'Burning money: how nature groups cash in on disastrous policies they helped create to fix imaginary problems', a summary of the main points
This report is worth a read but longish, so here are the highlights
This three-part report released in May 2025 looks at land management in the Peak District and motives behind the constantly-changing rules and standards set for farmers and gamekeepers. Instead of maintaining or improving generations of successful techniques that benefit food production, the land, people and wildlife, Natural England has bought into expensive experimental programmes devised by the likes of the RSPB and put into practice on property owned by the National Trust, a key promoter.
The results include millions of pounds of public money wasted fixing non-existent problems and defending against invented threats. Plus, in the first half of 2025, a string of wildfires that could have been less damaging or even prevented from starting. Through this mismanagement, the fires had the potential to be far more devastating and even deadly.
The goals appear to be the end of farming, specifically that with livestock, and nationalisation of private land. To achieve these, there is a tightening of controls on farming and conservation, and an enforced credit system for developers that is said to protect nature but is just a money-making scheme.
Part one is Restoration, which deals with wildfire mitigation. Fire is the biggest threat to the Peak District, but Natural England, the RSPB and National Trust are not taking it seriously.
Natural England says it is protecting moorland peat by restricting controlled burning, which is used to manage fuel loads such as heather. This leads to a build-up of unmanaged fuel, which wildfire operations specialist Steve Gibson warns increases the risk of intense infernos powerful enough to damage subsurface peat, the very thing Natural England says the restrictions are designed to protect.
STEVE GIBSON:
"I understand that there’s concerns about the use of fire
and the indiscriminate use of fire, but to turn around
and say you can’t burn is a little bit silly."
It's policies are partly influenced by the Ember report, which claims controlled burning damages peat. Ecologist Andreas Heinemeyer believes the report is flawed due to badly-placed comparative burn plots and the lack of baseline measurements. Ember relies on researcher Richard Lindsay's claim that almost all England's peatlands are damaged. Lindsay's opinion and Ember have prompted expensive 'restoration' projects involving sphagnum moss planting. Heinemeyer and ecologist James Fenton disagree, saying sphagnum moss is not essential for blanket peat formation. Anything will form peat, even humans, says Heinemeyer.
Natural England is promoting cutting of the heather then planting sphagnum as an alternative to burning. Cutting is arguably worse than doing nothing, as it creates large areas of tinder that help fires spread. It also damages the microtopography, meaning the land is less attractive to small animals and birds and plants do not get the food they need. It also creates a moist environment enjoyed by ticks, which spread Lyme disease.
The government's preferred wildfire prevention method is 'wetting' by planting lots of water-retaining sphagnum moss. It is also called 'rewetting'. While they say it restores peat and reduces flooding, these claims are not strictly true, as they rely on certain circumstances and the belief that peat needs restoring in the first place. Gibson, ecologist Robin Pakeman, and West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue all doubt its effectiveness in stopping fires spread, since blanket bogs still burn in wet conditions.
Agronomist Geoff Eyre blames Peak District wetting for flooding in Derby that caused millions of pounds of damage in late 2023. He notes that sphagnum-planting schemes on dry, sloping areas have failed despite significant public funding.
GEOFF EYRE:
“It’s our taxpayers’ money. You could have gone there with £100,000
in £20 notes and just thrown them up in the air."
Proponents fail to understand that once sphagnum moss is full, excess water flows downhill. Fenton dismisses the idea that peat holds water effectively enough to prevent flooding, calling the claim "twaddle" because of capillary action. He also notes that erosion is a natural feature of peatlands and not necessarily a sign of human damage.
Despite the failure of cutting, wetting or both to prevent fires or floods, Labour MP Olivia Blake is demanding a complete ban on controlled burning. She wrongly blames it for most wildfires, increased flooding downhill and damage to peat and sphagnum moss. A high-profile claim Blake made about toxic smoke smothering her constituency in Sheffield for days after a burn contradicted the city's air quality sensor readings.
Gibson suspects Natural England would be held legally responsible if landowners lose their livelihoods due to policy restrictions that prevent them from protecting their land from wildfires - or reducing the risk - by properly managing fuel loads. RSPB and National Trust are often seen publicising losses after wildfires to attract donations, yet are not blamed for failing to prevent them or limiting their spread.
