid prevention failures

National emergency in Madrid and Ávila: four wildfires expose the business of fire

Why has the Government had to declare a national emergency in the Community of Madrid and Ávila due to four wildfires? The answer, according to data and analysis circulating among experts and those affected, is uncomfortable: the prevention and firefighting machinery has been failing for years for reasons that go beyond wind and drought. Behind it lies a web of economic interests, bureaucratic overload, and investment that never reaches its intended destination.

The numbers of the catastrophe: 100,000 evacuated and 65,000 affected

The four fires—which at one point were close to merging—have forced the evacuation of more than 100,000 people, according to data collected during the crisis. Smoke covered large residential areas for four days, and residents on the outskirts of Madrid complained that “it has smelled like wood all night.” Material losses are still being quantified, but there are reports of destroyed homes and thefts in evacuated properties. The declaration of a national emergency, requested by the President of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, and approved by the central Government, activated the mobilization of resources from the UME (Military Emergencies Unit) and other state units, but it has not prevented criticism from focusing on what was not done beforehand.

Prevention: the Achilles' heel of forest policy

The most recurring debate points to a lack of forest clearing and overregulation. The Ley de Montes (Forest Law) of 2003, which subjects grazing, wood collection, or controlled burning to complex regional permits, is cited as a legal obstacle that prevents traditional forest maintenance. “If you think about clearing a forest or a firebreak without administrative permission, you're going to be in serious trouble,” summarized one analysis. The consequence: scrubland grows, fuel accumulates, and any spark—from an electric car, an arsonist, or a drone—is enough to unleash the unstoppable.

Some participants in the debate propose returning to traditional practices such as grazing, pine cone harvesting, and winter boundary burning, in addition to toughening penalties against arsonists. Others, however, point to a more complex underlying problem: forest management has become a business.

The fire industry: 200 million euros a year

“In Galicia, a veritable industry has developed around wildfires: contracting brigades, firefighting equipment, surveillance, and collateral benefits such as buying wood at ridiculous prices or exploiting burned land; that moves about 200 million a year toward private companies,” stated one of the more detailed comments. The suspicion that wildfires generate profit—and therefore there is no interest in preventing them entirely—runs through the discussion. At a national level, it is mentioned that approximately 6 billion euros annually would be needed for prevention to reverse the trend, a figure that contrasts sharply with the budgets actually allocated.

One concrete example: in 2023, the firefighters' union CSIT Unión Profesional denounced the Ayuso Government for diverting 40 million euros from insurance premiums toward current expenses instead of investing them in firefighting services. The lawsuit, which is still ongoing, has been reignited by these fires.

Political battles and cross-accusations

Politics could not be left out. While some attack Ayuso's management, claiming that “she skimps on resources except to give money to Quirón (a private healthcare group),” others see a heavy hand from the central Government and do not hesitate to speak of “State terrorism” or suggest that the fires are part of a strategy to harm regions governed by the PP (People's Party). There are also those who link the fires to climate change, although that position is a minority in the debate and is immediately met with data regarding historical recurrence and the lack of arrests.

The UME, for its part, has also been a subject of controversy: it is criticized that its command is political rather than technical, as it depends on the Ministry of Defense, which—according to some—slows down decision-making on the ground.

The question no one answers

Four days after the start of the fires, those affected still cannot return to their homes, and there is not a single arrest or ongoing investigation that has shed light on the origin of the fires. Official explanations are limited to invoking “adverse meteorological conditions” and the “concurrence” of hotspots. But, as one analysis ironically noted, “since firefighting has become a business, the fires have not stopped growing.” Meanwhile, the forest burns, and the feeling that the system works exactly as it is designed—that is, to extinguish, not to prevent—spreads among those enduring the smoke.