What the New National Audit Office Report Means for MA Members

Members may have seen references today to the publication of a new report by the National Audit Office (NAO) examining how environmental regulation operates in England. We welcome the publication of this report as a contribution to transparency and informed discussion about the effectiveness of environmental regulation.

The report is not about moorland management, and it does not take positions on grouse moors, heather burning, predator control or any specific land management practice. It does not assess individual consent decisions, nor does it comment on the lawfulness of particular regulatory regimes.

However, it does provide important context about how environmental regulation is currently functioning (particularly within Natural England and the Environment Agency) and how regulators are being assessed by Parliament’s independent spending watchdog.

As part of its evidence-gathering, the NAO invited input from a range of stakeholders involved in environmental regulation. The Moorland Association was one of a number of organisations that provided information to the NAO on a factual basis, alongside regulators, land managers and other interested parties. The NAO’s findings and conclusions are, however, its own.

This note explains what the NAO looked at, what it did not, and why the report is relevant background for land managers.

What the NAO examined (and what it did not)

The NAO examined whether environmental regulation in England is:

• effective,

• proportionate,

• evidence-led, and

• focused on delivering environmental outcomes.

It reviewed the operation of the regulatory system involving the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Natural England and the Environment Agency.

It did not:

• assess individual land management practices;

• compare managed and unmanaged moorland;

• take a position on burning or alternative techniques; or

• review specific licensing or consent decisions.

The report is therefore concerned with systemic performance, not sector-specific policy choices.

Key findings highlighted by the NAO

1. A culture of risk aversion within regulation

The NAO identifies a regulatory culture that has become increasingly cautious, shaped in part by concern about legal challenge and procedural exposure.

The report notes that this can lead to:

• decisions framed around managing regulatory risk rather than testing which interventions deliver the best environmental outcomes;

• limited scope for professional judgement; and

• reluctance to support adaptive or innovative approaches, even where evidence exists.

The NAO concludes that such a culture can constrain flexibility and effectiveness across the regulatory system.

2. Limitations in site-specific evidence and feedback

The NAO reports that:

• monitoring of protected sites is incomplete;

• regulators may rely on generic or dated evidence where site-specific data is unavailable; and

• there is limited systematic evaluation of whether regulatory decisions are delivering the intended environmental outcomes.

The report highlights the absence of consistent feedback loops to assess whether restrictions or interventions are achieving their objectives.

3. Loss of local expertise

A further theme in the report is the erosion of local knowledge within regulatory bodies, including:

• fewer dedicated local officers;

• wider geographic remits for individual staff; and

• inconsistent advice across regions.

The NAO observes that centralisation has, in some cases, reduced continuity, weakened relationships with land managers and affected the quality of decision-making.

4. Emphasis on process rather than outcomes

The NAO notes that regulatory performance is still largely measured by:

• processes followed,

• activities completed, and

• risks avoided, rather than by clear evidence of environmental improvement.

The report calls for stronger outcome-based evaluation and clearer links between regulatory action and ecological results.

What the NAO does not say

It is important to be clear about the limits of the report.

The NAO does not:

• endorse or criticise traditional moorland management practices;

• assess wildfire risk or fuel load management;

• evaluate private investment by land managers; or

• challenge Natural England’s legal interpretation of its statutory duties.

Those questions fall outside the scope of the report and remain matters for policy development, scientific evidence and where relevant, legal processes.

What happens next in Parliament

NAO reports are normally considered further through Parliamentary scrutiny.

The Public Accounts Committee has stated that it will include this NAO report as part of its imminent inquiry into environmental regulation. This inquiry will examine how effectively the regulatory system is operating and how public bodies are held to account.

The Moorland Association intends to provide written evidence to the Committee as part of that process, drawing on members’ experience of how regulation operates on the ground.

The Committee has also invited evidence from other interested parties. Members who wish to do so in their own capacity should note that the current deadline for written submissions is 21 January 2026.

Why this NAO report matters for MA members

This is not a campaigning document. It is a formal report to Parliament by an independent watchdog, followed by scrutiny through a Parliamentary Select Committee.

Its significance lies in the fact that it places on the public record observations about:

• whether regulation is delivering measurable environmental outcomes;

• whether decisions are consistently supported by site-specific evidence;

• whether loss of expertise is affecting regulatory quality; and

• whether excessive procedural caution may limit effectiveness.

For land managers, this provides context for ongoing engagement with regulators, advisers and policymakers about how environmental regulation operates in practice.

How MA members may wish to use this context

When engaging with advisers, regulators, elected representatives or local stakeholders, members may find it helpful to reference the NAO report and the forthcoming Select Committee scrutiny when calling for:

• proportionate, site-specific decision-making;

• improved monitoring and review of outcomes;

• recognition of local expertise and long-term management knowledge; and

• a clearer focus on environmental results rather than process alone.

This is not about advocating for or against any single land management technique. It is about supporting regulation that is evidence-based, accountable and effective.

Important clarification

Nothing in this commentary relates to, or should be read as commenting upon, any live legal proceedings or the lawfulness of any specific regulatory decisions or statutory instruments.

We will continue to engage constructively with government, regulators and Parliament, and we welcome scrutiny that supports environmental regulation which is durable, evidence-led and workable in complex upland landscapes.

Stay Updated

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