NFU Mutual highlights £102m UK farm fires bill and regional loss patterns

Farm fires cost UK £102m in 2024

NFU Mutual has reported that farm fires across the UK led to an estimated £102m in claims in 2024, despite an 18% fall in the number of incidents involving growing crops, buildings and farm equipment.

The insurer stated that agricultural vehicle fires added an estimated £37m to rural losses over the same period.

The company identified electrical faults, arson and lightning strikes as the leading causes of farm fires reported to its claims teams.

NFU Mutual explained that a cool and wet summer, together with farmers holding on to machinery for longer, likely contributed to lower replacement values and a reduction in combine harvester fire costs to an estimated £3.5m.

According to the insurer, combine harvester fire claims had reached an estimated £11m in 2022 and £7.4m in 2023, so the latest reduction does not remove the ongoing risk to crops and machinery.

NFU Mutual warned that each year hundreds of combines, tractors and balers are still lost to fire, alongside thousands of acres of crops.

Historical context and impact of farm fires

NFU Mutual’s Farm Fires report set the current figures against the organisation’s origins in early twentieth century fire loss.

Hannah Binns, Rural Affairs Specialist at NFU Mutual, said: “Back in 1910, seven farmers became frustrated at the losses caused by sparks from the nearby steam-powered railway, which often set haystacks ablaze.

“This collective developed into NFU Mutual and more than a century on, fire remains a constant risk to UK farms, with dangerous and devasting farm fires becoming all too common.

“These fires not only endanger the lives of farmers, farm workers and their families, but can destroy months or years of hard work, with long lasting consequences for agricultural businesses, structurally and financially.

“Beyond the immediate damage, the emotional toll of a farm fire can be significant, as individuals come to terms with the trauma and the added strain on an already demanding job.

“Farm fires can also cause disruption to local communities, damaging essential infrastructure such as power lines and overhead cables, and causing road closures that interrupt vital services.”

Regional farm fires costs across the UK

NFU Mutual’s analysis showed varied trends in regional farm fire claims across the UK between 2023 and 2024.

The East recorded a broadly stable picture, with estimated claims moving from £9.51m to £9.52m, a change of 0.1%.

The Midlands saw a reduction in estimated costs from £12.7m to £10.6m, a fall of 16%.

The North East recorded an increase in estimated claims from £12.3m in 2023 to £16.4m in 2024, a rise of 34%.

In the North West, estimated costs moved from £28.9m to £4.3m, a reduction of 85%.

Northern Ireland recorded an estimated rise from £5.2m to £7.3m, an increase of 42%.

Scotland’s estimated farm fire costs moved from £5.9m to £11.8m, an increase of 98%.

The South East saw estimated claims rise from £9.4m to £12.9m, up 36%.

In the South West, NFU Mutual reported an increase from £20.2m to £24m, a rise of 20%.

Wales recorded an estimated decrease from £6.7m to £4.8m, a reduction of 29%.

Across the UK overall, estimated farm fire claim costs fell from £110.8m in 2023 to £102m in 2024, down 8%, with NFU Mutual noting that these figures do not include agricultural vehicle fire claims.

Suppression systems and machinery fire risk

NFU Mutual strongly recommended fitting fire suppression systems to high-risk agricultural machinery, particularly combine harvesters.

The insurer noted that suppression systems are widely used in sectors such as forestry and can prevent small fires from spreading and destroying entire machines.

According to the company, policyholders who operate combines fitted with approved fire suppression systems can access an insurance discount.

NFU Mutual added that keeping machinery clean and properly serviced remains an important control measure, especially during hot and dry periods when field work is most intensive.

Emergency response and NFCC support

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) was cited in the report in relation to the impact of farm fires and wildfires on fire and rescue services.

Dave Swallow, NFCC Wildfire Deputy Lead and Lead Tactical Advisor, said: “Farm fires and wildfires regularly require significant fire service resource, often for extended periods of time, and they put lives at risk.

“NFCC supports and welcomes the NFU Mutual’s push for suppression systems to be fitted in farm machinery, reducing the risk of fires developing into large and more damaging incidents.

“Furthermore, we have worked with industry to produce guidance for farmers during the harvesting period, following an increase in potential risk of fires during this year’s hot, dry summer.”

NFU Mutual farm fire prevention advice

NFU Mutual Risk Management Services (RMS) set out practical steps for reducing the likelihood and impact of farm fires.

RMS advised farmers to maintain a clear fire plan that prioritises safe evacuation for everyone on site, including people working in or living near farm buildings, with particular attention to vulnerable individuals.

The guidance stressed the need to keep electrical systems in good condition, to use qualified electricians for installation and inspection work, and to avoid do-it-yourself modifications that can be affected by damp, rodents or overloaded circuits.

RMS recommended installing fire suppression systems on equipment such as biomass boilers and combine harvesters, and positioning water bowsers in fields on hot days to provide an immediate water source.

The advice highlighted the role of good housekeeping in reducing dust, chaff and stored materials that can add to fire load, block escape routes or create trip hazards during an emergency.

RMS also urged farmers to control hot work such as welding, cutting or grinding by carrying it out outside where possible, or in clear internal areas away from combustible structures and materials, supported by a strict permit to work process for anyone carrying out such tasks.

Actions to take when a fire breaks out

NFU Mutual Risk Management Services set out steps for farmers to follow if a fire starts on site.

The guidance advised that the Fire and Rescue Service should be called immediately, that everyone should be alerted to the fire and evacuated to a safe location in line with the emergency plan, and that any attempt to tackle the fire should only be made if it is safe to do so using correctly maintained extinguishers.

RMS stated that farmers should be ready to move livestock if the fire spreads, but only where it is safe, and should prepare to use farm machinery to support Fire and Rescue Service operations when requested.

The advice emphasised the importance of helping emergency services reach the incident quickly by using tools such as the what3words app to identify the precise location, sending someone to meet the fire crew and ensuring that the farm entrance is clearly signed and kept clear for access.

New UK guidance on lithium battery fire, explosion and smoke hazards from asecos

New lithium battery whitepaper for UK workplaces

asecos has published a new lithium battery safety whitepaper for UK workplaces, responding to requests from safety professionals for clearer guidance on emerging risks.

The company announced the document on Wednesday 26 November 2025 from Derby, UK.

Titled “Lithium-Ion Batteries – Fire, Explosion and Smoke Hazards You Must Address,” the whitepaper focuses on workplace hazards associated with thermal runaway.

The publication is intended to help organisations understand and manage the rise in lithium-ion battery incidents being recorded by UK fire services.

According to asecos, the document is designed to bring together evidence, legal context and practical measures in a single reference for duty holders.

Rising incident rates and thermal runaway hazards

The whitepaper highlights what asecos describes as a marked increase in lithium-ion battery fires attended by UK fire and rescue services.

The company reports that fire services are now dealing with at least three lithium-ion battery incidents a day.

It links these incidents to hazards arising from thermal runaway, including the potential for fires, explosions and heavy smoke generation.

asecos notes that these hazards affect a wide range of equipment powered by lithium-ion cells in workplace environments.

The company positions the paper as a resource to help safety professionals interpret these developing risks in the context of day-to-day operations.

Legal duties and support for organisations

asecos states that the whitepaper sets out how existing legal frameworks apply to lithium-ion battery use and storage in workplaces.

The document refers to the Health and Safety at Work Act, DSEAR and the Fire Safety Order as key sources of duty-holder obligations.

According to asecos, the paper explains how these laws influence the need for risk assessment, hazard control and documentation around lithium battery management.

It also discusses legal exposure where organisations fail to implement protective measures that regulators and insurers are increasingly expecting to see.

The company says the whitepaper outlines practical steps aimed at achieving what it describes as a “gold standard” approach to lithium battery safety.

asecos adds that the publication draws attention to the support it offers through free site surveys, its Derby showroom and annual maintenance plans.

Les Day, Commercial Director at asecos, said: “The lithiumion revolution has transformed how we work but it’s also created a complex, fast-evolving safety challenge.

“This whitepaper offers professionals the evidence, legal clarity and technical guidance needed to act decisively before an incident occurs.”

Practical relevance for battery risk management and compliance

Fire safety officers can use the whitepaper to align existing lithium-ion storage and charging arrangements with legal expectations linked to DSEAR and the Fire Safety Order.

Facility managers across industrial, commercial and public sites gain a single reference for checking whether lithium-ion powered tools, devices and systems are covered by suitable controls.

Risk assessors can draw on the incident data and thermal runaway discussion when reviewing workplace assessments that currently treat lithium-ion batteries in the same way as conventional batteries.

System installers and fire-protection contractors may need to consider how the “gold standard” measures described by asecos influence specifications for cabinets, ventilation and fire-detection interfaces.

Procurement officers can reference the legal and insurance sections when evaluating investment in containment products, maintenance plans or site surveys related to lithium battery hazards.

Wildfire emissions in 2025 reach records for Europe and Canada

Why 2025 wildfire emissions are reshaping air quality risk worldwide

The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) has reported that global wildfire emissions from January to November 2025 reached around 1,380 megatonnes of carbon, with record European Union emissions and Canada recording its second highest annual total in the CAMS dataset.

CAMS compared the 2025 figure with estimated emissions of 1,850 megatonnes of carbon from January to November 2024 and 1,940 megatonnes over the full year 2024.

According to CAMS, Canada contributed an estimated 263 megatonnes of carbon to the 2025 total, with only 2023 recording a higher annual figure in the 23 year dataset that began in 2003.

