Please respond to a public consultation on heather and grass burning in England

The UK Government recently announced a public consultation on proposed changes to The Heather and Grass etc Burning (England) Regulations 2021.  

This is an important area of policy for us because England’s peatlands are of huge international importance. 80% of them are currently degraded, with rotational burning (typically on moorland managed for driven grouse shooting) being a contributory factor in the uplands. Protecting peat from further damage is crucial to its restoration and recovery.

Today we’re asking you, please, to respond to the consultation. The consultation closes at 11.59 pm on Sunday 25 May 2025.

It isn’t a long nor technical consultation. We’ve laid out some background on the subject, as well as some step-by-step guidance on how you might want to fill out the consultation below.

Click here to access the consultation.

Background:

What is being proposed?

The UK Government is proposing to expand the protection of upland peat by changing how regulated areas are defined. Currently, protection only applies to peat with a depth of over 40 cm within designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) that are also Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The new proposal would extend coverage by instead using “Less Favoured Areas” (LFAs) as the defined area and lowering the definition of ‘deep peat’ from 40 cm to 30 cm.  We think this broader approach should offer stronger habitat protection and support the UK’s net zero carbon goals.

Why is this being proposed?

We know that upland peatlands are sensitive ecosystems that suffer damage from burning practices, particularly rotational burning. Those of us who have visited the moors managed for driven grouse shooting will have seen the patchwork pattern of heather burnt in strips across the hillside. We know that the practice of driven grouse shooting is reliant on the burning of heather to produce unnaturally high numbers of Red Grouse.

Driven grouse shooting has long been associated with raptor persecution, predator extermination and ecological degradation of large areas of peatland.

Damaged peatlands:

• Release large amounts of carbon, instead of storing it, contributing to climate change.
• Are more prone to wildfires, which can cause deeper peat damage and further carbon loss.
• Worsen air quality, as smoke from burning releases fine particulate matter (PM2.5), a harmful pollutant linked to serious health problems like asthma, heart disease and some cancers.
• Affect water quality, increasing water discoloration and treatment costs, and harming aquatic ecosystems.

The Government’s proposed changes aim to address these issues by offering greater protection across all upland peatlands, improving biodiversity, reducing carbon emissions, protecting public health and cutting water treatment costs.

What does Wild Justice think?

We do quite like some of the proposals in the consultation, but we are wary of some parts.

The consultation recommends a change in the definition of ‘deep peat’ to protect more areas of peatland. We do support lowering the peat depth threshold for protection from 40 cm to 30 cm and think that is a good step forward.

However, we believe peat shouldn’t be burnt at all, regardless of the depth of the peat layer, particularly when the land is being burned for ‘sport’ or for routine farming operations. It is suggested that exceptions will be allowed for conservation, wildfire prevention, or research reasons. We think these exceptions will need to be very tightly controlled and monitored under a robust licensing system, free from loopholes that inevitably will be exploited by those intent on continuing burning.

We also strongly support mandatory compliance with any revised Heather & Grass Management Code (once this is published), and the compulsory training of anyone involved in licenced burning in the future. Too many out of control wildfires have already been caused by untrained individuals.

The government’s proposal to expand the protection to prevent burning across all upland peat areas included in the ‘Less Favoured Area’ (LFAs) rather than the situation at present where protection covers designated sites, is a welcome step forward. We know that peatlands are essential carbon stores and vital habitats – burning damages them, releases carbon, increases wildfire risk, pollutes the air and harms biodiversity and water quality.

But whilst this is a consultation on the burning of Heather and Grass (the burning of stubble in the lowlands has been prohibited since 1993 in the United Kingdom) this is more than just about boundaries and peat depth. It is important we continue to challenge a system that enables habitat destruction for recreational shooting.

We want to see an end to the destructive hobby of driven grouse shooting and are awaiting news of any Parliamentary debate now that our Ban Driven Grouse Shooting petition has passed the 100,000 signatures threshold. Thank you to you all for signing, and sharing details of our petition.

We’ve also heard from supporters directly impacted by rotational burning. Villages and towns have been choked with smoke from grouse moors, wildlife killed during burning, concerns about flooding, and of course a deep concern for the future of our uplands.

Burning peatlands is a destructive tradition – its time has passed.

Filling out the consultation:

What you say is entirely up to you, but here are some pointers from us. These aren’t for copying and pasting – but more guidance to help you write your own answers. We hope you find them helpful.

After filling out your own details (this bit’s easy) there are four parts to the consultation: Part A has 8 questions, Part B has 6 questions (which probably don’t apply to you), Part C has 5 questions (which also probably don’t apply to you), and Part D has only 2 questions.

So, let’s get started…

PART A:

AREA PROTECTED UNDER THE REGULATIONS:

Question A1: Do you agree with the proposal to change the boundaries of the Regulations to LFA to protect more upland peatlands?

We suggest you say ‘Yes’ to this question.

We agree that the proposal to change the boundaries would increase protection for areas currently burned, and this is welcomed.

However, the burning of heather is predominantly conducted by shooting estates who wish to create a surplus of Red Grouse Lagopus scotica to kill between August 12th and December 10th each year. Wild Justice maintains that driven grouse shooting is bad for people, bad for the environment and bad for wildlife.

We would argue that driven grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other real and potential uses of the UK’s extensive uplands.

Burning contributes to climate breakdown and upland drainage leading to flooding and erosion. The wholesale extermination of predators has a disastrous impact on the ecology of these areas and the criminal practice of raptor persecution continues to take place. We believe it’s time to implement immediate and meaningful measures to address what we see as an abhorrently destructive practice, so that recovery of moorlands can progress.

