The announcement confirms the commitment of Defra to the conservation and preservation of England’s peatlands. This is a significant step towards securing sustainable management of peatlands and will triple the area which is currently protected from managed burning.
Burning is not an appropriate conservation tool for UK peatlands
While the scientific discourse around burning still brings some uncertainty and contradiction, the majority of the scientific evidence shows that repeated burning of peatlands leads to degradation and dominance by vegetation types that are not able to actively form peat. The evidence review (NEER155) published by the government's own statutory advisor – Natural England (NE) – earlier this year provided the most comprehensive assessment to date of the current available evidence: it found that burning on peatlands does not support favourable conservation objectives. The important and well-regarded EMBER study led by the University of Leeds was one of the first to document the impacts of prescribed burning on UK peatlands, paving the way for the legislation. Our analysis, as summarised in our burning position statement, which we regularly review and update, mirrors the findings of the NE evidence review.
An acknowledgement of the importance of shallower peat soils
We also welcome the move to recognise peatlands over 30 cm as ‘deep peat’ sites and the effect that this will have in protecting a greater extent of peatlands along with the function of the wider habitat mosaic. This is a change from the majority of English peat policy and guidance which has historically defined ‘deep peat’ as being 40cm+.
The IUCN UK Peatland Programme advocates for a unified definition of peatlands globally (we led on the authoring of Motion 003 for IUCN World Conservation Congress 2025) that moves away from a depth-based requirement (Use of Peat Depth Criteria - Accounting for the Lost Peatlands v1.1.pdf). This is in recognition of the fact that peatlands and the peat that they accumulate are the result of a series of complex, linked, ecological and physical processes that should be viewed holistically rather than distilled to single metrics which may risk unintended negative outcomes.
A consultative approach shows overwhelming public support
We have read the government response to the consultation which led to this decision, and the summary of responses to the questions from the consultees. We share the concerns of some respondents around the risk of wildfires in upland areas, even if we differ in our opinion on how this risk should be managed. The UK, like the rest of the world, is currently experiencing increasing temperatures and changing rainfall patterns as a result of global warming; and with this comes an increased risk of wildfire.
The management of the UK’s uplands with fire has led to a significant alteration in the composition of vegetation over time, favouring the growth and dominance of fire adapted species; in particular, common heather (Calluna vulgaris). The withdrawal of management from these areas has been cited within the consultation responses as a significant area of concern for increased wildfire risk. Calluna prefers drier conditions: the wetter conditions naturally found on blanket peatlands act to limit Calluna growth. On these wetter sites Calluna’s occurrence is more diffuse, generally preferring to grow on high ridge and hummock features.
The withdrawal of management from these sites under new legislation therefore presents an increased wildfire risk, which will require an action plan to manage this period of transition. However, the plan should not be a continuation of the management strategy that has resulted in the current vegetation community composition. The comparison with management strategies from arid ecosystems with short natural fire return intervals (such as those in California) is irrelevant; these ecosystems bare minimal resemblance to UK peatland habitats are not helpful in devising plans.
Moving forwards together
At present there is minimal scientific evidence to guide the best strategy for recovery of UK peatland habitats in the context of this legislation. We suggest that funding to support this must be a priority. Some organisations have suggested that peatland conservationists are advocating a 'wet and walk away’ strategy. However, contrary to this, the peatland community have repeatedly highlighted that restoration is an iterative process requiring long-term management. This will likely require greater funding commitment but could help to support the creation of jobs in the sector that would help diversification in rural areas.
The IUCN UK Peatland Programme recognises the importance of stakeholder collaboration and will continue to seek to build partnerships with and facilitate work which will support those living and working most closely with the UK’s peatlands. We are open to constructive dialogue with those who wish to work with us to further this aim.