CAMS noted that biomass burning in tropical Africa remains the largest contributor to global biomass burning emissions, and that this region has driven an overall decline over the past two decades because of fewer savanna fires.

In contrast, CAMS data show rising emissions in recent years in other regions, including North America between 2023 and 2025 and the record fire season in South America in 2024.

The service found that more extreme fire emissions have been increasing at different continental scales, even though year to year variability remains high.

CAMS uses its Global Fire Assimilation System (GFAS) to group estimated total carbon emissions from biomass burning by continent and to produce a 23 year time series up to 2025.

Mark Parrington, CAMS Senior Scientist, said: “What we have seen in 2025 is extreme wildfires in North America and Europe and impacts on atmospheric composition far from where the fires are burning.

“Our global fire emissions monitoring shows extreme wildfire intensity and emissions occurring when dry conditions and high temperatures converge around the world.

“The global perspective of CAMS highlights the local and larger scales that smoke emitted from these wildfires can have in significantly degrading air quality and potentially affecting human health.”

Wildfire emissions and air quality in Europe

CAMS reported that summer fire activity in 2025 produced the highest annual total wildfire emissions on record for the European Union at just under 13 megatonnes of carbon.

While CAMS stated that fires in Europe do not make a large contribution to global carbon dioxide emissions, the service uses carbon as a proxy for other pollutants such as PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides that affect regional air quality.

Large wildfires developed in Spain and Portugal in late July and intensified through August, driven by persistent heatwaves, very dry conditions and strong winds.

In northern Portugal, extensive fires that began in late July continued into early August, leading to a state of emergency and the deployment of more than 3,600 firefighters.

CAMS reported that in Spain the situation deteriorated rapidly in mid August, with fires intensifying across Castilla y León, Galicia, Asturias and Extremadura.

The fires in Spain killed at least three people, forced thousands of residents to evacuate and burned an estimated 120,000 hectares in August alone.

GFAS monitoring showed that emissions in the Iberian Peninsula were close to seasonal norms at first, then rose sharply in the cumulative carbon emissions record during the second week of August.

By 17 August, CAMS data showed a marked increase in fire intensity and smoke emissions across the region, and Spain reached its highest annual total fire emissions in 23 years.

Surface PM2.5 concentrations across much of the Iberian Peninsula exceeded World Health Organization 24 hour guideline levels, while smoke travelled hundreds of kilometres and affected areas including France, the UK and northwestern Europe.

CAMS noted that France saw several large summer outbreaks, including a fire in the Aude Département that started on 4 August between Carcassonne and Perpignan, with satellite observations showing smoke moving over the Mediterranean.

Eastern Mediterranean and UK wildfire emissions

Across the eastern Mediterranean, CAMS reported very severe wildfire activity during summer 2025, with Greece and Turkey facing major outbreaks from late June into July.

Thousands of residents in both countries were evacuated, and CAMS reported that at least 10 forest workers died in Turkey.

Cyprus experienced its worst July wildfires in more than 50 years, which caused two fatalities and generated the island’s highest annual emissions total after only two days of burning.

CAMS reported that extreme conditions continued into August, with wildfire emissions in Turkey remaining well above the long term average.

Syria also recorded its highest August wildfire carbon emissions in the CAMS dataset, and CAMS stated that this was by a wide margin.

Wildfire activity extended across the wider Balkan region, with Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia all experiencing extreme fires during summer 2025.

In the UK, CAMS reported that Northern Scotland experienced large wildfires in late June and early July, producing the highest total estimated wildfire emissions for the UK in the 23 year GFAS record.

Canada and North American wildfire emissions

CAMS reported that Canada experienced its third intense wildfire year in succession, with the 2025 season starting early and strengthening rapidly.

Total wildfire carbon emissions in Canada reached around 250 megatonnes of carbon by 1 October and 263 megatonnes by the end of November, with only 2023 recording a higher total in the CAMS dataset.

CAMS noted that severe wildfire activity developed across Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario in April and May, marking only the second year in the record with such an intense early season after 2023.

GFAS data showed that Fire Radiative Power (FRP) values in these provinces remained well above the 23 year average during June and July.

By mid summer, estimated cumulative carbon emissions had reached record levels of just over 66 megatonnes in Saskatchewan and around 44 megatonnes in Manitoba.

CAMS reported that smoke plumes from Canadian fires repeatedly covered large parts of Canada and North America, with several events sending smoke across the Atlantic to western, central and eastern Europe.

In Alaska, CAMS noted that wildfire activity mainly occurred in June and July, with some days of increased emissions during both months and more than one million acres burned.

Fires persisted across Canada and the wider boreal region in August and through September, with the largest fires recorded in British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

In the Pacific Northwest, CAMS reported that Washington state recorded its highest September wildfire carbon emissions in the dataset at over 1.5 megatonnes, and emissions in neighbouring British Columbia were second only to the record year of 2023 at just under 5 megatonnes.

CAMS stated that smoke impacts on PM2.5 concentrations from many of these fires were often local, but high aerosol optical depth values showed that smoke transport extended across substantial parts of North America.

Severe air quality impacts from Los Angeles wildfires

CAMS reported that a major wildfire outbreak affected the Los Angeles region in early January 2025, driven by very dry vegetation and strong Santa Ana winds.

According to the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, the event followed a “hydro climate whiplash” pattern, where a wetter than usual 2023 to 2024 spring and summer was followed by a very dry autumn and early winter that left large volumes of flammable vegetation.

The first ignitions were recorded around 7 January, and GFAS daily FRP values for California increased sharply on 7 and 8 January compared with the 2003 to 2024 mean.

CAMS reported that the fires spread rapidly through the wildland urban interface around Los Angeles and into densely built areas.

The event destroyed thousands of buildings, forced around 200,000 residents to evacuate and caused economic losses projected at about US$150 billion, placing it among the costliest US wildfire events in history.

CAMS stated that surface PM2.5 concentrations in and around Los Angeles rose far above safe levels during the fires.

Although winds carried much of the smoke out over the Pacific, local air quality monitoring showed hazardous levels of exposure during the peak of the event.

South American wildfire emissions fall in 2025

CAMS reported that South America recorded one of its lowest wildfire emission years in the GFAS dataset in 2025.

In Argentina, wildfires started in late January and continued into early February, with estimated wildfire carbon emissions for the month of around 1.8 megatonnes.

Chile recorded increased wildfire activity towards the end of March, and CAMS estimated total carbon emissions for the month at around 0.5 megatonnes.

Later in the year, in August and September, CAMS reported that both the number of fires and total emissions in Bolivia and Brazil were far lower than during the record fire year of 2024 and lower than many other years in the dataset.

CAMS stated that as a result of this low fire activity, aerosol optical depth and surface PM2.5 concentrations in both its forecasts and independent observations were at low to moderate levels.

By the end of November, CAMS estimated that Brazil’s year to date wildfire carbon emissions were at their lowest level in the GFAS record at around 80 megatonnes.

In the same period, Bolivia recorded wildfire emissions of around 12 megatonnes.

Russia, Australia and Asia wildfire activity

CAMS reported that large wildfires burned across Russia’s Far Eastern Federal District from early April 2025.

Major outbreaks occurred in the Republic of Buryatia and Zabaykalsky Krai east of Lake Baikal, with additional fires later in the Sakha Republic including within the Arctic Circle, although these were not large in scale.

GFAS data showed that FRP values across the Far Eastern Federal District were close to average until mid May, when they increased quickly.

In Buryatia, FRP values were above average in early April, eased, then rose again in mid May, while in Zabaykalsky Krai FRP was average to well above average from April to mid May.

CAMS reported that emissions for the Far Eastern Federal District reached their highest level for this part of the year since 2018 at just under 40 megatonnes.

Buryatia recorded its highest emissions since 2016 at around 6 megatonnes, and Zabaykalsky Krai recorded almost 25 megatonnes, its highest level since 2015.

Fire activity continued east of Lake Baikal into mid May, with GFAS data showing further fires developing in Amur Oblast and smoke plumes transported towards northeast China and northern Japan.

In Australia, CAMS reported above average seasonal bushfire intensity and emissions in October and early November 2025, especially in northern tropical regions.

The ten largest fires occurred in the Northern Territory, which experienced its hottest October on record and an estimated 8 million hectares burned.

CAMS aerosol optical depth analyses and forecasts also showed smoke spreading across central Australia during this period.

Earlier in the year, CAMS reported that Queensland recorded its highest January wildfire emissions since 2014 and the Northern Territory its highest January emissions since 2013.

Overall, CAMS estimated total wildfire carbon emissions for Australia of around 120 megatonnes up to the end of November, a figure very close to the 2003 to 2024 average.

In Southeast Asia, CAMS reported that seasonal wildfire activity across the upper Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region between January and April was generally below average.

Despite this, the fires contributed to haze events and heavily degraded air quality in parts of the region.

Quality assured wildfire emissions data from CAMS

CAMS explained that its GFAS provides a 23 year dataset of biomass burning location and estimated emissions, including wildfires and open burning, updated in near real time using satellite observations of FRP.

The service noted that emissions estimates carry uncertainties linked to assumptions about fuel type, shape and distribution and about how much fuel is burned and released as emissions.

CAMS uses the estimated emissions in its global and regional air quality forecasts and analyses to track wildfire smoke transport, composition and potential air quality impacts.

The organisation stated that GFAS is developed by a consortium led by the Norwegian Climate and Environmental Research Institute NILU.

CAMS reported that ongoing developments aim to extend GFAS to include FRP observations from additional satellite sensors, in order to maintain continuity in estimated wildfire emissions for its forecast systems.

