黑料正能量

The UK Government recently published backed up with an  and  鈥� to which we submitted a consultation response. It鈥檚 a long-overdue move, significantly expanding the areas to be protected from further burning. Indeed, if implemented, these changes will increase the area of uplands currently protected from 222,000 hectares to over 368,000 hectares. In short, all of England鈥檚 deep peat would be protected and have a chance to start to recover.

Quite simply, because peatlands have superpowers. Far from being humble 鈥�鈥�bogs鈥�, they lock away carbon, clean our water, reduce flood risk and support specialist wildlife that cannot live elsewhere. But right now, the vast majority (80%) of these ecosystems in England are degraded and burning is a big part of the problem. [1] 

Let鈥檚 be clear: burning peatlands is indefensible.

The science leaves no room for doubt [2]. Natural England鈥檚 own evidence gathering shows that repeated burning degrades the very fabric of peat soils, reduces biodiversity and releases massive quantities of stored carbon, sometimes up to 80% of above-ground carbon stock.[3] This is also not about eroding history; driven grouse moorland management has taken place in Britain for less than 200 years, replacing a far longer history of wetter and wilder moors.[4]

So we welcome the proposed expansion of protections from burning to cover all upland deep peat within Less Favoured Areas 鈥� ie those areas in the English uplands identified by the UK Government as challenging for farming, including profitability. We would also encourage the government to consider extending the ban to include peat less than 30cm deep. In Scotland, recent legislation on muirburn didn鈥檛 go far enough鈥夆�斺�塧nd still allows burning at 40cm.

In short, all upland peat soils deserve safeguarding, with shallower peatlands and ecologically important habitats such as wet heath all deserving increased protection. Indeed, many areas which are currently under 30cm depth were once deeper, but have been eroded, drained or burnt. 

If we鈥檙e serious about our climate and nature targets there is also a further challenging issue to be considered: much of our lowland peat is not protected from damage despite strong evidence of the potential climate-related benefits of doing so.[5] The solution is likely complex and needing detailed conversations and consideration.

In acknowledging and welcoming these proposed changes, we must remember that this will not be achieved via new regulation alone. It鈥檚 also essential that enforcement against illegal burns is strengthened. So far this has been woefully lacking and existing regulations are widely abused.[6] To date, burning has continued on protected sites at similar, or even higher, rates than on non-designated land; a damning indictment of failed enforcement approaches by governments past and present.

We鈥檝e also identified loopholes in the proposals, which must be addressed.

• The current exemption that allows burning because a site is 鈥�鈥�inaccessible to machinery鈥� must go. The idea that nature must be burnt just because it鈥檚 hard to reach belongs in the 19^th century. We need to support resilience and that means natural grazing, rewetting and giving landscapes space to recover, not the setting of more fires.
• Controlled burning for firebreaks should only ever be a last resort, not a default tool. We do recognise the need to manage wildfire risk, which is clearly increasing with our hotter, drier summers [8] 鈥� but the solution must be smart, not destructive. That means embracing completely different approaches such as rewetting peatlands, which has been proven as an effective way to prevent fires, by restoring natural resilience to the land.[9] When firebreaks are needed, mechanical cutting should be the go-to method. 
• The proposal to remove protection from Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) outside Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) must be treated with caution. While SSSIs don鈥檛 always align well with delivering rewilding and dynamic outcomes at scale, the use of LFAs as qualifying criteria should be in addition to 鈥搉ot in place of 鈥揺xisting protections.
• We also must put a stop to any idea that 鈥�鈥�research鈥� is a legitimate reason to keep burning on peat. There鈥檚 already enough research to fill a library, almost all of it saying the same thing: burning peat is bad for biodiversity, carbon, water and public health.[10] If the UK Government really does insist on a research exemption, it must only be done in wholly exceptional circumstances, with cast-iron safeguards to prevent abuse.

This really is a moment of truth. The decisions made post this consultation will shape the future of England鈥檚 uplands and, by extension, our nation鈥檚 ability to meet climate goals, restore biodiversity and deliver on our promise to protect 30% of land for nature by 2030.

We know what we need to do: we must end routine burning on upland peatlands and shift to principles that regenerate rather than deplete, including an urgent shift to natural process-led land management in much of England. That means backing rewilding and nature-led recovery at scale. It means long-term funding that enables people to choose to restore nature at scale and make nature their business. 

We know it can be done. What鈥檚 needed now is the political courage to deliver. Act for the interest of all, not the few.