Burning Money? The Controversies Around Moorland Management
- Rob Beeson
- Jun 2
- 9 min read
Below is a summary of a report commissioned by the Campaign for the Protection of Moorland Communities which looks closely at issues surrounding moorland management. It suggests that current policies, heavily influenced by some nature groups, may be creating more problems than they solve.
The report raises concerns that these groups are benefiting financially from policies that are detrimental to both the environment and traditional ways of life in the uplands.
This report, titled "Burning Money," draws on the perspectives of people living and working on the moors, including farmers, gamekeepers, land managers, and researchers. It paints a picture of frustration and mistrust towards governmental bodies like Natural England and major conservation charities such as the National Trust and RSPB.
These organizations are accused of promoting unproven and expensive trends while disregarding generations of local knowledge and successful land management techniques.
Jump to Section
The Crucial Role of Fuel Load Management
One of the most significant threats discussed in the report is wildfire. The report argues that proper fuel load management is essential for preventing devastating blazes, yet this is not taken seriously by Natural England, the National Trust, or the RSPB.
Routine reduction of fuel, primarily heather, is vital because a greater fuel load leads to hotter and more prolonged fires that can cause immense damage to the landscape, including the subsurface peat.
Prescribed burning, also known as muirburn, is a traditional method used on moors to manage heather. It involves using fire in a controlled manner to maintain heather at a level that benefits local wildlife, encourages the growth of young heather, allows other plants to thrive, and importantly, reduces the fuel load to lower wildfire risk.
Historically, bodies like the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee (JNCC) and the Ministry of Agriculture Fishery and Foods (MAFF) even encouraged burning to restore lost heather and employed people specifically for this task.
However, the report highlights a shift in policy, with a move towards restricting or banning controlled burning. This push is linked to the "Ban the burn" movement, heavily influenced by some nature groups and resulting in policies from Natural England.
Burning vs. Cutting: The Great Debate
The report contrasts prescribed burning with cutting as methods for managing vegetation. While cutting is being promoted, particularly by Natural England, the report suggests there is little scientific data to support its effectiveness compared to burning.
Some experts interviewed for the report argue that cutting can actually be worse than doing nothing when it comes to wildfire risk. This is because cutting creates areas of dead fuel, which dries out rapidly when humidity is low, making it highly combustible and capable of spreading fire quickly. Live vegetation, in contrast, contains moisture and is less affected by changes in humidity.
Geoff Eyre, described as the "heather doctor" for his pioneering restoration work, developed a technique called 'cool burning,' conducted earlier in the year when conditions are wetter and safer. This method is now widely used on UK grouse moors.
Eyre and others demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of controlled burns; one test involved placing £50 notes or mobile phones in the moss layer before a burn, and they remained undamaged afterwards.
Peat and Perception: Challenging the Narrative
A central argument against burning, often made by groups like the National Trust and RSPB, is that it damages peatlands and releases stored carbon dioxide. This claim is often based on reports like the EMBER study produced at Leeds University and funded by Natural England.
However, the report argues the EMBER study is flawed. Geoff Eyre points out that two "no-burn" areas identified in the study burned out during the research period, questioning the study's premises. Ecologist Andreas Heinemeyer also describes EMBER as "experimentally flawed," highlighting statistical inadequacies and methodological issues.
The report also challenges the widely held belief, promoted by some, that most UK peatlands are degraded and cannot resist fire. While bare, eroding peat is degraded, heather-dominated moorlands can be healthy peat-forming systems. Heinemeyer argues that heather, like other plants, can form peat if conditions are right. The Wildlife Trusts also recognize heather as a peat-forming plant.
Richard Lindsay, a researcher linked to the IUCN UK Peatland Programme, is presented as a key figure promoting the idea of widespread peatland degradation and the need for rewetting. However, the report suggests his comparisons to different types of bogs may ignore key ecological differences.