CAMS provides further information on its global fire monitoring methods and products on its dedicated wildfire and smoke monitoring pages.

Wildfire emissions data for operational planning

CAMS regional breakdowns of wildfire emissions in 2025 provide a global view of where biomass burning is contributing most to carbon release and smoke transport.

The record European Union emissions, extreme fire years in Canada and elevated activity in parts of Russia and Australia show that long range smoke transport can affect regions far from the fire source.

Fire and rescue chiefs, senior officers and emergency and disaster response managers can use CAMS information on PM2.5 and aerosol optical depth to understand when wildfire smoke may degrade local air quality, even when fires are burning in other countries.

Government departments, risk assessors and fire engineering consultants can reference GFAS datasets and CAMS forecasts when assessing exposure patterns from prolonged wildfire seasons and planning responses to repeat smoke events.

Facility managers at airports, mass transit hubs and industrial sites in regions such as the Iberian Peninsula, the Pacific Northwest and the eastern Mediterranean can look at emissions time series and smoke transport analyses to understand when on site operations may face reduced visibility or poor air quality during future fire seasons.

Training officers and instructors can incorporate CAMS findings on early season activity in Canada, the Los Angeles January fires and South American year to year variability into exercises that focus on changing wildfire risk profiles and cross border smoke impacts.

CROSS-UK examines ageing buildings, structural risk and battery safety considerations

Why battery safety belongs in every ageing building decision

Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures UK (CROSS-UK) has published a Topic Paper on the ageing built environment in the UK, setting out how existing buildings and infrastructure can be managed, extended in life or repurposed.

The organisation said the paper explains how ageing assets create both challenges and opportunities once structures reach or pass their intended service life.

According to CROSS-UK, the document is based on confidential reports from engineers, asset managers and construction professionals, supported by references to anonymised CROSS Safety Reports.

The Topic Paper describes how older structures may suffer from material degradation, incomplete documentation and historic design approaches that do not align with current expectations.

CROSS-UK frames the publication as guidance for policymakers, regulators, insurers, asset owners, facilities managers and construction professionals responsible for the safety and future use of ageing buildings and other structures.

The paper states that leaving ageing assets unassessed is not an acceptable option and argues for decisions that take safety, sustainability and economic outcomes into account.

Asset knowledge, deterioration and inspection

CROSS-UK places asset knowledge at the centre of decision-making for ageing structures and highlights reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) as an example where incomplete records delayed action.

The Topic Paper notes that many older buildings lack accurate as-built information, have been altered without proper recording or contain materials that were not fully understood at the time of construction.

The report explains that this can leave owners unaware of critical elements and increase uncertainty when problems emerge.

CROSS-UK outlines how steel, concrete, masonry and timber each degrade over time, and how these processes interact with changing conditions such as climate impacts, heavier vehicles, new fire loads and system obsolescence.

The Topic Paper references failures including the Pipers Row car park, the gable collapse at Northwich Station and the Morandi Bridge to illustrate the outcomes of unmanaged deterioration.

CROSS-UK calls for structured inspection and maintenance regimes that combine scheduled and risk-based approaches and give targeted access to hidden or safety-critical components.

According to the paper, examples such as half-joint bridge failures, corroded tendons and concealed steelwork demonstrate how inaccessible details have driven catastrophic collapses.

CROSS-UK argues that maintenance must be treated as a core safety responsibility rather than a discretionary cost that can be reduced when budgets tighten.

Reuse, constraints and changing fire and battery safety risks

The Topic Paper sets out a case for reuse and repurposing as part of a lower carbon built environment, stating that retaining and adapting existing structures can reduce embodied emissions and support resource efficiency.

CROSS-UK explains that safe adaptation requires robust assessment, intrusive investigation where needed and careful review of load paths, fire safety measures and regulatory compliance when a building’s use changes.

The paper warns that poorly planned retrofit measures, such as some insulation approaches, have led to moisture problems and damage in existing structures.

CROSS-UK notes that constraints such as skills shortages, incomplete records, funding pressures and regulatory complexity can limit reuse options or push decisions towards unnecessary demolition.

The Topic Paper also refers to evolving risks, including new fire loads and obsolescent systems, and links to its separate Topic Paper on lithium-ion batteries for those addressing fire and battery safety in buildings that predate current technologies.

According to CROSS-UK, extending the life of structures requires experienced engineering judgement when applying modern standards to historic construction, with decisions based on risk, tolerable performance and the specific context of each asset.

The organisation concludes that collaboration, competence and long-term planning are needed if ageing structures are to be retained safely rather than removed by default.

How ageing asset guidance affects safety and engineering practice

The CROSS-UK Topic Paper has direct implications for asset owners and managers who oversee estates containing older buildings and infrastructure.

For these groups, the emphasis on structured inspection, record-keeping and maintenance describes practical steps that can reduce unplanned failures and support decisions on whether to retain, adapt or deconstruct structures.

Facilities managers in commercial, industrial and public sectors can use the paper’s focus on hidden components and access needs to frame inspection regimes and plan intrusive investigations where safety-critical elements are concealed.

Fire engineering consultants, architects and building services engineers gain a consolidated view of how ageing materials, changing fire loads and retrofit measures interact in older buildings, including references to separate guidance on lithium-ion battery risks.

Regulators and policymakers can draw on the discussion of RAAC, documented failures and maintenance backlogs when considering where to focus oversight, funding and future standards for existing stock.

The Topic Paper also highlights the need for skilled inspection and assessment, which is relevant for structural engineers and surveyors involved in appraising older structures for continued use, conversion or demolition.

UL Research Institutes turns lithium-ion incident data into practical battery safety actions

UL Research Institutes promotes battery safety with Take C.H.A.R.G.E.

UL Research Institutes has launched its Take C.H.A.R.G.E. of Battery Safety guidance on lithium-ion powered devices as holiday technology gifting and travel increase in the US.

The organisation noted that lithium-ion batteries now power smartphones, laptops, e-bikes, electric vehicles, power tools, toys and home energy systems.

According to UL Standards & Engagement, an average of two flights per week experienced lithium-ion battery incidents in 2024.

The data also showed that most travellers carry four lithium-ion battery-powered devices, with smartphones carried by 81% of passengers, laptops by 40%, wireless headphones by 38% and tablets by 35%.

UL Research Institutes reported that 50% of Americans say they do not know anything about lithium-ion batteries.

It added that 60% of travellers remain unaware of how common lithium-ion batteries are in everyday devices and of the dangers linked to damaged, counterfeit or improperly charged products.

The organisation stated that lithium-ion batteries store energy more densely than traditional batteries, and that damaged, overheated or improperly charged units can be at risk of catching fire.

Take C.H.A.R.G.E. campaign on battery safety

UL Research Institutes said the Take C.H.A.R.G.E. of Battery Safety campaign is designed to improve public understanding of lithium-ion risks at home and in transit environments.

Nicole Sanders, Public Education Lead for UL Research Institutes, said: “Recent spikes in lithium-ion battery incidents in transit environments have underscored the need to expand public education.

“To improve public safety, we’ve developed clear guidelines for how to ‘Take C.H.A.R.G.E. of Battery Safety’ at home and on-the-go using best practices informed by response data and firefighter testimonials.”

The organisation explained that the guidance sets out practical steps for handling, charging and storing lithium-ion devices.

It added that the campaign emphasises keeping devices visible when charging, particularly while travelling.

UL Research Institutes also highlighted the need to keep lithium-ion battery-powered devices out of checked luggage.

The campaign frames the Take C.H.A.R.G.E. actions as an interconnected set of measures rather than standalone tips.

Key Take C.H.A.R.G.E. safety messages

UL Research Institutes advised that users should choose lithium-ion battery-powered devices that have been certified by a nationally recognised testing laboratory so they meet defined safety requirements.

The organisation recommended that people follow manufacturer instructions, use the charger supplied with the device, avoid modifying batteries or chargers and charge only in locations away from extreme temperatures, direct sunlight and flammable materials.

It added that devices should never be charged under pillows, blankets or inside bags and that users should unplug devices at home and check size limits set by transit providers before travelling.

UL Research Institutes stated that people should regularly inspect devices for swelling, punctures, unusual sounds such as hissing or popping, excess heat, unfamiliar odours or white or grey wispy smoke, which indicates immediate fire danger.

If these warning signs appear, the organisation said users should unplug the device immediately, stop using it and keep it in sight when travelling or charging.

It advised that lithium-ion battery-powered devices and gifts should not be placed in checked bags.

The organisation said that devices and batteries must not be placed in public rubbish bins or abandoned when travelling and that recycling routes should be used instead.

UL Research Institutes explained that if there is a fire, people at home should follow their escape plan, leave immediately, shut doors behind them and call 9-1-1.

It recommended that people create and practise a home escape plan and, in public spaces such as transit hubs, identify exits and escape routes so they can evacuate quickly and alert authorities if a device shows warning signs.

The organisation stated that people gifting battery-powered devices should share the Take C.H.A.R.G.E. guidance, encourage safe charging and travel practices and remind travel companions to keep devices in carry-on luggage rather than checked bags.

UL Research Institutes noted that the full Take C.H.A.R.G.E. guidance is presented as a set of linked steps which reinforce one another, and that following them can reduce risk in homes and workplaces, with further information available at batteryfiresafety.org.

Hong Kong’s Wang Fuk Court fire and the global lessons for high-rise safety

International Fire and Safety Journal examines how renovation materials, temporary works and oversight decisions combined in Hong Kong’s Wang Fuk Court fire, and what the incident means for high rise fire safety practice

When fire broke out at the Wang Fuk Court housing estate in Hong Kong’s Tai Po district on 26 November 2025, it quickly became the city’s deadliest blaze in decades.

