How Wildlife Organisations Misled Defra on Moorland Science
- Andrew Gilruth
- Oct 13
- 3 min read
Last week we reported that Defra Minister Mary Creagh has been making a claim that her own reports do not support. It’s not surprising because even the RSPB and Wildlife Trust, as signatures to the Wildlife & Countryside Link consultation response to Defra have been caught out for applying fast and loose with the evidence.
We have reviewed the Wildlife & Countryside Link’s consultation response against Natural England’s official evidence review (NEER155). This shows that they made materially misleading statements when they presented the science on managed burning in the uplands. The sort of claims that mislead policy makers and journalists.
1. False Certainty
They assert that 'the science is very clear' that burning damages peatlands. However, Natural England explicitly describes the evidence as inconsistent and context-dependent, noting that results vary between sites and that recovery is often observed within a few years. The Natural England review emphasises uncertainty, not consensus.
2. Misuse of Carbon Data
They claim burning ‘releases up to 80% of above-ground carbon stock’ and turns peatlands into carbon sources. Natural England clarifies that while 76–80% of above-ground vegetation carbon is combusted during a burn, this carbon is re-accumulated as vegetation regrows. There is no consistent evidence that managed burning causes a long-term loss of peat carbon.
3. Water Quality Claims
The report states that burning increases dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and harms water quality. Natural England finds the evidence on DOC to be mixed or neutral. Short-term increases may occur immediately post-burn, but long-term effects are inconsistent and often negligible.
4. Biodiversity and Sphagnum
They suggest that burning damages biodiversity and sphagnum moss. In reality, Natural England found many Sphagnum species recover within three years after low-severity burns. Vegetation responses depend on hydrology, slope and burn rotation. The evidence does not justify the blanket claim that burning is ecologically harmful.
5. Wildfire Risk
They argued that burning increases wildfire risk. Natural England concluded the opposite. Managed burning can reduce fine-fuel loads and may lessen the severity or spread of wildfires. No evidence supports the claim that rotational burning makes wildfires more likely.
6. Ignoring Site Differences
Natural England stress that site condition, burn severity and hydrology determine outcomes. The Wildlife Link report ignores this nuance, presenting universal claims where the evidence shows variability.
7. Selective Quotation
They cites one sentence from Natural England’s executive summary ‘burning impacts peatlands via multiple mechanisms’ but omits the following sentences, which acknowledge recovery and uncertainty. This selective citation distorts the review’s balance.
Summary Table
Conclusion
The Wildlife & Countryside Link consultation response misrepresents Natural England. It omits key caveats, presents balanced evidence as one-sided harm and uses selective quotations to imply stronger scientific support for a total ban than exists.
NEER155 is a nuanced, evidence-based review; the Wildlife Link consultation response is an advocacy piece that distorts that evidence. Policymakers and journalists should not accept these wild claims made by campaigning organisations.
Even a flick through Natural England’s NEER155 report makes it clear their claims of scientific consensus against managed burning are demonstrably false.
📧 Stay Updated on All Moorland Issues: Sign Up for Our Free Newsletter.
