Burning Money: Are Upland Nature Groups Solving Problems that Don't Exist?

Are the policies which affect the uplands actually helping the people who live and work in these areas, and the wildlife that thrives there? Or are the authorities instead being unduly influenced by nature groups, who are selling them remedies to problems that may never appear, in order to maximise their own income?

These are some of the questions posed in a new report – out today – which talks to Peak District residents, landowners and land managers about their views.

Titled ‘Burning Money’, the report asks whether nature groups are cashing in on ‘disastrous policies’ which they helped create, in order to fix problems which don’t in fact exist.

"Anyone looking for answers to what's happening in the UK's rural communities should find some in this report, as well as new questions for Natural England, the RSPB and the National Trust. There are too many bad policies being pushed on these areas by Natural England for it to be a coincidence. The wildfires we've seen this year are a direct result of those policies and just one aspect of what appears to be the planned demolition of this country's beloved countryside," says the report's author, AB O'Rourke.

Talking to conservationists who have worked in moorland restoration, wildfire suppression and improving and maintaining upland habitats to improve biodiversity, 'Burning Money' covers three specific areas: Restoration, Diversification, and Consolidation. On this journey through the Peak District uplands, we learn about heather moorland from Geoff Eyre, the man who developed the method of controlled burning known as ‘cool burning’, and hear his concerns about Natural England’s refusal to take fuel load management – and wildfire risk – seriously.

Burning money was written by AB O'Rourke andcommissioned by C4PMC.

We are told how intensive replanting and rewilding schemes, which nature groups often receive funding for and which are painted as moorland restoration schemes, in fact increase thefuel load. “[Moors for the Future] seem to think the solution following a fire is simply to restore the area by replanting vegetation. In reality they are just refuelling fire prone areas and rebuilding the level of risk” says wildfire operations specialist Steve Gibson. “They should recognise that in a fire prone area, it is likely that fires will occur again, so plan with this in mind, build fire resilience amongst the vegetation, create areas where responders know they can succeed and prevent fire from spreading.”

We meet Prof. Andreas Heinemeyer, the only person to set about comparing the heather management techniques of cutting and burning  in a proper scientific study, run by the University of York, and hear his concerns about the policies being forced on upland managers. “We know hardly anything about cutting, but it’s being pushed”, he worries.

It isn’t just gamekeepers and land managers. We hear how farmers are being encouraged by the RSPB and National Trust to forget about sheep and ‘diversify’; being pushed into schemes that seem pointless and the results questionable. “It’s not farming”, says Charlie, a farming consultant in the Peak District.

And finally, we hear from Peak District locals how Natural England isn’t fit for purpose; staffed by people who lack the necessary experience to understand the issues they are dealing with, they would rather depend on studies and office work rather than listen to advice from moorland managers and farmers who have worked the land for decades. 

The organisation is disliked by many in the uplands for its senseless decisions, foggy chain of command and lack of competent staff. Licensing systems are slow, unnecessarily complicated and applicants have been refused for reasons that don’t apply to them.

 Are they the right people to have the power to designate areas as SSSI? According to this report, the answer is: probably not.

READ THE FULL BURNING MONEY REPORT HERE