Why Spain's forests aren't burned in controlled fires: the interests holding it back

Controlled burns are not catching on: caught between bureaucracy and suspicion

Until a few decades ago, it was common practice to burn strips of woodland in a controlled way to create natural firebreaks. Livestock were let loose to graze, paths were cleared and the undergrowth was managed. Today, however, applying these traditional techniques has become politically incorrect. Why isn't all forest land burned strategically to prevent disasters?

The reasons are varied. For one, bureaucracy: controlled burns require permits, insurance and a deployment of resources that discourages landowners and local councils. What's more, the risk of a burn getting out of control is always present, and the legal liabilities are enormous. But there is a less visible factor: suspicion of land speculation. It has been claimed that some wildfires might be started deliberately so that burned land can be reclassified as disaster zones and its value increased years later. Although unproven, this argument fuels distrust of any intentional fire, even a controlled one.

Meanwhile, the debate has become polarised. Those who defend traditional forest management techniques, such as prescribed burns, are accused of being against the 2030 Agenda or of being "far right". In the meantime, the build-up of biomass in the countryside creates a tinderbox that every summer claims hectares and, sometimes, lives. The middle-ground solution — controlled burns backed by experts — is running into an ideological and administrative wall.

The question that remains is whether society is willing to bring back age-old tools adapted to today's regulations, or whether it prefers to keep risking megafires while arguing over political acronyms.