What Happened at the Environmental Audit Committee’s Peatland Inquiry
- Rob Beeson
- Mar 5
- 6 min read
On Wednesday 4th March, the Environmental Audit Committee held an important Peatland Inquiry to assess the current state of the UK’s peatlands and scrutinize the government policies designed to protect them. As an organization representing those who manage one million acres of uplands, the Moorland Association was invited to give evidence.
Our Chief Executive, Andrew Gilruth, spoke directly to the committee about the practical, on-the-ground realities of land management. He provided a critical perspective on the urgent need for controlled burning to mitigate catastrophic wildfire risks, challenging the notion that rewetting alone can solve the complex challenges facing our moors.
🎞️ Watch short videos of Andrew in action on our YouTube channel.
Key Takeaways from the Inquiry
For those who want the vital points upfront, here is a summary of the most critical evidence presented during the session:
Controlled Burning is Essential for Wildfire Prevention: Andrew explained that controlled burning safely removes the surface vegetation (fuel loads) that feed catastrophic wildfires. Without this management, uncontrolled wildfires burn hotter, penetrate deep into the peat, and release massive amounts of stored carbon.
Rewetting is Not a Universal Silver Bullet: While Moorland Association members are eager to rewet peat wherever physically possible, it cannot be applied everywhere. Many upland areas lack the necessary water retention capabilities, and rewetting can sometimes paradoxically increase vegetation growth, thereby increasing the fuel load for potential fires.
Defra’s De Facto Ban is Flawed and Isolated: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has implemented a flawed policy on controlled burning that ignores the international consensus of the G7 and EU. Furthermore, this policy defies the stark warnings issued by national fire chiefs regarding the increased danger to the public and firefighters.
A Broken Licensing System: The current framework designed to allow controlled burning in exceptional circumstances is entirely unworkable. Not a single license has been successfully used under the new regulations, leaving land managers effectively paralyzed when trying to protect vulnerable habitats from fire.
Horticultural Peat Extraction Requires Nuanced Policy: Other experts at the inquiry highlighted the separate issue of commercial peat extraction. They stressed that while ending peat sales for horticulture is a shared environmental goal, the industry requires clear government timelines and support to manage the severe economic and supply-chain challenges of transitioning to alternative materials.
The True Threat of Unmanaged Fuel Loads
A central theme of Andrew’s testimony was the devastating impact of unmanaged vegetation growth on our moorlands. When controlled burning is heavily restricted, the fuel load on the surface builds up significantly.
Andrew provided a stark reminder of what happens when these landscapes ignite, pointing to a severe wildfire on the North York Moors that began in June and was not officially extinguished until late December. "The laws of physics... in relation to fire is not interested in what's underneath," Andrew told the committee. "We're trying to avoid a hot fire getting down into the peat and destroying it".
He explained that smouldering fires are the most dangerous because they retain their heat and destroy the very peat everyone wants to protect. To contain the North York Moors blaze, the Fire and Rescue Service had to use excavators to dig a trench 8 meters wide and 29 kilometers long.
Andrew urged the committee to look at the global picture, noting that Canada recently lost an area of peatland to fire that was larger than the size of England and most of Wales.
The Complexities and Limits of Rewetting
During the inquiry, some committee members and panelists suggested that restoring and rewetting peatlands would naturally remove the higher fuel loads, thereby eliminating the need for burning.
Andrew was clear about the Moorland Association's stance: "Our members are thoroughly delighted to rewet their peat and I wish the committee to be totally clear on that". However, he firmly challenged the assumption that rewetting is a cure-all.
"Once we filled in all the ditches which the government told us to start digging... you can't keep water on top of a hill," he explained. He pointed out that places like the North York Moors have very few drains to block and limited natural water retention.
Furthermore, there is a lack of comprehensive mapping to determine exactly which areas can genuinely be rewetted without the water simply draining through the bedrock.
Andrew warned that pursuing a utopian 50-year dream of creating naturally fire-resilient landscapes through rewetting leaves the moors incredibly vulnerable in the short term.
A "House of Cards": The Flawed Peer-Review Process
A major revelation from Andrew's evidence was his assertion that Defra officials have "badly misled ministers over the science" regarding upland management. He targeted the Natural England evidence review used to justify the government's de facto ban on controlled burning.
While Defra previously assured Parliament this evidence was subject to "rigorous peer review", Andrew argued the policy is built on a "house of cards". He highlighted critical flaws in how the review was conducted:
Lack of Structure: Reviewers received "no written brief, terms of reference or guidance," and lacked "templates, questions or scoring systems".
Reviewer Admissions: One reviewer admitted they "could not pretend to have read it from end to end," while another confessed their "brain could not keep track".
Defra Backtracking: Andrew pointed out that Defra had backtracked just that morning, dropping the phrase "rigorous peer review" and stating questions must now be referred to Natural England.
Andrew warned that Natural England frequently ignores scientific pushback, noting a 2023 review on heather cutting was severely challenged by academics in peer-reviewed literature. He predicted that "as night follows day," academics will soon dismantle this latest review on heather burning in the exact same way.
Defra’s Flawed Policy and Ignored Warnings
A significant portion of the Moorland Association's evidence focused on the failure of current government regulations. Andrew described Defra's approach as a "de facto ban" on controlled burning that leaves the department "totally isolated from the international consensus".
He noted that last year, the G7 and the EU both agreed that controlled burning is an important element of reducing wildfire risk.
Perhaps most concerning is the government's failure to heed the warnings of emergency services. Andrew highlighted that fire chiefs had previously submitted evidence to Defra warning that a ban could increase the danger to firefighters and the public.
When asked about the possibility of using derogations (exemptions) to conduct controlled burns on steep or dangerous terrain, Andrew revealed the reality of the bureaucratic gridlock.
"Right now, there is only one license in England which has been issued," he stated.
That single license, signed off by a minister, came with an impossible condition attached that prevented the landowner from actually striking a match, and was due to expire, unused, in just ten days.
The Imminent Threat to Life and Firefighter Safety
Andrew starkly addressed the direct risk to human life caused by escalating fuel loads, emphasizing that restrictions on controlled burning "increasingly threaten the lives of your constituents".
He highlighted that national fire chiefs had warned Defra that a ban could increase the danger to both the public and firefighters. Andrew detailed the terrifying physics of unmanaged fuel loads: when temperatures get too high, fires cause "pyro convection" and create their own weather systems. At that extreme stage, conventional equipment becomes useless, and "that is when firefighters get killed".
Andrew pointed to recent tragedies, noting that last year wildfires claimed 20 lives in Europe and 30 in Los Angeles. He delivered a stark plea for Parliament to act before a tragedy occurs , warning: "surely we should not be waiting in this country for a coroner to provide direction on this point".
Keeping Essential Skills on the Ground
Ultimately, the Moorland Association's message to the Environmental Audit Committee was a plea for practical, reality-based management. Andrew emphasized that "nothing is simple when it comes to the uplands".
He stressed that rural workers and gamekeepers possess the vital skills necessary to manage fire safely. During the massive North York Moors fire, it was the local gamekeepers who had the confidence and expertise to conduct back-burning operations to assist the Fire and Rescue Service.
Andrew concluded by passing on a message from European firefighters regarding wildfire management: "What I need is people back on the land managing the fuel loads".
We hope the committee takes this stark evidence into account and recommends a shift toward policies that trust the science of fuel load management and the expertise of those who live and work on the moors.
Stay Updated
📧 Keep updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.