Seven of the estate’s eight 31 storey residential towers were involved.

The buildings were already wrapped in scaffolding, plastic mesh and temporary window coverings for a major façade renovation project.

Across the available reporting and official statements, the death toll has risen through successive updates and currently stands at at least 159 people, with victims aged from one to 97.

Hundreds were injured and thousands displaced into temporary shelters, youth hostels, hotels and transitional housing, while search and identification work continued in severely damaged apartments.

This article draws on reporting from Reuters, the Associated Press, BBC News, The New York Times, Bloomberg and The Times of India, commentary from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and official information released by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The aim is to bring together the factual record and published analysis, focusing on renovation materials and site practices, the concerns raised by residents before the fire, the regulatory and political context, and the implications for fire and building safety professionals.

Wang Fuk Court: estate layout, residents and fire development

Wang Fuk Court is a private residential estate in the northern New Territories overlooking Tolo Harbour.

It comprises eight 31 storey towers built in the early 1980s, with around 4,600 residents.

A significant proportion of occupants are older adults who moved in when the estate opened.

In 2016 the estate became subject to a mandatory inspection and renovation order, under Hong Kong’s requirement that private buildings more than 30 years old undergo checks and repairs.

By 2024 a large scale renovation project was in progress.

Bamboo scaffolding had been erected around all eight towers and green protective netting was wrapped around the façades.

On the afternoon of 26 November 2025 the fire was reported at 2.51 pm local time.

It began in one of the towers and then spread upwards and horizontally.

Within hours seven of the eight buildings were affected.

The fire took more than 40 hours to fully extinguish.

Accounts from officials and residents indicate that flames first reached protective netting on a lower floor before running into foam screens installed over windows.

The arrangement of foam boards and mesh along the external wall is understood to have created intense vertical fire spread up the façade.

Tower spacing was also a factor.

Reports describe separation distances of around 7.5 metres between buildings, reduced further by scaffolding, which allowed the fire to move from tower to tower.

Conditions inside the estate deteriorated quickly.

Many residents were unable to escape their homes in time.

Police, the Fire Services Department and specialist disaster victim identification teams later described finding human remains in multiple apartments.

Some victims were burnt to the point where recovery of remains and identification presented significant challenges.

Government statements issued on 30 November and 2 December set out the scale of the response.

Hundreds of officers from the Disaster Victim Identification Unit, supported by firefighters, forced entry into flats, searched debris and coordinated with forensic pathologists to collect evidence and confirm identities.

Initial figures reported 146 deaths and 79 injuries by 30 November.

By 2 December the number of deceased had risen to 156.

Subsequent reports have put the confirmed death toll at 159, with some people still unaccounted for.

The victims include infants, older adults, at least ten foreign domestic workers from Indonesia and the Philippines, and a firefighter.

Thousands of residents were evacuated or displaced.

By early December more than 1,000 people had been accommodated in youth hostels, holiday camps or hotels, and around 1,600 had moved into transitional housing units.

Renovation, temporary works and materials under scrutiny

From the outset, investigators and officials highlighted the interaction between renovation works and fire development.

The renovation at Wang Fuk Court was triggered by the city’s mandatory building inspection regime.

A consultancy was appointed to survey the towers and prepare the project.

A contractor was then selected to carry out extensive external repairs and maintenance, including façade works.

Scaffolding and protective netting were erected around all eight towers and foam or styrofoam boards were used to cover windows while works were underway.

Reports from multiple outlets and official briefings point to three critical elements:

  • The quality and certification of protective mesh netting.
  • The use of foam boards to seal windows.
  • The status of fire detection and alarm systems during maintenance.

Protective netting is central to the current investigation.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has stated that, after a typhoon damaged scaffolding at Wang Fuk Court in July 2025, some of the original netting was replaced with cheaper material that did not meet fire safety standards.

Investigators say 2,300 rolls of non compliant netting were purchased at a significantly lower unit cost than material that met fire retardant requirements.

Later, as scrutiny of scaffolding fires grew elsewhere in the city, individuals involved bought a smaller quantity of compliant netting and installed it only at the base of scaffolding, where samples were usually taken.

Initial tests that drew from these locations suggested the netting complied with standards.

Subsequent sampling from higher, harder to reach areas produced different results.

Investigators have reported that seven of 20 samples taken from near windows and other less accessible points failed fire safety tests.

Officials have also highlighted the role of window coverings.

Foam boards were used to seal windows around the estate as part of the renovation.

Residents had questioned this decision long before the fire.

At a meeting in September 2024, witnesses recall a demonstration where a piece of styrofoam board ignited rapidly when exposed to a cigarette lighter, in front of a group of residents and project representatives.

After the fire, authorities identified these foam panels, in combination with non compliant netting and strong winds, as key factors in the rapid external spread.

The performance of fire alarms and detection is a further strand in the investigation.

Residents reported that some alarms did not sound when the fire started.

Police have arrested staff from a fire service installation contractor on suspicion that alarms were deactivated during maintenance works and that false statements were made to the Fire Services Department.

The overall picture is of an occupied high rise estate enveloped in temporary works, with protective systems partly impaired and combustible products used as external coverings.

For fire safety professionals, the reported sequence underlines how decisions about temporary materials, system impairments and construction phasing can shape fire behaviour as much as permanent design features.

Bamboo scaffolding and the risk of a single issue response

Public and professional debate has also focused on the role of bamboo scaffolding.

Bamboo has been used for high rise work in Hong Kong for decades.

Workers in the city have developed specific skills in erecting flexible, lightweight scaffolds around dense and irregular building forms, often in locations where metal systems would be harder to deploy.

Officials have questioned whether bamboo should continue to be used for such projects, particularly on occupied residential buildings.

Some have suggested that metal scaffolding should become the norm for safety reasons wherever practicable.

Specialists in bamboo architecture and scaffolding have urged caution.

Researchers quoted in coverage of the incident note that bamboo is a natural, potentially combustible material, but that it is not easily ignited under normal conditions and that its risk profile changes significantly when it is combined with well specified, certified fire retardant netting.

Their view is that concentrating on bamboo alone risks diverting attention from broader issues around materials specification, substitution, enforcement and site supervision.

Practical considerations also feature in their analysis.

Bamboo scaffolding is relatively light, quick to assemble, adaptable to irregular façades and dependent on a workforce with specific skills.

Metal systems offer non combustible components and greater durability, but they are heavier, slower to adapt to complex geometries and more expensive.

There are also questions about the affordability of such systems for residents in older estates where major external repairs are required.

For those working in fire and building safety, the discussion around bamboo is an example of a wider challenge.

Highly visible elements are often singled out for rapid change.

The reporting around Wang Fuk Court suggests that a more productive approach will need to address how temporary works are specified, tested and controlled in practice, regardless of whether bamboo or metal scaffolds are used.

Residents’ warnings, alleged corruption and missed opportunities

One of the most detailed strands of coverage concerns the warnings raised by residents and the checks carried out by regulators in the period before the fire.

Residents’ concerns initially focused on the procurement and cost of the renovation project.

The consultancy appointed to prepare the works identified issues with external walls and fire safety measures, and a competitive tender process was held for the construction contract.

The winning bid required each household to contribute a significant sum, with a first instalment due within a short period.

Some residents questioned whether the selected contractor had been transparent about its regulatory history.

It later emerged that the company had been subject to prosecution by the Labour Department during the period when it told residents it had no such record.

From early 2024 onwards, residents attempted to challenge both the project and specific aspects of its execution.

A group went to the Independent Commission Against Corruption to file a complaint about the renovation.

Others wrote to the Labour Department and the Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit about the safety of the netting and the proposed use of styrofoam window coverings.

A general meeting of homeowners in September 2024 voted to remove the original management committee that had overseen the tender.

However, by that time the contract had been signed and scaffolding was being erected, leaving the new committee with limited options to alter the project.

Inspection records show that the Labour Department visited Wang Fuk Court repeatedly.

Officials have stated that 16 inspections of the site took place between July 2024 and November 2025.

During these visits inspectors identified fire safety issues, issued improvement notices and imposed fines.

They also reviewed product certificates for the protective netting and accepted documents indicating compliance with fire retardant standards.

The Housing Bureau’s Independent Checking Unit received test reports on the nets and carried out on site sampling in late 2024.

A public statement notes that inspectors observed the contractor burning net samples and did not identify combustible characteristics at that time.

In the weeks before the fire, the Labour Department issued a further fire safety warning during an inspection on 20 November 2025.

Despite this activity, the project continued.

Only after the fire did testing of netting samples from multiple points around the towers reveal failures against fire safety requirements.

Subsequent investigations have led to multiple arrests.

Engineering consultants, construction company directors, scaffolding subcontractors and fire services contractors have all been detained on suspicion of offences including manslaughter, corruption, fraud and provision of false documentation.

For professionals involved in regulation, enforcement and resident engagement, this timeline raises clear questions.

Residents carried out their own simple tests, repeatedly raised concerns, changed their estate governance structure, and approached multiple authorities.

Inspectors visited the site numerous times, and some non compliances were identified and penalised.

Yet the core issues around temporary materials and renovation phase fire safety remained unresolved until after a major fatal incident.

Relief, rehousing and political management

Alongside investigation and enforcement, the Hong Kong government has devoted significant resources to relief and rehousing.

Three task forces were established, covering investigation and regulation, emergency support and fund raising, and emergency accommodation.

Financial support has been substantial.

