Results of Our Heather Burning Survey

We recently asked our members to complete a short survey about Defra’s proposed changes to rules around heather burning.

Defra is proposing to amend the regulations so that a licence will be necessary for any burning of vegetation on areas of peat over 30cm deep anywhere within a Less Favoured Area.

The deadline for Defra’s consultation is 25th May and we’ll be incorporating the information from the survey in our response, which we will share on our website before the end of April.

You can read a summary of the survey findings below:

Significant Impact of the 30cm Peat Depth Rule

A dominant theme is the concern over the proposed reduction of the deep peat threshold from 40cm to 30cm. Many respondents, particularly Keepers and Agents, indicate that this change would drastically reduce the amount of land on which they can conduct controlled burns.

Some estimate that a large percentage of their moorland, in some cases almost all, would fall under the "no burn" category. Landowners also echo this concern, noting the need to re-probe their land.

Increased Reliance on Cutting and Associated Costs

With reduced burning opportunities, the alternative management method discussed most frequently is mechanical cutting. A significant trend is the anticipated substantial increase in costs associated with purchasing more cutting equipment, increased fuel consumption, higher labour costs, and ongoing maintenance and repair expenses, especially on rocky ground.

Estimates for these additional costs vary widely, ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Concerns about Increased Wildfire Risk

A major concern across many responses is that prohibiting or severely restricting controlled burning will lead to a build-up of fuel load (old, rank heather) and consequently increase the risk and potential severity of large, uncontrolled wildfires.

Some respondents argue that controlled burning is a crucial tool for creating firebreaks and managing fuel loads effectively. They believe that cutting alone is not as effective for wildfire mitigation.

Feasibility and Limitations of Cutting

While cutting is seen as the primary alternative, many respondents highlight its limitations. Common issues raised include:

• Inaccessibility: Large areas of moorland are too steep, rocky, wet, or remote for tractors and cutting equipment.

• Effectiveness: Cutting leaves a mulch that doesn't clear the ground as effectively as burning and can still pose a fire risk. It is also considered less beneficial for habitat management, particularly for certain bird species.

• Damage to Equipment: Rocky terrain is expected to cause significant damage to cutting machinery, increasing costs.

• Slower Process: Cutting is generally considered a more time-consuming process than burning.

Scepticism and Concerns Regarding Licensing

Many respondents express a lack of confidence in the proposed licensing system for burning. They anticipate that obtaining licenses will be a difficult, prolonged, and potentially futile process due to perceived resistance from DEFRA and Natural England.

Some believe the licensing process is merely a "hoop jumping" exercise with limited chances of approval. There are also concerns about the timeliness of license issuance and the potential for delays to disrupt management plans.

Negative Impacts on Habitat and Wildlife

Concerns are raised about the potential negative impacts on habitat and wildlife if burning is restricted. Some believe that the changes will lead to less desirable nesting areas for ground-nesting birds like lapwing and golden plover.

Others fear an increase in pests like ticks due to the lack of burning. There's a perception that the proposed regulations do not consider the specific ecological conditions of different moorlands.

Increased Administrative Burden and Time Commitment

Applying for licenses, re-measuring peat depths, and adapting management approaches are expected to significantly increase the administrative burden and time commitment for moorland managers.

Regional Variations and Specific Moor Characteristics

Some respondents highlight the unique characteristics of their moorlands, such as being dry, low-lying, or predominantly rocky, which make cutting a less viable or effective alternative to burning.

Existing Adaptation and Disagreement with Current Restrictions

Some respondents indicate that they have already had to adapt their burning practices due to existing restrictions and express disagreement with the current regulatory landscape.