Experts Warn Against Rushed Ban on Prescribed Burning on Deep Peat
- Rob Beeson
- Oct 3
- 1 min read
A group of moorland scientists in the Future Landscapes Forum (FLF) say a government proposal to ban prescribed vegetation burning on deep peat risks serious ecological and wildfire consequences.
FLF argue most research on burning is too short-term, focusing only on disturbance and not recovery, while long-term effects of alternatives like cutting or doing nothing remain poorly understood.
Defra’s 25-year comparative study of burning, cutting and no management was not renewed after its first results, despite revealing important findings; continuation is now funded by other bodies.
FLF question Natural England’s evidence review, saying it has favoured weaker studies critical of burning while downplaying stronger evidence showing more balanced outcomes.
They warn that removing burning as a tool reduces the ability to manage fuel loads, increasing the risk of large, damaging wildfires such as those seen this summer.
Claims that “rewetting” alone will make moorlands fire-resilient are, FLF say, unproven and too generalised to guide policy.
FLF call for a pause in policy, creation of an independent expert panel, and adoption of an adaptive management approach allowing different techniques to be monitored and compared.
For moorland managers and policymakers, the message is clear: decisions on upland management must be grounded in balanced, long-term evidence. The Future Landscapes Forum warn that restricting prescribed burning without credible alternatives risks harming biodiversity, releasing carbon, and leaving communities more exposed to wildfire.
📧 Make sure you're signed up to our newsletter to get the latest updates on this topic.
