Defra’s peat burning proposals threaten wildfire safety and land management rights

The CLA has responded to Defra’s proposals to expand licencing of heather and grass burning on peat soils.

We strongly disagreed with Defra’s proposal to licence controlled burning on any peat soils deeper than 30cm in the full upland Less Favoured Area (LFA), rather than on peat deeper than 40cm only within protected sites. According to the England peat map, this would increase the area subject to licencing threefold, from roughly 222,000ha to 677,000ha.

The CLA argued that this extension would increase the risk of wildfires and is not grounded in scientific evidence. We have worked with other organisations representing moorland interests to ensure our responses are consistent and as robust as possible. In the article below, we go through our arguments and concerns.

Controlled burning is a tool to remove older vegetation on moorlands and heathlands. Like any tool, it is more appropriate in some situations than others. Controlled burns are very different from unplanned wildfires and inappropriately managed burns that ignite peat. Conducted correctly in winter or early spring, controlled burns should not ignite or heat the peat soil and should burn only some of the moss and plant litter.

Some CLA members are confident they can stop burning and avoid wildfires, having invested in new equipment for cutting, and rangers to patrol for ignition sources. However, not all peatlands are the same, and alternatives are not always practical or economically viable – particularly given the lack of conclusive evidence showing controlled burns are harmful. Our argument to Defra was that land managers should be able to choose when to use controlled burning, rather than this option being removed through an inflexible licencing regime.

Controlled burning of vegetation is already licenced on peat soils deeper than 40cm on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) which are also either Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) through The Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021.

Licencing need not be a major issue if Defra granted licences readily and at low cost when needed to control wildfires. However, its criteria for granting a licence is strict and often impossible to meet. For example, Defra asks applicants to show that burning will be a one-time occurrence, even though it is a rotational management method. It consequently has granted very few licences since being introduced in 2021.

The latest consultation makes this policy more explicit by stating that burning “should be seen as a last resort” and used only “where absolutely no feasible alternatives exist”. If the consultation’s proposals are implemented, we expect the area managed through controlled burns to further reduce.

Defra proposed removing ground (d), which grants a licence to manage vegetation which “is inaccessible to mechanical cutting equipment and any other method of management is impracticable.” We argued ground (d) should be retained for management on steep, rocky, and uneven ground where it is difficult, dangerous, or otherwise uneconomical to cut, and to allow moorland managers to remove heather following heather beetle damage or control the tick burden for sheep. Removing ground (d) would be less concerning if licences were granted readily for wildfire control and conservation, but CLA members cannot rely on these other options given Defra’s strict criteria to satisfy other grounds.

Concurrently, Defra planned to remove licencing from non-upland SSSIs with peat over 40cm. The consultation did not provide data on the number, size, or location of SSSIs outside the LFA which would be affected. Whilst the CLA is unconcerned by the removal of licencing for these habitats, since burning is already regulated as an Operation Requiring Natural England’s Consent (ORNEC) in SSSIs, we questioned this double standard.

There is a direct relationship between vegetation fuel loads and wildfire severity. Other vegetation management methods do not control fuel loads sufficiently to make it safe to restrict controlled burns. Leaving cut foliage and brash on-site can pose a fire hazard, as it becomes highly combustible when dry. Rewetting peat can increase its resilience to wildfires and has been documented as a potential firebreak, and many moorland managers have rewet their peat, but complete landscape-scale rewetting is challenging. Ignition sources remain in drier areas like steep slopes and heavily eroded sites and during dry periods when the water table drops.

Making burning a ‘last resort’ action would also impair wildfire-fighting capacity in the uplands. The Fire and Rescue Service depends on experienced moorland managers for their local knowledge, firefighting skills, equipment, and patrols during wildfire season – which are likely to be lost if they can no longer conduct controlled burns. Defra’s proposals are especially dangerous given increasing recreational pressure in the uplands and climate change which could double the days with a ‘very high’ risk of fire at 2oC of global warming.