Part two, Diversification, looks at farmers being pressured into 'creating' nature and producing less food, while nature groups try farming that also doesn't focus on food. There seems no point in the two swapping roles, other than creating biodiversity net gain credits for a trading system. But again, claims there is a 'biodiversity crisis' in the UK are based on flawed data and inaccurate remote satellite surveys.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT) borrowed £1.2 million to buy Ughill Farm so it could create a "wildlife sanctuary". In a video asking for donations to pay off the debt, CEO Liz Ballard claimed the purchase was necessary because the land - and neighbouring land - was so intensively farmed it was a threat to local wildlife. After the deal, she admitted the farm was already a "fantastic wildlife haven", suggesting the crisis was manufactured to raise money.
The National Trust, as a landlord, has been criticised for reducing land used for crops or grazing on tenant farms so it can plant trees for 'green' subsidies. This tactic is effectively penalising farmers who refuse to join the schemes, which are said to boost biodiversity.
This shift to generating 'environmental goods and services' for the BNG market, requires farmers to enter risky 30-year contracts. The system has been turned into a tool for local authorities and conservation charities to acquire land or earn money through the schemes, which arguably have little or no positive impact. Potential conflicts of interest arise, as nature groups like SRWT own companies that provide BNG consultation services for landowners competing for the same public funds.
The perception of a biodiversity crisis and the UK's top 10 'nature-depleted countries' ranking in the Biodiversity Intactness Index, are challenged as they are based on inaccurate data and claims, like Lindsay's, that all peatlands are damaged. One of the reasons is surveys are often conducted remotely using satellite imagery instead of site visits.
An example is the definition of grouse moor used in Carlos Bedson's study of mountain hares in the Peak District. He defined it as any one-hectare area showing a "burn or mowed patch". However, the National Trust appears to be faking burns in the same areas, specifically to deceive satellites by creating the illusion of wildfire mitigation.
Such reliance on flawed data can become the basis for manufactured issues that influence public perception and opinions at a national level. Bedson's study concluded that mountain hares were declining on grouse moors yet thriving on National Trust land that had been 'restored' with sphagnum moss. How did he know what type of land he was looking at? Furthermore, Eyre notes that areas full of tasty green shoots will naturally attract more hares, but it will be temporary.
Fenton points out the paradox in expensive schemes that 'increase' biodiversity, since many target heather moorland, which is naturally less diverse than other areas. This means nature groups like RSPB are actually reducing global biodiversity, since they reduce the amount of heather moorland, which is extremely rare.
JAMES FENTON
"[Peatlands are] not very diverse, but that type of habitat is part
of the diversity of species on the planet. So to conserve global biodiversity,
you’ve got to keep these areas undiverse."
Part three is Consolidation. The end game of serial bad policymaker Natural England is to grab land. How much and what for isn't clear. The organisation has been crippled by budget cuts, disabling its power to attract experienced workers. These days, it's cheap graduates and infiltrators aligned with nature groups who are creating the rules that affect millions of people and ruin the countryside.
Likewise, experienced upland managers from families that have been working the hills for generations, are being replaced with unqualified staff at nature organisations. They are influenced by personal or political beliefs, leading to poor decision-making and the loss of traditional rural skills.
A 2024 report on RSPB schemes on United Utilities land at Haweswater (by the same author) found many problems, including a failed tree-planting scheme that caused an environmental disaster and flooding linked to poor reservoir management.
Despite this, the partnership won an award, highlighting how conservation schemes function as public relations exercises and the people dishing out prizes don't bother checking results. The video below shows a tiny amount of the award-winning debris.
Large, publicly-funded schemes like Life in the Ravines, have seen SSSIs littered with felled timber and packed with plastic tree guards, many of them empty. Natural England says achieving ‘favourable condition’ on SSSIs is one of its main objectives, yet the definition of favourable condition constantly changes, making the designation meaningless.
Its purpose seems to be getting rid of the owner and taking over the land. It does this by demanding farmers dump livestock farming or restricting areas shoots can use, making it impossible for the businesses to make money. Landowners end up giving up. Mission accomplished.
If the public could choose whether Natural England’s portfolio of policy disasters or their hard-earned cash got thrown onto a bonfire, I know which one they’d pick.
