How Farmers & Landowners are Negatively Impacted by Current Moorland Management Policies

The report, ‘Burning Money - How nature groups cash in on disastrous policies they helped create to fix imaginary problems’, outlines how farmers and landowners in the Peak District are significantly impacted by current moorland management policies, often experiencing negative consequences due to decisions made by Natural England and various wildlife organizations.

These policies are perceived by rural businesses, farmers, landowners, and communities as irrational, lacking consideration for past practices, and having no understanding of their long-term impact.

Here's a breakdown of the impacts:

Disregard for Local Knowledge and Expertise

• Local communities feel that generations of knowledge, skills, and techniques are being disregarded in favour of unproven and expensive trends.

• Natural England is accused of ignoring the perspectives and decades of experience of those who live and work on the land.

• Land managers, who possess the most knowledge and experience in wildfire operations, are often given the least attention and are criticized for questioning Natural England's narrative.

• Many Natural England staff are reported to lack the necessary experience on the ground, relying on "desktop conservation" rather than practical understanding, which leads to policies that don't work as intended.

Restrictions on Fuel Load Management and Increased Wildfire Risk

• Fuel load management is seen as essential for preventing wildfires, but Natural England, the National Trust, and RSPB are accused of not taking it seriously.

• Policies like "ban the burn" have led to strict no-burn rules and difficult-to-obtain burning and cutting licenses, even for small amounts of vegetation.

• This lack of management results in a "huge build-up of fuel ready to burn," leading to devastating wildfires like those on Saddleworth Moor and Winter Hill in 2018. Geoff Eyre's early restoration work was destroyed by the 2018 Saddleworth wildfire due to Natural England restricting fire breaks.

• Landowners are not held responsible for fires on their land despite contributing to the problem by not preventing them and are even suggested to use wildfires to attract public donations and government funding.

• Rewilding and replanting schemes on moorland are increasing the fuel load, making areas more prone to severe fires.

• The alternative, "cutting," is often worse than doing nothing because it creates dead fuel that dries quickly and helps spread fire. It can also destroy microtopography and habitats, leaving a "bowling green" effect, and potentially increase ticks.

Push for Diversification and Land Use Changes

• Farmers are being encouraged to abandon traditional sheep farming and "diversify" into other schemes.

• The reduction of sheep, coupled with the decline in burning, creates a "perfect storm" for fuel load build-up. The sources claim there's little evidence that sheep cause damage, and in fact, they can help control ticks.

• The removal of sheep, particularly "hefted flocks" (those accustomed to specific moorland areas), is seen as detrimental, as recreating such flocks is difficult due to labour and skill shortages.

• Schemes like the Environmental Land Management (ELM) and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) pay farmers for "environmental goods and services" rather than food production, making it easier and cheaper for landowners than traditional farming and influencing subsidies.

• Farmers who don't join these green schemes may face consequences, such as their workable acreage being reduced by landlords who then put the land into these schemes to draw money. Peter Atkin, a farmer of forty years, is being forced off his land by the National Trust for refusing to stop traditional farming and allow rewilding.

• Concerns are raised about BNG schemes binding land for 30 years, passing developer liability to farmers, and the lack of clarity on inheritance tax relief for land taken out of agricultural management.

• Wildlife groups, such as RSPB, are acquiring land and getting farming grants initially intended for farmers. For example, Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust purchased Ughill Farm for £1.2 million, stating it was to protect it from "intensive farming" despite evidence suggesting it was already a "sanctuary for upland wildlife" due to the previous farmer's work.

SSSI Designation and "Backdoor Nationalization"

• The Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designation is viewed as a "kiss of death" for private landowners, offering no positive gain and becoming a means of "backdoor nationalisation".

• Natural England is accused of abusing the SSSI system, taking advice from wildlife organizations with questionable research.

• Landowners claim that once their land is designated SSSI, they lose control over it, and Natural England can make it impossible for them to continue their livelihoods, effectively forcing them to sell.

• There's a perception that the Peak District National Park authorities are "hell bent on getting rid of private landowners," aiming to destroy the traditional landscape that was designated a national park precisely because of its farmed appearance.

Loss of Skills and Rural Communities

• The shift in policies is leading to an "outflow of farmers, farm workers, gamekeepers and others".

• Traditional skills like proper farming, dry stone walling, gamekeeping, safe burning, and working with sheep and dogs on the hill are "dying skills".

• This brain drain negatively impacts rural communities, affecting local shops, villages, post offices, and pubs.

• The source suggests that Natural England's historical shift towards a more rigid, less compromising approach, coupled with the departure of experienced staff, has contributed to this decline in effective land management and community relations.

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