The CLA has argued that the consultation’s proposals contradict Defra’s responsibilities under Section 3.3.7 of the Wildfire Framework for England (2021), which requires Defra to “encourage sustainable land management practices that mitigate against wildfire risk”. It also goes against recommendations from the Climate Change Committee and the National Fire Chiefs Council.

Defra has claimed that extending licencing would protect more peat, improve biodiversity outcomes by restoring ‘natural’ hydrology, and reduce water pollution. It has also implied that this extension would cut carbon emissions. In our response, we highlighted why all these assertions were not supported by the balance of evidence.

On biodiversity, we criticised Defra’s one-size-fits-all approach that reduces England’s diverse peatlands to six or more indicator bog species. Given heather moorlands are cultural landscapes maintained, and in many cases created, through fire, we questioned Defra’s focus on “natural hydrology” and “natural state”. Fire-managed peatlands are as rich in plant species, if not more so, than unburnt peatlands due to the mosaic of habitat niches created by rotating burns through the landscape. Where vegetation communities differ between rewetting and controlled burning, which community is ‘better’ is a value judgement.

On carbon emissions, there is no conclusive evidence to determine which management approach performs best, because no research has studied net greenhouse gas exchange across the full 20-year burning cycle. Defra has not factored in carbon stored in charcoal, methane emissions, avoided wildfire emissions, and the effect of older heather stimulating peat respiration. Cutting had a third higher carbon emissions compared to burning in a ten-year trial, the longest to date.

On water quality, the consultation cited only a single scientific paper to support its view that controlled burning “negatively impacts water quality”. In contrast, the CLA has found four review papers that found no conclusive evidence.

In contrast, wildfires have severe, negative effects on biodiversity, increase flood risk, and they can burn several centimetres of peat per event, equivalent to decades of carbon sequestration. Their ash worsens water quality, and causes air pollution which costs millions in negative health-related effects. Per event, wildfires may cost £5,000-10,000 per hectare.

Defra proposed reducing the depth of peat on which a licence would be needed from 40cm to 30cm. We rejected this change for five reasons.

1. Controlled burns should not burn peat if conducted correctly, so peat depth is immaterial to its suitability as a tool to control wildfires. The risk of wildfire is based on combustible fuel loads rather than peat depth.
2. 30cm is an arbitrary cutoff which does not provide information on whether burning is a suitable action – which is influenced by many biotic and abiotic factors, as well as how the burn is conducted.
3. The recently updated England Peat Map does not accurately determine peat depth at the scale relevant to licencing, so depth measurements will remain open for dispute, and introduce worrying liability for land managers.
4. Defra has not assessed the risk of damage to peat from thousands of probe holes.
5. Defra has not conducted an impact assessment to determine whether this change is proportionate, or whether licencing at 40cm since 2021 achieved its policy objectives.

Defra is currently revising the existing code, which was published in 2007. Whilst legally outdated, it remains operationally sound. Its new scope has not been decided, and it could include grazing, cutting, and rewetting, not just on peat soils but more widely. We recommended it should be delimited to only burning, with separate codes introduced for other management options.

We need to wait until we see the revised code to judge whether it should be made mandatory. As far as the CLA is aware, there is no evidence for noncompliance which would make mandating the code proportionate, and we are sceptical that Defra or Natural England would have the resources to enforce it.

Controlled burning poses serious risks if handled incorrectly. We therefore agreed that it suits accreditation, but argued this should only be for supervisory practitioners for the following reasons:

• Licence applicants will not know who will be involved in the burn many months in advance.
• Requiring accreditation for all staff could lead to understaffing, which would be dangerous.
• Those in apprentice and junior roles need to gain experience over several seasons, which is not replaceable through a short training course.
• Some people are involved in the burn, e.g., as drivers, but have only limited contact with fire.

The CLA agreed with other stakeholders that the Forestry Commission’s Vegetation Fire Training course accredited by LANTRA was the most promising candidate, but emphasised that Defra should learn from Scotland about the risks of a monopoly training provider.

We will send a joint letter to Defra ministers and other senior civil servants emphasising our concerns with the consultation and will continue to highlight the scientifically unsound positions Defra is taking.