The "Rewetting" Fantasy
Following the narrative of degraded peat, "rewetting" the moors has become a favoured strategy. The idea is that making moors wetter will reduce wildfire risk and aid peat restoration. However, the report questions the effectiveness and scientific basis of this approach, particularly in areas like the Peak District.
Andreas Heinemeyer argues that there is no generic evidence that rewetting reduces wildfire incidence or severity, especially as many sites have natural limits to how wet they can be and will dry out in summer regardless of intervention. Geoff Eyre describes a failed rewetting project on Howden Moor by the National Trust, where sphagnum moss plugs were planted on dry ground and did not survive, despite costing a significant amount of money and volunteer effort.
The report also highlights practical failures of rewetting efforts. Dams built to slow water flow, intended to keep the moor wet, overflowed during Storm Babet in October 2023 because the ground was saturated, leading to flooding downstream and causing significant damage.
Ironically, locals like Richard Bailey and gamekeeper Jim were creating bog flushes for wildlife decades ago, suggesting the core idea of creating wetter areas isn't new, but the large-scale "rewetting" approach is questionable.
Impact on Communities: Farmers Under Pressure
The shift in moorland management policies is having a profound impact on the people who live and work in these areas. There is a feeling among rural businesses, farmers, and landowners that rules affecting them are irrational and ignore their knowledge. The report suggests this is part of a "slow-motion takeover," with tenancies being cut short and land left unmanaged.
Natural England, National Trust, and RSPB are among the organizations accused of being disconnected from the pastoral traditions of the land. Schemes promoting tree planting and rewilding are allegedly pushing sheep off the moors. Farmers express concern that once traditional farming knowledge and the unique "hefted" flocks (sheep adapted to living on the specific moorland terrain) are lost, they cannot be recreated.
The report shares the story of Peter Atkin, who after 40 years of farming sheep on National Trust land, was told there would be "no sheep in five years" and is being forced off his 1,200-hectare moor tenancy because he won't stop traditional farming. The National Trust plans to take the land out of production for rewilding and tree planting, funded by the public. Land agents describe this as a widespread National Trust policy.
The case of Ughill Farm, acquired by Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT), is presented as another example. SRWT claimed the farm was a "wildlife haven" threatened by "increasingly intensively farmed" land around it and needed protection.
They stated their aim was to demonstrate "nature-friendly farming". However, the report challenges these claims, arguing that the land didn't appear intensively farmed and already had significant wildlife, even being designated a SSSI under the previous farmer. Local farmers were reportedly unwilling to cooperate with SRWT on a landscape recovery project after SRWT accused neighbours of intensive farming.
The report notes a public survey showing that most British people are unaware that farmers manage about three-quarters of the countryside, including maintaining habitats and woodlands.
Questionable Science and Misinformation Campaigns
The report highlights concerns about the scientific basis for some conservation policies and narratives. Misinformation, often picked up by the media, can add influence to policy decisions.
One example is a study claiming the Peak District's mountain hare population is in decline. The report questions the study's methodology, particularly its reliance on camera traps and daytime counts, while allegedly ignoring the impact of predators like foxes.
Gamekeepers who conduct nighttime transect counts observe a stable population, acknowledging natural fluctuations. The mountain hare study's funding by an organization (PTES) that is part of a network of groups (Wildlife and Countryside Link) with "virtually identical agendas" (anti-hunting, anti-burning, etc.) raises questions about its independence.
The report also critiques the use of "desktop surveys" (using satellite imagery instead of onsite research) for making important land use assessments, arguing they fail to account for many crucial aspects.
The Natural History Museum's Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII), which ranks the UK poorly, is also questioned. The report notes that the BII relies on various data sources, potentially including flawed data from sources like the IUCN UK Peatland Programme. Members of the team compiling the BII reportedly refused to disclose the source of blanket bog data. The report points out that contradictory rankings exist, such as Yale University placing the UK significantly higher.
James Fenton, an ecologist interviewed, suggests that many conservationists, including those at RSPB and National Trust, lack a deep understanding of long-term ecological dynamics and landscape history. He argues that land management should only be undertaken with an understanding of the landscape's ecological history over thousands of years.
