Natural England’s “Consultation” - Asking the Questions That Deliver the Answers They Want
- Andrew Gilruth
- Sep 25
- 3 min read
Natural England has recently launched a stakeholder survey. On the surface, it looks like an open opportunity to share views. But scratch beneath the surface, and a clear pattern emerges: the survey is built to confirm Natural England’s agenda, not to genuinely listen to land managers.
Who Counts as a Stakeholder?
Right from the start, the survey frames participation around formal organisations. It asks for names, employee numbers, and sectors such as “business, NGO, education.”
Missing entirely is the option for land managers, gamekeepers, or community groups - the very people who know our uplands best. This isn’t an accident. It’s a way of filtering which voices Natural England wants to hear.
You Can Rate Them - But Not Challenge Them
The survey asks how well NE “listens, understands, and responds.” But it never asks whether Natural England should be doing this work at all.
There’s no way to say: “NE’s role is obstructive” or “this should not be Natural Englands responsibility.” Instead, respondents are nudged into scoring performance, not questioning legitimacy.
The inevitable outcome? A headline such as “stakeholders say Natural England is doing well.”
Only NE’s Priorities Count
When asked about “shared priorities,” the options are limited to Natural England’s four internal pillars: Recovering Nature, Better Places, Health & Wellbeing, and Security through Nature.
Who would tick “not important” without sounding unreasonable? Yet there’s no room to say “these pillars don’t reflect the realities of managing moorland.”
This isn’t consultation. It’s a ratification exercise.
A Familiar Story
This survey is just the latest example of Natural England’s pattern of framing the debate to suit itself. Members will recall:
Peat depth rules: Defra’s shift from a 40 cm to a 30 cm threshold has created chaos, leaving land managers confused about consents, licensing, and stewardship agreements. See our blogs Heather Burning Rules: Defra Creates a Shambles and Heather Burning Rules — Clarification on Existing Agreements.
Wildfire risk ignored: Government bans on burning deep peat take no account of rising wildfire dangers. Read Wildfire Risks Ignored as Government Bans Burning on Deep Peat.
Health impacts sidelined: The risks from wildfire smoke - for local communities and firefighters — are overlooked. See Wildfire Smoke: The Effects on Human Health and Wildfire Smoke Increases Health Risks for Firefighters - New Research Finds.
Evidence reviews stacked: NE’s own assessments of controlled burning are selective and skewed, as we explain in FAQs: MA Position Statement on Controlled Heather Burning.
Each time, the pattern is the same: Natural England presents its agenda as fact, then structures “consultations” so only one conclusion is possible.
Why This Matters
When Natural England’s engagements are only about managing impressions, the real voices, those with boots on the ground, are silenced. That means policies get shaped without full experience, unintended consequences proliferate and rural managers are left dealing with the fallout.
As members, your role is essential when completing the survey:
Push for better question design - demand open-ended questions, places to challenge NE’s assumptions, and the inclusion of “practitioner / land manager / community” as valid stakeholder types.
Document real impacts - compile case studies, costs, technical hurdles and environmental risks to counter the narrative Natural England is trying to embed.
Amplify your examples - link to MA blogs, share your stories to national audiences, and ensure Natural England’s narrower framing can’t dominate the narrative.
We need Natural England to hear the truth: our work delivers biodiversity, wildfire resilience, and healthy landscapes - whether or not Natural England designs its surveys to admit it.