The Support Fund for Wang Fuk Court was set up with HK$300 million in public start up capital.

Donations from the public and organisations increased the total to around HK$1.2 billion by 30 November and approximately HK$2.3 billion by 2 December.

Payments from the fund include HK$200,000 to the family of each deceased victim as a gesture of solidarity, HK$50,000 to cover funeral and related expenses, and an additional HK$50,000 living allowance for each affected household.

An emergency cash subsidy of HK$10,000 per household was also made available within days of the fire.

Government figures show that by early December almost 2,000 households had registered for and received emergency subsidies, and that payments from the Support Fund were being processed for bereaved families and other affected residents.

Accommodation support has included placements in youth hostels, holiday camps and hotels, as well as access to transitional housing units.

The Government has emphasised that these units provide basic facilities such as private bathrooms and cooking areas, with shared amenities where available.

Two community shelters in Tai Po have remained open to residents who need them, although one has stopped accepting new arrivals to allow transition to more stable accommodation.

Social work and health services have been organised around a “one social worker per household” model.

Thousands of residents are registered for this support.

Clinical psychologists and medical staff have been deployed to temporary shelters and mortuary facilities to assist residents and bereaved families.

At the same time, the wider management of the incident has been politically sensitive.

Public grief and anger led to petitions and social media campaigns calling for a full investigation and for government accountability.

One petition, launched by university student Miles Kwan and framed around “four demands”, gathered more than 10,000 signatures before being taken down.

National security police later arrested Kwan on suspicion of sedition.

Other individuals, including a former district councillor, were also questioned or detained over online posts and calls for officials to accept responsibility.

Hong Kong’s national security office issued statements warning that “hostile forces” would be punished if they sought to use the fire to create instability.

Senior advisers to the Chief Executive argued that authorities were acting prudently to prevent a repeat of unrest seen in 2019, while critics questioned whether normal public expressions of concern were being treated as security threats.

In parallel, the Chief Executive announced that a judge led independent committee will examine the cause of the fire and related issues.

Commentary has noted that such a committee does not have the same statutory powers as a Commission of Inquiry, which can compel evidence and hold public hearings, and that this choice may influence perceptions of transparency and independence.

This combination of extensive practical support and tightly managed political space forms an important part of the context in which fire and building safety agencies are operating.

Viewing Wang Fuk Court through the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem

The NFPA commentary “From Hong Kong to Home: The Global Relevance of the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem” uses the Wang Fuk Court fire as a recent example of how multiple system weaknesses can align.

The Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem was originally developed after several large loss fires in the United States and Europe, including the Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland and the Grenfell Tower fire in London.

NFPA’s central argument is that catastrophic incidents are usually the end result of failures in several areas, often developing over many years, rather than the product of a single technical fault.

The Ecosystem is described as comprising eight interdependent elements:

  1. Government responsibility.
  2. Development and use of current codes.
  3. Referenced standards.
  4. Investment in safety.
  5. Skilled workforce.
  6. Code compliance.
  7. Preparedness and emergency response.
  8. Informed public.

NFPA notes that published reports indicate the Hong Kong fire started in a building that was undergoing renovation, and stresses that buildings under construction, alteration or demolition are among the most vulnerable environments to fire.

Life safety systems may be offline or incomplete, construction materials can be exposed to ignition sources, and normal emergency routes may be obstructed or modified.

NFPA 241, Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations, is highlighted as a key reference for managing these risks.

Applying this framework to the Wang Fuk Court case, without adding any new facts, suggests several points for attention.

Government responsibility, current codes and referenced standards are engaged where product certification, inspection regimes and the design of mandatory renovation schemes are in question.

Investment in safety is engaged where there are allegations that cheaper, non compliant materials were substituted for compliant products to reduce costs.

Skilled workforce and code compliance are relevant to the decisions made by contractors and fire services installation companies during renovation, including how alarms, coverings and scaffolds were installed, tested, maintained and, in some cases, allegedly manipulated.

Preparedness and emergency response are visible in both the immediate fire service actions during the 40 hour incident and the subsequent search and identification effort.

The informed public element is illustrated by residents’ actions at Wang Fuk Court: organising to demonstrate material behaviour, pressing for answers from multiple authorities, and continuing to raise concerns over many months.

NFPA’s conclusion is that prevention of similar incidents requires attention to all eight elements of the ecosystem.

Decisions about codes, enforcement, workforce skills, investment and public engagement have cumulative effects over time.

High rise vulnerabilities elsewhere: lessons from India’s NCR

The Times of India article “Why Hong Kong’s fire tragedy is a warning for NCR” examines how some of the themes raised by Wang Fuk Court resonate in the National Capital Region around Delhi, including Noida and Gurgaon.

The piece considers whether local firefighting systems have kept pace with rapid vertical development.

In Gurgaon, the city’s only government owned hydraulic ladder capable of reaching about 42 metres has been condemned and is no longer in service.

The local fire department relies on a 90 metre ladder owned by a private developer.

In Noida, four hydraulic platforms can reach approximately 42 metres and a 72 metre crane is expected to be delivered, but the region has towers approaching or exceeding 200 metres in height and one development around 300 metres.

This gap between building height and equipment reach is a central concern.

The article notes significant differences in construction practice.

Bamboo scaffolding is banned under Indian standards for high rise projects, which require iron or steel.

Developers quoted in the piece also state that flammable thermal insulation materials like styrofoam are not typical in their schemes.

Instead, many high rise buildings rely on fire rated glass, fire lifts, protected shafts, internal alarm and detection systems, sprinklers, refuge floors, sealed floor plates, wider staircases and facade designs intended to slow or compartment fire spread.

Residents and fire officers emphasise that internal systems cannot compensate for weaknesses in enforcement and access.

They call for more frequent fire safety audits, operational fire stations in new sectors, and regular evacuation drills.

They also point to practical issues such as narrow or obstructed roads around high rise clusters, informal settlements and waste sites that can increase fire risk and hinder response.

While the materials and scaffolding practices differ from those in Hong Kong, the Times of India article reaches a similar conclusion: as cities build taller, effective fire safety depends on the interaction between building design, internal systems, enforcement of standards, maintenance of equipment and the practical realities of access and response.

Strategic questions for fire and life safety professionals

The combined evidence from Wang Fuk Court and the parallel discussion in India raises a series of strategic questions for fire and life safety leaders.

These questions are derived from the incidents and commentary described above and are offered as prompts for local review rather than prescriptive answers.

Temporary works and materials control

At Wang Fuk Court, temporary materials installed for renovation appear to have strongly influenced fire spread.

Key questions include:

  • How are temporary materials for scaffolds, protective wraps and window coverings around occupied high rises specified and approved.
  • What controls exist to prevent or detect substitution of non compliant products after approval, particularly following events such as storms or damage.
  • Are sampling and testing regimes designed to capture risk at higher and less accessible locations, not only convenient areas at ground level.

Renovation phase fire safety strategies

The incident highlights the particular risks that arise when major works are carried out on occupied high rises.

Questions for organisations could include:

  • How are fire alarms, suppression systems and escape routes managed, documented and communicated during extensive façade or window works.
  • Under what conditions are certain temporary products prohibited or restricted, and how is this enforced in practice.
  • What additional measures are used to control ignition sources and external fire spread when scaffolding and coverings are in place.

Complaint handling and whistle blowing

Residents at Wang Fuk Court used multiple channels to raise safety concerns over an extended period.

Questions here include:

  • What formal pathways exist for residents, workers or contractors to report fire safety concerns, and how is feedback on those reports provided.
  • How are repeated or serious complaints about materials and site practices escalated for senior review.
  • Are protections in place for individuals who raise concerns about safety in construction and building maintenance projects.

Oversight of contractors and subcontracting chains

The renovation project at Wang Fuk Court involved consultants, main contractors and multiple layers of subcontractors.

Allegations of bid rigging, cost inflation and misuse of certificates have led to criminal investigations.

Potential questions for procuring authorities and regulators include:

  • How is fire and life safety competence assessed when selecting contractors and consultants for high rise projects.
  • How much visibility is there into subcontracting chains and the roles of different companies in specifying, installing and certifying fire related products.
  • Are enforcement powers and penalties calibrated to reflect the potential life safety consequences of non compliance.

Aligning governance and safety objectives

The political environment in Hong Kong has influenced how public debate about the fire has unfolded.

National security considerations have shaped the response to petitions and online commentary.

Without drawing comparisons between systems, fire safety professionals elsewhere may wish to consider:

  • What structures help ensure that major fire investigations are perceived as independent and credible.
  • How findings and lessons are communicated to residents, practitioners and the public, especially when those findings raise uncomfortable questions about policy or oversight.
  • How to maintain public trust in safety messaging when wider political issues are present.

Capabilities for high rise firefighting

Both Wang Fuk Court and the NCR discussion in India draw attention to the relationship between building height, internal systems and external firefighting capability.

Questions include:

  • How well understood are the practical limits of existing ladders, platforms and jets in local conditions.
  • Are building designs, renovation schemes and evacuation strategies aligned with those limits.
  • How are joint exercises and planning used to test responses to fires in high rise estates that are occupied but undergoing major works.

From incident to long term learning

The fire at Wang Fuk Court has resulted in high loss of life, extensive displacement and a far reaching investigation into renovation practices, regulatory oversight and political accountability.

Taken together, the reporting and official material describe an occupied high rise estate undergoing mandatory refurbishment.

Temporary works and coverings were installed around façades and windows.

Fire protection systems were partly impaired.

Residents and advocates raised concerns over materials, costs and contractor behaviour for more than a year.