The Business of Conservation
The report alleges that some nature groups "cash in on disastrous policies they helped create". Public money is poured into the moors, often funding projects managed by groups like RSPB and National Trust.
The new Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) system, which requires developers to compensate for biodiversity loss, is presented as an example of how money is flowing into conservation projects. While intended for major developers, the report warns it could negatively impact smaller landowners, such as farmers needing to build a farm track, by requiring them to purchase expensive biodiversity credits.
The cost and liability are passed on to landowners in often 30-year contracts, with uncertainty about inheritance tax implications and future land use once a habitat is created.
Organizations like Wildscapes are reportedly receiving significant public funds (£15,500 per pond from Natural England) for projects like digging ponds, while farmers doing similar work receive minimal or no payment.
Moors for the Future (MFF), a partnership involving the Peak District National Park, National Trust, RSPB and others, is also criticized for the high cost of its restoration projects compared to landowners doing similar work themselves. MFF is even accused of effectively "writing their own cheques" by having Natural England recommend them for work and then charging a management fee.
The RSPB is described as being uninterested in engaging with smaller landowners, allegedly stating that they don't have enough money to "benefit us". This suggests that, in some cases, financial considerations may outweigh conservation goals.
Other examples include a bilberry bumblebee project that has received £1 million over the years, with questions raised about the effectiveness of the spending and whether the bumblebee population has increased. The report suggests this cycle of receiving funding based on perceived problems can become a "never-ending begging bowl".
The SSSI "Kiss of Death"
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are meant to protect valuable natural areas. Natural England aims for SSSIs to be in "favourable condition," meaning habitats are healthy and conserved by appropriate management. However, the report argues that the definition of "favourable condition" is constantly changing.
The SSSI designation, according to some land managers, has become problematic. With Natural England allegedly replacing proven techniques with questionable experiments and the definition of "favourable condition" shifting, the designation is seen by some as increasingly meaningless or even a "crosshair" on land.
The report claims that Natural England is "anti-shooting" but won't state it directly, instead restricting activities to make traditional land management unviable, forcing landowners to give up. Some sources suggest that the ultimate goal of certain groups and individuals within Natural England is the "nationalisation" of moorlands.
Geoff Eyre recounts a meeting in 2005 where the head of Natural England allegedly stated that if landowners didn't comply, they would manage the moors and "take it off them," particularly aiming to stop grouse shooting. Moors for the Future was reportedly created around the same time, intended to manage moors once they were nationalised after shooting stopped.
Members of parliament are attempting to remove Natural England's power to designate SSSIs, a move opposed by some environmentalists who advocate for tighter restrictions on landowners to meet conservation targets. The report argues that rural communities, particularly farmers and gamekeepers, already conserve wildlife and habitats, upholding the image of the English countryside.
Land managers feel that the Peak District National Park is "hell bent on getting rid of private landowners," despite the landscape being shaped and maintained by farming and grazing for millennia.
Conclusion: A Call for Common Sense?
The "Burning Money" report presents a critical view of current moorland management policies in the UK, particularly those driven by Natural England and influenced by certain nature charities.
It argues that these policies are based on flawed science, spread misinformation, disregard local knowledge, and negatively impact rural communities and the environment by increasing wildfire risk and hindering effective land management.
The report advocates for a return to common sense and proven techniques, emphasizing the importance of fuel load management through methods like prescribed burning and traditional grazing. It highlights the knowledge and experience of farmers, gamekeepers, and land managers working on the ground, who feel ignored by policymakers.
The report ultimately suggests a need for a complete overhaul or even abolition of Natural England due to its perceived mismanagement and misleading policies. It calls for policies based on sound evidence, respect for rural communities, and a focus on practical, effective land management rather than unproven or politically motivated trends.
Keep Updated With Our FREE Newsletter
📧 Keep updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our regular free newsletter.
