Natural England’s Heather Burning Review: Fresh Doubts Over “Rigorous Peer Review”
- Andrew Gilruth
- 11 minutes ago
- 2 min read
✅ KEY TAKEAWAY: The Moorland Association demands transparency as Natural England admits missing records for its heather burning review, questioning whether claims of "rigorous peer review" remain valid and evidence-based.
What’s happened?
Earlier this year, the Moorland Association raised formal concerns with Natural England and Defra about the basis on which Natural England’s evidence review of heather burning (NEER155) had been publicly described as having undergone “rigorous peer review”.
Those concerns were not about whether outside experts were asked for views. They were about whether the stronger public claim of “rigorous peer review” can actually be backed up by the records Natural England holds.
What has changed?
Natural England has now responded to our request for an internal review. In our view, that response does not resolve the issue. It adds important new information.
Most notably, Natural England now says that the two senior officers involved in the peer review process have left the organisation and that access to their historic emails is “no longer available”.
It also says it cannot provide a complete email trail showing which drafts were circulated, what was expected from reviewers, and how comments were resolved and closed.
Natural England has also said it is withholding draft versions of the report that show reviewer comments and edits.
Why this matters
This is not simply a records issue. Natural England’s heather burning review is being relied upon in decisions that affect moorland managers, agri-environment arrangements and the day-to-day management of the uplands.
That makes it all the more important to know whether the assurance repeatedly attached to the report can actually be backed up.
Why we have written again
For that reason, we have today sent a second, more focused letter to Natural England and Defra.
This new letter does not repeat the full case already made in February. Instead, it addresses the important new admissions in Natural England’s internal review letter and asks a straightforward question: can the public assurance of “rigorous peer review” still properly be maintained?
Transparency
We are publishing the second letter in the interests of transparency, alongside our earlier correspondence and Natural England’s internal review response.
We will update members again when Natural England and Defra respond.
Documents
Don't Miss the Latest Moorland News
Get news of policy shifts, new research and land management changes that affect upland Britain, delivered free every week. If it matters on the moor, you'll hear it from us first.