Inspectors visited repeatedly, issued warnings and reviewed certificates, but did not disrupt the project in a way that prevented the eventual outcome.

When the fire occurred, it spread rapidly across external surfaces and between closely spaced towers.

Fire and rescue services mounted a prolonged response and an intensive search and identification operation.

The Government has provided substantial financial and welfare support and started a city wide review of scaffolding nets and related materials.

At the same time, the incident has generated tension between calls for full accountability and the authorities’ use of national security legislation to manage public expression.

NFPA’s Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem offers a way of viewing these developments not as separate stories, but as interacting elements of the same system.

Government responsibilities, codes and standards, enforcement, training, investment decisions and public engagement all appear in the record assembled around Wang Fuk Court.

The Times of India’s analysis of high rise firefighting in NCR shows that other regions face related challenges, even where materials and scaffolding methods differ.

For fire and building safety professionals, the detailed facts of the Hong Kong incident are particular to that city, its construction culture and its regulatory and political context.

The underlying questions about how temporary works are controlled, how renovation phase risks are managed, how concerns are heard, and how high rise capability is matched to modern building stock are not.

Reviewing those questions in local settings, against the evidence available from Wang Fuk Court and other major fires, is one of the practical ways in which the sector can respond.

Workplace fires: The three sectors carrying most of the UK incident burden

Workplace fires concentrated in industrial, food and retail premises

System Building Services has analysed ten years of Home Office data and found that industrial premises, food and drink venues and retail buildings together account for more than 60% of workplace fires in the UK.

The company examined incident statistics for non-residential buildings between 2015/16 and 2024/25 using the Home Office FIRE0301 and FIRE0602 datasets.

Its analysis covers all recorded workplace fire incidents in non-residential buildings, including fatalities and non-fatal casualties, to map fire risk patterns in commercial settings.

Industrial premises recorded 1,656 fires in 2024/25, which System Building Services calculates as 24.85% of all workplace fires in that year.

Food and drink premises saw 1,275 fires, or 19.13% of the total, while retail premises recorded 1,177 fires, equivalent to 17.66%.

Combined, these three workplace types account for more than 60% of all 6,665 workplace fires recorded in 2024/25.

System Building Services links the higher industrial risk to flammable materials, high-temperature processes, heavy machinery and complex electrical systems operating under sustained load.

It notes that food and drink venues and retail premises couple public access with long operating hours, and in the case of hospitality, routine use of cooking and heating appliances.

Brian Michie, Managing Director at System Building Services, said: “Industrial environments carry inherent fire risks due to the nature of operations, but what many business owners overlook is how multiple risk factors can compound.

“A facility might have adequate fire doors, but if electrical systems aren’t regularly inspected or flammable materials aren’t properly stored, you’re still vulnerable.”

Hospitality settings such as hotels, boarding houses and hostels recorded 505 fires, equal to 7.58% of workplace incidents in 2024/25.

Entertainment, culture and sport venues saw 445 fires, or 6.68% of the total, while hospitals and medical care facilities recorded 433 fires, representing 6.50%.

Education premises accounted for 417 fires, or 6.26%, agricultural premises recorded 409 fires, or 6.14%, and offices and call centres saw 348 fires, equal to 5.22% of workplace incidents.

Electrical faults and smoking materials among leading causes

System Building Services reports that almost half of all workplace fires in the Home Office dataset – 49.89% – are recorded under unspecified or other causes.

Within the remaining category data, electrical distribution faults form the largest identifiable cause, with 2,126 fires, or 18.04% of workplace incidents.

These electrical distribution fires involve equipment such as fuse boxes, circuit breakers, wiring systems and distribution boards, often starting within walls or ceiling voids before detection.

Smoking-related materials form the next largest cause, with 1,505 fires, representing 12.77% of the total despite smoking bans in enclosed workplaces.

System Building Services notes that these incidents frequently occur in smoking shelters where cigarettes are not fully extinguished or in outdoor areas where embers reach combustible items.

Other domestic-style appliances are linked to 776 fires, or 6.58%, while space heating appliances are recorded as the cause in 433 fires, or 3.67%.

Matches and candles account for 366 fires, or 3.11%, showing that open flames remain a cause in workplaces during activities such as maintenance, religious observance or power outages.

Electric lighting is recorded as the cause in 362 fires, or 3.07%, often due to overheating luminaires, damaged wiring or lights installed close to combustible materials.

Blowlamps, welding and cutting equipment are linked to 182 fires, or 1.54%, mainly in industrial and construction environments carrying out hot work.

Cooking appliances are recorded as the cause in 108 fires, or 0.92%, while office equipment appears in 48 incidents, or 0.41% of workplace fires.

Michie said: “The electrical distribution figure is telling because these fires are largely preventable through regular inspection and maintenance.

“Businesses often focus on visible fire safety measures like extinguishers and alarms, but the hidden infrastructure poses just as much risk.”

Workplace fire trends from 2015 to 2025

System Building Services calculates that total workplace fires in non-residential buildings have fallen 29% over the ten-year period from 2015/16 to 2024/25.

The analysis shows that recorded workplace fires reduced from 9,347 in 2015/16 to 6,665 in 2024/25.

Between 2015/16 and 2019/20, yearly workplace fire totals fell steadily, with annual reductions ranging between 2.19% and 5.68%.

System Building Services notes that this pattern points to improved fire safety awareness and greater compliance with regulatory duties across many workplaces.

The sharpest drop occurred in 2020/21, when workplace fires fell 24.58% year-on-year to 6,134 incidents during the pandemic period.

Following the easing of restrictions, workplace fires rose 19.74% in 2021/22 to 7,345 incidents, though still below pre-pandemic levels.

The downward trend then resumed, with total workplace fires reducing by 5.46% in 2023/24 and by a further 5.23% in 2024/25.

Michie said: “The sustained reduction is positive, but we’re still seeing over 6,500 workplace fires annually.

“Each incident represents potential danger to employees and serious disruption to business operations.”

Wider non-residential fire picture and fatalities

The System Building Services analysis also examines fires across all non-residential buildings, including workplaces, communal housing and public-use buildings.

It finds that total non-residential fires decreased from 16,025 incidents in 2015/16 to 13,172 incidents in 2024/25, an 18% reduction over the ten-year period.

In the pre-pandemic years between 2015/16 and 2019/20, non-residential fires fell from 16,025 to 14,331, with year-on-year totals moving downward.

During 2020/21, the number of non-residential building fires dropped to 11,924, a reduction of 17% and the lowest level in the decade.

Unlike the specific workplace fire trend, non-residential building fires then increased for two successive years, reaching 12,952 in 2021/22 and 13,576 in 2022/23.

Figures then declined modestly to 13,297 in 2023/24 and 13,172 in 2024/25.

Fatalities in non-residential building fires varied between 11 and 23 deaths per year over the ten-year period.

The highest level occurred in 2015/16, with 23 deaths, while 2021/22 recorded the lowest level, with 11 deaths.

There were 12 fatalities recorded in non-residential building fires in 2024/25.

Michie noted: “The relatively stable fatality rate despite thousands of fires suggests detection and evacuation systems are effective when properly maintained.”

Financial and legal impact of workplace fires

System Building Services highlights that the costs of workplace fires extend beyond the initial damage to buildings and equipment.

It explains that businesses face direct expenses such as repairs, replacement of equipment and higher insurance premiums after a fire.

Indirect costs can include lost revenue during closures, failure to deliver contracts and customers moving to other suppliers.

The company notes that many businesses face long periods of interruption after an incident, ranging from months to several years depending on the damage caused.

Some businesses never reopen after a serious fire, especially where there is limited insurance coverage or few financial reserves.

Michie said: “A lot of business owners underestimate the full cost of a fire.

“Even a relatively minor incident can shut down operations for weeks while repairs are completed and safety inspections are carried out.

“For businesses operating on tight margins, that interruption alone can be fatal.”

System Building Services also draws attention to the legal duties set out in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005.

Under this framework, responsible persons must undertake regular fire risk assessments, implement appropriate fire safety measures, maintain fire safety equipment and provide staff training.

Breaches can lead to prosecution, with penalties including unlimited fines and up to two years’ imprisonment for serious offences.

Following a workplace fire, fire and rescue services typically investigate the incident and may identify failings in fire safety management.

System Building Services notes that where failings contribute to injuries or fatalities, responsible persons may face criminal charges.

It adds that insurance claims may be refused or reduced if proper fire safety measures were not in place when the fire occurred.

Michie commented: “The legal consequences can be severe, but more importantly, proper fire safety measures save lives.

“No business owner wants to face prosecution, but they should be even more concerned about protecting their employees and customers from harm.”

Practical steps businesses can take to reduce workplace fires

System Building Services uses the analysis to underline the role of day-to-day fire safety management on sites with elevated risk.

It stresses the importance of programmed inspection regimes that reach beyond obvious fire safety features such as extinguishers, alarms and fire doors.

The company advises closer focus on electrical infrastructure, storage of combustible materials and housekeeping in plant rooms, storage spaces and voids.

Michie said: “Businesses can identify hidden fire risks by conducting thorough inspections beyond the obvious.

“Check electrical systems regularly, particularly in older buildings where wiring may be deteriorating.

“Look for overloaded sockets, frayed cables, and equipment that feels warm to the touch when not in use.

“Pay attention to areas where combustible materials are stored.

“Are they kept away from heat sources?

“Are escape routes clear?

“Fires often start in overlooked spaces like storage rooms, plant rooms, or roof voids where maintenance work has been carried out but debris hasn’t been cleared.

“Don’t rely solely on annual inspections.

