New Review Challenges Assumptions About Prescribed Burning

A major new scientific review has taken a hard look at ten of the most common claims made about prescribed heather burning on UK peatlands. These claims - repeated by government agencies, NGOs, media and even some scientists - include assumptions that burning causes flooding, reduces biodiversity, damages peat, and drives climate change.

The review, led by Dr Andreas Heinemeyer and colleagues, finds that much of the evidence behind these claims is weak, limited, or contradictory. In many cases, broad generalisations have been made from single studies, or results have been taken out of context. The authors stress that peatlands are complex systems, and management effects vary depending on site conditions, history and climate.

One key finding is that there is no clear evidence that prescribed burning leads to long-term peat carbon loss. While fire releases some carbon, controlled burning can also create charcoal that locks carbon into the soil and helps slow peat decomposition.

Equally, assumptions that burning always harms water quality, increases flood risk, or reduces biodiversity are not supported by robust data. In some cases, carefully managed burning has even been shown to benefit Sphagnum moss and create a mosaic of habitats that support a wider range of wildlife.

The review warns against “one-size-fits-all” policies. For example, simply ending burning does not automatically result in wetter peat or reduced wildfire risk. In fact, unmanaged heather often dries out over time, increasing the likelihood of severe wildfires that release far greater amounts of carbon and damage.

Instead, the authors call for better long-term, multi-site research and for policy to be based on the full weight of evidence rather than selective claims. They caution that legislation or bans made on precautionary grounds, without strong science, risk doing more harm than good.

For those who live and work on Britain’s moorlands, the message is clear: prescribed burning, when carried out responsibly, remains a valuable management tool alongside other practices such as cutting and rewetting. Decisions about our uplands should be made with facts, not assumptions, at the centre.

Further Reading

• Read the Review

• Read our Summary of the Review

📧 Keep updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.