FAQs: Burning Money - Moorland Mismanagement and Conservation

Rob Beeson
Jun 9
5 min read

These frequently asked questions are taken from the report: Burning Money - How nature groups cash in on disastrous policies they helped create to fix imaginary problems.

What is the core issue discussed in the report "Burning Money"?

The report, commissioned by the Campaign for the Protection of Moorland Communities, focuses on the perceived negative impacts of policies and practices driven by nature groups and government bodies like Natural England on moorland management, particularly in the Peak District.

It argues that these policies, often based on questionable research and influenced by wildlife charities, lead to a decline in traditional, effective land management practices, such as controlled burning and sheep grazing, which in turn increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires and negatively affects the livelihoods of local farmers and gamekeepers.

The report contends that these groups are profiting from "fixing imaginary problems" they helped create and are contributing to a "slow-motion takeover" of land, leading to reduced farming and traditional management.

Why does the report criticize Natural England?

Natural England is intensely criticized throughout the report for its perceived mismanagement, bureaucracy, and lack of competent staff. The report alleges that Natural England is heavily influenced by third-party groups like wildlife charities and relies on questionable research to formulate policy.

Specific criticisms include the difficulty in obtaining essential licenses for moorland management (burning and cutting), slow and complicated licensing systems, refusal of applications for invalid reasons, and a general disregard for common sense and proven successes in land management. Some interviewees in the report even suggest a complete overhaul or shutdown of the body.

What are the concerns regarding the "ban the burn" policy and fuel load management?

The report highlights that proper fuel load management, particularly through controlled burning (muirburn), is essential for reducing the risk of wildfires and maintaining the health of heather moorland. However, policies influenced by groups like the National Trust and RSPB, based in part on reports like "Ember," have led to reduced or zero burning in some areas.

The report argues that this lack of burning, coupled with a reduction in sheep grazing, creates a "perfect storm" for fuel load build-up and significantly increases the risk of large, destructive wildfires, as evidenced by past incidents like the 2018 Stalybridge fire. The report presents controlled burning as a traditional and effective method for managing vegetation and promoting biodiversity.

How does the report view the practice of "rewetting" moorlands?

The report views the "rewetting" of moorlands, often promoted for peat restoration and wildfire mitigation, with skepticism and calls it a "fantasy." While acknowledging that rewetting to create bog flushes was done in the past to increase insects beneficial to grouse chicks, the report argues that current large-scale rewetting efforts, often involving the planting of sphagnum moss, are expensive failures, particularly on drier, sloping areas.

It suggests that the effectiveness of rewetting in preventing large wildfires is uncertain and that it can have unintended consequences, such as flooding downstream if the saturated ground cannot absorb excess water. Some interviewees claim that rewetting is being pushed despite a lack of long-term knowledge and questionable results.

What are the report's concerns about the impact of current policies on farming?

The report argues that current policies, driven by nature groups and bodies like Natural England and the National Trust, are pushing traditional farming practices, particularly sheep grazing, off the moors. It suggests that sheep are an effective and natural form of fuel load management and that claims of overgrazing and sheep causing ticks are unfounded.

Farmers are being encouraged to "diversify" into activities that are not primarily focused on food production, such as tree planting or wildlife habitat creation, often through government grants like the Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme. The report highlights concerns from farmers who feel their knowledge and expertise are being ignored, and that they are being forced into schemes that are detrimental to their businesses and the future of farming in the uplands. There are also concerns about tenant farmers losing land or having their workable acreage reduced due to these schemes.

What is the report's perspective on biodiversity net gain (BNG) schemes?

The report is critical of the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) law, which requires developers to ensure a net increase in nature around their developments. It claims this law was introduced after lobbying from groups like the RSPB and allows developers to pass on the task of nature creation to farmers or wildlife groups, effectively washing their hands of responsibility.

The report raises concerns that farmers are risking losing their land in BNG schemes and that the 30-year contracts associated with these schemes carry significant risks for landowners, including potential inheritance tax liability and uncertainty about future land use. It also suggests that local authorities and conservation charities are using BNG as a means of acquiring land or funding their own schemes, potentially exploiting farmers who are not fully aware of the long-term implications.

How does the report address the issue of data and research used to inform policy?

A significant theme in the report is the questioning of the research and data used by Natural England and wildlife charities to justify their policies. It highlights criticisms of reports like "Ember" for statistical inadequacies and methodological flaws. The report also expresses skepticism about studies on mountain hare populations, suggesting that claims of decline are disputed and that survey methods may be misleading.

It suggests a reliance on questionable research and computer modelling (like the Natural History Museum's PREDICTS model) that lacks baseline data and transparency, leading to potentially inaccurate conclusions about the state of biodiversity and the effectiveness of certain land management practices. The report implies that narratives created from disputed accounts and flawed data are being accepted as facts and used to drive policy.

What are the concerns surrounding the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)?

The report argues that the SSSI system is being abused by Natural England and the wildlife organizations that influence it. It claims that private landowners gain nothing positive from SSSI status and that the changing definition of "favourable condition" makes the designation meaningless.

The report suggests that SSSI designation is effectively becoming a form of "backdoor nationalisation," where land managers are prevented from using traditional practices, making their livelihoods unviable, and ultimately leading to the land being acquired by organizations like Natural England or the National Trust.

The report cites instances where SSSI designation has been used to shut down activities like shooting and force farmers to reduce livestock numbers, despite the land having been managed in a way that led to its SSSI status in the first place.

Keep Updated With Our FREE Newsletter

📧 Keep updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our regular free newsletter.