“Train staff to spot potential hazards during their daily routines.

“Someone working in a space every day will notice changes that an annual inspector might miss.

“Regular maintenance, proper housekeeping, and a culture where employees feel empowered to report concerns can prevent most workplace fires before they start.”

How UK workplace fire data can inform risk management

System Building Services’ analysis of Home Office data offers quantifiable evidence about where workplace fire risk is concentrated across UK business sectors.

Fire safety officers can use the sector breakdowns and cause data to prioritise inspections in industrial premises, food and drink venues and retail buildings.

Risk assessors can integrate the electrical distribution and smoking-related incident figures into assessments of older sites and premises with high electrical loads or external smoking shelters.

Facility managers in hospitals, education premises, agricultural buildings and offices can benchmark their fire incident exposure against national figures for similar property types.

Electrical contractors and fire-protection contractors can draw on the cause data to support maintenance schedules for distribution boards, fixed wiring and space heating equipment.

Fire and rescue chiefs and senior officers can reference the ten-year trends in workplace and non-residential fires when planning prevention campaigns and business engagement programmes.

Architects and building services engineers involved in new or refurbished industrial and hospitality facilities can consider the incident data when specifying passive fire protection and electrical infrastructure.

Evolving formulations: How Fomtec navigated C8, C6 and SFFF development challenges

Magnus Johnsson, R&D specialist at Fomtec, details the move from C8 to C6 and SFFF foams for regulatory and operational progress

The move from long-chain C8 foams through C6 formulations and now into synthetic fluorine free foams (SFFF) has reshaped the firefighting sector.

Meeting the performance requirements of UL, ICAO, military and other test regimes has required extensive development and live fire testing on varied fuels.

At Fomtec, this is a hands-on process, with Research & Development staff directly engaged in large-scale fire trials.

Working alongside Fomtec’s chemists on the formulation and evaluation of new foam concentrates, Magnus Johnsson has played a central role in bridging laboratory research with real-world fire testing.

He oversees the company’s large-scale fire testing programmes to international standards, including EN 1568, UL 162 and FM 5130, and acts as Fomtec’s lead firefighter during these trials.

In this interview, he discusses his experience in product development, the challenges of meeting diverse certification requirements and the key focus areas driving current foam research.

How would you describe the journey from C8 foams to C6 and now to SFFF, and what has it meant for your work in R&D?

C8 to C6 was billed a “small change” of a fluorosurfactant, but in reality it involved reformulation of all our PFAS-containing foam agents and recertification.

Reformulating the higher-performing foams such as the UL/FM sprinkler foams or the US DOD Mil Spec was more involved than we thought it would be.

Moving to SFFF was something we started back in 2011, some five years before the move from C8 to C6 needed to be completed.

This SFFF journey was, and continues to be, a rollercoaster ride, as we are pretty much starting with a clean piece of paper with the formulations.

What defines C8, C6 and SFFF formulations, and why has the sector evolved through these stages?

In very basic terms, the 8 and the 6 relate to the number of carbon atoms in the chains of the fluorochemicals that are used within the foam concentrate.

SFFF is the acronym for Synthetic Fluorine Free Foam and is the term adopted by NFPA, UL, FM and Fomtec to cover a foam concentrate with “no intentionally added PFAS.”

The driving force for the journey through these phases is environmental concerns from the family of chemicals called PFAS.

PFAS are a large group of man-made chemicals where ongoing research indicates that they are extremely persistent, and some are also toxic and bioaccumulative.

What insights do you gain from taking part in live fire testing as both developer and firefighter?

Everything we do in the laboratory has to be validated in the fire tests, and I can’t imagine how I could do my lab work effectively if I was not involved with the fire testing.

Some test standards such as UL topside or Mil Spec require active firefighting and have pass/fail criteria based on extinguishing times.

Being the lead firefighter for product development to these standards is essential.

This is even more important with the development of SFFFs, as they can extinguish as quickly as a PFAS-based foam, but different techniques are required.

How do UL and MIL-SPEC test standards differ, and why must performance be assessed under each?

It has to be accepted that the authorities setting the fire performance standards and the associated test protocols do so as they believe that they are the most appropriate for their application.

Comparison between a product’s performance to one standard against another is rarely possible, and as we move to SFFF formulations I would suggest that this comparison is even more difficult.

Variables include the size and shape of the test pan, the fuels, the nozzle, the flow rates and application times.

Then we have different preburn periods and foam application times, as well as the criteria for pass or fail.

For example, the UL test pan is rectangular and 50 ft², whereas the Mil Spec pan is circular and 28 ft², and the test fuels are heptane for UL and gasoline and Jet A for Mil Spec.

What additional benefits come from running wider fixed-head and sprinkler tests beyond standard requirements?

Early on in the development work of our SFFFs, we began to see greater variability of performance with fuels which the authorities such as UL and FM had for many years placed into groups.

While we did see variability with hydrocarbon fuels, it was the polar solvents where we experienced greater variations.

It was MEK that first highlighted this, as Enviro ARK is a very strong performer on acetone and was expected to show similar performance with MEK.

This was not the case, and we needed to almost double the application density to extinguish and achieve the burn-back performance required by FM.

We realised that there are likely many chemicals being stored that we just don’t have the fire data on, and so we spent about two years developing an estimation tool that looks at some of the physicochemical properties of a chemical and then predicts how we should approach it in terms of application density.

We obviously did need, and continue to test, different chemicals to validate the tool.

What are your main R&D priorities, and what current trends are influencing that development work?

For some time now, we have been looking to improve the Enviro range’s performance with saltwater, but without resorting to using partially unhydrated natural polymers in the concentrate.

Fomtec maintains that the use of partially unhydrated polymers just reduces an already small window for stability of the foam concentrate, and it has taken many formulations and tweaks to finally meet this challenge.

We have been in the fire lab and at test houses over the past few months validating our findings and adding approvals.

How do you see foam technology evolving, and where do you expect to see the most progress?

I have to believe that SFFFs will go the way of AR-AFFFs, and we will start to see better-performing low-viscosity products.

At Fomtec, we have already launched our IMO-approved Enviro SEA range, for the ARFF mission the Enviro AIR, and to meet the needs of the US DOD, our Enviro MIL.

This was originally published in the November 2025 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Certification survey from UKTC reports transparency gaps in UK fire market

UKTC survey reveals trust gaps in certification

United Kingdom Testing & Certification Ltd. (UKTC) has released a whitepaper stating that many UK fire safety professionals are dissatisfied with existing third-party certification schemes and are calling for more transparent processes eight years after the Grenfell Tower fire.

The company reported that 60% of surveyed professionals had experienced issues with their current certification providers.

According to UKTC, 82% of respondents said they wanted greater transparency in certification processes.

The survey, carried out among fire safety event attendees in 2024, captured comments describing some legacy schemes as having “inconsistent positions”, a “lack of transparency” and delivering a “poor value for money service”.

UKTC noted that 75% of respondents said they judge certification body credibility mainly on United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) accreditation status and regulatory compliance.

Andrew Hutchison, Operations Director at UKTC, said: “Despite the proliferation of third-party certification schemes, the sector still suffers from dangerous opacity.

“Field of Application reports, classification reports and test data are routinely withheld from the public, forcing specifiers and contractors to make critical safety decisions in the dark.”

UKTC ensure links certification to the Golden Thread

In response to the survey findings, UKTC has introduced UKTC ensure as a new third-party certification scheme.

The company said this scheme has been designed explicitly around the principles of the Golden Thread framework set out in Dame Judith Hackitt’s Building a Safer Future report.

UKTC added that the programme is backed by UKAS accreditation under ISO 17065 so that every performance claim can be traced and each certificate can be verified.

The firm stated that UKTC ensure publishes all supporting documentation, including Field of Application reports and classification reports.

The scheme also provides real-time updates with version control, a secure digital vault that acts as a single source of truth for certification documents and product marking that uses QR codes to give access to performance data.

According to UKTC, the scheme accepts both British (BS) and European (EN) test evidence, as well as Extended Field of Application Reports.

The company said this approach reduces barriers to joining the scheme and creates a more open route to certification and independent verification of product performance.

Industry reports call for honest product claims

The whitepaper states that change in the product and certification market is described as non-negotiable.

It cites the Paul Morrell OBE & Anneliese Day KC Report, which sets expectations for manufacturers and conformity assessment bodies.

The report is quoted as stating: “It is for product manufacturers to develop products that do the job expected of them, and to market them honestly, making no false claims; it is for Conformity Assessment Bodies to test and assess those products against defined specifications, impartially and independently.”

UKTC positioned UKTC ensure as a response to concerns raised after the Grenfell Tower fire about how products are tested, assessed and described.

Hutchison added: “The lessons of Grenfell and subsequent inquiries cannot be ignored.

“Too often, critical voices and concerns were missed or dismissed, which cannot continue.

“Real change is long overdue, and change starts with transparent certification.”

Digital evidence and standards shaping new approach

UKTC explained that it was acquired by the SOCOTEC Group earlier in 2025.

The company said the new scheme reflects a wider move toward digital, accessible and version-controlled evidence frameworks referenced in government reports and British Standards.

The whitepaper links the UKTC ensure model to the approach set out in BS 8644-1:2022 for managing fire safety information across a product’s lifecycle.

According to UKTC, the secure digital vault and real-time updates are intended to keep performance data current for those who specify, install and maintain products.

The firm stated that QR code product marking is aimed at giving users direct access to certification evidence at the point of use.