The Ban Driven Grouse Shooting petition lodged by Wild Justice has passed 104,000 signatures and Parliament will now be considering this issue for a debate.

Question A2: Please provide your thoughts, if any, on the proposal to remove protection from those SSSIs that fall outside of the LFA.

We would maintain that all SSSI’s should be protected and ensure that those that fall-outside of the LFAs are also protected.

DEPTH OF PEAT PROTECTED:

Question A3: Do you agree with the proposed change of the prohibition of burning on peat over 40cm deep to peat over 30cm deep?

We suggest the answer to this question is ‘Yes’

We agree that the change of peat depth from 40cm to 30cm is a positive change.

However, we maintain that defining peatlands by depth should be abolished (for the purposes of burning). We should not be burning on peat/peaty soil for sporting and farming purposes at all. Burning for the purpose of nature restoration, wildfire prevention and research could still be allowed under a very limited licensing scheme.

Question A4: Under what ground(s) would you be most likely to apply for a licence to burn?

We would suggest that this question is not applicable to most of our supporters, and that you would not be seeking a licence to burn!

It would be good to mention that you expect any licensing regime is robust and justification must be made by applicants to demonstrate the alternative methods that have been tried, so any licensing is the absolute last resort.

Question A5: Do you agree that ground (d) ‘because the specified vegetation is inaccessible to mechanical cutting equipment and any other method of management is impracticable’ should be removed?

We suggest the answer is ‘Yes’ to this question.

We agree that in all cases, burning should be a last resort and used only when more sustainable methods are not feasible. It needs to be mandatory that applicants are required to provide a comprehensive explanation of why all other management alternatives are unsuitable.

You could perhaps point out that mature heather is a valuable habitat supporting a diverse range of wildlife by providing shelter, food, and nesting sites. As heather ages, it creates a complex structure with dense canopies and open areas, fostering a variety of habitats for wildlife. 

Question A6: Do you agree with adding ‘research’ as a ground to apply for a licence under the Regulations?

We suggest the answer to this question is ‘Yes’.

It would be useful to point out whilst we might agree, we would urge that the licensing regime for research purposes is strong, and robust justification must be made by applicants, and is the absolute last resort. If poorly drafted, loopholes would be exploited by the grouse moor community to ensure they continue to burn peatland to create a surplus of grouse to kill under the guise of ‘research.’

MANDATORY COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEATHER AND GRASS MANAGEMENT CODE (2025):

Question A7: Would you support a move to link the revised Heather & Grass Management Code to the Regulations, making it compulsory to follow rather than advisable?

We suggest the answer to this question is ‘Yes’

We have not seen the new code at the time of responding to this consultation but, subject to seeing the detail, you might agree that mandatory compliance would be essential with the requirement that practitioners have read and understood the code prior to acting under any licence.

It will be essential that any new regulations based on the Grass Management Code are suitably monitored and properly enforced.

MANDATORY PRESCRIBED FIRE AND WILDFIRE TRAINING:

Question A8: Would you support a move to make it a requirement to complete an accredited training course prior to burning under a licence granted under the Regulations?

We suggest the answer to this question is ‘Yes’

You might agree that it would be sensible that all those involved in licensed burning under the regulations are trained. It has been reported that large out of control moorland wildfires have been started via untrained managers of the uplands.

PART B – Application process

The questions in Part B look at understanding the effectiveness of the current application process under the Regulations, and any possible improvements. It won’t be applicable to those that don’t apply for licences currently. You can miss out this section if this doesn’t apply to you.

PART C – Economic Impacts

Question C1: Do you currently use burning as a land management tool?

Unless you do burn the answer to this question will be ‘No’ so you carry-on to Part D and ignore the questions, and the table.

PART D – Further questions

IMPACTS OF BURNING:

These questions seem to be framed to understand the wider impacts of burning as a land management method. It’s worth adding some detail as we suggest below.

Question D1: Do you have concerns about the impacts of burning on the environment?

We suggest the answer to this question is ‘Yes’

We know that burning can result in issues such as a decrease in habitat and species diversity, cause smoke nuisance and water discoloration. The burning of vegetation is damaging to peatland formation and habitat condition, making it difficult or, in some cases, impossible to restore these habitats to their natural state. Burning heather to reduce wildfire risk could itself dry the land and exacerbate that risk.

Wildlife can be killed in the fires and it has been reported that adders, toads and even Badger cubs have all been found dead. Insects, butterflies, ground nesting birds, reptiles and mammals all fall victim to the enforced burning regime. This aspect of burning destruction has been under-reported.

There is peer-reviewed scientific evidence that moorland burning can affect a number of red and amber-listed bird species, both directly (e.g. nest sites deliberately targeted) and indirectly (e.g. disturbance caused by burning in close proximity to active nest sites). The frequency, extent and timing of burning has been reported as a cause for concern for breeding Golden Eagles, Hen Harriers, Merlins, Ring Ouzels and Meadow Pipits, for example.

Question D2: Have you been impacted in any way (positive or negative) by the use of burning as a land management method?

We suggest the answer to this question might be ‘Yes’ – if you have been affected.

In our consultation response we are going to say that Wild Justice has been contacted by supporters who regularly suffer the effects of smoke from burning heather caused by upland grouse moor landowners and their gamekeepers. Large swathes of upland areas are burned rotationally to create feeding and nesting habitats for Red Grouse so that a surplus of grouse can be shot by visiting shooting parties between August 12th and early December. Reports and photographic evidence has shown smoke blowing through villages and towns close to grouse moors.

That’s it! Thank you for submitting a response to the consultation. We’d be interested to hear how many of you have responded, so please do let us know by emailing admin@wildjustice.org.uk.