Natural England Must Stop Blocking Moorland Management

We are legally obliged to protect the moors we manage. Many are SSSIs, SPAs, and SACs,  the jewels of our upland landscapes. Yet every day Natural England makes that task harder by insisting on “robust scientific evidence” before action is taken.

On the surface that sounds reasonable. But heather moorland works in long cycles of twenty years or more, and iron-clad evidence is rarely available before management begins. In practice, knowledge is built through trials, observation and long-term observation.

Natural England has become the enemy of common sense. Instead of backing managers who want to improve their ground, it ties them up in red tape and demands they wait for science to catch up.

Meanwhile, the agency has had direct responsibility for Moor House National Nature Reserve since 1952, yet after seventy years, 80% of its SSSI units remain in “unfavourable condition”. If Natural England cannot fix its own flagship reserve, who are they to lecture private managers willing to try harder?

Double Standards: Adaptive Management for Some, But Not for Moorland

The hypocrisy is glaring. When projects are fashionable, Natural England is happy to use adaptive management or ‘learning by doing’ even when evidence is thin. The River Otter Beaver Trial is a prime example.

When wild beavers appeared in Devon, there was no English evidence of their impact. Natural England didn’t remove them. Instead, it gave Devon Wildlife Trust a five-year licence. Issues were solved as they arose and by 2020 the trial was hailed as a success.

The same pattern appeared with the Exmoor Mires Partnership. In 2010 there was no proof that blocking drainage ditches on shallow peat would deliver results. Natural England backed it anyway. Monitoring later showed flood peaks falling by 66% and water tables rising. Defra now cites this work in its 25-Year Environment Plan.

Or consider Wild Ennerdale. In 2003, Natural England joined partners to “let nature lead” in Cumbria. With no fixed targets, they experimented with grazing and forestry. Fish populations rebounded, habitats diversified and the project is now described as visionary.

So Natural England is perfectly willing to take risks with beavers, bogs and rewilding. However, on heather moorland, where generations of keepers hold real knowledge, it suddenly demands laboratory-grade proof before permitting the smallest action. That is not science. That is ideology.

Moorland Needs Action, Not Academic Paralysis

History shows that the most important lessons about moorland management have come from trials, not offices. The Moor House burning experiment, begun in 1954, only produced clear results after decades. Natural England now embraces that evidence but without half a century of adaptive work, there would have been nothing to review.

Heather moorland requires long study cycles of twenty years or more. The only way to answer many questions about burning, cutting or grazing is to let keepers and farmers manage, while also monitoring and feeding back results. Anything else condemns these landscapes to stagnation.

This matters even more in a changing climate. We are told to expect warmer summers, wetter winters and greater wildfire risk. Waiting two decades for “gold-plated” science before acting is absurd. By the time the data arrives, it may already be out of date. Evidence gathered under yesterday’s conditions may not help us in tomorrow’s world.

If moorland managers are legally required to protect SSSIs, they must also be trusted to act. We live on the land, we understand it and we are already running the kind of long-term experiments academics can only dream of. Natural England should be encouraging adaptive management on moorland, just as it does elsewhere.

Its own record speaks volumes. After seventy years in charge of Moor House, the majority of it is still failing. Yet officials insist private managers cannot try new methods without “robust science”. That is indefensible.

The truth is simple, Natural England does not have all the answers. Its outdated, bureaucratic approach is allowing upland habitats to decline. If it can embrace adaptive management for beavers and bogs, it can do the same for heather. And if it refuses, government must force the change.

Because what matters is not Natural England’s ideology, but the future of our moors and that future depends on gamekeepers and farmers who are willing to act, experiment and learn, not on civil servants who have already shown they cannot deliver.

This article first appeared in Shooting Times.

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