Matthew Marriott, CEO of SOCOTEC UK and Ireland, said: “The release of this whitepaper highlights several concerning shortcomings in the third-party certification market at present.

“There’s a clear requirement for radical change, and we look forward to seeing UKTC ensure have a real positive change on the sector.”

How transparent certification data affects practice

Fire engineering consultants and risk assessors could use the survey findings and the UKTC ensure model when reviewing the reliability of test evidence that underpins their designs and recommendations.

System installers and fire-protection contractors may treat the full publication of Field of Application and classification reports as a practical way to see the exact scope and limits of tested performance before selecting products.

Architects and building services engineers could draw on the digital vault and version-controlled documentation when assembling and maintaining the Golden Thread of fire safety information across a project lifecycle.

Procurement officers and facility managers may use UKAS-backed certification records, accessible via QR codes, to check that installed products still match their certified performance claims during maintenance or refurbishment work.

Standards and certification bodies can reference the whitepaper’s feedback and its alignment with BS 8644-1:2022 when reviewing how their own schemes handle transparency, data access and the publication of supporting reports.

Southern California Fires findings raise hard questions on urban preparedness

Southern California Fires timeline report released

UL Research Institutes’ Fire Safety Research Institute (FSRI) has released the Southern California Fires Timeline Report, documenting wildfire progression and early response across Los Angeles and Ventura Counties in January 2025.

The Phase One report is the first of two studies commissioned by the Office of the Governor of California after fires between 7 and 31 January caused 32 confirmed deaths as of Monday 29 September 2025, nearly 38,000 acres burned and tens of billions of dollars in property losses.

FSRI reports that Phase One focuses on the two most destructive incidents, the Palisades Fire and the Eaton Fire, which together account for 31 of the 32 confirmed fatalities.

The report concentrates on preparedness and the first operational period of these incidents, tracing events from just before ignition of the Palisades Fire at 10:30 PST on Tuesday 7 January 2025 to the morning of Wednesday 8 January 2025.

FSRI notes that the report also summarises ten further fires across the same period that affected resources while the Palisades and Eaton Fires burned.

According to the organisation, Phase One is intended to provide a detailed factual record that will underpin a second analysis report examining wider causes and systems.

Severe drought and rare PDS warning

FSRI sets the fires against a backdrop of severe drought in Southern California during late 2024 and early January 2025, with live fuel moisture in key vegetation types falling to critically low levels.

Vegetation such as chamise, sage, ceanothus and sagebrush had dried to the point that any ignition under strong winds carried a high likelihood of rapid spread.

The National Weather Service issued escalating fire weather outlooks in the days before 7 January, culminating in a Particularly Dangerous Situation Red Flag Warning for that date.

FSRI explains that this form of alert is rare and reserved for combinations of extreme wind, heat and low humidity that can turn new ignitions into fast-moving wildfires.

The Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains created narrow corridors that accelerated downslope Santa Ana winds arriving during the driest part of the winter period.

Those winds grounded firefighting aircraft at times, toppled trees and pushed embers far ahead of flame fronts, according to the report.

FSRI highlights that development patterns in Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Altadena, Pasadena and Sierra Madre place dense neighbourhoods on steep slopes where homes, vehicles and exterior materials can act as fuel once fire reaches the urban edge.

The report concludes that these environmental and built-environment conditions combined to create the potential for wildfires to transition quickly into urban conflagrations.

Palisades Fire moves from hillsides to neighbourhoods

According to FSRI, the Palisades Fire began on Tuesday 7 January at 10:30 PST in vegetation north of the Pacific Palisades community, just above the urban interface.

Within minutes, strong winds carried embers downhill and across ridges, creating multiple ignitions in brush and ornamental landscaping near homes.

FSRI records that structural involvement was already apparent during the first hour, indicating a shift from a mainly wildland fire to wind-driven fire spread within the built environment.

Throughout 7 January, the fire moved through neighbourhoods including the Alphabet Streets, the Summit, Ridgeview Country Estates and communities along West Sunset Boulevard.

Steep canyons and wind channels accelerated flame spread as the fire advanced towards Malibu.

Firefighters operated in conditions of reduced visibility, falling power lines and limited water pressure where damaged pipes caused uncontrolled water loss.

Aircraft support was intermittently unavailable due to dangerous wind conditions that prevented safe flying.

FSRI states that despite extensive efforts to defend structures, the Palisades Fire destroyed homes and commercial buildings and led to large-scale evacuations.

By the evening of 7 January and into the early hours of 8 January, structure-to-structure spread dominated fire behaviour, with embers igniting rooftops, vehicles and combustible exteriors well ahead of the main front.

Residential density, fuel-rich construction and prolonged exposure to wind-driven heat intensified progression across parts of Pacific Palisades and neighbouring communities.

FSRI reports that by the morning of Wednesday 8 January, the fire’s advance within the built environment had slowed sufficiently to allow additional resources to consolidate control.

Eaton Fire spreads across foothill communities

The Eaton Fire ignited at 18:18 PST on Tuesday 7 January in steep terrain north of Altadena, within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Fire Department and bordering areas served by Pasadena Fire Department and the Angeles National Forest.

FSRI notes that ignition occurred under extreme winds, and embers were reported in areas south of the flame front within minutes.

The fire began spreading simultaneously downhill into residential streets and laterally along the foothills between Eaton Canyon, Kinneloa Mesa and Altadena Drive.

Erratic winds produced large ember showers that ignited structures, vehicles and landscaping at distances from the primary burn area.

According to the report, new fires were recorded in several parts of Altadena, including areas near Loma Alta Drive, Woodglen Lane, Carriage House Road and Zane Grey Terrace.

Firefighters attempted block-by-block protection in densely built streets, but rapid fire movement, blocked access routes and widespread embercast limited the scope for intervention.

Between midnight and morning on Wednesday 8 January, the fire expanded west, south and east, reaching Janes Village, La Vina and residential areas near Lake Avenue.

FSRI documents that structure fires multiplied as embers entered attics, vents and combustible exteriors, though crews contained spread in some locations through active defence.

By sunrise, fire activity persisted across multiple Altadena neighbourhoods, with additional movement towards commercial areas near Foothill Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue.

FSRI reports that by the morning of 8 January, progression had slowed enough for operations to shift from emergency structure protection towards broader containment.

Law enforcement agencies continued search and rescue work throughout the day because of the large number of affected homes and ongoing smoke conditions.

Ten further fires complicate regional response

In addition to the Palisades and Eaton Fires, FSRI records ten other fires between 7 and 22 January in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

These incidents are listed as the Sunset 1 and Sunset 2 fires, the Hurst Fire, the Woodley Fire, the Olivas Fire, the Lidia Fire, the Kenneth Fire, the Archer Fire, the Auto Fire and the Hughes Fire.

FSRI notes that although individually smaller and less destructive, these fires drew on the same pool of personnel and equipment already committed to the two larger events.

Fire departments across the region had to balance initial attack on new ignitions with ongoing structure defence and evacuation support for the Palisades and Eaton incidents.

The report states that this combination of simultaneous fires increased pressure on regional mutual aid and resource allocation.

Data collection methods and mapping outputs

FSRI explains that the Phase One timeline draws on site visits, interviews with residents and responders, radio communications, written data from agencies, weather records, satellite imagery and camera footage.

Information was also taken from on-the-ground damage assessments, still images, videos, dispatch records, resource requests and resource location data.

Technical discussions with individuals from involved organisations and agencies were used to clarify timelines and reconcile differing accounts.

FSRI compiled high-confidence data points into a central chronological dataset and mapping application to reconstruct the progression of the Palisades and Eaton Fires minute by minute.

The organisation has produced videos showing time-lapse maps of the fires’ presence, along with a spreadsheet of timestamped events made available for viewing.

The report acknowledges limitations due to incomplete or outstanding data requests and records that additional information will be incorporated into Phase Two when available.

FSRI confirms that Phase One does not cover recovery efforts or cause and origin investigations, which are being handled by jurisdictional fire departments with support from federal and state agencies and private contractors.

Phase Two to examine systems and recommendations

FSRI states that Phase One documents what happened during the first operational period of the January 2025 fires.

The forthcoming Southern California Fires Incident Analysis Report, described as Phase Two, will examine why events unfolded as they did.

According to FSRI, the second report will analyse pre-existing conditions in the affected areas, the influence of the built environment on fire behaviour, first responder actions and the capabilities of emergency response agencies to address urban conflagrations.

Phase Two is expected to include detailed recommendations aimed at improving emergency preparedness and response.

FSRI records that these recommendations will be available for implementation by the State of California, local officials and communities.

The organisation notes that releasing the work in two phases is intended to provide the public with information as early as possible while the longer analysis is completed.

Implications of the timeline for urban wildfire planning

The Southern California Fires Timeline Report provides emergency and disaster response managers with a structured account of how wind-driven wildfires transitioned into urban fire spread within hours.

Detailed chronologies for the Palisades and Eaton Fires can support fire and rescue chiefs and senior officers when reviewing deployment strategies for periods of simultaneous wildland and structure fires.

Government departments responsible for hazard planning gain a case study of how drought, low fuel moisture and rare Red Flag warnings aligned with topography and development patterns.

Fire engineering consultants, architects and building services engineers can draw on the report’s focus on built-environment involvement to inform design choices, materials selection and retrofits in high-risk areas.

Facility managers and risk assessors for residential and commercial properties may use the documented structure-to-structure spread, water system challenges and ember exposure patterns to refine local mitigation measures.

Training officers and instructors can adapt the minute-by-minute timelines and mapping outputs into exercises that reflect the operational pace of urban conflagrations under extreme winds.