Wildfires are becoming a risk for industrial and logistics sites

Many people still remember the devastating fires in Los Angeles, and now forests in southern Europe are burning again. In Germany too, the wildfire risk is high due to prolonged dry periods. Should German industrial companies be paying close attention?

Sebastian Kempka: They should not only be paying attention – they should be taking action. Many companies still underestimate how significantly wildfire risk in Europe has changed. Wildfires are not a risk confined to California or southern Europe. Today they can directly or indirectly affect industrial and logistics sites in Germany as well.

Just look at what happened in Thessaloniki on 5 July 2026: a vegetation fire on the north-western outskirts of the city spread into an industrial area – a recycling plant and a textile business caught fire. This is not some exotic scenario. It concerns central Europe too. Companies with facilities close to forests should take this very seriously.

In Germany, fighting wildfires is made more difficult by the fact that numerous forested areas are contaminated with unexploded ordnance. In the recent forest fire near Bad Kreuznach, parts of the firefighting operation therefore had to be carried out using a firefighting robot, to avoid putting crews at unnecessary risk.

What is driving this development? Is it solely climate change?

Sarah Reuter: Climate change is a key factor behind the increasing danger of wildfires. The main drivers of wildfires are: growing dryness, low humidity, dry lightning and strong winds – all of which are increasingly amplified by climate change. As a result, the climatic potential for wildfires is rising in many regions. Whether and when fires actually occur, however, still depends on sources of ignition, the local vegetation and other site-specific factors.

How can the risk to a specific site be assessed at all?

Sarah Reuter: We do this in two steps. First, we combine individual climatic parameters – including lightning density, drought, relative humidity and surface winds – into an overall wildfire potential. This shows where conditions are conducive to fires. But that alone is not enough. A high potential in a desert does not mean much, because there is hardly any combustible material.

Only when we add an assessment of whether, and what type of, vegetation is present at a site do we gain a complete picture of the wildfire hazard.

KA Köln.Assekuranz provides such an assessment as part of its climate risk and vulnerability analysis, by combining climatic conditions with information on land use and vegetation.

And how does this translate into a concrete risk for a company?

Sarah Reuter: What matters is not only the wildfire hazard at the site, but also the vulnerability of the assets located there. The qualitative risk index we calculate is derived from three factors: the climatic wildfire potential, the available combustible material and the sensitivity of the facility – in other words, its vulnerability. Combustible stock stored outdoors, for example, is considerably more exposed than the same stock in a fire-resistant storage facility. A site in the middle of a forest does not necessarily mean a high level of risk – if the protective measures are adequate.

What specific hazards can industrial plants face?

Sebastian Kempka: In some parts of the world, petrochemical facilities are located in the immediate vicinity of forested areas – including pipelines, tank farms and refinery infrastructure. During vegetation fires, flying sparks and embers pose a particularly significant risk. For example, the rim seal systems of floating roofs on storage tanks can be ignited by glowing particles. The scale becomes clear with a simple calculation: at a distance of 30 metres from burning vegetation, an Australian method estimates that around five embers per square metre can land on a surface. For a roof area of 2,000 square metres, that equates to roughly 10,000 potential sources of ignition acting on a facility at the same time.

You refer to flying sparks – is that really the greatest danger?

Sebastian Kempka: For many industrial facilities: yes. The greatest danger is often not the flame front itself. Embers can be carried by the wind over long distances and ignite new fires well ahead of the main fire front. This is what makes flying sparks so treacherous: protective measures aimed solely at direct flames are not sufficient. Roof surfaces, stockpiles, open parts of installations – all of these can be ignited by flying sparks long before the fire front is visible. Exposure to smoke can also cause significant damage to many types of goods.

What can companies do in practical terms?

Sebastian Kempka: In many cases, the risk can be reduced. Proactive wildfire protection should be an integral part of site planning in vulnerable areas. Four structural measures are particularly effective: firebreaks with no vegetation at all, which slow surface fires; shelter belts of trees without ground vegetation; strips of deciduous trees laid out perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction, which dampen fire intensity and flying sparks; and well-developed forest roads that ensure access for the fire service. Companies should also avoid waiting for the next major fire before acting – the key is to identify potential weaknesses at an early stage. Risk consultants can provide crucial support in analysing and mitigating wildfire risks.

People often focus solely on the fire damage. Are there other economic consequences that tend to be underestimated?

Sarah Reuter: Yes, and this is an important point. The economic impacts often go far beyond the direct fire damage. In many cases, business interruption losses significantly exceed the material damage itself. A plant does not even have to be directly affected. Road closures, evacuations or failures among suppliers alone can severely disrupt production and logistics.